[MUSIC] Welcome to Understanding China 1700 to 2000, A Data Analytic Approach. Part two, Section 18, Family System in Comparative Perspective. While we know that human biology and kin ties are everywhere the same, we also know that family systems differ. And they differ, not only in terms of who lives with whom, but also when. One well-know example is the Hajnal line from Saint Petersburg, Russia to Trieste, Italy. With only a few exceptions, west of this line, marriage was selective and late and consequently, total fertility was low. While east of this line marriage was both universal and early and as a result total fertility was relatively high. Another more recent discovery by Ruggles, who used all kinds of microdata, big scaled microdata from census of many populations used in the past and in the present worldwide. Is that he found the contrast in family structure between the nuclear families and the stem families of North America and Western Europe, on the one hand, and the joint families of Latin America, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and East and South Asia, on the other hand. So, similarly, in the study populations of the Eurasia population and the Family History Project, while nuclear families account for the majority of European households, that is 74, 58 and 78 percent in eastern Belgium, central Italy and southern Sweden. They only account for 23 and 31 percent in Northeast China and Japan. As a result co-resident parents, grandchildren, children-in-law, uncles, aunts, siblings, siblings-in-law, nephews, nieces and cousins, were virtually non-existent in the EAP eastern Belgian and southern Swedish populations. And no more than 20% of our Northern Italians population. However we account for over 50% of our North Eastern Chinese populations and over 27% of our North Eastern Japanese populations So all those differences between the EAP populations reflect the fundamentally different histories at the two extremes of the Eurasian continent. At the same time, these categorical differences are so great that they swamp any individual or family level effects. And they effectively reduce EAP data from tens of thousands of individual households as well as hundreds of communities to only five population data points. In other words, a comparison between the family systems of the five EAP populations in fact reflects the binary difference between the East and the West without providing more detail and insight. In essence, a more fine grained understanding of the importance of who cares therefore requires to compare population that are similar enough in context to provide a ground for comparison. But also different enough, in terms of the kin availability and the kin behavior to generate comprehensible variation. And this is a reason that we will show you some examples based on some new calculations between five East Asian population panel datasets. And then all of them are newly available. And also we are transcribed from historical household registers from the 18th and 19th century. So we are of the China Multi-Generational Panel Dataset- Liaoning, include 1.5 million triennial observations of 260,000 individuals from 1749 to 1909. And the second data, that is China Multi-Generational Panel Dataset at Shuangcheng which include 1.3 million observations of 108,000 individuals from the 1866 to 1913. And the survey that is Colonial Taiwan Household Registration Database which our sample included 0.48 million event observations of 103,000 individuals from the period between 1906 to 1945. And the fourth one is Korean Multi-Generational Panel Dataset, Tansong, which includes 0.27 million triennial observations of 136,000 individuals between 1678 to 1888. And finally, we have the Japanese NAC Database which was originally only 0.11 million annual observations of 6,000 individuals, but now recently got expanded to like 36,000 individuals, and during the period between 1716 to 1870. And here we show you an example about the co-residents based fathers. And we calculate the proportion of males, living with father by age. So in general we can find that there are two groups. While Chinese populations as well as those from Taiwan and South Korea, they are kind of in one group, but the red line, the Japanese population, they kind of decline in a faster pace. This actually confirms our premise about the joint family systems in China and Korea on one hand, and the relatively stem family system in Japan on the other hand. So if we take a closer look that we compare amounts of older brothers and among those younger brothers, actually we can find even more interesting contrast. So as we just said, no matter if it is joint families in China and Korea or that is a stem family system in Japan actually amount about the oldest down, their life experience will almost be the same So we can find a very identical proportions of oldest brothers living with his father among all these five population. However, for those younger brothers, actually, the proportion, the difference is very huge. So we can find among these stem family system, the proportion declines much faster and one problem of calculating those raw proportion is that there are two reasons that drive these proportions. One is that father was dead. In other words, father cannot live with any of his sons. That is not what we want. But on the, the other reason is that father is still alive but he chooses to leave his some sons but not other sons. And here, we further present a calculation that is one father is alive, one is a proportion of males living with father. So again here we can see actually there are further differences from those groups of joint family systems. So, still in the two northeastern Chinese populations, we find that no matter that's older brother or the younger brother, they tend to always live with the father, when father is alive. However, amount of Taiwanees families and Korean families at later ages, the proportion do decline. And again, especially among the younger brothers in Japan, we find that the decline is again very fast. So, at that sense we kind of confirmed that, we have very, very joint family system kind of in the northeast China, and we have something in the middle in Taiwan and Korea, and finally at the other extreme we have some Japanese families who are really practicing those kind of stemfamily practice. And this is also kind of our take home message. So we find that while East Asian societies may share Confucian familial values and superficially similar sociopolitical institutions family organization could still be quite heterogeneous. In these five Asian populations, northeast Chinese families were at the joint-family extreme. Japanese families were at the stem-family extreme. And Taiwanese and Korean families in the middle of the spectrum. Individual experience of family was therefore not static, but dynamic across the life course and also they could be very different between individuals according to not only their own characteristics, but also the standards of other family members. [MUSIC]
