Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:28:53.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on the Underenumeration of the U.S. Census, 1850–1880

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Donald H. Parkerson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As furstenberg et al. (1979: 497) suggested over a decade ago, “The enormous promise of quantitative history can only be fulfilled when we are intimately acquainted with the limitations of our sources of information.” This collection of articles follows that suggestion by assessing the limitations of perhaps the most important source of information for social science researchers: the U.S. census. Certainly the degree of underenumeration may seriously affect research in many disciplines. For example, our estimates of migration rates might be inflated. In the process of nominal record linkage, researchers typically assume that those who are not listed in the linked census document out-migrated, when in reality many may simply have been missed by the census taker. As a result, past populations (especially in cities) may appear to have been much more mobile than they actually were. Census underenumeration might also exaggerate voter turnout. If the census in a particular community listed 1,215 eligible voters and election returns showed that 1,150 voted in an election, the voter turnout would be estimated at 95%. However, if just 10% of the eligible voters were not counted by the census taker, the estimated level of voter participation would decline to 85%. Finally, our understanding of the rural economy in the past might be affected by underenumeration. Agricultural production might be overstated if the more successful landowning farmers were more often enumerated and less productive farm tenants were missed. In short, the accuracy of the U.S. census should be a central concern to social science historians.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Winter 1991 , pp. 509 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1991 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Coale, A., and Zelnik, M. (1963) New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States: A Study of Annual White Births from 1855 to 1960 and of Completeness of Enumeration in the Census from 1880 to 1960. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Crimmins, E. (1980) “The completeness of 1900 mortality data collected by registration and enumeration for rural and urban parts of states: Estimates using the Chandra-Sekar-Deming technique.” Historical Methods 13 (3): 163-69.Google Scholar
Davenport, D. (1988) “Duration-of-residence in the 1855 census of New York state.” Historical Methods 18 (1): 5–12.Google Scholar
Furstenberg, F., Strong, D., and Crawford, A. (1979) “What happened when the census was re-done: An analysis of the recount of 1870 in Philadelphia.” Sociology and Social Research 63: 475–503.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, C. (1988) “Estimates and correlates of enumeration completeness: Censuses and maps in nineteenth-century Massachusetts.” Social Science History 12: 71–86.Google Scholar
Parkerson, D. (1982) “How mobile were nineteenth-century Americans?” Historical Methods 15 (3): 99–109.Google Scholar