Living Arrangements and Elderly Care (Venice, 1850-1869)
Renzo Derosas Department of Economics, Ca’Foscari University of Venice. Email: [email protected]
Objectives To describe the living arrangements of the elderly in an Italian city around mid-19th century. To highlight the availability of close kin outside the household. To test the effect of both cohabiting and neighboring kin on the wellbeing of the elderly, as measured by differential mortality.
Materials and MethodsData: • Geo-coded life histories of 6,279 individuals aged 60 to 79 (longitudinal data at the individual and household levels, drawn from local population registers, 1850 to 1869). Overall, the population sample comprises about 30,000 individuals, living in 6 different areas of Venice.
Methods: • Descriptive statistics of living arrangements and the availability of kin. • Hazards models of the risk of dying in the age group 60-79, with covariates regarding the presence of close kin (spouse, children, siblings) as well as more distant kin.
BackgroundContemporary surveys show that in ageing societies non-cohabiting kin provide important support to the elderly, proximity being a valuable alternative to cohabitation. This aspect is usually neglected by historical studies, overwhelmingly focused on household structures and patterns of cohabitation. This study shows that kinship and social networks beyond the household also matter and should be taken into account.
ConclusionsSolitary elderly were relatively rare in 19th-century Venice, around 20%. Most lived with their spouses, children, or siblings. Furthermore, 48% had children and 18% had siblings living nearby. The average number of close kin (up to the third degree) was 5.8. Cohabiting and neighboring kin had a significant impact on the survival of the elderly, although varying with gender and the position of the relatives taken into account. Support from non-cohabiting relatives should be stressed. It is also worth noting that changes of residence, implying a possible disruption of the elderly social network, is associated with a remarkable mortality rise.
Mortality hazards models
Cohabitation and proximity
no kin spouse son daughter brother sister0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Males Females
% elderly cohabiting with
no kin son daughter brother sister0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Males Females
% elderly with neighboring kin
Kin networks: an exampleM. Scarabellin kin network
60 70 8010
20
30
40
% widowers coresiding with children
None
Only sons
Only daughters
Both
%
60 70 8010
20
30
40
% widows coresiding with children
None
Only sons
Only daughters
Both
%
Maddalena Scarabellin’s extended kin network
All Males Females Covariate Distrib EXP(Coeff) p-value Distrib EXP(Coeff) p-value Distrib EXP(Coeff) p-valueGender male (ref.) 0.43 1 female 0.57 0.72 0.000 SES unskilled, day laborer (ref.) 0.21 1 0.27 1 0.17 1 factory worker 0.15 0.94 0.549 0.24 0.79 0.049 0.09 1.35 0.094 Shopkeeper, artisan 0.16 1.04 0.712 0.32 0.91 0.376 0.04 1.43 0.143 middle class 0.11 0.89 0.309 0.14 0.80 0.106 0.09 1.08 0.671 unknown 0.36 1.28 0.006 0.03 0.91 0.677 0.61 1.59 0.000religion Catholic (ref.) 0.84 1 0.82 1 0.86 1 Jew 0.16 0.85 0.055 0.18 0.77 0.035 0.14 0.91 0.448current season winter (ref.) 0.26 1 0.26 1 0.25 1 spring 0.23 1.09 0.288 0.23 1.17 0.185 0.23 1.03 0.774 summer 0.23 0.74 0.001 0.23 0.78 0.070 0.23 0.71 0.004 fall 0.29 0.82 0.018 0.29 0.86 0.221 0.29 0.80 0.050food price low (ref.) 0.73 1 0.74 1 0.73 1 high 0.27 1.06 0.350 0.26 1.06 0.544 0.27 1.07 0.453cholera epidemic no (ref.) 0.92 1 0.92 1 0.92 1 yes 0.08 1.83 0.000 0.08 1.91 0.000 0.08 1.81 0.001spouse absent 0.55 1 0.37 1 0.68 1 present 0.45 0.87 0.057 0.63 0.80 0.041 0.32 0.93 0.484brothers none (ref.) 0.87 1 0.87 1 0.88 1 coresident 0.03 0.56 0.007 0.04 0.55 0.028 0.03 0.58 0.108 non-coresident only 0.09 0.97 0.800 0.09 1.18 0.347 0.10 0.79 0.177sisters none (ref.) 0.85 1 0.86 1 0.84 1 coresident 0.04 1.00 0.998 0.03 1.28 0.259 0.04 0.78 0.293 non-coresident only 0.11 0.75 0.013 0.11 0.69 0.048 0.12 0.80 0.139sons none (ref.) 0.54 1 0.51 1 0.57 1 coresident 0.38 0.89 0.092 0.42 0.92 0.393 0.35 0.87 0.165 non-coresident only 0.07 0.84 0.178 0.06 0.76 0.195 0.08 0.89 0.476daughters none (ref.) 0.56 1 0.54 1 0.58 1 coresident 0.35 0.92 0.239 0.37 0.91 0.354 0.33 0.92 0.411 non-coresident only 0.09 0.74 0.022 0.08 0.80 0.271 0.10 0.70 0.041no. of other kin none (ref.) 0.30 1 0.22 1 0.36 1 1-5 0.40 1.18 0.051 0.47 1.34 0.030 0.35 1.02 0.839 6-10 0.15 1.30 0.023 0.16 1.23 0.247 0.14 1.33 0.064 11+ 0.15 1.24 0.122 0.15 1.14 0.546 0.14 1.27 0.195mobility (in the previous year) none (ref.) 0.85 1 0.85 1 0.86 1 intra-parish 0.02 1.67 0.007 0.02 1.73 0.038 0.01 1.58 0.094 inter-parish 0.08 1.08 0.490 0.08 0.96 0.780 0.08 1.20 0.207 don't know 0.05 0.59 0.001 0.05 0.52 0.009 0.05 0.64 0.038Events 1246 574 672
Arrows show descendanceNodes are either couples or individuals
