Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T14:53:56.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sample-Selection Biases and the Industrialization Puzzle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2017

Howard Bodenhorn
Affiliation:
Howard Bodenhorn is Professor, John E. Walker Department of Economics, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634., E-mail: bodenhorn@gmail.com
Timothy W. Guinnane
Affiliation:
Timothy W. Guinnane is Philip Golden Bartlett Professor, Department of Economics, Yale University, Box 208269, New Haven, CT 06520-8269 E-mail: timothy.guinnane@yale.edu
Thomas A. Mroz
Affiliation:
Thomas A. Mroz is Professor and Bernard B. and Eugenia A. Ramsey Chair of Private Enterprise, Department of Economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, 14 Marietta Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30303 and Research Fellow at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta E-mail: tmroz@clemson.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding long-term changes in human well-being is central to understanding the consequences of economic development. An extensive anthropometric literature purports to show that heights in the United States declined between the 1830s and the 1890s, which is when the U.S. economy modernized. Most anthropometric research contends that declining heights reflect the negative health consequences of industrialization and urbanization. This interpretation, however, relies on sources subject to selection bias. Our meta-analysis shows that the declining height during industrialization emerges primarily in selected samples. We also develop a parsimonious diagnostic test that reveals, but does not correct for, selection bias in height samples. When applied to four representative height samples, the diagnostic provides compelling evidence of selection.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1 Mean heights of United States military volunteers and European conscripts

Sources: United States: (Fogel 1986); Netherlands: Mandemaker (1993); Italy: Federico (2003); France: Weir (1997);
Figure 1

Table 1 Summaries of North American Industrialization Puzzle Studies

Figure 2

Table 2 Sample type and fraction demonstrating a 1 cm or more decline In measured average height (percent)

Figure 3

Table 3 Estimated probabilities (marginal effects) of observing a 1 cm decline in one or more decades

Figure 4

Figure 2 Height by Age at Enlistment Four Birth Cohorts, Union Army

Minimum Height Requirement 63”: 9/1863–11/1864) Sources: Authors' calculation from ICPSR series # ICPSR06837-v6
Figure 5

Figure 3 Birth-cohort and recruit-year controls: RSMLE estimates Union Army, Recruits Aged 23–30

Sources: Authors– calculation from ICPSR series # ICPSR06837-v6.
Figure 6

Table 4 British Army and AMD

Figure 7

Table 5 Union Army

Figure 8

Table 6 Pennsylvania Prisoners and Chesapeake Free Blacks

Supplementary material: PDF

Bodenhorn supplementary material

Bodenhorn supplementary material 1

Download Bodenhorn supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 408.7 KB