This note is a rejoinder to Baten, Benati, and Ferber. We reiterate that, on close inspection, nineteenth-century Italian census data contain a number of anomalies that sit uncomfortably with a straightforward age-heaping-as-numeracy interpretation. In particular, we respond to Baten, Benati, and Ferber on the technical matters they have raised; then we show that our findings are robust to such criticism. Finally, we conclude with some general reflections on age heaping as a numeracy indicator.

Age heaping and its discontents: A response to Baten, Benati, and Ferber

A'Hearn B.;Delfino A.;Nuvolari A.
2022

Abstract

This note is a rejoinder to Baten, Benati, and Ferber. We reiterate that, on close inspection, nineteenth-century Italian census data contain a number of anomalies that sit uncomfortably with a straightforward age-heaping-as-numeracy interpretation. In particular, we respond to Baten, Benati, and Ferber on the technical matters they have raised; then we show that our findings are robust to such criticism. Finally, we conclude with some general reflections on age heaping as a numeracy indicator.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
age_heapingEHR_response.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 240.3 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
240.3 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11382/544630
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
social impact