Quantitative historical analysis in the United States surged in three distinct waves. The first quantitative wave occurred as part of the “New History” that blossomed in the early twentieth century and disappeared in the 1940s and 1950s with the rise of consensus history. The second wave thrived from the 1960s to the 1980s during the ascendance of the New Economic History, the New Political History, and the New Social History, and died out during the “cultural turn” of the late twentieth century. The third wave of historical quantification—which I call the revival of quantification—emerged in the second decade of the twenty-first century and is still underway. I describe characteristics of each wave and discuss the historiographical context of the ebb and flow of quantification in history.

The Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS)-International partnership is a project of the Minnesota Population Center and national statistical agencies, dedicated to collecting and distributing census data from around the world. IPUMS is currently disseminating data on over a half-billion persons enumerated in more than 250 census samples from 79 countries. The data series includes information on a broad range of population characteristics, including fertility, nuptiality, life-course transitions, migration, labor-force participation, occupational structure, education, ethnicity, and household composition. This paper describes sample characteristics and data structure; the data integration process including the creation of constructed family interrelationship variables; the flexible dissemination system that enables researchers to build customized extracts of pooled census samples across time and place; and some of the most significant findings that have emerged from the database.

The value of integrating palliative with curative modes of care earlier in the course of disease for people with life threatening illnesses is well recognized. Whereas the now outdated model of waiting for people to be actively dying before initiating palliative care has been clearly discredited on clinical grounds, how a better integration of modes of care can be achieved, financed and sustained is an ongoing challenge for the health care system in general as well as for specific institutions. When the initiative comes from a hospital or academic medical center, which may, for example, begin a palliative care consultation service, financial benefits have been well documented. These palliative care services survive mainly by tracking cost savings that can be realized in a number of ways around a medical center. We tried to pilot 3 simple models of potential cost savings afforded to hospice by initiating a palliative care program. We found that simple models cannot capture this benefit (if it in fact exists). By adding palliative care, hospice, while no doubt improving and streamlining care, is also taking on more complex patients (higher drug costs, shorter length of stay, more outpatient, emergency room and physician visits). Indeed, the hospice was absorbing the losses associated with having the palliative care program. We suggest that an avenue for future exploration is whether partnering between hospitals and hospice programs can defray some of the costs incurred by the palliative care program (that might otherwise be passed on to hospice) in anticipation of cost savings. We end with a series of questions: Are there financial benefits? Can they be modeled and quantified? Is this a dilemma for hospice programs wanting to improve the quality of care but who are not able on their own to finance it?

Revisionist historians maintain that the aged in nineteenth-century America and north-western Europe usually preferred to reside alone or with only their spouse. According to this interpretation, the aged ordinarily resided with their adult children only out of necessity, especially in cases of poverty or infirmity. This article challenges that position, arguing that in mid-nineteenth-century America coresidence of the aged with their children was almost universal, and that the poor and sick aged were the group most likely to live alone. The article suggests that the decline of the multigenerational family in the twentieth century is connected to the rise of wage labour and the diminishing importance of agricultural and occupational inheritance.

English population history from family reconstitution 1580–1837 (Cambridge, 1997) is an impressive volume. This ambitious study represents the culmination of a quarter-century of laborious research by four of the most accomplished practitioners of English historical demography, E. A. Wrigley, R. S. Davies, J. E. Oeppen, and R. S. Schofield. The sheer volume of information is overwhelming; the book contains 121 tables and 73 graphs, and it weighs in at almost 2½ pounds. The study is a landmark in the field of pre-industrial population history. It contributes important new evidence on long-run trends in fertility, mortality, and marriage behaviour. Even more exciting than the refinement of the aggregate results contained in previous work by the Cambridge Group, however, is the new kinds of analyses made possible by the existence of microdata. The book marshals an array of innovative methods to address a remarkable assortment of demographic issues. The authors address dozens of topics previously hidden from view, ranging from an ingenious analysis of the relative mortality of monozygotic and dyzygotic twins, to an important investigation of lifetime fecundity, to an exhaustive analysis of the seasonality of mortality.

Most of the information released by the Census Bureau has always consisted of summary population counts cross-tabulated by individual or family characteristics. Although these data form the basic description of the American population, they are not ideal for analytical research. The Census Bureau cannot anticipate all the needs of social scientists, so many topics are inadequately covered in the published census volumes. For historical research, the problem is especially acute, because the published data are fairly sketchy for the period before 1940. Moreover, the classifications employed by the Census Bureau have changed over time, making long-term comparisons difficult or impossible.