JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . The MIT Press and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal of Interdisciplinary History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 18:45:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REVIEWS | 549 also by political and administrative decisions made in St. Petersburg.Administratively, European Russia and the western provinces were subdivided into two different schemes of civil administration-differences that resulted in different agricultural administrations, different education systems, different medical administrations, different provincial and local law enforcement, and even somewhat different statistical administrations. Just as the book's assertion seems facile to me that Islam, in the east, served as a barrier to Westernization and thus to lowered fertility (I20 and 206), so does the explanation of low fertility in the west as a consequence of proximity to those living even further west. Fertility itself, as a concept and a measure, is troublesome, especially when the ultimate objective is to explain the introduction of voluntary measures for fertility control. What bothers me is that "fertility" is a measure not of the propensity to conceive under certain circumstances, but of the fact of live-or, really, registered live-births. I am not quarreling here with the authors' use of birth registration. Their efforts to use these data with care are commendable. I am raising the question of whether it is appropriate to use birth as a measure of fertility when it is clear that "failure" to carry a child to healthy term may itself easily be a common form of birth limitation. This last issue is not unique to Fertility in Russia. Nor is the problem it raises easily resolved given the nature of readily available data and the thrust of fertility research. What I think should be said at this point is that, although Coale and his colleagues have taken large strides in several important directions, more needs to be done in an even more comparative, interdisciplinary, and conceptually sophisticated manner.
