ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Valuing five centuries of unpaid breastfeeding in England.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Valuing five centuries of unpaid breastfeeding in England.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breastfeeding is vital and valuable labor, contributing to the physical and cognitive health of children throughout their lives, yet it is rarely compensated in formal labor markets. Its economic importance may therefore go unrecognized. We impute upper and lower bounds for the value of unpaid breastfeeding over five centuries in England to better understand its economic role over the course of economic development. We also contribute an estimate of changes in breastfeeding duration over this period from historical and bioarchaeological sources using interval regression. At minimum, unpaid breastfeeding consistently exceeded 0.1% of gross domestic product (GPD), reaching a possible peak of 6.58% in the sixteenth century while the wider economy stagnated. This quantity exceeds expenditures on school and apprenticeship, making breastfeeding possibly the largest source of human capital investment in early modern England. Yet the relative value of unpaid breastfeeding gradually declined as the wider economy grew. Indeed, for much of English history the income elasticity of breastfeeding appears to have been negative, only becoming positive at some point in the nineteenth century. Because breastfeeding was strongly negatively correlated with infant mortality, this challenges longstanding assumptions about the relationship between income and mortality. In sum, breastfeeding was not a biologically determined constant but a dynamic, if neglected, part of economic life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.