This document summarizes Ron Lesthaeghe's original 1986 article that introduced the concept of the Second Demographic Transition (SDT). It discusses the sources of inspiration for the article, the economic and social paradigms at the time, and contrasts the First and Second Demographic Transitions. It also outlines some derived research topics from the SDT framework and provides updates on the geographic spread and empirical testing of the SDT over the past 25 years. In particular, it finds evidence of the SDT in many European, Asian, and Latin American countries, contradicting earlier views that it was only a phenomenon in Northwestern Europe.

1. 25 YEARS LATER : THE SDT REVISITED.
Ron Lesthaeghe
Feb. 2012
Note the
question format.
ORIGINAL 1986 ARTICLE

2. Sources of inspiration
• Philippe Ariès : the end of the period of the
“enfant-roi”.
• Reaction to Richard Easterlin’s economic
theory for baby-boom and baby-bust.
• Ronald Inglehart (and A. Maslow): rise of
“post-materialist” needs & values.

3. The super-narratives ( paradigms)
• Economics (neo-classical):
Homo-economicus, rationality,
cost-benefit calculation.
NO Preference shifts, no ethics or
values.
• Sociology & Psychology :
Accept cost-benefit calculus.
Add Preferences & Values: e.g.
derived from Maslowian drift of
needs.
(e.g.: R. Inglehart Post-
materialism, Lesthaeghe & van
de Kaa SDT)

4. A. Maslow’s pyramid of needs
1943
R. Inglehart’s postmodernism transition
2005
Lifestyle
contrast
added
Social Class
contrasts
Survival
stressed
Well-being
stressed

5. The twin transitions: Contrast first & second demographic transitions
• FDT
• EARLIER MARRIAGE
• LOW + DECLINING
COHABITATION
• DECLINING ILLEGITIMACY
• LOW DIVORCE
• HIGH REMARRIAGE
• FERTILITY CONTROL AT
HIGHER AGES
• SHORT Marr-1st Birth Interval
• DEFICIENT
CONTRACEPTION, PARITY
FAILURES
• LOW CHILDLESSNESS
• SDT
• LATER MARRIAGE
• RISE COHABITATION, RISE
SINGLE LIVING
• RISING EXTRA-MARITAL
FERTILITY
• RISE DIVORCE
• LOW REMARRIAGE
• FERTILITY POSTPONEMENT
• EFFICIENT CONTRACEPTION
• HIGHER CHILDLESSNESS
Non-conformism
Postponement

6. Derived research topics
• 1. Trends and the geographic spread of
the SDT
• 2. Fertility postponement & recuperation.
• 3. The links between the SDT and shifting
values orientations.
• 4. SDT and political voting outcomes.
• 5. Innovation models
• 6. Regional continuities

8. Life course
progression
neutral
Respar
Single
Coh 0
Mar 0
Coh +
Mar+E
Mar+N
FmNu
Non-conformism = secular,stress individual autonomy,
weaker civil morality, expressive values, distrust
institutions, protest prone, tolerant minorities,world
orientation,"postmaterialist"
Conformism = religious, respect for
authority, trust institutions, conservative
morality, lower tolerance minorities, local or
national identification, expressive values not
stressed.
Respar = resident w ith parents; Single = never married & not in a union; Coh0 = cohabiting & no children;
Mar0 = married & no children; Coh+ = cohabiting w ith children; Mar+E = married w ith children & ever cohabited;
Mar+N = married w ith children & never cohabited; FmNu = formerly married or in union, not yet in new union.
Figure 1 : Flow chart of life course development and hypothesised changes in value
orientations stemming from selection-adaptation mechanism.
Full selection
and adaptation
model requires
panel data.
The “footprints”
model is only
based on
repeated cross-
sections.

9. European Values Survey 1999-2000 Round : analysis of 80 items via MCA and Benzecry Correspondence Analysis.
Population : men and women 18 through 49.
Step 1: Recode the 80 items so that 1 = non-conformist attitude 0 = conformist. Dichotomization
Step 2: Run Multiple Classification Analysis for each item with 8 categories of household type/trajectory ( Living with
parents, living alone, Cohab no children, Cohab + children, Married 0 children, Married + children never cohab,
idem ever cohab, Formerly Married and not yet in new union), controlling for : gender (2), age and age squared,
Education (4), Employment (5), Urbanity (2). This gives for each item the net deviations from the mean (= overall
% non-conformist) by household category.
Step 3: for each item by household category, recode net deviation to 1 if above the mean, 0 if below. This creates a
distances matrix. Example:
Respar Single Coh0 Coh+ Mar0 Mar+E Mar+N FMNU
item 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
item 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
item 80 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Total 43 53 67 62 31 49 25 48
Step 4: Run Correspondence Analysis on above matrix, use projection of items and of household categories in 2
dimensions (discard higher dimensions).

10. Chart7.1:Number ofpositive netdeviations (= non-conformist) for 80 items according to household position;1999 EVS results for five groups
ofEuropean countries after control for other covariates.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Respar Single Coh0 Coh+ Mar0 Mar+N Mar+E FmNu
Household position respondents
Numberofpositivenetdeviations
Scandinavia-2
West-3
Iberia-2
Central-7
East-5
Number of positive
NET deviations
from item means for
a total of 80 items
indicating a
systematic
preference for the
non-conformist
position. Controls
for: education (4
cat.), employment
position (5), urban-
rural (2), gender (2),
age & age squared.
Respondents aged
18-49.
Deviations for 8
types of household
situations and for 5
groups of European
countries, EVS 1999

11. 0 items picked
All items picked
A: Picks a lot with strong
preference for specific items
of particular type ( e.g. fruits)
B: a lot but indiscriminate
C: picks few items, but with
clear preference that is opposite
from A’s.
D: picks less than average, a
little from everything
Floris van Dijck :”Laid Table”,1622 Jan Davidz de Heem :”A Dessert”,1640
Correspondence Analysis.

13. West = F+B+D

14. South = E + P

15. SDT – Presidential elections
USA
2000 to 2012
Ron Lesthaeghe & Lisa Neidert

16. Demographic indicators and their two underlying dimensions:
definitions and factor loadings (50 states)
Loading = correlation with: Factor1: SDT* Factor 2 .
Vulnerability * *
% non-Hisp white women 25-29 without children in household, 2000 .933 -.186
% non-Hisp white women 25-29 never married, 2000 .905 -.370
% non-Hisp white ever married women 25-29 without own children in household, 2000 .902 -.097
Abortions per 1000 live births, 1992 .887 .057
% non-Hisp white women 30-34 never married, 2000 .882 -.326
Abortion rate per 1000 women 15-44, 1996 .836 .136
Fertility postponement ratio (fert.30+/ fert.20-29), 2002 .794 -.411
Same sex households per 1000 households, 2000 .754 .191
Non-Hisp white total fertility rate, 2002 -.725 .009
Non-Hisp. white fertility rate 15-19, 2002 -.675 .633
% households that are “families”, 1990 -.642 .328
% households with same or different sex cohabitors, 2000 .517 -.148
Divorce rate per 1000 population, 1990 -.457 .548
Total fertility rate, all races, 2002 .338 -.155
% non-marital births, 1990 .329 .803
% teen births, 1986 -.303 .875
Divorce rate per 1000 population, 1962 -.277 .462
% population 30+ living with and responsible for grandchildren,2000 -.189 .886
% non-marital births, 2000 .182 .851
Factor loadings = or > .500 in bold.
* SDT = Second Demographic Transition dimension ** = Vulnerability of young women and children dimension.

17. Map of the “Second Demographic Transition” dimension in US counties, ca
2000.
Measured in standard deviations from the counties’ mean (equal to zero).

18. SDT ca 2000 and
Presidential elections
2012
Extra Hispanic
Extra black

19. Cartogram of counties : SDT (left) and Election results 2012 (right).
(Areas of counties proportional to population size)
Blue = Democrat
Red = Republican

20. r = -.880
r = -.871
r = -.839 r = -.887

21. Zero and partial correlation coefficients between the Second Demographic Transition
dimension in the USA* and the percentage vote for the Republican candidate in 4
presidential elections.
ZERO/PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: SDT factor
Vote for Republican in 2000 2004 2008 2012
No controls -.880 -.871 -.839 -.887
After controls for:
Three structural variables:
Disposable personal income 2001
% population 25+ with BA, 1990
% population metropolitan, 2000
-.787 -.812
-.761 -.847
Three structural variables + Ethnicity
% black, 2000
% Hispanic, 2000
-.841 -.853
-.816 -.866
Three structural variables + Religion
% Evangelical/Mormon
% Catholic
-.734 -.742
-.654 -.784
Religion alone
% Evangelical/Mormon
% Catholic
-.788 -.755
-.699 -.794
* Indicators measured in years around 2000

22. Reactions :
1990s : Southern and Eastern European colleagues :
“not us, we’re different”.
2003 : Japanese demographers:
“not us, we’re different”
2003: British demographer (Oxford):
“just a northwestern European idiosyncracy”
“only a secondary feature, not a second transition”

23. Esp
CZ Rep
Bel
1/3
1/2
USA
NZ

25. Source : D.J. vandeKaa, 2002
Mat = fighting rising prices &
maintaining order
Postmat = giving people greater say &
defending freedom of expression.

26. Just a Northwestern European idiosyncracy ?
Clearly not !
Well, maybe just a “Western” idiosyncracy ?
=> Far East ?
=> Latin America ?

27. A glimpse of the Asian marriage postponement :
cohabitation creeping in ?

28. Incidence and duration of premarital cohabitation in Japan and Taiwan, 2004
• Japan: Gender and Generation Survey, 2004 (Tsuya, 2006)
% Ever-cohabiting Women Men
Age 25-29 (C 1975-80) 20.2 20.6
30-34 (C 1970-75) 16.5 20.6
35-39 (C1965-70) 15.7 15.9
40-44 (C 1960-65) 11.5 15.5
45-49 (C 1955-60) 7.5 10.7
• Japan: Mainichi Shimbun newspaper, 2004 (Raymo, Iwasawa, Bumpass, 2008)
Women % ever cohabiting Mean duration (mths)
Age 25-29 (C 1975-80) 21 21
30-34 (C 1970-75) 21 20
35-39 (C 1965-70) 17 26
40-44 (C 1960-65) 10 21
• Taiwan KAP surveys (Li-Shou Yang)
All married women 20-49 1998 2004
% Ever-cohabiting 12.6 21.6

29. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Chile
Brazil
Bolivia
Argentina
Mexico
CostaRica
Colombia
Ecuador
Venezuela
Cuba
Peru
Panama
1970
1970
1970
1970
1973
1973
1974
1971
1993
1970
2002
2000
2001
2001
2000
2000
2005
2001
2001
2002
2007
2000
Distribution of Regions of Latin American Countries (Box plots):
Rise in percentages cohabiting among all women 25-29 in a union,
ca 1970 to 2000-2007
50 %
33%
75%

30. % cohabiting union
Data column: M_25_29
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 100
No Data
Percentage cohabiting among all women 25-29 currently in a union
Ca 1970 Ca 1980 Ca 1990 Ca 2000

31. The presumed SDT-TFR
conundrum
• The TFR fallacy
• SDT and the onset of the postponement
transition.
• The neglected part : differential catching
up.
• Getting things right: the cohort approach

32. SOURCE : D.J. vandeKaa, 2002.
(Inglehart index)

33. Tomas Sobotka’s replication: SDT2 index with 7 items
(attitudes and values dimension)
This index is based on the 1999/2000 results of the European Values Study, published in
Halman (2001). It is based on the responses in 29 countries to the following questions and
statements.:
“…how important it is in your life: leisure time” (LEISURE, % “very important”)
“How often do you spend time in church, mosque, or synagogue” (CHURCH, % “every
week”);
“Please use the scale to indicate how much freedom of choice and control you feel you have
over the way your life turns out?” (CONTROL, mean value on the scale of 1 (=none control at
all) to 10 (= a great deal of control));
“Do you think that a woman has to have children in order to be fulfilled or is this not
necessary?” (NEED_KIDS, % responses “not necessary”);
“Marriage is an outdated institution” (MARRIAGE, % “agree”);
“A job is alright, but what women really want is a home and children” (F_HOME, % “agree
strongly”);
“One does not have the duty to respect and love parents who have not earned it by their
behaviour and attitudes” (PAR_RESPECT, % “agree”);
“Do you approve or disapprove abortion (…) where a married couple does not want to have
any more children?” (ABORTION, % “approve”).
Several questions were not asked in all the participating countries; the SDT2 index for these
countries was based on the mean score of the responses to the remaining items. Maximum,
minimum and mean values of these indicators and the assigned SDT scores are displayed in
table AP-2.

34. But a positive association between SDT and period total
fertility : classic case of split correlation
Bulgaria
Poland
GreeceSlovakia
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
United Kingdom Finland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Lithuania
Latvia
Spain
Italy
Hungary
Austria
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Portugal
Germany
Russia
Croatia
Ukraine
Romania
Ireland
Iceland
Slovenia
Belarus
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20TFR
SDTIndex
Figure 8a: SDT Index and TFR in 2004 (r=0.71)
All stronger recuperation countries
No or weak recup & late starters
Source of plot : Tomas Sobotka, 2008. Interpretation : Ron Lesthaeghe 2008.
1.50

35. A strong SDT – fertility postponement link
Lithuania
Russia
Belarus
Bulgaria
Estonia
Slovakia
Romania
Latvia
Poland
Ireland
Czech Republic
Hungary
Portugal
Austria
Slovenia
Croatia
GreeceItaly
Spain
France
United Kingdom
Denmark
Germany
The Netherlands
Finland
Sw eden
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year when mean age at first birth increased by 2 years
SDT2Index
SDT vanguard
SDT tail
Source: T. Sobotka 2008.

36. Deficits CCFR Netherlands
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
<20 <20-24 <20-30 <20-34 <20-39 <20-44 <20-45+
Age Brackets and Baseline (1940-44)
Deficets,ThousandsofBirths
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
1960-1964
1965-1969
1970-1974
1975-1979
1980-1984
Deficits CCFR Portugal
-900
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
<20 <20-24 <20-30 <20-34 <20-39 <20-44 <20-45+
Age Brackets and Baseline (1940-44)
Deficets,ThousandsofBirths
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
1960-1964
1965-1969
1970-1974
1975-1979
1980-1984
TROUGH RECUP
PTFR(t+30) = A + B1*BaseCTFR(t=0) + B2*TROUGH(t) + B3*RECUP(t) + e
Trough = deficit in cumulated CASFR at age 30 compared to base
Recup = part of trough recuperated by age 40
Sample= all never communist European countries, baseline = cohort born 1940-44,
predicting PTFRs in period 1960-2005.
RESULT : baseCTFR only Rsq. = .505, baseCTFR + Trough Rsq= .673,
all 3 including Recup then Rsq= .793. Hence : RECUP IS ESSENTIAL.
ONLY countries dip below a TFR below 1.5 that have no or weak recuperation.
The “Bongaarts’ babies” have remained in his cupboard in a large number of
countries, and will stay there for as long as there is no recuperation of fertility after
age 30.

37. -1.60
-1.40
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
15 20 25 30 35 40
Age
Cumulateddifferencefromthebenchmarkcohort…....
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Benchmark C TF R (1940 cohort): 2.93
-1.60
-1.40
-1.20
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
15 20 25 30 35 40
Age
Cumulateddifferencefromthebenchmarkcohort…....
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Benchmark C TF R (1955 cohort): 1.90
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Age
Cumulateddifferencefromthebenchmarkcohort…....
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Benchmark C TF R1 (1955 cohort): 0.896
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Age
Cumulateddifferencefromthebenchmarkcohort…....
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Benchmark C TF R3+ (1955 cohort): 0.334
Postponement and recuperation in Spanish cohort fertility
Source: Sobotka,
Szeman,
Lesthaeghe &
Frejka, 2010

38. SDT and TFRs : inconsistent
or double effect ?
Social & Economic
constraints (education,
employment, housing
…)
Self-actualisation;
“open future”
Emancipation: gender
equity
Affirmative policies re
gender roles, child
care, reduced
opportunity costs of
motherhood.
Postponement
Recuperation
Overall fertility
+
+
_
+
SDT

39. Conclusions and expectations :
1. SDT clearly spread beyond northwestern Europe and their overseas
counterparts (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA) to Mediterranean
countries, all the formerly Communist ones, and even to the Far East. Also
very large increase of the “non-conformist” part of the SDT in Latin America.
2. New contexts obviously translate into greater pattern heterogeneity, as was
plainly evident during the First DT.
e.g. * strong period effects that act as either catalysts or breaks;
* different bottlenecks in the RWA conditions;
* different levels of sub-replacement fertility can result, from close to replacement to
“lowest-low” (=> degree of recuperation essential factor);
* different mitigating effects of institutional factors and policies (e.g. in the domain of
gender equity,facilities for working parents, schooling hours & day care, income
redistribution).
3. The motor of the SDT – the Maslowian mechanism – is a universal one, and
the global development of the SDT in the 21st Century is therefore likely to
broadly follow the increases in both GDP AND the spread of democracy.
4. All scientific propositions are falsifiable => Keep testing empirically !!

40. …and the link with the ideational dimensions ?
• Values and household formation paths: Selection &
adaptation and the “footprints” model.
• Empirical checks in all Europe’s corners, data base =
1999-2000 EVS with “ever cohabited” question
• The European Values Surveys (EVS) : 80 items used
here

41. Link with values also in the far East ?
World Values Studies has nothing on cohabitation in Asian
countries or more detailed household structure : just current
marital status and number of children. Current cohabitation
(“living as married”) in Latin American WVS.
But we can relate timing of marriage and parenthood to age,
education, occupational status, urbanity, and to the wealth of
value orientations.
Data for women in Japan, South Korea and Singapore, ages
18-45. But pooling of survey rounds again necessary to
compensate for small sample sizes.
Use is again made of the items that were used in the EVS-
based “footprints model”.

42. Number of items with effects on postponement of parenthood in
expected direction (net effects after controls for age, education, job status) World Values
Studies, Women aged 18-45.
Japan South Korea Singapore
1995, 2000 1994, 2001 2002
a.Family and gender items 15 of 16
15 of
16 13 of 16
b.Socialization traits 7 of 9 9 of 9 7 of 9
c.Work characteristics 5 of 5 na 9 of 10
d.Political orientations 19 of 20
17 of
19 7 of 9
e. Ethics and morality
issues 8 of 10 7 of 9 9 of 9
d.Religion 4 of 10 2 of 3 8of 10
Total 58 of 70
50 of
56 53 of 63
total % 82.9 89.3 84.10%

44. Postponmt + weak
or no recuperation
Postponement +
stronger recuperation
Less
postponement but
quantum drop

45. How do countries line up ?
SDT-based expectation very good when considering the postponement of
marriage and parenthood : high on SDT => earlier and stronger
postponement.
But TFR line-up goes the other way : high on SDT => higher TFR, no
“lowest-low fertility”.
Essential to distinguish between the postponement and catching up
effect. Latter now MAJOR determinant of national differentials in overall
fertility in “never Communist” Europe where SDT started earliest. Pure
postponement models are INADEQUATE.
Differential catching up will lead to differential childlessness as well.
Some SDT-values foster postponement, but some ( gender equity ones)
may be associated with low childlessness and better catching up at later
ages.

46. Flawed conclusions are popping up …..
• True: in many societies (Eastern Europe, Latin America) both cohabitation
and percentages of births out-of-wedlock have risen more (often much more
!!) among the less educated men and women.
• True: there are both economic and historical reasons why cohabitation rose
more rapidly at the lower end of the educational spectrum.(e.g. low entry
and exit costs; pre-existing cohabitation models, marriage =
“enbourgeoisement”).
• False: “this proves that the rise in cohabitation has nothing to do with
values changes and that SDT theory does not hold”. (e.g. Perelli-Harris
et al.)
• Reason: The values changes in the direction of greater individual autonomy
(the W-condition) have changed for EVERYBODY over the last decades.
Without that there wouldn’t have been a rise in cohabitation ANYWHERE to
start with. Cross-sectional educational differentials do NOT account for the
trend (composition effect of rising education would imply less, not more
cohabitation !).
• Conclusion : AGAIN “Ready AND Willing AND Able” and the Willingness
condition is no longer the brake (= SDT verified !).

47. Extra-marital births as percent all births -- Northern and Western Europe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1960 1970 1980 1990 2002
Year
%
Iceland
Sweden
Norway
France
UK
Germany-East
Germany-West
Netherlands
Austria
Belgium
Switzerland
Ireland
1986 : SDT
conceptualized

48. Extra-maritalbirthsaspercentofallbirths--Baltic,CentralandEasternEurope
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1960 1970 1980 1990 2002
Year
%
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
SlovakRepub.
CzechRepub
Hungary
Slovenia
Croatia
Serbia+Montenegro
Bulgaria
RussianFederat.
Romania
Moldova
Ukraine
1986= SDT
conceptualized

49. Extra-marital births as percent of all births -- Southern Europe
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1960 1970 1980 1990 2002
Year
%
Portugal
Spain
Italy
Greece
Macedonia
Malta
Cyprus
1986 = SDT
conceptualized

50. Number of positive (= unconventional) net deviations,
80 items, EVS 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80Res.par.
Single
Coh
0
Coh
+
M
ar0
M
ar+
n
M
ar+
e
Fm
Nu
Household position respondents
Positivenetdeviations
Austria
Germany
Belgium
France
Czech R.
Cro/Slvn
Pol/Lith.
Hun/Slvk
Spa/Port
Swe/Den
item mns
Eastern Europe is
NOT different from the
rest with respect to the
values profiles !

51. Former Communist Europe : Crisis or transition ?
Countries line up :
1. Countries that recovered best re real GDP recovery by 2000 have the larger
increases in mean ages at first marriage and at first birth. Contrary to crisis
hypothesis.
2. Countries that score highest on index of gender empowerment and on self-
realization ( Inglehart & Welzel ) have the highest increases in mean ages at
first birth. Consistent with SDT.
3. No other significant correlations with size drop TFR 1989-2000, or size
increase extra-marital fertility 1990-2000.
Social class differentials.
Greater / earlier rise of premarital cohabitation among lower educated or lower
socio-econ strata is by no means an indicator of the crisis hypothesis. This
feature is often found in other societies as well (e.g. Sweden and USA).
Historically: cohabitation was lower class feature in most societies.
Timing
Postponement trends in FCC’s often predate the 1989-Wende.

52. Former Communist Countries and Demographic change in the period 1989-
2000 : do they line up ?
Zero order correlations between indicators of economic performance,
indicators of Value orientations ( Inglehart & Welzel), and indicators of
demographic change.
Size Drop Size Rise in Size Rise in Mean Age:
in TFR extramar. Fert. 1st marr. 1st birth
Index recovery real GDP ’90=100 .283 ns .008 ns .665 * .622 *
Index recovery total employment ’89=100 -.408 ns .119 ns .078 ns .264 ns
Index recovery industrial output ’89=100 -.195 ns .011 ns .267 ns .165 ns
UN Index gender empowerment ca 2000 .139 ns -.010 ns .289 ns .581 *
Percent self-expressiveness ca mid-90s .065 ns -.250 ns .283 ns .517 *
Conclusion :
*Not much of a line up expected on the basis of the differences in strength of
economic recovery. Where there is a significant correlation (* at.05), it’s
reversed : best GDP-recovering countries have largest postponements.
*SDT based line up not strong either, but significant correlations are at least
in line with expectations.
Sources : UNECE ESE 2002-1;Council of Europe, 2002; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005, UN Human Development Report.

53. Can the SDT spread to non-western populations ?
• Overall answer : spread of SDT already occurring in other societies,
but not necessarily according to a western sequence:
• Far East: Marriage and fertility postponement starts BEFORE rise in
cohabitation, but in Latin America it is the other way around.
• Lowest-Low fertility in Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong caused by
massive postponement and weak recuperation.
• Sub-replacement fertility in Caribbean area (from Cuba to Trinidad ), in 2
Indian states and several Indian metropolitan areas, and even in several
Muslim populations (Tunisia, Iran). Lowest-low fertility widespread in most
populated Chinese provinces.
• Take off of premarital cohabitation documented in Japan and Taiwan.
• In Japan, Korea, Singapore : postponement of parenthood equally linked to
expressive and individualistic value orientations at the micro level ( but not
or less strongly to religion/secularism).
• Major increase of cohabitation in all Latin American countries.

54. Source: S. Klüsener et al, 2012