changing family formation patterns, Latin America, household typology

1. Ron Lesthaeghe, Albert Esteve, Joan Garcia.
Centre d’Estudis Demografics, Universitat Autonoma, Barcelona.
Changes in Latin American Family Formation over the last Decades.
An IPUMS and LIPRO based analysis.

2. STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION
• IPUMS and the extended LIPRO-typology (inspiration: Evert
van Imhoff).
• The decline in proportions married : longer single or more
cohabitation ? (+ educational differences)
• The Latin American “cohabitation boom” : time, space and
education.
• Nuclear versus extended households ? Combinations & the life
cycle. A Latin-American SDT version ?
• Single parent households. Nuclear versus Extended ?
Educational differences ?
• Hyperinflation, political crises and/or ideational revolution ?
All on a larger scale than in Europe in the 1960s and 70s ?

3. IPUMS AND LIPRO
• IPUMS = international public use microdata
series, Population Studies Center, Univ. Of
Minnesota
• LIPRO = Life style projections (van Imhoff &
Keilman, 1991). Typology extended here to
suit Asian or Latin-American need to
incorporate extended and composite
households.

4. TABLE 1: Example of census household data and of the
creation of three additional IPUM pointers.
Person
Number
Relation
ship
age sex Children
ever
born
Marital
Status
Sp
loc
Pop
loc
Mom
loc
1 Head 73 M na Married 2 0 0
2 Spouse 62 F 6 Married 1 0 0
3 Child 38 M na Cohab. 4 1 2
4 Other 30 F 1 Cohab. 3 0 0
5 Grandch
ild
6 F 0 Single 0 3 4
6 Sibling 69 M na Widowed 0 0 0
7 Servant 16 F 0 Single 0 0 0
Adapted from Matthew Sobek and Sheelah Kennedy, 2009

5. Not in Union No child LIVALONE
NOTUNION_ EXT _PAR _PAR_EXT
NOTUNION_COMP _PAR_COM
Child(ren) SINGPAR
SINGPAR_EXT (_PAR + _PAR_EXT )
SINGPAR_COMP (_PAR + _PAR_COMP)
NotinUnion Unclassified
COHAB No child COH0
COH0_EXT (_PAR + _PAR_EXT)
COH0_COMP (_PAR + _PAR_COMP)
Child(ren) COH+
COH+ _EXT (_PAR + _PAR_EXT)
COH+_COMP (_PAR + _PAR_COMP)
Cohab unclassified
MARRIED No Child MAR0
ETCETERA
Child(ren) MAR+
ETCETERA
Married unclassified
LIPRO typology : EXTENDED VERSION
Nuclear versus Extended/Composite

6. Women 25 – 29, Declining proportions married over ca. 20 years:
Quo Vadis ?
Country and
census dates
educ % points
Decline
Married
Share to Not
in Union
Share to
Cohabit.
Chile 82-02 I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-14.8
-14.8
-20.5
15.8
41.4
69.1
84.2
58.6
30.9
Argentina
80-01
I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-23.8
-20.7
-25.1
1.5
35.6
68.8
98.5
64.4
31.2
Brazil 80-00 I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-24.6
-14.5
-17.0
12.5
22.5
70.8
87.5
77.5
29.2
I = Incomplete C= Complete, larger shares in red.

7. Country and
Census dates
Education %-points
decline in
married
Share to
Not in Union
Share to Cohabit.
Ecuador 82-01 I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-10.5
-8.5
-7.9
36.2
6.0
54.4
63.9
94.0
45.6
Venezuela
81-01
I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-15.4
-13.3
-19.3
4.9
52.6
85.9
95.1
47.4
14.1
Colombia I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-23.6
-22.0
-15.7
0.0*
0.0*
48.8
100.0*
100.0*
59.2
Women 25-29: Quo Vadis ? (continued)
* Percentage “Not in Union” also declined by - 2.4 and – 0.8 pct points respectively

8. Women 25-29 : Quo Vadis ? (continued)
Country and
Census dates
Education %-points
decline in
married
Share to
Not in Union
Share to
Cohabit.
Panama 80-00 I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-6.4
-16.1
-12.7
0.0*
0.1
55.5
100.0*
99.9
44.5
Costa Rica
84-00
I+C Prim
C Sec
C Tert
-9.6
-9.7
-1.0
0.0*
20.9
70.3
100.0*
79.1
29.7
* Percentages “Not in Union” also declined by -3.85 in Panama and -2.64 in Costa Rica.

9. Figure 2. Percent currently cohabiting among women aged 25-29 in all unions, by country,
census round and educational attainment.
Round: 1970*
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
< Primary Primary Secundary > Secundary
Argentina(AR)
Brazil (BR)
Chile (CL)
Colombia (CO)
Costa Rica (CR)
Ecuador (EC)
Mexico (MX)
Panama (PA)
Peru (PE)
Puerto Rico (PR)
Venezuela(VE)
MX
PR
CL
EC
BR
CR
AR
VE
PA
PE
CO

10. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
< Primary Primary Secundary > Secundary
Argentina(AR)
Bolivia (BO)
Brazil (BR)
Chile (CL)
Colombia (CO)
Costa Rica (CR)
Cuba (CU)
Ecuador (EC)
Mexico (MX)
Panama (PA)
Peru (PE)
Puerto Rico (PR)
Venezuela(VE)
MX
PR
CL
BO
EC
BR
CR
AR
VE
PA
PE
CU
CO
% women 25-29 in union currently cohabiting by education, 2000 census round

11. Single Mothers, Women 25-29

12. 0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1970 1980 1990 2000
Chile
Argentina
Colombia
Ecuador
Venezuela
Panama
Puerto Rico
Costa Rica
Brazil
Mexico
Peru
Bolivia
Cuba
Evolution of percentages single mothers among womem 25-29 in Latin America.
1970s through 2000s Census rounds.

13. 0
5
10
15
20
25
1980
2000
Percentage single mothers among all women 25-29 with primary education or less.
1980 and 2000 census rounds

14. 0
5
10
15
20
25
1980
2000
Percentage single mothers among women 25-29 with complete secondary education.
1980 and 2000 census rounds

15. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1980
2000
Percentage single mothers among women 25-29 with completed tertiary education.
1980 and 2000 census rounds

16. SDT –Contextualization:
Cohabitation and Single Mother Households.
Nuclear or Extended ?

17. Percentages in extended/composite households – Women 25-29, by LIPRO
individual household position.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
SINGPAR
COH0
MAR0
COH+
MAR+

18. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent single mothers 25-29 in extended and or composite
households; census rounds since 1970
1970-74
1980-84
1990-07
2000-07
2/3
3/4

19. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Primary
Secondar
Tertiary
Percent single mothers 20-25 living in extended or composite
households, by education, latest census round.

20. CONCLUSIONS (1)
OVERALL : Very distinct patterning depending on education / social
classes in ALL countries considered here. ( not surprising for Latin
America)
Drops in proportions married in the age groups 20-29 are systematically
compensated by rises in percentages cohabiting among all women with
no more than full primary education.
If completed secondary : compensation through cohabitation already
smaller, but still preponderant.
Among women with teriary education, the drops in proportions married
are only partially compensated by increased cohabitation, and the lion
share now goes to being “not in a union”. Postponement is in evidence,
but cohabitation rises as well !

21. CONCLUSIONS (2)
Contextualization necessary due to possibility of remaining in or joining extended
and composite households.
Over 2/3 of single mothers 25-29 live in extended households, most often with
parents present. Stable over time ( except declines in Costa Rica and Puerto
Rico)
If single mother, then living in extended household is more frequent among better
educated than among those who with incomplete or complete primary
education.
Cohabitants frequently continue to live with parents. Frequencies slightly higher
than amon married couples.. Further splitting off when children are born.
Majority is nuclear cohabitation.
But : large country differences !

22. “Non-Conformist” Dimension.
1. Rises in cohabitation and parenthood among cohabitants is universal, both in
countries or areas with AND without a prior tradition.
2. Major increases in cohabitation among women with secondary and tertiary
education in all countries. No longer a lower social class phenomenon.
3. Latin American SDT version : add context of coresidence in
extended/composite households for a significant proportion of cohabitants and for
the majority of single mothers.
But majority of cohabitation occurs in nuclear households !
Postponement dimension.
1. No postponement of partnership formation for lower education strata due to
full substitution of marriage by cohabitation. No postponement of parenthood
either (Esteve et al, 2012, unpublished). => SDT postponement aspect absent.
2. Significant postponement of entry into union and of postponement of parenthood
among those with tertiary education. => SDT postponement aspect present.
RELEVANCE FOR THE “SECOND DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION” IN LATIN AMERICA.

23. Other relevant materials for discussion and questions. Not for prime presentation.

25. 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.

26. 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

27. Figure 1. Boxplot of the regional diversity of the percentage of cohabiting unions among
all unions, by country and census round (1970 and 2000). Women 25-29
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

28. Hyperinflation (evolution consumer price index)
Country Period Year peak Size peak (highest annual % increase CI)
A. Spread out
Chile* 1981-90 1984 31%
Colombia 81-90 1990 32
Mexico 81-88 1987 132
Venezuela 89-96 1995 99
B. Accute
Brazil 89-94 1990 2948
Argentina 88-92 1988 3080
Peru 85-91 1990 7486
Bolivia 88-86 1985 11750
*Chile: also 1972-73 (Allende)
Source: compiled from IMF data.

29. Men Women
≤ 29 30-49 50+ Total N ≤ 29 30-49 50+ Total N
Percentage of respondents considering as NEVER justified: Euthanasia
Argentina 1991 43.3 53.4 62.0 53.6 453 46.8 57.1 72.2 59.9 491
2006 36.3 38.2 52.0 42.1 382 36.2 39.1 58.9 45.2 434
Chile 1990 51.9 62.6 72.8 61.0 700 58.7 65.2 75.9 65.7 760
2006 25.7 34.1 48.9 36.7 411 35.1 33.0 50.0 39.4 510
Brazil 1991 58.2 59.2 73.2 62.0 811 60.8 70.4 79.2 68.6 869
2006 41.4 48.8 47.1 46.0 611 50.4 50.3 56.3 51.9 855
Never justified: Homosexuality
Argentina 1991 52.7 58.8 70.4 61.2 448 42.3 56.4 73.9 59.0 505
2006 24.8 27.5 50.4 33.5 400 16.7 23.9 40.5 27.6 449
Chile 1990 71.8 75.6 83.6 76.1 703 71.4 77.5 86.2 77.6 774
2006 17.5 24.6 36.0 26.4 425 13.9 21.6 32.7 23.2 512
Brazil 1991 74.7 70.1 84.9 75.2 888 57.6 62.3 76.6 63.6 867
2006 35.8 32.5 38.7 35.3 606 22.6 27.6 37.4 28.6 838
Source: World Value Surveys data, rounds of 1991 and 2006 in
Argentina and Brazil, and in 1990 and 2006 in Chile.

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. Percentage cohabiting among all women 25-29 in a union: Cartograms
Ca 1970 Ca 2000
% 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