Global patterns of premarital cohabitation 1970 -2015. Pattern of Disadvantage and Second Demographic Transition, Ethno-historical patterns, profiles by education. Effects of kinship structures including position of women, and of ethics revolution
1. Global trends in premarital cohabitation.
Ron Lesthaeghe
Em. Prof. VUB
KVAB- Klasse Menswetenschappen.
With special thanks to Jorik Vergauwen
(UA – analysis of harmonised GGS data files)
Presentation Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences, Brussels, February 18, 2020
2. Three effects:
1. Ethno-historical traditions ( EHT ) “built-in”
2. Pattern of Disadvantage ( PoD )
3. Second Demographic Transition ( SDT )
Total incidence cohabitation = EHT + PoD + SDT
3. KAOW 18 2 2020
Asian & North African patriarchal : arranged & endogamous
marriage, strong patriarchal control over daughters and
wives, dowry, hostile to cohabitation;
Old and New Europes: conjugal marriage (Christianity), initial
decline premarital cohabitation (few exceptions), waves of
secularization, gradual rise individual autonomy (=> SDT);
economic system change, poverty (=> PoD)
Syncretic America: old indigenous + slave traditions of
cohabitation + conjugal elites. European conjugal model for
others (embourgeoisement, effect Catholicism).
Sub-Sahara Africa exogamous marriage : bridewealth,
multiple forms of partnership from polygyny to concubinage
and “new house”.
• THE FOUR MAJOR ETHNO-HISTORICAL MARRIAGE AND KINSHIP
SYSTEMS : STRONG BUILT-IN EFFECTS.
4. 1. “Old and new Europes”
• Traditions (built in effects): pre-marital cohabitation in fringe areas
(e.g. Iceland, Northern Sweden, Southern Portugal); post-marital if
divorce not possible or too expensive; “poor man’s marriage”,
“common law marriage”. Tolerated but typically working class
segments.
• Post 1970s evolution: Pattern of Disadvantage (PoD) versus Second
Demographic Transition (SDT)? Clues in cohabitation profiles by
education and in overall evolution. Single cross-sections NOT
adequate and misleading (!!). Evolution of cohabitation gradients by
education need to be followed over time !
• Analyses: Neels & Perelli on percentages EVER-Cohabiting by
education and over time. Mixes short and long spells. Here: new
series on proportions CURRENTLY cohabiting among women 25-29
who have been in a union for at least one year ( GGS harmonised
data files analysed by J. Vergauwen, UA).
5. Overall Europe : proportion cohabiting among women 25-29 being in union
( =cohab + married) for at least 1 year – (source GGS /J. Vergauwen)
D
B
I, PL
N
F, NLSDT theory formulated
“not us, we are different”
EST
H
R,BL
LT
6. TYPE 1a: Better educated 25-29 always highest, classic western SDT
( Source GGS – analysis by J. Vergauwen)
7. TYPE 1b: also positive gradient but slower/later rise
8. TYPE 2: rapid rise 25-29, essentially flat gradient by education
9. TYPE 3: slow and emerging V-shaped, typically eastern Europe
10. Percentage currently cohabiting women 25-29 among all women 25-29 in a
union (= cohabiting + married), United States 1990-2011.
Census 1990 Census 2000 ACS 2007-11
Less than complete High School 13.6 16.2 24.3
High School or some College 9.9 16.4 24.4
BA or higher 9.7 15.3 20.5
TOTAL 10.3 16.0 22.9
Source: Lesthaeghe et al. 2016. Data: censuses and American Communities
Survey (ACS) samples in IPUMS-USA database.
US (also Canada) : Negative gradient becoming flatter as
middle and high education categories are catching up.
US: more marked sorting effect: no educational differences
in cohabitation at younger ages, thereafter better
educated move faster /more into marriage. (see also
Furstenberg)
11. 2. Mixed-races societies of the Americas : syncretic systems
• Ethnic – historical patterns of cohabitation among indigenous populations,
imported black African slaves and mixed race populations (Mestizo, Pardo
etc.). This constitutes a historical BUILT-IN effect when analysing profiles
of cohabitation by education. Still large ethnic differences as well.
Institution of marriage weak among hunter-gatherer societies and African
slaves. Stronger in areas formerly having pre-Columbian states (Aztec,
Maya, Inca successors). Strong European marriage institution
(Mediterranean mainly) adds contrast. European type legislation, impact
of Catholiscism, embourgeoisement foster marriage and even shift away
from cohabitation prior to 1970.
• The current result is still a POD dominated gradient, but after 1970-80 the
SDT-effect is added via subsequent overall rises and especially by the
catching up of the better educated/higher social classes.
12. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1930 1970 1990 2000 2010
Percent
Percent cohabiting among all women in union,
selected Mexican indigenous populations, 1930-2010
Tamahumara SMOc
Cora SNA
Huichol SNA
Tepehua SMOr
Mazahua SVC
Otomi SVC
Nahuatl SVC
Purepecha SVC
Popoloca SVC
Huasteco LCG
Totocana LCG
Popoluca LCG
Amuzgo SMSu
Chontal SMSu
Mazateco SMSu
Zapoteco Gteh
Tzotzil SCH
Zoque SCH
Maya YUC
SMOc Sierra Madre
Occidental
SNA Sierra de Nayar
SMOr Sierra Madre
Oriental
SVC Sistema Volcanico
Transversal
LCG Llanura Costal
Golfo
SMSu Sierra Madre del
Sur
Gteh Golfo de
Tehuantepec
SCH Sierras de Chiapas
YUC Yucatan.
13. 1990’s
Take-off Acceleration
Percent cohabiting among all women 25-29 in a union,
Mexican states, 1930-2010
Chiapas
Hidalgo
Tabasco
Sinaloa
Vera Cruz
Coahuila
Nuevo Leon
Jalisco, Zacatecas
Guanajuato
1930
Queretaro
Aguacalientes
16. Percentages currently cohabiting among all women in a union ages 25-29, Census
rounds of 2000 and 2010. Source : Centre d’Estudis demografics (CED) Autonoma
Univ. Barcelona.
17. 3. Asian Patriarchal: the exceptions so far…. : Japan, PR China, Taiwan,
Christian Philippines.
• JAPAN : POD-pattern: cohabitation, pre-marital pregnancies, and shotgun
marriages , but VERY LOW fertility outside marriage. More common among lower
education groups.
Table 4: First event experienced by Japanese women 20-49 among those who experienced
at least one of the three (either conception, cohabitation or marriage), by education, 2009.
First event = Conception Cohabitation Marriage
Junior High School 33.3% 40.5 26.2
High School 18.6 24.9 56.5
Vocational 18.7 30.5 50.8
Junior College 11.9 16.5 71.6
University 6.8 23.9 69.3
Source: courtesy of James Raymo, data: JSFE 2009
18. JAPAN: The shifts by generation
Table 2: Tracks of partnership formation and parenthood, Japanese women 25-69, 2004.
Age % ever-cohab % solely % neither % ever cohab/ % premar pregn or birth/
married ever in union ever-marr + parous
___________________________ ________________________________
Source: courtesy of Noriko Tsuya, data Japan GGS.
25-29 20 34 46 37 43
30-34 17 62 21 21.5 28
35-39 16 77 8 17.2 19
40-44 12 83 5 12.6 16
45-49 8 87 5 8.4 14
50-54 7 89 4 7.3 10
55+ 4 93 3 4.2 9
19. PR CHINA: Cohabitation take-off among High school and College graduates
and in large urban areas; very low fertility outside marriage.
Table 6: Percentages ever-cohabiting among all women, by age and completed level of
education, P.R. of China, 2014.
Age Illiterate* Primary Middle High School College +
20-24 21.6 36.2 (22.7) (15.6) (5.9)
25-29 14.5 25.0 27.7 35.9 31.2
30-34 9.2 18.9 27.5 31.2 27.0
35-39 15.5 13.2 16.6 26.0 27.0
40-44 8.5 11.6 12.5 18.0 6.8
* or partially literate only. Source: courtesy of Jia Yu and Yu Xie, data: China Family Panel Study (CFPS) 2014
round. Note: figures between parentheses denote that many women 20-24 in these higher educational
categories have not yet made it to any union. As they progress to enter unions these figures will increase
considerably.
20. Philippines – A Catholic Asian exception: definite take off of cohabitation but
predominantly among women with secondary education, less at either one of
the extremes. (Same profile by wealth quintile)
Table 5: Percentages currently cohabiting in the Philippines among (a) all women 25-29 and
(b) women in a union (married + cohabiting) 25-29; by education and wealth quintiles. DHS
surveys of 2003 and 2013.
A. Education 2003(a) 2013(a) 2003(b) 2013(b)
No education 10.6 23.0 12.5 26.0
Primary 10.2 27.3 12.1 32.2
Secondary 6.5 32.1 8.4 40.3
Higher 2.9 13.5 5.1 26.3
Total 6.3 23.8 8.7 34.6
21. 4. Exogamous lineage systems of sub-Sahara Africa
• Very few data on cohabitation, but premarital sex common.
• Definitely decline of polygyny, and reduction age gap between
spouses.
• Rises of alternative partnership formats : concubinage
(“deuxième bureaus”) and male migrants’ “little houses” at
other location.
• Rising single motherhood.
• Expectation: increasing cohabitation except in Muslim North +
Muslim East Coast (strong control over women).
22. New forms of behaviour: “Ready, Willing, and Able”
• PoD-thesis: “Readiness” or economic advantages connected
to the “poor man’s marriage” is crucial factor, assumes rise in
“Readiness” as result of adverse economic conditions and
spread to larger disadvantaged population segment.
• SDT-thesis: “Willingness” or ethical/religious (versus
individual autonomy) factors are critical in evolution =>
cohabitation as part of the “ethics revolution” (next slide)
with respect to divorce, abortion, homosexuality, suicide,
euthanasia.
• Ability: also legal code and legal adaptations are crucial, often
connected to a rising ethical acceptability (“willingness”) of
cohabitation.
23. The ethics revolution. Never justified: Abortion, Suicide, Divorce,
Euthanasia, Homosexuality
24. Conclusions
• Total effect = ethno-historical (EHT) built-in tradition + PoD + SDT.
• Global overall & large rises, except in Muslim & Hindu patriarchal
societies.
• Continued strong resistance to be expected in Hindu & Muslim
societies (also ethics rigor). Buddhist/Confusian tradition : ethics
adaptation, possibly next candidates ?
• Japan (PoD), PR China (SDT), Philippines (PoD+SDT) exceptions.
Low extramarital fertility maintained in former two.
• Old & New Europes: overall rises swamp educational differences
(PoD+SDT), positive gradients and V-shaped form majority.
• Syncretic Americas: strong EHT and PoD, SDT clearly emerging after
1970
• Sub-Saharan exogamous: wide variety of patterns, decline polygyny,
but strong(er) control of girls and women in the Muslim part.
