The document discusses trends in cohabitation in Latin America from 1930 to 2010 based on census and survey data from several countries. It finds that cohabitation has increased dramatically across all social classes in the region, reflecting both a pattern of disadvantage as well as the diffusion of a Second Demographic Transition characterized by individualism and non-conformity. While cohabitation was once more common among indigenous and lower social groups, it is now widespread among all education and class levels in Latin America. This represents a significant cultural and demographic shift in family formation patterns in the region.

1. Ron Lesthaeghe, Albert Esteve,
Toni Lopez
Centre d’Estudis Demografics,
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.)
The Globalization of the
Second Demographic
Transition:
the Latin American
Experience.
Part 1 : COHABITATION

2. 1. The Ethnic Factor.
Excellent view in Mexico thanks to 1930 Census.
More recent data other countries as well

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 2. The initial Debate
Rising Cohabitation :
1. Pattern of Disadvantage (POD) or
Second Demographic Transition (SDT)?
2. Only as a trial prior to marriage or longer
term substitute of marriage. Cohort profiles ?

6. Low Middle High EDUCATION
SOCIAL CLASS
PERCENT COHABITING
UNIVERSAL CROSS-SECTION IN LATIN AMERICA
(and frequently elsewhere)
HENCE:
COHAB = POD

7. Low Middle High EDUCATION
SOCIAL CLASS
PERCENT COHABITING
Time 1
Time 2
Cross-sections over time :
ONLY POD ?

8. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
primary
completed
Primary
completed
Secondary
completed
University
completed
1970
1980
1991
2000
2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
primary
completed
Primary
completed
Secondary
completed
University
completed
1973
1984
2000
2011
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
primary
completed
Primary
completed
Secondary
completed
University
completed
1974
1982
1990
2000
2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
primary
completed
Primary
completed
Secondary
completed
University
completed
1970
1990
2000
2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
primary
completed
Primary
completed
Secondary
completed
University
completed
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than
primary
completed
Primary
completed
Secondary
completed
University
completed
1975
1985
1996
2010
Brazil
Uruguay
Panama
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Mexico
<Pr
Pr+ Sec
Comp
Tert
Cohab W 25-29
in union
(70s to 2010)

9. Indeed:
POD maintained + SDT now added.
New universal Pan-American pattern
3. Anything special about Latin American
pattern of Cohabitation ? Or a European style
SDT ?

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

11. 4. Is cohabitation cohort driven ?

12. Age 25

13. Age 25

14. 5. What flew under the radar ?
A Worldwide Ethics Revolution ?

15. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1990-94 1995-98 1999-2001 2005-08
Percentoftotalpopulation18+
Homosexuality always unacceptable
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Puerto Rico
Mexico
Uruguay
Venezuela
USA
France
Spain
Ethics revolution : weakening of stigma

16. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990-94 1995-98 1999-2001 2005-08
Percentoftotalpopulation18+
Euthanasia always unacceptable
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Puerto Rico
Mexico
Uruguay
Venezuela
USA
France
Spain

17. Thank you for your attention & comments

19. Percent cohabiting among
women 25-29 in a union, 2000
Source: IPUMS

20. -10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Costa
Rica
Mexico
Panama*
Ecuador
Brazil
Argentina
50%
Percent cohabiting among women 25-29 in a union, regions within countries.
(Ordered on earliest date.)

21. -10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
URUGUAY : percent cohabiting among women 25-29 in a union, 1970-2010
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

22. Future of globalization 2DT
• “non-conformist” (nc) part : completed or in full development in Europe + Americas +
Australia/New Zealand. Far East not immune either esp. Taiwan, Japan, China, Philipines, but
so far parenthood = marriage (shotgun marriages included). But no evidence (yet) for the nc-
part for “patriarchal societies” in the rest of Asia and N. Africa.
• However, strong cleavages may develop within societies along ideational lines (secular versus
orthodox). Example: Israel.
• RWA-conditions: bottleneck is “Willingness” and cultural factors are crucial (cf. ethics
revolution)
• Parenthood postponement part : no ethical-religious obstacles (W-condition not operative),
hence socio-economic factors and rising female education are main driving forces. Result:
strong fertility postponement precedes the nc-part of the 2DT. Examples: southern Europe,
Far East. Or, marriage postponement develops without cohabitation, net fertility
postponement. Example: Maghreb.
• HOWEVER: not all sub-replacement fertility is 2DT feature. Example: southern India with very
early fertility schedule and early stopping (sterilization).

23. 2DT since 1986 : lessons learned over 30 years.
• 2DT= “postponement transition” + “non-conformist transition”. Both
components were strongly linked in western industrialized countries, but
not elsewhere.
• Postponement marriage & fertility precedes rise cohabitation and unwed
parenthood in southern Europe and Far East. Reverse in Latin America.
Contrast follows the “Goody divide” of strongly patriarchal societies versus
rest.
• Just like 1DT : strong historical-systemic path dependency. ( remember
1DT France versus England contrast). Often a “revenge of history” pattern.
• Major roles of rising education, particularly of women + ideational
changes (esp. ethics revolution) => cohort model of social change.
• Trends are taking off and are continued irrespective of economic
fluctuations. Much more is going on than a mere “pattern of
disadvantage” or a reaction to crises.

24. Special topic : history of cohabitation in Mexico
• Discovery : Mexican census of 1930 available in IPUMS , with data on cohabitation.
• Also available since 1970: IPUMS for municipalities with data on both cohabitation
and indigenous languages.
• Now needed: investigation on the history of marriage patterns and on the
differential christianization of indigenous populations.

25. Rise of Cohabitation : Change in Educational Composition or Individual Change ?
Latin America :
(1) very marked rises in female education levels
+ (2) negative cross-sectional gradient of cohabitation profile with higher
education =>
Would imply a decline in cohabitation & a rise of marriage .
Outcome : just the opposite occurred !
All change is due to individual change which entirely washed away the
compositional effect of rising education

26. Proportion cohabiting among women 25-29 in union. 1930*-2010. States ordered as of 1960.
*1930: 8 States no data
1930
1980
2010

27. Proportion cohabiting among
women 25-29 in union. 1930-2010
Legend of Layer #1
Data column: COHA1930
0.0 - 10.0 (3)
10.0 - 20.0 (6)
20.0 - 30.0 (6)
30.0 - 40.0 (3)
40.0 - 64.0 (5)
No Data (9)
Legend of Layer #1
Data column: COHA1960
0.0 - 10.0 (9)
10.0 - 20.0 (12)
20.0 - 30.0 (6)
30.0 - 40.0 (4)
40.0 - 64.0 (1)
Legend of Layer #1
Data column: COHA 1970
0.0 - 10.0 (12)
10.0 - 20.0 (13)
20.0 - 30.0 (3)
30.0 - 40.0 (4)
40.0 - 64.0 (0)
Legend of Layer #1
Data column: coha 1980*
0.0 - 10.0 (11)
10.0 - 20.0 (16)
20.0 - 30.0 (5)
30.0 - 40.0 (0)
40.0 - 64.0 (0)
Legend of Layer #1
Data column: COHA 1990
0.0 - 10.0 (9)
10.0 - 20.0 (16)
20.0 - 30.0 (7)
30.0 - 40.0 (0)
40.0 - 64.0 (0)
Legend of Layer #1
Data column: COHA2000
0.0 - 10.0 (6)
10.0 - 20.0 (6)
20.0 - 30.0 (12)
30.0 - 40.0 (8)
40.0 - 64.0 (0)
Legend of Layer #1
Data column: COHA2010
0.0 - 10.0 (0)
10.0 - 20.0 (2)
20.0 - 30.0 (8)
30.0 - 40.0 (8)
40.0 - 64.0 (14)
1930
2000
1980 1990
1960 1970
2010

28. Percent cohabiting among partnered women 25-29 by education. 1930*-2010
*University 1960 & & 1970: samples small.
Illiterate 29.38
Literate 14.03
Indicator in 1930
(not included 8 states without data)

29. The Latin American experience.
• The geography of the “cohabitation boom”: latest results up to 2010.
• Cohabitation and the changing social class/education gradient.
• Cohabitation & individual positions in household types (nuclear vs
extended/composite) : two types of cohabitation.
• Fertility postponement: top down.
• Social class distinctions: End of 1DT + Start of 2DT = overall fertility
squeeze and below replacement fertility.
• The ethics revolution in Latin America.
• Today’s special : aspects of the Mexican cohabitation history.

30. Legend of Layer #1
0.0 - 0.1 (771)
0.1 - 2.2 (562)
2.2 - 24.7 (561)
24.7 - 100.0 (561)
No Data (0)
Percentage speakers of indigenous languages, women 25-29; 2010 census.

31. Legend of Layer #1
0.0 - 0.1 (771)
0.1 - 2.2 (562)
2.2 - 24.7 (561)
24.7 - 100.0 (561)
No Data (0)
Mexico : Cohabitation maps 1990 and 2010 and
map indigenous languages speakers ( women 25-29)
Cohab 1990
Cohab 2010
Indigenous languages 1990

32. Conclusions for Latin America.
• Cohabitation boom = bottom-up diffusion; postponement transition fertility = top-down
diffusion.
• Cohabitation increases most in countries with low historical incidence of consensual unions
(=> 2DT)
• Cohabitation profiles by education/social class: everyone increases, but higher echelons catch
up, sometimes quite dramatically (=> 2DT)
• Cohabitation takes off in a few countries during the economic crises of the 1980s, but in most
the largest increments are after 1990 or 2000. No stops in rises of cohabitation when crisis
stops. Just the opposite.
• Indigenous populations and “black” subgroups maintain their historically higher levels of
cohabitation throughout the “non-conformist” transition.
• Flying under the radar also in Latin America : the “ethics revolution”.
• Fertility: double feature. Lower social classes are terminating 1DT ( curtailment of fertility at
higher parities and at higher ages). Higher social classes are starting the “postponement
transition” . =>
• Sub-replacement fertility present or very likely in the near future. (=>2DT)
• Sub-replacement fertility not just a temporary phenomenon, but structural (=>2DT)

33. Baja California
Baja California Sur
Campeche
Chiapas
Chihuahua
Coahuila
Colima
Durango
Guanajuato
Guerrero
Jalisco
Michoacán
Nayarit
Nuevo León
Oaxaca
Quintana Roo
San Luis Potosí
Sinaloa
Sonora
Tabasco
Tamaulipas
Veracruz
Yucatán
Zacatecas
1= Querétaro
2= Hidalgo
3= Tlaxcala
4= PueblaAguascalientes
A= México
B= Distrito Federal
C= Morelos
1 2
4
A 3B
C
MÉXICO. Estados o Entidades Federales

34. ESTADO COHA1930 COHA1960 COHA 1970 coha 1980* COHA 1990 COHA2000 COHA2010
Aguascalientes 1.0 4.1 3.71 4.3 9.28 23.8
Baja California 16.3 12.0 14.75 19.9 32.24 50.3
Baja California Sur 20.5 16.7 12.19 18.4 26.19 47.4
Campeche 15.4 10.6 8.28 11.5 18.29 26.6
Coahuila 12.9 10.7 5.6 7.15 6.4 13.13 23.5
Colima 15.6 9.1 12.91 15.7 22.64 38.6
Chiapas 63.6 43.7 38.1 27.82 28.7 34.14 45.7
Chihuahua 18.4 12.9 12.5 11.77 14.0 27.65 44.4
Distrito Federal 13.2 8.9 10.21 16.2 27.26 48.2
Durango 20.7 11.1 12.4 12.55 12.3 22.01 33.9
Guanajuato 4.0 3.9 3.3 3.43 3.5 7.15 18.2
Guerrero 25.7 14.5 13.6 12.52 14.5 19.38 29.4
Hidalgo 59.2 34.7 26.8 24.22 24.9 32.09 47.5
Jalisco 8.0 6.7 6.0 6.02 6.4 11.35 25.9
México 13.9 8.7 9.1 10.51 14.6 24.33 42.0
Michoacán 14.8 5.0 6.1 6.38 6.5 9.97 21.9
Morelos 34.7 25.3 17.7 18.28 20.5 30.39 44.7
Nayarit 34.1 34.3 25.7 28.25 28.8 33.29 43.0
Nuevo León 10.0 6.9 7.4 4.38 4.8 9.74 22.6
Oaxaca 30.9 21.0 23.6 18.18 17.6 24.24 35.6
Puebla 29.0 18.8 19.1 15.79 18.7 31.56 50.1
Querétaro 2.9 3.4 5.94 7.2 16.21 36.7
Quintana Roo 11.8 18.8 10.41 16.4 24.47 45.7
San Luis Potosí 21.0 14.0 10.6 9.99 10.7 15.27 33.0
Sinaloa 54.0 32.6 31.9 22.65 23.1 26.56 32.2
Sonora 19.8 20.3 19.7 14.54 20.2 30.56 40.8
Tabasco 55.3 29.5 33.3 16.44 17.8 27.76 38.3
Tamaulipas 26.6 20.1 17.6 13.58 13.5 21.72 38.5
Tlaxcala 9.1 11.9 13.06 13.7 23.91 42.7
Veracruz 44.8 35.8 33.9 29.61 28.8 35.21 46.5
Yucatán 21.8 12.3 6.6 5.79 5.0 7.56 17.1
Zacatecas 6.9 4.2 5.8 4.19 5.3 8.29 23.3
Total 25.9** 17.2 15.3 13.26 15.2 22.69 37.1
* inegi
** No incluye los Estados sin datos
Proportion cohabiting among women 25-29 in union. 1930-2010

35. SOURCE : Courtesy of K. Neels and B. Perelli

36. Coh
70s
60s
50s
40s
30s

37. K. Neels and B. Perelli

38. Special note : Cross-sectional cohabitation profiles by education
1. Often cohabitation profiles exhibit a negative relationship with
education or social class (especially Eastern Europe, Latin America),
which has been taken as evidence of a pattern unrelated to the SDT
but related to poorer groups being unable to afford marriage ( i.e.
the “pattern of disadvantage”)
2. Cross-sectional profiles can be very misleading if no time sequence is
being presented.
3. Historical negative slopes with education can prevail ( seen in a
single cross-section), but the real test is whether OVER TIME solely
the lower educated have witnessed an increase or whether also the
best educated have joined the process and have caught up.

39. Percent currently cohabiting among women aged 25-29 in all unions, by country, census
round and educational attainment.
Round: 1970 and 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
<Primary Primary Secundary >Secundary
Argentina(AR)
Brazil (BR)
Chile(CL)
Colombia(CO)
CostaRica (CR)
Ecuador(EC)
Mexico(MX)
Panama (PA)
Peru(PE)
PuertoRico (PR)
Venezuela(VE)
MX
PR
CL
EC
BR
CR
AR
VE
PA
PE
CO

40. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Pe Percentages childless women 25-29, Latin
American countries, 1970-2011
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970-77 1978-85 1990-97 1998-20052006-2011
Percent
Percent childless women 25-29 ever in a union, Latin American
countries 1970-2011.
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
CostaRica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Peru
Puerto Rico
Uruguay
Venezuela
Parity distributions corrected for percentages “missing” via Vincent-El Badry method.