Abstract
BACKGROUND
In the context of increasing cohabitation and growing demand for understanding the driving forces behind the cohabitation boom, most analyses have been carried out at a national level, not accounting for regional heterogeneity within countries.
OBJECTIVE
This paper presents the geography of unmarried cohabitation in the Americas. We offer a large-scale, cross-national perspective together with small-area estimates of cohabitation. We decided to produce this map because: (i) geography unveils spatial heterogeneity and challenges explanatory frameworks that may work at the international level but have low explanatory power in regard to intra-national variation. (ii) we argue that historical pockets of cohabitation can still be identified by examining the current geography of cohabitation. (iii) our map is a first step toward understanding whether the recent increase in cohabitation is an intensification of pre-existing traditions or whether it has different roots that also imply a new geography.
METHODS
Census microdata from 39 countries and 19,000 local units have been pulled together to map the prevalence of cohabitation among women.
RESULTS
The results show inter- and intra-national regional contrasts. The highest rates of cohabitation are found in areas of Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia and Peru. The lowest rates are mainly found in the United States and Mexico. In all countries the spatial autocorrelation statistics indicates substantial spatial heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results raise the question as to which forces have shaped these patterns and remind us that such forces need to be taken into account to understand recent patterns, particularly increases, in cohabitation.
Introduction
For a vast majority of countries in both North and South America, unmarried cohabitation increased significantly in the recent decades (Esteve et al. 2012, Binstock 2008, Cabella et al. 2004, Quilodrán 2010, Kennedy and Bumpass 2008, Le Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2004) (see Appendix 1). In many Latin American countries, cohabitation was not an anomaly. It had coexisted with marriage since colonial times (Castro-Martín 2002, Rodriguez Vignoli 2005). But there were also major variations, with several Southern Latin American areas having a low historical incidence of cohabitation (e.g. Southern Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay). By contrast, marriage was almost universal in the United States and Canada until at least the second half of the XXth century (Cherlin 2004, Le Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2004). Despite the spread of cohabitation has reached all layers and regions of the society, there are still marked social and geographic differences. In countries with pre-existing traditions of cohabitation, the social and spatial gradient of present cohabitation echoes the geo-cultural legacies and the historical pattern of disadvantage bond to traditional cohabitation. By contrast, in countries with weak or non-existent tradition of cohabitation, social and regional heterogeneity in cohabitation provides information about the social groups and regions that spearheaded the trend. While there is a sizeable amount of literature on the social gradient of cohabitation and its theoretical implications (Lesthaeghe and van de Kaa, 1986; van de Kaa 1987; Perelli-Harris et al. 2010; Kenney and Goldstein 2012), less attention has been given to regional differences. Most research on cohabitation has been carried out at a national level, thus not accounting for regional heterogeneity within countries (see an exception in Klüsener 2012 or in Coale and Watkins 1986).
To fill the regional gap we present a detailed geography of unmarried cohabitation in the Americas in this article. We have created a map of 39 countries extending from Canada to Argentina, with more than 19,000 spatial units in which the percentage of cohabiting women among all women aged 25-29 who are in union is represented. We aim at unveiling spatial heterogeneity to show the marked regional differences that exist both across and within countries. Our map marks the first step toward understanding the roots and causes of the recent cohabitation boom, whether it is basically an intensification of pre-existing traditions and, therefore, history’s ‘revenge’, or whether it has different roots that also imply a new geography. In either case, to answer this question, a time-based perspective will be necessary. At this stage, our map primarily documents the dominant picture of cohabitation in the year 2000 but not of the degree to which this picture has changed over time. Even though we lack the time perspective, we argue that historical pockets of cohabitation can still be identified by examining the current geography of cohabitation2.
Methodology
The results presented in this paper have been obtained using census data from 2000 census round. Assembling these data involved working with more than 20 million individual records of women 25-29 years old from 39 countries and 19,191 administrative units. For each unit, we have computed the percentage of cohabiting women among 25-29-year-old women in union 3 (See Appendix 2). The method to distinguish between cohabiting and married couples was similar across all countries except for the United States. In all Latin American countries and in Canada as well, the census includes an explicit category on cohabitation within the marital or relationship status questions. For the United States, cohabiting couples had to be identified based on their relationship to the head of household and marital status: the unmarried partner of an unmarried head of household is considered to be in a cohabiting union. 4
In all countries except Bolivia, Chile, El Salvador and Honduras, we used the lowest geographical level at which we could compute the prevalence of cohabitation among 25-29-year-old women in relationships. In Bolivia, for instance, we used the 314 secciones instead the 1384 cantones; in Chile, we used 314 municipios instead of 2,881 distritos; in El Salvador, 261 municipios in place of 2,270 cantones; and in Honduras, we used 298 municipios instead of 3,727 aldeas. The primary reason for not using the lowest geographic detail in these four countries was that more than 50% of these areas had less than 25 women of our targeted ages, which added lots of local uncertainty. Even with these precautions, five percent of the areas considered in the final map had fewer than 25 women in the denominator. Among them, 25% had extreme estimates of cohabitation, below 10% or above 90%. We made use of Spatial Empirical Bayes (SEB) techniques (see Assunçao et. al. 2005) to smooth our rates only when the estimations were based on small sample sizes and differ significantly from its neighboring units. The map with the unsmoothed rates does not differ significantly from the smoothed one (results and details available from the authors).
Results
The spatial distribution of cohabitation in the Americas (as measured with the smoothed estimator) is shown in Map 1. Around the year 2000, the global cohabitation rate of the Americas was approximately 35% of 25-29-year-old women in a relationship. Clearly above this level, the highest rates of cohabitation were found in Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia and Peru. On the contrary, the lowest cohabitation rates are mainly found in the United States and Mexico. Canada, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile occupied intermediate positions in 2000.
Map 1. Share of consensual unions among all 25- to 29-year old women in union based on census data from the 2000 census round. (Color version*).
Source: Authors’ own work based on census microdata from the represented countries (see Appendix 2 for the exact sources). *See Appendix 3 for a black and white version
As shown in Map 1, there are huge variations both across and within countries, as illustrated by the boxplots in Figure 1. The levels of cohabitation vary between the low values observed in the US and the high values in Panama, Peru and the Dominican Republic. Boxplots graphically depict the lower, the median and the upper quartiles for each country. Countries have been ordered on the basis of their median values. Most of the Caribbean countries are not represented here because we only had one observation. Median values range from 11.5% in the United States to 78.9% in the Dominican Republic. The United States is the only country where the median is below 20%. In the 20 to 40% range, we observe a very diverse set of countries, including Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago. In the 40 to 60%, there are three Central American countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras) as well as Venezuela and Barbados. Above the 60% median level, there are five countries: Colombia, Cuba, Panama, Peru and the Dominican Republic.
Figure 1. Regional distributions of the proportions of consensual unions among all 25-29-year old women in union by country based on census data from the 2000 census round.
Source: Authors’ own work based on census microdata from the represented countries (see Appendix 2 for the exact sources).
To measure regional heterogeneity within countries, we computed the interquartile range (IQR). The levels of regional heterogeneity within countries are not strictly comparable because the units have not been standardized by population or land mass criteria and the number of units varies across countries. Nevertheless, our results show that countries with very few observations may show high regional heterogeneity, while regional heterogeneity may be low in countries with many observations. In the United States, there are more than 2,000 units but there is an IQR of 5.7. Mexico also has more than 2,000 units but the IQR is 21.8. Ecuador is the country that has the highest IQR, with a value above 40. After Ecuador, Canada has an IQR of 38, which also indicates a substantial amount of regional heterogeneity. Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Venezuela and Mexico have IQRs ranging between 20 and 30. IQRs below 15 are found in Paraguay, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Barbados, El Salvador, the United States and Uruguay.
In Figure 2 we present the relative distribution of each country’s population based on the level of cohabitation of the administrative unit in which they reside, to supplement the information in the boxplots. The countries are ordered as in Figure 1. By year 2000, 60% of the population in the United States lived in areas where cohabiting couples represented less than 20% of all unions. At the other end, virtually the whole population of the Dominican Republic resided in areas where cohabiting couples comprised of more than 60% of all couples. The highest the country’s median level of cohabitation (as shown in Figure 1), the highest the share of the population that resides in areas with above 40% cohabitation. Ecuador and Canada are the two exceptions to this rule. Both countries, particularly Canada, show similar percentages of population living in both areas of low and high levels of cohabitation.
Figure 2. Distribution of the population by level of cohabitation of the administrative units.
Source: Authors’ own work based on census microdata from the represented countries.
The dispersion results shown in Figure 1 are not informative regarding the spatial distribution of cohabitation within countries. In Table 1, we report the degree of spatial 5 autocorrelation using Global Moran’s I index for the largest countries of the Americas (the index cannot be computed for many Caribbean countries with a single administrative unit, as its computation requires comparison of the levels of cohabitation between different administrative units within each country). Most countries have moderate to high levels of spatial autocorrelation. This is particularly true in Ecuador, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, Panama, Costa Rica and Canada, in which Moran’s I index is above 0.8. A Global Moran value above 0.8 indicates that there is strong spatial clustering in these countries, which means that the observed levels of cohabitation are not randomly distributed within countries but that there are clusters of local areas with high levels of cohabitation and others with low levels. As we see in Map 1, the parroquias in the Andean region of Ecuador have extremely low levels of cohabitation, whereas the parroquias in the Amazonian and Coastal regions have very high levels of cohabitation. Canada has a level of clustering similar to Ecuador. The highest rates of cohabitation are clearly clustered in the province of Quebec. At the other end, the countries with the lowest values of the Global Moran index (Mexico and the United States) show the lowest levels of cohabitation. The low values observed in Uruguay (0.227) might have been influenced by the low geographical detail in that country.
Table 1. Global Moran’s I based on census data from the 2000 census round.
| Country | Global Moran’s I | Country | Global Moran’s I |
|---|---|---|---|
| North America | Caribbean | ||
| Canada | 0.8393 | Cuba | 0.8206 |
| Mexico | 0.4160 | Dominican Republic | 0.6842 |
| United States | 0.4465 | South America | |
| Central America | Argentina | 0.8309 | |
| Costa Rica | 0.8197 | Bolivia | 0.8153 |
| El Salvador | 0.4160 | Brazil | 0.7794 |
| Guatemala | 0.4805 | Chile | 0.8123 |
| Honduras | 0.7535 | Colombia | 0.8175 |
| Mexico | 0.6504 | Ecuador | 0.9228 |
| Nicaragua | 0.6102 | Paraguay | 0.6506 |
| Panama | 0.8319 | Peru | 0.7611 |
| Uruguay | 0.2270 | ||
| Venezuela | 0.7509 |
Source: Authors’ own work based on census microdata from the represented countries (see Appendix 2 for the exact sources).
To see where the geographical pockets of high and low cohabitation are, we calculated the Local Moran’s I for each spatial unit (Anselin, 1995) in the Americas. In this exercise, we did not impose country boundaries. Map 2 allows the visual inspection of the cluster analysis. The high-high and the low-low locations are referred to as spatial clusters and the high-low and low-high locations are spatial outliers.
Map 2. Local indicators of spatial autocorrelation (LISA) of the share of consensual unions based on census data from the 2000 census round.
Source: Author’s own work based on census microdata from the represented countries (see Appendix 2 for the exact sources).
Spatial clustering of high cohabitation occurs in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and large areas of Amazonian Brazil, all forming a large continuum of high cohabitation. In the Brazilian state of Pará as well as in certain areas of Brazil’s eastern coast, between the municipalities of Recife and Salvador, there is spatial clustering of high cohabitation. Other clusters are found in the northern part of Argentina and the northwestern area of Bolivia. In Central America, there is a large continuum of high cohabitation stretching from Panama to El Salvador with the exception of Costa Rica. In the Caribbean, we find that the eastern part of Cuba as well as most of the municipalities in the Dominican Republic fall into the high-high category. Finally, in Northern America, we find clustering of high cohabitation in the Mexican states of Veracruz and Chiapas and virtually the entire Canadian province of Quebec.
Regarding the areas of spatial clustering of low levels of cohabitation, they are mainly found in North America, virtually in all areas in the United States, most areas of Mexico and the areas located in the south-central part of Canada, near the US border. In South America, low-low units are mainly located around the metropolitan area of Santiago de Chile, in western regions of Bolivia, in the Ecuadorian Andes, in Uruguay and in Southern and Eastern Brazil (with the exception of Brazil’s Atlantic coast). In Central America, we only find this type of administrative unit in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica.
Conclusions
This paper has explored the distribution of cohabitation in the Americas with unprecedented geographical coverage and detail. Using complete census microdata from virtually all countries in the region, we have presented a highly detailed map of cohabitation that includes more than 19,000 administrative units. The entire paper emphasizes the power of geography to unveil substantial regional heterogeneity across and within countries. We have shown that the prevalence of cohabitation varies dramatically across the Americas, from the low levels of cohabitation in the United States and Mexico to the high levels of Central America, the Caribbean and the Amazonian and tropical areas. The macro-regional patterning of cohabitation has to be re-examined in light of the substantial heterogeneity within countries. Global indicators of spatial autocorrelation have shown significant levels of spatial clustering, as nicely shown in the cases of Ecuador, Canada, and Brazil. If we use a continental scale, the US appears to be one of the most homogeneous countries in the Americas.
What lies behind this varied geography? We must dig into history to understand the regional patterning of cohabitation in the Americas. We must explore the history of colonization and the subsequent development in American societies of Christianization, ethnic mixing, and social and political structures. All of these factors and their complex interactions need to be incorporated into an explanatory framework to explain the spatial patterning of cohabitation. Substantial efforts are now being devoted to the construction of a comparable set of explanatory variables across countries that can measure at the individual and the contextual levels dimensions such as religion, race and social stratification in American societies. Only with a clear picture of the underlying causes of historical cohabitation we will understand the recent boom in cohabitation and its future growth.
Appendix 1. Share of cohabiting women (25-29 y.o.) by country and census round
| Country | 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | Dif, 2010- 1970 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 11.1% | 13.0% | 22.5% | 41.3% | 66.6% | 55.5 |
| Bolivia | . | . | . | 34.7% | ||
| Brazil | 7.6% | 13.0% | 22.2% | 39.3% | 51.0% | 43.4 |
| Canada | 21.4% | 36.1% | 44.9% | |||
| Chile | 4.6% | 6.7% | 11.3% | 24.6% | ||
| Colombia | 19.7% | 33.2% | 49.2% | 65.6% | ||
| Costa Rica | 16.8% | 19.4% | . | 32.6% | 48.5% | 31.7 |
| Cuba | . | . | . | 55.8% | ||
| Ecuador | 26.9% | 29.4% | 30.1% | 37.4% | 47.4% | 20.5 |
| El Salvador | 53.1% | 54.0% | ||||
| Mexico | 15.3% | . | 15.2% | 22.7% | 37.1% | 21.8 |
| Nicaragua | 42.7% | 54.9% | 55.5% | |||
| Panama | 58.9% | 52.3% | 53.2% | 62.5% | 73.9% | 15.0 |
| Peru | . | . | 43.1% | 69.8% | ||
| Puerto Rico | 8.5% | 5.2% | 12.0% | |||
| United States | 11.7% | 18.4% | 27.3% | |||
| Uruguay | 9.6% | 14.0% | 23.5% | 70.8% | 61.2 | |
| Venezuela | 30.8% | 32.6% | 36.9% | 51.6% |
Source: Own work from population censuses
Appendix 2. Summary of the census data, boundary files and geographic details used to analyze the prevalence of consensual unions in the Americas in the 2000 census round
| Country | Census Year |
Census data provider* |
Census sample |
Denomination | Adm. level |
Number of units |
Average pop. per unit |
Average surface area (km2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North America | ||||||||
| Canada | 2001 | STATCAN | 20% | Census division | 2 | 288 | 104,191 | 34,669 |
| Mexico | 2000 | CELADE | 100% | Municipality | 2 | 2,443 | 39,711 | 803 |
| United States | 2000 | IPUMS | 5% | PUMA | 3 | 2,071 | 135,887 | 4,744 |
| Central America | ||||||||
| Belize | 2000 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 232,111 | 21,989 |
| Costa Rica | 2000 | CELADE | 100% | District | 3 | 459 | 8,301 | 112 |
| El Salvador | 2007 | CELADE | 100% | Municipality | 2 | 262 | 21,924 | 77 |
| Guatemala | 2002 | CELADE | 100% | Municipality | 3 | 331 | 33,949 | 327 |
| Honduras | 2001 | CELADE | 100% | Municipality | 2 | 298 | 20,392 | 377 |
| Nicaragua | 2005 | CELADE | 100% | Municipality | 2 | 153 | 33,609 | 787 |
| Panama | 2000 | CELADE | 100% | Corregimiento | 3 | 592 | 4,793 | 126 |
| South America | ||||||||
| Argentina | 2000 | CELADE | 100% | Department | 2 | 532 | 68,158 | 5,223 |
| Bolivia | 2001 | CELADE | 100% | Section | 3 | 314 | 26,351 | 3,442 |
| Brazil | 2000 | CELADE | 100% | Municipality | 3 | 5,507 | 30,847 | 1,543 |
| Chile | 2002 | CELADE | 100% | Commune | 3 | 342 | 44,200 | 2,220 |
| Colombia | 2005 | DANE | 100% | Municipality | 2 | 1,113 | 36,995 | 994 |
| Ecuador | 2001 | CELADE | 100% | Parish | 3 | 995 | 12,218 | 255 |
| French Guyana | 2008 | INSEE (FR) | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 219,266 | 83,299 |
| Paraguay | 2002 | CELADE | 100% | Census District | 2 | 241 | 21,424 | 1,655 |
| Peru | 2007 | CELADE | 100% | District | 3 | 1,833 | 14,955 | 702 |
| Rep. of Guyana | 2002 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 751,230 | 209,739 |
| Uruguay | 1996 | CELADE | 100% | Department | 1 | 19 | 166,514 | 9,340 |
| Venezuela | 2001 | CELADE | 100% | Parish | 3 | 1,116 | 20,658 | 830 |
| Caribbean | ||||||||
| Anguilla | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 11,430 | 83 |
| Antigua and Barbuda | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 63,863 | 436 |
| Bahamas | 2000 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 303,611 | 13,388 |
| Barbados | 2000 | CELADE | 100% | Parish | 1 | 11 | 22,728 | 74 |
| Cuba | 2002 | IPUMS | 10% | Parish | 1 | 15 | 745,845 | 7,382 |
| Dominica | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 69,775 | 754 |
| Dominican Republic | 2002 | CELADE | 100%* | Municipality | 3 | 225 | 38,056 | 212 |
| Grenada | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 103,137 | 360 |
| Guadeloupe | 2008 | INSEE (FR) | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 401,784 | 1,731 |
| British Virgin Islands | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 23,161 | 169 |
| Jamaica | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 2,607,63 5 |
11,000 |
| Martinique | 2008 | INSEE (FR) | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 397,693 | 1,118 |
| Montserrat | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 4,303 | 101 |
| Saint Kitts and Nevis | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 46,325 | 267 |
| Saint Vincent and the | 100%* | Single division | ||||||
| Grenadines | 2001 | CARICOM | 0 | 1 | 106,253 | 398 | ||
| Saint Lucia | 2001 | CARICOM | 100%* | Single division | 0 | 1 | 156,741 | 614 |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 2000 | CELADE | 100% | Parish | 1 | 15 | 74,318 | 344 |
Source: Own work.
Aggregate data in the Census Samples
Appendix 3 Share of consensual unions among all 25- to 29-year old women in union based on census data from the 2000 census round. (Black and White version)
Source: Authors’ own work based on census microdata from the represented countries (see Appendix 2 for the exact sources)
Footnotes
This research has been funded by the WorldFam project, European Research Council (ERC-2009-StG-240978) and the project “Inmigración internacional y familia en España: trayectorias de pareja en perspectiva transnacional” (CSO2011-24544)” funded by the Spanish Minister of Science and Innovation. Albert Esteve is the Principal Investigator of both projects.
We have used local spatial autocorrelation statistics to examine the map of cohabitation in Brazil for 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010. The spatial clustering of cohabitation is very similar across years despite the overall increase in cohabitation. The degree of correlation between the 2000 cohabitation rates and earlier measures is in the vast majority of countries higher than 0.7. Results are available from the authors.
The levels of cohabitation at age 25-29 vary between men and women because women form unions at earlier ages. However, the geography of cohabitation is essentially the same regardless of which sex is taken as a reference. Since the main focus of the paper is to identify the hotspots of cohabitation and not to compare patterns between men and women, we decided to show only results for women to avoid unnecessary repetition. The degree of correlation between female and male cohabitation rates across local units is 0.93. Concentrating on the 25-29 age group permits the comparison of successive cohorts at an age at which education is already completed and patterns of family formation become clear. Alternative age groups yielded exactly the same spatial patterning. The degree of correlation between female 25-29 and female 35-39 cohabitation rates across local units is 0.87.
Recent research has shown that this approach underestimates US cohabitation levels by 20% compared to direct methods (Kennedy and Fitch 2012). Consequently, we adjusted our estimates to reflect this under-reporting. Our adjusted estimates of the percentage of women who were cohabiting in 2000 exactly match the cohabitation estimates produced for 2002 using a direct cohabitation question (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008).
The Global Moran’s I index is defined as where the observations Zi,Zj are in units of deviation from the mean, and the weights wij take a value of 1 whenever ‘i’ and ‘j’ are neighbors and 0 otherwise. By definition, the values of I are bounded between −1 and 1. A value close to 1 is attained whenever most administrative units are surrounded by other administrative units with similar cohabitation levels. When the levels of cohabitation in most administrative units differ greatly with respect to their neighbors, Global Moran’s I takes a value close to −1.
References
- Anselin L. Local indicators of spatial association-LISA. Geographical Analysis. 1995;27:93–115. [Google Scholar]
- Assunçao R, Schmertman CP, Potter JE, Cavenaghi S. Empirical Bayes estimation of demographic schedules for small areas. Demography. 2005;42(3):537–558. doi: 10.1353/dem.2005.0022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Binstock G. Cambios en la formacion de la familia en Argentina: cuestion de tiempo o cuestion de forma?; Paper presented at the tirad Congress of the Latin American population Association (ALAP); Cordoba, Argentina. 2008.Sep, pp. 24–26. [Google Scholar]
- Cabella W, Peri A, Street MC. Dos orillas y una transicion? La segunda transición demografica en Buenos Aires y Montevideo en perspectiva biografica; Paper presented at the first Congress of the Latin American Population Association (ALAP); Caxambu MG, Brazil. 2004.Sep, pp. 18–20. [Google Scholar]
- Castro-Martin T. Consensual unions in Latin America: the persistence of a dual nuptiality system. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2002;33(1):35–55. [Google Scholar]
- Cherlin A. The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66:848–861. [Google Scholar]
- Coale AJ, Watkins SC, editors. The decline of fertility in Europe. Princeton University Press; Princeton: 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Esteve A, Lesthaeghe R, López-Gay A. The Latin American Cohabitation Boom. Population and Development Review. 2012;38:55–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00472.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kenney CT, Goldstein J. Too poor to marry? A cross-national comparison of the SES-gradient in non-marriage; Presentation at the European Population Conference; Stockholm. 2012; Jun, pp. 13–16. Session nr. 50. [Google Scholar]
- Klüsener S, Perelli-Harris B, Sánchez-Gassen N. Spatial Aspects of the Rise of Nonmarital Fertility Across Europe Since 1960: The Role of States and Regions in Shaping Patterns of Change. European Journal of Population. 2012 DOI 10.1007/s10680-012-9278-x. [Google Scholar]
- Kennedy S, Fitch C. Measuring Cohabitation and Family Structure in the United States: Assessing the Impact of New Data From the Current Population Survey. Demography. 2012;49(4):1479–1498. doi: 10.1007/s13524-012-0126-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kennedy S, Bumpass L. Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research. 2008;19:1663–1692. doi: 10.4054/demres.2008.19.47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lesthaeghe R, van de Kaa DJ. Twee demografische transities? In: Lesthaeghe, van de Kaa, editors. Groei and Krimp. Van Loghum-Slaterus; Deventer: 1986. pp. 9–24. Annual book volume, Mens en Maatschappij. [Google Scholar]
- Le Bourdais C, Lapierre-Adamcyk É. Changes in Conjugal Life in Canada – Is Cohabitation Progressively Replacing Marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66(4):929–942. [Google Scholar]
- Minnesota Population Center . Integrated Public Use Microdata Series International: Version 6.1. University of Minnesota; Minneapolis: 2011. [Machine-readable database] [Google Scholar]
- Perelli-Harris B, Sigle-Rushton W, Lappegard T, Keizer R, Kreyenfeld M, Berghammer C. The educational gradient of childbearing with cohabitation in Europe. Population and Development Review. 2010;36(4):775–801. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00357.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Quilodran J. Atisbos de cambios en la formación de las parejas conyugales a fines de milenio. Papeles de Población. 2010;6(25):9–19. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez Vignoli J. Union y cohabitacion en America Latina: modernidad, exclusion, diversidad? CELADE, Division de Poblacion de la CEPAL and UNFPA; Santiago de Chile: 2005. Serie Poblacion y Desarrollo 57. [Google Scholar]
- van de Kaa Dirk J. “Europe’s second demographic transition.” Population Reference Bureau. Population Bulletin. 1987;42:3–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]