De Vos Susan. 1987. Latin American Households in Comparative

8/20/2019 De Vos Susan. 1987. Latin American Households in Comparative

1/18

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpst20

Download by: [Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona] Date: 06 November 2015, At: 08:52

Population Studies

ISSN: 0032-4728 (Print) 1477-4747 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpst20

Latin American Households in ComparativePerspective

Susan De Vos

To cite this article: Susan De Vos (1987) Latin American Households in Comparative

Perspective, Population Studies, 41:3, 501-517, DOI: 10.1080/0032472031000143026

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000143026

Published online: 04 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 50

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0032472031000143026#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0032472031000143026#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0032472031000143026http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0032472031000143026http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rpst20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rpst20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000143026http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0032472031000143026http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpst20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpst20


2/18

Popula t i on S tud i e s

41 (1987), 501 517

Prin t ed i n G rea t Br i t a in

L a t i n A m e r i c a n H o u s e h o l d s

Comparat ive Perspect ive

S U S A N D E V O S f

in

I N T R O D U C T I O N

A d i s t u r b i n g e l e m e n t i n re c e n t t h e o r i z in g a b o u t t h e r o le o f th e h o u s e h o l d i n

i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o r d e p e n d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t I i s t h e f a c t t h a t l i t t l e i s k n o w n a b o u t t h e

c o m p o s i t i o n o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d s i n m o s t a r e a s o f t h e d e v e l o p i n g w o r l d ,

i n c l u d i n g L a t i n A m e r i c a . ~ I s it r e a s o n a b l e t o t h e o r i z e b y u s i n g a n u c l e a r m o d e l t h a t

e m p h a s i z e s a m a n , h i s w i f e a n d c h i l d r e n 3 o r i s i t m o r e r e a s o n a b l e t o u s e a m o d e l o f a n

e x t e n d e d h o u s e h o l d t h a t i n c l u d e s o t h e r k i n a s w e ll ?4 A r e h o u s e h o l d s h e a d e d b y w o m e n ,

e i t he r s i n g l e - p a r e n t h o u s e h o l d s o r e x t e n d e d h o u s e h o l d s , c o m m o n e n o u g h t o b e i n c l u d e d

i n a n y g e n e r a l t h e o r y ? H o w c o m m o n a r e u n r e l a t e d s e r v a n ts , l o d g e rs o r b o a r d e r s ?

D u r i n g t h e e a r ly 1 96 0s , o n e o f W i l l i a m G o o d e ' s 5 m a j o r c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t f a m i l y

c h a n g e a r o u n d t h e w o r l d w a s t h a t m o d e r n i z a t i o n w a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m o v e m e n t

t o w a r d s a c o n j u g a l , e g a l i t a r i a n f a m i l y s y s te m . T h i s w o u l d i m p l y t h a t t h e o r i e s o f s o c i a l

r e p r o d u c t i o n t h a t u s e d a n u c l e a r f a m i l y m o d e l m i g h t , i n d e e d , b e a p p r o p r i a t e . H o w e v e r ,

a n u m b e r o f E u r o p e a n s o c i a l h i s t o r i a n s b e g a n t o a r g u e d u r i n g t h e l a t e 19 60 s, o n t h e

b a s i s o f n e w h i s t o r i c a l e v id e n c e , t h a t t h e W e s t e r n f a m i l y w a s b a s i c a l l y c o n j u g a l e v e n

b e f o r e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , ~ a n d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n a n d f a m i l y

o r h o u s e h o l d s t r u c t u r e w i l l b e d i f f e r e n t e l s e w h e r e . 7 I n p r e - i n d u s t r i a l t i m e s t h e y a r g u e , t h e

h o u s e h o l d f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m o f N o r t h w e s t e r n E u r o p e w a s d i s ti n c t i n t h a t t h e a g e a t

m a r r i a g e o f b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n w a s r e l a t iv e l y h i g h , a c o n j u g a l c o u p l e h a d t o e s ta b l i sh

* The a uth or gratefully acknowledges permission from the statistical offices of Colo mb ia, C osta R ica, the

Do minica n Republic, M exico, Panam a an d Peru to use W orld Ferti l i ty Survey data to study household

structure in Latin America. The project was funded by NICHD under grant HD18788. Mr Beverly Rowe,

former He ad o f the Com puter a nd Archive Division o f the W orld Ferti l i ty Survey, facil itated the project 's

access to the d ata. Cheryl Kn obelo ch and Rog er Wojtkiewicz provided assistance in data handling. Shir ley

Mellema and Valerie Bower provided secretar ial assistance. Thomas Burch and an anonymous reviewer

provided helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper . F acili ties of the Center for D em ography an d

Ecology of the University o f Wisconsin-Madison, funded b y N IC H D Center Gra nt H DO5876, are also

gratefully acknowledged.

i" Research A ssociate at the Center for De m ogra phy and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-M adison, 1180

Obs ervatory Drive, M adison, W isconsin 53706, U.S.A.

i Joan Smith, Immanuel Wallerstein and Hans-Dieter Evers (eds.) , Househo lds and t he Wor ld -Economy

(Beverly Hills, Ca. : Sage Publications, 1984).

Thomas K. Burch , 'Hou sehold and family demo graphy: a b ib l iograph ic essay ' ,

Popula t i on Index

45

(1979), pp. 173-195.

a Friedric h Engels and Ka rl Marx , 'Th e basis of the family ' , Ch apter 6 in Neil J. Smelser (ed.) ,

K a r l M a r x

on Soc i e t y and Soc ia l Change (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1973).

4 Robert Hackenberg

et al .

'The u rban household in dependent development ' , Chap ter 8 in R ober t

McC. Net t ing e t a l. Hou seho lds: C ompara t i ve and Hi s tor i ca l S tud i e s o f t he Dom es t i c Group (Berkeley,

University of California Press, 1984).

5 W il l iam J. Goode ,

W o r m R e v o l u t i o n a n d F a m i l y P a t t e r n s

(New York: The Free Press, 1963).

e Peter Laslett , ' Introdu ction , Ch apter in H o u s e h o l d a n d F a m i l y in P a s t T i m e (Cambr idge: Cambr idge

University Press, 1972).

7 Peter La slett and oth er social historians have used evidence on household com posit ion to discuss problems

abo ut family structure. Altho ugh the family and the household should n ot be equated, the nature of the

household can prov ide indications abo ut the family.

501

Downloadedby[UniversidadAutonom

adeBarcelona]at08:5206November2015


3/18

5 0 2 S U S A N D E V O S

t h e i r o w n h o u s e h o l d u p o n m a r r i a g e s a n d h o u s e h o l d s t e n d e d t o b e s i m p le . 9 I t i s a l so

o b s e r v e d t h a t m a n y r u r a l p r e - i n d u s t r i a l h o u s e h o l d s i n c l u d e d m e m b e r s w h o w e r e n o t

r e l a t e d t o th e h o u s e h o l d h e a d , b u t w e r e y o u n g p e o p l e p e r f o r m i n g a p e r i o d o f s e r v i c e

b e f o r e t h e y m a r r i e d a n d e s t a b l i s h e d h o u s e h o l d s o f t h e i r o w n . 1° n T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e

n u c l e a r f a m i ly m o d e l b a s e d o n W e s t e r n t h e o r y m a y n o t b e a p p r o p r i a t e .

C o m m o n t o b o th t h e m o d e r n i z a t i o n a n d W e s t e r n f a m i l y a r g u m e n t s h o w e v e r , i s t h e

f a c t t h a t n e i t h e r i s b a s e d u p o n m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t L a t i n A m e r i c a . T h e r e w a s

i n su f fi c ie n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r G o o d e T t o i n c l u d e t h e r e g i o n i n h i s t r e a ti s e o n f a m i l y

c h a n g e , w h i l e t h e E u r o p e a n s o c i a l h i s t o r i a n s d i s c us s I n d ia , C h i n a a n d J a p a n b u t h a v e

n e g l e c t e d a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n N o r t h w e s t E u r o p e a n d L a t i n A m e r i c a 3 ~ 14 A r g u m e n t s

a b o u t t h e d is t i n c t i v e e c o n o m i c c o n t e x t s o f c o l o n i a l i s m a n d d e p e n d e n t c a p i t a l i s m in

L a t i n A m e r i c a t~ a l s o f a il t o p r o v i d e e v i d en c e o n w h a t t h e f a m i l y o r h o u s e h o l d f o r m is .

T h i s i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e m a n y c e n s u s e s f r o m t h e r e g i o n s t il l d o n o t c o n t a i n e v e n t h e

s i m p l e s t i n f o r m a t i o n o n h o u s e h o l d s , a n d d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n o n h o u s e h o l d t y p e is

a l m o s t e n t i r e l y l a c k i n g ( f o r a r e c e n t s u m m a r y , s e e T o r r a d o~ S ) .

T h e p u r p o s e o f t h is p a p e r i s t o e x a m i n e s u r v e y d a t a o n h o u s e h o l d c o m p o s i t i o n i n s ix

c o u n t r i e s t h a t c a n l e a d t o t e n t a t i v e s u g g e s t io n s a b o u t t h e s i m i la r i t i e s a n d d i s t i n c ti o n s

b e t w e e n a L a t i n A m e r i c a n h o u s e h o l d s y s te m a n d t h a t o f N o r t h w e s t e r n E u r o p e o r

e l s e w h e r e . 17 T o d o s o , I e x a m i n e s e v e r a l d i m e n s i o n s s u g g e s t e d b y s c h o l a r s : ( 1) h o u s e h o l d

c o m p l e x i t y , ( 2) a g e a t m a r r i a g e a n d t h e s e p a r a t e r e s i d e n c e o f c o n j u g a l c o u p l e s , ( 3 ) t h e

p r o p e n s i t y to h a v e u n r e l a t e d h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s a n d ( 4 ) f e m a l e h e a d s h i p . I u s e d a t a

a John H ajna l , Tw o k inds o f p re indust ria l household fo rmat ion system , Population and Development

Review 8 (1982), pp. 4 49~ 94.

9 Peter Laslett, Ch aracter ist ics of the Western family considered over t im e , pp. 12-50, in Peter Laslett,

Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations (Ca m bridg e: Cam bridge University Press, 1977).

10 Hajnal,

loc. cir.

in footnote 8.

11 Richard Wall , Th e age at leaving hom e , Journal o f Family History 3 (1978), pp. 181-202.

1~ Goode,

op. cit.

in footnote 5.

is Laslett, op. cit. in footnote 6.

14 Hajnal, loc. cit. in footnote 8.

15 France sca M. Cancian, Louis W olf Go odm an an d Peter H. Smith, Ca pitalism , industr ialization, and

kinship in L atin Am erica: m ajor issues , Journal of Fam ily History 3 (1978), pp. 319-336.

1~ Susana T orrado , Es trateg ias familiares de vida en Ame rica La tina : la familia com o un idad de

investigacion censal (primera p art e) , Notas de Poblacion no. 26, pp. 55-106; and Fa m iliare s de vida en

Am erica Latina : la familia como unidad d e investigacion censal (segnnda par te) , Notas de Poblacion no. 27,

1981.

17 The issue o f conceptualization and definition plagues any c om parative study th at a ttempts to f ind

com mon patterns w ithin diverse social contexts. I t has been argued th at i t is meaningless or futi le to try to

com pare households in different societies because a single concept of ho us eh old is inapp ropriate in all

contexts, or because the household is prop erly considered in terms o f function rat her th an form. (See e.g.

Benjamin N. F. White, R ura l household studies in an thropolog ical perspe ctive , pp. 3-25, in H ans P.

Binswanger et al. (eds.), Rural Household Studies in Asia (Singapore: S ingapore University Press, 1980); Hym ie

Rubenstein, Ca ribb ean family and household organ ization: some conceptual clar if ications , Journal of

Comparative Family Studies 14 (1983), pp. 283-298; R ichard W ilk and R ober t McC. Netting, Ho use hold s:

changing forms and functions , in Rob ert McC. Netting

et al. Households: Compa rative and Historical Studies

o f the Domestic Group (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984).) Ye t the ho use ho ld is at the core

of much social theory that attemp ts to generalize abou t social behaviour beyond the confines of one culture

with one technology. F or no other reason th an this, we must develop stan dard measures, conscious tha t the

mo re an analysis adheres to a pa rticular scheme of analytic categories, the mo re l ikely i t is to be co mp arable,

an d th e less likely it is to adhere to a ctua l behaviour. Conversely, the m ore strictly it adheres to specific folk

categories, the less l ikely i t is to be com parable (Eugene A. Hamm el, O n the *** of studying household form

and funct ion , Chapter 2 in Rober t McC. N et t ing et al. Households: Compa rative and Historical Studies of the

Domestic Group

(Berkeley, University o f Ca liforn ia Press, 1984). Dem ographers define the household in

terms of the co-residential unit , recognizing that all household members thus defined ma y not share a com mon

budget or take their meals together in all circumstances, and that significant transfers may exist between

households (Richard W al l , In t rod uct io n , in Richard W al l (ed .) , Family Forms in Historic Europe

(Ca mb ridge : Cam bridge University Press, 1983).




4/18

L A T I N A M E R I C A N H O U S E H O L D S I N C O M P A R A T I V E P E R S P E C T I V E 5 03

f r o m M e x i c o , C o s t a R i c a , t h e D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c, is P a n a m a , C o l o m b i a a n d P e r u

g a t h e r e d i n t h e m i d d l e 1 9 7 0 s .

B A C K G R O U N D

Factors underlying household organization in Latin America

F o u r m a j o r f a c t o r s un d e r l y in g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d s i n L a t i n A m e r i c a a r e th e

i d e a l iz a t i o n o f t h e p a t r i a r c h a l e x t e n d e d h o u s e h o l d , t h e i d e a li z a t io n o f th e r o l es o f m e n

a n d w o m e n , m a r i t a l p a t t e r n s ( h i gh a g e s a t m a r r i a g e f o r b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n , t h e

c o m m o n c u s t o m o f c o n s en s u a l u n io n a n d h i g h m a r i ta l i n st ab i l it y) a n d c o m m o n r u r a l -

u r b a n m i g r a t i o n a m o n g y o u n g w o m e n . T h e f ir st th r e e f ac t o r s a r e r o o t e d i n th e n a t u r e

o f t h e S p a n i s h c o n q u e s t i n L a t i n A m e r i c a , w h i l e th e f o u r t h h a s b e e n l i n k e d t o L a t i n

A m e r i c a s i n t e rm e d i a t e l ev e l o f d e v e lo p m e n t .

T h e S p a n i a r d s b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m f r o m t r a d i t io n a l p r e - i nd u s t r ia l S o u t h e r n E u r o p e

t h e n o t i o n t h a t a n o l d e r m a l e s h o u l d p r e s i d e o v e r a f a m i l y th a t e x t e n d e d b e y o n d h i s o w n

n u c l e a r u n i t t o i n c lu d e m a r r i e d s o n s a n d o t h e r k i n . 1~ ~° T h e o l d e r m a l e w a s s u p p o s e d t o

h e a d a n e c o n o m i c u n it o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n , a n d h e w a s s u p p o s e d t o h a v e

a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e li fe a n d d e a t h o f h is w i f e, c h i l d r e n a n d g r a n d c h i l d r e n . A l t h o u g h t h is

i d e a l w a s s h a r e d b y a l l s o c i a l c l a s s e s , i t s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n a c t u a l i z e d m o s t c l o s e l y

t h r o u g h o u t L a t i n A m e r i c a b y th e la n d e d g e n t r y o f E u r o p e a n a n c e s tr y .

R e l a t e d t o t h e i d e a o f th e p a t r i a r c h a l f a m i l y w a s a s e t o f i d e a s a b o u t t h e i d e a l ro l e s

o f m e n a n d w o m e n . T h e i d e al m a n w a s s u p p o s e d t o b e fo r c ef u l, d a r in g a n d v ir il e

w h e r e a s t h e i de a l w o m a n w a s s u p p o s e d t o b e su b m i s s iv e a n d o r ie n t e d t o w a r d s h e r

f a m i l y . W h e r e a s t h e v i ri le m a n c o u l d e n g a g e i n s e x u a l e x p l o i t s o u t s i d e m a r r i a g e , a

w o m a n w a s e x p e c t e d t o b e c h a s t e b e f o r e a n d f a i th f u l w i t h i n m a r r i a g e . 21 T h e

macho

i d e a is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n o f c a s u a l s e x u a l u n i o n s , w h e t h e r o r n o t a m a n c o u l d

o r w o u l d s u p p o r t a f am i l y .

A t h i r d f a c t o r u n d e r l y i n g h o u s e h o l d o r g a n i z a t i o n i n L a t i n A m e r i c a is t h e r e g i o n s

d i s ti n c ti v e m a r i t a l p a t t e r n . A s i n W e s t e r n E u r o p e , a g e s a t f ir s t m a r r i a g e a r e h i g h f o r b o t h

m e n a n d w o m e n , a b o u t 2 2 y e a r s f o r w o m e n a n d 2 6 y e a r s f o r m e n . ~2 ~3 ( C o n s e n s u a l

u n i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a t y p e o f m a r r i a g e f o r th i s p u r p o s e . ) U n l i k e i n W e s t e r n E u r o p e ,

h o w e v e r , c o n s e n s u a l u n i o n i n s t e a d o f c iv il o r r e l ig i o u s m a r r i a g e i s q u i t e c o m m o n . 24

M a n y c o n s e n s u a l u n i o n s a r e s t a b le , e s p e ci a l ly a f t e r c h i l d re n h a v e b e e n b o r n ; t h e s p o u s e s

s i m p l y w a n t e d t o a v o i d p a y i n g t h e r e l a ti v e l y h i g h c o s t o f a w e d d i n g . T h e y m a y l i v e w i t h

is I include the Dom inican R epublic in L atin Am erica, although o thers migh t consider it part of the

Caribbean. M y reason is that it shares a Spanish heritage with other countries in Latin A merica, unlike many

countries in the C aribbean.

~9 How ard I. B lutstein, J. D avid Edw ards, Kathryn T. Johnston, David S. Morrise and Jam es D. Rudo lph,

Colombia: A Country Study (Washington, D .C. : U.S. Gove rnment Printing O ffice, 1983).

zv Thom as E W ell, Jan Knippers Black, How ard I. Blutstein, Kathryn T. Johnston and David S.

McMorris, Mexico: A Country Study (Washington, D .C. : U.S. Gov ernmen t Printing O ffice, 1982).

31 Richard F. Nyrop (ed.), Panama: A Country Study (Washington, D.C.: U.S . Government Printing

Office, 1980).

32 Mo ham med K abir, Th e dem ographic characteristics of household populations , WFS Comparative

Studies,

No. 6, 1980.

23 Jacob S. Siegel, E l h ogar y la fam ilia en la form ulacion de program as de vivenda , Estadistica, June

(1963). Reprinted in Thomas Burch

et al.

(eds.), La

familia eomo unidad de estudio demografico

(San Jose,

Costa R ica: Centro L atinoamericano de Dem ografia (CEL AD E), 1963).

24 See also Susan De Vo s, Using wo rld fertility survey data to study household composition: Latin

Am erica , CDE Working paper 85-22, University of W isconsin, Madison: Center for Dem ography and

Eco logy, 1985.

7 L P S 4




5/18

504 SUSAN DE VOS

T a b l e 1 . S i n gu l a te m e a n a ge a t m a r r i a g e S M A M ) f o r w o m e n a n d m e n , a n d p e r c e n ta g e o f

w o m e n a g e d 3 5 - 6 4 w h o a r e m a r r i e d o r d i v o r c e d / s e p a r a t e d in s i x L a t i n A m e r i c a n a n d o th e r

s e l e c t e d c o u n t r i e s , b y a g e

P e r c e n t

P e r c e n t m a r r i e d d i v o r c e d / s e p a r a t e d

S M A M *

F / M 3 5 - 4 4 t 4 5 -5 4 5 5 ~ 4 3 5 -4 4 4 5 -5 4 5 5 ~ 4

U n w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e - - 7 7 68 53 9 1 2 12

f o r s ix c o u n t r i e s :~

C o l o m b i a 2 2 / 2 6 7 4 6 2 4 7 5 8 7

C o s t a R i c a 2 2 / 2 6 7 4 6 8 5 6 9 1 0 1 0

D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c 2 0 / 2 5 7 5 6 4 4 9 1 6 2 1 2 3

M e x i c o 2 2 / 2 4 8 2 7 3 5 7 6 8 7

P a n a m a 2 2 / 2 6 7 7 6 8 4 9 1 3 1 9 1 9

P e r u 2 3 / 2 6 8 1 7 5 5 8 7 7 8

U n i t e d S t a t e s 1 9 7 5 - - 8 0 7 8 6 8 1 3 1 0 8

N e t h e r l a n d s 1 9 7 5 - - 8 9 8 3 7 2 4 3 3

S p a in 1 9 7 8 - - 8 7 8 1 6 8 1 1 1

P o l a n d 1 9 7 4 - - 8 7 7 9 6 2 5 4 3

J a p a n 1 9 7 5 - - 9 0 8 2 6 5 3 4 3

S o u r c e : W o r l d F e r t i l i t y ' S u r v e y h o u s e h o l d f i le s f o r t h e si x L a t i n A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s g a t h e r e d i n t h e m i d d l e

1 9 7 0 s a n d U n i t e d N a t i o n s 1 9 82

Demograph ic Yearbook

T a b l e 4 0 .

* S M A M f o r w o m e n a n d m e n r ef e rs to t h e s in g u l a t e m e a n a g e a t m a r r i a g e . S M A M i s c a l c ul a t ed f r o m a

c r o ss - s ec t i o na l d is t r ib u t i o n o f m a r i t a l s t a t u s , b y a g e . ' T h e S M A M i s c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y s t r a i g h t fo r w a r d , b u t

s t r i n g e n t a s s u m p t i o n s a re r e q u i r e d , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e r e a r e n o d i f f e re n t i a ls b y m a r i t a l s t a t u s i n m o r t a l i t y a n d

m i g r a t i o n a n d , e s pe c ia l ly , t h a t t h e n u p t i a l i ty p a t t e r n s h a v e n o t c h a n g e d . W h e n t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s a r e m e t , t h e

c r o s s - s e c t io n a l p e r c e n t a g e s s i n g le c a n b e t a k e n t o r e p r e s e n t t h e e x p e r i en c e o f a c t u a l c o h o r t s . ' T h e f i g u r e s a r e

f r o m K a b i r , loc. cir. p . 4 7 , i n f o o t n o t e 2 2 .

~ Ag e s .

~ : F i g u r e s f o r C o l o m b i a a n d P e r u a r e b a s e d o n w e i g h t e d c o u n t s .

o n e s e t o f p a r e n t s u n t i l c h i l d r e n a r e b o r n , a n d e s t a b l i s h t h e i r o w n h o u s e h o l d

th er ea fte r. 25.26

O t h e r c o n s e n s u a l u n i o n s a r e n o t s t a b l e , h o w e v e r , a n d m a r i t a l i n s t a b i l i t y i n L a t i n

A m e r i c a i s r e l a t iv e l y h i g h ( s e e T a b l e 1 ). F o r i n s t a n c e , a n a v e r a g e o f 7 7 a n d 6 8 p e r c e n t

o f w o m e n a g e d 3 5 ~ 1 4 a n d 4 5 - 5 4 r e s p ec t iv e l y w e r e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d i n t h e s ix L a t i n

A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s , c o m p a r e d w i t h b e t w e e n 8 5 a n d 9 0 p e r c e n t a n d 8 1 - 8 5 p e r c e n t i n

t h e N e t h e r l a n d s , S p a i n , P o l a n d a n d J a p a n . A r e l a ti v e ly h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f w o m e n i n

t h e s e a g e g r o u p s w e r e d i v o r c e d o r s e p a r a t e d . A l t h o u g h t h e i d e a l m a y b e t o m a r r y , i t i s

n o t u n c o m m o n i n th e l o w e r cl as se s fo r h o u s e h o l d s t o b e m a t r if o c a l , a n d c h i l d r e n t o b e

f a t h e r e d i n a s e ri es o f fr e e u n i o n s i n w h i c h m e n m o v e i n t e m p o r a r i l y w i t h t h e

m o t h e r . 27-~9 S u c h i n s t a b i li t y c o u l d r e s u l t i n a h i g h i n c i d e n c e o f h o u s e h o l d s h e a d e d b y

w o m e n o r i n a h i g h in c i d en c e o f e x t e n d e d h o u s e h o l d s t h a t w o u l d b e q u i te d i ff e r en t f ro m

t h e i d e a l i z e d p a t r i a r c h a l e x t e n d e d h o u s e h o l d .

A f o u r t h f a c t o r in f lu e n c in g h o u s e h o l d o r g a n i z a t i o n i n m u c h o f L a t i n A m e r i c a is th e

h i g h r a t e o f r u r a l - u r b a n m i g r a t i o n . 3° O n e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h is m i g r a t i o n is t h a t w i v es

~5 C a r m e n D i a n a D e e r e , ' T h e d i f f e re n t i a t io n o f t h e p e a s a n t r y a n d f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e : a P e r u v i a n c a s e s t u d y ' ,

J o u r n a l o f F a m i l y H i s t o ry 3 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p p . 4 2 2 - - 4 3 8 .

2e C a r l K e n d a l l , ' F e m a l e - h e a d e d h o u s e h o l d s a n d d o m e s t i c o r g a n i z a ti o n i n S a n I s i dr o , G u a t e m a l a : a t e st

o f H a m m e l a n d L a s l e t t 's c o m p a r a t i v e t y p o l o g y ' ,

Journa l o f Compara t i ve Fami l y S tud i e s

9 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p p . 1 2 9 -

141 . 27 Bl u ts te i n

et al. op. cit.

p . 1 1 8 , in f o o t n o te 1 9 .

2 a S e e a l s o W e i l

et aL op. cit .

i n f o o t n o t e 2 0 .

29 W i n i f r e d W e e k e s - V a g l i a n i , ' D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c ' , p p . 2 9 1 - 3 2 7 , i n

Women in Deve lopmen t

( P a r i s :

O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r E c o n o m i c C o - o p e r a t i o n a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C e n t r e S t u d ie s , 1 98 0).

30 C a r m e n A . M i r o a n d J o s e p h E . P o t te r , Popu lat ion Po l icy: Research Priori t ies in the Developing W or m

( L o n d o n : F r a n c e s P i n t e r P u b l i s h e r s , 1 98 0).




6/18

L A T I N A M E R I C A N H O U S E H O L D S I N C O M P A R A T I V E P E R S P E C TI V E 5 05

a n d c h i l d r e n m a y b e l e ft b e h i n d i n r u r a l a r e a s a s h u s b a n d s s e e k w o r k i n u r b a n a r e a s. 31

A n o t h e r c o n s e q u e n c e i s t h a t y o u n g u n m a r r i e d w o m e n m a y m i g r a t e to c it ie s i n s e ar c h

o f e m p l o y m e n t b e c a u s e i n r u ra l a r e a s t h e y m a y h a v e ' f e w o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f r e c re a t io n

a n d a l m o s t n o p o s s ib i li ty o f w o r k ' . 3~ S o m e t i m e s , y o u n g u n m a r r i e d r u r a l w o m e n a r e s en t

t o t h e c i t y b y a f a m i l y t h a t e x p e c t s r e m i t t a n c e s f r o m h e r w a g e s . 33 I t is c o m m o n f o r t h es e

y o u n g u n m a r r i e d m i g r a n t s t o b e c o m e d o m e s t ic s e r v an t s in u r b a n h o u s e h o ld s .

Co mmo n a l i t y w i th d ive r si t y

T h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n L a t i n A m e r i c a a n d e l s e w h e r e i s t h e m a i n f o c u s o f t h is p a p e r , b u t

i t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e c u l t u r a l a n d s o c i o - e c o n o m i c d i v e rs i t y b e t w e e n

d i f fe r e n t c o u n t r i e s i n L a t i n A m e r i c a . E a c h c o u n t r y c o n s i d e r e d i n t h is s t u d y - M e x i c o ,

C o s t a R i c a , t h e D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l ic , P a n a m a , C o l o m b i a a n d P e r u - h a s b ee n s u b je c te d

t o a d if f er e nt m i x t u r e o f I n d i a n , A f r o - A m e r i c a n a n d E u r o p e a n i nf lu e nc e s an d p o p u -

l a t io n s . F o r i n s t a n ce , P e r u s ti ll c o n t a i n s a s i g n if i ca n t p r o p o r t i o n o f I n d i a n s i n it s p o p u -

l a t i o n w h i l e i n t h e D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c t h e r e a r e n o I n d i a n s b u t m a n y m u l a t t o e s . 34,3~

T h e r e a r e a l s o s i gn i f ic a n t A f r o - A m e r i c a n p o p u l a t i o n s i n P a n a m a a n d C o l o m b i a . 36,37

M e s t i z o s p r e d o m i n a t e i n M e x i co , C o s t a R i c a, P a n a m a , C o l o m b i a a n d P e r u. 38

P r o b a b l y t h e b e s t il l us t ra t io n o f th e i d e a o f s i m u l t a n e o u s c o m m o n a l i t y a n d d i v er s it y

i s g i v e n b y th e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n b y m a r i t a l s t a t u s ( s ee T a b l e 1).

C o m p a r e d w i t h s u c h c o u n t r ie s a s t h e N e t h e r l a n d s , S p a i n a n d P o l a n d , t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f

w o m e n a g e d 3 5 - 6 4 w h o a r e s e p a r a t e d o r d i v o r c e d i s h i g h in a ll s ix L a t in A m e r i c a n

c o u n t r i e s . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e d i f fe r e n c e b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s i s l a r g e.

C o l o m b i a , M e x i c o a n d P e r u t e n d t o b e a t t h e lo w e r e n d o f a r a n g e w it h a m i n i m u m o f

a r o u n d s ix p e r c en t , w h i le t h e D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c a n d P a n a m a t e n d t o b e a t t he u p p e r

e n d w i t h 13 p e r c e n t o r m o r e .

A n o t h e r e x a m p l e is t h e g r o s s n a t i o n a l p r o d u c t p e r h e a d ( G N P ) . I n a ll s ix c o u n t r i es

G N P w a s b e l o w t h e w o r l d a v e r a g e o f U . S . 2 ,7 5 4 i n 1 98 1, b u t e x c e e d e d th a t f o r th e ' le s s

d e v e l o p e d ' w o r l d o f 7 28 . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e G N P i n P e r u w a s h a l f t h a t i n M e x i c o,

1 , 1 22 c o m p a r e d w i t h 2 , 25 0 . 39 T h e c o u n t r i e s h a v e b e e n c l a s s e d a s i n t e r m e d i a t e i n t h e

s t a g e r e a c h e d i n t h e d e m o g r a p h i c t r a n s i t i o n , e x c e p t f o r P e r u w h i c h h a s b e e n c l a s s e d

a m o n g t h e l e a st a d v a n c e d . 4°

O u r s a m p l e d o e s n o t i n c lu d e t h e m o r e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c a l ly a d v a n c e d c o u n t ri e s o f

L a t i n A m e r i c a s u c h a s B r a zi l, A r g e n t i n a o r C h i le . H o w e v e r , s u c h c u l tu r a l f a c t o r s as

m a r i t a l p a t t e r n s d o n o t a p p e a r t o b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e c o n o m i c i n d ic a t o r s , i m p l y i n g th a t

t h e s ix c o u n t r i e s c a n h e l p t o r e p r e s e n t t h e d i v e r si t y o f L a t i n A m e r i c a . F o r i n s ta n c e ,

a l t h o u g h M e x i c o a n d P e r u a r e a t o p p o s i t e e n d s o f th e r a n g e o f gr o s s n a t i o n a l p r o d u c t

p e r h e a d , t h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f w o m e n a g e d 3 5 - 6 4 y e a r s w h o a r e d i v o r c e d o r s e p a ra t e d ,

31 Deere, loc. cit. in footnote 25.

39 D oug las Butterwo rth and John K. Chance , Latin American Urbanization (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1981), paraphrasing M. Margulis,

Migracion y Marginalidad en la Sociedad Argentina

(Buen os Aires, 1968).

33 Butterworth and C hance, op. cit. p. 57, in footnote 32.

34 Richard F. Nyrop (ed.),

Peru: A Country Study

(Washinton, D.C.: Government Printing Office,

1980).

35 Thomas E. Weil, Jan Knippers B lack, How ard I. Blutstein, Kathryn T. Johnston, D avid S. M cMo rris

and F rederick P. Munson,

Area Handbook for the Dominican Republic

(Washinton, D.C. : U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1973).

39 Blutstein et aL, op. cit. in footnote 19.

37 Nyrop op. cit. in footnote 21.

33 See also W eil

et al., op. cit.

in footnote 20.

39 Pop ulation Reference Bureau.

Data Sheet 1983

(New York: PR B, 1983).

40 Miro and Potter,

op. cit.

p. 45, in footnote 30.




7/18

5 6 S U S A N D E V O S

are similar in both (Table 1). Although GNP per head is similar in Colombia and the

Dominican Republic they are at opposite ends of the range of the proportion of women

aged 35-64 years who are divorced or separated. Also, the singulate mean ages at first

marriage appear similar in all the countries (Table 1).

D A T A

Since data on household composition are scarce in censuses in Latin American

countries, information for this study comes from six World Fertility Survey household

samples gathered in the middle 1970s (1975 to 1977). The

e jure

samples consisted of

9,647; 4,235; 10,685; 12,945; 4,724; and 7,204 households containing 54,846; 23,024;

57,008; 72,694; 23,177; and 39,531 individuals of all ages and both sexes in Colombia,

Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama and Peru, respectively.

Data for different countries were recoded into a relatively standard format. In this

process, original information on relationship to household head was converted into a

standard variable referring to the individual s generation in the household relative to the

head (e.g. whether of the parental, head s or child s generation). Though generally

beneficial, this standardization resulted in the loss of some information regarding

extended kin. For instance, no differentiation was made between children, nieces and

nephews, as all would be coded as belonging to the child s generation. Hence, I had to

assume that an individual in the child s generation was, in fact, the child of the

household head, that an individual in the parent s generation was actually the parent

(in-law) of the head and so forth, instead of a more distant relation. Even with this

assumption, I shall show that extended family households are numerous in the six Latin

American countries.

Lodgers are not considered part of the same household if they do not take their meals

with the people with whom they reside. 41 4~ Thus age-specific headship rates based on

these data are higher than they would be if lodgers were considered part of the same

household; the proportion of people who are recorded as unrelated to the household

head is relatively lower; and the proportions in solitary or no family households are

relatively greater. More information on the data can be found in De Vos 43 and

Kabir. 44

H O U S E H O L D C O M P L E X I T Y

One of the features thought to distinguish a Western household system from systems

elsewhere was the relatively low level of household complexity in the West. 4~ Most

households contained a simple family of parent(s) and child(ren). How does Latin

America fit into a continuum of complexity ?

4x W o r l d F e r t i li t y S u r v e y , I n t e r v i e w e r s I n s t r u c t i o n s ,

B a s ic D o c u m e n t a t i o n

n o . 6 ( V o o r b u rg , N e t h e r l a n d s :

I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t a t i s t i c a l I n s t i t u t e , 1 9 7 5 ) .

~ M e m b e r s o f a h o u s e h o l d li ve t o g e t h e r a n d e a t t o g et h e r. H e n c e a h o u s e h o l d i s n o t

n e c e s s a r i l y

a d w e l l i n g

o r a f a m i l y ( t h o u g h i n m a n y c a s e s i t is ). F o r e x a m p l e , s e r v a n t s o r f r ie n d s l iv i n g w i t h t h e f a m i l y ar e m e m b e r s

o f t h e h o u s e h o l d b u t m a y n o t b e f a m i l y m e m b e r s . A l s o , e sp e ci a ll y in u r b a n a r e as , t h e r e m a y o f t e n b e m o r e

t h a n o n e h o u s e h o l d i n a s in g l e d w e l l i n g ( W o r l d F e r t il i t y S u r v ey ,

l o c . c i t .

p . 1 1 , i n f o o t n o t e 4 1 ) .

4 a D e V o s ,

l o c . c i r .


4 4 K a b i r ,

l o c . c i t .


4 5 L a s le t t ,

o p . c i t .

i n f o o t n o t e 9 .




8/18

L A T I N A M E R I C A N H O U S E H O L D S I N C O M P A R A T I V E P E R S P E C T I V E 5 7

he ratio of adults per household

Since direct information on household complexity is unavailable for most populations,

the adult per household (A/H) ratio is often used to compare household complexity

around the world. This index only requires information on the number of households in

a population and the number of adults. Preferable to an index of mean household

size 4e (see footnote 42), it is predicated on the idea that the least complex households

tend to consist of a solitary adult, whereas extended households usually contain three or

more adults. Although the A/H ratio ignores the average number of children per

household, it is sensitive to the age composition of the adult population. Thus

comparisons are best undertaken with age-standardized ratios. 47 1 have standardized by

using two ages for the beginning of adult status, 15 years and 25 years. Fifteen years is

the age commonly used, but an older age would seem reasonable in the Latin American

populations given the relatively late age at first marriage. 4s

Table 2 contains information on the average household size, the crude A/H ratio

(using the 15+ definition for adults), and two age-standardized A/H ratios

corresponding to different beginning ages for adults for the six Latin American

countries, and several other countries for comparative purposes. The average household

size and the crude A/H ratios in the six Latin American countries were larger than in

either the United States or Ireland. For instance, the mean household size was around

5.4 compared to 3.2 in the United States and 4.1 in Ireland. The crude A/H ratio was

around 3.0 compared to 2.3 and 2.8. When standardized for age however, the A/H

ratios of the six Latin American countries were intermediate between those of countries

of low and high complexity. On one side were the Netherlands and the United States

with (15+) A/H ratios of 2.5 and 2.6, on the other Japan and Ireland with relatively

high A/H ratios of 3.1 and 3.4. It is known that stem household arrangements are

common in these two countries. 49 50 Ratios in the six Latin American countries ranged

from 2.7 to 3.0. As a check, in Puerto Rico a ratio of 2.7 was found. When the adult

population is defined as consisting of individuals 25 years old and older, the differences

are reduced but the same pattern emerges.

4 ~ E a r l y a t t e m p t s a t c o m p a r i s o n u s e d m e a n h o u s e h o l d s i z e t o i n d i c a t e c o m p l e x i t y , r e a s o n i n g t h a t l a r g e r

h o u s e h o l d s t e n d t o b e m o r e c o m p l e x . T h i s p r o v e d t o b e a n u n s a t i s f a c t o r y t e c h n i q u e f o r c o m p a r i s o n b e c a u s e

the re w e re r e l a t i ve ly sma l l d i ff e rences be tween av e rage h ous eho ld s i z es i n ve ry d i f f e ren t t ypes o f soc i e t ie s ( e.g.

Las l e t t , loc. cit. i n foo tno t e 6 ) and d i f f e rences i n househo ld s i z e a re de t e rmined p r imar i l y by f e r t i l i t y , no t t he

l e ve l o f co m p l e x i ty . ( S e e a l s o T h o m a s K . B u r c h , S o m e d e m o g r a p h i c d e t e r m i n a n t s o f a v er a g e h o u s e h o l d s i z e:

a n a n a l y ti c a p p r o a c h , Demography 7 (1970) , pp. 61-69.

~7 T h o m a s K . B u r c h , T h e i n d e x o f o v e r a ll h e a d s h i p : a s i m p l e m e a s u r e o f h o u s e h o l d c o m p l e x i ty

s t a n d a r d i z e d f o r a g e a n d s e x , Demography 17 (1980), pp . 25 -37 . In ad d i t i on , B urch ha s deve loped a n ove ra l l

i n d e x o f h e a d s h i p w h i c h i n d i r e c t l y s t a n d a r d i z e s f o r a g e c o m p o s i t i o n , t h u s w i d e n i n g t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a

s u m m a r y m e a s u r e t o c o u n t r i e s w i t h fe w h o u s e h o l d d a t a . I d o n o t u s e t h e m e a s u r e i n t h i s p a p e r , b e c a u s e I c a n

d i rec t l y s t and a rd i ze t he A /H ra t i o wi th t he ava i l ab l e age- speci fi c h ouse ho ld he adsh ip r a te s .

4 s T h e r a t i o c a n a l s o b e s t a n d a r d i z e d f o r t h e m a r i t a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n w h e r e t h e

n e c e s s a ry d a t a e x i st ( T h o m a s K . B u r c h , S h i v a S. H a l l i, A s h o k M a d a n , K a u s e r T h o m a s a n d L o k k y W a i ,

M e a s u r e o f h o u s e h o l d c o m p o s i t i o n a n d h e a d s h i p b a s e d o n a g g re g a te , r o u t i n e c en s u s d a t a , i n J o h n

B o n g a a r t s , T h o m a s K . B u r c h a n d K e n n e t h W . W a c h t e r ( e ds .) , Family Demography: Methods and Their

Applications ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e ss , 1 9 87 ). U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e n e c e s s a ry d a t a a r e r a r e ly a v a i l ab l e .

40 M i c h a e l G o r d o n , B r e n d a n W h e l a n a n d R i c h a r d V a u g h a n , O l d a g e a n d l os s o f h o u s e h o ld h e a d s h i p : a

n a t i o n a l I r i s h s t u d y , Journal of Marriage and the Family 43 (1981) , pp. 741-747.

50 S . P h i l i p M o r g a n a n d K i y o s i H i r o s i m a , T h e p e r s is t e n c e o f e x te n d e d f a m i l y re s i d en c e i n J a p a n ,

American Sociological Review 48

(1983) , pp. 269-281.




9/18

508 SUSAN DE VOS

Table 2. Mean household size MHHS), crude ratio of adults per household A/H) and

standardized ratios of adults per household St. A /H) for six Latin American and for

selected other countries in comparative perspective

St. A/HI

Crude*

Area MHHS* A/H (15 +) (25 +)

Netherlands (1970) - - - - 2.6 1.9

United States (1970) 3.2 2.3 2.5 1.9

Puerto Rico (1970) - - -- 2.7 2.0

Japan (1970) - - - - 3.1 2.3

Ireland (1971) 4.1 2.8 3.4 2.5

Six Latin-American countries, 5.4 3.0 2.8 2.1

unweighted average:~

Colombia§ 5.6 3.2 2.9 2.1

Costa Rica 5.4 3.2 2.9 2.1

Dominican Republic 5.3 2.9 2.7 2.0

Mexico 5.6 3.0 2.8 2.1

Panama 4.9 2.8 2.8 2.0

Peru§ 5.4 3.1 3.0 2.1

* Data for mean household size and the crude ratio of adults per household for the United States and

Ireland come from a communication from Thomas K. Burch, Department of Sociology, University of Western

Ontario, Canada.

t Data for the standardization of A/H ratios for the Netherlands, the United States, Puerto Rico, Ireland

and Japan come from the age-specific household headship rates published by the United Nations, loc. cit. in

footnote 58; and from the stable population age distribution with a gross reproduction index of 2.5 and life

expectancy at birth of 50 years, published in Bureh, loc. cit. in footnote 46.

J/ Data for the six Latin American countries come from the household samples of the World Fertility

Survey.

§ Figures for Colombia and Peru are based on weighted counts.

The distribution of households by type

Althou gh less commo nly available for most areas of the world, i t is necessary to a ugme nt

info rmat ion on A/ H ratios with distributions that show the propor tions of household

by type, because the A/H ratio is only an indirect measu re of househol d complexity. I

use a typology of household composit ion suggested for historical and comparative

house hold studies by Eugene Ha mm el and Peter Laslett. ~a In its most basic form, the

typology consists of five household categories: solitary, no family, simple family,

extended family and multiple family. Soli tary households consist of only one individual,

whereas no famil y households contain individuals who are not related to each other.

Centred aro und the presence of conjugal units , simple families consist of parent(s) and

children, whereas extended families consist of related indivi duals who do not all belon g

to the same con jug al uni t (see Tabl e 3). 5~ A special case of the exte nde d f amily

househol d, m ultipl e family households, cont ains two or mo re conjug al units, s3

The basic typology can be sub-divided further when there are enough cases. Ha mme l

61 EugeneA. Hammel and Peter Laslett, Comparing household structure over time and between cultures ,

Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16 (1974), pp. 73-109.

53 There seems to be confusion over the categorization of households that contain relatives but no conjugal

unit, for instance, two unmarried siblings. While such households are sometimes considered no family

households, they should be considered extended households, because the household members are kin.

Furthermore, their relationship is no more distant than that between a grandparent and grandchild. In this

study, households composed of such elements without a conjugal couple are always considered extended.

58 The basic typology does not consider the existence of household members who are unrelated to the

household head such as servants. Since the pattern in Latin America proves to be quite different from that of

pre-industrial Western Europe or of India or China, I augment the basic typology by considering whether

households contain an unrelated member.




10/18

L T I N M E R I C N H O U S E H O L D S I N C O M P R T I V E PERSPECTIVE 509

Table 3 .

Comparing household distributions from a number of historical samples and six

Latin American countries in the middle 1970s percentages)

S i m p l e C o m p l e x

H u s b a n d ' E x t e n d e d ' ' M u l t ip l e '

N o a n d S i n g le ( n o o r o n e ( t w o o r m o r e S a m p l e

Sam ple So l i t a ry f ami ly wi fe pa re n t coup le )* coup le s ) To ta l s iz e

Bris tol 7 0 89 1 (2) (0) 2 (72)

( R h o d e I s l a n d )

Ea lin g (1599) 12 2 65 13 (6) (2) 8 (85)

( E n g l a n d )

E a l in g (1861) . . . . (19) (2) 21 (209)

Lo ngu enes se 1 l 61 15 (19) (3) 22 (66)

(France 1778)

Belg rade 2 2 59 8 (15) (14) 29 (273)

(Se rb i a 1733 /4 )

Be rta l ia ( I ta ly 1880) 2 0 54 8 (17) (16) 33 (347)

N ish ino m iya 7 0 32 11 (29) (21) 50 (132)

( Japan 1713)

Y o k o u c h i . . . . (14) (24) 39 (107)

( Japan 1846)

C ol om bi a t 5 1 .0 55 9 (27) (3) 30 (9 ,647)

Co sta Rica 4 0 .9 58 9 (24) (4) 28 (4 ,235)

Do min ican Rep ub l i c 8 0 .9 48 8 (34) (2 ) 35 (10,685)

M exico 4 0 .6 64 7 (19) (6) 24 (12,945)

P an am a 9 1 .0 50 9 (28) (4) 31 (4 ,725)

Peru1 7 0.5 54 8 (26) (6) 31 (7,204)

Source s : Las l e t t , op. cit. pp . 61 , 85 , i n foo tno t e 6 ; Ke r t ze r (Dav id I . Ke r t ze r , Fam i l y L i f e i n Cen t ra l It a l y

188 0-19 10: Sharecropping Wa ge Lab or and Coresidence ( R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , N e w B r u n s w i c k , N e w

Je r sey , 1984 , p . 63 ) ; W or ld Fe r t i l i t y Survey househo ld sample s .

* T h e ' n o - f a m i l y ' c a t e g o r y d o e s n o t i n c l u d e h o u s e h o l d s w i t h s i b li n g s , a s i n L a s l e t t' s o r i g i n al ty p o l o g y . S u c h

h o u s e h o l d s a r e i n t h e e x t e n d e d h o u s e h o l d c a t e g o r y .

t F i g u r e s f o r C o l o m b i a a n d P e r u a r e b a s e d o n w e ig h t e d c o u n t s .

and Las l e t t s4 sugges t 19 poss ib l e sub-d iv i s ions , b u t d i f f e ren t r e sea rcher s t end t o

emphas i ze d i f f e r en t sub-ca t egor i es . I n t h i s s t udy , s imple f ami ly households cons i s t o f :

( a ) hu sba nd -w i fe hou seho lds wi th o r w i thou t ch il d ren , and (b ) s i ng l e -pa ren t households .

Exten ded hou seho lds a r e d iv ided i n to ( a ) spe c i a l hou seho lds con t a in ing r e la t ives bu t

wi th ou t a co n juga l couple , 5s (b ) ex t ended f ami ly ho useh olds wi th one c oup le ( e.g . a

nuc l ea r f ami ly wi th an unm ar r i ed e lde r ly pa ren t ) . The p urpo se o f t h is l a t te r sub-d iv i s ion

is t o d i sce rn t he i nc idence o f co- r es idence am on g n on-m ar r i ed k in which migh t o the rwi se

b e o v e r l o o k e d i f t h e p r i m a c y o f t h e n u c l e a r f a m i l y o r t h e c o n j u g a l u n i t w e r e

em ph asize d. 5~

C o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e p r o p o r t i o n i n d i c a te d b y t h e A / H r a ti o s , t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f

c o m p l e x h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e s ix c o u n t r i e s o f L a t i n A m e r i c a w a s in t e r m e d i a te b e t w e e n t h a t

f o u n d i n h i st o ri c a l s a m p l e s fo r t h e W e s t a n d J a p a n ( C o l u m n 5 o f T a b l e 3 ). W h e r e a s t h e

p r o p o r t i o n o f c o m p l e x h o u s e h o l d s d i d n o t e x c e e d 21 p e r c e n t o f t h e h o u s e h o l d s i n th e

p r e - in d u s t r ia l N o r t h A m e r i c a n o r W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n s a m p l e s a n d n e v e r d r o p p e d b e l o w

39 pe r cen t i n t he two Japanese samples , t he p ropor t i on i n t he s i x La t i n Amer i can

count r i e s r anged be tween 25 and 36 pe r cen t . Th i s i s roughly t he r ange fo r t he samples

f rom Southe rn and Eas t e rn Europe (Ber t a l i a , I t a l y and Be lgrade , Se rb i a ) .

54 Hammel and Las l e t t , loc. cit. p . 96 , i n foo tno t e 51 .

5s T h e s e ' s p e c i a l ' e x t e n d e d h o u s e h o l d s a r e s o m e t i m e s c o n s i d e r e d ' n o f a m i l y ' h o u s e h o l d s .

5e See a lso De Vos, loc. t i t . i n foo tno t e 24 .




11/18


T a b l e 4 . A d e c o m p o s i t i o n o f e x t e n d e d h o u s e ho l d s b y w h e t h e r e x t e n d e d l a t er a l ly , v e r ti c a ll y

o r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f b o t h : s e v e r a l h is t o r ic a l sa m p l e s a n d s i x L a t i n A m e r i c a n c o u n t r ie s i n

t h e m i d d l e 1 9 7 0 s

Type of extension (pe r cent)

Sample Lateral Vertical Co mb ination Tota l

Per cent

of a l l

households

Ealing (29) (57) (14) (7) 8

(England)

Long ueness e (27) (64) (9) (11 ) 17

(France)

Belgra de 38 58 4 79 29

(Serbia)

Nish inom iya 19 76 5 63 48

(Japan)

Bristol (0) (100) (0) (2) 3

(American colonial)

C olo m bia t 25 43 32 2,960 31

Co sta Rica 20 44 36 1,205 28

Do minica n Rep ublic 17 42 41 3,756 35

M exico 17 41 42 3,176 24

Pa na m a 17 44 39 1,486 31

Pe rut 16 42 42 2,264 31

Source: Laslett,

op. cit.

in footn ote 6, p . 85, Table 1.15, W orld F erti l i ty Ho usehold Samples for Mexico,

Co sta Rica, Dominican R epublic, Panama , Colom bia and Peru.

* Extended households are those in which kin who a re no longer members of the same conjugal unit co-

reside. In La tin Am erica, this includes no fam ily households consisting of siblings or oth er relatives. In

laterally extended households there are on ly one or two (proximate) generations in which the extra kin are of

the same generation(s) as the members of the cen tral (nuclear) unit. Vertically extended households con tain

three or more generations o f kin, or two non-proximate generations, but n o latera l extensions. Households

with both lateral and vertical extensions are considered to contain a co m bin atio n of those extensions - e .g .

a household with a widowed sister of the head and a widowed moth er of the head.

t Figures for Co lomb ia and Peru a re based on weighted counts.

T h e r e a s o n f o r t h e a m o u n t o f h o u s e h o l d e x t e n s i o n in L a t i n A m e r i c a , c o m p a r e d t o

S o u t h e r n a n d E a s t e r n E u r o p e o r J a p a n , a p p e a r s t o b e d i f f e r en t h o w e v e r . U n l i k e t h e

o t h e r s a m p l e s , f o r i n s ta n c e , t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f m u l t i p l e f a m i ly h o u s e h o l d s w i t h t w o o r

m o r e c o n j u g a l c o u p l e s w a s r e l a t iv e l y s m a l l i n t he L a t i n A m e r i c a n s a m p l e s ( T a b l e 3 ). I n

a d d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h i s i s l e ss f i r m l y b a s e d e m p i r i c a l l y , h o u s e h o l d e x t e n s i o n i n L a t i n

A m e r i c a a p p e a r s t o h a v e i n v o lv e d m o r e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f v e r t i c a l a n d l a t e r a l e x t e ns i o n .

I a m c o n s t r a i n e d b y t h e r a r i t y o f d e s c r i p t i o n s o f h o u s e h o l d c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h is t y p e t o

c o n s i d e r a g a i n t h e f i ve h o u s e h o l d s a m p l e s c o n t a i n e d i n L a s l e t t s 1 97 2 s t u d y s7 ( se e T a b l e

4 ). I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e o t h e r u n f o r t u i a a t e l y s m a l l s a m p l e s , l o w e r p r o p o r t i o n s o f t h e

c o m p l e x h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e si x L a t i n A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s w e r e e x t e n d e d o n l y v e r t i c a ll y ,

a n d l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n s w e r e e x t e n d e d b o t h l a t e r a ll y a n d v e r ti c a ll y , t h a n a p p e a r s t o h a v e

b e e n t h e c a s e i n t h e o t h e r s a m p l e s . A s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n , r a n g i n g f r o m o n e - s i x t h to

o n e - f o u r t h , o f th e c o m p l e x h o u s e h o l d s i n th e L a t i n c o u n t r i e s w e r e l a te r a l ly e x te n d e d

o n l y .

T h e r e a s o n s f o r th e d if f er e n ce i n h o u s e h o l d c o m p l e x i t y b e t w e e n L a t i n A m e r i c a a n d

e l s e w h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e a c o m b i n a t i o n o f tw o p a t t e r n s : ( 1) t h e r e l a t i ve i n d e p e n d e n c e

o f c o n j u g a l u n i t s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e t e n d e n c y f o r c o n j u g a l c o u p l e s t o e x t e n d t h e i r

h o u s e h o l d s b y in c l u d i n g u n m a r r i e d r e la t iv e s , a n d ( 2) t h e t e n d e n c y f o r m a n y h o u s e h o l d s

h e a d e d b y w o m e n t o b e e x t e n d e d a s w e l l. E a c h o f th e s e i ss u e s w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n

t u r n .

57 Laslett,

op. cit.

in footnote 6.




12/18


M E N S H E A D S H I P A N D T H E S E PA R A T E R E S I D E N C E O F C O N J U G A L C O U P L E S

L i k e W e s t e r n h o u s e h o l d s , h o u s e h o l d s i n L a t i n A m e r i c a r a r e l y c o n t a i n m o r e t h a n o n e

c o n j u g a l c o u p l e . T h e m o s t c o m m o n e x c e p t i o n s to t h i s r u le o c c u r w h e n t h e c o u p l e a r e

y o u n g a n d d o n o t y e t h a v e a n y c h i l d r en , o r w h e n t h e y a re o l d . E v e n u n d e r t h e s e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s h o w e v e r , c o u p l e s t e n d t o li v e i n th e i r o w n h o u s e h o l d . T h e c l e a r e s t

i n d i c a t o r o f th i s t h a t c a n b e c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r c o u n t r ie s w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d a t a

i s t h e a g e - s p e c i f i c h e a d s h i p r a t e o f m e n . T h e r a t e s h o w n i n T a b l e 5 , r e f e rs to t h e

p r o p o r t i o n o f m e n i n a n a g e g r o u p w h o h e a d t h e i r o w n h o u s e h o l d . ( R e c a l l t h a t l o d g e r s

a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s i f t h e y d o n o t t a k e m e a l s w i t h t h e o t h e rs . T h u s

h e a d s h i p r a t e s f o r L a t i n A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s a r e h i g h e r t h a n i f l o d g e r s w e re c o n s i d e r e d

m e m b e r s o f t h e h o u s e h o l d . )

T a b l e 5 . M e n s a g e - s p ec i fi c h e a d s h i p r a t e s in c o m p a r a t i v e p e r s p e c t iv e

A ge .. . 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 +

Un weig hted sam ple average * 11 65 86 92 91 83

High-income av era ge t 12 71 88 92 92 82

Low -income av era ge t 14 59 81 86 87 79

C olo m bia (1976)~: 10 64 85 90 89 80

Co sta Ric a (1976) 10 65 84 92 88 80

Do minica n Rep ublic (1975) 11 64 87 90 91 84

M exico (1976/7) 14 71 89 93 93 86

Pa nam a (1976) 10 62 84 89 90 85

Peru (1977):~ 9 62 88 94 92 84

Pu erto Rico (1970) 14 72 87 90 91 85

Ne therla nds (1970) 18 82 92 95 95 86

Un ited States (1970) 21 84 92 93 94 87

Spain (1970) 3 59 83 90 91 79

Ja pa n (1970) 11 62 83 91 92 68

Irel and (1971) 6 52 73 81 84 75

* Fo r the six Latin Am erican countries.

t Date s for countr ies with high incomes and low incomes per head refer to arou nd 1960, and are presented

in Uni ted Nat ions ,

op. cit.

in footn ote 58, p. 14, Ta ble 2. Estimates for the four developed countries come fro m

United Nat ions , op. cit. in footnote 58, Tables 7 and 9.

:~ Rates for C olom bia and Peru a re based on weighted counts.

I n t h e f i rs t p a n e l o f T a b l e 5 w e s h o w t h e u n w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e f o r t h e s ix L a t i n

A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s a n d a v e r a g e h e a d s h i p r a t e s f o r h i g h - a n d l o w - i n c o m e c o u n t r i e s

a r o u n d 1 96 0 a s r e p o r t e d b y t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s . 5a I n e a c h c a s e , a l t h o u g h t h e n u m b e r s

d i ff e r , h e a d s h i p r a t e s a r e v e r y l o w f o r m e n b e t w e e n t h e a g e s o f 1 5 a n d 2 4 , b u t r i se r a p i d l y

t o a p e a k a t 4 5 - 6 4 y e a r s o f ag e . T h e r a t e s f o r m e n a g e d 6 5 y e a rs a n d o l d e r a r e s o m e w h a t

l o w e r t h a n f o r t h o s e 5 5 - 6 4 y e a r s o f a g e . T h e r a t e f o r 1 5 - 2 4 y e a r o l d m e n i s i n f lu e n c e d

b y a g e a t m a r r i a g e a n d a c h i e v i n g i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m t h e p a r e n t a l h o m e , w h i l e th a t f o r

m e n a g e d 6 5 y e a r s a n d o l d e r i s a f f e c t e d b y r e t i r e m e n t . 59 M o s t s t r i k i n g h o w e v e r , i s t h a t

t h e a v e r a g e h e a d s h i p r a t e s f o r L a t i n A m e r i c a a r e c l o se to t h o s e f o r h i g h - i n c o m e

c o u n t r i e s i n 1 9 6 0.

T h e m i d d l e p a n e l o f T a b l e 5 c o n t a i n s a g e -s p e c if i c h e a d s h i p r a t e s f o r m e n i n i n d i v i d u a l

L a t i n A m e r i c a n c o u n t r ie s . P a n e l 3 o f T a b l e 5 c o n t a i n s h e a d s h i p r a t e s in 1 97 0 f o r l o w -

5s U nited Nations, Es tima tes and Projections of the Nu mb er of Households by Cou ntry, 1975-2000 (New

Yo r k : E S A/P /W F. , U .N . , 1 9 81 ).

59 Uni ted N at ions , Us e o f model headsh ip ra tes , chap ter v i in

Methods o f Projecting Households and

Families, 1973.




13/18


Table 6. Distribution of households headed by married men and formerly married women

for six Latin American countries in the middle 1970s percentages)

H o u s e h o l d t y pe

S i m p l e f a m i l y E x t e n d e d f a m i l y

H u s b a n d / S in g le N o O n e o r m o r e S a m p l e

N o n - f a m i l y * w i f e p a r e n t c o u p l e c o u p l e s s iz e

H e a d e d b y m a r r i e d m e n

U n w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e t - - 7 4 - - - - 2 6

C o l o m b i a - - 7 3 - - - - 2 7 7 ,9 7 1

C o s t a R i c a - - 7 6 - - - - 2 4 3 , 2 2 9

D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c - - 6 9 - - - - 3 1 7 , 3 6 2

M e x i c o - - 8 0 - - - - 2 0 1 0 , 29 4

P a n a m a - - 7 5 - - - - 2 5 3 , 1 0 9

P e r u - - 7 1 - - - - 2 9 5 , 3 8 9

H e a d e d b y f o rm e r l y m a r r i e d w o m e n

U n w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e t 1 4 - - 4 2 3 6 9

C o l o m b i a 8 - - 4 7 3 7 8 1 , 6 7 9

C o s t a R i c a 1 0 - - 4 9 3 3 8 7 2 6

D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c 1 7 - - 3 3 4 4 6 2 , 2 1 7

M e x i c o 1 7 - - 4 3 3 0 1 0 1 , 5 3 5

P a n a m a 1 5 - - 3 6 4 3 6 8 4 7

P e r u 1 4 - - 4 3 3 1 1 3 9 2 6

* N o n - f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s a r e s o l i t a r y o r n o f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s . S ee t e xt .

t F i g u r e s fo r C o l o m b i a a n d P e r u a r e b a s e d o n w e i g h te d c o u n t s .

complexity countries like the United States and the Netherlands, and for the relatively

high-complexity countries like Japan and Ireland (1971), and for Spain and Puerto Rico.

Again, men s headship rates in the Latin American countries tend to be closer to those

in the Netherlands and the United States than in Ireland or Japan (or Spain).

Although comparable headship rates are not available for the other countries, the

rates in Latin America are even higher when computed for married men only, indicating

that married men almost always head their own households rather than share a

household with another married man. In general, 93 per cent or more of the married men

over 35 years old headed their own households, comparable to the proportions reported

by Hajnalr0 for Western Europe in the past (figures not shown; see De Vosel). The

proportion, still high, tended to be only slightly lower for married men aged 25-34.

Headship rates for married men aged 15-24, came to only 72 or below, suggesting that

a minority of young couples reside in a parental household. Since the average marriage

age of men tended to exceed 25 (except in Mexico where it was 24.4), s2 early marriage

may be more liable to be associated with dependent living arrangements.

While married men are likely to head their own households, these are commonly

extended, rather than consisting of simple husband and wife only. One indicator, shown

in the first panel of Table 6, is the distribution of households by type headed by married

men. On average, one-quarter of these households are extended. Also, age-specific

headship rates of formerly-married men and women of around 60-70 per cent, are

clearly lower than those for married men, indicating that formerly-married adults often

6 0 H a j n a l ,

l oc c i t

i n f o o t n o t e 8 .

e l S e e a l so S u s a n D e V o s , L a t i n A m e r i c a n h o u s e h o l d s in c o m p a r a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e , C D E W o r k i n g P a p e r

8 5 - 1 6 , U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , M a d i s o n : C e n t e r f o r D e m o g r a p h y a n d E c o l o g y , 1 9 8 5.

e 2 K a b i r ,

l o c c i t





14/18


j o i n a h o u s e h o l d h e a d e d b y a n o t h e r ( f i g ur e s n o t s h o w n ) . ~s e4 E q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t ,

h o w e v e r , i s t h e fa c t th a t m a n y o f th e f o r m e r l y m a r r i e d a l s o h e a d t h e i r o w n h o u s e h o l d s .

H O U S E H O L D S H E A D E D BY W O M E N

I n c o n t r a s t t o th e s i t u a t io n i n h i s t o r ic a l E u r o p e w h e r e h o u s e h o l d s h e a d e d b y w o m e n a r e

e i t h e r n o t m e n t i o n e d a s a n i m p o r t a n t t y p e e5,66 o r a r e e s t i m a t e d t o b e r e l a t i v e l y

u n c o m m o n , 67 t h e y a r e c o m m o n i n t h e s ix c o u n t r i e s o f L a t i n A m e r i c a s a m p l e d h e re ,

r a n g i n g f r o m 1 4 t o 2 1 p e r c e n t o f a l l h o u s e h o l d s ( T a b l e 7 ). I n a c r o s s -s e c t i o n , th e s e

h o u s e h o l d s c o n t a i n e d b e t w e e n s e v e n a n d 15 p e r c e n t o f a l l c h i l d r e n u n d e r 15 y e a r s o f

a g e . N o d o u b t , a n e v e n g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f c h i l d r e n w i ll h a v e l i v e d i n a h o u s e h o l d

h e a d e d b y a w o m a n a t s o m e p o i n t i n t h e i r l iv e s.

I t i s d i ff ic u lt t o o b t a i n s a t i s f a c t o r y c o m p a r a t i v e d a t a o n h o u s e h o l d s h e a d e d b y w o m e n

b e c a u s e t h e c o m m o n l y u s e d a g e- s p e ci f ic h e a d s h i p r a t e f o r w o m e n i n c lu d e s b o t h m a r r i e d

a n d u n m a r r i e d w o m e n , a l t h o u g h t h e f o r m e r a r e a lm o s t n e v e r co n s i d e re d h o u s e h o ld

h e a d s . S t i l l , a p e r u s a l o f s u c h o v e r a l l r a t e s p r o v i d e s i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n ( s e e T a b l e 8 ) .

F i r s t , w o m e n s h e a d s h i p i s h i g h e r o n a v e r a g e i n l o w - i n c o m e c o u n t r i e s , a s c o m p u t e d b y

t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s f o r 1 96 0, a n d o n a v e r a g e i n th e L a t i n A m e r i c a n c o u n t r ie s in th e

m i d d l e 1 97 0s , t h a n i n th e h i g h - i n c o m e c o u n t r i e s in 1 96 0. A l t h o u g h h i g h e r l ev e ls o f

w i d o w h o o d p r o b a b l y c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n if i ca n t ly t o t h es e f i g ur e s f o r th e l o w - i n c o m e

c o u n t r i e s i t r e m a i n s t r ue t h a t m a n y w o m e n ( b e t w e e n o n e - f i f th a n d o n e - q u a r t e r o f t h o se

a g e d 4 5 - 5 4 ) h e a d e d t h e i r o w n h o u s e h o l d s . S e c o n d l y , t h e r e w a s a de f i n it e a g e p a t t e r n t o

h e a d s h i p t h a t w a s t h e s a m e i n m o s t r e g i o n s o r c o u n t r i e s , i n s p i t e o f d if f e re n c e s i n le v e l:

t h e r a t e s r i s e w i t h a g e i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e c u r v i l i n e a r p a t t e r n f o r m e n , r e f l e c ti n g t h e

i n c r e a s e i n d i s r u p t e d m a r r i a g e w i t h a g e . 6s 69 T h i r d l y , t h e o n l y a g e g r o u p s i n w h i c h t h e

T a b l e 7 .

Propo rtion o f households headed by a woman in the middle 1970s

six Latin American countries

Tota l no . o f

Co untry Per cent households

Colo mb ia* 17.4 9,647

Co sta Ric a 17.1 4,235

Do minica n Rep ublic 20.8 10,683

M exico 13.6 12,945

Pan am a 20.2 4,725

Peru* 14.4 7,204

Source: W orld F erti l i ty Survey household samples.

* Figures for Colom bia and Peru a re based on weighted counts.

6a See De Vos,

loc. cit.

in footno te 61.

64 Fo r any age group, the number of formerly m arried women greatly exceeded that o f formerly married

men. O nce this is take n into c ons idera tion however, there seems to have been l ittle difference between the

headship rates of formerly m arried men and formerly ma rried women under 35 years of age, or between the

ages of 45 and 54 years. Form erly married women aged 35-44 w ere more l ikely to hea d their own households

than formerly m arried men of the same ages, while the opposite was true for those 55 years old or older. This

m ay be rel ated to differences in number of children b y age, and to differences in who lives with children after

separation or divorce. For more on this, see De Vos, loc. cit. in footn ote 61.

e5 See, for example, Hajnal,

loc. cit.

in footn ote 8.

66 S ee, for example, Laslett, op. cit. in footno te 6.

67 See , for example, Richa rd Wall , W om an a lone in English society , Annales de D~mographie Historique

(1981), pp. 303-317.

6s United Nations, op. cit. chap ter x , in footnote 59.

69 Japan is a notable exception to the general pattern, in that the rate for women aged 65 and older is

actually lower than that for the 55-64 ye ar old group.




15/18

514

SUSAN DE VOS

Table 8. W om en s age-specific headship rates fo r s ix La tin A m erican countries in

comparative perspective

Age. .. 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 +

Unweighted sample average* 1.5 6.5 12.8 21.5 29.7 36.3

High-income average 3.2 5.9 8.6 15.5 25.3 39.3

Low-income average 2.5 8.6 16.1 24.7 32.6 37.6

Colombia t 1.5 5.7 13.4 23.3 28.6 31.4

Costa Rica 1.5 6.0 12.2 20.2 26.5 35.0

Dominican Republic 2.5 9.8 17.3 27.8 37.2 47.3

Mexico 0.8 3.9 9.0 16.5 25.9 33.3

Panama 1.3 8.8 15.7 24.5 33.5 42.3

Pe rut 1.1 4.5 9.0 16.6 26.3 28.3

Puerto Rico (1970) 2.1 8.2 14.4 19.2 25.4 35.8

Netherlands (1970) 4.7 5.8 7.0 12.3 23.7 43.6

United States (1970) 5.0 11.4 12.9 16.4 26.1 42.2

Spain (1970) 0.5 1.6 3.7 10.0 20.1 31.1

Japan (1970) 3.9 4.3 7.9 15.9 18.5 13.2

Ireland (1971) 1.9 4.0 5.9 13.8 28.4 37.3

Sources: 'Estimates and Projections of the Number of Households by Country, 1975-2000', United

Nations,

o p . c i t .

Tables 2, 7 and 9, in footnote 58; and World Fertility Survey household samples for Colombia,

Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama and Peru.

* For the six Latin American countries.

~ Figures for Colombia and Peru are based on weighted counts.

women s headship rates were higher for low-complexity, high-income countries, were

those for women 15-24 years of age and 65 years and above.

When age-specific headship rates are computed for formerly married women in the

Latin American countries (figures not shown), 7° it is clear that a majori ty of formerly-

married women aged 35 and older head their own households. Headship was highest for

the 45-54 year-old group, where the average proportion heading their own households

was 71 per cent. Although it might be conjectured that most of the households headed

by formerly married women would be single-parent households, many were in fact

extended-family households (Table 6). 71 Most of the extended households headed by

formerly married women did not contain a conjugal couple (Table 6).

INDIVIDUALS UNRELATED TO THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD

Another dimension of household organization which is different for Western Europe

and the East , and where the pattern in Latin America is again different concerns the

prevalence of individuals living in households headed by a non-relative. There were

many servants, boarders and lodgers in pre-industrial Western Europe, but very few in

India o r China. For example, HajnaF 2 has presented data from several rural areas in

Iceland (1729), Norway (1801), Flanders (1814) and England (1599-1796) to support the

assertion that servants were numerous, apparently always constituting at least six per

cent, and usually over ten per cent, of the total population , and th at almost all servants

were unmarried and most of them were young (usually between 10 and 30 years of age) .

Furthermore, he calculated that there were 100 or more servants or other non-relatives

7o See De Vos,

l o c . c i t .

in footnote 61.

71 Abou t one-third of the households headed by formerly married men were also extended, while non-family

and single-parent households made up the other two-thirds.

7 Hajnal, l o c . c i t . p. 471, in footnote 8.




16/18

L A T I N A M E R I C A N H O U S E H O L D S I N C O M P A R A T I V E P E R S P EC T I V E 5 15

p e r 1 00 h o u s e h o l d s i n r u r a l a re a s o f W e s t e r n E u r o p e i n p r e - in d u s t r i a l t im e s c o m p a r e d

t o o n l y s i x in r u r a l C h i n a o r I n d i a . 73

D o m e s t i c s e r v i ce i s f a i r l y c o m m o n i n L a t i n A m e r i c a t o o , w h e r e t h is is t h o u g h t t o

i n d i c a t e a n i n t e r m e d i a t e l ev e l o f d e v e l o p m e n t . 74 C o n t r a r y t o t h e p a t t e r n i n p r e - i n d u s t r i a l

W e s t e r n E u r o p e h o w e v e r , w h e r e m a l e ' s e r v a n t s ' w e r e c o m m o n i n r u r a l a r ea s , d o m e s t ic

s e r v a n t s i n L a t i n A m e r i c a t e n d o n l y t o b e y o u n g u n m a r r i e d w o m e n i n u r b a n a r e a s .

T h r e e i n d i c a t o r s o f t h is p a t t e r n a r e t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f a l l h o u s e h o l d s t h a t c o n t a i n a n

u n r e l a t e d m e m b e r , t h e n u m b e r o f u n r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s p e r 1 00 h o u s e h o l d s , a n d t h e

p r o p o r t i o n o f a n y a g e a n d s ex g r o u p t h a t c o n s i s t s o f u n r e l a t e d i n d i v id u a l s . 75

B e t w e e n f o u r a n d t w e lv e p e r c e n t o f t h e h o u s e h o l d s i n th e s ix L a t i n A m e r i c a n

c o u n t r i e s c o n t a i n e d a t le a s t o n e m e m b e r w h o w a s n o t r e l a t e d t o th e h o u s e h o l d h e a d ( se e

T a b l e 9 ) . S i nc e th i s i s m o r e c o m m o n i n u r b a n t h a n i n r u r a l a r e a s , t h e p r o p o r t i o n i s

h i g h e r i f o n l y t h e m a j o r m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a o f t h e c o u n t r y i s c o n s i d e r e d . F o r i n s t a n c e , 18

p e r c e n t o f th e h o u s e h o l d s i n B o g o t /t , c o n t a i n e d a m e m b e r w h o w a s n o t r e l a te d t o t h e

h o u s e h o l d h e a d . T h e l o w e s t p r o p o r t i o n w a s e i g h t p e r c e n t o f t h e h o u s e h o l d s i n M e x i c o

C i t y ( T a b l e 9 ) .

H a j n a l ve f o u n d t h a t t h e r e w e r e 1 04 u n r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s p e r 1 0 0 h o u s e h o l d s i n hi s

s a m p l e f o r r u r a l D e n m a r k 1 7 8 7- 1 80 1 . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e r e w e r e o n l y si x u n r e l a t e d

i n d i v i d u a l s p e r 1 00 h o u s e h o l d s i n r u r a l I n d i a i n 1 9 51 . T h e c o m p a r a b l e f i g u r es fo r a ll t h e

h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e s ix s a m p l e s f r o m L a t i n A m e r i c a r a n g e d f r o m 7 t o 18 . T h e f ig u r e c l i m b s

t o b e t w e e n 9 a n d 2 4 p e r 1 00 h o u s e h o l d s w h e n t h e m a j o r m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s a re

T a b l e 9 . P e r c e n t a g e o f h o u s e h o l d s w i t h a n u n r e l a t e d i n di v id u a l a n d n u m b e r o f

u n r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s p e r 1 0 0 h o u s e h o l d s

Percentage of households

with a member unrelated

to the head

Number of unrelated

individuals per

100 households

Capi ta l Cap i ta l

T o ta l c i t y t T o ta l c i t y t

C olo m bia 12.1 18.1 18 24

Co sta Ric a 9.3 16.1 7 9

Do minic an Rep ublic 10.2 15.2 15 23

M exico 4.5 8.2 7 13

Pa nam a 6.4 10.6 9 15

Pe ru 7.2 12.4 11 15

R u r al D e n m a rk - - - - - - 104

Rura l Ind ia (1951):~ - - - - - - 6

Source : Data fo r ru ra l Denmark come f rom Hajnal , loc. cit. in footnote 8, Table 1, in and refer to 26

parishes from 1787 to 1801.

Da ta fo r Lat in Am er ica come f rom W or ld Fer t i l i ty Survey household samples . Data fo r Colombia and Peru

are b ased on weighted counts.

~ F or C olom bia, Bogot/t ; Costa Rica, San Jos6; Dom inican Republic, al l urban a reas; M exico, Mexico

Ci ty ; Panama, P anama Ci ty ; Peru , L ima.

:~ Data for India come from Hajnal, loc. cit. in footnote 8, Table 3, and refer to the Census of India 1951

vol. 1, India Part la Dem ographic Tables table C .I( i i) .

73 See also Wall, op. cit. in footnote 17.

74 Butterworth and Chance, op. cit. in footnote 32.

75 In the D om inican Republic, i t w as not possible to dist inguish between the capital ci ty of Santo Domingo

and other urban areas. Such a distinction was possible in the other countries.

7n Hajnal, loc. cit. in footno te 8.




17/18

516

SUS N DE VOS

c o n s i d e r e d . 7v I n C o l o m b i a a n d t h e D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c e s p e c i al ly , th e p r e s e n c e o f n o n -

r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s i n u r b a n h o u s e h o l d s a p p e a r s i m p o r t a n t .

A c c o r d i n g t o H a j n a l s 78 E u r o p e a n s a m p le s , t h e h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f i n d i v id u a l s

u n r e l a t e d t o th e h o u s e h o l d h e a d w a s a m o n g m e n a g e d 2 0 - 2 4 i n a s a m p l e o f F l em i s h

v i ll a ge s , a t 4 8 p e r c e n t . I n t h e L a t i n A m e r i c a n s a m p l e s , t h e h ig h e s t p r o p o r t i o n w a s f o u n d

f o r w o m e n a g e d 1 5 - 19 y e a r s in B o g o tA . S e v e n t e en p e r c e n t o f th e w o m e n i n th i s a g e

g r o u p w e r e n o t r e l a te d t o t h e h o u s e h o l d h e a d , c o m p a r e d t o o n l y tw o p e r c e n t o f th e m e n

i n th i s a g e g r o u p ( fi g u re s n o t s h o w n ) . T h e p r o p o r t i o n s w e r e e v e n h i g h e r f o r

u n m a r r i e d

w o m e n , a m o n g w h o m f u ll y 2 0 p e r c e n t a t ag e s 2 0 - 2 4 y e a r s w e r e u n r e l a te d t o t h e

h o u s e h o l d h e a d in C o l o m b i a , C o s t a R i c a a n d P a n a m a ; p r o p o r t i o n s in o t h e r c o u n t r i e s

we r e s i mi l a r , r a n g i n g f r o m 1 5 t o 1 8 p e r c e n t .

S UMMAR Y AND DI S C US S I ON

L a r g e g a p s e x i st i n o u r a b i l i ty t o c o m p a r e t h e h o u s e h o l d a n d f a m i l y s y s t e m s in d i f f e re n t

a r e a s o f t h e w o r l d , b e c a u s e o f t h e s c a r c i ty o f a d e q u a t e d a t a . T h i s s i t u a t i o n h a s l e d t o

c o n f li c ti n g i d ea s a b o u t t h e p r o b a b l e i m p a c t o f m o d e r n i z a t i o n o r d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e

f a m i ly . I f t h e e x p e ri e n c e o f N o r t h w e s t e r n E u r o p e c o u l d b e u s e d t o p r e d i c t th e n a t u r e o f

t h e f am i l y e ls e w h e re , t h e n m o d e l s i n w h i c h t h e n u c l e a r h o u s e h o l d p l a y s a d o m i n a n t r o l e

i n s o c i al r e p r o d u c t i o n m i g h t b e v a li d . Y e t a r g u m e n t s b a s e d o n r e c e n t h i st o r i c a l e v i d e n c e

f r o m t h e W e s t l e a d u s t o q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i ty o f a p p l y i n g s u c h a m o d e l . S e v e r a l s o c ia l

h i s to r i a n s h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e h o u s e h o l d f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m o f p r e - in d u s t r ia l

N o r t h w e s t e r n E u r o p e w a s d i s ti n c t f ro m o t h e r s b e c a us e o f la t e ag e s a t m a r r i a g e , t h e

s e p a r a t e r e s id e n c e o f c o n j u g a l c o u p l e s a n d t h e c i rc u l a t io n o f y o u n g u n m a r r i e d

i n d i v i d u a ls i n a n o t h e r s h o u s e h o l d d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f s e rv i ce . L a t i n A m e r i c a i s r a r e l y

i n c l u d e d i n a d e b a t e t h a t u s u a l l y f o c u s e s o n d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n W e s t e r n f a m i l ie s a n d

t h o s e o f t h e E a s t - i .e . o f I n d i a o r C h i n a .

T h e o m i s s i o n o f L a t i n A m e r i c a i s s e ri o u s, b e c a u s e m o r e t h a n i n a n y o t h e r p a r t o f th e

d e v e l o p i n g w o r l d , L a t i n A m e r i c a n s o ci e ti e s h a v e b e e n i n f l u en c e d d e e p l y b y E u r o p e a n

c u s t o m s . I n t h is p a p e r w e h a v e t r i e d t o u s e s ev e r al d im e n s i o n s o f h o u s e h o l d o r g a n i z a t i o n

t o p l a c e L a t i n A m e r i c a n h o u s e h o l d s i n a c o m p a r a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e .

A m a j o r f i n d i n g w a s t h a t L a t i n A m e r i c a n p o p u l a t i o n s s h a r e w i t h p r e - i n d u s t r i a l

E u r o p e t h e c u s t o m o f a la t e a ge a t m a r r i a g e , e v e n w h e n c o n s e n s u a l u n i o n is c o n s i d e r e d

a s a f o r m o f m a r r i ag e . A l s o l ik e p r e - in d u s t r ia l W e s t e r n E u r o p e , t h e r e w a s r a r e ly m o r e

t h a n o n e c o n ju g a l c o u p le in a h o u s e h o ld . T h e m o s t c o m m o n e x c e p ti o n s o c c u r r e d a m o n g

m a r r i e d c o u p l e s w h o w e r e e i t h er v e r y y o u n g o r o l d .

A n o t h e r m a j o r f i n d i n g , t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s L a t i n A m e r i c a n h o u s e h o l d s , i s t h a t t h e i r

c o m p l e x i t y w a s i n t e rm e d i a t e b e tw e e n t h a t o f N o r t h w e s t e r n E u r o p e a n d J a p a n . T h i s w a s

i n d i c a te d b o t h i n d ir e c tl y i n te r m s o f t h e a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f a d u lt s p e r h o u s e h o l d ( T a b l e

2 ) a n d d i r ec t ly b y t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d s w i th m e m b e r s o f m o r e t h a n o n e c o n j u g a l

u n i t ( T a b l e 3 ) . T h e r e a p p e a r e d t o b e t w o r e a s o n s f o r t h i s : t h e t e n d e n c y f o r c o n j u g a l

c o u p l e s t o a c c e p t u n m a r r i e d r e la t iv e s in t o t h e i r h o u s e h o l d s , a n d t h e t e n d e n c y f o r m a n y

h o u s e h o l d s h e a d e d b y w o m e n t o b e e x t e n d e d ( T a b l e 6 ) .

A s e c o n d d i s ti n c t io n f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e h o u s e h o l d o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p r e - in d u s t r ia l

77 N ote that an individual is considered a h ouseho ld m em ber

only

if he/she habitually takes meals with co-

residents. Otherw ise, that perso n is considered a separa te househo ld.

78 Hajnal, loc cit in foo tnote 8.

70 Susan De Vos and Alberto PaUoni, Form al

Documents

De Vos Susan. 1987. Latin American Households in Comparative