Very interesting, Javiero. Thank you for this analysis.
Another complicating factor in interpreting causes for rates of out-of-wedlock births are regional differences in history of slavery. I know more about this in the Caribbean than in Latin America, so I'll use just the Caribbean as my example.
So, when people from West Africa were brought to the Caribbean as slaves to work in monoculture agriculture (mainly sugarcane), it was initially just men. Later, women started to be imported as well. Different colonizing countries had different approaches regarding how to import women and the legal status of children born of enslaved women, but a common theme was that relationships between slaves were easily dissolvable. Even in places where enslaved men and women were allowed to "marry" each other, the marriage could be dissolved at the whim of the owners. Further, it was common for enslaved women to be impregnated by their owners, with no legal obligation on the part of owners to recognize the children as their own. I think this is a mechanism that would lead to cultures that do not see much of a difference between marriage and cohabitation, and see single motherhood as the typical way children might be raised.
In addition to your data showing some relationship between Canarian influence in particular Latin American regions and marriage/cohabitation/unwed parenthood rates, I also wonder what the history of African import chattel slavery was in these regions. To my uneducated eye, it looks like there's some relationship: the farmlands of Colombia and Venezuela had much more monoculture agriculture and thus chattel slavery than did, say, the mountains of Peru.
> In addition to your data showing some relationship between Canarian influence in particular Latin American regions and marriage/cohabitation/unwed parenthood rates, I also wonder what the history of African import chattel slavery was in these regions. To my uneducated eye, it looks like there's some relationship:
That's a very good observation. I've been told that some of the differences I notice between countries with significant Canarian influence and the rest of Latin America might be due to the Canarian countries being Caribbean in culture; maybe the cultural traits that I attribute to Canarian culture are part of a package better described as Caribbean culture. And what I (and most people, I think) understand as Caribbean culture is to a large degree influenced by the culture that African people brought into the region and, of course, also the circumstances (slavery) under which they arrived in the Caribbean. African ancestry is high in the Caribbean and it seems plausible that I'm mistaking one cultural influence for the other.
I'm planning on writing a post to address that, and see if I can isolate the effect of African ancestry and African culture, including what might be attributed to slavery.
(I'm currently writing a kind of sequel to this post, which tangentially touches on the same "Caribbean is no the same as Canarian" subject. Hope to finish it today.)
> but a common theme was that relationships between slaves were easily dissolvable..., the marriage could be dissolved at the whim of the owners.
I can tell you that this wasn't the case in Spanish America. There was legal recourse for slaves who found themselves in a situation like that (e.g. one spouse was going to be sold away).
Very interesting, Javiero. Thank you for this analysis.
Another complicating factor in interpreting causes for rates of out-of-wedlock births are regional differences in history of slavery. I know more about this in the Caribbean than in Latin America, so I'll use just the Caribbean as my example.
So, when people from West Africa were brought to the Caribbean as slaves to work in monoculture agriculture (mainly sugarcane), it was initially just men. Later, women started to be imported as well. Different colonizing countries had different approaches regarding how to import women and the legal status of children born of enslaved women, but a common theme was that relationships between slaves were easily dissolvable. Even in places where enslaved men and women were allowed to "marry" each other, the marriage could be dissolved at the whim of the owners. Further, it was common for enslaved women to be impregnated by their owners, with no legal obligation on the part of owners to recognize the children as their own. I think this is a mechanism that would lead to cultures that do not see much of a difference between marriage and cohabitation, and see single motherhood as the typical way children might be raised.
In addition to your data showing some relationship between Canarian influence in particular Latin American regions and marriage/cohabitation/unwed parenthood rates, I also wonder what the history of African import chattel slavery was in these regions. To my uneducated eye, it looks like there's some relationship: the farmlands of Colombia and Venezuela had much more monoculture agriculture and thus chattel slavery than did, say, the mountains of Peru.
I would be interested to know your thoughts.
> In addition to your data showing some relationship between Canarian influence in particular Latin American regions and marriage/cohabitation/unwed parenthood rates, I also wonder what the history of African import chattel slavery was in these regions. To my uneducated eye, it looks like there's some relationship:
That's a very good observation. I've been told that some of the differences I notice between countries with significant Canarian influence and the rest of Latin America might be due to the Canarian countries being Caribbean in culture; maybe the cultural traits that I attribute to Canarian culture are part of a package better described as Caribbean culture. And what I (and most people, I think) understand as Caribbean culture is to a large degree influenced by the culture that African people brought into the region and, of course, also the circumstances (slavery) under which they arrived in the Caribbean. African ancestry is high in the Caribbean and it seems plausible that I'm mistaking one cultural influence for the other.
I'm planning on writing a post to address that, and see if I can isolate the effect of African ancestry and African culture, including what might be attributed to slavery.
(I'm currently writing a kind of sequel to this post, which tangentially touches on the same "Caribbean is no the same as Canarian" subject. Hope to finish it today.)
> but a common theme was that relationships between slaves were easily dissolvable..., the marriage could be dissolved at the whim of the owners.
I can tell you that this wasn't the case in Spanish America. There was legal recourse for slaves who found themselves in a situation like that (e.g. one spouse was going to be sold away).