housing situation and social policy: a tale of two nationsmiron/mironkunz2005hsspttn.pdf · housing...

Housing situation and social policy: a tale of two nations


John R. Miron Professor and Chair

Department of Social Sciences University of Toronto at Scarborough

1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Canada M1C 1A4 Phone 416 287 7311 Fax 416 287 7283 E-mail [email protected]

Ignacio Carlos Kunz Bolaños Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Posgrado

Facultad de Arquitectura Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 México D.F. MEXICO Phone (55) 5622 0724 Fax (55) 5622 0704 E-mail [email protected]

16 August 2005



Abstract

This paper compares the housing situations in present-day Canada and Mexico. The paper uses a reductionist perspective wherein comparison assumes similar data definitions (data model) and a common conceptualization of the role of individual agency (be-havioral model). In terms of data model, the paper describes international efforts to standardize national population and housing censuses that are thought to render comparable present-day census data for the two nations. At the same time, standardization remains frustratingly imprecise. However, mindful of the limitations that such structuring imposes, census data do support our characterization. In terms of behavioral model, we can account for differences in housing situation between the two nations on the basis of age structure and income distribution. Larger family size helps account for larger household size, as does lower in-come. The paper shows that housing situation is consistent with a behavioral model in which consumers are seen to cope. This paper presents evidence consistent with the idea that self-building has been an important, if implicit, element of social policy in Mexico whereas self-building has been discouraged in Canada. In Mexico, the relative unimportance of the formal rental sector, the pervasive use of shared living arrangements, and a size distribution of the housing stock that is skewed to small dwellings are the main impacts vis-à-vis Canada. As housing policy in Mexico starts to look more like that in Canada, this raises the question of how consumers there might now be expected to cope.

In a market economy, the situation (availability and use) of housing nationally can be seen as the outcome of

market forces mediated by diverse social policy: e.g., housing, employment, immigration, planning, and environ-

mental policy. In this context, a national housing study can be a nuanced account of housing situation that draws

together these strands. However insightful, such a study is typically not rigorous in the sense of developing a

model and method against which competing hypotheses can be tested. Unfortunately, such a study too often also

is idiosyncratic; it is difficult to compare studies for different nations each written by someone else. In contrast, a

reductionist perspective begins by outlining models and methods that are then applied to each nation in turn.

In comparative analysis, it is generally thought to be helpful to contrast nations that are broadly similar but

that differ in a few respects. In that way, it is argued, we can be more confident that we know why a difference in

housing situation arises. However, the more nuanced the description, the more two nations appear to differ. To

make comparisons, we must ensure that the nations are similar enough without ever being able to say just how

much similar is enough. In contrast, a reductionist approach assumes a common model and method applicable to

the two nations and traces how a given difference impacts housing situation. That is the approach of this paper.

One might ask “why Canada and Mexico”? Some might see this as a kind of “extreme sport”. Comparing France

and Germany say might seem to be more conventional sport because they are inherently more similar in terms of

economic development, income inequality, and social policy. In that respect, comparing Canada and Mexico might

arguably be seen as a limiting test: i.e., if the method of comparison works here, it will work anywhere. However,

that is not our perspective. Our approach emphasizes agency and assumes fundamentally that Canada and Mexico

are comparable. Noting evident gaps in income and income inequality between the two nations, we ask whether

the differences in housing situation are attributable simply to differences in state of economic development be-

tween the two nations? We also ask whether there are similarities between Mexico today and Canada about 50

years ago. If so, might Canada be a model for how Mexico might develop over the next few decades?

The 1996 Census of Canada and the 2000 Census of Mexico offer overviews of the housing situation in each na-

tion. However, to answer the principal questions above, we must first have confidence in the comparability of

housing statistics between the two nations. There has been a concerted effort by the United Nations (UN) to pro-

mote the use of uniform survey and measurement tools. Today, various nations appear to use the same methods,


concepts, and definitions for conducting and interpreting their censuses. However, the latitude permitted by these

apparently identical definitions makes comparability problematic.

This paper compares housing situations in Canada and Mexico using census data. The structure of this paper is

as follows. First, we present a brief history of the housing situation in each nation. Next, we consider an antece-

dent question. Are the two housing situations comparable? Then we turn to the main questions. What do census

data tell us about the housing situations today? Have consumers coped similarly or differently with respect to hous-

ing situation in the two nations? Given that Mexico has been more tolerant of self-building than has Canada, is

there evidence in census data that this difference in social policy has been important? In the future, what might be

the outcome of a reduced tolerance of self-building in Mexico? In terms of housing situation, is Mexico simply lag-

ging Canada? In the final section, we draw conclusions.

History of Housing Situation

The European colonization of North America played out differently from one locale to the next. Mexico devel-

oped in a climate that was hot, often arid, Canada in a colder and typically wetter climate, and the United States

spanned these extremes. The United States was first to benefit from the industrial revolution in the 19th century.

Great mansions were built for the wealthy and community builders erected substantial homes for those of modest

to middle incomes. Developers also constructed tenements for some of the poor, while the remainder lived in

older housing no longer in prime condition or location, mobile or manufactured homes, public or social housing,

and other housing (including self-built).

At least until late in the 20th century, Canada was a poor cousin to the United States. A small home market—

combined with a greater sense of social responsibility and of protectionism—led to the emergence of a profoundly

middle-class society. The most common dwellings today are single-detached dwellings built on lots typically 350-

700 m2 in area. The larger cities contain clusters of apartment buildings as well as other housing (e.g., semi-

detached, row, and town housing). Much of the stock has been built by a community builder or general contractor

on purchased land on behalf of, or for sale to, a household or landlord and subject to extensive regulation. All this

should serve to make housing that is both of good quality and also costly. At the same time, contractor-built hous-

ing typically is made more affordable by giving the homebuyer scope to "finish off" the dwelling at a later date

(e.g., unfinished basement, attic, or roughed-in spare bathroom): a nod in the direction of self-building.

Before the 16th century, dwellings in Mexico typically consisted of a grillwork of sticks—covered with adobe or

palm leaves—and often just one room. In the late 19th century, a substantial middle class emerged. Where the rich

continued to build palaces, the middle class now had small colonial-design dwellings or multi-room adobe houses.

The urban poor occupied a single room in a subdivided colonial house or a vecindad (long row of rooms along an

open-air corridor). Before the 1960s, the formal sector consisted of custom builders. Community builders emerged

in the 1960s: first condominium buildings then gated communities. Although the public housing sector continues to

expand to this day, the less fortunate still are accommodated mainly in self-built housing: absent the professional

expertise which ensures adherence to construction standards on land not subject to planning regulation. Here, the

household might start with a first room of brick and cement and a sheet roof (metal, asbestos or corrugated paper)

on informally occupied land without services. As time passes and resources permit, the household adds rooms to

this dwelling, and progresses to a well-differentiated (but not well-designed) house with roof of concrete, steel

ribs, all the services, and legal title to the land. At the end of this long and inefficient process, the self-help


dwelling typically represents the main asset of the family. Such housing is "progressive" in that the household

gradually gains title to the property (regularization) and access to water, sewage, gas, and electricity, and en-

larges and improves the dwelling.

Despite the differences evident above, housing across North America largely sprang from the same humble be-

ginnings. Across North America, folk housing in the form of one-room and two-room ("hall and parlour") dwellings

were commonplace. Much of this early stock was self-built. Over time, vernacular housing emerged as regular peo-

ple tried to incorporate elements of rich homes into their own accommodation, and this typically meant more use

of the skilled trades and general contractors. However, among poor households across North America at one time

or another, self-building remained a cost-effective strategy for creating simple, scalable, and affordable housing.

This is perhaps most evident in Mexico today, with its larger population of poor households. However, one does not

have to look far, particularly in rural and remote areas in Canada to see similar strategies employed.

Across North America, the housing stock has also everywhere been shaped also under the pressure of an ex-

panding population. In Canada, population growth from 1945 to 1965 was in part attributable to a large postwar

baby boom that saw the median age of a Canadian drop to 25 years. Immigration has also been an important

source of population growth. From a population of 11.5 million in 1941, Canada had increased to 30 million by

2001. Over the same period, the housing stock (private occupied dwellings) increased from 2.6 million to 12 mil-

lion. In Mexico, population increased even faster. There are no data about Mexico's housing stock in 1940. From

1950 to 1980, the population grew at more than 3% annually, peaking at 3.7% in the 1970s, and reached 66.8 mil-

lion in 1980. Between 1950 and 1970 the housing stock grew slowly from 5.3 to 8.3 million, under 2.6% annually. In

the 1970s, the housing stock grew quickly (5.8% annually): partly because of INFONAVIT the public housing agency.

As of 2000, there were 4.4 persons per dwelling in Mexico, down from 6.1 in 1970.

During the twentieth century, formal production across North America became increasingly standardized. In

Canada, this came to be driven in part by the exigencies of federal programs that insured mortgage loans. Bath-

rooms had to open into hallways. Bedrooms had to have windows and built-in closets of a certain minimum size.

Standardization was also driven by modularization: e.g., the height of a kitchen counter was standardized to allow

installation of built-in dishwashers. Mexico also has building code requirements. This standardization meant that

new contractor-built housing has become more similar in design and layout across the three nations. Where the

stock remains stubbornly different is in self-building.

Also important here is the role of housing finance. Housing is costly to build, and usually requires financing. At

the same time, housing investment is risky: in part because economic conditions in the region, locale, neighbour-

hood or household can change suddenly, and in part because it is costly to reconfigure the built stock for another

use. In well-developed capital markets, various mechanisms exist to spread these risks among willing participants:

from mortgage insurance to syndication to securitization. As societies become more affluent, the range and depth

of such mechanisms increase and enable new and more-varied housing investment. In this respect, Canada's hous-

ing stock should reflect the fact that its capital markets are better developed than those in Mexico

Finally, both Canada and Mexico are market economies. As such, there is much room for individual initiative

and effort (coping strategies) even when public institutions and policies might differ. To the extent that Mexicans,

like Canadians, want better homes and better lives for themselves and their children, we might expect to find

similar usage of strategies to help them cope with housing that is costly or otherwise difficult to access.


The convergences and similarities described above raise the question of whether the differences in housing

stock between Canada and Mexico simply reflect the difference in stage of economic development. Put differ-

ently, is what we observe in Mexico today similar to what we would have found in Canada in the past at the same

stage of development? Would we therefore expect Mexico to become more like Canada in the future as it contin-

ues to develop?

One counter-argument is the following. For much of the 20th century, governments and much of the populace

of Canada saw progress in housing as part of an ongoing modernist "project" in which an immigrant-based society,

steeped in rural, religious, and traditional values was to be forged into an urban democratic, and egalitarian soci-

ety and an efficient and well-organized economy. A focus on the primacy of the individual meant that it was ap-

propriate for housing policy to treat each nuclear family—parent(s) and any non-married children— and each other

adult (typified as "nonfamily" persons) as a unit eligible for separate accommodation. While housing policy did not

directly discourage extended families (e.g., grandparent or uncle), it did assist the nontraditional households that

were being spun off from them. Mexico differs here. Ideological principles with respect to housing emanate from

the egalitarianism that underlies the Mexican Revolution (1910) and its Constitution (1917). As last amended in

1983, the 4th Article of the Mexican Constitution establishes, for example, a universal right to good housing. Over-

all, egalitarianism has meant little in the real situation of housing. At best, it can be seen as ideological support to

continue the regularization of self-built production that has been the major solution since the 1940s. In Mexico,

housing policy remains narrowly targeted. Mexico does show a commitment to the modernist project in that, al-

though extended families and large nuclear families are very common in Mexico, housing policy is targeted at small

dwellings for small nuclear families. However, it differs from the modernist project in that it is difficult for a non-

family person to access public housing in Mexico. Moreover, only in recent years have lone mothers become eligi-

ble for public housing.

International Standardization of Censuses

A data model is a procedure for deriving data that can be thought to make such data comparable from one ob-

servation to the next. The Statistical Office of the UN has published recommendations and handbooks on census

procedures and methods down through the years. See Table 1. In the early years, the publications simply summa-

rized international material useful to the planning of a population census. Later, the handbooks became more am-

bitious in scope, covering the concept and rationale for a population census, international comparability of popu-

lation censuses, planning, organization, and administration of a population census, statistical sampling in censuses,

and population characteristics to be enumerated. In its 1980 report, for the first time, the UN published standards

both for the statistical concepts to be used (e.g., dwelling, household, and family), and the method by which a

census should be undertaken. These common concepts underlie both the Mexican and Canadian censuses today and

provide a basis for comparability on the basis that they constitute a data model.

Censuses of Population and Housing

In both Canada and Mexico, censuses are conducted on a regular basis. In Mexico, the most recent census, in

2000, was run by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). In Canada, the most recent

census, in 2001 was run by Statistics Canada (SC). However, as complete data are not yet available we rely here

instead on the 1996 Census of Canada. Fundamentally, a census consists of three processes conducted in sequence:


enumeration, questionnaire, and editing. For our purposes, this process culminates in the public-use samples from

which we calculate comparable statistics about housing situations in the two nations. These processes constitute

the data model.

1. Enumeration

Typically, each census enumerator is assigned a territory within which to count population. Every square meter of

land in Canada or Mexico is to be assigned to an enumerator: without omission or overlap. To do this, census tak-

ers must have fine-scale maps that accurately partition the entire nation into non-overlapping and exhaustive

enumeration areas. The enumerator must discern the number of habitable dwellings (whether occupied or not)

within a given structure or property. In Canada, enumerators have had extensive experience with preparing ad-

vance dwelling unit lists. In Mexico, advance dwelling unit lists were first used in the 2000 Census. Because alter-

native sources of information were less reliable than in Canada, Mexican enumeration had to rely entirely on

fieldwork. While enumeration issues pose problems in both nations, we conclude that they do not prevent compari-

sons of Canadian and Mexican census data.

2. The Questionnaire Process

This is the process of questionnaire design (integral concepts and formulation of queries) and its administration

to the enumerated population. This process culminates in a set of completed census returns. Although Canadian

and Mexican censuses use similar definitions of population and dwelling universes, there are differences in collec-

tion method. Further, there are differences in definition. In the 1996 Census of Canada, a dwelling “is a separate

set of living quarters with a private entrance either from outside or from a common hall, lobby, vestibule or stair-

way inside the building” (SC 1999, p. 4). In the Mexican census, an occupied dwelling is “all space defined by wall

and roofs of any material with private entrance and that is suitable to live, this means, sleep, cook, eat and get

shelter from the environment” (INEGI 2000, p. 330). Exactly what is required to have a separate set of living quar-

ters in Canada, or a space suitable to sleep, cook, eat, and get shelter in Mexico is not clear. For the many mod-

ernist households (nuclear families and nonfamily persons who live alone), the definition is straightforward. Ambi-

guity can arise however when combinations of nonfamily individuals and/or nuclear families live in the same struc-

ture. If they each occupy a separate set of living quarters, each set forms a dwelling within the structure. How-

ever, if the occupants share living quarters, then there is only one dwelling. Since this means that a dwelling does

not always correspond to a structure (that is, a building) or, for that matter, an address, census takers have to be

careful in delineating the stock if they hope to accurately count dwellings. While questionnaire issues are impor-

tant, we conclude that they limit but do not prevent comparisons of Canadian and Mexican census data.

3. The Editing Process

This is the process of error-checking and imputation of completed census returns. This process culminates in

published census counts. Imputation generally takes three forms. First, Census enumerators impute some values

on-site. Second, upon completion and return of the census questionnaire, there is "filling in" of blanks on census

returns: that is, making plausible guesses where respondents have left questions unanswered. Third, census re-

sponses may be used to impute a category or value to the respondent on attributes that are not directly queried.

While editing issues pose problems in both nations, we conclude again that they do not prevent comparisons of Ca-

nadian and Mexican census data.


4. Public Use Samples

This paper uses published reports of the Mexican and Canadian censuses wherever possible to develop pictures

of the two national housing stocks. However, published reports alone do not provide sufficient detail. As a supple-

ment, this paper uses public-use sample data from these censuses. We calculate Canadian data from three 1996

Census Public Use Microdata (PUM) Files: Households and Housing, Families, and Individuals. These three files are

each a 2.8% sample of their target populations (SC 1996a, 1996b, 1996c). The PUM files were constructed from re-

turns for the long questionnaire. Mexican data are obtained from a Census sample similar to the Canadian one. This

is a sample of about 2.2 million dwellings that completed a long questionnaire. This means about the 10% of the

total of national occupied dwellings. This sample is given in two files, one for Dwellings and Spending Units (“Vi-

viendas y hogares”) and another for Individuals. The target of the Dwellings and Spending Units File is all private

dwellings and their hogares. The target of the Individuals File is all persons, Mexicans and foreigners, whose usual

place of residence is a private dwelling in Mexico; this differs from the Canadian individual sample where persons

in collective dwellings are included. In conclusion, the data not generated using the same sampling technique;

nonetheless, they are similar in scope and objective.

Comparison of the Two Stocks

Let us begin by looking at the aggregate housing stock in each nation without any reference to the households

that occupy them. The following section of the paper examines housing situations in the light of its occupants.

How large is the stock of housing in each nation? The 1996 Census recorded 11.7 million dwellings in all in Can-

ada, including dwellings with usual residents, dwellings with foreign/temporary residents only, and unoccupied

dwellings: see Table 2. The available count for Mexico includes only dwellings with usual residents (Mexicans and

foreign); although data were collected for other dwellings, none were published. The 1996 Census of Canada pub-

lications give only aggregate counts of dwellings without usual residents (they contain no information about dwell-

ing type, size, or other characteristics). As shown in Table 2, Mexico had roughly twice as many dwellings (with

usual residents) as did Canada.

In both nations, the number of collective dwellings is relatively small. The 1996 Census of Canada enumerated

30 thousand collective dwellings, therein defined as dwellings of a commercial, institutional, or communal nature,

including any dwelling containing ten or more persons unrelated to Person 1. The 2000 Census of Mexico also in-

cluded collective dwellings. Notably fewer collective dwellings were enumerated in Mexico (just 12 thousand

dwellings in the year 2000) than was reported above for Canada. All other dwellings are categorized as private;

there were 11.7 million private dwellings in Canada in 1996. Published data for the 2000 Census of Mexico indicate

that the number of private dwellings occupied by usual residents was 21.9 million.

In Canadian censuses, private dwellings are further categorized as regular, marginal, or under construction.

The criteria that SC employed for designating whether an occupied dwelling was still under construction in the

1996 Census of Canada are unclear, but with the amount of self-building, especially in rural areas, the count could

be substantial. A marginal dwelling is an occupied private dwelling that was neither built, nor maintained, nor

converted for year-round occupancy. To be suitable for year-round occupancy, a dwelling must satisfy three condi-

tions:

• source of heat or power (evidenced by chimneys, power lines, etc.);


• access to drinking water throughout the year (evidenced by faucets, drain pipes, etc.);

• enclosed space that provides shelter from the elements (evidenced by complete and enclosed walls and roof, and by doors and windows that provide protection from wind, rain and snow).

A regular dwelling meets these conditions for year-round occupancy. However, the definition must have been

broadly interpreted because the 1996 Census reports only 12 thousand occupied dwellings (about 0.1% of the

stock) were marginal or under construction. The concept of a marginal dwelling, as used in the Census of Canada,

is inappropriate in Mexico because of the warmer climate. The Mexican census definition of regular dwelling does

not require fulfillment of the two first conditions above, just the third. Only a few dwellings in Mexico have a

source of heat; a higher proportion have air conditioning. A substantial number of dwellings do not have power.

And, water often can be obtained only from public faucets or from bus tanks once or twice a week. In these re-

spects, many dwellings enumerated as regular in Mexico would be marginal in Canada.

These criteria do not distinguish between formal construction and self-building. In the case of Mexico, where

self-building may well be illiquid: that is, difficult to sell readily in an open market. Even in Canada, self-building

is also thought to be typically less liquid: in part because it may lack municipal services (such as piped sewage)

and in part because the quality of construction/design is poor, not standardized, or simply unknown. Skeptics

might argue that it is difficult to formulate a simple census question to identify dwellings that are self-built (espe-

cially for older homes where the current residents may simply be unaware who first built the structure). Nonethe-

less, the absence of any information on self-building renders problematic the interpretation of even the most basic

census housing counts.

How do dwellings compare in structural type between the two nations? In Canada, private occupied dwellings

come in various structural types. See Table 3. The most prevalent in 1996 was the single-detached house, sepa-

rated from any other neighbouring dwelling. The second most common structural type is an apartment in a build-

ing of four storeys or less. This includes low-rise apartment blocks as well as conversions (e.g., single detached)

that contain at least three apartments. The Mexican census includes seven categories of dwelling

• casa independiente: single detached houses (walls are not shared, but may be contiguous) and duplex;

• departamento en edificio: apartment in building, including dwellings in gated communities;

• vivienda móvil: mobile home;

• vivienda o cuarto en vecindad: apartment or room in a vecindad where services (e.g., bathroom) are shared;

• local no construido para habitación: non-housing building used as dwelling;

• vivienda o cuarto en la azotea: servant's room on the roof of an apartment building;

• refugio: marginal dwelling.

The Mexican classification distinguishes among single (physically independent) dwellings; apartments and gated

communities, and other types of dwellings (almost all of these being substandard dwellings). One problem with the

Mexican classifications is that the dwellings inside gated communities generally are single houses. Another problem

in comparison is that, in the Canadian case, the "other dwelling" group does not necessarily mean substandard

dwellings. Because of such differences, analysis should take into account the nature of the phenomenon and avoid-

ing simplistic comparisons. In Table 3, dwellings are put into three broadly-comparable categories. Compared to

Canada, the Mexican stock is substantially less concentrated in Category 2 (apartment, semi-detached, and row

housing) and more concentrated in the other categories. The concentration in Category 1 is consistent with the ar-


gument that Mexican capital markets are less well-developed and therefore that investment in costly and risk

apartment building blocks is low relative to Canada.

What about dwelling size, as measured by room counts? In the 1996 Census of Canada, a room is an enclosed

area within a dwelling which is finished and suitable for year-round living. Partially divided L-shaped rooms are

considered to be separate rooms if they are considered as such by the respondent. Not counted as rooms are bath-

rooms, halls, vestibules and rooms used solely for business purposes. In the 2000 Census of Mexico, a room is an

area that is enclosed by walls and ceilings of any material useful to provide accommodation to the persons. This

does not include bathrooms, corridors, patios or rooms used for business purposes. The definitions appear to be

substantially similar. As shown in Table 4, the Canadian stock has relatively more large dwellings (6 rooms or

more); the Mexican stock has more small dwellings. The differences in dwelling size is consistent with the role of

self-building as a coping strategy for poorer Mexican households.

Finally, what about dwelling size as measured by bedroom counts? Again, see Table 3. In the 1996 Census of

Canada, a bedroom is a room designed and furnished as bedrooms and used mainly for sleeping purposes, even

though the use may be occasional. A studio (or bachelor) apartment, wherein the living room and sleeping area are

combined, would thus be enumerated as having zero bedrooms. In the 2000 Census of Mexico, a bedroom is any

room where a person regularly sleeps: even if the room was not designed for this purpose. Thus, in the Mexican

census, every occupied dwelling contains at least one bedroom. These differences in concept mean that, for com-

parable households living in the same kind of housing, the Canadian and Mexican definitions may yield different

bedroom counts. In Table 3, we see that more than two-thirds of all Mexican occupied private dwellings have only

one or two bedrooms (in use). In contrast, almost 60% of all dwellings in Canada have three bedrooms (in total) or

more. This is consistent with the idea that Canadian dwellings are larger on average, but presumably also reflects

the notion that the Canadian definition includes bedrooms that are spare (not currently in use).

Comparisons of the Use of Stock

The concept of a household as the group of individuals who share occupancy of a dwelling is the same in the

two censuses. The two censuses report only a small number of people in collective dwellings. See Table 5. The

vast majority of the population in each nation was found to be living in private dwellings. In both censuses, the

number of occupied private dwellings is equal to the number of private households. There were 4.4 persons on av-

erage per occupied private dwelling in Mexico in 2000, compared to 2.6 persons in Canada in 1996. This difference

is even more significant in light of the fact noted above that the typical private occupied dwelling is much larger

(i.e., more rooms) in Canada compared to Mexico. In Mexico, the average of occupants per dwellings is more or

less constant across size of dwelling: for example, 3.9 persons on average per one-room dwelling to 4.9 persons

per dwelling of 5 rooms or more. From the last idea, it can be seen that the Mexican housing stock's larger stock of

small dwellings are mainly crowded.

In Canada, we estimate (Table 5) that, among persons in private occupied dwellings, almost one-half were

married and living with a spouse, and nearly all of these were in households that consisted of a nuclear family liv-

ing alone. The remaining half of the population, is about evenly split between those 20 or older, and those

younger. Those 20 or older are about evenly split among living alone, in a nuclear family living alone (as lone par-

ent, son, or daughter), and in other (shared) living arrangements. In contrast, among those under 20, about 90%

are in a nuclear family living alone, and the remaining 10% are mainly in a shared living arrangement. Put differ-


ently, 84% of the population in private dwellings (23.9 million persons) were in unshared accommodation (either a

person living alone or a nuclear family living alone). In Mexico, we estimate from the 2000 Individual File that,

among persons in private occupied dwellings, only one-third were married and living with a spouse, and of these

only about two-thirds were in households that consisted of a nuclear family living alone. Of the remaining popula-

tion, about two-thirds are children (persons under 20) and one-third are adults (20 or older). Among those 20 or

older, only 1.3 million lived alone (i.e., in a one-person household), about 9.3 million were in households that con-

sisted of a nuclear family living alone, and fully 10.3 million were in shared accommodation. Among those under

20, about 90% were in nuclear families living alone, and the other 10% were in a shared living arrangement, much

as we saw above for Canada. Put differently, only 73% of the population in private dwellings in Mexico were in "un-

shared accommodation" (either a person living alone or a nuclear family living alone). Cast in terms of households

in private dwellings, almost 30% of households in Mexico are a shared housing arrangement, versus just 11% of

households in Canada. In summary, the main differences between Canada and Mexico here are the presence of

many more children in Mexico (over one-half of the population of Mexico in 2000 was under the age of 25), a sub-

stantially higher incidence of shared accommodation, and relatively few persons living alone (that is, in one-

person households).

The 1996 Census of Canada assigns each person a family status: husband-wife nuclear family, lone-parent nu-

clear family, or non-family person. In the 2000 Census of Mexico, the corresponding notion is the hogar. Hogares

are categorized as: husband-wife nuclear family living alone; husband-wife nuclear family plus others (extended

and compound families); lone-parent nuclear family living alone; lone parent nuclear family living plus others (ex-

tended and compound families); and non-family persons (hogares of one person that share the dwelling with oth-

ers, units constituted by non-relatives, and, persons living alone). It is possible that inside “the others” of the ex-

tended families, are secondary nuclear families. We know if a hogar is a nuclear family, an extended family, a

person living alone, or some compound. However, we can readily compare counts of households in the two nations

wherein nuclear families live alone: that is, without any one else in the household.

As much in Canada as in Mexico, the most common kind of household is the modernist husband–wife nuclear

family living alone (HWFLA); in both nations, HWFLA form 56% of all households. In both nations, the second form

of modernist household, the lone-parent nuclear family living alone (LPFLA), forms another 8% of all households.

The differences arise for other types of households; households in Canada include a large proportion (24%) that

consist of one person living alone (1PHH), the third kind of modernist household, while in Mexico these make up

just 6%. And, while in Canada the shared (non-modernist) household represents just 11%, in Mexico it is 29% of all

households.

The distributions by age of person 1 (head of hogar in Mexico) in the two nations are similar: see Table 6. The

age distribution of persons living alone (1PHH) is almost the same in Canada as in Mexico. Both nations also show a

peak at the 35-44 age group among modernist HWFLA, although the Mexican distribution of HWFLA includes more

younger and fewer older households. Another difference about age is related to "other households". In Canada, ex-

tended families and compound households seem to be more common among younger adults. In Mexico, a higher

percentage of these type of households is found among the group 55 or older. One possible interpretation is that

this may simply from differences in census instructions and/or social conventions concerning the designation of

person 1 and head of hogar in shared dwellings. Another possible interpretation is that a younger adult in the Ca-

nadian household is the principal household maintainer whereas in Mexico, it is an older adult.


In the 1996 Census of Canada, two tenures are identified. A private dwelling is said to be "owner occupied" if it

is owned (with or without mortgage) or being bought by a member of the household. A private dwelling is said to

be rented if it is not owned by any member of the household. Similar definitions are used in the 2000 Mexico Cen-

sus. In Canada, about 64% of all private occupied dwellings in 1996 were owner-occupied. See Table 7. Among

category 1 dwellings (single detached and duplex dwellings), 86% are owner-occupied In Mexico, 78% of all dwell-

ings are owner occupied. The implication here is that, compared to Canada, Mexico is a society of homeowners. In

Canada however, owned homes are much larger on average: only 2% of owned homes have 3 rooms or less, versus

47% in Mexico. See Table 4. Put differently, in Canada the average owner-occupied dwelling has 6.9 rooms, com-

pared to 3.8 in Mexico.

In part, this is an outcome of the way in which in Mexico more than half of all families get their houses through

self-building. Although the dwellings produced in this way eventually come to have more than 5 rooms, they can

remain at two or three rooms for a long time. A second implication here is that self-building "undermines" the

market for rental accommodation. The scalability of self-building lowers the cost of home ownership in a way that

makes the cost of separate rental accommodation less attractive. Put differently, in the absence of self-building,

more households might well have chosen renting. We are not trying to argue here that self-building is therefore

necessarily bad. Instead, we are simply saying that, in Canada, with the absence of self-building, there are many

more households in the rental sector. Alternatively, in Mexico, landlords presumably find it difficult to compete

for tenants because of the informal sector.

In the English-language literature on housing careers, a household typically is seen to schedule the purchase of

an owned home. As a home is an expensive asset, the household is thought to first rent a dwelling (or to lodge

with relatives), and then move to a "starter" owned home of their own when sufficient savings have been accumu-

lated for a down payment and mortgage financing is available. Later in life, the household is seen to move to a

larger dwelling as its financial condition and housing needs evolve. In this sense, home ownership and housing con-

sumption are commonly thought to vary over the household's life cycle. Mexico instances a different approach, the

self-built house, in which home ownership can be acquired relatively inexpensively, one room at a time. The no-

tion of saving up a down payment for an entire (multi-room) dwelling is not relevant here. As well, over the life

course, rooms can be added to the self-built home needed without the necessity of moving. Of course, Canada is

not dissimilar here in that a homeowner typically also may undertake an addition to a dwelling rather than move.

It is the greater range and scope for such changes in a self-built dwelling that is different here. This raises a broad

question of comparison between Canada and Mexico. In light of the different approaches to home ownership, just

how similar are housing careers in Canada and Mexico?

Let us consider here all individuals in private dwellings who are married and living with a spouse. Each of these

persons is in a private household of two or more persons (that is, including at least their spouse). Among the 13.6

million Canadians in private dwellings, married and living with a spouse in 1996, 70% are in HWFLA (by definition,

unshared) homeowner households, and an additional 8% are in other (shared) homeowner households. See Table 8.

However, these are averages; the rates rise substantially with age. Among 20-24 year olds, for example, 23% are in

HWFLA homeowner households, and an additional 10% are in shared homeowner households. The sharp rise in

homeownership with age up through age 39 in Table 8 is consistent with the notion that households initially rent

and save toward the down payment on a first owned home. In Mexico, the situation is different. Among the 33.5

million Mexicans in private dwellings, married and living with a spouse in 2000, only 57% are homeowners in HWFLA


households, and an additional 21% are homeowners in shared households. Put differently, husband-wife nuclear

families in Mexico are as likely to be in an owner-occupied dwelling as their Canadian counterparts; however, this

dwelling is much more likely to be shared than in Canada. Among those 20-24 years old, 43% are homeowners in

HWFLA households (much higher than in Canada), and an additional 17% (again, much higher than in Canada) are

homeowners in shared households. Even considering just HWFLA alone, Mexico does not show the same steep rise

in home ownership with age as in Canada; a result, we argue, of the use of self-building to access home ownership

in Mexico. Second, the substantially higher incidence of shared accommodation helps boost overall home owner-

ship in Mexico.

What about the tenure status of persons who are not "married and living with a spouse"? In Mexico overall, 58%

of these live in unshared (IPHH, HWFLA, or LPFLA) homeowner households, and another 13% live in shared home-

owner households. This is comparable to the homeownership rates for persons married and living with spouse.

However, the age profile of homeownership is very different. The probability of living in an unshared homeowner

household falls steadily with age: from 66% for those under 20, to 22% among those 75 or older. At the same time,

the probability of living in shared homeowner accommodation rises steadily with age in Mexico: from 14% for those

under 20 to 55% for those 75 or older. The situation in Canada is very different. The probability of living in an un-

shared homeowner household does fall initially with age, but then starts rising after about age 39. The probability

of living in a shared homeowner household also increases with age, but relatively modestly: from 9% among those

under 20 to 20% among those 75 or older.

Although Mexico has relatively few renter households, it does have many owner households that do not consist

simply of a person or nuclear family living alone. If we think that such households instance a lodging individual or

family, a measure of the incidence of renting that takes into account such lodging tells a much different story. If

we add the number of couples (measured here as one-half the number of persons married and living with spouse)

plus the number of other persons 20 or older, we get the number of "potential households" that could form if each

lived in separate accommodation. For Mexico in 2000, there were 37.7 million potential households, for Canada in

1996, 13.7 million. In Mexico in 2000, there were 16.9 million owned homes, only about 45% of the number of po-

tential households. In contrast, Canada in 1996 had 6.9 million owned homes, which is 50% of the number of po-

tential households. By this measure, Canada has the higher rate of homeownership.

Is Mexico Simply Lagging Canada?

Let us now return to a principal question. Is the housing stock of Mexico in important respects simply following

the path observed in Canada with an appropriate lag because the economy of Mexico has been slower to develop?

Can we expect the housing stock and its uses to change in the future to be more like that in Canada, after adjust-

ing for the obvious differences in climate?

To evaluate this argument, let us look at the housing stock in Canada as evidenced in the 1941 Census. In re-

spects, that stock is similar to Mexico today. In 1941, average household size in Canada was 4.47 persons. Single-

detached dwellings made up almost 75% of the stock of private dwellings. Where there were apartment buildings,

they were typically small: apartment buildings containing more than 10 apartments made up just 3% of the stock

of dwellings. Persons living alone (one-person households) made up just 7% of all households, implying a substan-

tial amount of shared accommodation. Despite Canada's inclement winters, 61% of all dwellings were heated only

by a stove; that is, had no furnace heating. Fully 31% of all dwellings did not have electricity available for lighting


(relying instead on gas, kerosene, or gasoline lamps), 40% did not have access to inside running water, 48% did not

have a private flush toilet, 55% did not have an installed private bath or shower, and 79% did not have a mechani-

cal refrigerator. In all these respects, Canada's stock in 1941 is comparable to Mexico in 2000.

However, there are two critical differences. First, in Canada in 1941, the size distribution of private dwellings

does not look like Mexico today. Even then, Canada had relatively few small dwellings compared to Mexico. Sec-

ond, in Canada in 1941, there was a substantial incidence of rental accommodation (43%) among households: even

higher than in 1996. This is very different from Mexico, with its heavy reliance on home ownership.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) opened growth prospects and new ways of doing business

across North America. At the same time, the globalization of commerce in general means that the home market is

less of a constraint on growth and/or that there is less reliance on the large U.S. market. For Mexico and Canada,

these changes hold the prospect of a new economic future which will be more prosperous and which will mean

that increasingly the housing stock will be contractor-built. However, free trade and the assumptions underlying it

also imply a reduced sense of social responsibility and protectionism that may well mean fewer public and subsi-

dized dwellings in the future. If at the same time, real incomes fail to grow, it will be more difficult for the popu-

lation to access contractor-built dwelling. Actually, in Mexico, this appears to be what is happening. In the 17

years to date since the opening of the Mexican economy, there has been a reduction in real incomes. Canada too

experienced annual reductions in real earnings over much of this period. As a result, a large sector of population in

Mexico has neither the liquidity to purchase a house nor the ability to access mortgage loans. At the same time,

the Mexican Federal Government has developed a new housing policy consistent with neo-liberalism. This policy

reduces subsidies for poorer people, encourages formal housing production, and improves access to loans. At the

same time, the Federal and local governments have become less tolerant of the informal access to land that has

been the basis of much self-built production. While perhaps reflecting a reduced sense of social responsibility on

the part of government, this action is also an acknowledgment of the importance of encouraging orderly markets.

In the past, government had regularized informal settlements through the concession of property titles, the con-

struction of infrastructure (power, water, and sewage), and the introduction of services (public transportation,

health and education). In this way, it could be argued that government showed itself to be paternalistic and be-

nevolent to the poor and this engendered voter support. In the last decade however, informal settlements have

been discouraged, and there are now stronger controls to prevent illegal access to land. Informal access to land

continues, but is now much more scattered; there are no longer large subdivisions of this type. Now, residents ap-

pear to want to escape the control of government, and government tries to show that it ignores them.

Conclusions

This paper has compared housing situations in present-day Canada and Mexico. The paper began with a charac-

terization of the differences that emphasizes the importance of differences in climate, demography, social ine-

quality, and economic development as causal factors, and the critical role of self-building in Mexico as a coping

strategy used by poor households to solve their housing needs. The paper describes international efforts to stan-

dardize national population and housing censuses, and thereby render them comparable. As a result, we argue,

present-day census data for the two nations can be compared. At the same time, this standardization is frustrat-

ingly imprecise, in a way that makes even rudimentary comparisons problematic. In part, such imprecision is nec-

essary to allow for national variations in housing conditions and practice; in part however, we must appreciate


that censuses are contested instruments, structured to fit the needs and perspectives of their designers. However,

mindful of the limitations that such structuring imposes, census data do provide support for our characterization.

In part, we can account for differences in housing situation between the two nations on the basis of age struc-

ture (Mexico has many more children) and income (Mexico has a lower average income and a greater inequality of

incomes). Larger family size helps account for larger household size, as does lower income (through use of shared

housing as a coping strategy). We have not established cause-and-effect: that is not our purpose. However, use of

the stock is consistent with these ideas. As well, this paper presents evidence that is consistent with the idea that

self-building has affected housing careers in Mexico. The relative unimportance of the formal rental sector, the

pervasive use of shared living arrangements, and a size distribution of the housing stock that is skewed to small

dwellings are the main impacts.

This brings us back to the apparent differences in "social contract" in Canada and Mexico. In Canada, the public

policy initiatives that we have loosely called "the modernist project" above envisage nuclear families and nonfa-

mily persons each living in their own adequate dwelling with subsidies where needed to effect that. In Mexico,

housing subsidies are targeted to a narrower group, and access to self-building is a safety valve for those who

would otherwise be left behind. It would appear that Canadian policy could not stomach the prospect of wide-

spread informal access to housing any more than Mexican policy could stomach universal access to formally-

produced housing. This argument implies that Mexico is not simply six decades behind Canada in economic devel-

opment; there is a difference in attitude toward social policy here. At the same time, we have seen evidence in

this paper consistent with the argument that consumers in Canada and Mexico are using similar strategies and try-

ing to achieve similar goals. In the event that Mexico does catch up with Canada in terms of economic develop-

ment, this social contract argument may well be moot.

The evident limitations of this paper indicate areas for further research. First, this paper looks at whether evi-

dence is consistent with an argument, but does not test hypotheses. This paper also has a demographic focus, de-

spite the fact that we argue that economic factors are fundamental to understanding behavior. We have not, for

example, looked at the incomes of families and non-family persons in Canada and Mexico, or the prices of housing

alternatives. To test the hypothesis that the differences in housing stock are the outcomes of the coping strategies

used by families and non-family persons, and that self-building is important here, we should estimate a model of

housing demand in which such variables could be incorporated.

References

González, Jorge 1999. Características de la Vivienda en el Area Urbana de la Ciudad de México. Tesis de Maestría en Geografía. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México.

INEGI 1999. Censo Comercial. Tabulados Básicos de Censo Económico. Formato PDF. www.inegi.gob.mx

INEGI 2000. Tabulado Completo. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000. Formato PDF. www.inegi.gob.mx

INEGI 2000. XII Censo General de Población y vivienda 2000. Tabulados de la Muestra Censal, Cuestionario ampliado. Aguascalietes.

Schteingart, Martha 1989. Los Productores del Espacio Habitable. El Colegio de México. México.

Statistics Canada 1996. Census Dictionary. Final Edition Reference. Minister of Industry. Format PDF. www.statcan.ca

Statistics Canada 1996. Coverage. 1996 Census Technical Report. Minister of Industry. Format PDF. www.statcan.ca


Table 1 Population and Housing Census Publications by the Statistical Office of the UN.

1949 Population Census Handbook (provisional edition) 1949 Population Census Methods 1954 Handbook of Population Census Methods Studies in Methods: Series F, No. 5. 1958 General Principles for a Housing Census: Statistical Papers: Series M, No. 28 1958 Handbook of Population Census Methods (Parts I, II, and III published). Studies in Methods: Series F, No. 5,

Rev. 1. 1958 Principles and Recommendations for National Population Censuses: Statistical Papers: Series M, No. 27. 1967 Principles and Recommendations for the 1970 Housing Censuses: Statistical Papers: Series M, No. 45. 1967 Principles and Recommendations for the 1970 Population Censuses: Statistical Papers: Series M, No. 44. 1969 Handbook of Population and Housing Census Methods (only Parts III, IV, and VI published). Studies in

Methods: Series F, No. 16. 1980 Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses. Statistical Papers: Series M, No.

67. 1990 Supplementary principles and recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses. Statistical Papers:

Series M, No. 67, Add. 1. 1991 Emerging Trends and Issues in Population and Housing Censuses. Studies in Methods: Series F, No. 52. 1992 Handbook of Population and Housing Censuses (Parts I and II published). Studies in Methods: Series F, No.

54. 1993 Housing in the World: Graphical Presentation of Statistical Data. Studies in Methods: Series F, No. 63. 1998 Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses: Revision 1. Statistical Papers: Se-

ries M, No. 67/Rev. 1. 2000 Handbook on Census Management for Population and Housing Censuses. Studies in Methods: Series F, No.

83.

Source Compilation by the authors


Table 2 Housing stock in Mexico, 2000, and Canada, 1996, showing Census and public-use sample counts.

Mexico 2000 Canada 1996 Census Sample Census Sample

All dwellings -- -- 11,689,410 -- Collective -- -- 29,980 -- Unoccupied -- -- 7,365 -- Occupied (Usual residents) 12,198 -- 22,615 -- Hospitals and related institutions -- -- 9,605 -- Hotels, motels, tourist homes -- -- 3,775 -- Lodging and rooming houses -- -- 3,385 -- Other service collective dwellings -- -- 2,060 -- Religious institutions -- -- 1,520 -- Children's group homes, orphanages -- -- 700 -- Correctional and penal institutions -- -- 585 -- Work camps -- -- 435 -- Hutterite colonies -- -- 295 -- Military camps -- -- 265 --

Private 11,659,430 -- Temporary/foreign residents only -- -- 79,370 -- Unoccupied -- -- 760,005 -- Occupied (Usual residents) 21,942,535 21,857,601 10,820,050 10,820,052 By kind of dwelling Regular dwelling -- -- 10,807,830 -- Marginal/Under construction -- -- 12,220 --

Note -- Indicates data not available.

Source Census counts from published reports of the 2000 Census of Mexico and the 1996 Census of Canada (catalogue 95-182 XPB). Sample calculations by the authors from the 1996 PUM Files and the 2000 Mexico Sample Files


Table 3 Private occupied dwelling stock in Mexico 2000 and Canada 1996

Mexico 2000 Canada 1996 By structural type Category 1 18,708,569 6,581,196 Casa independiente 18,708,569 n.a. Single-detached house n.a. 6,139,476 Apartment in detached duplex n.a. 441,720

Category 2 2,139,776 4,038,372 Departamento en edificio 1,270,606 n.a. Vivienda en vecindad 839,675 n.a. Cuarto en la azotea 29,495 n.a. Apartment: 5 or more storeys n.a. 974,700 Apartment, under 5 storeys n.a. 2,019,420 Row house n.a. 539,352 Semi-detached house n.a. 504,900

Category 3 32,304 200,484 Non-housing building used as dwelling 25,637 n.a. Vivienda móvil 6,667 n.a. Moveable dwelling n.a. 161,316 Other single-attached n.a. 39,168 Type not specified (1) 425,724

Refugio 3,576 n.a.

By number of bedrooms None (2) n.a. 405,756 1 bedroom 10,384,000 1,450,800 2 bedrooms 9,785,000 2,751,768 3 bedrooms 4,867,000 4,005,468 4 bedrooms 1,160,000 1,724,976 5 bedrooms or more 354,000 481,284 Bedrooms unknown 189,000 n.a.

Note (1) Dwellings without information from their occupants. The population living in them was imputed as 1,058,310 persons.

(2) Because for the Mexican census a Bedroom is any room where somebody sleeps regularly, there are no dwellings without bedrooms.



Table 4 Use of the stock: tenure by size of dwelling.

Number of rooms in dwellings Mexico 2000 Canada 1996 All Owner-occupied All Owner-occupied dwellings Total Percent dwellings Total Percent 1 room 2,091,000 1,300,000 62 122,436 8,172 7 2 rooms 4,066,000 2,931,000 72 273,564 22,932 8 3 rooms 4,857,000 3,745,000 77 878,580 113,364 13 4 rooms 4,776,000 3,831,000 80 1,499,760 459,432 31 5 rooms 3,170,000 2,659,000 84 1,967,112 1,090,296 55 6 rooms 1,470,000 1,292,000 88 1,781,712 1,341,396 75 7 rooms 650,000 568,000 87 1,424,916 1,218,240 85 8 rooms 339,000 310,000 91 1,225,476 1,105,848 90 9 rooms 143,000 132,000 92 715,608 660,528 92 10 rooms or more 150,000 138,000 92 930,888 874,044 94 Room count unknown 145,000 51,000

All 21,712,000 16,906,000 78 10,820,052 6,894,252 64

Source Sample calculations by the authors from the 1996 PUM Household and Dwelling File and the 2000 Mex-ico Sample Dwelling and Spending Unit File


Table 5 Use of the stock: living arrangements

Mexico 2000 Canada 1996 Census Sample Census Sample

Total population 97,483,412 -- 28,839,675 28,528,128 In collective dwellings 369,333 -- 449,001 166,140 In private dwellings 97,114,079 96,996,915 28,390,687 28,361,988

In regular dwellings -- -- 28,357,549 -- In marginal/under construction -- -- 33,125 --

Population in private dwellings 97,114,079 96,996,000 28,390,687 28,361,988 Married and living with spouse -- 33,460,000 -- 13,576,320

Nuclear family only -- 24,684,000 -- 12,162,492 Other persons present -- 8,776,000 -- 1,413,828

Other persons aged 20 or older -- 20,948,000 -- 6,947,064 Live alone in household -- 1,304,000 -- 2,538,072 Nuclear family only -- 9,384,000 -- 2,397,204 Other persons present -- 10,260,000 -- 2,011,788

Other persons aged under 20 -- 42,588,000 -- 7,838,604 Live alone in household -- 25,000 -- 15,264 Nuclear family only -- 35,692,000 -- 6,826,392 Other persons present -- 6,871,000 -- 996,948

Households in private dwellings 21,942,535 21,858,000 10,820,050 10,820,052 Nuclear family living alone -- 14,132,000 7,110,630 7,010,424 One person living alone -- 1,329,000 2,622,180 2,596,464 Other (sharing) households -- 6,396,000 1,087,240 1,213,164



Table 6 Use of the stock: living arrangements by age of person 1

Percentage of households wherein Person One (Head) in that age group Percentage shared HWFLA LPFLA 1PHH Other (Sharing) in that age group Canada Mexico Canada Mexico Canada Mexico Canada Mexico Canada Mexico 1996 2000 1996 2000 1996 2000 1996 2000 1996 2000

Under 25 2 7 6 3 5 7 10 5 27 25 25-34 19 30 22 18 16 13 22 13 13 17 35-44 27 30 33 30 16 13 21 18 10 21 45-54 22 17 22 22 14 14 18 22 11 35 55-64 14 9 8 13 13 18 13 20 11 45 65-74 11 5 6 8 17 19 10 13 9 46 75 and older 5 2 4 5 18 16 6 7 8 44

All ages 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 11 29

Note HWFLA is husband-wife nuclear family living alone; LPFLA is lone-parent nuclear family living alone; 1PHH is one-person household



Table 7 Use of the stock: tenure by type of dwelling.

Mexico 2000 Canada 1996 All Owner-occupied All Owner-occupied dwellings Total Percent dwellings Total Percent

All private occupied dwellings 21,857,601 16,975,590 78 10,820,052 6,894,252 64

Category 1 18,965,553 15,483,246 82 6,581,196 5,665,716 86 Casa independiente 18,965,553 15,483,246 82 -- -- -- Single-detached house -- -- -- 6,139,476 5,503,536 Apartment in detached duplex -- -- -- 441,720 162,180

Category 2 2,210,557 984,106 45 4,038,372 1,075,752 27 Departamento en edificio 1,262,598 730,137 33 -- -- -- Vivienda o cuarto en vecindad 916,357 245,904 27 -- -- -- Vivienda o cuarto en la azotea 31,602 8,065 26 -- -- -- Apartment: 5 or more storeys -- -- -- 974,700 156,456 Apartment, under 5 storeys -- -- -- 2,019,420 319,320 Row house -- -- -- 539,352 260,532 Semi-detached house -- -- -- 504,900 339,444

Category 3 40,581 16,576 41 200,484 152,784 76 Non-housing building used as dwelling 32,128 12,675 39 -- -- -- Vivienda móvil 8,453 3,901 46 -- -- -- Moveable dwelling -- -- -- 161,316 135,180 Other single-attached -- -- -- 39,168 17,604 N.A. 640,910 491,662 77 Refugio -- -- -- -- -- --



Table 8 Use of the stock: percentage in owner-occupied dwelling by age of person, marital status, and house-hold type: Canada 1996 and Mexico 2000.

Under 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 50- 65- 75 or All 20 24 29 34 39 49 64 74 older ages

Persons married and living with spouse

Mexico 2000, All households 60 60 66 74 80 85 90 92 91 79 HWFLA only 38 43 53 61 65 61 52 51 53 57

Canada 1996, All households 25 33 54 70 78 84 87 85 78 78 HWFLA only 10 23 46 63 72 76 77 76 70 70

Other persons

Mexico 2000, All households 80 84 83 83 82 81 84 86 87 81 1PHH, HWFLA or LPFLA only 66 56 46 41 39 37 31 27 22 58

Canada 1996, All households 71 64 48 44 45 50 55 60 58 63 1PHH, HWFLA or LPFLA only 62 52 33 27 29 34 38 42 38 51


housing situation and social policy: a tale of two nationsmiron/mironkunz2005hsspttn.pdf · housing...

Documents