Journal of Population Research

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

The diverse nature of living apart together relationships: an Italy–France comparison

  • Arnaud Régnier-LoilierEmail author
  • Daniele Vignoli


This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the nature of living apart together (LAT) relationships by focusing on two contrasting family settings: France and Italy. First, we corroborate the view that being “single” in residential terms does not mean being “without a partner” in relationship terms. To assume otherwise would be an erroneous characterisation of more than one quarter of the individuals in both countries. Second, our findings cannot be reconciled with any notion of a simple, uniform, and uni-directional view of LAT relationships. In Italy, LAT relationships are popular in the early phases of the life course, when young adults must often face difficult economic situations as well as social pressure to marry. In France, LAT relationships are more the result of a conscious choice, especially in later phases of the life course. We discuss these results in light of the second demographic transition narrative.


Living apart together relationships Cohabitation Italy France Generations and gender survey 



Arnaud Régnier-Loilier acknowledges the Direction des relations internationals et des partenariats (Department of International Relations and Partnerships) of the French National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) for funding his research visit at the Department of Statistics, Informatics, Applications “Giuseppe Parenti” (DiSIA), of the University of Florence. He also thanks the faculty of DiSIA for their hospitality. Daniele Vignoli acknowledges the financial support provided by the strategic project “Families and Well-being in Italy: Dynamics and Relationships”, financed by the University of Florence (PI: Daniele Vignoli). The French version of the Generations and Gender Survey was funded by INED and INSEE (the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies), with the support of the ANR (French National Research Agency), the CNAF (French National Family Allowance Fund), the CNAV (French National Old-Age Pension Fund), the DARES (Directorate for the Coordination of Research, Studies and Statistics), the DREES (Directorate for Research and Statistical Studies) and the COR (Pensions Advisory Council).


  1. Benson, J. J., & Coleman, M. (2016). Older adults developing a preference for living apart together. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 797–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billari, F. C., & Rosina, A. (2004). Italian “latest-late” transition to adulthood: An exploration of its consequences on fertility. Genus, 60(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
  3. Billari, F. C., Rosina, A., Ranaldi, R., & Romano, M. C. (2008). Young adults living apart and together (LAT) with parents: a three-level analysis of the Italian case. Regional Studies, 42(5), 625–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blossfeld, H.-P., Klizing, F., Mills, M., & Kurz, K. (Eds.). (2005). Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Borell, K., & Ghazanfareeon Karlsson, S. (2003). Reconceptualizing intimacy and ageing. Living apart together. In S. Arber, K. Davidson, & J. Ginn (Eds.), Gender and ageing: changing roles and relationships. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caradec, V. (1997). Forms of conjugal life among the “young elderly”. Population, 9, 47–73.Google Scholar
  8. Casper, L. M., Braddon, P. D., Di Prete, T. A., Sanders, S., & Smock, P. J. (2008). Rethinking change and variation in unions In Morgan, P. I. et al. (Ed.), Explaining family change (pp. 59–100).Google Scholar
  9. Casterline, J. B. (2001). Diffusion processes and fertility transition, selected perspectives. Washington, D.C: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  10. Castiglioni, M., & Dalla Zuanna, G. (2008). Marital and reproductive behavior in Italy after 1995: Bridging the gap with Western Europe? European Journal of Population, 25, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castro-Martín, T., Dominguez-Folgueras, M., & Martin-Garcia, T. (2008). Not truly partnerless: Non-residential partnerships and retreat from marriage in Spain. Demographic Research, 18(16), 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalla Zuanna, G. (2002). The banquet of Aeolus. Demographic Research, 4, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together: Partner relationship following bereavement or divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 236–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Jong Gierveld, J., & Merz, E.-M. (2013). Parents’ partnership decision making after divorce or widowhood: The role of (step)children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1098–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Giulio, P. (2007). Living apart together: Insieme, ma separati. In A. Pinnelli, F. Racioppi, & L. Terzera (Eds.), Genere, Famiglia, Salute, Franco Angeli Edizione, (pp. 410–431).Google Scholar
  16. Duncan, S. (2014). Women’s agency in living apart together: constraint, strategy and vulnerability. The Sociological Review, 63, 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duncan, S., Carter, J., Phillips, M., & Roseneil, S. (2013a). Why do people live apart together? Families, Relationships and Societies, 2, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2010). People who live apart together (LATs)—how different are they? Sociological Review, 58(1), 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan, S., Phillips, M., Roseneil, S., Carter, J., & Stoilova, M. (2013b). Living Apart Together: uncoupling intimacy and co-residence.
  20. Ermisch, J., & Seidler, T. (2009). Living apart together. In M. Brynin & J. Ermisch (Eds.), Changing relationships (pp. 29–43). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Ghazanfareeon Karlsson, S., & Borell, K. (2002). Intimacy and autonomy, gender and ageing: Living apart together. Ageing International, 27(4), 11–26.Google Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality. Stanford UP: Love and Eroticism in Modern Society.Google Scholar
  23. Haskey, J. (2005). Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who usually lives elsewhere and Living Apart Together (LAT). Population Trends, 122, 35–45.Google Scholar
  24. Haskey, J., & Lewis, J. (2006). Living-apart-together in Britain: Context and Meaning. International Journal of Law in Context, 2(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Insee. (2013).
  26. Istat. (2013).
  27. Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. (2013). The effect of children on men’s and women’s chances of re-partnering in a European context. European Journal of Population, 29(4), 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law & Policy, 26, 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. (2012). Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe: Introduction. Demographic Research, 20, 835–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in western countries: An interpretation. In K. O. Mason et al. (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lesthaeghe R., & van de Kaa D. J. (1986). Twee demografische transities? In: Groei en krimp. Mens en Maatschappij, annual book volume, Van Loghum-Slaterus, Deventer: 9–24.Google Scholar
  32. Levin, I. (2004). Living Apart Together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52(2), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liefbroer, A., Seltzer, J., & Poortman, A.-R. (2015). Why do intimate partners live apart? Evidence on LAT relationships across Europe. Demographic Research, 32, 251–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Livi Bacci, M. (2001). Too few children and too much families. Dedalus, 130(3), 139–155.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, C., Cherlin, A., & Corss-Barnet, C. (2011). Living together apart in France and the United States. Population, 66(3–4), 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mulder, C., & Billari, F. C. (2010). Home-ownership regimes and low fertility. Housing Studies, 25(4), 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pailhé, A., & Solaz, A. (2012). The influence of employment uncertainty on childbearing in France: A tempo or quantum effect? Demographic Research, 26, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pirani, E., & Vignoli, D. (2016). Changes in the satisfaction of cohabitors relative to spouses over time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rault, W. (2009). L’invention du Pacs. Pratiques et symboliques d’une nouvelle forme d’union. Paris: Sciences Po. Les Presses.Google Scholar
  40. Rault W., Régnier-Loilier A. (2015). Firts cohabiting relationships: recent trends in France, Population & Societies, 521.Google Scholar
  41. Régnier-Loilier, A. (2009). L’Étude des relations familiales et intergénérationnelles. Du projet international à l’enquête française. In Régnier-Loilier, A. (Ed.), Portraits de familles. L’Étude des relations familiales et intergénérationnelles, Collection « Grandes Enquêtes », Ined, (pp. 31–56).Google Scholar
  42. Régnier-Loilier, A. (2016). Partnership trajectories of people in stable non-cohabiting relationships in France. Demographic Research, 35, 1169–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Régnier-Loilier, A., Beaujouan, É., & Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (2009). Neither single, nor in a couple: A study of living apart together in France. Demographic Research, 21(4), 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Régnier-Loilier, A., & Vignoli, D. (2011). Fertility intentions and obstacles to their realization in France and Italy. Population, 66(2), 361–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reimondos, A., Evans, A., & Gray, E. (2011). Living-apart-together relationships in Australia. Family Matters, 87, 43–55.Google Scholar
  47. Roseneil, S. (2006). On not living with a partner: Unpicking coupledom and cohabitation. Sociological Research Online, 11(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruggles, S. (2012). The future of historical family demography. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 181–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sánchez, L., & Goldani, A. M. (2013). The Changing shape of ties in European Families: Profiles and intentions of LAT couples. Paper presented at the 2012 Population Association of America, 3–5 May 2012, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  50. Sansonetti, S. (2009). Social indicators of secularisation in Italy. In B. A. Kosmin & A. Keysar (Eds.), Secularism, women and the state: The Mediterranean World in the 21st Century (pp. 137–154). Hartford: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture.Google Scholar
  51. Saraceno, C. (1994). Commuting between households: Multiple memberships, shifting boundaries. The European Journal of Social Science, 7(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saraceno, C. (2012). Coppie e famiglie. Non è questione di natura. Milano: Feltrinelli Editore.Google Scholar
  53. Sebille P. (2009). Changing Patterns of Transition to Adulthood. In Régnier-Loilier A. (Ed.), The contemporary family in France. Partnership trajectories and domestic organization, Springer, Ined Population Studies 5: 17–42.Google Scholar
  54. Stoilova, M., Roseneil, S., Crowhurst, I., Hellesund, T., & Santos, A. C. (2014). Living apart relationships in contemporary Europe: Accounts of togetherness and apartness. Sociology, 48(6), 1075–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strohm, C. Q., Seltzer, J. A., Cochran, S. D., & Mayes, V. M. (2009). “Living Apart Together” relationships in the United States. Demographic Research, 21, 177–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tai, T., Baxter, J., & Hewitt, B. (2014). Do co-residence and intentions make a difference? Relationship satisfaction in married, cohabiting, and living apart together couples in four countries. Demographic Research, 31, 71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Toulemon, L. (1996). La cohabitation hors mariage s’installe dans la durée. Population, 51(3), 675–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turcotte, M. (2013). Living Apart Together, Insights on Canadian Society. March 2013: 1–9.Google Scholar
  59. Upton-Davis, K. (2015). Subverting gendered norms of cohabitation: Living Apart Together for women over 45. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(1), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42, 1–57.Google Scholar
  61. Vignoli, D., Drefahl, S., & De Santis, G. (2012). Whose job instability affects the likelihood of becoming a parent in Italy? A tale of two partners. Demographic Research, 26, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vignoli, D., Rinesi, F., & Mussino, E. (2013). A home to plan the first child? Fertility intentions and housing conditions in Italy. Population, Space and Place, 19(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vignoli, D., & Salvini, S. (2014). Religion and Union formation in Italy: Catholic Precepts, social pressure, and tradition. Demographic Research, 31, 1079–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vignoli, D., Tocchioni, V., & Salvini, S. (2016). Uncertain lives: Insights into the role of job precariousness in union formation in Italy. Demographic Research, 35, 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vikat, A., et al. (2007). Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut national d’études démographiques (INED)Paris Cedex 20France
  2. 2.University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations