Persisting Differences or Adaptation to German Fertility Patterns? First and Second Birth Behavior of the 1.5 and Second Generation Turkish Migrants in Germany

Abstract

In this study, we use data of the German Mikrozensus to explore first and second birth behavior of migrants’ descendants. Whereas prior waves of the Mikrozensus only included respondents’ citizenship, in the survey years 2005 and 2009 also parental citizenship has been surveyed. This allows us to identify respondents’ migrant backgrounds, even if they have German citizenship. We distinguish those who migrated as children (1.5 generation) from those who were born to Turkish parents in Germany (second generation migrants). We compare both migrant generations to German non-migrants. Using discrete-time hazard models, our results show that 1.5 generation migrants have the highest probability of having a first and second birth, while German non-migrants have the lowest birth probabilities. The second generation lies in-between. This pattern also persists after taking the educational attainment of respondents into consideration. However, there seems to be an adaptation of highly educated second generation Turkish migrants to non-migrant Germans: we find no significant differences in the probability of having a first birth in the two groups. For second births, we do not find this pattern which might be related to the young age structure in the sample of second generation migrants.

Childbearing among first- and second-generation Russians in Estonia against the background of the sending and host countries

“…In Europe, larger differences are characteristic of migrants from high-fertility settings (Andersson and Scott 2007;Coleman and Dubuc 2010;Milewski 2011). The descendants of migrants from highfertility contexts tend to have lower fertility levels than their parents' generation, usually between those of the latter and the natives of the host society (Milewski 2007(Milewski , 2010Garssen and Nicolaas 2008;Dubuc 2012;Scott and Stanfors 2011;Krapf and Wolf 2015). Similar findings for second-generation migrants are also reported in the United States and Australia (Kahn 1988;Stephen and Bean 1992;Landale and Hauan 1996;Abbasi-Shavazi and McDonald 2000;Khoo et al 2002;Parrado and Morgan 2008).…”

“…The characteristics perspective compares migrants with the natives of the destination country (Jaffe and Cullen 1975;Ng and Nault 1997). According to this perspective, the composition of migrant groups in terms of socioeconomic or cultural characteristics could be partly or wholly responsible for fertility differentials between the former and the latter (Bean, Swicegood, and Berg 2000;Hill and Johnson 2004;Krapf and Wolf 2015). The characteristics of migrants may be transmitted to the second generation by their parents (Frank and Heuveline 2005).…”

“…Furthermore, the childbearing patterns of migrants provide an additional measure of integration into the host society (Coleman 1994). Studies generally find migrant fertility converging with levels that are characteristic of the native population, although for some groups differences persist (Garssen and Nicolaas 2008;Scott and Stanfors 2011;Dubuc 2012;Krapf and Wolf 2015). Finally, the experience of international migrants who move from one societal context to another offers valuable insight into the roles of various factors that are assumed to shape fertility outcomes.…”

Fertility among descendants of immigrants in Belgium: The role of the partner

“…Milewski (2010b) finds in Germany that second-generation women of Southern European origin have similar patterns to those of the native German population. However, descendants of Turkish origin have higher first and third birth risks (see also Krapf and Wolf 2015). The fertility levels of the children of Turkish and Moroccan origin in Belgium are found to be lower than their parents' but different from those of the native population.…”

“…As the share of the second generation in the total population has increased, and as many of them have recently attained the age of family formation (de Valk and Milewski 2011;Kulu and González-Ferrer 2014), their childbearing behavior is becoming an important factor in shaping the demographic composition of European populations. The existing studies that have analyzed the fertility behavior of the second generation emphasize that the social environment in which they grew up is of major importance for understanding their fertility behavior (Krapf and Wolf 2015;Kulu et al 2017;Kulu and González-Ferrer 2014;Milewski 2010b;Sobotka 2008). This study adds a different perspective by looking at the role played in higher order births by the origin of the male partner.…”