ArticlePDF Available

Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the Marriage and Migration History Affect the Timing of First and Second Childbirth Among Turkish Immigrants in Germany?

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Our study focus es on the fertility of first-generation femal e and male Turkish migrants in Germany. To evaluate whether timing effects such as fertility disruption or an interrelation of marriage, migration and childbirth occur, we examine first and second births in the years before and after immigration to Germany. The Turkish sample of the Generations and Gender Survey which was conducted in 2006 offers the unique opportunity to examine Turkish immigrants as a single immigrant category. We question the common understanding that Turkish immigrants who arrived to Germany after 1973 mainly arrived for family reunification resulting in high birth intensities immediately after immigration. To distinguish different circumstances under which male and female immigrants have arrived to Germany, we include the combined marriage and migration history of the couple. We find that first birth probabilities are elevat ed during the years immediately following migration. But this effect is not universal among migrants with different marriage and migration histories. It appears that the arrival effect of high birth intensities is particularly high among female immigrants and is evident only among marriage migrants, that is Turks who married a partner who already lived in Germany at the time of the wedding. By contrast, among those who immigrated for family reunification, we do not find such an arrival effect.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How
Does the Marriage and Migration History Affect the
Timing of First and Second Childbirth Among Turkish
Immigrants in Germany?
Katharina Wolf
1,2
Received: 23 January 2014 / Accepted: 21 September 2016 / Published online: 27 October 2016
The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Our study focuses on the fertility of first-generation female and male
Turkish migrants in Germany. To evaluate whether timing effects such as fertility
disruption or an interrelation of marriage, migration and childbirth occur, we
examine first and second births in the years before and after immigration to Ger-
many. The Turkish sample of the Generations and Gender Survey which was
conducted in 2006 offers the unique opportunity to examine Turkish immigrants as
a single immigrant category. We question the common understanding that Turkish
immigrants who arrived to Germany after 1973 mainly arrived for family reunifi-
cation resulting in high birth intensities immediately after immigration. To distin-
guish different circumstances under which male and female immigrants have
arrived to Germany, we include the combined marriage and migration history of the
couple. We find that first birth probabilities are elevated during the years imme-
diately following migration. But this effect is not universal among migrants with
different marriage and migration histories. It appears that the arrival effect of high
birth intensities is particularly high among female immigrants and is evident only
among marriage migrants, that is Turks who married a partner who already lived in
Germany at the time of the wedding. By contrast, among those who immigrated for
family reunification, we do not find such an arrival effect.
Keywords Fertility Male fertility Life-course analysis Germany
Turkish migrants Marriage migration Family reunification
&Katharina Wolf
k.wolf@rug.nl
1
Population Research Centre, Department of Demography, Faculty of Spacial Sciences,
University of Groningen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands
2
Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany
123
Eur J Population (2016) 32:731–759
DOI 10.1007/s10680-016-9402-4
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1 Introduction
Since the 1950s, net migration of foreigners to Germany has, on average, been
positive (Statistisches Bundesamt 2014). As a result, the number of people of
foreign origin has been growing since that time (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013). Of
this population, individuals of Turkish origin form the largest group, making up
3.6 % of the total population residing in Germany in 2011 (Statistisches Bundesamt
2012). Since migration is an incisive event in the human life course, it can be
expected to have a strong impact on the occurrence and timing of childbirth. In
particular, fertility outcomes depend to a large extent on the timing of migration
over the life course (Adsera
`and Ferrer 2014). Thus, migrant fertility must be
explored from an individual life-course perspective. We investigate each migrant’s
full fertility history by examining the births of his or her children which occurred
before migration (most likely in Turkey) and after migration (in Germany). For the
first time, not just female, but also male immigrant fertility is under study.
Furthermore, instead of focusing on comparing migrant fertility with the fertility of
Germans, this study is among the few that focuses in detail on migrant fertility only
(see also Schmid and Kohls 2009; Stichnoth and Yeter 2013). We follow this
approach because it allows us to evaluate the impact of a number of migration-
specific indicators. Recent studies have shown the importance of the duration of stay
in the host country. For example, birth intensities were found to be high during the
time immediately following migration among several migrant groups in Europe and
the USA (Carter 2000;Lu
¨bke 2014; Milewski 2007; Toulemon 2004). In addition,
the age at migration and the reasons for migrating have been shown to have affected
migrant fertility (Andersson 2004; Cygan-Rehm 2011; Milewski 2007; Mussino and
Strozza 2012; Toulemon 2004). In the case of Germany, researchers have stated that
high birth intensities immediately after immigration might be related to the fact that
most of the migrant women in Germany arrived for family reunification (e.g.
Milewski 2007). However, to our knowledge, in none of the previous papers on that
topic migration for family reunification and other forms such as marriage migration
have been distinguished sufficiently. To shed more light on different pathways of
entering Germany and the effects on migrants’ fertility behaviour, we take into
account the combined marriage and migration history of the couple and compare
immigrants arriving for family reunification to those who come as marriage
migrants.
Our research questions are as follows: What is the relationship between first and
second childbirth and the duration of stay in Germany among male and female
Turkish immigrants? Are birth risks highest in the years preceding migration, in the
years immediately after the move, or in the years that follow? And, how do fertility
patterns differ by age at migration and are there differences between marriage
migrants and those who migrated for family reunification? As our data source, we
use the first wave of the German Generations and Gender Survey (GGS), which was
conducted in 2006. The immigrant sample includes Turkish citizens of the first
migrant generation who were living in Germany. In a first step, the age-specific
fertility rates, along with the total fertility rates, are estimated by age at migration.
732 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
This provides us with an initial impression of the differences in fertility between
male and female Turkish migrants. In our multivariate analysis, we use discrete-
time regression models to examine the risk of having a first and a second birth by
duration of stay separately for men and women. We furthermore investigate the
impact of the age at migration and compare marriage migrants with those who
migrated for family reunification.
2 Theoretical Considerations and Previous Research
2.1 Turkish Migration to Germany
Coordinated labour migration from Turkey to Germany began in 1961 and ended in
1973. After the recruitment agreement was halted, there were only few possibilities
to immigrate legally from Turkey to Germany (Mu
¨nz et al. 1999; Seifert 1997).
Turkish immigrants could either rely on their right of asylum or migrate under the
family reunification law (‘‘Familienzusammenfu
¨hrung’’). The latter allows an
immigrant’s foreign spouse and children below age 16 to immigrate. There are two
major categories of Turkish immigrants arriving under the family reunification law,
namely those who were married before one of the partners migrated to Germany and
who arrived to reunify with their spouse and, second, those who married a spouse
already living in Germany and then immigrated to Germany to join their spouse.
The latter are referred to as transnational marriages which were and still are quite
common. Almost half of all married first-generation Turkish migrant men living in
Germany married a wife who was living in Turkey at the time of the wedding. But
the share of transnational marriages is smaller among Turkish women (Kalter and
Schroedter 2010). The preference for transnational marriages among Turkish
immigrants in Germany also diminishes across generations: Among second-
generation Turkish immigrants, a second-generation Turkish partner is the dominant
choice (Huschek et al. 2012; Kalter and Schroedter 2010). While the practice of
transnational marriage is related with low educational levels among men of Turkish
origin in Germany, this is not the case for women (Gonza
´lez-Ferrer 2006).
In recent decades, Turkey has experienced a steep fertility decline. The TFR fell
from more than six children per woman in 1950 to 2.07 in 2013. Over the same
period, the decline in the TFR was accompanied by an increase in the mean age at
childbirth, from 26.7 to 27.7 years (Statistics Turkey 2014; United Nations
Population Division 2012). We can therefore assume that the decrease in the total
fertility rate was partly driven by a postponement of childbirth to higher ages.
Recent parity-specific analyses have shown that the level of childlessness in Turkey
is still low, but the risks of having a third or fourth child have declined sharply since
the 1990s (Yavuz 2008). Fertility levels in Turkey also differ considerably between
rural and urban regions. For example, in 2003, the TFR of women living in urban
environments was about 1.68, whereas the TFR of women living in rural areas was,
at 3.63, more than twice as high (Eryurt and Koc¸ 2012). While the development of
fertility patterns in Turkey should not be ignored in studies of Turkish migrant
fertility, there is, unfortunately, no simple way to take these trends into account. In
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the733
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
our multivariate regression models, we include a migrant’s birth cohort to control
for changes across time. Nevertheless, we do not know to what extent migrants have
been influenced by the development of fertility in Turkey. Most migrants in our
sample left the country when they were young adults. The degree to which they are
still influenced by family and fertility values in Turkey depends not only on their
level of integration and their social environment in Germany, but also on the
number and the intensity of their contacts in Turkey. Since we do not have any
information on those indicators, we should be careful when interpreting our results
on Turkish migrant fertility, and bear in mind that we cannot draw any conclusions
regarding the influence of value shifts which have been taking place in Turkey.
The development of fertility in Turkey, in combination with the history of
Turkish migration to Germany, has several implications for our study. Over the past
century, Turkey has had a lower prevalence of childlessness and higher fertility
levels than western European countries. The sharp decline in fertility was mainly
driven by lower birth intensities of higher birth orders. Since Turkish immigrants in
Germany were born in Turkey, and were, at least partly, socialized in a high fertility
context, we expect to find that those first-generation immigrants had low levels of
childlessness and high first and second birth intensities. This assumption is further
supported by the fact that the majority of Turkish immigrants in Germany are from
rural areas in Turkey, where fertility levels continue to be higher than they are in
urban regions. Our sample of Turkish immigrants mainly consists of men and
women arriving in Germany after 1973. Thus, our focus is on the two major
immigrant groups arriving after that time, that is, migrants who arrived for family
reunification and marriage migrants. We therefore take into account at which point
in time the couple has married: before or after both partners migrated to Germany or
after only one of the partners migrated.
2.2 Fertility Disruption, the Interrelation of Events, and the Selectivity
of Immigrants
Four major ‘‘partly complementary, partly contradictory hypotheses’’ (Kulu
2005, p. 52) have been advanced by demographic researchers to explain migrant
fertility. Scholars have variously attributed migrants’ fertility behaviour to
disruption, selection, socialization, and adaptation effects (Hervitz 1985; Kulu
2005; Lee 1992; Rundquist and Brown 1989; Singley and Landale 1998; Stephen
and Bean 1992). In addition to these theoretical approaches, empirical evidence of
an interrelation of events has been suggested (Andersson 2004; Milewski 2007).
Socialization and adaptation arguments are of minor relevance for this paper, as
they are based on comparisons of migrants and the majority population in the
country of destination (Alders 2000; Andersson 2004; Hervitz 1985; Kahn 1988;
Lindstrom and Saucedo 2002; Singley and Landale 1998; Stephen and Bean 1992).
By contrast, analyses which investigate disruption and the interrelation of events
focus on migration and childbirth timing without focusing on a comparison with the
majority group population. Selection effects are also highly relevant for the study of
migrant behaviour. Arguments based on disruption, the interrelation of events, and
selection are therefore discussed below.
734 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2.2.1 Fertility Disruption
According to disruption theory, the economic and the psychological costs of
migration cause stress, which in turn leads to temporary discontinuities in
childbearing behaviour. Disruption might occur in the years immediately prior to
migration, during the process itself, and shortly after arrival at the destination
(Goldstein 1973; Hervitz 1985; Kulu 2005; Stephen and Bean 1992). The so-called
anticipatory effect is based on the assumption that low childbirth intensities
immediately prior to migration may be caused by stress related with the
organizational planning of the move, a temporary separation from the partner, or
economic hardship. In the years immediately following migration, conception is
considered unlikely because individuals need some time to settle in, and to find
proper housing and employment. Empirical evidence of temporary fertility
disruption was found for several countries and migrant populations. Perez-Patron
(2012) found indicators of post-migration disruption among Mexican migrants in
the USA, if migration occurred prior to the start of family formation. In addition,
ethnic Germans (‘‘Aussiedler’’) have been shown to have experienced disruption in
the period immediately after they arrived in Germany (Dinkel and Lebok 1997).
Other studies found that fertility was disrupted prior to migration among Mexican
immigrants in the USA and among several immigrant groups in Germany, Italy,
Canada, and Spain (Carter 2000; Choi 2014; Milewski 2007; Mussino and Strozza
2012; Ng and Nault 1997; Vila and Martı
`n2007). For Turkish migrants in Germany,
we expect to find pre-migration disruption, namely low first and second childbirth
risks, among marriage migrants but not among family reunifiers (H1a). This is due
to the fact that, for most of the marriage migrants, the migration to Germany is one
of the last steps in the family formation process. Typically, partners get engaged
while one of the partners lives in Germany, but the other one still lives in Turkey.
The engagement festivities are followed by a period of partners’ separation that lasts
until the partner finally follows his or her partner and migrates to Germany (Aybek
2015). Family reunifiers also experience periods of separation of the spouses, but
the couples are already married and may visit each other. Post-migration disruption
indicated by low first and second birth intensities during the years shortly after
immigration may occur among both marriage migrants and family reunifiers,
because both groups need time to settle in and thus might postpone fertility (H1b).
2.2.2 Migration and the Interrelation of Events
Migration and birth decisions are important life-course decisions which must be
studied from a life-course perspective (Kley 2011; Willekens 1991; Wingens et al.
2011). It is generally understood that the process of migration is strongly associated
with family formation events such as marriage (Mulder and Wagner 1993). On the
one hand, changes in family life, such as union formation or childbirth, strongly
determine migration decisions. On the other hand, migration has an important
influence on the timing of family-related events. It is therefore assumed that the
elevated birth rates observed among migrants shortly after arrival result from an
interrelation of migration, union formation, and childbirth (Andersson 2004;
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the735
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Singley and Landale 1998). A large body of research has shown that there is a close
link between family formation and migration, i.e. that fertility is particularly high
immediately after migration. This link has been demonstrated for immigrants in the
USA, France, Sweden, Spain, the UK, and the Netherlands (Alders 2000; Andersson
2004; Andersson and Scott 2005; Carter 2000; Choi 2014; Devolder and Bueno
2011; Lindstrom and Giorguli-Saucedo 2007;Lu
¨bke 2014; Singley and Landale
1998; Toulemon 2004). Studies on Spain and Italy showed that period fertility and
first birth risks were particularly high shortly after arrival among women who
migrated for family reasons (Mussino and Strozza 2012; Vila and Martı
`n2007). In
Germany, the first birth risks of guest worker immigrants from Turkey, Italy, Spain,
Greece, and former Yugoslavia were found to be elevated in the first year after
immigration and were particularly high in the first year of marriage (Milewski
2007). Based on the empirical findings on the close relationship between migration,
marriage and the transition to parenthood, we expect marriage migrants from
Turkey to have high first birth risks shortly after they have arrived in Germany (H2).
Obviously, this contradicts hypothesis 1b on post-migration disruption.
One of the major contributions of this paper is the distinction between male and
female Turkish immigrant fertility patterns. We expect to find gender differences
particularly among marriage migrants. Generally, marrying a co-national partner,
who was still living in the country of origin at the time of the marriage, has been
found to be related with a migrant’s strong orientation towards the traditions, norms,
and values that are dominant in the home country. But scholars are divided over the
question whether this applies to male and female migrants in the same way (see, e.g.
Baykara-Krumme and Fuß 2011; Gonza
´lez-Ferrer 2006). Some argue that migrant
women who marry a partner from Turkey orient themselves less towards the
traditional family role model and tend to marry a partner from the home country as
part of an emancipatory process, because such a setting offers a larger autonomy
from the family-in-law (Lievens 1999; Timmerman et al. 2009). In addition,
qualitative research reveals that the sequence of events such as getting engaged,
moving to Germany, and celebrating the wedding party differs among male and
female marriage migrants. It appears that women who marry a man from Turkey
hold positions of power that allow them to organize the wedding and migration of
the partner according to their own preferences (Aybek 2015). Van Landschoot et al.
(2014) show that partner choice patterns of the Turkish second generation in
Belgium have a clear impact on their fertility patterns. First birth risks are higher
among Turkish second-generation women with a first- or second-generation partner
from Turkey, compared to those with a native Belgium partner. The lack of a
significant difference in first birth risks between those who are partnered with a first
or a second-generation Turkish migrant may be interpreted as an indicator of the
instrumentality of marrying a first-generation partner for emancipatory reasons
(Van Landschoot et al. 2014). For first-generation Turkish migrants in Germany we
state the following hypotheses. If men living in Germany choose a partner from
Turkey to maintain the traditional family role model, then their wives who follow
would show high first and second birth intensities after immigrating to Germany
(H3a). If women living in Germany marry a partner from Turkey to emancipate
736 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
themselves from the traditional family model, we would expect lower first and
second childbirth risks in those cases where the men follow (H3b).
2.2.3 Selectivity of Migration
While classical selection theory is most often used to explain differences between
migrants and non-migrants in the destination country (Goldstein and Goldstein
1981; Ribe and Schultz 1980), it also provides a framework for comparing migrants
to non-migrants in the country of origin. Several scholars have attributed the high
levels of immigrant fertility to the fact that immigrants are positively selected in
terms of fertility relative to the stayers in the country of origin (Choi 2014; Dubuc
2012; Frank and Heuveline 2005). By comparing migrant populations in Italy and
Russia, Mussino and Van Raalte (2013) concluded that immigrants tend to have
similar first birth risk profiles, even though they originate from and migrated to
different countries. This suggests that migrants are a selective group who display
behaviour which might be determined less by country-specific circumstances than
by the fact of being a migrant (Mussino and Van Raalte 2013). In addition, recent
research has extended the conventional notion of selection theory, positing that
selectivity might also occur in terms of the reasons for migration and the
individual’s or the couple’s life stage (Kulu and Gonza
´lez-Ferrer 2014, p. 422).
According to Lindstrom and Saucedo (2002), the selectivity of migrants depends on
whether migration is temporary or permanent. Migration streams also appear to
become less selective over time (Frank and Heuveline 2005; Portes 1979). Chain
migrants are thus less selective than the group of pioneer migrants who moved
before a large migration stream had developed (Massey 1990). We assume that
marriage migrants and those who arrive for family reunification have a strong
family orientation, which is accompanied by a selectivity towards high fertility
intentions. However, as mentioned before, male marriage migrants may form an
exception as it has been found that Turkish women in Germany often choose to
marry a partner from Turkey to emancipate themselves from the family-in-law and
the traditional family model. As a result, the men who arrive as marriage migrants
would also have more modern views on family and childbirth. Based on this gender
difference in selectivity and in line with hypotheses 3a and 3b, we expect that male
marriage migrants show lower first and second childbirth intensities than female
marriage migrants.
3 Data and Methods
3.1 Data and Sample
Our main data source is the first wave of the German Generations and Gender
Survey (GGS). It includes a sub-sample of Turkish first-generation immigrants who
were drawn from all Turkish citizens aged 18–79 who were registered in Germany
in 2006 (n=4000). This implies that the Turkish-born who hold German
citizenship are under-represented, but the share of Turkish immigrants in Germany
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the737
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
who naturalized was only 21 % in 2005 (Bandorski et al. 2007). Although the GGS
is a cross-sectional dataset and the data were collected in the receiving country only,
detailed birth histories and a number of migration-specific covariates are provided.
As a result, the date of immigration and the current partner’s migration history are
available for our analysis. The interviews were held in German, but the
questionnaires were also available in Turkish. The same applies to the information
brochures for the first contact between interviewers and respondents. Therefore,
selection towards those with good German language skills should be minimized. We
restrict our sample to women and men born between 1950 and 1969, because the
birth histories in the GGS sample were found to be biased for respondents born
before 1950 (see Kreyenfeld et al. 2010; Sauer et al. 2012), and only respondents
who had already experienced most of their fertile life span were to be included.
Even though we are examining both male and female fertility behaviour, we do not
take a couples perspective. The men and women in our sample are independent
individuals. The final sample consists of men and women of the birth cohorts
1950–1969. Thus, the respondents were aged 36–55 at the time of the interview. We
also excluded respondents with missing information on their age, their date of
immigration, or their birth history. Only the biological children of the respondents
were taken into account. As shown in Table 1, our final sample size consists of 1125
respondents who were at risk of having a first child, of whom 550 are male and 575
are female. As Table 5in the Appendix illustrates, the sample for second births is
slightly smaller (n=1050).
3.2 Methods
Following the approach by Toulemon (2004) (see also Devolder and Bueno 2011;
Toulemon and Mazuy 2004), we estimate age-specific fertility rates in order to gain
a first impression of the fertility patterns of Turkish migrants in Germany. The rates
fluctuate considerably given the small sample size. The curves are smoothed using a
3-year moving average. The total fertility rates (TFR) are then calculated. TFRs
should be used with caution when studying immigrant populations, as these rates
may be biased by tempo effects, as well as by other factors specific to immigrants,
such as the age at migration or the marital composition (Parrado 2011). One of the
basic assumptions is that the age groups are homogeneous, which is not the case for
migrants, as their fertility differs by migration stage. Hence, we group Turkish
fertility rates by age at migration to examine whether different patterns evolve from
varying life-course experiences. To learn more about the impact of the age at
migration on childbirth, we model the individual life courses with the help of event
plots. These plots are a useful tool to evaluate the interplay of several life-course
events graphically (Willekens 2014). Each line corresponds with one individual in
our data. For each person, the age at migration is labelled with a circle and a cross
stands for the birth of the first child. In addition, we split the group of migrants by
the marriage and migration history of the couple. These graphic presentations allow
us to gain some insight into the associations in the timing of events. This can be
particularly useful when the sample sizes are small, and the statistical power of
regression models is therefore limited.
738 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 1 Number of occurrences and exposures of first birth
Women Men
Person months
at risk (%)
Number of
first births
Person months
at risk (%)
Number of
first births
Birth cohort
1950–1954 19.3 97 11.0 45
1955–1959 19.3 102 19.7 96
1960–1964 26.1 143 30.8 165
1965–1969 35.3 203 38.5 199
Education
Low 72.4 406 47.4 248
Intermediate 14.4 76 33.5 173
High 5.5 17 11.8 46
Other 7.7 46 7.4 38
Age at migration
0–14 26.9 152 34.8 184
15–19 18.8 132 17.8 109
20–24 25.1 141 18.6 100
25–29 10.6 53 15.1 61
30?18.7 67 13.7 51
Marriage and migration history
Family reunification
Marriage, R migrated, partner
migrated later
3.1 17 4.1 19
Marriage, partner migrated, R
migrated later
5.7 42 0.6 3
Marriage migration
R migrated,
marriage ?partner migrated
11.7 64 29.7 173
Partner migrated,
marriage ?R migrated
19.5 127 9.2 51
Other groups
Marriage before/at joint
couple’s migration
8.6 51 5.8 34
R and partner migrated,
married later
16.5 106 19.5 115
Never married 3.3 15 7.0 23
Missing info on marriage or
partner’s migration date
31.5 123 24.2 87
No. of respondents at risk 575 550
No. of birth events 545 505
Notes: R stands for respondent, a comma means that the event took place after the previous event whereas
?means that both events took place around the same time. Data: German GGS 2006, unweighted
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the739
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
For the multivariate analysis, we estimate discrete-time regression models which
are based on a logistic link function. Pit denotes the probability of having a child at
year tfor individual i. The term a0describes the baseline hazard, and b0represents
the estimated regression coefficients for covariates x. The simple regression model
is expressed by Eq. (1):
ln Pit
1Pit

¼a0ðtÞþb0xiðtÞþb0xið1Þ
3.3 Covariates
Our model contains time-varying (xiðtÞ) as well as time-constant covariates (xi). The
time-varying covariate is the number of years of duration of stay in Germany d.It
has negative values if the child was born before the parent migrated, and positive
values if the childbirth occurred after the migrant’s arrival in Germany. The
duration of stay dis grouped into the following categories: dB-3 years,
-3\dB-1, -1\dB0, 0 \dB1, 1 \dB3, 3 \dB6, 6 \dB9 and
9\dyears. The duration of stay always relates to the immigration of the
individual, irrespective of the partner’s migration timing. When dealing with
negative durations, the results should be regarded with caution. Hoem (2014)
illustrated how easily people draw false conclusions when migrant fertility is
examined only on the basis of data on those who actually migrated (for different
examples, see also Hoem and Kreyenfeld 2006a,b). Since birth intensities vary with
migration intensities, the group of individuals who migrated differ in terms of their
fertility from the stayers in the country of origin.
As time-constant covariates, we include the couple’s marriage and migration
history, the birth cohort, the educational status and the age at immigration of the
respondent. Since the migrants who arrived in childhood were not yet in their
reproductive phase, they were not at risk of changing their behaviour in response to
migration. For that reason, our sample for the multivariate analysis is restricted to
women and men who arrived in Germany after their 15th birthday. As both the
covariate of the current age and the age at migration are highly correlated with the
duration of stay and with each other, we could not include both age covariates in our
models at the same time. Since the age at migration is of major importance for
migrant fertility patterns, we decided to make use of this covariate. The results of
the regression model using the current age instead do not differ and are available
from the author upon request. Information on education is based on the ISCED code
and was grouped into the following categories: low education (ISCED code 1–2:
primary or lower secondary school degree), intermediate education (ISCED code 3:
upper secondary school degree), high education (ISCED code 4–6: post-secondary
or tertiary degree), and other education (ISCED code 7: still in school or in training,
other educational degree, unknown status).
1
Respondents were grouped into the
following birth cohorts: 1950–1954, 1955–1959, 1960–1964, and 1965–1969. To
1
International Standard Classification of Education 1997, http://www.unesco.org/education/information/
nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm. Unfortunately, no time-varying information on education is available.
740 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
include the partners’ marriage and migration history, we evaluate the time of their
wedding (relative to the respondent’s and the partner’s immigration date) and
consider which of the partners migrated to Germany first and who followed later on.
According to these indicators, the Turkish migrant population in Germany was
divided into three categories: those coming for family reunification, marriage
migrants and others. Family reunifiers are respondents who had married before one
of the partners migrated to Germany and reunified later on. They are further
distinguished into two sub-categories: migrants who came to Germany first
(whereas their partners followed later) and migrants who followed their partners.
Our second category is marriage migrants, who married after one of the partners had
already migrated to Germany, while the other spouse followed after marrying. We
also make the distinction between first movers and followers. A third group of
people consists of immigrants with other migration and marriage histories. It
contains those who migrated at the same time as their partner, those who have never
been married and respondents who married after both partners have migrated to
Germany. The latter category might include respondents who migrated on their own
account and met each other later, but it could also contain marriage migrants who
followed a partner and married after arrival in Germany. To further distinguish these
subgroups, we would need more detailed information about the distance in time
between the arrival of the partners and the wedding, but our sample is too small to
do so. A last category contains all cases where no information on the combined
marital and migration history was available. This is necessary because, unfortu-
nately, the GGS data offer information on the partner’s migration date only for the
respondent’s current partner at the time of the interview. However, the share of
respondents who were with their current partner (at the time of the interview) even
before they migrated to Germany is with 68.5 % among women and 75.8 % among
men quite high.
2
For the regression models on second births, the duration since the
first birth is included as well. We distinguish between births which occurred in the
year after the previous birth, and those which occurred in the second, the third, or a
subsequent year. In addition, we include a dummy variable indicating whether the
first child was born in Germany.
4 Results
4.1 Descriptives
Figure 1on page 12 shows the age-specific fertility rates by age at migration,
separately for male and female Turkish immigrants in Germany. We find that the
age-specific fertility rates were highest in the years following migration among
Footnote 1 continued
The variable on education therefore refers to the highest school degree obtained, which can be assumed to
be constant over the life course.
2
It has to be noted that only few Turkish immigrants in our sample have married a person who was born
in Germany (n=91). This number is too small to form an own category. Therefore, these migrants have
been coded into this last category of respondents.
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the741
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
those who migrated after age 14. These peaks seem to be more pronounced among
women. The effect is slightly postponed among men. Immigrants who arrived
before age 15 or after age 29 showed the lowest age-specific fertility rates.
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Women
Age
ASFR
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Age at migration 0−14
Age at migration 15−19
Age at migration 20−24
Age at migration 25−29
Age at migration 30+
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Men
A
g
e
ASFR
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Age at migration 0−14
Age at migration 15−19
Age at migration 20−24
Age at migration 25−29
Age at migration 30+
Fig. 1 Age-specific fertility rates by age at migration, three-year moving averages. Notes: The dotted
lines mark the time before migration, the solid lines the time after migration. Data: German GGS 2006,
unweighted
742 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
However, the pattern among the female immigrants who arrived in Germany at
age 30 or older seems a bit odd. This is, however, less surprising considering that
the group of respondents on whom this result is based is very small.
Unfortunately, due to the small sample size, it was not possible to use separate
categories for migrants arriving between age 31 and 40 and those who came after
age 40. As a result, our category ‘‘30 and older’’ contains only a few respondents
who migrated after their childbearing ages. The total fertility rates grouped by age
at migration confirm our findings on high fertility among those who arrived in
young adulthood. Table 2shows that migrants who arrived in Germany before age
15 or after age 29 have had significantly lower TFRs than those who arrived in
young adulthood. Among Turkish men, the mean age at first childbirth (MAC
1
)
was higher the older the migrant was at migration. Turkish women who moved to
Germany before age 19 also showed an elevated MAC
1
. As it appears there is a
strong relationship between the age at migration and the fertility patterns of the
Turkish migrants in Germany, this heterogeneous group should be analysed
separately by age at migration.
In the event plots in Fig. 3(in the Appendix), each line corresponds with one
respondent in our sample. The first panel shows marriage migrants who married
after one of the partners had moved. It seems that for this group, first childbirth
occurs mainly after the respondent has migrated to Germany. Particularly for
those who arrived between the ages of 20 and 30 childbirth seems to happen
quite often immediately after arrival. The second panel illustrates the event plot
for respondents who were already married before migration and who reunified in
Germany later on. It appears that in those cases, many respondents had their first
child before migration. The findings based on the event plots indicate that there
is no post-migration disruption as has been suggested in hypothesis 1b, neither
among marriage migrants nor among family reunifiers. Instead, the pattern
among Turkish marriage migrants is in line with our second hypothesis, that is
based on a short time interval between marriage, migration and family formation,
marriage migrants tend to have their first child immediately after immigration to
Germany.
Table 2 Total fertility rates and mean ages at first childbirth (and 95 % confidence intervals) by age at
migration
Age at migration TFR (95 % CI) MAC
1
(95 % CI)
Male Female Male Female
0–14 2.08 (2.02, 2.14) 2.15 (2.07, 2.23) 24.4 (23.6, 25.2) 25.2 (25.1, 25.3)
15–19 2.61 (2.47, 2.75) 2.49 (2.44, 2.54) 24.3 (23.5, 25.1) 26.0 (25.8, 26.2)
20–24 2.29 (2.27, 2.31) 2.49 (2.44, 2.54) 26.2 (26.1, 26.3) 23.0 (22.0, 24.0)
25–29 2.19 (2.17, 2.21) 2.44 (2.40, 2.48) 28.4 (27.6, 29.2) 24.2 (23.7, 24.7)
30?2.04 (1.96, 2.12) 2.18 (2.11, 2.25) 28.9 (27.9, 29.8) 28.9 (27.6, 30.3)
All Turks 2.28 2.35 25.7 24.9
Data: German GGS 2006, unweighted
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the743
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
4.2 Multivariate Analysis
4.2.1 First Birth
Table 3provides the results of the regression model on first births among female
and male Turkish migrants based on average marginal effects (AME). We find a
strong effect of the duration of stay in Germany. The probability to have a first child
is lowest in the years preceding migration, highest within the first year after
migration, and decreases in the following years. Furthermore, first birth probabilities
are highest among women who arrived in young adulthood between the ages of 15
and 24, and lowest among those who came after age 30. In addition, we do not find
any significant effect of the birth cohort of the women or of their educational
attainment. Further analyses revealed that the absence of a cohort effect is not due to
a correlation between age at migration and cohort. The impact of the combined
marriage and migration history of the couple is also rather small and not significant.
However, it seems that female reunifiers, namely those who have been married
before both partners’ migration, have lower probabilities of having a first child
compared with marriage migrants. Among Turkish migrant men, the only covariate
that has a significant impact on first birth probabilities is the duration of stay. As for
females, first birth intensities are low before migration and peak in the year
immediately following migration. Even though the age at migration is an important
determinant of first birth behaviour among female migrants, there is no significant
effect for males. The coefficients of the covariate on the marriage and migration
history show that respondents involved in marriage migration have the highest
probabilities of having a first child, but there is no significant difference compared
with the other groups. Our findings indicate that there is a disruptive effect on first
birth intensities of men and women in the years preceding migration. Whether this
applies to the same extent to subgroups with different marriage and migration
histories is examined in the next step.
Since we are particularly interested in investigating male-female differences in
childbirth patterns and compare those among family reunifiers and marriage
migrants, we estimated an interaction effect with the duration of stay. The resulting
predicted probabilities are shown in Fig. 2(Table 6in the Appendix lists the
average marginal effects). The graphs include a selection of migrant groups, namely
those respondents married before their own or the partner’s migration (family
reunification) and those who married after one of the partners migrated to Germany
(marriage migration). We do not find any evidence for low first birth intensities
among family reunifiers, but first birth risks are low among marriage migrants in the
years preceding migration. Thus, again in line with our first hypothesis, pre-
migration disruption seems to occur only among marriage migrants. Respondents
involved in family reunification, who were married before both partners migrated,
show higher probabilities of having a first child in the years before migration and
low probabilities afterwards. Thus, as expected, migration, marriage and first
childbirth seem to be highly interrelated among Turkish marriage migrants, but not
among family reunifiers (H2). Among female marriage migrants, we find high first
birth intensities in the years following migration. A similar effect but shifted by
744 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 3 Average marginal effects (AME) on first birth among female and male Turkish migrants
Women Men
AME Pvalue AME Pvalue
Duration since migration (years)
dB-3-0.045 0.098 -0.125 0.000
-3\dB-1-0.106 0.000 -0.130 0.000
-1\dB0-0.087 0.001 -0.105 0.000
0\dB1 Ref. – Ref.
1\dB3-0.056 0.016 -0.046 0.134
3\dB6-0.144 0.000 -0.103 0.000
6\dB9-0.160 0.000 -0.080 0.002
9\d-0.218 0.000 -0.185 0.000
Birth cohort
1950–1954 0.000 0.994 0.005 0.881
1955–1959 Ref. – Ref.
1960–1964 -0.003 0.899 -0.017 0.489
1965–1969 -0.025 0.255 -0.020 0.938
Age at migration
15–19 Ref. – Ref.
20–24 -0.046 0.022 -0.020 0.418
25–29 -0.073 0.001 -0.029 0.266
30?-0.121 0.000 -0.025 0.416
Education
Low Ref. – Ref.
Intermediate 0.008 0.798 0.001 0.946
High -0.001 0.985 -0.026 0.377
Other -0.010 0.708 -0.005 0.854
Marriage and migration history
Family reunification
Marriage, R migrated, partner migrated later -0.005 0.891 -0.018 0.641
Marriage, partner migrated, R migrated later -0.024 0.382 0.009 0.923
Marriage migration
R migrated, marriage ?partner migrated 0.065 0.161 0.012 0.701
Partner migrated, marriage ?R migrated Ref. Ref.
Other groups
Marriage before/at joint couple’s migration -0.018 0.476 -0.009 0.779
R and partner migrated, married later 0.049 0.158 0.013 0.681
Never married -0.005 0.906 -0.008 0.852
Missing info on marriage or partner’s migration date 0.025 0.324 -0.009 0.762
No. of birth events 545 505
AIC 1898.6 1692.6
Notes: R stands for respondent, a comma means that the event took place after the previous event
whereas ?means that both events took place around the same time. Data: German GGS 2006,
unweighted
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the745
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2 years appears among women who married a marriage migrant from Turkey. The
second panel in Fig. 2shows the results for our male sample. It appears that there is
an arrival effect of high first birth probabilities among male marriage migrants, but
it seems to be slightly less pronounced than in the female sample. We find that
female marriage migrants from Turkey show high first birth risks after immigration,
as suggested by our gender-related hypothesis 3a. Among male marriage migrants,
Women
Duration until/since migration
Predicted probability
−2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Family reunion, R migrated first
Family reunion, P migrated first
Marriage migration, R migrated first
Marriage migration, P migrated first
Men
Duration until/since mi
g
ration
Predicted probability
−2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Family reunion, R migrated first
Family reunion, P migrated first
Marriage migration, R migrated first
Marriage migration, P migrated first
Fig. 2 Predicted probabilities of having a first child by duration of stay and marital/migration history.
Notes: Controlled for birth cohort, age at migration, education. Data: German GGS 2006, unweighted
746 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
however, we did not find any evidence for low first birth risks after immigration that
would reflect more modern family values (H3b).
4.2.2 Second Birth
The results on second births are shown in Table 4for women and men. In our model,
for females, the duration of stay again has an important effect on the probability of
having a second child. Contrary to the disruption hypothesis, second birth probabil-
ities are high in the years before migration, again peak in the year of immigration, and
decreases significantly in the following years. The effect of the covariate on the
duration since the first childbirth indicates that the probability of having a second child
was highest in the second year after the first childbirth. In addition, it seems to matter
whether the first child was born before or after migration. The probability of having a
second child was higher among respondents whose first child was born in Germany
than among those whose first child was born in Turkey. We did not find any significant
differences by birth cohort, educational level, age at migration, or the marriage and
migration history of the couple. Our model for men indicates that only the duration
since first birth and whether the child was born in Turkey have a significant impact on
second birth risks. Those are highest in the second and third year after the birth of the
first child. As for females, the probability of having a second child increases, if the first
child was born after migration to Germany. The probability of having a second child
does not vary significantly by duration of stay in Germany. Unfortunately, the number
of cases in each category is too small to estimate the interaction effect between the
duration of stay and the combined marriage and migration history of the couple for
second births.
5 Discussion
The main objective of this paper was to challenge the common understanding that
Turkish immigrants who arrived to Germany after 1973 mainly arrived for family
reunification, resulting in high fertility during the years immediately following
immigration. We used the Turkish sample of the German Generations and Gender
Survey and examined timing effects in first and second childbirth among male and
female Turkish immigrants in Germany. By taking into account the marriage and
migration history of respondents and their partners, we were able to distinguish
between family reunifiers, namely those who were married before one of the partners
migrated to Germany and who reunified in Germany later on, and marriage migrants.
The latter category comprises migrants who immigrated after marrying a partner who
was already living in Germany by the time of the wedding. As has been confirmed by
our findings, first and second childbirth intensities among Turkish immigrants in
Germany vary substantially by duration of stay and between both immigrant groups.
In line with our first hypothesis, evidence for pre-migration disruption of first
birth risks has been found only among marriage migrants, but not among those who
migrated for family reunification. Even though family reunifiers experience a period
of separation before the partner follows his or her spouse to Germany, this does not
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the747
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 4 Average marginal effects on second birth among female and male Turkish migrants
Women Men
AME Pvalue AME Pvalue
Duration since migration
dB-3-0.097 0.095 0.113 0.485
-3\dB-1-0.128 0.020 0.059 0.736
-1\dB0-0.090 0.243 -0.029 0.872
0\dB1 Ref. – Ref.
1\dB3-0.173 0.000 -0.047 0.720
3\dB6-0.258 0.000 0.039 0.796
6\dB9-0.244 0.000 0.066 0.675
9\d-0.361 0.000 0.015 0.917
Duration since first birth
1st year -0.258 0.000 -0.285 0.000
2nd year Ref. Ref.
3rd year -0.103 0.007 -0.037 0.476
4th year or later -0.246 0.000 -0.355 0.000
Birth cohort
1950–1954 -0.005 0.914 0.023 0.721
1955–1959 Ref. – Ref.
1960–1964 -0.031 0.434 -0.051 0.291
1965–1969 -0.019 0.631 0.005 0.916
Age at migration
15–19 Ref. – Ref.
20–24 -0.025 0.489 0.064 0.234
25–29 0.036 0.521 0.050 0.401
30?-
0.053 0.326 0.090 0.312
Education
Low Ref. – Ref.
Intermediate 0.074 0.229 -0.001 0.990
High 0.021 0.817 -0.020 0.739
Other -0.003 0.936 -0.023 0.691
Marriage and migration history
Family reunification
Marriage, R migrated, partner migrated later 0.063 0.436 -0.080 0.267
Marriage, partner migrated, R migrated later 0.043 0.442 0.058 0.767
Marriage migration
R migrated, marriage ?partner migrated 0.078 0.309 -0.024 0.698
Partner migrated, marriage ?R migrated Ref. Ref.
Other groups
Marriage before/at joint couple’s migration 0.006 0.903 -0.025 0.708
R and partner migrated, married later 0.076 0.187 -0.045 0.453
Never married 0.012 0.873 -0.016 0.868
748 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
translate into lower first or second birth intensities in the years before migration.
Furthermore, we find differences between marriage migrants and family reunifiers
in childbirth timing after immigration to Germany. In line with the hypothesis of an
interrelation of marriage, migration and childbirth, the years shortly after arrival in
Germany are dominated by high first birth intensities among Turkish marriage
migrants. This is more pronounced among women. Furthermore, unlike men,
women also experience a similar effect for the second child. However, this arrival
effect of high first birth risks is not evident among those who migrated for family
reunification. In previous studies, it was argued that high birth intensities
immediately after arrival are a typical pattern among family reunifiers, because
they are a highly family-oriented group. By contrast, our findings reveal that
Turkish migrants arriving to Germany for family reunification neither show elevated
fertility shortly after arrival, nor did we find any signs of disruption during the years
in which partners were separated. This holds for both male and female respondents.
One possible explanation could be that migrants may have used the family
reunification channel, as it is one of the few options for legal migration from Turkey
to Germany, but that their main reasons for coming to Germany were work-related,
so that having children was less important to them at that time. Another explanation
could be that family reunifiers already had a child before the spouse followed his or
her partner to Germany. This was also shown in our event plots, displaying the age
at first childbirth, marriage and migration. As a result, an arrival effect of high birth
intensities might be evident for higher parity births only. Regarding our third
hypothesis about gender differences in marriage migration, we cannot draw a firm
conclusion. On the one hand, it was hypothesized that men who chose a wife from
Turkey are particularly traditional, which would be reflected in a high family
orientation of these couples and high birth intensities after the immigration of the
spouse. On the other hand, women who marry a spouse from Turkey frequently do
so not to maintain traditional gender and family roles, but to emancipate themselves
from the family-in-law and the traditional family model (Baykara-Krumme and Fuß
2011; Gonza
´lez-Ferrer 2006). We find that the arrival effect of high first birth risks
is particularly pronounced among female marriage migrants. Women arriving in
Table 4 continued
Women Men
AME Pvalue AME Pvalue
Missing info on marriage or partner’s migration date 0.071 0.137 -0.024 0.699
First child born
Before migration Ref. Ref.
After migration 0.263 0.000 0.134 0.035
No. of birth events 449 432
AIC 1213.5 979.25
Notes: R stands for respondent, a comma means that the event took place after the previous event
whereas ?means that both events took place around the same time. Data: German GGS 2006,
unweighted
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the749
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Germany as marriage migrants thus seem to be a highly family-oriented group. The
pattern among men is less clear, but it seems that first childbirth, marriage, and
migration are more dispersed among men arriving as marriage migrants compared
with female migrants. Interestingly, we did find gender differences regarding the
effects of the age at migration. In our sample, men were more likely to have arrived
during childhood, while the majority of Turkish women came as young adults.
Among women, the age at immigration is a major determinant of first childbirth.
Women arriving during young adulthood have particularly high first birth
intensities. Even though we could not estimate the interaction effect between age
at migration and different marriage and migration histories, this might indicate that
especially young women have arrived as marriage migrants who seem to have
particularly high first birth rates immediately after immigration. To fully understand
gendered patterns in marriage migration from Turkey and the implications for
fertility, one would need to compare both male and female migrants within one
model and evaluate differences with interaction effects. Because our group of male
marriage migrants is quite small and only few of our results are statistically
significant, this remains a topic for further research.
Our findings on second childbirth reveal that first birth and migration timing are
strong predictors of second childbirth. Having a second child is particularly likely in
the second year after the birth of the first child and second birth risks are higher if the
first child was born after immigration. Among female Turkish migra nts, we find a clear
arrival effect indicated by high second birth intensities in the year immediately
following migration and decreasing second birth intensities in the following years. In
contrast, we did not find any significant effects of individual characteristics such as
education, birth cohort or the marriage and migration history on second births. This
finding is not surprising given the fact that in Turkey having a second child is quite
universal (Yavuz 2008). It would have been helpful to estimate an interaction of the
duration of stay in Germany and the time since first birth to enhance the understanding
of the relationship between first and second childbirth and migration. Again, for a lack
of a sufficiently large sample size, this has to be left to future research.
The question remains in how far Turkish immigrants in Germany are a selective
category. It is particularly difficult to distinguish the interrelation of childbirth and
migration from selection effects (e.g. Lu
¨bke 2014; Milewski 2007). As noted by
Lu
¨bke (2014), data on the country of origin are needed to disentangle selectivity
issues. Since no Turkish data were available, we focused on marital and migration
histories. The short time intervals between childbirth and migration we found
among marriage migrants does not seem to be a common pattern among Turkish
migrants in general, but is apparent for those who came to Germany as a marriage
migrant only. This implies that Turkish marriage migrants are a selective group with
a strong family orientation. Previously, it was often assumed that immigrants
arriving under the family reunification law are highly family-oriented. According to
our findings, they may immigrate under the family reunification law, but their
fertility behaviour does not reflect a strong family orientation. As a result, the legal
channel that is used by immigrants should not be confused with the actual reasons
for migration. To better understand fertility patterns and other family-related events,
the marital status at migration and the timing of the marriage and the migration of
750 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
both partners should not be neglected. In addition, our findings are representative of
Turkish citizens only, because the GGS sample mainly consists of Turkish
immigrants who have lived in Germany for decades and did not move back to
Turkey, but do not have German citizenship. However, the share of Turkish
immigrants in Germany who naturalized was only 21 % in 2005 (Bandorski et al.
2007). For our comparison of marriage migrants and those who came for family
reunification, we took into account the marriage and migration dates of the
respondents and their partners. Unfortunately, in the GGS data, only the migration
dates of the respondents’ current partner at the time of the interview were surveyed.
As a result, our findings are based on a sample of respondents who were still with
the same partner as before migration; Since this share is quite high in our sample,
this is a relatively minor problem.
Irrespective of these shortcomings, this study adds to the previous literature in
several ways. First, it offers detailed findings on male and female Turkish migrants’
fertility in Germany. We furthermore show that the high fertility immediately after
arrival is not very common among Turkish immigrants arriving for family
reunification, but, that it is dominant among marriage migrants. Both marriage
migrants and those coming for family reunification experience temporary separation
periods in which one partner resides in Germany and the other partner lives in
Turkey. But for family reunifiers, this is not reflected in their fertility behaviour.
Based on that, we might speculate that marriage migrants and those coming for
family reunification have different reasons for migration that result in different first
and second birth intensities after arrival. Our results also are of interest for other
Western European countries with large Turkish communities such as the Nether-
lands, France, Austria, Sweden, or Belgium. Evidence for an arrival effect of high
birth intensities immediately after immigration furthermore may not only be
relevant for other first-generation immigrant groups in Europe, but also for the large
community of Turkish migrants’ descendants. In Belgium, for example, the majority
of the Turkish second generation chooses a first-generation partner from the country
of origin (Landschoot et al. 2014). As a result, marriage migration will probably
continue among Turkish immigrants in Europe, possibly accompanied by fertility
patterns that are similar to those found in our study. Finally, our findings might
motivate to replicate the study for other immigrant communities with high shares of
marriage migrants such as, for example Senegalese immigrants in Spain or France
or Moroccan immigrants in France, the Netherlands, or Belgium.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, dis-
tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Appendix
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the751
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Age
Individual i
0 100 200 300 400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Marriage migrants
Individual i
Age at migration
Birth of 1st child
A
g
e
Individual i
0 50 100 150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Family reunion
Individual i
Age at migration
Birth of 1st child
Fig. 3 Event plot, occurrences of first births by age at migration among migrants who arrived after age
14, separated by marriage and migration history of the couple. Data: German GGS 2006, unweighted
752 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 5 Number of occurrences and exposures for second birth
Women Men
Person months
at risk (%)
Number of
second births
Person months
at risk (%)
Number of
second births
Cohort
1950–1954 15.5 72 6.8 32
1955–1959 18.0 82 18.3 78
1960–1964 28.5 126 38.5 150
1965–1969 38.1 168 36.4 171
Education
Low 76.3 333 50.9 215
Intermediate 12.2 63 31.7 147
High 2.3 13 8.7 38
Other 9.1 39 8.6 31
Age at migration
0–14 27.2 128 37.5 163
15–19 26.4 109 26.3 99
20–24 24.8 117 15.1 81
25–29 7.8 41 11.2 49
30?13.7 53 9.9 39
Marriage and migration history
Family reunification
Marriage, R migrated, partner
migrated later
3.8 14 4.7 15
Marriage, partner migrated, R
migrated later
10.1 39 0.4 3
Marriage migration
R migrated,
marriage ?partner
migrated
12.5 53 37.1 157
Partner migrated,
marriage ?R migrated
22.0 103 8.6 39
Other groups
Married before/at joint
couple’s migration
8.9 43 7.1 31
R and partner migrated,
married later
18.6 93 23.4 101
Never married 5.0 13 4.4 14
Missing info on marriage or
partner’s migration date
19.1 90 14.3 71
No. of respondents at risk 505 545
No. of birth events 449 432
Data: German GGS 2006, unweighted
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the753
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 6 Predicted probabilities of having a first birth, interaction effect of the duration of stay and the
couple’s marriage and migration history, female Turkish migrants
Combined duration since migration, marriage and migration history Predicted probabilities SE
Family reunification
d3, marriage, R migrated, P migrated later 0.404 0.181
3\d1, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.557 0.179
1\d0, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.672 0.240
0\d1, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.271 0.234
1\d3, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.276 0.131
3\d6, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.114 0.110
6\d9, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.000 0.000
9\d, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.142 0.100
d3, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.476 0.107
3\d1, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.275 0.120
1\d0, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.343 0.202
0\d1, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.286 0.132
1\d3, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.060 0.061
3\d6, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.069 0.070
6\d9, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.000 0.000
9\d, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.119 0.086
Marriage migration
d3, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.618 0.347
3\d1, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.000 0.000
1\d0, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.000 0.000
0\d1, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.000 0.000
1\d3, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.593 0.159
3\d6, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.236 0.096
6\d9, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.341 0.119
9\d, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.106 0.052
d3, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.380 0.105
3\d1, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.243 0.097
1\d0, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.231 0.111
0\d1, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.673 0.088
1\d3, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.421 0.091
3\d6, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.182 0.063
6\d9, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.039 0.030
9\d, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.047 0.030
Other groups
d3, married before/at joint migration 0.379 0.107
3\d1, married before/at joint migration 0.119 0.114
1\d0, married before/at joint migration 0.311 0.160
0\d1, married before/at joint migration 0.470 0.133
1\d3, married before/at joint migration 0.363 0.113
3\d6, married before/at joint migration 0.172 0.082
754 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 6 continued
Combined duration since migration, marriage and migration history Predicted probabilities SE
6\d9, married before/at joint migration 0.187 0.096
9\d, married before/at joint migration 0.037 0.038
d3, R and P migrated, married later 0.196 0.129
3\d1, R and P migrated, married later 0.123 0.119
1\d0, R and P migrated, married later 0.402 0.219
0\d1, R and P migrated, married later 0.348 0.201
1\d3, R and P migrated, married later 0.641 0.126
3\d6, R and P migrated, married later 0.348 0.096
6\d9, R and P migrated, married later 0.128 0.076
9\d, R and P migrated, married later 0.122 0.055
d3, never married 0.521 0.164
3\d1, never married 0.000 0.000
1\d0, never married 0.294 0.244
0\d1, never married 0.704 0.226
1\d3, never married 0.207 0.188
3\d6, never married 0.112 0.109
6\d9, never married 0.152 0.145
9\d, never married 0.054 0.055
No. of birth events 310
AIC 1510.1
Notes: P—partner, R—respondent, Controlled for age at migration, birth cohort, education. Data: German
GGS 2006, unweighted
Table 7 Predicted probabilities of having a first birth, interaction effect of the duration of stay and the
couple’s marriage and migration history, male Turkish migrants
Combined duration since migration, marriage and migration history Predicted probabilities SE
Family reunification
d3, marriage, R migrated, P migrated later 0.163 0.068
3\d1, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.119 0.116
1\d0, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.000 0.000
0\d1, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.215 0.143
1\d3, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.106 0.103
3\d6, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.233 0.107
6\d9, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.177 0.120
9\d, marriage, R migrated, P migr. later 0.000 0.000
d3, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.000 0.000
3\d1, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.499 0.361
1\d0, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.494 0.362
0\d1, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.286 0.132
1\d3, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.000 0.000
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the755
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 7 continued
Combined duration since migration, marriage and migration history Predicted probabilities SE
3\d6, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.325 0.276
6\d9, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.000 0.000
9\d, marriage, P migrated, R migr. later 0.119 0.086
Marriage migration
d3, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.104 0.063
3\d1, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.000 0.000
1\d0, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.000 0.000
0\d1, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.316 0.163
1\d3, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.264 0.084
3\d6, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.182 0.051
6\d9, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.295 0.064
9\d, R migrated, marriage ?P migr. 0.135 0.033
d3, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.108 0.048
3\d1, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.246 0.101
1\d0, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.000 0.000
0\d1, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.449 0.123
1\d3, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.350 0.091
3\d6, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.139 0.061
6\d9, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.090 0.054
9\d, P migrated, marriage ?R migr. 0.096 0.068
Other groups
d3, married before/at joint migration 0.155 0.060
3\d1, married before/at joint migration 0.000 0.000
1\d0, married before/at joint migration 0.310 0.143
0\d1, married before/at joint migration 0.283 0.129
1\d3, married before/at joint migration 0.277 0.101
3\d6, married before/at joint migration 0.165 0.078
6\d9, married before/at joint migration 0.113 0.079
9\d, married before/at joint migration 0.000 0.000
d3, R and P migrated, married later 0.097 0.070
3\d1, R and P migrated, married later 0.000 0.000
1\d0, R and P migrated, married later 0.000 0.000
0\d1, R and P migrated, married later 0.182 0.123
1\d3, R and P migrated, married later 0.407 0.119
3\d6, R and P migrated, married later 0.227 0.063
6\d9, R and P migrated, married later 0.330 0.076
9\d, R and P migrated, married later 0.091 0.031
d3, never married 0.183 0.098
3\d1, never married 0.000 0.000
1\d0, never married 0.351 0.286
0\d1, never married 0.389 0.232
1\d3, never married 0.093 0.091
756 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
References
Adsera
`, A., & Ferrer, A. (2014). Immigrants and demography: Marriage, divorce, and fertility. In B.
R. Chiswick & P. W. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of international migration, 1A: The
immigrants. Handbooks in economics series (pp. 315–358). Oxford: Elsevier.
Alders, M. (2000). Cohort fertility of migrant women in the Netherlands. Developments in fertility of
women born in Turkey, Morocco, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. Statistics
Netherlands. Paper presented at the BSPS-NVD-URU conference in Utrecht, 31 August–1
September 2000.
Andersson, G. (2004). Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns of foreign-born women in Sweden.
International Migration Review,38, 747–774.
Andersson, G., & Scott, K. (2005). Labour-market status and first-time parenthood: The experience of
immigrant women in Sweden, 1981–97. Population Studies,59(1), 21–38.
Aybek, C. M. (2015). Time matters: Temporal aspects of transnational intimate relationships and
marriage migration processes from Turkey to Germany. Journal of Family Issues,36(11),
1529–1549.
Bandorski, S., Harring, M., Karakas¸og
˘lu, Y., & Kelleter, K. (2007). Der Mikrozensus im Schnittpunkt von
Geschlecht und Migration - Mo¨ glichkeiten und Grenzen einer sekunda¨ r-analytischen Auswertung
des Mikrozensus 2005. Bremen: Nomos Verlag.
Baykara-Krumme, H., & Fuß, D. (2011). Heiratsmigration nach Deutschland: Determinanten der
transnationalen Partnerwahl tu
¨rkeista
¨mmiger Migranten. Zeitschrift fu¨ r Bevo¨ lkerungswissenschaft,
34(1–2), 135–163.
Carter, M. (2000). Fertility of Mexican immigrant women in the US: A closer look. Social Science
Quarterly,81(4), 1073–1086.
Choi, K. (2014). Fertility in the context of Mexican migration to the United States: A case for
incorporating the pre-migration fertility of immigrants. Demographic Research,30(24), 703–738.
Cygan-Rehm, K. (2011). Between here and there: Immigrant fertility patterns in Germany. BGPE
discussion paper 109, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Department of Economics.
Devolder, D., & Bueno, X. (2011). Effects of migration on fertility patterns for non-native women in
Spain. Paper presented at the EPC conference in Stockholm, 13–16 June 2012.
Dinkel, R., & Lebok, U. (1997). The fertility of migrants before and after crossing the border: The ethnic
German population from the former Soviet Union as a case study. International Migration,35(2),
253–270.
Dubuc, S. (2012). Immigration to the UK from high-fertility countries: Intergenerational adaptation and
fertility convergence. Population and Development Review,38(2), 353–368.
Eryurt, M. A., & Koc¸, I
˙. (2012). Internal migration and fertility in Turkey: Kaplan–Meier survival
analysis. International Journal of Population Research,2012, Article ID 329050, 11.
Frank, R., & Heuveline, P. (2005). A cross-over in Mexican and Mexican–American fertility rates:
Evidence and explanations for an emerging paradox. Demographic Research,12(4), 77–104.
Table 7 continued
Combined duration since migration, marriage and migration history Predicted probabilities SE
3\d6, never married 0.105 0.101
6\d9, never married 0.250 0.160
9\d, never married 0.104 0.053
No. of birth events 251
AIC 1186.5
Notes: P—partner, R—respondent, controlled for age at migration, birth cohort, education. Data: German
GGS 2006, unweighted
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the757
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Goldstein, S. (1973). Interrelations between migration and fertility in Thailand. Demography,10(2),
225–241.
Goldstein, S., & Goldstein, A. (1981). The impact of migration on fertility: An ’’own children’’ analysis
for Thailand. Population Studies,35(2), 265–284.
Gonza
´lez-Ferrer, A. (2006). Who do immigrants marry? Partner choice among single immigrants in
Germany. European Sociological Review,22(2), 171–185.
Hervitz, H. M. (1985). Selectivity, adaptation, or disruption? A comparison of alternative hypotheses on
the effects of migration on fertility: the case of Brazil. International Migration Review,19(2),
293–317.
Hoem, J. M. (2014). The dangers of conditioning on the time of occurrence of one demographic process
in the analysis of another. Population Studies,68(2), 151–159.
Hoem, J. M., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2006a). Anticipatory analysis and its alternatives in life-course research
part 1: Education and first childbearing. Demographic Research,15(16), 461–484.
Hoem, J. M., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2006b). Anticipatory analysis and its alternatives in life-course research
part 2: Marriage and first birth. Demographic Research,15(17), 485–498.
Huschek, D., de Valk, H. A. G., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2012). Partner choice patterns among the descendants
of Turkish immigrants in Europe. European Journal of Population,28(3), 241–268.
Kahn, J. R. (1988). Immigrant selectivity and fertility adaptation in the United States. Social Forces,
67(1), 108–128.
Kalter, F., & Schroedter, J. H. (2010). Transnational marriage among former labour migrants in Germany.
Journal of Family Research,22(1), 11–36.
Kley, S. (2011). Explaining the stages of migration within a life-course framework. European
Sociological Review,27(4), 469–486.
Kreyenfeld, M., Hornung, A., Kubisch, K., & Jaschinski, I. (2010). Fertility and union histories from
German GGS data: Some critical reflections. MPIDR working paper 023/2010, Max Planck Institute
for Demographic Research.
Kulu, H. (2005). Migration and fertility: Competing hypotheses re-examined. European Journal of
Population,21(1), 51–87.
Kulu, H., & Gonza
´lez-Ferrer, A. (2014). Family dynamics among immigrants and their descendants in
Europe: Current research and opportunities. European Journal of Population,30, 411–435.
Lee, B. S. (1992). The influence of rural–urban migration on migrant’s fertility behavior in Cameroon.
International Migration Review,26(4), 1416–1447.
Lievens, J. (1999). Family-forming migration from Turkey and Morocco to Belgium: The demand for
marriage partners from the countries of origin. International Migration Review,33(3), 717–744.
Lindstrom, D. P., & Giorguli-Saucedo, S. (2007). The interrelationship between fertility, family
maintenance, and Mexico-US migration. Demographic Research,17(28), 821–858.
Lindstrom, D. P., & Saucedo, S. G. (2002). The short-and long-term effects of US migration experience
on Mexican women’s fertility. Social Forces,80(4), 1341–1368.
Lu
¨bke, C. (2014). How migration affects the timing of childbearing: The transition to a first birth among
polish women in Britain. European Journal of Population. doi:10.1007/s10680-014-9326-9.
Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration.
Population Index,56(1), 3–26.
Milewski, N. (2007). First child of immigrant workers and their descendents in West Germany:
Interrelation of events, disruption, or adaptation? Demographic Research,17(29), 859–896.
Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (1993). Migration and marriage in the life course: A method for studying
synchronized events. European Journal of Population,9(1), 55–76.
Mu
¨nz, R., Seifert, W., & Ulrich, R. E. (1999). Zuwanderung nach Deutschland: trukturen, Wirkungen,
Perspektiven. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
Mussino, E., & Strozza, S. (2012). The fertility of immigrants after arrival: The Italian case. Demographic
Research,26(4), 99–130.
Mussino, E., & Van Raalte, A. A. (2013). Immigrant fertility: A comparative study between Italy and
Russia. International Migration,51(2), 148–164.
Ng, E., & Nault, F. (1997). Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991: An examination of
the disruption hypothesis. International Migration,35(4), 559–580.
Parrado, E. A. (2011). How high is Hispanic/Mexican fertility in the United States? Immigration and
tempo considerations. Demography,48(3), 1059–1080.
Perez-Patron, M. J. (2012). A life-course approach to international migration: The importance of family.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
758 K. Wolf
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Portes, A. (1979). Illegal immigration and the international system, lessons from recent legal Mexican
immigrants to the United States. Social Problems,26(4), 425–438.
Ribe, H., & Schultz, T. P. (1980). Migrant and native fertility in Colombia in 1973: Are migrants selected
according to their reproductive preferences? Center discussion paper no. 355, Economic Growth
Center, Yale University.
Rundquist, F.-M., & Brown, L. A. (1989). Migrant fertility differentials in Ecuador. Geografiska Annaler.
Series B, Human Geography,71(B)(2), 109–123.
Sauer, L., Ruckdeschel, K., & Naderi, R. (2012). Reliability of retrospective event histories within the
German Generations and Gender Survey. BiB working paper 1/2012, Bundesinstitut fu
¨r
Bevo
¨lkerungsforschung, Wiesbaden.
Schmid, S., & Kohls, M. (2009). Reproductive behaviour of migrant women in Germany: Data, patterns
and determinants. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research,7(1), 39–61.
Seifert, W. (1997). Occupational and economic mobility and social integration of Mediterranean migrants
in Germany. European Journal of Population,13(1), 1–16.
Singley, S. G., & Landale, N. S. (1998). Incorporating origin and process in migration-fertility
frameworks: The case of Puerto Rican Women. Social Forces,76(4), 1437–1464.
Statistics Turkey. (2014). Basic fertility indicators, 2001–2013. Ankara, Turkey: General Directorate of
Civil Registration and Nationality.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2012). Bevo
¨lkerung mit Migrationshintergrund - Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus
2011. Bevo
¨lkerung und Erwerbsta
¨tigkeit. Fachserie 1 Reihe 2.2, Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2013). Ausla
¨ndische Bevo
¨lkerung. Ergebnisse des Ausla
¨nderzentralregisters.
Bevo
¨lkerung und Erwerbsta
¨tigkeit. Fachserie 1, Reihe 2, Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2014). Wanderungen 2012. Bevo
¨lkerung und Erwerbsta
¨tigkeit. Fachserie 1
Reihe 1.2, Wiesbaden.
Stephen, E., & Bean, F. (1992). Assimilation, disruption and the fertility of Mexican origin women in the
United States. International Migration Review,26(1), 67–88.
Stichnoth, H., & Yeter, M. (2013). Cultural influences on the fertility behaviour of first- and second-
generation immigrants in Germany. Discussion paper 23/2013, ZEW Centre for European Economic
Research.
Timmerman, C., Lodewyckx, I., & Wets, J. (2009). Marriage at the intersection between tradition and
globalization. Turkish marriage migration between Emirdag and Belgium from 1989 to present.
History of the Family,14(2), 232–244.
Toulemon, L. (2004). Fertility among immigrant women: New data, a new approach. Population and
Societies, 400, 1–4.
Toulemon, L., & Mazuy, M. (2004). Comment prendre en compte l’a
ˆge a
`l’arrive
´e et la dure
´eduse
´jour en
France dans la mesure de la fe
´condite
´des immigrants. Document de travail 120/2004, INED, Paris.
United Nations Population Division. (2012). World population prospects: The 2012 revision. Population
Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, New
York.
Van Landschoot, L., De Valk, H. A. G., Willaert, D., & Van Bavel, J. (2014). Migrants’ fertility: The
influence of partner choice on the fertility of the in Belgium. Paper presented at the EPC (June 28,
2014).
Vila, M. R., & Martı
`n, T. C. (2007). Childbearing patterns of foreign women in a new immigration
country: The case of Spain. Population (English Edition),62(3), 351–379.
Willekens, F. (2014). Multistate analysis of life histories with R. New York: Springer.
Willekens, F. J. (1991). Understanding the interdependence between parallel careers. In J. J. Siegers, J. de
Jong-Gierveld & E. van Imhoff (Eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility (pp. 11–31).
Berlin: Springer.
Wingens, M., Windzio, M., de Valk, H., & Aybek, C. (Eds.). (2011). A life-course perspective on
migration and integration. Berlin: Springer.
Yavuz, S. (2008). Fertility decline in Turkey from the 1980s onwards: Patterns by main language groups.
Ankara: Haceteppe University.
Marriage Migration Versus Family Reunification: How Does the759
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... Within this framework, scholars take into account the role of origin and destination contexts as well as factors that shape immigrant selectivity. While previous scholars have contributed much complexity to our understanding of migrant fertility behavior (Andersson 2004;Milewski 2007;Wolf 2016;González-Ferrer et al. 2017;Kulu et al. 2017), there are still limitations in the literature and areas that have not yet been explored. ...
... In many Western countries, restrictions on labor migration in the mid-1970s led to the increased prominence of family reunification and marriage migration (Akgündüz 1993). Previous scholars have suggested that family migration is important for childbearing outcomes (Andersson 2004;Frank and Heuveline 2005;Baykara-Krumme and Milewski 2017) and have additionally shown that fertility varies by type of family migration, including marriage migration and family reunification (Wolf 2016). Drawing on this work, I distinguish among different migration and marriage pathways and thus explore changing selectivity by family migration type as a potential source of cohort variation in fertility. ...
... For example, stress experienced during or after the move, post-arrival adjustments, temporary spousal separation or economic constraints may lead to a short-term disruption in fertility after arrival (Stephen and Bean 1992;Carlson 1985;Ng and Nault 1997). Alternatively, as described by the interrelation hypothesis, family formation may be embedded in the 6 migration decision, as for instance with marriage migration, leading to a sudden rise in fertility after arrival (Andersson 2004;Milewski 2007;Wolf 2016;Lübke 2015;Singley and Landale 1998). Previous work has also highlighted the significance of selection processes, which are reflected in the demographic and human capital differences between migrants and non-migrants at origin (Feliciano 2005;Frank and Heuveline 2005) and that make migrants' family behavior distinct not only from their non-migrant counterparts at origin but also from natives and other foreign-born groups at destination Mussino and Strozza 2012). ...
Article
The global population of international migrants has grown significantly over the past several decades—from 153 million in 1990 to 272 million in 2019—while the population of international migrants as the share of the world’s total population has remained quite steady. At the same time, the political importance of migration has increased, especially in the US and Western European countries. As a result, studies of immigrant incorporation have become critical for shaping public opinions and informing policymaking. While researchers have explored many facets of migrants’ adaptation and assimilation processes, we still do not fully understand how migration affects their family behavior. This dissertation examines migrant childbearing behavior in West Germany and Turkey, two contexts that have experienced fundamental social change as a result of migration and are also intimately linked by migration. I draw from two data sources, the 1984-2016 German Socio-Economic Panel and the 2013 Turkish Demographic and Health Survey. First, I examine how fertility behavior differs across migrant cohorts in West Germany. I find variation in the patterns of entry into childbearing across arrival cohorts from Turkey and Southern Europe, driven by women’s changing marriage/migration histories. I also find differences at higher parities, including reduced third birth propensities among recent Turkish arrivals, likely a result of changing exposures within origin and destination contexts. Second, I examine contraceptive behavior among internal migrants in Turkey. I find that migration is significantly associated with modern contraceptive use—particularly short-acting contraception—for rural-to urban and urban-to-urban migrants and that this may be explained by the fact that migration, depending on the group, is also associated with changes in economic resources, access to and knowledge of healthcare, mobility and social norms. Third, I look at the impact of urban migration on fertility in Turkey. Results demonstrate that rural-to-urban migrants in urban areas experience accelerated transitions into childbearing, consistent with migration for marriage purposes, despite general adaptation to lower fertility norms. Ultimately, my dissertation deepens our understanding of the complex social processes that underlie migrant fertility behavior.
... Higher fertility levels for non-Western immigrants were found among Eastern and Southern European immigrants in Switzerland (Rojas et al., 2018); Turkish and Sub-Saharan African immigrants in France Pailhé, 2015); Turkish immigrants in Germany (Milewski, 2007(Milewski, , 2010; immigrants from the Maghreb region in Spain (González-Ferrer et al., 2016); immigrants from Morocco and Turkey in Belgium (Van Landschoot et al., 2017); and Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants in the UK (Kulu & Hannemann, 2016;Kulu et al., 2017). Age at migration, marital status, and the reason for migration are strong predictors of the timing and levels of fertility (Andersson, 2004;Cygan-Rehm, 2011;Milewski, 2007;Wolf, 2016). Women who were married at the time of migration or migrated for family reasons had particularly high fertility levels whilst employment-related migrants had lower fertility levels during the first years after arrival (Castro Martin & Rosero-Bixby, 2011;Mussino & Strozza, 2012;Mussino et al., 2015;Persson & Hoem, 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines childbearing in and outside of marriage as a manifestation of the Second Demographic Transition among immigrant populations in Switzerland. Based on full-population register data, we simultaneously analyse fertility and partnership changes at different stages of the migration process. Results from a multistate event history model show that most of the differences in family formation patterns between migrant groups and natives are in the sequencing of marriage and first birth among childless unmarried women. Out of wedlock family trajectories prove to be a common experience for European migrants, but a sustainable family pathway only among natives, as well as among immigrants from France, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Among married women, it is the risk of a third birth that marks the differences between groups; first and second birth rates are relatively similar across migrant groups. Distinguishing between the transition patterns of newly arrived immigrants and settled immigrants (characterised by various residence durations) support the disruption hypothesis among EU migrants and the interrelated life events hypothesis among non-EU groups. Family size and the partnership context of fertility highlight which family regime prevails in different population subgroups and the role that immigrants play in the Second Demographic Transition and family transformation in Europe.
... Das Muster von Frauen aus mediterranen Ländern, die ähnlich niedrige Fertilitätsraten wie Deutschland und vergleichbare Anstiege im Geburtsalter aufweisen, gleicht sich im Generationenverlauf dem der Nichtmigrantinnen an. Berücksichtigt man soziodemografische Variablen, so erklären Gruppenunterschiede in Familienstand, Bildungsniveau, Arbeitsmarktbeteiligung, Religionszugehörigkeit und Größe der Herkunftsfamilie die Fertilitätsunterschiede, zum Teil sogar ganz (Milewski, 2007(Milewski, , 2010Krapf & Wolf, 2015;Wolf, 2016). ...
Chapter
Nach Jahrzehnten sehr niedriger Geburtenraten sind diese in Deutschland seit einigen Jahren wieder auf Werte angestiegen, die im europäischen Mittelfeld liegen. Dieser Beitrag skizziert anhand aktueller Daten die Entwicklung der Kohorten- und Periodenfertilität und gibt einen Überblick zu zentralen Theorien zur Geburtenentwicklung. Ein besonderes Augenmerk liegt auf dem Aufschub der Geburten im Lebensverlauf von Frauen und Männern, der Geburtenentwicklung in der migrantischen Bevölkerung und einer Einordnung des jüngsten Geburtenanstiegs.
Chapter
The focus of this paper is on how parental and partnership status as well as status changes (e.g. union dissolution) shape emigrants’ economic outcomes, considering both individual- and household-level outcome measures. Using data from German emigrants (GERPS), a two-part strategy accounting for state-dependence of employment trajectories is being applied. Considering not only individual but also destination country characteristics, multilevel models are estimated. Results are highly gendered: For female emigrants, living with their spouse was found to negatively relate to employment probabilities and personal income (individual-level economic outcomes), but benefits were observed at the household level. Similarly, for female emigrants individual-level outcomes were found to be negatively associated with having children and with childbirth. At the same time, male emigrants’ economic outcomes after migration were less affected by family status or status change. These results show that even among privileged emigrants from a relatively egalitarian society, traditionally gendered patterns of gains and losses after migration emerge.
Article
Although growing research has emphasized the critical importance of studying returns for understanding various aspects of migration processes, knowledge regarding return migrants’ fertility behaviors remains limited. This study addresses this knowledge gap by comparing rates of first births and completed fertility among three groups: nonmigrants (at origin), migrants, and return migrants. Using extensive data collected both in the home regions and at destination, we analyze female migration from Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, and Réunion Island to metropolitan France (European France). We find intermediate fertility behaviors for return migrants relative to nonmigrants and migrants: on average, completed fertility levels are lower among return migrants than nonmigrants but slightly higher among return migrants than migrants. Some of these differences can be attributed to selection into migration and return, although significant gaps persist among women with similar socioeconomic characteristics. Our findings highlight three key observations. First, when migrants return before beginning childbearing, their transition to motherhood closely resembles that of nonmigrants with similar characteristics. Second, the lower fertility rates among prospective return migrants indicate an anticipation of disruption effects. Finally, reduced fertility while residing in metropolitan France translates into lower completed fertility rates for return migrants.
Article
Immigrants bring contemporary demographic changes to the destination country through their contributions to diversity, and future population. In this study, we examine the partnership and fertility trajectories for individuals with Turkish, Russian, Kazak, Polish, and Southern European backgrounds born between 1970 and 1999. We adopt a life course perspective using event history techniques on retrospective partnership and birth histories of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) Survey. By treating first entrance into cohabitation, marriage, and parenthood as competing events, we illuminate not only the differences in family ideologies between natives and immigrants but also highlight the heterogeneity among immigrant origin groups and generations in family formation pathways. Convergence with natives occurs at different paces for immigrant groups. Controlling cohort effects and socioeconomic conditions, individuals with Turkish background stand out with an earlier and higher level of entrance into marriage and parenthood, with only modest changes across birth cohorts and migrant generations. The risk of nonmarital or pre-marital childbearing is lower for non-European immigrants than for German natives. Marriage remains an important institution to individuals of some immigrant backgrounds, despite global trends in the rise of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing in recent years. This work serves to highlight the diversification of family types in a leading migration country.
Article
The relationship between migrant workers’ migratory moves and their fertility is complex. The literature on international migration contains three main explanations of the relationship—the disruption hypothesis, the adaptation hypothesis, and the selectivity hypothesis. The research reported in the literature has so far focused on international migrants, many of whom have the prospect of becoming legal immigrants, while there is little research on the relation between migration and fertility for Southeast Asian labor migrants who are on employment contracts and cannot gain permanent residency. Of the three hypotheses, only the disruption hypothesis is relevant for temporary migrant workers, yet its findings have been mixed. This research note aims to fill in the gap by focusing on the disruption hypothesis in an examination of Filipina and Indonesian migrant domestic workers’ migration and fertility trajectories, using the 2017 survey of Filipina and Indonesian migrant domestic workers in Hong Kong. The findings from the analysis suggest a disruptive effect of migration on fertility for the women in their earlier reproductive years from both Indonesia and the Philippines but not for the women in their later childbearing ages, thus shedding light on the divergent disruptive mechanism of migration on fertility.
Article
Full-text available
In this paper we make use of data from the official statistics to analyze transnational marriage among immigrants in Germany. Pooling all currently available Scientific Use Files of the German Microcensus between 1976 and 2004, we are able to contribute empirical findings that are unique in their scope and their degree of differentiation. We look at the five most common groups of former labour migrants and study group-specific trends over generations and time. Our empirical analysis is guided by four basic expectations, which are anchored in a more general theoretical framework of immigrants’ marriage behaviour. We find, as expected, large group differences in the propensity to select a spouse from one’s own country of origin. Assumed effects of the opportunity structure, however, can only be confirmed for women. Central derivations from a general assimilationist view are also only partly supported: A general increase in transnational marriages among ex-Yugoslav and Turkish women over marriage cohorts, and the absence of any effects of structural assimilation on the propensity toward transnational marriages are the most puzzling results. Zusammenfassung In diesem Beitrag verwenden wir Daten der amtlichen Statistik, um transnationale Ehen bei Immigranten in Deutschland zu analysieren. Die Zusammenführung aller verfügbaren Scientific Use Files des deutschen Mikrozenus zwischen 1976 und 2004 liefert empirische Befunde, die in ihrer Breite und in der Tiefe ihrer Differenzierung bislang einzigartig sind. Wir betrachten die fünf am weitesten verbreiteten Gruppen ehemaliger Arbeitsmigranten und untersuchen gruppenspezifische Trends über die Generationen und über die Zeit. Unsere empirische Analyse wird von vier Grundannahmen geleitet, die in einem allgemeineren theoretischen Rahmen des Heiratsverhaltens von Migranten verankert sind. Wie erwartet finden wir hinsichtlich der Neigung, eine(n) Partner(in) aus dem jeweils eigenen Herkunftsland zu wählen, große Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen. Die vermuteten Effekte der Opportunitätsstruktur werden jedoch nur für die Frauen bestätigt. Zentrale Schlussfolgerungen aus einer allgemein assimilationistischen Sichtweise zeigen sich ebenfalls nur teilweise: Zu den erstaunlichsten Ergebnissen unserer Studie gehören die allgemeine Zunahme transnationaler Ehen von Frauen aus dem ehemaligen Jugoslawien und der Türkei sowie die Abwesenheit von Effekten der strukturellen Assimilation auf die Neigung zur transnationalen Ehe.
Chapter
Full-text available
“Scientific inquiry is concerned not only with discovering quantitative relations between variables, but also with interpreting these relations in terms of underlying causal mechanisms that produced them. Without a knowledge of these mechanisms, we cannot predict how variables will co-vary when the structure of the system under study is altered, either experimentally or by changes in the world around us.” (Simon, 1979, p. 79). Increasingly, demographers emphasize the need to identify the underlying or intervening mechanisms linking demographic variables and suggest ways to accomplish the difficult task (Burch, 1980, p. 2; Caldwell and Hill, 1988, p. 1; Birg, 1988). The search for causal mechanisms is part of an attempt to develop a substantive theory of demographic behaviour. This paper is written in the same spirit. The aim is to explore the nature of the interdependencies between parallel careers. The fertility and labour force participation careers of women serve as an example. For no other set of two careers, the interdependence is as pronounced as for the fertility and employment careers. The basis for the interdependence is generally conflict or incompatibility, because “the timing of critical career-building phases does not accommodate women’s biological life cycle” (Regan and Roland, 1985, p. 986).
Article
This article examines the intensity and trends of marriages of Turks and Moroccans living in Belgium to partners from their countries of origin (‘imported partners’) and the motives for marrying such partners. Using data from the 1991 Belgian census, we show that large proportions of the migrant groups choose a partner from the country of origin and that marrying such a partner is certainly not dying out. Furthermore, the results of logit analyses reveal that marrying an imported partner is more than merely an act of traditional behavior: women may marry an imported partner in order to satisfy ‘modern’ goals.
Article
An autoregressive model has been applied to the 1978 Cameroon World Fertility Survey data to test the fertility adaptation hypothesis of rural-urban migration. The fertility differential between rural-urban migrants and rural stayers is very small in Cameroon when compared with that of Korea and Mexico. However, the lack of fertility differentials between rural-urban migrants and rural stayers which are the result of the unique cultural and biosocial parameters of African fertility does not imply a weak fertility adaptation effect.
Article
The paper addresses the effect of migration on fertility in Third World settings; in particular, how these effects are influenced by development context of origins and destinations. Contextual influences are defined by a set of six composite variables indicating the socioeconomic and agrarian structure of Ecuador. Particular attention is given to place variations in development components, and the way they interact with personal attributes. The paper contributes in three ways. First, contextual influences on fertility are elaborated in considerably more detail than previously. Second, geographical mobility is addressed as more multifaceted than previously, and migration-fertility relationships are elaborated for four different categories—non-migrants, permanent-migrants, return-migrants, and circular-migrants. Third, fertility has rarely been studied by geographers, and when done, at aggregate levels. In the analyses, the role of personal attributes outweighs the contextual for all four categories. However, contextual influences, while less significant overall, play a role for persons in all migrant categories, and the analyses indicate the importance of place influences, or development context, on fertility. Moreover, these influences vary among the migrant categories in a manner consistent with their generative processes.
Book
Multistate analysis of life histories with R is an introduction to multistate event history analysis. It is an extension of survival analysis, in which a single terminal event (endpoint) is considered and the time-to-event is studied. Multistate models focus on life histories or trajectories, conceptualized as sequences of states and sequences of transitions between states. Life histories are modeled as realizations of continuous- time Markov processes. The model parameters, transition rates, are estimated from data on event counts and populations at risk, using the statistical theory of counting processes. The Comprehensive R Network Archive (CRAN) includes several packages for multistate modeling. This book is about Biograph. The package is designed to (a) enhance exploratory analysis of life histories and (b) make multistate modeling accessible. The package incorporates utilities that connect to several packages for multistate modeling, including survival, eha, Epi, mvna, etm, mstate, msm, and TraMineR for sequence analysis. The book is a ‘hands-on’ presentation of Biograph and the packages listed. It is written from the perspective of the user. To help the user master the techniques and the software, a single data set is used to illustrate the methods and software. It is the subsample of the German Life History Survey, which was also used by Blossfeld and Rohwer in their popular textbook on event history modeling. Another data set, the Netherlands Family and Fertility Survey, is used to illustrate how Biograph can assist in answering questions on life paths of cohorts and individuals. The book is suitable as a textbook for graduate courses on event history analysis and introductory courses on competing risks and multistate models. It may also be used as a self-study book.
Article
Using life history data from both origin and destination areas, we examine the relationship between migration and fertility among Puerto Rican women. Our analysis extends previous research by including origin data; by measuring precisely the timing of migration, fertility and time-varying covariates; and by including single women in the analysis. Results reveal that single US-born nonmigrants have significantly higher rates of transition to first birth than nonmigrants in Puerto Rico, while married and cohabiting US-born nonmigrants have significantly lower rates. Selection effects for both single and married/cohabiting women indicate that migration to the US is an integral part of the family formation process. Our results highlight the need for a broadening of the traditional migration-fertility framework to encompass a wider range of family formation processes, including nonmarital fertility and union formation.
Article
In the present second part of these reflections, we use the connection between marriage and first birth to demonstrate further issues involved in anticipatory analysis when two individual-level processes operate in interaction. The wish to have children is probably a very important determinant of marriage. Unfortunately, longitudinal data on fertility intentions are rarely available. In order to demonstrate how childbearing intentions guide marriage behavior, one might be tempted to use anticipatory research strategies. In this paper we discuss the drawbacks involved with such an approach and display a non-anticipatory research strategy.
Article
Objective. The purpose of this paper is tc examine how Mexican immigrants' fertility relates to duration of residence in the U.S. and compares to U.S.-born women of Mexican origin. I specifically look for evidence of selectivity, disruption, and assimilation effects. Methods. Using the birth and life histories available from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I present descriptive statistics of the two groups, compare their age-specific fertility rates, and analyze women's transitions to first, second, and third births using proportional hazard methods, with a focus on the effects of five categories of durations of stay in the U.S. (premigration, 0-2 years, 2-7 years, 7-15 years, and 15+). Results. The results lend evidence to all major hypotheses of immigrant fertility. Mexican immigrant women seem selective at the time of migration in ways likely to affect the relationship between immigration and fertility. The hypothesis that women's fertility is depressed in the years immediately following migration receives some support, particularly among women in the transition to a third birth. The evidence also lends support to an assimilation perspective, though again important exceptions emerge. Assimilation effects appear in the transitions to first and second births but weakly in the analysis of the third birth, and there is limited evidence of possible "downward" fertility assimilation among adolescent immigrants. Conclusions. This analysis highlights how the major perspectives on immigrant fertility are not mutually exclusive and indicates that for Mexican immigrants, women's parity conditions the way immigration and fertility interact.