ArticlePDF Available

On the Timing of Marriage and Childbearing: Family Formation Pathways Among Immigrants in Switzerland

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
European Journal of Population (2024) 40:14
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-024-09702-w
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family
Formation Pathways Among Immigrants inSwitzerland
JulieLacroix1 · JúliaMikolai1· HillKulu1
Received: 4 April 2023 / Accepted: 25 March 2024 / Published online: 22 May 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
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 part-
nership changes at different stages of the migration process. Results from a multi-
state event history model show that most of the differences in family formation pat-
terns 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 dif-
ferences 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.
Keywords Second demographic transition· Immigrants· Fertility· Marriage·
Nonmarital childbearing
* Julie Lacroix
jl347@st-andrews.ac.uk
Júlia Mikolai
julia.mikolai@st-andrews.ac.uk
Hill Kulu
hill.kulu@st-andrews.ac.uk
1 School ofGeography andSustainable Development, University ofSt Andrew, StAndrews, UK
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 2 of 32
1 Introduction
Europe has seen significant changes in family formation patterns and living
arrangements since the 1950s (Buchmann & Kriesi, 2011). New forms of con-
jugal life and entry into adulthood have gradually become more common and
acceptable. This includes the increase in (premarital) cohabitation, childbearing
outside of marriage, divorce, or re-partnering. Changes in the type and timing of
events, and the order in which they occur have been seen as a manifestation of
the Second Demographic Transition (SDT) (Lesthaeghe, 2010, 2014). Nonethe-
less, research shows that instead of being a general trend that uniformly affects
all individuals and all family life domains, variation in life courses took distinct
forms and paces in different countries and among different social groups (Van
Winkle, 2018; Widmer & Ritschard, 2009). In Europe, the growing share of inter-
national migrants from countries with different family systems contributes to this
diversity (Andersson, 2021). However, despite extensive research on fertility and
partnership dynamics among immigrant populations, the partnership context of
fertility, including nonmarital or (pre)marital childbearing, only received passing
attention (Adserà & Ferrer, 2015).
The literature proposes different views on why immigrants’ family behaviours
differ from that of natives in host countries with the aim of understanding the
consequences of migration for families. A large stream of research focuses on
heterogeneity in fertility (Kulu etal., 2017, 2019) while another stream examines
variation in partnership formation or dissolution, with a strong focus on inter-
marriage (Andersson etal., 2015; Hannemann & Kulu, 2015; Hannemann etal.,
2020; Kulu & González-Ferrer, 2014). The literature highlights the influence of
social distance and time (i.e. duration since migration/inter-generational change)
in explaining the distinctiveness of the migrant population, generally through
processes of socialisation and adaptation. In Europe, studies show greater differ-
ences in fertility and partnership patterns among immigrants from geographically
(and culturally) distant countries, characterised by higher marriage than cohabi-
tation rates, and higher third and fourth birth risks. Recently, joint examination
of childbearing and partnership transitions has further revealed that changes in
fertility behaviours across generations occur more rapidly than changes in part-
nership behaviours (Kulu et al., 2022; Mikolai & Kulu, 2022). While fertility
decisions seem more affected by structural-economic factors and individuals’ life
circumstances, partnership behaviours appear to be more influenced by normative
cultural factors (Andersson, 2020; Kulu etal., 2022). Nevertheless, what is often
perceived as family ideals or cultural preferences may be induced by the migra-
tion process itself, which involves strict legal requirements, especially in the fam-
ily domain.
Using full-population register data, we examine the prevalence and sequenc-
ing of marriage and childbearing by parity among immigrant and native women
in Switzerland. We enhance previous research on immigrant family life courses
in several ways. First, we focus on childbearing by parity in and outside of mar-
riage as a manifestation of the SDT for various migrant groups. The SDT focuses
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 3 of 32 14
on interrelated changes in fertility, family formation, and partnership behaviour
(Sobotka, 2008) induced by ideological and cultural shifts toward an “individu-
alistic family model” (Lesthaeghe, 2010, 2014). Declining fertility rates (below
replacement levels) and a weakening link between marriage and childbearing are
key indicators of the STD; a useful framework to explain family formation trends
among immigrants who may find themselves in-between two cultures. The adop-
tion of family formation behaviours prevalent in the receiving country, includ-
ing family size and union type, is often perceived as indicative of social distance
between groups and assimilation to mainstream society (Holland & Wiik, 2021).
Whether women marry first and then have children, marry largely after the first
birth, marry later, or never marry (with or without having (additional) children)
provide insights into the family norms and values of immigrants with various cul-
tural backgrounds. The timing and prevalence of divorce is also indicative of pre-
vailing family norms in certain groups and is included as a competing outcome in
family trajectories.
Second, we distinguish newly arrived immigrants from settled immigrants (char-
acterised by various residence durations) and emphasise family patterns that are
interrelated with the migration event (i.e. the arrival effect) and those that occur later.
Studies have shown how (international) migration and family formation are interre-
lated as they are often part of the same process (Milewski, 2007; Mulder, 1993).
However, the interaction of family ideals, as expressed by the type and sequenc-
ing of events, and legal constraints (i.e. entry requirements imposed by migration
policies) have received little attention. Legal requirements lead to a selection effect,
and selection is expected to operate differently across origin countries depending on
whether women have free movement and access to the labour market. The reason for
migration clearly shapes family formation patterns with delayed family transitions
for employment migrants and accelerated transitions for marriage migrants (Kulu
etal., 2019). The level and sequence of family events may also be distorted by the
act of migration, thus creating a mismatch with family ideals, e.g. by opting for mar-
riage rather than a consensual union to secure legal status in the country. By study-
ing the risk of first and higher order births among unmarried and married women at
different stages of the migration process, we seek to distinguish between behaviours
that are induced by (or happen in tandem with) the migration process and those that
are the result of cultural norms or preferences.
Third, we use register data for the entire resident population of Switzerland for
the period 2012–2018. The population register was adopted only recently, in 2010,
and thus register-based (partnership and fertility) research is still very new in the
country. The data document all births, marriages, and divorces for the entire resi-
dent population which allows for detailed group-specific analysis. We take advan-
tage of this comprehensive data to highlight variations in family pathways of a large
number of immigrant groups in a context where migration is mainly motivated by
professional reasons but with important differences by origin. Finally, we consider
the unique cultural diversity of the native Swiss population and compare the family
formation patterns of immigrants from neighbouring countries (Germany, France,
and Italy) with that of natives from respective linguistic regions.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 4 of 32
Following new developments in family life course research (see Kulu etal., 2022;
Mikolai & Kulu, 2022), we investigate partnership and fertility trajectories jointly in
a multistate event history framework. We model the time to a set of competing events
among unmarried and married women and analyse (1) the transition to marriage
or a (first, second or third) birth among unmarried women, and (2) the transition
to divorce or a (first, second or third) birth among married women. Simultaneous
analysis of partnership changes and childbearing allows for a better understanding of
which family pattern (as expressed by family size and partnership context of fertil-
ity) prevails in different population subgroups and the role that immigrants play in
the SDT and family change in Europe.
2 Background
2.1 Migration, Partnership Changes, andFertility: Theoretical Considerations
Five well-established hypotheses explain the differences in family formation patterns
between natives and immigrants (for overviews see Kulu, 2005; Kulu & González-
Ferrer, 2014). Some emphasise the influence of origin and destination contexts,
while others highlight the role of the migration process itself, thus disentangling
the role of structural factors from those of the cultural context in family behaviours
(Andersson, 2020). The socialisation hypothesis emphasises cultural inheritances
and the persistence of norms and values acquired early in life. Important decisions
about family size and union type are expected to reflect the dominant family model
at origin. Differences in family behaviours are thought to persist over time (since
migration) and even be transmitted across migrant generations. The adaptation
hypothesis, by contrast, states that immigrants will adapt their behaviours to the new
social environment. With time and prolonged exposure to new family norms at the
destination, the family behaviours of immigrants are expected to converge to that of
the natives.
The selection hypothesis expects similarities in family behaviours between immi-
grants and natives due to immigrants choosing a destination that matches their
preferences and lifestyle, including in the family domain. Immigrants are a select
group; i.e. their preferences differ from the dominant norms in the country of origin
and resemble those prevailing in the host country (Mikolai & Kulu, 2022). Legal
requirements for migration also imply a selection effect. Unlike the self-selection
described above, the selection induced by the legal entry requirements does not
imply similarities with the native population but differences across migrant origin
groups. Depending on the country of citizenship, access to the territory is limited to
specific administrative grounds. While EU migrants in Switzerland enjoy freedom
of movement and access to the labour market, access to visas for non-EU citizens
is often limited to family purposes, and access to the labour market is subject to a
strict quota system. As a result, the migration system contributes to the selection of
family-oriented profiles among non-EU migrants and work-oriented ones among EU
migrants.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 5 of 32 14
The relevance of the disruption and interrelation of life events hypotheses is
also related to migration motives and (family) circumstances. On the one hand, the
disruption hypothesis highlights the uncertainty, stress, and integration challenges
that surround the migration process. Family formation plans may be delayed until
migrants have established themselves economically, socially, and culturally in the
host country (Kulu etal., 2019). For couples, decreased fertility shortly before and/
or after migration is expected, especially among partners who moved at different
time periods and lived apart for some time (Milewski, 2007). For singles, one can
expect delayed marriage and childbearing due to the time needed to find a partner.
The interrelation of life events, on the other hand, states that migration coincides
with other family events (Andersson, 2004). From a life course perspective, migra-
tion and family formation are seen as interdependent or “parallel careers” (Courgeau,
1990; Mulder & Wagner, 1993). Migration, marriage, and first pregnancy tend to
follow each other closely and the transition to first birth is common during the first
year of marriage (Baizán etal., 2003; Milewski, 2007). While the disruption hypoth-
esis can be expected to be more relevant for single migrants and those migrating for
employment reasons (especially for women), the interrelation of life events hypoth-
esis may be more applicable to family migrants.
2.2 Immigrants’ Family Behaviours: Empirical Evidence
Research on partnership dynamics in Europe has examined the timing, type, and
likelihood of union formation and dissolution among immigrants. In the past, the
partnership pathways of immigrants resembled those of the native populations in
Europe. Despite higher fertility levels for some migrant groups both immigrants and
natives tended to follow a path of direct marriage and childbearing within marriage
(Mikolai & Kulu, 2022). Increased family complexity and diversity in the last dec-
ades, including the postponement of marriage and the spread of cohabitation, non-
marital childbearing, and divorce (Thomson, 2014), have been observed to varying
degrees in the migrant population.
Recent studies have shown significant heterogeneity in partnership formation
according to the origin of international migrants. In most cases, these behaviours
seemed to reflect the patterns prevailing in immigrants’ countries of origin, provid-
ing support for the socialisation hypothesis (e.g. Hannemann etal., 2020; Kulu etal.,
2022). Nevertheless, other studies have found evidence of adaptation and selection
mechanisms (e.g. Andersson et al., 2015; González-Ferrer et al., 2016; Hanne-
mann & Kulu, 2015; Pailhé, 2015; Rahnu etal., 2015). In general, studies show that
immigrants from geographically and culturally close countries (e.g. EU migrants
in Europe) have family patterns similar to those of the natives, including a higher
propensity to cohabit before marriage or a first birth. By contrast, immigrants from
more conservative countries often follow a path of direct marriage and have larger
families (see Andersson etal., 2015 for Sweden; Delaporte & Kulu, 2022, Pailhé,
2015 for France; Kuhnt & Krapf, 2020, Liu & Kulu, 2021 for Germany; Mikolai &
Kulu, 2022 for the UK).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 6 of 32
Couple formation (or marriage migration) as a special case of family reunifica-
tion largely account for the elevated marriage and first birth risks around interna-
tional migration (Andersson et al., 2015; Toulemon, 2004). The interrelation of
life events hypothesis is particularly relevant in explaining immigrants’ partnership
patterns. Family-related migration remains a dominant form of legal entry for non-
European immigrants across Europe. Although ways of living together as a family
have changed (e.g. nonmarital cohabitation, living apart together), most countries
still adhere to the traditional model of marriage as a basis for entry into the terri-
tory (Kofman, 2004). As a result, family ideals may be distorted by the intention
to migrate to another country, with accelerated and elevated transitions to marriage
for those whose visa is conditional on family ties. By contrast, single migrants were
shown to marry at older ages (Carlson, 1985; Milewski, 2003)—a pattern that may
be explained by a longer search for a partner (Milewski, 2007). This is in line with
the disruption hypothesis. The postponement of marriage (and possibly parent-
hood) for unmarried migrants may also be explained by a selection effect: individu-
als migrating for education or employment may have different family aspirations or
simply be at different stages of their life course.
Findings on family dissolution among immigrants are mixed. In a comparative
study of four European countries, Hannemann and colleagues (2020) found lower
divorce risks among women from more conservative countries (i.e. South Asian
women in the UK and Turkish women in France) stressing the embeddedness of
culture and social norms towards this event. Others have found higher divorce rates
among (certain groups of) foreign-born individuals than among natives (Anders-
son, 2015, Nekby, 2012). The stress and disruption of family life induced by the
migration process, and exposure to new gender norms were highlighted as possible
explanations for relatively high divorce risks among immigrants. Exogamous mar-
riage is another factor linked to a higher likelihood of divorce (Milewski & Kulu,
2014). However, divorce may be incompatible with maintaining legal status in the
host country, thus diminishing the chances of experiencing this event especially in
the first years after immigration.
Studies on fertility dynamics among immigrant populations are abundant (see
Adserà & Ferrer, 2015; Kulu etal., 2019; Kulu & González-Ferrer, 2014; Kulu &
Milewski, 2007 for reviews). Based on the five above-mentioned hypotheses, pre-
vious research has studied whether and how immigration influences fertility levels
in European countries (Kulu & González-Ferrer, 2014). Again, studies report sig-
nificant variation across population subgroups. While European immigrants often
show similarities (or convergence) with natives, non-Western immigrants show
higher levels of fertility. In general, immigrants from countries with more conserva-
tive family patterns experience earlier transitions to parenthood, and have similar
risks of a second birth as natives, but the propensity of a third or fourth birth is
higher among immigrants (Kulu etal., 2022). Higher fertility levels for non-Western
immigrants were found among Eastern and Southern European immigrants in Swit-
zerland (Rojas etal., 2018); Turkish and Sub-Saharan African immigrants in France
(Delaporte & Kulu, 2022; Pailhé, 2015); Turkish immigrants in Germany (Milewski,
2007, 2010); immigrants from the Maghreb region in Spain (González-Ferrer etal.,
2016); immigrants from Morocco and Turkey in Belgium (Van Landschoot et al.,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 7 of 32 14
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 migra-
tion 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).
The literature on immigrants’ fertility and partnership dynamics has focused
only marginally on the partnership context of fertility including nonmarital and
(pre)marital childbearing (Adserà & Ferrer, 2015). By jointly analysing partner-
ship and childbearing changes, a few studies recently addressed this gap showing
a stronger association between marriage and childbearing, and a lower risk of non-
marital and premarital childbearing among immigrant populations (Delaporte &
Kulu, 2022; Liu & Kulu, 2021). In a British study, Mikolai and Kulu (2022) con-
cluded that European and Western immigrants are experiencing increasingly diverse
family trajectories with cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, and separation being
common experiences. By contrast, the partnership pathways leading to childbear-
ing among other immigrant groups have remained relatively stable over time. In a
cross-national study, Kulu etal. (2022) found striking similarities in the preference
for marriage across migrant origins with strongly marriage-centred family forms.
They concluded that, compared to fertility behaviours, partnership patterns are less
affected by the destination context and more by the migration background.
2.3 Swiss Context
2.3.1 Migration Policy andImmigrant Population
As a country with a high standard of living and a dynamic labour market, Switzer-
land attracts a significant number of immigrants. The foreign-born population (i.e.
the population born abroad regardless of nationality) represents 31% of the total
population (SFSO 2021). Since 2002 and the ratification of the EU/EFTA Agree-
ment of the Free Movement of Persons by Switzerland, the conditions of entry,
residence, and work are facilitated for EU/EFTA nationals. Immigrants from EU
member states (Germany, France Portugal, Italy, and Spain in the lead) account for
about two-thirds of the migrant population. At the same time, entry for third-coun-
try nationals (Kosovo and Turkey are the most represented) was restricted to fam-
ily reunification, study, and asylum (Piguet, 2005). Employment-related migration
for third-country nationals is now limited by strict quotas to highly skilled workers.
International organisations are an important entry point for highly qualified third-
country nationals. As a result of these policies, the reasons for migration and the
skill composition of the population vary by origin country. While employment is the
main reason for migration for many European migrants (72% for Germans, 71% for
Italians, and 58% for Western European migrants), family reasons are most common
among migrants from the Balkans (73%), South America (68%), and West Africa
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 8 of 32
(61%). This pattern also varies substantially by gender: 55% of women and only
22% of men moved to Switzerland for family-related reasons (nccr—on the move,
2023). The composition (marital and parental status) of the migrant population at
arrival reflects this dynamic (see Table2 in Appendix).
2.3.2 Family Dynamics
Switzerland has undergone major changes in family formation and pathways to
adulthood since the 1970s (Kellerhals & Widmer, 2007). However, the country dif-
fers from other European countries in several ways. First, destandardisation of life
courses among younger cohorts shows a persisting gender divide: men typically
have stable and linear occupational trajectories while women often go back and
forth between parttime employment and family care (Widmer & Ritschard, 2009).
Switzerland has a rather conservative gender and family system characterised by a
lack of institutional support for working mothers (Rossier etal., 2023), leading to or
reinforcing the dominant one-and-a-half breadwinner model. By contrast, immigrant
women to Switzerland were shown to either work full-time or be inactive. When
employed, however, the number of hours worked is higher for immigrants than for
natives (Lacroix & Vidal-Coso, 2018).
Second, Switzerland has the lowest level of long-term fertility in Europe (together
with Germany and Austria); the TFR has been around 1.5 since the mid-1970s
(Sobotka, 2011). The impact of immigrant fertility on the overall TFR is larger in
Switzerland than in other European countries (Sobotka, 2008). In 2021, almost 40%
of all births were to women of foreign nationality.1 However, despite a TFR that is
about 0.5 higher than that of Swiss women, foreigners do not have larger families.
In fact, Burkimsher etal. (2020) as well as the statistics from household registration
(STATPOP) and the Families and Generations Surveys (FGS) indicate the opposite.
Although Rojas and colleagues (2018) reported higher first birth risks among immi-
grants, especially from Eastern and Southern Europe, they found a lower transition
rate to a second birth among all immigrant groups than among natives.
Third, although premarital cohabitation is common, marriage is more prevalent
in Switzerland than in most Europe countries, and its link with childbearing remains
particularly strong (Lesthaeghe, 2010). Couples in Switzerland often marry before
or during first pregnancy, or a few months after the first birth (Charton & Wanner,
2001; Rossier & Legoff, 2005). By European standards, the birth rate outside mar-
riage is very low (28% at the national level, compared to 62% in France, 58% in
Portugal, and 48% in Spain) (Eurostat, 2020). This means that many immigrants to
Switzerland come from countries that are further along in the SDT. Nonetheless,
Switzerland is a de-centralised federal state with well-defined institutional and cul-
tural divisions. The SDT is not evenly widespread across the country: vital statistics
show that out-of-wedlock birth rate is 13 percentage points lower for natives living in
the German-speaking region than for those living in the French- or Italian-speaking
1 National statistics in Switzerland are compiled on the basis of citizenship rather than the country of
birth.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 9 of 32 14
regions (authors’ own calculation based on Statpop 2019). Research on the part-
nership patterns of immigrants in Switzerland mainly focused on mixed marriages
(see for instance Potarca & Bernardi, 2018). The type of union (consensual union
or marriage) and the partnership context of fertility (nonmarital childbearing, single
parenthood) among immigrants have not yet received much attention.
2.4 Hypotheses
Based on the literature, Swiss context, and distinct migration policies for EU and
non-EU migrants in the country, we derive the following hypotheses. First, we
expect immigrants’ partnership context (and levels) of fertility to echo their origin
country’s dominant norms and progression in the SDT (socialisation hypothesis).
Compared to the native population (for whom the link between marriage and child-
bearing remains strong), immigrants from EU countries, and especially immigrants
from France and Portugal, are expected to have lower marriage rates and a greater
propensity to have children (first and higher order births) outside marriage. By con-
trast, we expect higher marriage rates and a greater propensity to have larger fami-
lies within marriage among non-Western (especially Turkish) immigrants.
When considering socialisation mechanisms, scholars generally compare behav-
iours in origin and destination countries (e.g. TFR, employment rates) at the
national level. We further contrast the family behaviours of Italian, German, and
French immigrants with that of natives in the respective linguistic regions. Although
we do not derive specific hypotheses for those exploratory findings, we expect these
differences to be indicative of cultural influences, but also of the way in which the
migration process alters these influences.
Second, EU and non-EU migrants in Switzerland are subject to different entry
requirements selecting work-oriented profiles in the former case and family-oriented
ones in the latter. Specific migration dynamics such as marriage migration and family
reunification also select immigrants at specific life course stages, influencing fam-
ily transitions, especially in the short-term. Distinguishing newly arrived immigrants
from settled immigrants, we test for different arrival effects for EU and non-EU
immigrants. We expect EU migrants to experience lower marriage and fertility transi-
tions in the first two years following arrival to Switzerland (disruption and selection
hypotheses). By contrast, we expect non-EU migrants to experience higher marriage
and fertility transitions in the first two years following arrival to Switzerland (inter-
relation of life events and selection hypotheses). Distinct patterns for newly arrived
immigrants are expected, but mainly among childless women (Milewski, 2007).
3 Data andMethods
3.1 Data
We use linked administrative registers that cover all residents of Switzerland between
2012 and 2018. The data comes from three different sources: (1) The Population and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 10 of 32
Household register, (2) the Vital register, and (3) the Social Security register. The
Population and Household register (STATPOP) provides information on different
demographic dimensions for all persons legally living in Switzerland (on the refer-
ence date of December 31 of each year). These characteristics include age, sex, (date
of) marital status, nationality, country of birth, and year of arrival in Switzerland.
Additionally, a household ID allows to identify co-residents of the same dwelling
but does not document their relationship.2 This means that information on parental
status and number of children in the household (parity) is not directly available in
the dataset. For women who do not experience any childbirth during this period,
we define parity as the number of children in the household whose age difference
with the mother is between 15 and 45years.3 For women who experience childbirth
during the observation period, this information is directly retrieved from the Vital
register (description below).
Fertility and partnership transitions are extracted from the Vital register (BEV-
NAT), which provides continuous and detailed information on childbirth, mar-
riage, and divorce, including the links to the parents or the (ex-)partner. For each
new birth, the register also documents parity and marital status at birth. Fam-
ily events that took place abroad among individuals domiciled in Switzerland are
also documented in the register. The data does not gather information on non-
marital cohabitation which means that both unpartnered individuals and those in
a nonmartial union are referred to as ‘unmarried’. This has some implications
for the ‘risk population’ under study, especially when comparing the family
behaviours of childless unmarried women of immigrant and non-immigrant back-
grounds. Immigrants for whom entry to Switzerland is conditional on or eased
by family visas are likely to be at specific stages of their family and reproductive
lives. The risk of a first birth or marriage differs among individuals who are in
a consensual union or unpartnered. We interpret the results in light of specific
migration dynamics (i.e. marriage migration, family reunification) and discuss
the implications in the conclusion. Nevertheless, although childbearing within
cohabitation and lone parenthood are two distinct family trajectories, both can
be considered a manifestation of the SDT. In addition, we expect that most births
among unmarried women occur in partnerships rather than among single women.
Finally, the Social Security register (CdC) contains the annual income of all resi-
dents with a declared professional activity in Switzerland.
We analyse women between the ages of 15 and 45. We start observing women
at different ages in 2012 (or later for those who migrated to Switzerland or
reached age 15 between 2013 and 2017) until 2018, or until they reach age 45,
emigrate, or die. We exclude women who were already divorced or had three
2 The population register was first introduced in 2010 but it is only since 2012 that a household ID is
available.
3 Based on the number of children in the household and their ages we were able to infer parity with a
high degree of certainty. We cross-validated this measure (1) using the Structural Survey, a nationally
representative survey that contains information on the relationships between household members and (2)
using the parity variable in the Vital register (for those having children between 2013–2018).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 11 of 32 14
or more children when first observed. Overall, the study population consists of
1,803,295 women, 41% of whom are born abroad.
3.2 Analytical Strategy
To analyse partnership and fertility trajectories jointly, we use a multistate event
history approach (see Mikolai & Kulu, 2022 for a comprehensive overview of
the modelling strategy). Figure1 illustrates the possible states (combinations of
marital status and parity in boxes) and competing transitions (arrows) considered
in this study. We estimate different sets of models by marital status (unmarried or
married) and parity (childless, one-child, or two-child mothers). First, we analyse
competing partnership and fertility outcomes for unmarried women. Unmarried
childless women can either marry or have a first child; unmarried mothers with
one child can either have a second child or marry; and unmarried mothers with
two children can either have a third child or get married. In a second step, we
examine the competing partnership and fertility outcomes for married women.
This population is at risk of either having a (first, second, or third) child or expe-
riencing a divorce.
We estimate piecewise constant exponential models for competing risks and
incorporate different ‘clocks’. Age is the baseline risk in all models. In the risk sets
of married women, we also account for marriage duration; in the risk sets of moth-
ers, we account for time since last birth. An interaction term between the type of
event and the migrant’s country of birth allows us to test whether certain groups are
more likely to experience one transition than another.
3.3 Variables
The main variable of interest is individuals’ country of birth. For all models, we com-
pare the family behaviour of natives (born in Switzerland) with that of women born
Fig. 1 States and competing partnership and fertility outcomes. Notes: S Single (unmarried), M Married,
D Divorce; the numbers 0–3 represent women’s parity (i.e. 0 child, 1 child, 2 children, or 3+ children)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 12 of 32
abroad. The descendants of immigrants (2nd generation) are grouped together with
the native population as the data does not contain information on the parents’ coun-
try of birth. Register data for the entire resident population allows for country-specific
analysis. We distinguish women born in Germany, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain
(the largest origin groups in Switzerland among EU countries), as well as women born
in Kosovo and Turkey (the largest non-EU origin countries in Switzerland). Due to
smaller cell sizes, we have grouped individuals born in other countries by region of
birth, distinguishing women from other EU countries, other European countries (Mac-
edonia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Russia represent 78% of this groups), Sub-
Saharan Africa, North Africa, Latin America, North America, South Asia, Asia, and
Oceania. Throughout this paper we distinguish between EU and non-EU migrants, as
the former are free to enter, live and work in Switzerland, while the latter are subject to
strict legal requirements. Switzerland has well-defined institutional and cultural divi-
sions, and the different linguistic regions share, to a certain extent, some similarities
with their adjacent regions (France, Germany, and Italy). We exploit these differences
as an additional layer of complexity and comment on the within group (i.e. natives
from different linguistic regions) and between group (i.e. natives and immigrants from
the same linguistic regions) differences in family formation patterns.
To capture the arrival effect, i.e. the interrelationship between the international
migration and family formation decisions, we code individuals as ‘newly arrived
immigrants’ during the first two-year period after arrival and as ‘settled immigrants’
the subsequent years. Age is categorised into 5-year age groups: 15–19 (reference),
20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, and 40–44. The models also include different dura-
tion variables. Marriage duration and time since last birth are divided into four cat-
egories: 0–1 year (reference), 1–3 years, 3–5 years, and 5+ years. The data does
not contain information on the level of education. Instead, we use annual house-
hold income and the employment status of women as socio-economic indicators.
Employment status is coded as employed if the woman received any income during
the given year and not employed otherwise.
4 Results
4.1 Descriptive
Table1 describes the number of person-years and family transitions by marital
status and country of birth. Swiss women account for the largest share of person-
years (63%) and events both as unmarried and married. All origin groups are in
sufficient numbers to warrant detailed group-specific analysis. Approximately
three quarters of the time at risk for native women is as unmarried. This propor-
tion is higher than for all migrant groups and can be explained by the younger age
structure of this population (individuals who reached age 15 between 2013 and
2018 were included in the dataset resulting in a larger population of those ages
among the Swiss population). Other groups are underrepresented in the unmar-
ried category. This is the case for (in ascending order) women born in Turkey,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 13 of 32 14
Table 1 Number of person-years and family events by marital status and country of birth, women aged
15–45 in Switzerland (2012–2019)
Outcomes of single women
Person-years Birth Marriage
N Rate N Rate
Switzerland 3,616,138 53,812 0.015 100,830 0.028
Italy 85,736 1,545 0.018 2,635 0.031
Germany 265,812 6,728 0.025 8,856 0.033
Portugal 109,087 3,771 0.035 4,048 0.037
France 121,614 3,313 0.027 2,937 0.024
Spain 36,772 894 0.024 1,134 0.031
Other EU countries 230,639 3,910 0.017 7,727 0.034
Kosovo 21,371 414 0.019 1,967 0.092
Turkey 16,447 146 0.009 888 0.054
Other European countries 97,397 1,522 0.016 6,513 0.067
Sub-Saharan Africa 72,948 4,026 0.055 2,188 0.030
North Africa 10,836 119 0.011 391 0.036
Latin America 83,963 1,850 0.022 2,544 0.030
North America 43,806 389 0.009 971 0.022
Asia 108,525 1,444 0.013 2,849 0.026
South Asia 24,986 458 0.018 1,017 0.041
Oceania 6,706 92 0.014 180 0.027
Outcomes of married women
Person-years Birth Divorce
N Rate N Rate
Switzerland 1,401,584 157,486 0.112 20,668 0.015
Italy 61,864 4,817 0.078 387 0.006
Germany 139,800 13,968 0.100 1,164 0.008
Portugal 169,720 10,649 0.063 967 0.006
France 59,244 5,282 0.089 617 0.010
Spain 25,554 2,047 0.080 183 0.007
Other EU countries 193,420 14,592 0.075 2,008 0.010
Kosovo 80,445 1,189 0.015 537 0.007
Turkey 63,937 4,909 0.077 879 0.014
Other European countries 301,988 26,376 0.087 3,119 0.010
Sub-Saharan Africa 62,851 5,886 0.094 1,213 0.019
North Africa 32,285 2,887 0.089 687 0.021
Latin America 138,049 7,954 0.058 2,784 0.020
North America 27,483 2,323 0.085 229 0.008
Asia 149,023 9,793 0.066 1,868 0.013
South Asia 69,105 4,894 0.071 334 0.005
Oceania 5131 408 0.080 53 0.010
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 14 of 32
Kosovo, other European countries, North Africa, and South Asia. By contrast,
women from Germany, France, and North America contribute to over 60% of
their risk time as unmarried.
Table 1 (continued)
Sources: Statpop, Bevnat (2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations
b)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk Eur SSA NAfLAm NAmAsia SAs Oc
Marriage 1st birth
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Ch N
It
SN
Gr
SN
Pr
SN
Fr
SN
Sp
SN
EU
SN
Ks
SN
Tk
SN
Eur
SN
SSA
SN
NAf
SN
LAm
SN
NAm
SN
Asia
SN
SAs
SN
Oc
S
Marriage 1st birth
a)
Fig. 2 Outcomes of unmarried childless women. a Relative risks of a first birth or first marriage by
migrant origin. b Relative risks of a first birth or first marriage by migrant origin, separately for newly
arrived immigrants and settled immigrants. Note: CH Switzerland, It Italy, Gr Germany, Pr Portugal, Fr
France, Sp Spain, EU other EU countries, Ks Kosovo, Tk Turkey, Eur other European countries (not in
the EU), SSA Sub-Saharan Africa, NAf North Africa, Lam Latin America, Nam North America, Asia,
SAs South Asia, Oc Oceania. Control variables: age, employment status, household income. N N ewly
arrived immigrants (first two years in the country), S Settled immigrants (subsequent years). Sources:
Statpop, Bevnat, CdC (2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations. 95% confidence intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 15 of 32 14
4.2 Outcomes ofUnmarried Women
We present the results of the piecewise constant exponential models for unmarried
childless women (Fig.2) and unmarried mothers with one or two children (Fig.3).
Relative risks are the result of an interaction between the type of event and migrant
origin in a competing events framework. Unmarried women, who may be unpart-
nered or living in a nonmarital cohabitation, are at risk of getting married or hav-
ing a(n additional) child. The reference category is the hazard of marrying among
unmarried Swiss women (denoted by 1). Because distinct arrival effects are expected
mainly for the first birth, we present the results separately for newly arrived and set-
tled immigrants in the main text for childless women and in the Appendix for higher
order births. Figure2a shows the relative risks of a first birth or first marriage among
childless unmarried women. In this population, the risk of marrying is the highest,
followed by the risk of a first birth. Among Swiss women, the risk of marrying is
about twice as high as the risk of having a first birth. Overall, we find similar patterns
among women from EU countries. Compared to the first birth risk among natives,
the risk of a first birth out of wedlock is somewhat higher for all EU groups, rang-
ing from a 10% increase among women from other EU countries to a 75% increase
among French women. Portuguese women stand out by an even higher risk of first
birth (2.7 times higher than the risk of a first birth among natives), but also by a
higher propensity to marry (30% higher than the risk of marrying among natives).
Greater differences emerge among women from non-EU countries. The most
prominent difference is observed among women from Sub-Saharan Africa for whom
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk Eur SSANAf LAmNAm Asia SAsOc
Marriage 2nd/3rd birth
Fig. 3 Outcomes of unmarried mothers: Relative risks of a second/third birth or first marriage by
migrant origin. Note: CH Switzerland, It Italy, Gr Germany, Pr Portugal, Fr France, Sp Spain, EU other
EU countries, Ks Kosovo, Tk Turkey, Eur other European countries (not in the EU), SSA Sub-Saharan
Africa, NAf North Africa, Lam Latin America, Nam North America, Asia, SAs South Asia, Oc Oceania.
Control variables: age, time since last birth, employment status, household income. Sources: Statpop,
Bevnat, CdC (2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations. 95% confidence intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 16 of 32
the risk of a first birth outside of marriage is the highest among all groups; their
propensity to marry is, however, comparable to that of native women. Part of this
dynamic can be explained by the very nature of the administrative data, which only
records civil statuses (as compared to, for example, religious marriages). Contrary to
expectations, women from non-EU countries have similar or even higher first birth
risks than unmarried Swiss women. Only women from Turkey and North America
have a lower risk of first birth outside marriage. Other patterns of family formation
marked by a higher propensity to marry can be identified. This is the case among
women from Kosovo, Turkey, and other European countries, and to a lesser extent
for women born in North Africa, Latin America, and South Asia.
The results clearly show distinct family behaviours for newly arrived immigrants
compared to settled immigrants (Fig. 2b). We find that newly arrived immigrant
women from EU countries have similar first birth risks to Swiss women (with the
exception of the Portuguese). In contrast, settled EU immigrants have a higher risk
of a first birth compared to Swiss women Marriage risksdo not differ between newly
and settled immigrants, again, with the exception of the Portuguese whose risk of
marrying is elevated following immigration.
The relationship between family events and immigration operates differently
among non-EU migrants. Women from Kosovo, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South
Asia have increased first birth risks shortly after arrival (as compared to Swiss
women, and to their counterpart who spent more time in the country). For other
groups, this association is reversed. This is the case among women from Latin and
North America for whom the risk of a first birth is higher after two years. Marriage
risks are higher among women from Kosovo, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin Amer-
ica in the first two years following immigration. Higher birth and marriage risks in
the first years are consistent with family patterns in the context of marital migration
among partnered unmarried women.
Figure3 shows the relative risks of a birth or marriage among unmarried moth-
ers, providing a measure of the extent to which nonmarital childbearing continues
beyond the first birth. Due to a smaller number of events (only 1% of all births are
a third birth of unmarried mothers) and large confidence intervals for some groups,
we have pooled the transitions to second and third births. Differences in marriage
and birth risks between migrant groups and natives are much smaller among unmar-
ried mothers than they were among childless unmarried women. Unmarried mothers
are a select group, and probably even more so among women born in countries with
more conservative family values; the results reflect this dynamic.
Again, the results show greater similarities to the patterns of native women
among women born in EU countries. The Portugueses, French, and Spaniards are
somewhat less likely than natives to marry; other groups do not differ. Swiss natives
and French women are the most likely to have a second or third child as unmar-
ried and these are the only European groups who are more likely to have a second
or third child than to marry. Non-EU women also show lower second or third birth
risks compared to natives. Again, women from Sub-Saharan Africa stand out with
30% higher risks of a second or third birth while unmarried. By contrast, Turkish
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 17 of 32 14
unmarried women are the least likely to give birth to a second or third child. Among
unmarried mothers, some groups maintain a high propensity to marry. This is the
case among women born in Kosovo, Turkey, other European countries, North
Africa, Asia, and South Asia.
a)
b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk Eur SSA NAfLAm NAmAsia SAs Oc
1st birth Divorce
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk Eur SSA NAfLAm NAmAsia SAs Oc
1st birthDivorce
Fig. 4 Outcomes of childless married women. a Relative risks of a first birth or divorce by migrant ori-
gin. b Relative risks of a first birth or divorce by migrant origin, separately for newly arrived immi-
grants and settled immigrants. Note: CH Switzerland, It Italy, Gr Germany, Pr Portugal, Fr France, Sp
Spain, EU other EU countries, Ks Kosovo, Tk Turkey, Eur other European countries (not in the EU), SSA
Sub-Saharan Africa, NAf North Africa, Lam Latin America, Nam North America, Asia, SAs South Asia,
Oc Oceania. Control variables: age, marriage duration, employment status, household income. N Newly
arrived immigrants (first two years in the country), S Settled immigrants (subsequent years). Sources:
Statpop, Bevnat, CdC (2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations. 95% confidence intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 18 of 32
4.3 Outcomes ofMarried Women
Figures4, 5, and 6 illustrate the patterns of married women’s transitions to divorce
or a first, second, and third childbirth, respectively. The reference category is the
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk EurSSA NAfLAm NAmAsiaSAs Oc
2ndbirth Divorc e
Fig. 5 Outcomes of married women with one child: Relative risks of a second birth or divorce by
migrant origin
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk EurSSA NAfLAm NAmAsiaSAs Oc
3rd birth Divorce
Fig. 6 Outcomes of married women with two children: Relative risks of a third birth or divorce by
migrant origin. Note: CH Switzerland, It Italy, Gr Germany, Pr Portugal, Fr France, Sp Spain, EU other
EU countries, Ks Kosovo, Tk Turkey, Eur other European countries (not in the EU); SSA Sub-Saharan
Africa, NAf North Africa, Lam Latin America, Nam North America, Asia, SAs South Asia, Oc Oceania.
Control variables: age, marriage duration, time since last birth, employment status, household income.
Sources: Statpop, Bevnat, CdC (2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations. 95% confidence intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 19 of 32 14
hazard of a (first, second, or third) birth among married Swiss women (denoted by
1). Among childless married women (Fig.4), childbirth is the most likely outcome,
followed by divorce; the latter being about ten times less likely than the former.
Married women show some variation in first birth risks between migrant groups.
Women from the EU countries have slightly lower first birth risks (10% to 25%
lower). First birth risks of non-EU migrants are generally somewhat lower than
those of native women. Women from Latin America and Asia have the lowest first
birth risks; about half of that of Swiss women. The only exception is women form
Kosovo whose first birth risks are about 15% higher than those of native women.
Just like the transition to a first birth among unmarried women, newly arrived married
women from EU countries have lower first birth risks than settled immigrant women in
the same family situation. After a settlement period of more than 2years, the hazard of
a first birth is higher and more similar to those of Swiss women. Nevertheless, women
from Germany and other EU countries maintain lower first birth risks than natives in the
long run; about 10% and 20%, respectively. Women from non-EU countries, by contrast,
often experience increased risks of the transition to a first birth shortly after immigra-
tion compared to settled immigrants. This is the case for women from Kosovo, Turkey,
Sub-Saharan Africa, and North Africa. This pattern is reversed for some non-EU groups:
women from Latin and North America, and women from other European countries are
more likely to have a first child after more than 2years in the country.
We also find differences in the magnitude of divorce risks by migrant origin. We
find more differences in the risks of divorce among women from non-EU coun-
tries with women from Kosovo, South Asia, and North America having the lowest
divorce rates and women from North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin Amer-
ica having the highest. Divorce risks are especially low among newly arrived immi-
grants for both EU and non-EU groups.
Figure 5 shows the patterns of transitions to a second birth vs. divorce among
married mothers with one child. Variations between migrant groups for the risk of
a second birth are comparable to those for the risk of a first birth. Women from all
EU countries have lower second birth risks than native Swiss women with the Portu-
guese having the lowest risks. Only women from Kosovo, North America, and Oce-
ania have second birth rates comparable to those of native women; all other groups
are less likely to have a second birth. The relative risks of divorce, on the other
hand, are very similar to those observed for childless married women.
Figure6 shows the relative risks of a third birth or divorce among married moth-
ers with two children. Compared to the patterns of transitions to a first and second
birth, significant differences emerge between groups. Among EU countries, only
women from Germany display slightly higher third birth risks (about 10%) than
Swiss women. While Portuguese women have about half the risk of Swiss women,
other groups are about 10% (France) to 25% (Italy, Spain) less likely to have a third
birth. Many migrant women from non-EU countries have high third birth rates.
Immigrants from Kosovo, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North Africa are more likely
than native married women to have a third child. The risks increase by 30% for the
first group and by 60% for the last two groups.
Women from Latin America have the highest divorce rates and women from
Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa have similar divorce rates compared to native
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 20 of 32
women. All other groups are less likely than native women to get divorced among
married mothers with two children.
4.4 Outcomes byLinguistic Regions
We further explore the specific behaviours patterns of immigrants from neighbouring
countries with that of natives from respective linguistic regions. Results (See Figs.10
and 11 in appendix) show both within and between group differences. For the out-
comes of childless unmarried women, German and French immigrants display less
conservative family behaviours: marriage rates are lower and first nonmarital births
higher than among their native counterparts. German and French immigrants are over-
represented among highly skilled workers and, as a result, are likely to differ from
their origin country counterparts in terms of demographic characteristics and unob-
served attitudes to work and family. However, for the transition to higher order births
among unmarried mothers, the transitions of French (German) immigrants practically
mirror those of native French (German); Italian immigrants by contrast have lower
birth rates than their Swiss Italian counterparts. For the outcomes of married mothers,
transition to a third birth appeared higher for both German immigrants and German-
speaking natives. These results bring nuances to the heterogeneity of native popula-
tions and the need for a more in-depth assessment of the interaction between culture
and the role played by immigration in family processes.
5 Discussion
This paper simultaneously analysed marriage and childbearing changes among native
and immigrant women in Switzerland. Taking advantage of full-population registers,
we analysed detailed patterns of transitions by migrant’s country of origin distinguish-
ing newly arrived immigrants from settled immigrants. The paper contributes to the
literature by providing new insights into the partnership context of fertility, and the
interrelatedness of family and migration dynamics overall and in Switzerland in par-
ticular. Childbearing in and outside of marriage (whether by lone parents or consen-
sual partners) has been seen as a manifestation of the Second Demographic Transition;
a development induced by ideational and cultural transformations (Lesthaeghe, 2010,
2014). However, studies show that assimilation in the family sphere among immigrant
populations occurs more slowly than assimilation in other domains leading to discus-
sions on a possible Third Demographic Transition (Coleman, 2006).
Using a multistate event history approach, we found that most of the differences in
family formation patterns between migrant groups and natives were in the sequenc-
ing of marriage and first birth among childless unmarried women. Immigrants from
countries with more conservative family systems experienced marriage-centred family
behaviours (e.g. Turkey). Even when having a first child outside of marriage, these
groups maintained a higher propensity to marry later. Transition to a first birth out-
side marriage was most frequent among immigrants from countries where this fam-
ily behaviour is more widespread (France, Portugal, Spain). This is in line with the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 21 of 32 14
socialisation hypothesis. Nevertheless, the results revealed a great deal of complexity
and specificity among migrant groups that goes beyond socialisation.
In fact, we found trends of nonmarital family formation among both EU and non-
EU groups albeit with very different timing around immigration. When they were
unmarried, migrant women were generally more likely than Swiss women to have
a first birth (with a few exceptions). One explanation lies in the composition of the
unmarried population, which includes both individuals in consensual partnerships
and unpartnered individuals. The native population includes women at different
stages of their life course. By contrast, non-EU groups for whom entry requirements
are often conditional on family visas often migrate at specific stages in their family
and reproductive lives. The fact that first childbirth outside marriage is most preva-
lent only in the first two years after immigration suggests that these transitions are
induced by the migration process; a matter of timing and selection.
The risks of a second or third birth outside marriage were highest for natives,
as well as for immigrants from France and Sub-Saharan Africa suggesting that out
of wedlock motherhood trajectories are a more sustainable alternative to marriage
among these groups. As mentioned, however, the marital behaviour of women from
sub-Saharan African countries likely reflects a lack of registered civil marriages and
the prevalence of traditional or religious marriages; a trajectory that differs from that
of SDT. One must also consider that women who migrate as single are a select group
and their family preferences are likely to differ from those of their married counter-
parts. The descriptive statistics showed that some non-EU groups are very unlikely
to be unmarried (at arrival). By contrast, EU migrants are more represented in the
unmarried category and are also more likely to experience childbearing in this situ-
ation, suggesting that nonmarital family formation is a common experience among
this group. Once married, patterns of transitions are more similar across groups. It is
the risk of a third birth that show marked differences between migrant groups; first
and second birth risks are somewhat lower but similar across groups.
Distinguishing between newly arrived migrants and settled migrants allowed for a
better understanding of the rationale behind immigration and family formation, and
interdependency of these events. Migration policies influence both family choices
(consensual unions versus marriages) and the profile of migrant populations (i.e. in
terms of family and professional aspirations). We found timing effects among child-
less (married and unmarried) women, but no clear patterns emerged among moth-
ers. There was a clear difference in the likelihood of having a first child or getting
married in the first two years following immigration compared to subsequent years.
More importantly, we found opposite arrival effects for EU and non-EU migrants
which points to different mechanisms associated with the immigration process.
Newly arrived EU migrants were less likely to have a first birth than settled EU
migrants. This may be explained by the fact that most EU migrants come to Swit-
zerland for professional reasons. Many of them migrate as primary migrants and are
unpartnered. Besides, the early years may be seen as an investment in the profes-
sional sphere and therefore not considered an appropriate time to start a family even
for those in a relationship. This is in line with the disruption hypothesis. Neverthe-
less, selection effects are also likely at play. Women who migrate for professional rea-
sons may be more inclined to prioritise the professional sphere over the family sphere
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 22 of 32
(aspirations for the latter may also be lower among these migrants). The trade-off
between family and work in the country remains important for women given the high
costs and low provision of childcare support, thus reinforcing this dynamic. In addi-
tion, migration to Switzerland by EU migrants is often temporary. Many will only
stay for a few years to gain work experience and consolidate their finances—a life
course stage that might not be seen as compatible with family formation.
On the contrary, newly arrived non-EU migrants had higher transition rates to
marriage and first birth compared to their settled counterparts (especially among
married women). This is in line with previous studies documenting the ‘3 pack’ of
marriage, migration, and first child (Milewski, 2007), thus supporting the interrela-
tion of events hypothesis. Although some migrants may have liberal views on cohabi-
tation and marriage, legal constraints certainly reinforce the link between marriage
and migration. This requirement may explain the higher propensity to marry for some
groups, over and above individual preferences, especially non-Europeans. Neverthe-
less, studies document strong social reproduction of family formation behaviours
among the second generation (see, for instance, Mikolai & Kulu, 2022) suggesting
that legal requirements alone do not explain conservative attitudes towards mar-
riage. The higher risks of marriage and third births for some migrant groups also
support our hypothesis that non-EU migrant women are positively selected for their
family aspirations. Non-EU nationals who wish to migrate for professional reasons
face many obstacles. Nonetheless, some non-EU groups are likely over-represented
among the highly skilled. Immigrants from North America are a good example as
they often migrate to Switzerland for a brief period to take on a specific appointment.
Switzerland has a comparatively conservative attitude towards marriage and marital
childbearing and many EU migrants come from countries that are further along in the
Second Demographic Transition. As expected, we found homogeneous transition pat-
terns among EU migrants with nonmarital family formation being common. By con-
trast, we found greater heterogeneity among migrants from non-EU countries; a much
more diverse population in terms of cultural background and migration process. When
comparing the family formation patterns of immigrants from neighbouring countries
with that of natives from respective linguistic regions we found both within and between
group differences. Research rarely takes into account the heterogeneity of native popu-
lations and the differentiated assimilation of immigrants into specific native subcultures.
We see these lines of research as a mean to enrich discussions on the interplay between
culture and migration processes. More importantly, this study showed how migration
policies (through specific family migration channels and demand for labour migrants)
selects a specific demographic group in the countries of origin and how this, in turn,
attenuates or reinforces the heterogeneity of family behaviours. Selection looms large
in this line of research and there is a need to thoroughly address the role played by
migration policies when interpreting differentiated demographic behaviours of immi-
grants. Future research would also benefit from analysing duration within different
states (including cohabitation) as a way to disentangle for whom nonmarital cohabita-
tion and childbearing become a sustainable family pathway as opposed to a temporary
stage before marriage, thus enriching the discussion of the role immigrants play in the
Second Demographic Transition and family change in Europe.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 23 of 32 14
Appendix
See Tables2 and 3, Figs.7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Table 2 Distribution of independent variables by migrant origin
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks
Age group
15–19 32.3 11.1 8.7 14.0 12.9 9.6 9.1 12.8
20–24 16.8 16.6 14.2 14.3 17.7 14.6 17.1 33.2
25–29 14.8 21.2 25.3 20.4 24.1 21.4 23.6 26.3
30–34 12.9 18.5 23.5 18.8 19.7 21.4 21.6 14.6
35–39 11.2 16.7 15.4 16.6 14.1 18.7 16.4 8.1
40–44 12.1 15.9 12.9 16.0 11.5 14.3 12.3 5.1
Marital status
Unmarried 75.7 64.3 72.4 45.0 73.1 65.3 62.3 24.7
Married 24.4 35.7 27.6 55.0 26.9 34.7 37.7 75.4
Children
0 76.7 70.3 76.3 50.1 73.2 67.8 71.6 52.5
1 9.8 13.9 12.9 26.6 13.6 15.8 14.6 21.1
2 or more 13.5 15.9 10.8 23.2 13.3 16.4 13.8 26.3
Employed
Yes 31.7 33.6 22.9 22.7 29.6 33.5 34.6 41.4
No 68.4 66.5 77.1 77.3 70.4 66.5 65.4 58.6
Household income (CHF)
0–50,000 13.3 30.9 21.4 15.8 26.2 25.3 29.7 17.9
50,000–100,000 25.2 29.1 25.3 37.5 23.2 27.5 24.3 39.4
100,000–150,000 28.7 19.0 23.0 32.4 19.2 19.3 18.0 24.3
150,000 + 32.8 21.1 30.4 14.3 31.4 27.9 28.0 18.4
Total population 1,058,801 40,582 102,927 64,832 48,271 16,734 115,533 24,306
Tk Eur SSA NAf LAm NAm Asia SAs Oc
Age group
15–19 8.2 8.6 17.8 9.4 14.4 21.9 14.3 8.0 19.1
20–24 11.2 18.8 17.7 12.4 11.9 18.6 19.5 13.6 14.7
25–29 20.2 24.7 21.1 20.8 17.7 17.2 18.4 26.3 16.3
30–34 22.8 20.2 18.3 23.0 21.1 17.3 19.0 23.8 18.5
35–39 19.7 15.1 13.9 18.9 19.3 13.1 15.8 16.1 16.6
40–44 18.0 12.6 11.3 15.5 15.6 12.0 13.1 12.2 14.9
Marital status
Unmarried 22.9 29.1 58.2 27.5 42.3 64.4 48.1 28.9 61.2
Married 77.1 70.9 41.8 72.5 57.7 35.6 51.9 71.1 38.8
Children
0 42.7 49.7 59.8 56.8 61.5 77.4 68.8 51.2 72.8
1 22.1 21.2 22.3 22.5 21.4 10.1 17.1 21.8 11.0
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 24 of 32
Table 2 (continued)
Tk Eur SSA NAf LAm NAm Asia SAs Oc
2 or more 35.2 29.1 17.9 20.7 17.1 12.5 14.1 27.0 16.1
Employed
Yes 38.1 34.2 50.2 52.5 45.0 57.2 59.3 56.5 50.4
No 61.9 65.8 49.8 47.5 55.0 42.8 40.8 43.5 49.6
Household income (CHF)
0–50,000 29.9 18.9 48.9 37.6 27.1 32.1 32.1 36.4 28.8
50,000–100,000 37.2 32.9 22.5 30.1 29.1 16.5 21.1 29.8 16.2
100,000–150,000 20.3 26.7 13.0 15.4 21.2 14.4 16.5 17.2 17.1
150,000 + 12.5 21.5 15.7 16.9 22.6 37.0 30.3 16.7 37.9
Total population 18,690 93,361 35,159 11,232 55,429 20,053 70,799 24,561 3,341
Sources: Statpop, Bevnat, CdC (2012–2018)
CH Switzerland, It Italy, Gr Germany, Pr Portugal, Fr France, Sp Spain, EU other EU countries, Ks
Kosovo, Tk Turkey, Eur other European countries (not in the EU), SSA Sub-Saharan Africa, NAf North
Africa, Lam Latin America, Nam North America, Asia, SAs South Asia, Oc Oceania
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 25 of 32 14
Table 3 Hazard ratios of covariates by marital status and parity
Sources: Statpop, Bevnat, CdC(2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations. 95% confidence intervals
CH Switzerland, It Italy, Gr Germany, Pr Portugal, Fr France, Sp Spain, EU other EU countries, Ks
Kosovo, Tk Turkey, Eur other European countries (not in the EU), SSA Sub-Saharan Africa, NAf North
Africa, Lam Latin America, Nam North America, Asia, SAs South Asia, Oc Oceania
Unmarried child-
less
Unmarried with
1 or 2 children
Married child-
less
Married with 1
child
Married
with 2
children
Age group
15–19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
20–24 4.31*** 3.95*** 1.03 1.15 1.27
25–29 10.93*** 5.77*** 1.17*** 1.29** 1.26
30–34 14.11*** 5.76*** 1.19*** 1.21** 0.97
35–39 8.76*** 4.21*** 0.80*** 0.85* 0.53
40–44 2.57*** 1.84*** 0.24*** 0.28*** 0.22***
Time since last birth
0–1year 1.00 1.00 1.00
1–3years 1.08*** 3.35*** 0.06***
3–5years 0.59*** 2.11*** 0.05***
5+ years 0.32*** 1.22*** 0.04***
Marriage duration
0–1year 1.00 1.00 1.00
1–3years 0.55*** 0.70*** 0.57***
3–5years 0.42*** 0.66*** 0.66***
5+ years 0.31*** 0.53*** 0.50***
Employed
No 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Yes 1.35*** 1.02 1.22*** 1.16*** 1.18***
Household income (CHF)
0–50,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
50,000–100,000 1.10*** 1.24*** 1.10*** 1.00 0.63***
100,000–150,000 1.81*** 1.43*** 1.23*** 1.04*** 0.47***
150,000+ 1.79*** 1.41*** 1.34*** 1.07*** 0.51***
Constant 0.00*** 0.01*** 0.23*** 0.10*** 0.06***
N 8,982,266 991,892 1,713,800 1,900,696 2,800,072
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 26 of 32
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk EurSSA NAfLAm NAmAsiaSAs Oc
Marriage 2nd/3rd birth
Fig. 7 Outcomes of unmarried mothers: relative risks of a second/third birth or first marriage by migrant
origin, separately for newly arrived immigrants and settled immigrants
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk EurSSA NAfLAm NAmAsiaSAs Oc
2nd birthDivorce
Fig. 8 Outcomes of married mothers: relative risks of a second birth or divorce by migrant origin, sepa-
rately for newly arrived immigrants and settled immigrants
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 27 of 32 14
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Ch It Gr Pr Fr Sp EU Ks Tk EurSSA NAfLAm NAmAsiaSAs Oc
3rd birth Divorce
Fig. 9 Outcomes of married mothers: relative risks of a third birth or divorce by migrant origin, sepa-
rately for newly arrived immigrants and settled immigrants. Note: CH Switzerland, It Italy, Gr Germany,
Pr Portugal, Fr France, Sp Spain, EU other EU countries, Ks Kosovo, Tk Turkey, Eur other European
countries (not in the EU), SSA Sub-Saharan Africa, NAf North Africa, Lam Latin America, Nam North
America, Asia, SAs South Asia, Oc Oceania. N Newly arrived immigrants (first two years in the coun-
try), S Settled immigrants (subsequent years). Sources: Statpop, Bevnat, CdC (2012–2018). Authors’
own calculations. 95% confidence intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 28 of 32
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Swiss German Swiss French Swiss Italian German
immigrant
French
immigrant
Italian
immigrant
Marriage 1st birth
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Swiss German Swiss French Swiss Italian German
immigrant
French
immigrant
Italian
immigrant
Marriage 2nd/3rd birth
a)
b)
Fig. 10 Outcomes of unmarried women. a Relative risks of marriage of a first birth by linguistic region
and migrant origin. b Relative risks of marriage or a second or third birth by linguistic region and
migrant origin. Sources: Statpop, Bevnat, CdC (2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations. 95% confidence
intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 29 of 32 14
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Swiss German Swiss French Swiss ItalianGerman
immigrant
French
immigrant
Italian
immigrant
1st birthDivorce
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Swiss German Swiss French Swiss ItalianGerman
immigrant
French
immigrant
Italian
immigrant
2nd birth Divorce
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Swiss German Swiss French Swiss ItalianGerman
immigrant
French
immigrant
Italian
immigrant
3rd birthDivorce
a)
b
)
c)
Fig. 11 Outcomes of married women. a Relative risks of a first birth or divorce by linguistic region and
migrant origin. b Relative risks of a second birth or divorce by linguistic region and migrant origin. c
Relative risks of a third birth or divorce by linguistic region and migrant origin. Sources: Statpop, Bev-
nat, CdC (2012–2018). Authors’ own calculations. 95% confidence intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 30 of 32
Acknowledgements Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions JL designed the study, analysed the data, and wrote the paper. JM and HK initially
developed the analysis model and provided substantial feedback.
Funding This paper received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Postdoc Mobility
fellowship: P400PS_199269. This paper is part of a project that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
(Grant agreement No. 834103).
Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Swiss federal sta-
tistical office but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the
current study, and so are not publicly available.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethical approval Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen
ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Adserà, A., & Ferrer, A. (2015). Immigrants and demography: Marriage, divorce, and fertility. In Hand-
book of the economics of international migration (Vol. 1, pp. 315–374). Elsevier.
Andersson, G. (2021). Family Behaviour of Migrants. Research Handbook on the Sociology of the Fam-
ily. EdwardElgar Publishing 16, 263–276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4337/ 97817 88975 544
Andersson, G. (2004). Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns of foreign-born women in Sweden.
International Migration Review, 38(2), 747–774.
Andersson, G., Obućina, O., & Scott, K. (2015). Marriage and divorce of immigrants and descendants of
immigrants in Sweden. Demographic Research, 33, 31–64.
Baizán, P., Aassve, A., & Billari, F. C. (2003). Cohabitation, marriage, and first birth: The interrelation-
ship of family formation events in Spain. European Journal of Population/revue Européenne De
Démographie, 19, 147–169.
Buchmann, M. C., & Kriesi, I. (2011). Transition to adulthood in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology,
37(1), 481–503. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev- soc- 081309- 150212
Burkimsher, M., Rossier, C., & Wanner, P. (2020). Why the standard TFR gives a misleading impres-
sion of the fertility of foreign women: Insights from Switzerland. Comparative Population Studies.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 12765/ CPoS- 2020- 23
Carlson, E. D. (1985). The impact of international migration upon the timing of marriage and childbear-
ing. Demography, 22, 61–72.
Castro Martin, T., & Rosero-Bixby, L. (2011). Motherhood and transnational borders immigrants’ women
fertility in Spain. Revista Internacional De Sociologia, 69, 105–137.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On theTiming ofMarriage andChildbearing: Family Formation… Page 31 of 32 14
Charton, L., & Wanner, P. (2001). La première mise en couple en Suisse: Choix du type d’union et deve-
nir de la cohabitation hors mariage. Population, 56(4), 539–567.
Coleman, D. (2006). Immigration and ethnic change in low-fertility countries: A third demographic tran-
sition. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 401–446. https:// urlde fense. com/ v3/ https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1111/j. 1728- 4457. 2006. 00131.x
Courgeau, D. (1990). Migration, family, and career: A life course approach. In P. B. Baltes, D. L. Feath-
erman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 219–255). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Cygan-Rehm, K. (2011). Between here and there: Immigrant fertility patterns in Germany. BGPE Dis-
cussion Paper.
Delaporte, I., & Kulu, H. (2022). Interaction between childbearing and partnership trajectories among
immigrants and their descendants in France: An application of multichannel sequence analysis. Pop-
ulation Studies, 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00324 728. 2022. 20498 56
Eurostat. (2020). Proportion of live births outside marriage. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2908/ DEMO_ FIND
González-Ferrer, A., Hannemann, T., & Castro-Martín, T. (2016). Partnership formation and dissolution
among immigrants in the Spanish context. Demographic Research, 35, 1–28.
Hannemann, T., & Kulu, H. (2015). Union formation and dissolution among immigrants and their
descendants in the United Kingdom. Demographic Research, 33, 273–312.
Hannemann, T., Kulu, H., González-Ferrer, A., Pailhé, A., Rahnu, L., & Puur, A. (2020). Partnership
dynamics among immigrants and their descendants in four European countries. Population, Space
and Place, 26(5), e2315.
Holland, J. A., & Wiik, K. A. (2021). Marriage before children? First family formation among the chil-
dren of immigrants in Norway. Discussion Papers.
Kellerhals, J., & Widmer, E. (2007). Familles en Suisse: les nouveaux liens (Vol. 29). Collection le savoir
suisse.
Kofman, E. (2004). Family-related migration: A critial review of European Studies. Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies, 30(2), 243–262.
Kuhnt, A.-K., & Krapf, S. (2020). Partnership living arrangements of immigrants and natives in Ger-
many. Frontiers in Sociology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsoc. 2020. 538977
Kulu, H., Mikolai, J., Delaporte, I., Liu, C., & Andersson, G. (2022). Family trajectories among immi-
grants and their descendants in three European countries. MigrantLife Working paper 5.
Kulu, H. (2005). Migration and fertility: Competing hypotheses re-examined. European Journal of
Population/revue Européenne De Démographie, 21(1), 51–87.
Kulu, H., & González-Ferrer, A. (2014). Family dynamics among immigrants and their descendants
in Europe: Current research and opportunities. European Journal of Population, 30(4), 411–435.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10680- 014- 9322-0
Kulu, H., & Hannemann, T. (2016). Why does fertility remain high among certain UK-born ethnic
minority women? Demographic Research, 35, 1441–1488.
Kulu, H., Hannemann, T., Pailhé, A., Neels, K., Krapf, S., González-Ferrer, A., & Andersson, G. (2017).
Fertility by birth order among the descendants of immigrants in selected European countries. Popu-
lation and Development Review. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ padr. 12037
Kulu, H., & Milewski, N. (2007). Family change and migration in the life course: An introduction. Demo-
graphic Research, S6(19), 567–590. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4054/ DemRes. 2007. 17. 19
Kulu, H., Milewski, N., Hannemann, T., & Mikolai, J. (2019). A decade of life-course research on fertil-
ity of immigrants and their descendants in Europe. Demographic Research, 40, 1345–1374.
Lacroix, J., & Vidal-Coso, E. (2018). Differences in labor supply by birthplace and family composition in
Switzerland: The role of human capital and household income. Journal of International Migration
and Integration, 20, 659–684.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Devel-
opment Review, 36(2), 211–251.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(51), 18112–18115.
Liu, C., & Kulu, H. (2021). First comes marriage or first comes carriage? Family trajectories for immi-
grants in Germany. MigrantLife Working Paper 4.
Mikolai, J., & Kulu, H. (2022). Partnership and fertility trajectories of immigrants and descendants in the
United Kingdom: A multilevel multistate event history approach. Population Studies. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 00324 728. 2022. 21446 39
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
J.Lacroix et al.
14 Page 32 of 32
Milewski, N. (2003). Partner selection by immigrants in Germany: The impact of religious affiliation and
education on age at marriage. L’anthropologie, 41(3), 291–294.
Milewski, N. (2007). First child of immigrant workers and their descendants in West Germany: Interrela-
tion of events, disruption, or adaptation? Demographic Research, 17, 859.
Milewski, N. (2010). Immigrant fertility in West Germany: Is there a socialization effect in transitions
to second and third births? European Journal of Population/revue Européenne De Démographie,
26(3), 297–323.
Milewski, N., & Kulu, H., (2014). Mixed marriages in Germany: A high risk of divorce for immi-
grant-native couples. European Journal of Population, 30(1), 89–113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10680- 013- 9298-1
Mulder, C. H. (1993). Migration dynamics: A life course approach.
Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (1993). Migration and marriage in the life course: A method for study-
ing synchronized events. European Journal of Population/revue Européenne De Démographie, 9(1),
55–76.
Mussino, E., Gabrielli, G., Paterno, A., Strozza, S., & Terzera, L. (2015). Motherhood of foreign women
in Lombardy: Testing the effects of migration by citizenship. Demographic Research, 33, 653–664.
Mussino, E., & Strozza, S. (2012). The fertility of immigrants after arrival: The Italian case. Demo-
graphic Research, 26, 99–130.
Nekby, L. (2012). Cultural integration in Sweden. In: Y. Algan, A. Bisin, A. Manning & T. Verdier
(Eds.), Cultural integration of immigrants in Europe, (Studies of Policy Reform) (pp. 172–209).
Oxford University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ acprof: oso/ 97801 99660 094. 003. 0006
Pailhé, A. (2015). Partnership dynamics across generations of immigration in France: Structural vs. cul-
tural factors. Demographic Research, 33(16), 451–498.
Persson, L., & Hoem, J. M. (2014). Immigrant fertility in Sweden, 2000–2011: A descriptive note. Demo-
graphic Research, 30, 887–898.
Piguet, E. (2005). L’immigration en Suisse depuis 1948. Une analyse des flux migratoires, SEISMO,
Zurich.
Potarca, G., & Bernardi, L. (2018). Mixed marriages in Switzerland: A test of the segmented assimilation
hypothesis. Demographic Research, 38, 1457–1494.
Rahnu, L., Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., & Klesment, M. (2015). Partnership dynamics among migrants and
their descendants in Estonia. Demographic Research, 32, 1519–1566.
Rojas, E. A. G., Bernardi, L., & Schmid, F. (2018). First and second births among immigrants and their
descendants in Switzerland. Demographic Research, 38, 247–286.
Rossier, C., & Legoff, J. M. (2005). Le calendrier des maternités: Retard et diversification de la réalisa-
tion du projet familial. In: Maternité et parcours de vie. L’enfant a-t-il une place dans les projets de
vie des femmes en Suisse? (pp. 46–83).
Rossier, C., Bernardi, L., & Sauvain-Dugerdil, C. (2023). Diversité des familles et bien-être en Suisse:
Enquêtes sur les familles et les générations 2013 et 2018. Seismo. Retrieved September 29, 2023,
from https:// libra ry. oapen. org/ handle/ 20. 500. 12657/ 62004.
Sobotka, T. (2008). Overview Chapter7: The rising importance of migrants for childbearing in Europe.
Demographic Research, 19(9), 225–248.
Sobotka, T. (2011). Fertility in Austria, Germany and Switzerland: Is there a common pattern? Compara-
tive Population Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12765/ CPoS- 2011- 11
Thomson, E. (2014). Family complexity in Europe. Annals Am Acad Political Soc Sci, 654(1), 245–258.
Toulemon, L. (2004). Fertility among immigrant women: New data, a new approach. Population Et
Sociétés, 400, 1–4.
Van Landschoot, L., De Valk, H. A., & Van Bavel, J. (2017). Fertility among descendants of immigrants
in Belgium: The role of the partner. Demographic Research, 36, 1827–1858.
Van Winkle, Z. (2018). Family trajectories across time and space: Increasing complexity in family life
courses in Europe? Demography, 55(1), 135–164.
Widmer, E. D., & Ritschard, G. (2009). The de-standardization of the life course: Are men and women
equal? Advances in Life Course Research, 14(1), 28–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. alcr. 2009. 04. 001
Wolf, K. (2016). 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?
European Journal of Population, 32, 731–759.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
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
Chapter
Full-text available
Compares timing of partnering, marriage and childbearing of migrants with Swiss-born women and their ultimate fertility, which is now identical. Discusses the challenges for migrant women in progressing to more than one child.
Article
Full-text available
We study the interrelationships between partnership and fertility trajectories of immigrant women and female descendants of immigrants using the UK Household Longitudinal Study. We propose a novel multistate event history approach to analyse the outcomes of unpartnered, cohabiting, and married women. We find that the partnership and fertility behaviours of immigrants and descendants from European and Western countries are similar to those of native women: many cohabit first and then have children and/or marry. Those from countries with conservative family behaviours (e.g. South Asian countries) marry first and then have children. Women from the Caribbean show the weakest link between partnership changes and fertility: some have births outside unions; some form a union and have children thereafter. Family patterns have remained relatively stable across migrant generations and birth cohorts, although marriage is being postponed in all groups. Our findings on immigrants support the socialization hypothesis, whereas those on descendants are in line with the minority subculture hypothesis.
Article
Full-text available
While there is a large literature investigating migrant marriage or fertility, little research has examined how childbearing and partnerships are interrelated. In this paper, we investigate how childbearing and partnership trajectories evolve and interact over the life course for immigrants and their descendants and how the relationship varies by migrant origin. We apply multichannel sequence analysis to rich longitudinal survey data from France and find significant differences in family-related behaviour between immigrants, their descendants, and the native French. Immigrants’ family behaviour is characterized by stronger association between marriage and childbearing than in the native population. However, there are significant differences across migrant groups. Turkish immigrants exhibit the most conservative family pathways. By contrast, the family behaviour of European immigrants is similar to that of the native population. The study also demonstrates that the family behaviour of some descendant groups has gradually become indistinguishable from that of the native French, whereas for other groups significant differences in family behaviour persist. Supplementary material for this article is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2022.2049856
Article
Full-text available
Since 1971 the Swiss Federal Statistical Office has published annual fertility data split by nationality (Swiss/foreign). These indicate that the TFR for women of foreign nationality has been 0.5 children higher than for Swiss women for most of the period since 1991. However, statistics from household registration (STATPOP) and the Families and Generations Surveys (FGS) of 2013 and 2018 indicate that foreign women, approaching the end of their reproductive lives, have slightly smaller families than women of Swiss nationality. The purpose of this paper is to reconcile these contradictory fertility measures. To do this, we design a novel methodology for tallying the fertility of cohorts of Swiss and foreign nationals through their reproductive life. In addition to birth registrations and population totals by age (the input data for calculating the TFR) we also include estimates of how many children women have at the time of their immigration, emigration and naturalisation. Using these input data, we compile the fertility profiles of Swiss and foreign women aged 15-49 (cohorts 1966-2003). These correspond well with the FGS and household register data. Several processes impact the final fertility of the two sub-populations. Women frequently immigrate into Switzerland in their 20s. Often arriving childless, they commonly start childbearing soon after immigration. However, there is still a flow of low-fertility women into the country in their 30s and 40s, lowering the average fertility of the foreign population. By contrast, Swiss women start childbearing later and a significant proportion remain childless; however, after starting childbearing they have a higher propensity than foreign women to have a second and third child. Naturalisation and fertility are interlinked; women with children are more likely to naturalise than those without, which then boosts the average fertility of the Swiss population. We confirm that the standard TFR gives an inflated impression of the ultimate (cohort) fertility of foreign nationals and underestimates that of Swiss women, and we describe how this happens. Fundamentally, the TFR is a measure of childbearing intensity, not an accurate estimate of completed cohort fertility, especially for a mobile population.
Article
Full-text available
This paper compares the partnership arrangements of Turkish and Ethnic German immigrants (i.e., return migrants from Ethnic German communities from predominantly Eastern European countries), the two largest migrant groups in Germany, and native Germans. Most existing analyses of migrants’ partnerships focus on intermarriage, marriage formation, or union dissolution. We know only a little, however, about the prevalence of non-marital living arrangements. Given that single person households and cohabitation are widespread phenomena mainly in post-materialist societies, analyzing whether immigrants engage in these behaviors sheds light on potential adaptation processes. The analyses are based on the German Microcensus of the years 2009 and 2013, with a focus on adults in the 18–40 age group. First, we present descriptive findings on the prevalence of partnership arrangements of immigrants and native Germans. Second, we estimate cross-sectional regressions with the partnership arrangement as the outcome variable in order to control for compositional differences between immigrant groups with respect to education. Our results show that while the vast majority of first-generation immigrants are married, the share of married natives is considerably smaller. Living in an independent household without a partner and cohabitation are rare phenomena among immigrants. By contrast, about one in seven natives is cohabiting and more than one quarter is living in an independent household without a partner. The most prevalent partnership living arrangement of the Turkish second generation is living in the parental household without a partner. These results are robust after controlling for education, age, and year in the multiple regression analysis.
Article
This article reviews major similarities and differences in period and cohort fertility in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. These three countries share a long history of low fertility and currently belong to countries with the lowest cohort fertility rates globally. The study highlights persistent differences in fertility and family patterns between Eastern and Western Germany, which are often rooted in pre-unification contrasts and can be partly linked to continuing differences in institutional set-up and norms on organised childcare, living arrangements and maternal employment. The remarkable stability in period fertility over the last 30 years (with the exception of Eastern Germany) is illustrated with various indicators and discussed on the backdrop of recent reversals in European fertility trends. This stability in fertility levels contrasts with the long-term shift in childbearing towards less stable living arrangements (especially in Eastern Germany), including a high share of single mothers. The study also discusses a relatively small but persistent negative impact of the ongoing shift towards a late timing of childbearing on period fertility in the region. It highlights the educational gradient in fertility, which can be largely attributed to elevated childlessness rates among women with a higher educational degree. Migrant women have on average higher fertility rates than “native-born” women, but their net positive impact on aggregate fertility rates has diminished over time and has become negligible in Germany. A concluding discussion suggests that Austria, Germany and Switzerland share a common pattern of low fertility that sets these countries apart from other regions in Europe.