Advertisement

Fortdauernde Unterschiede oder Anpassung? Erst- und Zweitgeburtsverhalten der 1,5ten und zweiten Generation türkischer Migranten in Deutschland

  • Sandra Krapf
  • Katharina Wolf
Part of the Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie book series (KZSS)

Zusammenfassung

In der vorliegenden Studie analysieren wir auf Basis des Mikrozensus das Erst- und Zweitgeburtsverhalten der Nachkommen türkischer Migrant innen in Deutschland. In früheren Wellen des Mikrozensus wurde zur Identifikation des Migrationshintergrundes lediglich die Staatsbürgerschaft erfragt. Die Mikrozensuswellen 2005 und 2009 geben nun erstmals Auskunft darüber, welche Staatsbürgerschaft die Eltern der Befragten haben, sodass sich Nachfahren von Migranten auch identifizieren lassen nachdem sie die deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft angenommen haben. In der Analyse unterscheiden wir zwischen türkischen Migrant innen, die im Kindesalter migrierten (1,5te Generation), und jenen, die von türkischen Eltern in Deutschland geboren wurden (zweite Migrantengeneration). Beide Gruppen werden Frauen in Deutschland ohne Migrationshintergrund gegenübergestellt. Ergebnisse eines diskrete n Hazardmodell s zeig en, dass die 1,5te Migrantengeneration die höchste und Nicht-Migrant innen die niedrigste Wahrscheinlichkeit aufweisen, ein erstes oder zweites Kind zu bekommen. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Geburt in der zweiten Migrantengeneration liegt zwischen denen der anderen beiden Gruppen. Auch nach Kontrolle für das Bildungsniveau der Frau bleiben diese Muster bestehen. Allerdings scheint eine Anpassung hochgebildeter Migrant innen der zweiten Generation an das Verhalten von Nicht-Migranten stattzufinden: Zwischen beiden Gruppen sind unter den hochgebildeten Frauen keine signifikanten Unterschiede in der Erstgeburtswahrscheinlichkeit zu finden. Beim Übergang zur zweiten Geburt ist dieser Effekt eines hohen Bildungsstands weniger stark ausgeprägt.

Schlüsselwörter

Nachkommen von Migranten Fertilität Zweite Generation Generation 1,5 Türkische Migranten Adaption Sozialisation Deutschland 

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

Abstract

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

Keywords

Migrants’ descendants Fertility Second generation 1.5 generation Turkish migrants Adaptation Socialization Germany 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adsera, Alícia, Ana M. Ferrer, Wendy Sigle-Rushton, and Ben Wilson. 2012. Fertility patterns of child migrants: Age at migration and ancestry in comparative perspective. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 643:160–189.Google Scholar
  2. Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 1997. Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review 31:826–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alders, Maarten. 2000. Cohort fertility of migrant women in the Netherlands: Developments in fertility of women born in Turkey, Morocco, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba . BSPS-NVDURU Conference. Utrecht. August 31-September 1, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Allison, Paul D. 1982. Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. Sociological Methodology 13:61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, Gunnar. 2004. Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns of foreign-born women in Sweden. International Migration Review 38:747–774.Google Scholar
  6. Andersson, Gunnar, and Kirk Scott. 2005. Labour-market status and first-time parenthood: The experience of immigrant women in Sweden, 1981-97. Population Studies 59:21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersson, Gunnar, and Kirk Scott. 2007. Childbearing dynamics of couples in a universalistic welfare state: The role of labor-market status, country of origin, and gender. Demographic Research 17:897–938.Google Scholar
  8. Aumüller, Jutta. 2009. A ssimilation: Kontroversen um ein migrationspolitisches Konzept . Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bade, Kaus J., and Michael Bommes. 2004. Einleitung zum Themenheft “Migration-Integration-Bildung. Grundfragen und Problembereiche”. In IMIS-Beiträge. Themenheft “Migration-Integration-Bildung. Grundfragen und Problembereiche” , eds. Kaus J. Bade and Michael Bommes, 7–20. Osnabrück: Institut für Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien.Google Scholar
  10. Barber, Jennifer S. 2000. Intergenerational influences on the entry into parenthood: Mothers' preferences for family and nonfamily behavior. Social Forces 79:319–348.Google Scholar
  11. Becker, Gary S. 1991. A treatise on the family (Rev. ed.). MA: Cambridge. Best, Henning, and Christof Wolf. 2012. Modellvergleich und Ergebnisinterpretation in Logit- und Probit Regressionen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 64:377–395.Google Scholar
  12. Blau, Francine D., Lawrence M. Kahn, Albert Yung-Hsu Liu, and Kerry L. Papps. 2008. The transmission of women's fertility, human capital and work orientation across immigrant generations. NBER Working Paper 14388. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  13. Blossfeld, Hans-Peter, and Johannes Huinink. 1991. Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women's schooling and career affect the process of family formation. American Journal of Sociology 97:143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, David A. 1994. Trends in fertility and intermarriage among immigrant populations in Western Europe as measures of integration. Journal of Biosocial Science 26:107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Çopur, Zeynep, and Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox. 2010. University students' perceptions of childless couples and parents in Ankara, Turkey. Journal of Family Issues 31:1481–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cygan-Rehm, Kamila. 2011. Between here and there: Immigrant fertility patterns in Germany. BGPE Discussion Paper 109. Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics.Google Scholar
  17. De Valk, Helga A. G. 2006. Pathways into adulthood. A comparative study on family life transitions among migrant and Dutch youth . Presentation at the Breedtestrategie Familie bijeenkomst, Wiarda Instituut Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  18. De Valk, Helga A. G., and Aart C. Liefbroer. 2007. Timing preferences for women's family-life transitions: Intergenerational transmission among migrants and Dutch. Journal of Marriage and Family 69:190–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Destatis. 2012. Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund-Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2011 . Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  20. Destatis. 2013. Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Ausländische Bevölkerung. Ergebnisse des Ausländerzentralregisters . Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  21. Destatis. 2014. Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Wanderungen 2012 . Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  22. Dustmann, Christian, Tommaso Frattini, and Gianandrea Lanzara. 2012. Educational achievement of second-generation immigrants: An international comparison. Economic Policy 27:143–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eryurt, Mehmet Ali, and İsmet Koç. 2012. Internal migration and fertility in Turkey: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. International Journal of Population Research 2012. Article ID 329050.Google Scholar
  24. Esser, Hartmut. 2004. Does the “new” immigration require a “new” theory of intergenerational integration? International Migration Review 38:1126–1159.Google Scholar
  25. Esser, Hartmut. 2008. Assimilation, ethnische Schichtung oder selektive Akkulturation? Neuere Theorien der Eingliederung von Migranten und das Modell der intergenerationalen. Integration. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48:81–107.Google Scholar
  26. Fick, Patrick. 2011. Berufiiche Bildungschancen von Migranten in Deutschland und die Bedeutung von Generation und Herkunft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 31:280–295.Google Scholar
  27. Frank, Reanne, and Patrick Heuveline. 2005. A crossover in Mexican and Mexican-American fertility rates: Evidence and explanations for an emerging paradox. Demographic Research 12:77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garssen, Joop, and Han Nicolaas. 2008. Fertility of Turkish and Moroccan women in the Netherlands: Adjustment to native level within one generation. Demographic Research 19:1249–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goode, William J. 1964. The family. Englewood Cliffs/New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Gordon, Milton Myron. 1964. Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Granato, Nadia, and Frank Kalter. 2001. Die Persistenz ethnischer Ungleichheit auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 53:497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Groh-Samberg, Olaf, Ariane Jossin, Carsten Keller, and Ingrid Tucci. 2012. Biografische Drift und zweite Chance. Bildungs- und Berufsverläufe von Migrantennachkommen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft 52:186–210.Google Scholar
  33. Gustafsson, Siv. 2001. Optimal age at motherhood. Theoretical and empirical considerations on postponement of maternity in Europe. Journal of Population Economics 14:225–247.Google Scholar
  34. Haug, Sonja, Stephanie Müssig, and Anja Stichs. 2009. Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland . Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge.Google Scholar
  35. Heckmann, Friedrich. 2003. From ethnic nation to universalistic immigrant integration: Germany. In The integration of immigrants in European societies: National differences and trends of convergence , eds. Friedrich Heckmann and Dominique Schnapper, 45-78. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  36. Heckmann, Friedrich. 2006. Integration and integration policies. IMISCOE network feasability study . Bamberg: European Forum for Migration Studies.Google Scholar
  37. Hervitz, Hugo M. 1985. Selectivity adaptation or disruption? A comparison of alternative hypotheses on the effects of migration on fertility: The case of Brazil. International Migration Review 19:293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoffman, Lois W., and Martin L. Hoffman. 1973. The value of children to parents. In Psychological perspectives on population , ed. J. T. Fawcett, 19-76. New York: Basis Books.Google Scholar
  39. Holland, Jennifer A., and Helga A. G. De Valk. 2013. Ideal ages for family formation among immigrants in Europe. Advances in Life Course Research 18:257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hotz, V. Joseph, Jacob Alex Klerman and Robert J. Willis. 1997. The economics of fertility in developed countries. In Handbook of population and family economics , eds. Mark R. Rosenzweig and Oded Stark, 275-347. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. Huinink, Johannes, Michaela Kreyenfeld, and Heike Trappe. 2012. Familie und Partnerschaft in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Ähnlich und doch immer noch anders. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, Sonderheft 9 . Leverkusen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  42. Kagitcibasi, Cigdem, and Bilge Ataca. 2005. Value of children and family change: A Three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology 54:317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kahn, Joan R. 1988. Immigrant selectivity and fertility adaptation in the United States. Social Forces 67:108–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kalter, Frank. 2003. Stand und Perspektiven der Migrationssoziologie. In Soziologische Forschung. Stand und Perspektiven , eds. Barbara Orth, Thomas Schwietring, and Johannes Weiß, 323-338. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  45. Kavas, Serap, and Arland Thornton. 2013. Adjustment and hybridity in Turkish family change: Perspectives from developmental idealism. Journal of Family History 38:223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Konietzka, Dirk, and Holger Seibert. 2003. Deutsche und Ausländer an der “zweiten Schwelle”. Eine vergleichende Analyse der Berufseinstiegskohorten 1976-1995 in Westdeutschland. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 49:567–590.Google Scholar
  47. Krapf, Sandra, and Michaela Kreyenfeld. 2015. Fertility Assessment with the Own-Children-Method: A Validation with Data from the German Mikrozensus. MPIDR Technical Report TR-2015-003. Rostock, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.Google Scholar
  48. Kreyenfeld, Michaela. 2002. Time squeeze, partner effect or self-selection? An investigation into the positive effect of women's education on second birth risks in West Germany. Demographic Research 7:15–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kreyenfeld, Michaela, and Dirk Konietzka. 2008. Education and fertility in Germany. In Demographic change in Germany. The economic and fiscal consequences , eds. Ingrid Hamm, Helmut Seitz, and Martin Werding, 165-187. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Kulu, Hill. 2005. Migration and fertility: Competing hypotheses re-examined. European Journal of Population 21:51–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kulu, Hill, and Amparo González-Ferrer. 2013. Family dynamics among immigrants and their descendants in Europe: Current research and opportunities. Families And Societies Working Paper Series 3.Google Scholar
  52. Lappegård, Trude, and Marit Rønsen. 2005. The multifaceted impact of education on entry into motherhood. European Journal of Population 21:31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lesthaeghe, Ron. 1995. The second demographic transition: An interpretation. In G ender and family change in industrialized countries , eds. Karen Mason and An-Magritt Jensen, 17-62. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lesthaeghe, Ron, and Johan Surkyn. 1988. Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review 14:1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Letablier, Marie-Thérèse, Angela Luci, Antoine Math, and Olivier Thévenon. 2009. The costs of raising children and the effectiveness of policies to support parenthood in European countries: A Literature Review . Brussels: European Commision.Google Scholar
  56. Lindstrom, David P., and Silvia Giorguli Saucedo. 2002. The short-and long-term effects of US migration experience on Mexican women's fertility. Social Forces 80:1341–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lindstrom, David P., and Silvia Giorguli Saucedo. 2007. The interrelationship of fertility, family maintenance and Mexico-U.S. Migration. Demographic Research 17:821–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayer, Jochen, and Regina T. Riphahn. 2000. Fertility assimilation of immigrants: Evidence from count data models. Journal of Population Economics 13:241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Milewski, Nadja. 2007. First child of immigrant workers and their descendants in West Germany: Interrelation of events, disruption, or adaptation? Demographic Research 17:859–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Milewski, Nadja. 2010a. Fertility of immigrants. A two-generational approach in Germany . Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Milewski, Nadja. 2010b. Immigrant fertility in West Germany: Is there a socialization effect in transitions to second and third births? European Journal of Population 26: 297–323.Google Scholar
  62. Milewski, Nadja. 2011. Transition to a first birth among Turkish second-generation migrants in Western Europe. Advances in Life Course Research 16:178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mincer, Jacob. 1963. Market price, opportunity costs, and income effects. In Measurement in economics , ed. Carl Christ, 66-82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Moen, Phyllis, Mary Ann Erickson, and Donna Dempster-Mcclain. 1997. Their mother's daughters? The intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing roles. Journal of Marriage and Family 59:281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mood, Carina. 2010. Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review 26:67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mortimer, Jeylan T., and Roberta G. Simmons. 1978. Adult socialization. Annual Review of Sociology 4:421–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Müller, Andrea G., and Petra Stanat. 2006. Schulischer Erfolg von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Migrationshintergrund: Analysen zur Situation von Zuwanderern aus der ehemaligen Sowjetunion und aus der Türkei. In Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen: Differenzielle Bildungsprozesse und Probleme der Verteilungsgerechtigkeit , eds. Jürgen Baumert, Petra Stanat, and Rainer Watermann, 221-255. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  68. Münz, Rainer, Wolfgang Seifert, and Ralf Ulrich. 1999. Zuwanderung nach Deutschland - Strukturen, Wirkungen, Perspektiven . Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Mussino, Eleonora, and Salvatore Strozza. 2012. The fertility of immigrants after arrival: The Italian case. Demographic Research 26:99–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nauck, Bernhard. 2001. Social capital, intergenerational transmission and intercultural contact in immigrant families. Journal of Comparative Family Research 32:465–489.Google Scholar
  71. Nauck, Bernhard. 2002. Families in Turkey. In Family Change and intergenerational relations in different cultures. Journal of Comparative Family Research , ed. Rosemarie Nave-Hertz, 11-48. Würzburg: Ergon.Google Scholar
  72. Nauck, Bernhard. 2007. Value of children and the framing of fertility: Results from a cross-cultural comparative survey in 10 societies. European Sociological Review 23:615–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nauck, Bernhard, and Daniela Klaus. 2007. The varying value of children: Empirical results from eleven societies in Asia, Africa and Europe. Current Sociology 55:487–503.Google Scholar
  74. Nauck, Bernhard, and Daniela Klaus. 2008. Family change in Turkey: Peasant society, Islam and the revolution “From Above”. In International Family Change. Ideational Perspectives , eds. Rukmalie Jayakody, Arland Thornton, and William Axinn, 281-312. New York: Larence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  75. Nauck, Bernhard, Annette Kohlmann, and Heike Diefenbach. 1997. Familiäre Netzwerke, intergenerative Transmission und Assimilationsprozese bei türkischen Migrantenfamilien. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 49:477–499.Google Scholar
  76. Ní Bhrolcháin, Máire, and Éva Beaujouan. 2012. Fertility postponement is largely due to rising educational enrolment. Population Studies 66:311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Park, Robert E., and Ernest W. Burgess. 1921. Introduction to the science of sociology . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Parrado, Emilio A., and S. Philip Morgan. 2008. Intergenerational fertility among Hispanic women: New evidence of immigrant assimilation. Demography 45:651–671.Google Scholar
  79. Parsons, Talcott. 1955. Family structure and the socialization of the child. In Family, socialization and interaction process , eds. Parsons Talcott and F. Bales Robert, 35-131. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  80. Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Putney, Norella M., and Vern L. Bengtson. 2002. Socialization and the family revisited. Advances in Life Course Research 7:165–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rindfuss, Ronald R., and Karin L. Brewster. 1996. Childrearing and fertility. Population and Development Review 22:258–289.Google Scholar
  83. Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1994. The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review 28:748–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rumbaut, Ruben G., and John R. Weeks. 1986. Fertility and adaptation: Indochinese refugees in the United States. International Migration Review 20:428–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sa, Mirna. 2010. Immigrants' life satisfaction in Europe: Between assimilation and discrimination. European Sociological Review 26:159–176.Google Scholar
  86. Schultz, T. Paul. 1969. An economic model of family planning and fertility. Journal of Political Economy 77:153–180.Google Scholar
  87. Scott, Kirk, and Maria Stanfors. 2011. The transition to parenthood among the second generation: Evidence from Sweden, 1990-2005. Advances in Life Course Research 16:190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Segeritz, Michael, Oliver Walter, and Petra Stanat. 2010. Muster des schulischen Erfolgs von jugendlichen Migranten in Deutschland: Evidenz für segmentierte Assimilation? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 62:113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Seibert, Holger. 2008. Bildung und Einbürgerung verbessern die Chancen. IAB Kurzbericht 17. Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung.Google Scholar
  90. Seibert, Holger, and Heike Solga. 2005. Gleiche Chancen dank einer abgeschlossenen Ausbildung? Zum Signalwert von Ausbildungsabschlüssen bei ausländischen und deutschen jungen Erwachsenen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34:364–382.Google Scholar
  91. Seifert, Wolfgang. 1996. Neue Zuwanderergruppen auf dem westdeutschen Arbeitsmarkt: Eine Analyse der Arbeitsmarkchancen von Aussiedlern, ausländischen Zuwanderern und ostdeutschen Übersiedlern. Soziale Welt 47:180–201.Google Scholar
  92. Seifert, Wolfgang. 1997. Occupational and economic mobility and social integration of Mediterranean migrants in Germany. European Journal of Population 13:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Settersten Jr., Richard A. 2002. Socialization and the life course: New frontiers in theory and research. Advances in Life Course Research 7:13–40.Google Scholar
  94. Siegert, Manuel. 2013. Die Zufriedenheit der Migranten in Westdeutschland. Eine empirische Analyse . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Singley, Susan G., and Nancy S. Landale. 1998. Incorporating origin and process in migration-fertility frameworks: The case of Puerto Rican women. Social Forces 76:1437–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sobotka, Tomáš. 2008. The diverse faces of the Second Demographic Transition in Europe. Demographic Research 19:171–224.Google Scholar
  97. Stephen, Elizabeth Hervey, and Frank D. Bean. 1992. Assimilation, disruption and the fertility of Mexican-origin women in the United States. International Migration Review 26:67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stichnoth, Holger, and Mustafa Yeter. 2013. Cultural influences on the fertility behaviour of first-and second-generation immigrants in Germany. ZEW Discussion Paper 13–023.Google Scholar
  99. Stichs, Anja. 2008. Arbeitsmarktintegration von Frauen ausländischer Nationalität in Deutschland. Eine vergleichende Analyse über türkische, italienische, griechische und polnische Frauen sowie aus den Nachfolgestaaten des ehemaligen Jugoslawiens. Working Paper der Forschungsgruppe des Bundesamtes 20. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge.Google Scholar
  100. Tesching, Karin. 2012. Education and fertility. Dynamic interrelations between women's educational level, educational field and fertility in Sweden . Stockholm: Stockholm University, Demography Unit.Google Scholar
  101. Toulemon, Laurent. 2004. Fertility among immigrant women: New data, a new approach. Population et Sociétés 2004:40–0.Google Scholar
  102. Treichler, Andreas. 1998. A rbeitsmigration und Gewerkschaften. Das Problem der sozialen Ungleichheit im internationalen Maßstab und die Rolle der Gewerkschaften bei der Regulation transnationaler Migrationen, untersucht am Beispiel Deutschlands und der Arbeitsmigrationen aus der Türkei und Polen . Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  103. United Nations. 2012. World population prospects: The 2012 revision : Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division.Google Scholar
  104. Van De Kaa, Dirk J. 1994. The second demographic transition revisited: Theories and expectations. In Population and family in the low countries 1993: Late fertility and other current issues , eds. Gijs N.C Beets, Hans Van Den Brekel, Robert Cliquet, Gilbert Dooghe, Jenny De Jong-Gierveld, and NIDI CBGS Publications, 81-126. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  105. Wolf, Katharina. 2014. Fertility of Turkish migrants in Germany: Duration of stay matters. MPIDR Working Paper 2014–001.Google Scholar
  106. Yavuz, Sutay. 2008. Fertility decline in Turkey from the 1980s onwards: Patterns by main language groups . Ankara: Haceteppe University.Google Scholar
  107. Zapf, Wolfgang, and Wofgang Brachtl. 1984. Die Lebensqualität der Gastarbeiter. In Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik. Objektive Lebensbedingungen und subjektives Wohlbefinden , eds. Wolfgang Glatzer and Wolfgang Zapf, 286-322. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  108. Zhou, Min. 1997. Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second genera tion. International Migration Review 31:975–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Krapf
    • 1
  • Katharina Wolf
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (ISS)Universität zu KölnCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of Demography & Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRijksuniversiteit GroningenRostockGermany
  3. 3.Population Research Centre, Faculty of Spatial SciencesUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations