Abstract
The data used in this study come from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP, DIW 2006), which has several sub-samples. Foreigners in West Germany are overrepresented in the sample called B. This sample includes households with a Turkish, Greek, Spanish, former Yugoslavian, or Italian household head. The original sample size was 1393 in 1984. Sample D, called “immigrants,” was started in 1994/1995. It includes households in which at least one person has moved from abroad to Germany after 1984. The starting size was 522 households. Sample A, called the “West German” sample, contains households with heads of German nationality. Few of the respondents in sample A have an immigration background. The initial sample size was 4,528 households in 1984. In 2002, almost half of the respondents of the initial sample were re-interviewed. Third persons who had moved into and children who had grown up in an existing GSOEP household were added (Haisken-DeNew and Frick 2003).
The online version of the Erratum chapter can be found at 10.1007/978-3-642-03705-4_6
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Further samples of the GSOEP are not relevant for our analysis, such as sample C that contains East German respondents.
- 2.
Example for the calculation of a relative-risk difference between Models 1.2 and 1.3 (see Table 3.15) at duration 0–1: exp(0.902-1.813)=0.4.
- 3.
Example for the calculation of a relative risk for a continuous time-varying covariate in Model 1.3 (see Table 3.15): relative risk of marriage duration at the 1-year node: exp((1-0)*0.033+2.386)=11.2.
- 4.
Following the modeling process of the transition to a first birth: for the women who had the first birth in Germany, the risk of a second birth was set to zero by default naturally within the first-year interval and is allowed to vary only after the first year. The “frozen” interval may appear relatively small; however, this is considered to be sufficient since this sample admits women who immigrated to West Germany during pregnancy and had their first birth shortly after the move.
References
Abbasi-Shavazi, M. J., and P. McDonald. 2000. Fertility and Multiculturalism: Immigrant Fertility in Australia, 1977–1991, International Migration Review 34(1): 215–242.
Abbasi-Shavazi, M.J., and P. McDonald. 2002. A comparison of fertility patterns of European immigrants in Australia with those in the countries of origin, Genus 58: 53–76.
Andersson, G. 2004. Childbearing after Migration: Fertility Patterns of Foreign-born Women in Sweden, International Migration Review 38(2): 747–775.
Andersson, G., K. Hank, and A. Vikat. 2007. Understanding parental gender preferences in advanced societies: Lessons from Sweden and Finland. Demographic Research 17(6): 135–156. http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol17/6/.
Baizan, P., A. Aassve, and F. C. Billari. 2003. Cohabitation, Marriage, and First Birth: The Interrelationship of Family Formation Events in Spain, European Journal of Population 19(2): 147–169.
Blossfeld, H.-P., and G. Rohwer. 1995. Techniques of Event History Modelling. New Approaches to Causal Analyses. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Boyle, P. J., H. Kulu, T. Cooke, V. Gayle, and C. H. Mulder. 2008. The effect of moving on union dissolution, Demography 45(1): 209–222.
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. 2006. http://panel.gsoep.de/soepinfo2005/.
Ergöcmen, B. A., and M. A. Eryurt. 2004. Other Proximate Determinants of Fertility, in Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies: Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, 2003. Ankara: HUIPS, Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning, State Planning Organization and European Union, pp. 89–96.
Haisken-DeNew, J. P., and J. R. Frick. 2003. (Eds.), Desktop Companion to the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). Version 7.0 – September 2003. Updated to Wave 19(S). Berlin: DIW.
Hoem, J. M. 1987. Statistical Analysis of a Multiplicative Model and Its Application to the Standardization of Vital Rates: A Review, International Statistical Review 55(2): 119–152.
Hoem, J. M. 1993. Classical Demographic Methods of Analysis and Modern Event-history Techniques. IUSSP: 22nd International Population Conference, Montreal, Volume 3: 281–291.
Hoem, J. M., and M. Kreyenfeld. 2006a. Anticipatory analysis and its alternatives in life-course research: Part 1: Education and first childbearing. Demographic Research 15(16): 461–484. www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol15/16/.
Hoem, J. M., and L. Nedoluzhko. 2008. Marriage formation as a process intermediary between migration and childbearing. WP-2008-015. Rostock: MPIDR. www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2008-015.pdf.
Kane, T. T. 1986. The fertility and assimilation of guestworker populations in the Federal Republic of Germany: 1961–1981, Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 12(1): 99–131.
Kravdal, Ø. 2007. Effects of current education on second- and third-birth rates among Norwegian women and men born in 1964: Substantive interpretations and methodological issues, Demographic Research 17(9): 211–246. demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol17/9/.
Kreyenfeld, M. 2001a: Employment and Fertility. East Germany in the 1990s. Rostock: University of Rostock [Doctoral Thesis].
Kreyenfeld, M. 2001b. Life Course Analysis with the SOEP. Version No. 3. Rostock: MPIDR.
Kreyenfeld, M. 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(2): 15–48. www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol7/2/.
Kulu, H. 2005. Migration and Fertility: Competing Hypotheses Re-examined, European Journal of Population 21: 51–87.
Lillard, L. A., and C. W. A. Panis. 2003. aML Mutilevel Multiprocess Statistical Software, Version 2.0. Los Angeles, California: EconWare.
Mayer, J., and R.T. Riphahn. 2000. Fertility assimilation if immigrants: Evidence from count data models, Journal of Population Economics 13: 241–261.
Milewski, N. 2007. First child of immigrant workers and their descendants in West Germany: Interrelation of events, disruption, or adaptation?, Demographic Research 17(29): 859–896. www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol17/29/.
Milewski, N. 2009. Immigrant fertility in West Germany: Is there a socialization effect in transitions to second and third births?, forthcoming in European Journal of Population.
Rumbaut, R. G. 2004. Ages, Life Stages, and Generational Cohorts: Decomposing the Immigrant First and Second Generations in the United States, International Migration Review 38(3): 1160–1205.
Rumbaut, R. G., and J. R. Weeks. 1986. Fertility and Adaptation: Indochinese Refugees in the United States, International Migration Review 20(2, Special Issue: Refugees): Issues and Directions: 428–466.
Walke, R., and M. Kreyenfeld. 2006a. Guideline to spelljoin. Rostock: MPIDR.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2010). Empirical Analysis. In: Fertility of Immigrants. Demographic Research Monographs. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03705-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03705-4_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03704-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03705-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)