Immigrants' children fertility intentions in Italy Gianpiero Dalla-Zuanna and Silvia Pierobon (University of Padua. Italy) 1. Aims 2. A glance to literature 3. Data 4. First results 5. Model 6. Results 7. Conclusion
Aims Describing the attitudes toward fertility of immigrants children in Italy Measuring the influence of individual and community determinants on desired fertility
A glance to literature
Blau D. B. et al.. The transmission of women s fertility. human capital and work orientation across immigrant generations. National Bureau of economic Research (NBER). Working Paper no. 14388. 2008. Age Adjusted Means of children for Immigrant. Native and Second Generation Women by Region (Evaluated at Age 40. US Census data) 1980 2000 2 generation 2000 Europe and Canada 1.65 > 1.31 > 1.27 Latin America and Carribean 2.03 > 1.71 > 1.47 Asia 1.76 > 1.40 > 1.05 Natives 1.68 > 1.36 --- In 2 generation: (1) Convergence to US # of children; (2) Less children than parents.
Lee S. M.. Edmonston B.. Fertility intentions of immigrant generations: implication for population and labour force trends. Fourth Symposium of Population. Work and Family Research Collaboration (PWFC). 2008. Do fertility intentions vary by immigrant generations - the first generation or the foreign-born, the second generation or the children of immigrants, and the third generation (the native-born population born in Canada of Canada-born parents)? At first, the answer appeared to be yes. Descriptive results showed that the first generation had modestly higher fertility intentions than average (2.14 versus 2.06. or a 0.08 difference) and the gap was larger between the first and third generations (2.14 versus 2.03. or a 0.11 difference). However, once 19 appropriate controls were considered in a regression model, differences in fertility intentions by immigrant generation were eliminated. The results are consistent with Belanger and Gilbert s (2006) analysis using 2001 census data on fertility (total fertility rate) of immigrant women and their daughters, who found that once controls for factors such as visible minority status and education are included, generational differences in fertility disappeared.
De Valk H. A. G.. Intergenerational discrepancies in fertility preferences among immigrant and Dutch families. Population Association of America Annual Meeting. New Orleans. 2008. Children aged 15-30 living in the parental family Preferred age # Preferred for a woman to children have the 1 child Parent Child Parent Child Turks 2.65 2.39 24.5 25.4 Moroccans 3.74 2.90 23.4 24.8 Surinamese 2.82 2.51 25.3 25.5 Antilleans 2.59 2.53 25.2 25.1 Dutch 2.57 2.35 27.0 27.2 Immigrants children: (1) Higher fertility preference (2) Converg. to Dutch preference in # of children (less in timing); (3) Less than parents; (4) Later than parents (Turks, Moroccans)
Data
Data: Survey on Second Generations in Italy ITAGEN2 Quantitative survey in s.y. 2005/06 coordinated by G. Dalla-Zuanna - Padua Targeted on Middle Schools (aged 11-14) Statistically representative of 48 provinces (above 103) for schools with >10% of foreign pupils (CN) and >3% (South) Self-filled questionnaire Comparison between Italians and foreigners Large numbers (about 10,000 foreigners and 10,000 Italians). More than 200 schools involved
Classification by generation Jumior High Schools s.y. 2005/06 21,108 Students Country of birth of the parents Country of birth of the interviewers Length of stay in Italy 5 groups considered: Foreign parents born abroad 5+ yrs.in ITALY [2,477 units] G1.75 WEIGHTED CASES A double set of weights is used separately for Italians and children of immigrants in order to make the results representative of the referent universe G1.50 G2.00 Foreign parents born abroad <5 yrs. in ITALY [4,317 units] 21,108 Students s.y.2005/2006 Foreign parents born in ITALY - Second gener. - [1,811 units] G3.00 G2.50 Italian parents [10,554 units] Only one foreign parent - mixed couples - [1,949 units] Not included in this research
A growing number of articles use this data-set: A portrait of immigrant children s housing experiences in Italy (M. Barban and G. Dalla- Zuanna, Housing Studies, 25, 4, 559-584, 2010). Immigrants children s transition to secondary school in Italy (N. Barban and M. White, International Migration Review, 45, 3, 702 726, 2011). The delayed school progress of the children of immigrants in lower-secondary education in Italy (E. Mussino and S. Strozza, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 1, 41-57, 2012). The educational expectations of children of immigrants in Italy (A. Minello and N. Barban, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, forthcoming 2012) Just a matter of time? The ways children of immigrants become similar (or not) to Italians (G. Gabrielli, A. Paterno and G. Dalla-Zuanna, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, in press in 2013 the present paper). Contextual effects on educational expectations of immigrants children and natives in Italy and Europe (A. Minello, PhD thesis, 2012) Nuovi italiani. I figli degli immigrati cambieranno il nostro paese? (G. Dalla-Zuanna, P. Farina and S. Strozza, il Mulino, Bologna, 2009) THE DATA-BASE IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
First results
The question 30b. Quanti figli vuoi avere? Nessuno Uno Due Tre Quattro Cinque o più 30b. How many children do you want to have? None One Two Three Four Five or more
Number of desired children. ITAGEN2 (%) 4+ 3 2 1 0
Number of desired children and generation. ITAGEN2 2.2 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 Italiani G2 G1.75 G1.5 G1.25 Born in Arrived at age Italy 0-4 5-9 10+
The assimilation process similar for other topics Jumior High Schools s.y. 2005/06 21,108 Students For. <5 4,317 For. 5+ 2,477 Sec. Gen. 1,811 Mix 1,949 Italians 10,554 Ordinal logistic regression models Predicted probabilities (per cent) of generations with control variables % 100 G1.5 G1.75 G2 G2.5 G3 75 50 25 0 High linguistic abilities More Italian friends Belonging in Italy Control variables: Gender, Age at interview, Familiar proximity, Household, parents' birth country, Parents' education, Parents' occupation, Number of objects possessed, Selfperception of school performance, No. of hours to make homework, Watch Italian TV, Sport activities, including, friendships with peers, sense of belonging in Italy, self-perception of school performance
TFR Country of origin Immigrant s children 2005-10 2020-25 Desired Parental family Desired Italia 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.3 2.1 Albania 1.6 1.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 Macedonia 1.5 1.4 N.A. 2.9 2.1 Moldavia 1.5 1.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 Montenegro 1.3 1.7 N.A. 3.1 2.1 Polonia 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.1 Romania 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.8 Ucraina 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.8 Brasile 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.0 Ecuador 2.6 2.1 3.0 2.8 2.0 Perù 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.6 1.9 Egitto 2.9 2.2 2.9 3.1 2.1 Marocco 2.4 1.8 3.3 3.6 2.0 Tunisia 2.0 1.7 3.6 3.3 2.1 Ghana 4.3 3.6 4.6 3.3 2.6 Cina 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.4 1.7 India 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.7 1.9 Pakistan 3.7 2.7 4.1 4.2 2.1 Bangladesh 2.4 1.8 2.3 2.9 1.8 Filippine 3.3 2.8 3.2 2.4 2.1 Mean 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.8 2.0
Desired and realized fertility in the nineteen countries with higher number of immigrants children interviewed in ITAGEN2 Country of origin (UN data and DHS) 2005-10 2020-25 Desired in 2000-10 Immigrants children (ITAGEN2) Parental family Desired TFR Mean 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.8 2.0 σ/mean 0.38 0.29 0.31 0.20 0.10 ρ = Correlation with # children desired by immigrants children 0.54 0.62 0.80 0.48 1.00
2,75 DESIRED TFR OF IM MMIGRANTS CHILDREN (ITAGEN2) 2,5 2,25 2 1,75 R 2 = 0,80 Not included in regression Italia Egitto Albania Filippine Tunisia Polonia Brasile Marocco Ecuador Moldavia India Perù Bangladesh Romania Cina Ucraina R Pakistan Ghana 1,5 1,3 1,8 2,3 2,8 3,3 3,8 4,3 4,8 IDEAL TFR (DHS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL SURVEYS IN 2000-10)
Models
ORDINAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MULTILEVEL MODELS Causal effect: school (s) logit(y i(s) ) = α s + δ*z s + γ*x i(s) + ε i(s) (Model 1) Causal effect: country (c): logit(y i(c) ) = α c + θ*z c + η*x i(c) + ε i(c) (Model 2) Y: Number of desired children (0, 1, 2, 3, 4+) i: Foreign child 10,159 (school) and 8,811 (country) α s (school) and α c (country): Casual intercepts. 280 schools and 81 countries δ or θ: Coefficient of community variables Z s and Z c : Community variables (at school or country level) γ (school) or η (country). Coefficient of individual variables X i(s) (school) or X i(c) (country): Individual variables ε i(s) or ε i(c) : Errors (multinomial distribution)
Results
INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES Model 1 (school) Model 2 (country) Gender Male 0 0 Female -0.17* -0.13* Working mother -0.04-0.10* Number of siblings 0.16* 0.13* Career-oriented (opinion) -0.36* -0.35* Generation 1.25-0.38* -0.30* 1.5-0.19* -0.08* 1.75-0.06-0.01 2 0 0 Good Italian speaker 0.46* 0.44* Strong ethnic tradition 0.07* 0.03* COMMUNITY VARIABLES % Foreign student in the class -0.01* Siblings of Italian school-friends 0.46* Ideal TFR in the original country 0.13* INTRACLASS COEFFICIENT 10.4% * 6.9% * 2LogL 82,387.6 70,259.1 Other non significant variables included: at community level: Children desired by the Italian school-friends; at individual level: Parents education, Family wellbeing index,
Conclusions Immigrants children want less children than Italians children (different results comparing to the Netherlands and Canada) The assimilation process works also for fertility preferences (FP): the FP of 2 generation are very similar to the FP of native Italians Apart from the age of immigration, FP are influenced by the following individual characteristics: gender ( females), working status of the mother ( working mother), number of siblings (+), orientation toward career ( ), knowledge of Italian language (+), ethnic tradition (+). At a community level, FP are influenced by (1) the realized fertility in the residential place (2) the desired fertility in the country of origin