Immigrants ' children fertilityintentions in Italy

Gianpiero Dalla-Zuanna and Silvia Pierobon (University of Padua. Italy)

1. Aims2. A glance to literature3. Data4. First results5. Model6. Results7. Conclusion

Aims

• Describing the attitudes toward fertility ofimmigrants’ children in Italy

• Measuring the influence of individual and community determinants on desiredfertility

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. Nativ e and Second Generation Women by Region (Evaluated at Age 40. US Census data)

1980 2000 2°generation2000

Europe and Canada 1.65 > 1.31 > 1.27Europe and Canada 1.65 > 1.31 > 1.27Latin America and Carribean 2.03 > 1.71 > 1.47Asia 1.76 > 1.40 > 1.05Natives 1.68 > 1.36 ---

In 2° generation: (1) Convergence to US # of childre n; (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 generatio ns - the first generation or the foreign-born, the second generation or the c hildren of immigrants, and the third generation (the native-bo rn population born in Canada of Canada-born parents)?

At first, the answer appeared to be “yes”. Descriptive results showed that the 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.

Preferred age# Preferred for a woman tochildren have the 1°childParent Child Parent Child

Turks 2.65 2.39 24.5 25.4

Children aged15-30 living in the parentalfamily

Turks 2.65 2.39 24.5 25.4Moroccans 3.74 2.90 23.4 24.8Surinamese 2.82 2.51 25.3 25.5Antilleans 2.59 2.53 25.2 25.1

Dutch 2.57 2.35 27.0 27.2

Immigrants’ children: (1) Higher fertility preferen ce (2) Converg. to Dutch preference in # of children (less in timing); (3) L ess than parents; (4) Later than parents (Turks, Moroccans)

Data

Data: Data: Survey on Second Generations in ItalySurvey on Second Generations in Italy

• Quantitative survey in s.y. 2005/06coordinated by G. Dalla-Zuanna - Padua

• Targeted on Middle Schools(aged 11-14)

• Statistically representative of 48 provinces (above 103) for schools with

ITAGEN2ITAGEN2

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

• Country of birth of the parents

• Country of birth of the interviewers

• Length of stay in Italy

Foreign parentsborn abroad

5+ yrs.in ITALY[2,477 units]

G1.755 groups considered:

Classification by generationClassification by generation

WEIGHTED CASESA double set of weights is used

separately for Italians and children of immigrants in order to make the

results representative of the referent universe

Jumior High

Schools

s.y. 2005/06

21,108 Students

Foreign parentsborn abroad

<5 yrs. in ITALY[4,317 units]

Italian parents[10,554 units]

Only one foreign parent

- mixed couples -[1,949 units]

Foreign parentsborn in ITALY

- Second gener. -[1,811 units]

21,108Students

s.y.2005/2006

G3.00 G2.50

G1.50 G2.00

Not included in thisresearch

A growing number of articles use this dataA growing number of articles use this data--set: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)2012)

• Just a matter of time? The ways children of immigrants become similar (or not) to Italians (G. Gabrielli, A. Paterno and G. Dalla(G. Gabrielli, A. Paterno and G. Dalla--Zuanna, 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

22

1

0

2

2.1

2.2

Number of desired children and generation. ITAGEN2

1.7

1.8

1.9

Italiani G2 G1.75 G1.5 G1.25

Born in Arrived at age…Italy 0-4 5-9 10+

The assimilation The assimilation process similar for other topicsprocess similar for other topics

Ordinal logistic regression models Ordinal logistic regression models Predicted probabilities (per cent) of generations Predicted probabilities (per cent) of generations

with control variables with control variables

75

100G1.5 G1.75 G2 G2.5 G3

%

For. <5 4,317

For. 5+ 2,477

Jumior High

Schools

s.y. 2005/06

21,108 Students

Control variables: Gender, Age at interview, Familiar proximity, Household, parents' birth country, Parents' education, Parents' occupation, Number of objects possessed, Self-perception 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

0

25

50

High linguistic abilities More Italian friends Belonging in Italy

2,477

Sec. Gen. 1,811

Mix 1,949

Italians 10,554

TFR Country of origin Immigrant’s children

2005-10 2020-25 Desired Parental family DesiredItalia 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 2.0Ecuador 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

Country of origin (UN data and DHS)

Immigrants’ children

(ITAGEN2)

2005-10 2020-25Desired Parental

Desired

Desired and realized fertility in the nineteen count ries with higher number of immigrants’ children interviewed i n ITAGEN2

2005-10 2020-25Desired

in 2000-10Parental 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

Albania

BrasileMarocco

TunisiaEgittoItalia

Ecuador

Filippine

Ghana

PakistanPolonia

R2= 0,80

2

2,25

2,5

2,75

DE

SIR

ED

TF

R O

F IM

MIG

RA

NT

S’ C

HIL

DR

EN

(IT

AG

EN

2)R

Not included in regression

Marocco

Romania

Ucraina

Bangladesh

Cina

EcuadorIndia

MoldaviaPerù

1,5

1,75

1,3 1,8 2,3 2,8 3,3 3,8 4,3 4,8

IDEAL TFR (DHS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL SURVEYS IN 2 000-10)

DE

SIR

ED

TF

R O

F IM

MIG

RA

NT

S’ C

HIL

DR

EN

(IT

AG

EN

2)

Models

ORDINAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MULTILEVEL MODELS

Causal effect: school (s)

logit(Yi(s)) = αs + δ*Zs + γ*Xi(s) + εi(s) (Model 1)

Causal effect: country (c):

logit(Yi(c)) = αc + θ*Zc + η*Xi(c) + εi(c) (Model 2)

Y: Number of desired children (0, 1, 2, 3, 4+)

i: Foreign child 10,159 (school) and 8,811 (country)

αs (school) and αc (country): Casual intercepts. 280 schools and 81 countries

δ or θ: Coefficient of community variables

Zs and Zc: Community variables (at school or country level)

γ (school) or η (country). Coefficient of individual variables

Xi(s) (school) or Xi(c) (country): Individual variables

εi(s) or εi(c): Errors (multinomial distribution)

Results

Model 1 (school) Model 2 (country)

INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES

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 02 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