the transition to parenthood among the second generation: evidence from sweden, 1990–2005
TRANSCRIPT
TE
K
Ce
1.
SwofrefofoSocothanovth
Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204
A
Art
Re
Re
Ac
Ke
Tra
Se
Ge
Co
Sw
*
Ma
10
do
he transition to parenthood among the second generation:vidence from Sweden, 1990–2005
irk Scott, Maria Stanfors *
nter for Economic Demography and Department of Economic History, Lund University, P.O. Box 7083, 220 07 Lund, Sweden
Introduction
Immigration is largely a post-war phenomenon ineden, yet it has been important for the transformation
Swedish society. Initially, migration to Sweden waslated to the aftermath of World War II, but the demandr workers in the manufacturing sector spurred laborrce migration from the neighboring Nordic countries anduthern Europe. While labor migration from Europeanuntries and Turkey was dominant following the War,is changed in the early 1970s, with an increase in refugeed family reunification migration from countries from aller the world. This multi-faceted experience resulted ine varied Swedish society of today, which not only
contains a large immigrant population, but the children ofimmigrants, also known as the second generation, make upa sizeable and growing fraction of the Swedish popula-tion.1
With an increasing share of foreign-born residents inSweden, the issue of immigrant integration has become acore issue in the public debate. A large body of researchhas addressed the issue from different angles withsomewhat mixed results. On the one hand, evidencesuggests that integration is occurring in various areas oflife such as education, socioeconomic status, and inter-marriage, but a number of studies show differences withrespect to immigrant experience and national back-ground, and argue that immigrants face challenges thatmay complicate the prospects for integration and lead to
R T I C L E I N F O
icle history:
ceived 30 November 2010
ceived in revised form 4 September 2011
cepted 7 September 2011
ywords:
nsition to parenthood
cond generation immigrants
nder
x proportional hazards
eden
A B S T R A C T
We examine the transition to parenthood of the second generation, i.e., the children of
immigrants, in Sweden 1990–2005, from a gender perspective using a longitudinal data
set constructed from register data maintained by Statistics Sweden. The impact of
education, labor market attachment, income, and national background on having a first
birth is estimated for second generation men and women and contrasted to that of the
native Swedish-born population and immigrants belonging to the 1.5 generation. We find
that there is an adherence to a common pattern for the transition to parenthood that
supports the notion of integration and adjustment among the second generation, via the
1.5 generation, to a Swedish childbearing norm, most likely supported by institutional
factors and working through economic incentives. Labor market attachment and income
are positively associated with the transition to parenthood, irrespective of gender and
generation. Individuals outside of the labor force have reduced propensity to become first-
time parents, especially students. Integration is more comprehensive among the second
generation than for the 1.5 generation. Impacts are generally more articulate for women,
which reflects that childbearing intervene differently with men’s and women’s life
courses.
� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 46 2220834; fax: +46 46 2227339.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Scott),
[email protected] (M. Stanfors).
1 See Bengtsson, Lundh, and Scott (2005) for a discussion of the
Swedish immigration experience.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Advances in Life Course Research
jou r nal h o mep ag e: w ww .e lsev ier . co m / loc ate /a lc r
40-2608/$ – see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
i:10.1016/j.alcr.2011.09.003
s&2tnaaptssH&egpimceletd
pothpathdsinisaapthabtimpdthdabimdbhthapth
2
ss
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204 191
egmented assimilation among some immigrants (Dribe Lundh, 2008; Edin, Lalonde, & Aslund, 2000; Helgertz,010; Scott, 1999). Segmented assimilation implies thathere are different ways that immigrants may adapt to aew society; they may follow the traditional route andim at adapting the middle class way, or follow the path of potentially marginalized subculture. This is not onlyroblematic for first generation immigrants but also forheir children, since it may hinder upward mobility forubsequent generations or even lead to downwardocioeconomic mobility across generations (Behrenz,ammarstedt, & Mansson, 2007; Osterberg, 2000; Rooth
Ekberg, 2003). While integration along social andconomic lines has been extensively examined for firsteneration immigrants, much less attention has beenaid to the second generation. As the children of
migrants are coming of age, it is now possible toompare their early labor market and family formationxperiences with those of other groups in Sweden. Notast from a policy perspective, it is of utmost importance
o understand how the second generation is faring inifferent respects.
The focus of this article is on the transition toarenthood, which is one of the most important aspectsf becoming an adult. It has not been thoroughly studied ine Swedish context before. We focus on first births since a
arity-specific analysis of childbearing behavior is crucials the choice to have a first birth is distinctly different fromat of high parity births. Our focus on first births is also
ue to data reasons since the second generation in Swedentill is rather young (see Scott & Stanfors, 2010a). With thecreasing significance of gender in the study of fertility it
important that both men and women are included in thenalysis. We investigate the transition to a first birthmong second generation men and women during theeriod 1990–2005 in order to detect differences betweenem and the Swedish-born with Swedish parents, but we
re also interested as to whether there are differencesetween origin groups. By using register-based informa-on on the individual’s education, income, and laborarket attachment together with information on their
arents’ origin, we are able to examine to what extentifferent economic activities and social experiences affecte transition to parenthood. More specifically we ask how
ifferent immigrant experiences, and their related culturalnd socioeconomic consequences, affect the childbearingehavior of men and women. Do the children of
migrants adjust to host country norms, or do theyisplay patterns common to others with the same nationalackground when it comes to the transition to parent-ood? Here we are interested in the mechanisms behindis behavior and to what extent different economic
ctivities and social experiences affect the transition toarenthood, and whether there are gender differences inese respects.
. Previous research and theoretical considerations
Fertility analysis is an important component of thetudy of the integration of immigrants into their hostociety. From a demographic point of view, a better
understanding of the childbearing behavior of differentgroups may serve as an important input for populationprojections. In the long run, differential fertility patternswill have impact on the composition and age structure ofthe future population on an aggregate level. It is alsoimportant to take an individual level approach to thestudy of fertility and integration, since childbearinginteracts with other life course transitions and affectsthe economic integration and well-being of men andwomen.
2.1. Immigrant fertility
The fertility patterns of immigrants have been exten-sively covered in a rich literature almost entirely focusedon women (see, e.g., Abbasi-Shavazi & McDonald, 2000 onAustralia; Andersson, 2004; Andersson & Scott, 2005,2007 on Sweden; Blau, 1992; Ford, 1990; Forste & Tienda,1996; Lindstrom & Saucedo, 2002; Ng & Nault, 1997;Stephen & Bean, 1992 on North America, notably theUnited States). The core issue in all of these studies hasbeen whether immigrants adapt to life in their newcountry and the mechanisms through which this mayoccur.
The childbearing patterns of women born in the Nordicand EU countries are very similar to that of Swedish-bornwomen. The variation between different nationalities islittle. Prevailing childbearing patterns in Sweden duringthe period for our study is distinguished by rather lateentry into parenthood (mean age at first birth around 29for women, and 31 for men); yet with relatively shortintervals between births, lower levels of childlessness,and a strong adherence to the two-child norm comparedto other European countries (Billari & Kohler, 2004; Dribe& Stanfors, 2010). Obviously, there is a gradual adjustmentto prevailing childbearing patterns, indicated by the factthat the youngest cohort is the most similar to Swedish-born women when it comes to the propensity to have achild. Immigrant women born outside of Europe havehigher fertility than the Swedish-born and women comingfrom less developed countries have the highest fertility.Change is occurring, although not equally across nation-alities, but depending on the country if origin. Womenfrom more developed countries are adapting quicker thanwomen from less developed countries. Duration ofresidence in Sweden is associated with assimilation,and the propensity to have a child, irrespective of parity, isclearly higher among those who have arrived recently,especially from less developed countries from whichmany refugees come. Andersson (2004) neverthelessshows that period trends in childbearing during the lastdecades have been quite similar for immigrant andSwedish-born women suggesting that both groupshave been affected quite similarly by changes in economicand social factors that together with institutional factorsmake up the general climate of childbearing. Anderssonand Scott (2005) find further support for this, showingthat the impact of earned income and various formsof participation and non-participation in the labormarket do not vary much between immigrants and theSwedish-born.
2.2
grgrtoseslocostubeimHiBePa20tioalsarwliklevhogebais
M20Sw
2.3
fer
instranexapgeappa
ofRiw(ALinMbeBeRoacdi
2
ho
cen
wh
ge
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204192
. Childbearing among the second generation
Despite the active research on the fertility of immi-ants, the fertility behavior of second generation immi-ants has received much less attention. This is mostly due lack of data, given the relatively young age among thecond generation in many countries. This situation iswly changing, and as the second generation has been
ming of age the data situation has improved, allowingdies on family formation to be carried out. Attention has
en paid to intergenerational trends in fertility amongmigrant groups in North America, notably amongspanics and Mexicans in the US (Bean, Swicegood, &rg, 2000; Belanger & Gilbert, 2003; Blau, Kahn, Liu, &pps, 2008; Frank & Heuveline, 2005; Parrado & Morgan,08). One line of argument is intergenerational assimila-n (e.g., Belanger & Gilbert, 2003; Blau et al., 2008, seeo Kahn, 1988; Stephen & Bean, 1992),2 but another
gument is that, unlike the case of European immigrantsho came to the US a hundred years ago, certain groupse Hispanics and Mexicans seem to retain high fertilityels (cf. Portes & Zhou, 1993). The general impression is,wever, that of converging fertility patterns acrossnerations and across groups with different nationalckgrounds with that of the host country population. Thisindicated for the US (Landale & Hauan, 1996; Parrado &organ, 2008), but also for Germany (Milewski, 2007,10), the Netherlands (Garssen & Nicolaas, 2008), andeden (Scott & Stanfors, 2010a, 2010b).
. Theoretical perspectives on immigrant integration and
tility
Most studies of the relationship between immigration,tegration and fertility apply theoretical perspectivesessing disruption, assimilation, adaptation, selectivityd/or diffusion. These approaches are not mutuallyclusive, but rather complementary, however, not allproaches apply for the study of first as well as secondneration immigrants. Below we focus on what isplicable to the second generation and their entry intorenthood.Immigrants may both assimilate to the cultural norms
the host country (Andersson, 2004; Chiswick, 1978;ndfuss, 1976) and adapt to new behaviors and goalshen the advantages of small families become obviousndersson & Scott, 2005, 2007; Blau, 1992; Ford, 1990;dstrom & Saucedo, 2002; Mayer & Riphahn, 2000;
ilewski, 2007). Assimilation is thought to take time andcome stronger across generations (Alba & Nee, 2003;an et al., 2000; Ford, 1990; Lindstrom & Saucedo, 2002;senwaike, 1973). Assimilation can proceed unevenlyross different dimensions, with assimilation in onemension not necessarily guaranteeing assimilation in
others. For example, a group can achieve socioeconomicsuccess (i.e., structural assimilation) but live segregatedfrom the majority and not assimilate culturally (i.e.,cultural assimilation or acculturation) and likewise, agroup can acculturate successfully but not fully integratesocioeconomically. Although the outcome of assimilationand adaptation is the same, the underlying processes aredifferent, with assimilation being more determined by thesocial and cultural context in the destination country whileadaptation is more a response to economic opportunitiesand the relative costs of children and childrearing.
Immigrant selection is also important since migration isnot a random process and there may therefore besystematic differentials between migrants and non-migrants that account for fertility differentials betweenthe two groups. Selection may work through education,occupation, or marital status but also through unobservedcharacteristics such as ability, aspirations and open-mindedness, and lead to fertility preferences differentfrom those held by the population of origin, but more likethose of the host country population, and therefore resultin lower fertility among emigrants than among non-migrants who remain in the country of origin (Blau, 1992;Goldstein & Goldstein, 1983; Kahn, 1988). It may, however,be that the selection mechanisms change over time, andtherefore affect childbearing within certain immigrantgroups in different ways (cf. Frank & Heuveline, 2005).
Research on immigration and fertility often focuses onthe experiences of adult immigrants who are assimilatingand adapting to the destination country. There is much lessresearch on the fertility of second generation immigrantsdespite the fact that assimilation is a long-term processwhich affects immigrants and their situations not onlywithin but also across generations (e.g., Bean, Cullen,Stephen, & Swicegood, 1984; Lindstrom & Saucedo, 2002;Rosenwaike, 1973). The second generation – born andraised in the new destination country that their parentsmigrated to – are likely to behave differently from theirparents, for example when it comes to family formation,and more like the majority population. They will also, mostlikely, display a different behavior than peers who arrivedin the country as children, because this group is partlyaffected by host country norms but has also been subject tosocialization to other background-specific values duringchildhood years that likely have lasting effects.
Assimilation, especially among children of immigrants,is often seen as a straight-line process but, increasingly, thesecond generation, both in Europe and North America,follow the more diverse pattern of segmented assimilationnot least since the socioeconomic context that immigrantsface has changed dramatically over the last decades (Gans,1992; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996; Waldinger & Feliciano,2004; Zhou, 1997). With segmented assimilation, childrenof immigrants may adopt the host country’s behavior,language and norms, but nevertheless find themselvesidentified with belonging to a minority, and whileassimilating into society and the economy they retain astrong attachment to the group of origin (Portes, 1995). Insituations in which immigrants come from cultural andethnic backgrounds that differ greatly from that of the hostcountry, the second generation is more likely to fall into
Some of the results indicating assimilation across generations should,
wever, be interpreted with caution since the data often consist of
sus material, and involve the creation of synthetic parental cohorts,
ich in many cases are not likely to be actual parents of the second
neration.
thBimtoamS
2
tha
magcinfracgbladrlasNttc
cwSbeawin1wth1
hhlapw(epcchuplep
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204 193
e patterns of segmented assimilation. Similar to whatoyd and Grieco (1998) found for Canada, children of
migrants who are visible minorities may be more likely experience segmented assimilation rather than direct
ssimilation in Sweden today, but this process may beediated by parental composition if one parent is
wedish-born (cf. Rooth & Ekberg, 2003).
.4. Hypotheses
Drawing on previous research and theories relevant toe integration of immigrants, the following hypotheses
re generated.The longer immigrants reside in the host country, the
ore they will resemble the native-born population. It islso expected that integration will differ among immi-rant groups, and that immigrants from countries that arelose and/or culturally proximate to the host country willtegrate and assimilate more easily than immigrantsom other settings. This goes for labor market integrations well as for assimilation to ideals such as when to starthildbearing and how many children to have. The secondeneration is born and raised in Sweden, but nationalackground may nevertheless serve as an indicator of howrge the socio-cultural distance between source andestination country is, as could, to some extent, theeasons behind their parents immigration decision (i.e.,bor force participation or refugee migration). We expect
econd generation immigrants with parents from theordic and Western European countries to be more like
he native Swedish-born when it comes to the transitiono parenthood than those with parents from otherountries.
Whether it is a question of assimilation or socializationan be assessed by comparing second generation men andomen not only to otherwise comparable individuals of
wedish origin but also to individuals with similar nationalackground belonging to the 1.5 generation, defined asntering Sweden up to and including age 10. In line withssimilation theory there should not be much differencehen it comes to transition to parenthood betweendividuals belonging to the second generation and the
.5 generation. But if there is an effect of socialization atork we expect the second generation to be more likeose of Swedish origin than individuals belonging to the
.5 generation.Previous research has found that the probability of
aving a child (both first and children of higher parity) isigher in Sweden if the mother has an attachment to thebor market than if she is a student/unemployed or non-articipant (Andersson & Scott, 2005, 2007). Contrary tohat is predicted by the New Home Economics literature.g., Becker, 1981), childbearing and female labor force
articipation are not competing activities in the Nordicountries, or at least not to the extent that they are in otherountries. On the contrary, labor market attachment is to aigh degree a precondition for family formation. Withniversal public sector programs, all gender differences inublic aid and benefits have been removed. The parentalave scheme, introduced in 1974, has benefits allotted in
of the social insurance system, there are strong incentivesfor both men and women to work before the birth of thefirst child (Stanfors, 2003).3 We expect second generationmen and women with previous labor market attachmentto have higher probabilities of becoming first-time parentsthan peers with other socioeconomic statuses, especiallythose being students since education is not very compati-ble with childbearing and child rearing. A qualifyingcomment might be in place, however: the fertility ofsecond generation men and women should on the wholebe quite similar to that of native Swedish-born men andwomen, but, according to the theory of segmentedassimilation, differ between groups with different nationalorigins.
This may have bearing on the gender dimension.Women are in general about two years younger thanmen when they have their first child. Given the com-pressed structure of various life course transitions andmarkers of adulthood, we expect being a student tocomplicate the transition to parenthood significantly morefor women than for men. We also expect to find genderdifferences since the impact of cultural norms related togender and family roles could produce more conservativepatterns of fertility behavior for some national back-grounds more than for others, through channeling womenfrom the labor market into more family-oriented activities.It may also be that women, in the event that they findproblems establishing themselves in the labor market dueto discrimination or other reasons, may turn to familyformation as an alternative career path. If this is the case,we expect women to experience their first birth signifi-cantly earlier than men. But, according to the success-oriented perspective emphasizing integration and assimi-lation, the children of immigrants, pushed by the successorientation of their family, may be even more motivatedthan others, for example native Swedish-born, to invest intheir human capital and have higher aspirations withrespect to their participation in education and the labormarket than others. In particular, this would be reflectedby a stronger tendency to pursue education for a prolongedperiod. The prolongation of education and early careerinvestment often leads to the postponement of fertility.Thus, the transition to parenthood of the second genera-tion may be postponed and result in later fertility than thatof the native Swedish-born group.
3. Data and method
In the empirical analysis, we examine second genera-tion fertility through the use of a longitudinal data setconstructed from the Swedish Multigenerational Register(Flergenerationsregistret), maintained by Statistics Sweden,with information on biological and adopted children to allindex persons in the sampling frame. From a datasetconsisting of all individuals in the birth cohorts 1942–1989
3 It should be kept in mind that any situation leading to absence from
the labor market can have long-term scarring effects on career
development, and therefore there exists some measure of competition
etween childbearing and market work, but this competition is much
eaker in the Nordic countries.
roportion to foregone earnings. Thus, in line with the restbw
wseinsesatothlinindeThtioJaSwfo
SwidanthindegefocofothdecoAdargrofrepa1.5painco
Ta
Sa
S
C
C
D
F
G
G
H
I
L
N
P
S
T
U
U
Y
T
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204194
ho resided in Sweden at any time from 1961 onwards, welect all childless individuals contingent on havingformation on their parents. The parents of the individualslected may, however, be born in years outside of thempling frame. We follow individuals beginning in 1990,
the birth of a first child, emigration, death, or the end ofe study period in 2005. For each individual we haveked register-based information on place of residence,
come, education, and demographic events (births,aths, external migration, and changes in civil status).e final data contains information on all second genera-n individuals residing in Sweden, born on or after
nuary 1, 1961. For Swedish-born individuals withedish-born parents, a 5% random sample was selected
r the sake of computational ease.The second generation is defined as individuals born ineden having at least one parent born abroad. We
entify whether one or both parents were foreign-bornd from what country they come, and then we categorizee individuals according to parental place of birth. Anydividual with at least one parent of foreign extraction isfined as being second generation, regardless of thender of the foreign parent. Individuals with only onereign-born parent are categorized according to theuntry of birth of that parent. For those with tworeign-born parents coming from different countries,e national background of the mother is used totermine the child’s background, however, we alsontrol for mixed parental origin in our regressions.ditionally, we include individuals born abroad who
rived in Sweden prior to their eleventh birthday. Thisoup is termed 1.5 generation, and can be seen as a hybrid
the groups foreign born and second generation. Thestriction of the sample to include only those with bothrents observed in the data causes a slight bias with the
generation, since some individuals arrive with only onerent. This is not seen as crucial to our study, since we areterested in integration of immigrants in the Swedishntext, which includes presence of both parents (not
necessarily in the same household). Table 1 providesdescriptive statistics of the sample of which roughly290,000 individuals are considered second generation.National backgrounds were chosen based on the size of thegroups, with a cut-off point at roughly 1000 individuals ofeach sex, with all other nationalities excluded from thesample. Since some immigrant groups (for exampleBangladeshi and Pakistani) are very small, they are notincluded in our sample. Other groups, like the Somali, onlyrecently arrived and thus the second generation are justchildren. Moreover, some groups register very few births,and therefore our focus of analysis is primarily on thelarger groups in our sample. We acknowledge that thesegroups to a high degree come from Europe, but also fromTurkey and the Middle East (see Table A1).
Our period of study ranges from 1990 onwards, sincedetailed information on many public transfers andeducation are lacking in the earlier period. Given thatthe second generation tends to be quite young, thislimitation is of little practical importance, since they werealmost universally too young to have children prior to1990. The one aspect which is of importance is that oursample restriction of only including individuals born after1960 leads to a young group of all backgrounds in 1990.
We investigate the fertility patterns of men and womenwith at least one foreign-born parent, and compare them tothose of Swedish-born individuals with two Swedish-bornparents and of children entering Sweden up to ten years ofage. We control for a number of factors that may be ofimportance for the transition to parenthood. While partnerinformation is one factor certainly of importance to anystudy of fertility, we are not able to control for this duepartly to the construction of the Swedish registers andpartly to the Swedish tradition of cohabitation that is notregistered. These problems are interrelated, since a largeshare of the population is cohabiting at the time of the firstchild, and cohabiting couples are only identified in theregisters in cases where they have a common child. Thus acoupled approach to the study of fertility is possible for
ble 1
mple size by gender and national background, 1990–2005.
All 1.5 generation Second generation
Men Women Men Women Men Women
weden 55,014 49,990 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
hile 7,098 6,669 4,515 4,224 2,583 2,445
zechoslovakia 2,244 2,038 535 470 1,709 1,568
enmark 13,529 12,335 2,678 2,351 10,851 9,984
inland 83,612 75,900 12,716 11,556 70,896 64,344
ermany 12,515 11,337 1,250 1,150 11,265 10,187
reece 4,922 4,627 945 765 3,977 3,862
ungary 4,264 3,861 665 608 3,599 3,253
ran 7,510 6,932 5,503 5,020 2,007 1,912
ebanon 3,796 3,565 2,482 2,241 1,314 1,324
orway 12,791 11,398 2,192 2,095 10,599 9,303
oland 9,527 9,044 3,197 2,929 6,330 6,115
yria 2,854 2,626 1,637 1,473 1,217 1,153
urkey 10,089 9,449 3,659 3,382 6,430 6,067
K/Ireland 4,601 4,319 1,034 907 3,567 3,412
SA/Canada 3,317 3,186 850 831 2,467 2,355
ugoslavia 22,951 21,339 10,286 9,553 12,665 11,786
otal 260,634 238,615 54,144 49,555 151,476 139,070
hinininv
minwrwovotiinwnthvwtivglamov
thvpsthsG
ln
wleaviscspusthG
n
re
in
e
in
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204 195
igher birth orders, but not possible for studies of entryto parenthood. To the extent that the use of a civil statusdicator would not be able to disentangle cohabitingdividuals from singles we have chosen to omit the
ariable completely.Our demographic data have been merged with infor-
ation of registered income of various sources for eachdividual. In addition to information on earned income,e also have data on income in the form of transfers
elated to studies, unemployment, pensions and socialelfare. All income is standardized and expressed in terms
f ‘base amounts’, which are essentially price-indexedalues used by the Swedish government for the calculationf social welfare benefits and transfers.4 We use informa-on on various income sources in order to indicate thedividual’s labor market attachment, whether he/she isorking, unemployed, a student, on welfare, or simplyon-participating in the labor market, and how that affectse propensity to become a first-time parent. All control
ariables refer to the year before the first birth occurs,hich is more or less similar to conception and closer inme to the actual decision to have a child, and thus thealues of the covariates will better reflect the conditionsoverning the decision-making process. For example, thebor force participation of women is likely to decline inany cases before the actual birth of the child for a number
f reasons, which will affect the estimated effects of thisariable on the transition to parenthood.5
We use the Cox proportional hazards model to estimatee effects of a number of time-invariant as well as time-
arying covariates. The Cox model, in contrast to otherroportional hazards models, does not require anypecification of the baseline hazard, which implies that
ere is no need to make any assumptions concerning thehape of this underlying hazard function (e.g., Therneau &rambsch, 2000). The model can be written as:
hiðaÞ ¼ ln h0ðaÞ þ bxi þ gzðtÞ
here hi(a) is the individual hazard of conception thatads to childbirth for the first time for the ith individual as
function of age, h0(a) is the baseline hazard, b is theector of parameters for the individual covariates xi, and g
the parameter for the external covariate z(t), where t isalendar time. Since we deal with first births only, andince the individuals were randomly selected, there is noroblem of multiple events for the same individual ornobserved relationships between the individuals in theample (for example family relationships), and therefore
ere is no need to use a frailty model (see, e.g., Therneau &rambsch, 2000).
Parental composition (time invariant) indicates theational origin of the parents (both native born Swedes;
both same foreign background; different foreign back-ground; and one Swedish, one foreign born parent). Since itis possible to have parents of differing origin, dummieshave been created to identify whether the parents werefrom the same country or different countries. In the case ofindividuals with one Swedish parent, there are dummiesidentifying whether the mother or father is Swedish.
Education (time varying) indicates the highest educa-tional degree attained and is divided into three differentcategories: primary, secondary (both theoretical andvocational high school programs), and university.
Labor market status (time varying) identifies labormarket status one year prior to observation based onthe primary source of income. The mutually exclusive andexhaustive categories are: employed (divided into fourincome categories), student, social assistance recipient,and unemployed/non-participant.6
We include a time invariant dummy variable thatindicates whether the individual is the first born or notrelative to the mother, birth cohort (time invariant), andmetropolitan residence (time-varying) which is a binaryindicator of whether the individual resided in one of thethree largest cities in Sweden (Malmo, Gothenburg, orStockholm). We also include year dummies in ourregressions.
4. Empirical findings
Fig. 1 shows the Kaplan–Meier estimates of theproportion childless by age and generation for men andwomen, respectively. The first thing to note is that,irrespective of gender, individuals belonging to the 1.5generation and the second generation, start childbearingearlier than those of Swedish origin. The second generationis somewhere in between the 1.5 generation andindividuals of Swedish origin. Later childbearing amongnative-born Swedes does not, however, result in higherchildlessness. The Kaplan–Meier estimates indicate that byage 29, 50% of all women have become first-time mothers,irrespective of generation. For men a similar pictureemerges but there are fewer differences with respect togeneration for men than for women and there is a higherdegree of childlessness by age 30, which indicates thatentry into parenthood in general takes place some yearslater for men. Fig. 1 also indicates that there is actually ahigher degree of childlessness later in life among men andwomen of foreign descent but these figures should beviewed in the light of large compositional differences withrespect to national background reflecting the fact that laterchildbearing is driven almost exclusively by a smallnumber of nationalities.
When considering different national backgrounds(Kaplan–Meier estimates not shown, but available uponrequest) we get a more diverse picture. Women of Nordicdescent have their first births earlier than their all-Swedishpeers, although not by much. By 28.5 years 50% of womenwhose parents come from Denmark, Norway, and Finland
4 In 2009, one base amount was equal to SEK 42,800.5 It should be noted, however, that the amount of compensation
ceived during parental leave will not be affected by any such reduction
hours or early leave, but the use of yearly income as an indicator of6
conomic position could be influenced by the inclusion of current yearcome.
For a detailed discussion of the income divisions, see Scott and
Stanfors (2010a).
hapaarthmsimfecotharNoaganhi
a cEa
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204196
ve become first-time mothers, which should be com-red to the Swedish median age at 29. All Nordic womene almost equally likely to have had a first birth by age 45,ose of all-Swedish descent being the most likely to beothers. For men there is an even higher degree of
ilarity with respect to national background. Like theirmale counterparts, men from the neighboring Nordicuntries are more likely to experience early first birthsan all-Swedish men. There is nevertheless a convergenceound age 31.5; with 50% of all Swedish, Danish, andrwegian men having become first-time parents at thise. Finnish men are slightly older at the median (32 years)d more likely to be childless at 45. In general, men have agher degree of childlessness at age 45 than women.
When considering other European nationalities, there islear tendency to postpone first births among women ofstern and Western European national backgrounds.
Overall these groups show the same pattern: they are allless likely to have a first birth than are native-born Swedishwomen, and they have their first births later. Secondgeneration women of German descent are similar toSwedish women. At age 29.5, 50% of the women withGerman parents have become mothers, and by 30.5, everysecond woman of Hungarian descent has had a first birth.At 31.5, women from UK/Ireland, North America, formerCzechoslovakia, and Poland have become mothers as well.Among women of European descent, there is morevariation when it comes to childlessness at higher agesthan there are differences when it comes to age at entryinto motherhood. For men, there is again more similaritywith respect to national background. They all becomefathers later than all-Swedish men. By 32.5 years 50% of allGerman, Czech, and Hungarian men have become first timeparents, and by 33.5 men from UK/Ireland, North America,
Men
Women
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615
Swedes
Gen 1.5
Gen 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615
Swedes
Gen 1.5
Gen 2
Fig. 1. Kaplan–Meier estimates of the proportion childless at different ages by origin and generation.
alir
foSpliSemamb(1haainpammhhtho
thnthw
T
C
h
N
a
c
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204 197
nd Poland have followed suit. Men of Polish descent, justke second generation Polish women, have the highestates of childlessness at age 45.
The tendency of first births at higher ages is also presentr second generation women and men with parents from
outhern Europe and the Middle East. Women witharents from Turkey and former Yugoslavia are morekely to have a first birth early compared to native-bornwedes. Actually, women from Turkey stand out as youngven in comparison with second generation women anden with national backgrounds such as Lebanon, Syria,
nd Iran. Especially, women of Turkish descent becomeothers at relatively young ages, the median age at first
irth being 27.5, and have a low degree of childlessness1%) at age 44. Women of Greek descent are less likely to
ave a first birth. Those of Chilean and Yugoslavian descentre more like those of Swedish origin when it comes to aget entry into parenthood, but have larger shares of childlessdividuals at higher ages.7 The same patterns of entry into
arenthood at relatively young ages and low childlessnesst higher ages are also there for second generation Turkishen, but interestingly to note there is a convergence toen of Swedish origin; by 31.5 years 50% of both groups
ave become fathers. Men of Greek descent have theighest median age at entry into fatherhood but, unlikeeir female counterparts, they do not have a high degree
f childlessness at older ages.The fact that the Kaplan–Meier estimates only indicate
e uncontrolled means by gender, generation, andational background, leads us to look at the impacts ofe other variables and see if they differ between men andomen. As expected, there are differences with respect to
generation and national background, and education as wellas labor market attachment and income render highlystatistically significant effects for both men and women,irrespective of generation.
First we estimate regressions of deviations for differentnational backgrounds from the propensities to enterparenthood of native-born Swedes.8 Table 2 displays theCox estimates by sex and generation. The general tendencyis that of the second generation converging to Swedishfertility patterns via the 1.5 generation, yet in some casessuch as Czechoslovakia and Greece, where we wouldexpect convergence, the second generation displays verylow propensities to enter parenthood in relation to those ofnative Swedish origin.9 The results in Table 2 basicallyconfirm the patterns indicated previously in the text. Netof all factors, women and men whose parents come fromthe neighboring Nordic countries have higher propensitiesto enter parenthood than Swedish peers, whereas secondgeneration men and women of Eastern and WesternEuropean descent are less likely to have an early first birththan otherwise comparable Swedes. Women and menfrom Syria and Turkey have the highest propensities toenter parenthood, net of all factors. Turkish women standout in comparison to all other groups since the secondgeneration shows a statistically significant elevatedpropensity to enter parenthood in relation to those of
able 2
ox regression estimates of deviation of generation 1.5 and the second generation from Swedish propensities to enter parenthood, 1990–2005. Relative
azards by sex and generation.
Men Women
1.5 generation Second generation 1.5 generation Second generation
Chile 1.76*** 1.66*** 1.44*** 1.46***
Czechoslovakia 1.13 0.89 0.80** 0.68***
Denmark 1.13*** 1.16*** 1.03 1.06
Finland 0.92*** 1.01 1.02 1.07***
Germany 0.94 0.93 0.71*** 0.82***
Greece 1.00 0.82*** 0.71*** 0.72***
Hungary 1.02 0.92 1.04 0.80***
Lebanon 1.89*** 1.18 3.33*** 1.98***
Norway 1.10 1.06 1.15** 1.00
Poland 1.12* 1.03 0.93 0.91
Syria 1.31*** 1.08 1.79*** 1.29**
Turkey 1.96*** 1.96*** 1.55*** 1.88***
UK/Ireland 0.77* 0.98 0.38*** 0.41***
USA/Canada 0.64 0.80 0.50* 0.50*
Yugoslavia 1.24*** 1.09*** 1.25*** 1.05**
ote: The regressions also include controls for parity, parental composition, cohort, metropolitan residence, educational attainment, labor market
ttachment and income, and year dummies.* p < 0.1.** p < 0.5.*** p < 0.01.
7
8 A number of robustness checks have indicated the results shown to be
consistent and not driven by education or income.9 This is rather surprising and could be contrasted to equally low first
birth propensities what we find for individuals from Germany or the US.
In the latter cases, we are not surprised since the parental generations
also have low birth propensities/high mean ages of birth in Sweden, and
thus their children should also tend to have higher ages at first birth,
The figure for Chilean women should, however, be interpreted with
aution. See caveat in text above.
displayed in the data as low propensities.
Swgepaw
levpaprpramwtiogeIt
seenthenwcoorif
thch
at4brisirrminim
Ta
Co
19
S
C
C
D
F
G
G
H
L
N
P
S
T
U
U
Y
No
du*
*
*
10
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204198
edish origin, 1.5 generation, and Turkish men.10 Inneral deviation from the Swedish pattern of transition torenthood is, by generation, however, similar for men and
omen.Table 3 shows the estimates of the impact of differentels of educational attainment on the propensity to enterrenthood. There are strong tendencies towards higheropensities of having a first birth for those with onlyimary education and lower risks to enter parenthoodong those with higher education, for men as well as
omen, irrespective of generation. The impact of educa-nal attainment is more articulate for women, and mostnder differences are statistically significant (see Table 5).should also be noted that there is a tendency of
gmentation, especially among second generation wom- from Chile, Lebanon, Poland, and Turkey, which meansat the low educated have much elevated propensities toter parenthood in relation to comparable Swedes
hereas the propensities for the highly educated arensiderably lower than those for women of Swedishigin. We stress that these results cannot be interpreted asthe highly educated refrain from having a child, becausee result is associated with the tendency of postponedildbearing among individuals with higher education.When it comes to the impact of labor market
tachment and income, it is obvious from Tables 4a and that employment and work experience increases thek of conceiving a first child for both men and women,espective of generation. The positive effect of laborarket attachment seems to operate through the highercomes associated with being employed and through theportant association with the social welfare system since
it is very important to have some kind of labor marketexperience before making use of benefits such as parentalleave. This is to a large extent due to the design of socialand parental leave benefits that are income-based,currently (and for the major part of the period understudy) established at 80% of the gross pay for most people.The income-based benefits are much more generous thanthe flat rate benefit that is given to people with insufficientwork experience. Thus, those with the highest incomeshave the most elevated propensities to enter parenthood inrelation to medium income earners. This is the case formen as well as for women, and there is, to a high degree, apattern of a positive income gradient for all nationalbackgrounds. Women at the top income ranks, however,almost systematically have lower propensities than men tohave a first birth, and these differences are statisticallysignificant (see Table 5).
That employment and income work in concert arefurther established by the fact that individuals ondifferent benefit programs and social assistance are lesslikely to become parents. This is the case for both the 1.5generation and the second generation and, in general,more articulate among women. Yet, for both men andwomen, irrespective of generation and national back-ground, being an enrolled student considerably (and inmost cases significantly) reduces the risk of conceiving afirst birth. Also in this case, female students aresignificantly less likely to become mothers than aremen to become fathers.
The other controls also render expected results. Havingone Swedish parent, especially a Swedish mother, affectsthe propensity to enter parenthood in a mediating wayrelative to otherwise comparable Swedes. A Swedishmother impacts the likelihood of having a first birth morefor women than for men and the effect is stronger for
ble 3
x regression estimates of impact of primary and university education on the propensity to enter parenthood relative those with secondary education,
90–2005. Relative hazards by sex and generation.
Men Women
1.5 generation Second generation 1.5 generation Second generation
Primary University Primary University Primary University Primary University
weden 1.11*** 0.86*** 1.11*** 0.86*** 1.47*** 0.86*** 1.47*** 0.86***
hile 1.44*** 0.80* 2.23*** 0.83 2.05*** 0.61*** 2.38*** 0.54***
zechoslovakia 1.59 0.89 1.89*** 0.92 2.09** 1.15 1.40** 0.90
enmark 1.28** 0.94 1.22*** 0.81*** 1.56*** 0.99 1.53*** 0.90***
inland 0.90** 0.91** 1.18*** 0.87*** 1.20*** 1.01 1.51*** 0.87***
ermany 0.86 0.57*** 1.01 0.82*** 1.52 0.85 1.37*** 0.90***
reece 1.01 0.61*** 1.34*** 0.70*** 0.92 0.89 1.36*** 0.65***
ungary 2.18*** 1.14 1.06 0.83*** 3.63*** 1.03 1.31*** 0.84***
ebanon 1.53*** 0.60** 2.84*** 0.58 1.88*** 0.51*** 1.91*** 0.42***
orway 0.95 0.68** 1.20*** 0.87*** 1.40*** 0.77* 1.42*** 0.83***
oland 1.37* 0.63*** 2.16*** 0.87 2.02*** 0.71** 2.56*** 0.82**
yria 1.41** 0.79 1.19 0.21*** 1.84*** 0.55*** 1.69** 0.28***
urkey 1.38*** 0.65*** 1.85*** 0.68*** 1.53*** 0.58*** 2.03*** 0.53***
K/Ireland 1.07 0.73 1.23* 0.78*** 0.91 1.01 1.54*** 0.77***
SA/Canada 6.74*** 1.43 1.44** 0.92 2.48* 0.73 1.73*** 0.92
ugoslavia 1.23*** 0.84** 1.27*** 0.77*** 1.59*** 0.85** 1.45*** 0.70***
te: The regressions also include controls for parity, parental composition, cohort, metropolitan residence, labor market attachment and income, and year
mmies.
p < 0.1.* p < 0.5.** p < 0.01.
See interaction effects in Table 5.
Table 4a
Cox regression estimates of labor market attachment and income on the propensity to enter parenthood relative those with medium income, 1990–2005. Relative hazards by sex and generation.
Men
1.5 generation Second generation
Welfare Student Unemployed/
non-participant
Low
income
High
income
Top
income
Welfare Student Unemployed/
non-participant
Low
income
High
income
Top
income
Sweden 0.61** 0.49*** 0.64*** 0.71*** 1.29*** 1.61*** 0.61** 0.49*** 0.64*** 0.71*** 1.29*** 1.61***
Chile 0.71 0.55*** 0.67*** 0.69*** 1.25* 1.32* Omitted 0.77 0.71 0.57* 1.94** 1.61
Czechoslovakia 0.47 0.71 0.51* 0.88 2.3*** 2.64*** 1.43 0.87 0.71 1.03 1.52*** 1.88***
Denmark 0.95 0.38** 0.39*** 0.77** 1.45*** 1.51*** 1.14 0.49*** 0.63*** 0.77*** 1.38*** 1.71***
Finland 0.99 0.58*** 0.65*** 0.68*** 1.20*** 1.54*** 1.05 0.43*** 0.69*** 0.74*** 1.30*** 1.58***
Germany 7.66*** 0.70 0.43** 0.83 1.47* 2.26*** 0.78 0.46*** 0.58*** 0.68*** 1.18*** 1.61***
Greece Omitteda 0.51 0.35*** 0.69** 1.21 1.91*** 0.44 0.59** 0.50*** 0.88 1.27** 1.33**
Hungary 1.14 0.55 0.68 0.64 1.64* 2.30*** 0.61 0.41*** 0.67*** 0.65*** 1.35*** 1.64***
Lebanon 2.47** 0.43* 0.76 0.80 1.42* 0.90 2.08 Omitted 0.71 0.69 1.19 1.23
Norway 4.63*** 0.46 0.61** 0.82 1.25 1.99*** 1.07 0.53*** 0.60*** 0.70*** 1.16*** 1.52***
Poland 1.05 0.29** 1.22 1.12 1.95*** 2.20*** 0.56 0.67** 0.97 0.85 1.45*** 2.03***
Syria 1.50 0.43 0.92 0.96 0.95 1.68* 3.95 1.31 1.25 0.93 2.16* 1.15
Turkey 1.11 0.51** 0.82** 1.14 1.16 1.47*** 1.38 0.31*** 0.90 0.92 1.37*** 1.48***
UK/Ireland 2.11 0.65 0.26*** 0.53** 1.09 1.01 1.24 0.39*** 0.58*** 0.90 1.39*** 1.57***
USA/Canada Omitted 1.76 0.43 1.56 3.13* 0.69 Omitted 0.60* 0.54*** 0.92 1.44** 1.81***
Yugoslavia 2.24*** 0.34*** 0.80** 0.67*** 1.10 1.37*** 0.41*** 0.54*** 0.74*** 0.73*** 1.28*** 1.59***
Note: The regressions also include controls for parity, parental composition, cohort, metropolitan residence, educational attainment and year dummies.a Omitted due to small numbers of observations.* p< 0.1.** p< 0.5.*** p< 0.01.
K.
Scott,
M.
Stan
fors
/ A
dv
an
ces in
Life C
ou
rse R
esearch
16
(20
11
) 1
90
–2
04
1
99
Table 4b
Cox regression estimates of labor market attachment and income on the propensity to enter parenthood relative those with medium income, 1990–2005. Relative hazards by sex and generation.
Women
1.5 generation Second generation
Welfare Student Unemployed/
non-participant
Low
income
High
income
Top
income
Welfare Student Unemployed/
non-participant
Low
income
High
income
Top
income
Sweden 0.96 0.28*** 0.51*** 0.66*** 1.14*** 1.35*** 0.96 0.28*** 0.51*** 0.66*** 1.14*** 1.35***
Chile 0.80 0.55*** 0.85 0.80** 1.10 2.02*** 0.79 0.54* 0.61** 0.68** 1.67** 2.27*
Czechoslovakia Omitteda 0.87 0.87 0.52* 1.56 1.82* 2.22 0.45*** 0.56*** 0.53*** 1.32** 1.34*
Denmark 0.26 0.24*** 0.54*** 0.69*** 1.56*** 1.29 0.98 0.32*** 0.63*** 0.67*** 1.20*** 1.46***
Finland 0.53** 0.34*** 0.50*** 0.58*** 0.97 1.41*** 0.78** 0.35*** 0.67*** 0.68*** 1.19*** 1.49***
Germany 2.09 0.25** 0.29*** 0.77 0.87 2.10*** 1.14 0.36*** 0.47*** 0.62*** 1.24*** 1.54***
Greece Omitted 0.43 0.33*** 0.55** 1.46* 1.25 0.95 0.35*** 0.44*** 0.76*** 1.40*** 1.82***
Hungary 1.27 0.34** 0.39*** 0.37*** 0.75 1.16 1.15 0.27*** 0.57*** 0.59*** 1.30*** 1.46***
Lebanon 1.74* 0.54*** 0.96 0.7*** 0.61** 0.94 4.07* 0.37 0.76 0.77 0.85 0.90
Norway Omitted 0.31*** 0.51*** 0.65*** 1.34* 1.97*** 0.73 0.39*** 0.60*** 0.70*** 1.28*** 1.71***
Poland 1.12 0.26*** 0.93 0.67** 1.54** 1.81*** 2.02** 0.37*** 0.78** 0.81** 1.35*** 1.97***
Syria 3.08 0.25*** 0.92 0.96 1.20 1.82* 11.95*** 0.75 0.80 0.69 0.86 0.84
Turkey 1.27 0.39*** 0.77*** 0.88* 1.24** 1.59** 1.66* 0.28*** 0.65*** 0.86** 1.14 1.49***
UK/Ireland Omitted 0.07*** 0.60* 0.50** 0.88 1.26 1.61 0.21*** 0.44*** 0.66*** 1.38*** 1.63***
USA/Canada Omitted 1.30 0.08*** 0.79 1.79 3.96*** 2.07 0.51*** 0.48*** 0.72** 1.07 1.49**
Yugoslavia 0.90 0.26*** 0.64*** 0.71*** 1.06 1.38** 0.61* 0.35*** 0.67*** 0.70*** 1.24*** 1.48***
Note: The regressions also include controls for parity, parental composition, cohort, metropolitan residence, educational attainment and year dummies.a Omitted due to small numbers of observations.* p< 0.1.** p< 0.5.*** p< 0.01.
K.
Scott,
M.
Stan
fors
/ A
dv
an
ces in
Life C
ou
rse R
esearch
16
(20
11
) 1
90
–2
04
20
0
Table 5
Impact of gender interactions on the propensity to enter parenthood for women relative to men in the same category, 1990–2005. Relative hazards.
Woman�Second
generation
Woman�Primary
education
Woman�University
education
Woman�Welfare
Woman�Student
Woman�Unemployed/
non-participant
Woman�Low income
Woman�High income
Woman�Top income
Sweden 1.29*** 0.95** 1.44 0.62*** 0.86*** 0.98 0.79*** 0.71***
Chile 1.24 1.42*** 0.73** 1.20 0.89 1.11 1.12 0.85 1.50*
Czechoslovakia 1.25 0.77 0.94 1.08 0.63 0.80 0.48*** 0.71** 0.60***
Denmark 1.02 1.27*** 1.05 0.72 0.68** 1.13 0.89* 0.78*** 0.69***
Finland 1.05* 1.33*** 0.95*** 0.66*** 0.80*** 1.03 0.94** 0.80*** 0.78***
Germany 1.16 1.36*** 1.05 1.17 0.82 0.83** 0.94 0.92 0.80***
Greece 1.48*** 0.96 0.94 2.30 0.70 0.92 0.90 0.96 0.88
Hungary 0.83 1.36*** 1.00 1.78 0.70 0.85 0.84 0.83* 0.75**
Lebanon 1.02 1.41** 0.63** 0.61 1.63 1.05 0.77 0.29*** 0.38***
Norway 0.89 1.21*** 0.88** 0.43** 0.77 1.10 1.04 0.94 0.88*
Poland 1.14 1.38*** 0.95 2.11 0.61** 0.76** 0.84 0.82 0.75**
Syria 0.95 1.51** 0.72 1.79 0.67 0.97 0.81 0.61* 0.54*
Turkey 1.38*** 1.24*** 0.74*** 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.79*** 0.71*** 0.69**
UK/Ireland 0.88 1.26 0.92 1.24 0.44** 0.85 0.76* 0.85 0.85
USA/Canada 0.84 1.21 0.94 Omitteda 0.78 0.81 0.75 0.69* 0.76
Yugoslavia 1.08 1.23*** 0.86*** 0.88 0.75* 0.87* 1.01 0.82*** 0.69***
Note: The regressions also include controls for parity, parental composition, cohort, metropolitan residence, educational attainment, labor market attachment and income, and year dummies.a Omitted due to small numbers of observations.* p< 0.1.** p< 0.5.*** p< 0.01.
K.
Scott,
M.
Stan
fors
/ A
dv
an
ces in
Life C
ou
rse R
esearch
16
(20
11
) 1
90
–2
04
2
01
in1.5
5.
inmandithSwcogrthhoit
a Ssegedethmth
pavetoNoponipathlabfacagrSwMteotthThdefasocotothconodealspatiomwinsethch
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204202
dividuals belonging to the second generation than for the generation.
Concluding discussion
In this study we use register-based information on thedividual’s education, income, and labor market attach-ent together with information on parental compositiond national origin in order to examine to what extentfferent economic activities and social experiences affecte transition to parenthood among men and women ineden. We believe that the findings of this article
ntribute to the understanding of the long-term demo-aphic consequences of integration. We find that duringe period 1990–2005 there is considerable adjustment tost country behavior among children of immigrants when
comes to the transition to parenthood. The adjustment towedish childbearing behavior is comprehensive among
cond generation men and women, and works via the 1.5neration. It is evident that this adjustment process istermined by different economic activities, workingrough the income effect. The patterns are similar foren and women, but gender differences exist in the senseat effects are more articulate for women.In line with our expectations, men and women whose
rents come from the neighboring Nordic countries arery similar to individuals of Swedish origin when it comes
the transition to parenthood. The second generation ofrdic descent are very similar to the native-born Swedishpulation when it comes to determinants and mecha-sms, and they have higher propensities to enterrenthood, net of all factors. This is not surprising sinceey should integrate more easily than other groups in theor market as well as to ideals for example regarding
mily formation, given similar culture and, at least in theses of Denmark and Norway, similar language. Theoups that stand out as differing substantially from theedish pattern are individuals of Eastern European and
iddle Eastern descent, with the former showing consis-ntly lower propensities to enter parenthood thanherwise comparable individuals of Swedish origin, ande latter having elevated propensities to have a first birth.e behavior of the second generation of Middle Easternscent could be seen as an adherence to non-European
mily formation patterns (i.e., high fertility) and a largercio-cultural distance between source and destinationuntries that slow down the adjustment process relative
other immigrant groups. The childbearing behavior ofe second generation with parents from Eastern Europeuld, in turn, be seen as a reflection of lower fertilityrms (cf. Billari & Kohler, 2004). Taken together, theviations from the Swedish childbearing pattern couldo be seen as a reflection of the reasons behind theirrents’ immigration decision (e.g., labor force participa-n or refugee migration). Motivation and value trans-
ission is therefore likely to disseminate in various waysithin groups, and not necessarily equally for all. It isteresting to note that there is a clear pattern ofgmentation, irrespective of national background, fore groups that differ the most from the Swedishildbearing pattern, especially among women. This
means that, whether from Chile, Lebanon, Poland orTurkey, there is a distinct difference between the loweducated that have highly elevated propensities to enterparenthood, and the highly educated that have signifi-cantly lower propensities to have a first birth. There areobviously not only differences across groups with differentnational backgrounds, but also within different nationalgroups. This segmentation is significantly more articulateamong women. We do not know, however, whether this isdue to choice or necessity, that is whether some womenare channeled from the labor market into more family-oriented activities because they agree with more conser-vative attitudes or because they have labor marketproblems.
Not only is educational attainment negatively associ-ated with having a first birth but even more so is being anenrolled student. Given the compressed structure ofvarious life course transitions and markers of adulthood,being a student obviously complicates the transition toparenthood significantly more for women than for men.Clearly, education and having children are not verycompatible since both are challenging and time consum-ing activities, and students are generally on a tightbudget.
It is evident that the propensity to have a child is higherfor individuals who have an attachment to the labormarket than individuals who are students, unemployed orotherwise not participating in the labor force, irrespectiveof gender, generation, and national background. This is athorough manifestation of the fact that, in the Nordiccountries, childbearing and labor force participation arenot competing activities. Rather, labor force participationis a precondition for family formation, working throughthe income effect for all prospective parents. The strongeconomic incentives are gender neutral, but since womenstill take the main responsibility not only for childbearingbut also for childrearing, they are the most affected by thesystem and have the most to gain from complying with it.There is a clear positive association between income andhaving a first birth, irrespective of gender (see Tables 4aand 4b). From Table 5, we see that the income effect isstronger for men than for women. This does not necessarilyimply that more women remain childless than men butrather gender differences when it comes to the associationbetween income and the timing of first births. Unlike whatcould be expected, there is a common adherence to thepositive income effect noted before and not muchindication of segmented assimilation. Instead, the groupswhere the gender differences are the most significant areactually the aforementioned groups of Eastern Europeanand Middle Eastern descent. This could, at least partly, bean indication of some second generation women beingmore motivated to have a career than others.
To conclude, we ask whether the adjustment to aSwedish pattern with respect to first births reported in thisstudy is a question of assimilation or socialization? In orderto find an answer to this, we have consistently comparedsecond generation men and women to otherwise compa-rable individuals of native-born Swedish origin as well asto individuals with similar national background belongingto the 1.5 generation. In line with assimilation theory there
stosthgSgathswcowthobvthuaelev
A
T
B
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204 203
hould not be much difference when it comes to transition parenthood between individuals belonging to the
econd generation and the 1.5 generation, but shouldere be an effect of socialization at work, the second
eneration should be more like those of native-bornwedish origin than individuals belonging to the 1.5eneration. Overall, our results render strong support tossimilation and adjustment but when delving deeper intoe mechanisms, we find that there is an indication of
ocialization at work when it comes to education but not sohen it comes to labor market status and income. When it
omes to the impact of primary and university educationn the propensity to enter parenthood relative to other-ise comparable individuals with secondary education,e second generation is much more similar to individuals
f native-born Swedish origin than are individualselonging to the 1.5 generation. Moreover, there is moreariation with respect to education and generation, thanere is with respect to labor market status. We may
nderstand this adjustment pattern by considering choicend economic incentives. The choice of how muchducation to beget and whether to move on to highervels of education or not is subject to preferences and
alues that may be specific to the origin country and
change slowly with time in the destination country andacross generations; whereas labor market status on theother hand reflects individuals’ responses to economicincentives that in Sweden are supported by institutionalfactors, affecting all individuals in a similar way. Theeffects of various forms of participation and non-partici-pation in the labor force do not vary greatly between thosewith immigrant background and the native Swedish-born.Among all sub-groups, we find a higher propensity to beginchildbearing among those who are established in the labormarket and have a fairly good income, which is a rationalresponse to economic incentives. In this respect, we cansee that labor market integration is the key to other kindsof integration; in this case it leads to demographicintegration as well.
Acknowledgements
This article is part of the research projects Gender,
competence, and careers and Immigrant Gaps in Labour
Supply and Labour Market Attachment. The authorsacknowledge financial support from the Swedish ResearchCouncil and the Swedish Council for Working Life andSocial Research.
ppendix A
able A1
irths by gender and national background, 1990–2005.
All 1.5 generation Second generation
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Sweden 17,772 20,033
Chile 1,261 1,689 1,112 1,447 149 242
Czechoslovakia 650 663 190 183 460 480
Denmark 4,581 5,024 1,001 947 3,580 4,077
Finland 27,672 31,487 5,261 5,129 22,411 26,358
Germany 4,886 5,210 400 424 4,486 4,786
Greece 1,170 1,178 389 230 781 948
Hungary 1,375 1,453 168 202 1,207 1,251
Iran 277 474 204 379 73 95
Lebanon 415 863 350 732 65 131
Norway 4,182 4,612 592 726 3,590 3,886
Poland 1,428 1,771 659 776 769 995
Syria 273 541 213 421 60 120
Turkey 2,233 2,744 1,373 1,420 860 1,324
UK/Ireland 945 1,014 280 242 665 772
USA/Canada 583 700 194 223 389 477
Yugoslavia 5,045 5,774 1,469 1,484 3,576 4,290
Total 74,748 85,230 13,855 14,965 43,121 50,232
Re
Ab
Alb
An
An
An
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Bil
Bla
Bla
Bo
Ch
Dr
Dr
Ed
For
For
Fra
Ga
Ga
Go
K. Scott, M. Stanfors / Advances in Life Course Research 16 (2011) 190–204204
ferences
basi-Shavazi, M., & McDonald, P. (2000). Fertility and multiculturalism:Immigrant fertility in Australia, 1977–1991. International MigrationReview, 34, 215–242.
a, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilationand contemporary immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
dersson, G. (2004). Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns offoreign-born women in Sweden. International Migration Review, 38,747–775.
dersson, G., & Scott, K. (2005). Labour-market status and first-timeparenthood: The experience of immigrant women in Sweden, 1981–97. Population Studies, 59, 21–38.
dersson, G., & Scott, K. (2007). Childbearing dynamics of couples in auniversalistic welfare state. Demographic Research, 17, 897–938.
an, F. D., Swicewood, C. G., & Berg, R. (2000). Mexican-origin fertility: Newpatterns and interpretations. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 404–420.
an, F. D., Cullen, R. M., Stephen, E. H., & Swicegood, C. G. (1984). Genera-tional differences in fertility among Mexican Americans: Implications forassessing the effects of immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 573–582.
cker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.
hrenz, L., Hammarstedt, M., & Mansson, J. (2007). Second-generationimmigrants in the Swedish labour market. International Review of Ap-plied Economics, 21, 157–174.
langer, A., & Gilbert, S. (2003). The fertility of immigrant women and theirCanadian-born daughters. Report on the demographic situation inCanada, Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
ngtsson, T., Lundh, C., & Scott, K. (2005). From boom to bust. The economicintegration of immigrants in Post-war Sweden. In K. F. Zimmerman (Ed.),European migration. What do we know? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
lari, F. C., & Kohler, H-P. (2004). Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility inEurope. Population Studies, 58, 161–176.
u, F. D. (1992). The fertility of immigrant women: Evidence from high-fertility source countries. In G. J. Borjas & R. B. Freeman (Eds.), Immigra-tion and the work force: Economic consequences for the United States andsource areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
u, F. D., Kahn, L., Liu, A. Y.-H., & Papps, K. L. (2008). The transmission ofwomen’s fertility, human capital and work orientation across immigrantgenerations (NBER Working Paper 14388). Cambridge: NBER.
yd, M., & Grieco, E. M. (1998). Triumphant transitions: Socioeconomicachievements of the second generation in Canada. International Migra-tion Review, 32, 853–876.
iswick, B. R. (1978). The effect of Americanization on the earnings offoreign-born men. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 897–921.
ibe, M., & Lundh, C. (2008). Intermarriage and immigrant integration inSweden: An exploratory analysis. Acta Sociologica, 51, 329–354.
ibe, M., & Stanfors, M. (2010). Family life in power couples: Continuedchildbearing and union stability among the educational elite in Sweden,1991–2005. Demographic Research, 23, 847–878.
in, P.-A., Lalonde, R. J., & Aslund, O. (2000). Emigration of immigrants andmeasures of immigrant Assimilation: Evidence from Sweden. SwedishEconomic Policy Review, 7, 163–204.
d, K. (1990). Duration of residence in the United States and the fertility ofUS immigrants. International Migration Review, 24, 34–38.
ste, R., & Tienda, M., (1996). What’s behind racial and ethnic fertilitydifferentials? Population and Development Review, 22, Supplement:Fertility in the United States: New Patterns, New Theories, 109–133.
nk, R., & Heuveline, P. (2005). A cross-over in Mexican and Mexican-American fertility rates: Evidence and explanations for an emergingparadox. Demographic Research, 12, 77–104.
ns, H. J. (1992). Comment: Ethnic invention and acculturation: A bumpy-line approach. Journal of American Ethnic History, 11, 42–52.
rssen, J., & Nicolaas, H. (2008). Fertility of Turkish and Moroccan women inthe Netherlands: Adjustment to native level within one generation.Demographic Research, 19, 1249–1280.
ldstein, S., & Goldstein, A. (1983). Migration and fertility in PeninsularMalaysia: An analysis using life history data. Santa Monica, CA: RandCorporation.
Helgertz, J. (2010). Immigrant careers. Why country of origin matters. Thesis,Department of Economic History, Lund University.
Kahn, J. R. (1988). Immigrant selectivity and fertility adaptation in the UnitedStates. Social Forces, 67, 108–127.
Landale, N. S., & Hauan, S. M. (1996). Migration and premarital childbearingamong Puerto Rican women. Demography, 33, 429–442.
Lindstrom, D. P., & Saucedo, G. S. (2002). The short- and long-term effects ofUS migration experience on Mexican women’s fertility. Social Forces, 80,1341–1369.
Mayer, J., & Riphahn, R. T. (2000). Fertility assimilation of immigrants:Evidence from count data models. Journal of Population Economics, 13,241–261.
Milewski, N. (2007). First child of immigrant workers and their descendantsin West Germany: Interrelation of events, disruption, or adaptation?Demographic Research, 17, 859–896.
Milewski, N. (2010). Immigrant fertility in West Germany: Is there a sociali-zation effect in transitions to second and third births? European Journalof Population, 26, 297–323.
Ng, E., & Nault, F. (1997). Fertility among recent immigrant women toCanada, 1991: An examination of the disruption hypothesis. Interna-tional Migration, 35, 559–580.
Osterberg, T. (2000). Economic perspectives on immigrants and intergenera-tional transmissions. Thesis, Department of Economics, Gothenburg Uni-versity.
Parrado, E., & Morgan, S. P. (2008). Intergenerational fertility among Hispanicwomen: New evidence of immigrant assimilation. Demography, 45, 651–671.
Portes, A. (1995). Children of immigrants: Segmented assimilation and itsdeterminants. In A. Portes (Ed.), The economic sociology of immigration:Essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship. Russell Sage: NewYork.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmentedassimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, 530, 74–96.
Rindfuss, R. R. (1976). Annual fertility rates from census data on ownchildren: Comparisons with vital statistics data for the United States.Demography, 13, 235–249.
Rooth, D-O., & Ekberg, J. (2003). Unemployment and earnings forsecond generation immigrants in Sweden. Ethnic backgroundand parent composition. Journal of Population Economics, 16, 787–814.
Rosenwaike, I. (1973). Two generations of Italians in America: Their fertilityexperience. International Migration Review, 7, 180–271.
Scott, K. (1999). The immigrant experience: Changing employment and incomepatterns in Sweden, 1970–1993. Lund: Lund University Press.
Scott, K., & Stanfors, M. (2010a). Second generation mothers—Do the chil-dren of immigrants adjust their fertility to host country norms? In T.Salzman, B. Edmonston, & J. Reymer (Eds.), Demographic aspects ofmigration. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Scott, K., & Stanfors, M. (2010b). Second generation immigrants and age atparenthood. A longitudinal study of the intergenerational transmission offertility behavior in contemporary Sweden. Paper presented at the PAA2010 in Dallas.
Stanfors, M. (2003). Education, labor force participation and changing fertilitypatterns. A study of women and socioeconomic change in twentieth centurySweden. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Stephen, G., & Bean, F. (1992). Assimilation, disruption, and the fertility ofMexican American women in the United States. International MigrationReview, 26, 67–88.
Therneau, T. M., & Grambsch, P. M. (2000). Modeling survival data. Extendingthe Cox model. New York: Springer.
Waldinger, R., & Feliciano, C. (2004). Will the new second generationexperience downward assimilation? Segmented assimilation re-assessed. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27, 376–402.
Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immi-grant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology,23, 63–95.