Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socialisation or Institutional Context: What Determines the First and Second Birth Behaviour of East–West German Migrants?

  • Published:
European Journal of Population Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the more than two decades since German reunification, a convergence of total fertility rates in the eastern and western parts of the country has occurred. However, east–west differences remain in the timing, number, and spacing of births. The aim of this paper was to gain a better understanding of the relative importance of cultural norms and institutional contexts in the persistence of these differences by examining the fertility behaviour patterns of east–west migrants. Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel for the years 1990–2011, and applying event history modelling, the first and second birth behaviour patterns of female east–west German migrants are compared to those of the non-mobile populations in the eastern and western parts of the country. The migrants’ first and second birth risks were found to lie between those of non-mobile eastern and western Germans. It is known that migrants are a selected group with respect to their socio-economic characteristics, value orientations, and partners’ characteristics. This selectivity appears to explain the second birth behaviour of migrants. For first births, the differences between the migrants and the eastern Germans were shown to be even greater after controlling for selective characteristics. For both birth orders, there is evidence for socialisation and adaptation effects, but not for progressive adaptation over time. The effect of an east–west migrant being partnered with a western German was accounted for, but did not seem to accelerate adaptation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We employ east(ern) and west(ern) Germany as synonymous for the areas of the former East Germany (German Democratic Republic) and West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany), respectively.

  2. Bauernschuster and Rainer (2012) showed that east–west migrants who had on average already spent more than 6 years in western Germany share the gender role attitudes of non-mobile eastern Germans.

  3. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/einigvtr/gesamt.pdf.

  4. For more detailed discussions of these hypotheses, see, e.g. Kulu and Milewski (2007), Mussino and van Raalte (2013), Milewski (2009), or Schmid and Kohls (2009).

  5. Moreover, attributing low fertility in the years immediately after migration to disruption might be problematic, because the same effect would be produced by postponement because of a planned return migration. One-fifth of east–west migrants return to the east, predominantly within the first four years of migration (Fuchs-Schündeln and Schündeln 2009).

  6. Although choosing such a partner could in itself be a sign of openness to the receiving culture.

  7. These have been validated by the author with the GSOEP data used for the present analysis (Vatterrott 2011: 41).

  8. While it would be interesting to compare female and male east–west migrants, in our dataset the sample of women is already rather small, which affects the statistical power of the models. Because the majority of east–west migrants are female (Büchel and Schwarze 1994; Hunt 2000; Schneider et al. 2008; Vatterrott 2011: 32), and because in the GSOEP male fertility histories have only been collected for those with a first interview in 2000 and later (Schmitt 2012: 93), the male sample is too small for a meaningful separate analysis. In our dataset, we observe smaller samples for male than for female east–west migrants at risk of having a first child (311 male and 377 female) and a second child (147 male and 209 female). Men have fewer first and second children than women (61 first and 46 second children for male east–west migrants; 90 first and 61 second children for female east–west migrants).

  9. To define the region of origin of the respondents, we combine information on the sample affiliation of the respondent, generated information on the person’s place of residence before the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, and self-provided information on an educational or vocational degree attained in the GDR. We follow the information on the residence before 1989 if it does not conflict with a combination of the other types of information. The region of origin in combination with the current region of residence defines the migrant status. Furthermore, we categorise respondents as east–west migrants who are migrants to western Germany and self-report as coming from eastern Germany. Individuals for whom none of the above-mentioned information applies are not included in the sample. We censor for the special case of east–west migration within Berlin by excluding episodes in West Berlin.

  10. Measured in the GSOEP based on a classification of values originally developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) (see Headey 2008: 219).

  11. The original options are very important, fairly important, somewhat important, and not important. Because the percentages in the latter three categories are sometimes very low, we group them together into one category of not very important, thus creating dichotomous variables.

  12. As this information is not collected on a yearly basis, it is projected forward. Although substantial missing values remain, we refrain from backwards projection of the items to avoid anticipatory analysis (Hoem and Keryenfeld 2006). Observations with missing values are controlled for, but the effects for these groups are not shown in the models.

  13. The last category mainly covers women with a partner of non-German origin.

  14. The remaining categories are as follows: west non-migrants—no partner or partner’s origin not available, east non-migrants—no partner or partner’s origin not available, and east–west migrants—no partner or partner’s origin not available.

  15. This is due to the construction of the migrant status variable. Migrations can occur during the period of observation or can be inferred from other information if they happened before the respondent entered the panel. For those with migrations before the panel, we only know the year of migration if the respondent belongs to subsample D and has provided information on the year of migration.

  16. We suppose that the differences in the results may be explained by the fact that Arránz Becker et al. (2010) use a sample that is more selective than ours and they exclude cohorts born before 1970. Analyses not shown here confirm that for these cohorts the positive effect of denomination on birth risks is strongest.

References

  • Abbasi-Shavazi, M. J., & McDonald, P. (2002). A comparison of fertility patterns of European immigrants in Australia with those in the countries of origin. Genus, 58(1), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, M. (2004). Child-free and unmarried: Changes in the life planning of young East German women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1170–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, G. (2004). Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns of foreign-born women in Sweden. International Migration Review, 38(2), 747–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreß, H. J., Golsch, K., & Schmidt, A. W. (2013). Applied panel data analysis for economic and social surveys. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arránz Becker, O., & Lois, D. (2010). Unterschiede im Heiratsverhalten westdeutscher, ostdeutscher und mobiler Frauen: Zur Bedeutung von Transformationsfolgen und soziokulturellen Orientierungen. Soziale Welt, 61(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arránz Becker, O., Lois, D., & Nauck, B. (2010). Differences in fertility patterns between East and West German women: Disentangling the roles of cultural background and of the transformation process. Comparative Population Studies—Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, 35(1), 7–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauernschuster, S., & Rainer, H. (2012). Political regimes and the family: How sex-role attitudes continue to differ in reunified Germany. Journal of Population Economics, 25(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, L., Klärner, A., & von der Lippe, H. (2008). Job insecurity and the timing of parenthood: A comparison between Eastern and Western Germany. European Journal of Population, 24(3), 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehnke, M. (2013). Hochschulbildung und Kinderlosigkeit: Deutsch-deutsche Unterschiede. In D. Konietzka & M. Kreyenfeld (Eds.), Ein Leben ohne Kinder: Kinderlosigkeit in Deutschland (2nd ed., pp. 79–89). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, W., Klenner, C., & Klammer, U. (2010). Wenn Frauen das Geld verdienen: Eine empirische Annäherung an das Phänomen der “Familienernährerin”. WSI Diskussionspapiere, 170.

  • Brück, T., & Peters, H. (2009). 20 years of German Unification: Evidence on income convergence and heterogeneity. IZA Discussion Paper, 4454.

  • Brücker, H., & Trübswetter, P. (2004). Do the best go West? An analysis of the self-selection of employed East–West migrants in Germany. IZA Discussion Paper, 986.

  • Büchel, F., & Schwarze, J. (1994). Die Migration von Ost- nach Westdeutschland: Absicht und Realisierung. Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, 27(1), 43–52.

  • Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung. (2012). (Keine) Lust auf Kinder?. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro Martin, T., & Rosero-Bixby, L. (2011). Motherhood and transnational borders: Immigrants’ women fertility in Spain. Revista Internacional De Sociologia, 69(M1), 105–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleves, M. A., Gould, W. B., Gutierrez, R. G., & Marchenko, Y. V. (2002). An introduction to survival analysis using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, P. T. (2013). Where you come from or where you live? Examining the cultural and institutional explanation of generalized trust using migration as a natural experiment. European Sociological Review, 29(1), 114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorbritz, J., & Ruckdeschel, K. (2009). Die langsame Annäherung: Demografisch relevante Einstellungsunterschiede und der Wandel der Lebensformen in West- und Ostdeutschland. In I. Cassens, M. Luy, & R. Scholz (Eds.), Die Bevölkerung in Ost-und Westdeutschland: Demografische, gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Entwicklungen seit der Wende (pp. 261–294). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Drasch, K. (2012). Between familial imprinting and institutional regulation: Family related employment interruptions of women in Germany before and after the German unification. IAB-Discussion Paper, 9.

  • Farwick, A. (2009). Internal migration: Challenges and perspectives for the research infrastructure. RatSWD Working Paper, 97.

  • Fuchs-Schündeln, N., & Schündeln, M. (2009). Who stays, who goes, who returns? East–west migration within Germany since reunification. Economics of Transition, 17(4), 703–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielli, G., Paterno, A., & White, M. (2007). The impact of origin region and internal migration on Italian fertility. Demographic Research, 17(24), 705–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernandt, J., & Pfeiffer, F. (2008). Wage convergence and inequality after unification: (East) Germany in transition. SOEP paper, 107.

  • Goldstein, J. R., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2011). Has East Germany overtaken West Germany? Recent trends in order-specific fertility. Population and Development Review, 37(3), 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunow, D., & Müller, D. (2012). Kulturelle und strukturelle Faktoren bei der Rückkehr in den Beruf: Ostdeutsche, westdeutsche und ost-west-mobile Mütter im Vergleich. IAB-Discussion Paper, 2.

  • Guetto, R., & Panichella, N. (2013). Geographical mobility and reproductive choices of Italian men. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 302–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, G. (1993). Event history analysis for left-truncated data. Sociological Methodology, 23, 217–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haisken-DeNew, J. P., & Frick, J. R. (Eds.) (2005). Desktop companion to the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)—Version 8.0. Berlin: http://www.diw.de/deutsch/sop/service/dtc/dtc.pdf

  • Headey, B. (2008). Life goals matter to happiness: A revision of set-point theory. Social Indicators Research, 86(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Headey, B., Muffels, R., & Wagner, G. G. (2012). Parents transmit happiness along with associated values and behaviors to their children—A lifelong happiness dividend? SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, 492-2012.

  • Heiland, F. (2004). Trends in East–West German migration from 1989 to 2002. Demographic Research, 11(7), 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, J., & Keryenfeld, M. (2006). Anticipatory analysis and its alternatives in life-course research. Demographic Research, 15(16/17), 461–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huinink, J., & Konietzka, D. (2007). Familiensoziologie: Eine Einführung. Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huinink, J., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2006). Family formation in times of abrupt social and economic change. In M. Diewald, A. Goedicke, & K. U. Mayer (Eds.), After the fall of the wall: Life courses in the transformation of East Germany (pp. 170–190). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. (2000). Why do people still live in Eastern Germany? IZA Discussion Paper, 123.

  • Keller, S., & Marten, C. (2012). Jugend (wieder-)vereinigt? Die Familien und Berufserwartungen ost- und westdeutscher Jugendlicher [Sonderheft]. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 9, 299–318.

  • Kluckhohn, F. R., &  Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klüsener, S., & Goldstein, J. R. (2009). Räumliche Analyse des Geburtenverhaltens in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Die Integration soziologischer, geografischer und historischer Forschungsansätze. In Max-Planck-Gesellschaft/Generalverwaltung (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2009. München: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.

  • Klüsener, S., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2009). Nichteheliche Geburten im regionalen Vergleich. Nationalatlas aktuell, 3(10).

  • Kotte, M., & Ludwig, V. (2011). Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: The role of contagion. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2003). Crisis or adaptation—Reconsidered: A comparison of East and West German fertility patterns in the first six years after the ‘Wende’. European Journal of Population, 19(3), 303–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., & Geisler, E. (2006). Müttererwerbstätigkeit in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 18(3), 333–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., & Konietzka, D. (2008). Bleibt alles anders: Geburten- und Familienentwicklung in Ost- und Westdeutschland. In N. Werz (Ed.), Demografischer Wandel (pp. 50–70). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., & Konietzka, D. (2010). Nichteheliche Geburten. In J. R. Goldstein, M. Kreyenfeld, J. Huinink, D. Konietzka, & H. Trappe (Eds.), Familie und Partnerschaft in Ost- und Westdeutschland: Ergebnisse im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Demographic Differences in Life Course Dynamics in Eastern and Western Germany’ (pp. 8–9). Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., Konietzka, D., & Walke, R. (2011). Dynamik und Determinanten nichtehelicher Elternschaft in Ost- und Westdeutschland. In J. Brüderl, L. Castiglioni, & N. Schumann (Eds.), Partnerschaft, Fertilität und intergenerationale Beziehungen: Ergebnisse der ersten Welle des Beziehungs- und Familienpanels (pp. 155–174). Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., & Krapf, S. (2010). Soziale Ungleichheit und Kinderbetreuung: eine Analyse der sozialen und ökonomischen Determinanten der Nutzung von Kindertageseinrichtungen. In R. Becker & W. Lauterbach (Eds.), Bildung als Privileg: Erklärungen und Befunde zu den Ursachen der Bildungsungleichheit (pp. 107–128). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., Scholz, R., Peters, F., & Wlosnewski, I. (2010). The German Birth Order Register: Order-specific data generated from perinatal statistics and statistics on out-of-hospital births 2001–2008. MPIDR Working Paper, WP 2010-10.

  • Kröhnert, S. (2009). Ausprägung und Ursachen geschlechtsselektiver Abwanderung aus den neuen Bundesländern. PhD Dissertation, Humboldt-University, Berlin.

  • Kulu, H. (2004). Fertility of internal migrants: Comparison between Austria and Poland. MPIDR Working Paper, WP 2004-22.

  • Kulu, H. (2005). Migration and fertility: Competing hypotheses re-examined. European Journal of Population, 21(1), 51–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulu, H. & González-Ferrer, A. (2013). Family dynamics among immigrants and their descendants in Europe: Current research and opportunities. Families and Societies Working Paper Series, 3.

  • Kulu, H., & Milewski, N. (2007). Family change and migration in the life course: An introduction. Demographic Research, 17(19), 567–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom, D. P., & Saucedo, S. G. (2007). The interrelationship between fertility, family maintenance, and Mexico-US migration. Demographic Research, 17(28), 821–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundström, K. E., & Andersson, G. (2012). Labor market status, migrant status, and first childbearing in Sweden. Demographic Research, 27(25), 719–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, K. U., & Schulze, E. (2009). Die Wendegeneration: Lebensverläufe des Jahrgangs 1971. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer, S. M. (2013). Reconsidering the effect of education on East–West migration in Germany. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 210–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milewski, N. (2009). Fertility of immigrants: A two-generational approach in Germany. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, C. (1993). Migration dynamics: A life course approach. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussino, E., & Strozza, S. (2012). The fertility of immigrants after arrival: The Italian case. Demographic Research, 26(4), 97–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussino, E., & van Raalte, A. (2013). Immigrant fertility: A comparative study between Italy and Russia. International Migration, 51(2), 148–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedoluzhko, L., & Andersson, G. (2007). Migration and first-time parenthood: Evidence from Kyrgyzstan. Demographic Research, 17(25), 741–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okun, B. S., & Kagya, S. (2012). Fertility change among post-1989 immigrants to Israel from the Former Soviet Union. International Migration Review, 46(4), 792–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pötzsch, O. (2012a). Geburten in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pötzsch, O. (2012b). Geburtenfolge und Geburtenabstand—neue Daten und Befunde. Wirtschaft und Statistik, 2, 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with Stata. College Station: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossier, C., Brachet, S., & Salles, A. (2011). Family policies, norms about gender roles and fertility decisions in France and Germany. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, S., & Kohls, M. (2009). Reproductive behaviour of migrant women in Germany: Data, patterns and determinants. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 7, 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (2012). BIOBIRTHM—The birth biography of male respondents in the SOEP. In J. Goebel (Ed.), Biography and life history data in the German Socio-Economic Panel (pp. 92–96). Berlin: DIW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, N. F., Ruppenthal, S., Lück, D., & Rügers, H. (2008). Germany: A country of locally attached but highly mobile people. In N. F. Schneider & G. Meil (Eds.), Mobile living across Europe I: Relevance and diversity of job-related spatial mobility in six European countries (pp. 105–147). Opladen: Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schüller, F., & Wingerter, C. (2013). Arbeitsmarkt. In Statistisches Bundesamt & Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (Eds.), Datenreport 2013 (pp. 113–125). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, W. (1997). Integration of ‘old’ and ‘new’ immigrant groups in Germany. Vierteljahreshefte der Wirtschaftsforschung, 66(1), 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobotka, T. (2008). The rising importance of migrants for childbearing in Europe. Demographic Research, 19(9), 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit. (2012). Arbeitsmarkt in Deutschland: Zeitreihen bis 2011. Nürnberg: Bundesagentur für Arbeit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauder, J. (2011). Regionale Ungleichheit auf dem Partnermarkt? Die makrostrukturellen Rahmenbedingungen der Partnerwahl in regionaler Perspektive. Soziale Welt, 62(1), 41–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatterrott, A. (2011). The fertility behaviour of East to West German migrants. MPIDR Working Paper, WP 2011-13.

  • Vatterrott, A. (2012). Selektion, Adaption oder Sozialisation? Eine Analyse nichtehelicher Geburten von Ost-West-Migrantinnen innerhalb Deutschlands. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, Sonderheft, 9, 147–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. SOEP paper, 1.

  • Waller, L., Berrington, A., & Raymer, J. (2012). Understanding recent migrant fertility in the United Kingdom. Centre for Population Change Working Paper, 27.

  • Wendt, H. (1994). Von der Massenflucht zur Binnenwanderung: Die deutsch-deutschen Wanderungen vor und nach der Vereinigung. Geographische Rundschau, 46(3), 136–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werz, N. (2001). Abwanderung aus den neuen Bundesländern von 1989 bis 2000. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 39–40, 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M. J., Moreno, L., & Guo, S. (1995). The interrelation of fertility and geographic mobility in Peru: A hazards model analysis. International Migration Review, 29(2), 492–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willekens, F. J. (1991). Understanding the interdependence between parallel careers. In J. J. Siegers, J. de Jong-Gierveld, & E. van Imhoff (Eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility: A rational-choice approach (pp. 11–31). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Windzio, M. (2008). The “exit option” of labour migration from East to West-Germany: Individual and contextual determinants of geographic mobility of unemployed workers. Migremus Working Paper, 2.

  • Zaiceva, A. (2010). East–West migration and gender: Is there a differential effect for migrant women? Labour Economics, 17(2), 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Previous versions of this paper have been presented at the European Population Conference 2010, the Tenth Conference of the European Sociological Association, the Seventh International Young Scholar German Socio-Economic Panel Symposium, and at workshops at the University of Bielefeld, University of Bremen, and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Participants in these presentations are gratefully acknowledged for their comments and suggestions. The paper has benefited greatly from comments from anonymous referees and by colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the University of Rostock. The research presented in this paper was supported by a PhD fellowship from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany

    Anja Vatterrott

Authors
  1. Anja Vatterrott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anja Vatterrott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vatterrott, A. Socialisation or Institutional Context: What Determines the First and Second Birth Behaviour of East–West German Migrants?. Eur J Population 31, 383–415 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9340-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9340-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation