Advertisement

Intergenerationale Fertilitätstransmission in Ost- und Westdeutschland

  • Anette Eva FasangEmail author
Article

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag diskutiert intergenerationale Fertilitätstransmission: Wie ähnlich sind sich Eltern und ihre Kinder in ihrem fertilen Verhalten? Zunächst wird die Bedeutung intergenerationaler Fertilitätstransmission für die Bevölkerungsentwicklung erläutert und ein Überblick über theoretische Mechanismen der Fertilitätstransmission gegeben. Auf Basis der Daten des Nationalen Bildungspanels (NEPS) werden Fertilitätskorrelationen und Quantilregressionen für Ost- und Westdeutschland präsentiert. Für die untersuchten Kohorten (1944–1966) zeigt sich eine relativ starke intergenerationale Fertilitätstransmission in Westdeutschland, aber kein Effekt in Ostdeutschland. In Westdeutschland besteht ein U-förmiger Zusammenhang: Intergenerationale Effekte sind in kleinen und in großen Familien besonders stark. Im Einklang mit bisheriger Forschung stützen die Ergebnisse, dass Fertilitätstransmission in demokratischen liberalen Gesellschaften stärker ist als in regulativen restriktiven Gesellschaften. Die für entwickelte Gesellschaften übliche intergenerationale Fertilitätstransmission scheint vom regulativen totalitären DDR Regime für die untersuchten Kohorten nahezu völlig außer Kraft gesetzt worden zu sein. Die Fertilität einer Generation entsteht somit an der Schnittstelle von familieninternen Dynamiken und makrostrukturellen Kontextfaktoren.

Schlüsselwörter

Fertilität Intergenerationale Transmission Intergenerationale Beziehungen Ost- und Westdeutschland Quantilregression für Zähldaten 

Intergenerational Fertility Transmission in East and West Germany

Abstract

This study addresses intergenerational fertility transmission: How similar is the fertility behavior of parents and their children? I first discuss the implications of intergenerational fertility transmission for population development and review prominent theoretical mechanisms of fertility transmission. Using data from the German National Education Panel (NEPS), fertility transmission in East and West Germany is compared with fertility correlations and quantile regression models for count data. For the analysis cohorts (1944–66) we find relatively strong fertility transmission in West Germany but no effect in East Germany. In West Germany the impact of parents’ fertility is particularly strong in small and in large families. In line with previous research, the results support that intergenerational fertility transmission is stronger in liberal democratic societies compared with regulative restrictive regimes, such as the communist East. The article concludes that the intergenerational continuity in fertility that is usually found in developed societies was disrupted by the regulative communist regime in East Germany. Fertility in one generation therefore is generated at the intersection of family internal dynamics and macro-structural contexts.

Keywords

Fertility Intergenerational transmission Intergenerational relationships East and West Germany Quantile count model 

Literatur

  1. Acock, Alan C., und Vern L. Bengtson. 1978. On the relative influence of mothers and fathers: A covariance analysis of political and religious socialization. Journal of Marriage and Family 40:519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, Paul R. 2000. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family 62:1269–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amato, Paul R., und Danelle D. DeBoer. 2001. The transmission of marital instability across generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family 63:1038–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderton, Douglas L., Noriko O. Tsuya, Lee L. Bean und Geraldine P. Mineau. 1987. Intergenerational transmission of relative fertility and life course patterns. Demography 24:467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aßmann, Christian, und Sabine Zinn. 2011. NEPS data manual. Starting cohort 6: Adult education and lifelong learning [supplement c] weighting. National Eucation Panel Study Data Center (NEPS) Documentation. Bamberg: Universität Bamberg.Google Scholar
  6. Axinn, William G., Marin E. Clarkberg und Arland Thornton. 1994. Family influences on family size preferences. Demography 31:65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barber, Jennifer S. 2000. Intergenerational influences on the entry into parenthood: Mothers’ preferences for family and nonfamily behavior. Social Forces 79:319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barber, Jennifer S. 2001. The intergenerational transmission of age at first birth among married and unmarried men and women. Social Science Research 30:219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barber, Jennifer S., und William G. Axinn. 1998. The impact of parental pressure for grandchildren on young people’s entry into cohabitation and marriage. Population Studies 52:129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Van Bavel, Jan, und Jan Kok. 2009. Social control and the intergenerational transmission of age at marriage in rural Holland, 1850–1940. Population 64:343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Bengtson, Vern L. 2001. Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family 63:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bengtson, Vern L., Timothy J. Biblarz und Robert E. Roberts. 2002. How families still matter. A longitudinal study of youth in two generations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bernardi, Laura. 2003. Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review 22:527–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Billari, Francesco C., und Hans-Peter Kohler. 2004. Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Population studies 58:161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Billari, Francesco C., Aart C. Liefbroer und Dimiter Philipov. 2006. The postponement of childbearing in Europe: Driving forces and implications. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 4:1–17.Google Scholar
  17. Blau, Peter M., und Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Blossfeld, Hans P., und Andreas Timm. Hrsg. 2003. Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies. Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Blossfeld, Hans P., Günther Roßbach und Jutta von Maurice. Hrsg. 2011. Education as a lifelong process – The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft: Sonderheft 14:51–65.Google Scholar
  20. Bocquet-Appel, J. P., und L. Jakobi. 1993. A test of a path model of biocultural transmission of fertility. Annals of Human Biology 20:335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Booth, Alison L., und Hiau Joo Kee. 2009. Intergenerational transmission of fertility patterns. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 71:183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Breen, Richard. 2004. Social mobility in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brockmann, Hilke. 2001. Girls preferred? Changing patterns of sex preferences in the two German states. European Sociological Review 17:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brückner, Hannah. 2004. Gender inequality in the life course: Social change and stability in West Germany 1975–1995. New York: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Brückner, Hannah, und Karl Ulrich Mayer. 2005. The de-standardization of the life course: What it might mean and if it means anything whether it actually took place. In The structure of the life course. Standardized? Individualized? Differentiated?, Hrsg. Ross Macmillan, 27–54. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Bumpass, Larry, und Hsien-Hen Lu. 2000. Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies 54:29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cameron, Colin A., und Pravin K. Trivedi. 1986. Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics 1:29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Coneus, Katja, und C. Katharina Spiess. 2012. The intergenerational transmission of health in early childhood- evidence from the German socio-economic panel study. Economics and Human Biology 10:89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. De Vries, Jannes, Matthijs Kalmijn und Aart C. Liefbroer. 2009. Intergenerational transmission of Kinship norms? Evidence from siblings in a multi-actor survey. Social Science Research 38:188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Diefenbach, Heike. 1997. Intergenerationale Scheidungstransmission in Deutschland: Relevanz und Erklärungsansätze. In Differenz und Integration: die Zukunft moderner Gesellschaften; Verhandlungen des 28. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie im Oktober 1996 in Dresden, Hrsg. Karl-Siegbert Rehberg. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (DGS). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Diekmann, Andreas, und Henriette Engelhardt. 1999. The social inheritence of divorce: Effects of parent’s family type in postwar Germany. American Sociological Review 64:783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. East, Patricia L. 1998. Impact of adolescent childbearing on families and younger sibling: Effects that increase younger siblings’ risk for early pregnancy. Applied Developmental Science 2:62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. East, Patricia L., und Leanne J. Jacobson. 2001. The younger siblings of teenage mothers: A follow-up of their pregnancy risk. Developmental Psychology 37:254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Elder, Glen H. 1994. Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly 57:4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Elder, Glen H., Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson und Robert Crosnoe. 2003. The emergence and development of life course theory. In Handbook of the Life Course, Hrsg. Jeylan T. Mortimer und Michael J. Shanahan, 3–19. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ellwood, David T., und Christopher Jencks. 2004. The uneven spread of single-parent families: What do we know? Where do we look for answers? In Social Inequality, Hrsg. K.M. Neckerman, 3–78. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Engelhardt, Henriette, Heike Trappe und Jaap Dronkers. 2002. Differences in family policy and the intergenerational transmission of divorce: A comparison between the former East and West Germany. Demographic Research 6:295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fasang, Anette E. 2014. New perspectives on family formation: What can we learn from sequence analysis? In Advances in sequence analysis: Theory, method, applications, Hrsg. Philippe Blanchard, Felix Bühlmann und Jacques-Antoine Gauthier. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Fasang, Anette E., und Marcel Raab. 2014. Beyond transmission: Intergenerational patterns of family formation among middle-class American families. Demography 51:1703–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Freese, Jeremy, Brian Powell und Lala Carr Steelman. 1999. Rebel without a cause or effect: Birth order and social attitudes. American Sociological Review 64:207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goldscheider, Frances. 1997. Recent changes in U.S. young adult living arrangements in comparative perspective. Journal of Family Issues 18:708–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Goldstein, Joshua R., und Michaela Kreyenfeld. 2011. Has East Germany overtaken West Germany? Recent trends in order-specific fertility. Population and Development Review 37:453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haurin, Jean R., und Frank L. Mott. 1990. Adolescent sexual activity in the family context: The impact of older siblings. Demography 27:537–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hilbe, Jospeh M. 2011. Negative binomial regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huestis, Ralph R., und Aline Maxwell. 1932. Does family size run in families? The Journal of Heredity 23:77–79.Google Scholar
  46. Huinink, Johannes, Karl Ulrich Mayer, Heike Solga, Annemette Sørensen und Heike Trappe. 1995. Kollektiv und Eigensinn. Lebensverläufe in der DDR und danach. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson, Nan E., und C. Shannon Stokes. 1976. Family size in successive generations: The effects of birth order, intergenerational change in lifestyle, and familial satisfaction. Demography 13:175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Klüsener, Sebastian, Brienna Perelli-Harris und Nora Sánchez Gassen. 2012. Spatial aspects of the rise of nonmarital fertility across Europe since 1960: The Klüsen role of states and regions in shaping patterns of change. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 29:137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kleinert, Corinna, Britte Matthes, Manfred Anton, Katrin Drasch, Michael Ruland und Annette Trahms. 2011. ALWA–new life course data for Germany. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Journal of Applied Social Science Studies/Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Sozialwissenschaften 131:625–634.Google Scholar
  50. Kohler, Hans-Peter, Joseph L. Rodgers und Kaare Christensen. 1999. Is fertility behavior in our Genes? Findings from a danish twin study. Population and Development Review 25:253–288.Google Scholar
  51. Kolk, Martin. 2013. Understanding transmission of fertility across multiple generations – Socialization or socioeconomics? Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 35:89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kolk, Martin, Daniel Cownden und Magnus Enquist. 2014. Correlations in fertility across generations: can low fertility persist? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2561Google Scholar
  53. Kotte, Markus, und Volker Ludwig. 2012. Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: The role of contagion. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 9:207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuziemko, Ilyana. 2006. Is having babies contagious? Estimating fertility peer effects between siblings. Harvard University, Working Paper. https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/5799/fertility_11_29_06.pdf (Zugegriffen: 18. Nov. 2014).
  55. Larson, Jeffry H., Mark J. Benson, Stephan M. Wilson und Nilufer Medora. 1998. Family of origin influences on marital attitudes and readiness for marriage in late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues 19:750–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leopold, Thomas, und Thorsten Schneider. 2011. Family events and the timing of intergenerational transfers. Social Forces 90:595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leopold, Thomas, Jan Skopek und Marcel Raab. 2011. NEPS Data Manual. Starting cohort 6: Adult education and lifelong learning. National Eucation Panel Study Data Center (NEPS) Documentation. Bamberg: Universität Bamberg.Google Scholar
  58. Leopold, Thomas, Marcel Raab und Henriette Engelhardt. 2014. The transition to parent care: Costs, commitments, and caregiver selection among children. Journal of Marriage and the Family 76:300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Liefbroer, Aart C., und Cees H. Elzinga. 2012. Intergenerational transmission of behavioural patterns: How similar are parents’ and children’s demographic trajectories? Advances in Life Course Research 17:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lyngstad, Torkild Hovde, und Alexia Prskawetz. 2010. Do siblings’ fertility decisions influence each other? Demography 47:923–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Machado, José, und Santos Silva. 2005. Quantiles for counts. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100:1226–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mare, Robert D., und Vida Maralani. 2006. The intergenerational effects of changes in women’s educational attainments. American Sociological Review 71:542–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McLanahan, Sara, und Larry Bumpass. 1988. Intergenerational consequences of family disruption. The American Journal of Sociology 94:130–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McLanahan, Sara, und Christine Percheski. 2008. Family structure and the reproduction of inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology 34:257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Merz, Eva-Maria. 2012. Fertility intentions depend on intergenerational relations: A life course perspective. Family Science 3:237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Meyer, Sibylle, und Eva Schulze. 1985. Von Liebe sprach damals keiner: Familienalltag in der Nachkriegszeit. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  67. Miranda, Alfonso. 2008. Planned fertility and family background: A quantile regression for counts analysis. Journal of Population Economics 21:67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Murphy, Michael. 1999. Is the relationship between fertility of parents and children really weak? Biodemography and Social Biology 46:122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Murphy, Michael. 2012. Intergenerational fertility correlations in contemporary developing counties. American Journal of Human Biology 24:696–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Murphy, Michael. 2013a. Cross-national patterns of intergenerational continuities in childbearing in developed countries. Biodemography and Social Biology 59:101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Murphy, Michael. 2013b. The intergenerational transmission of reproductive behaviour: Comparative perspectives. The History of the Family 18:107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Murphy, Michael, und Duolao Wang. 2001. Family-level continuities in childbearing in low-fertility societies. European Journal of Population 17:75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Murphy, Michael, und Lisbeth B. Knudsen. 2002. The intergenerational transmission of fertility in contemporary Denmark: The effects of number of siblings (full and half), birth order, and whether male or female. Population Studies 56:235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nazio, Tiziana, und Hans-Peter Blossfeld. 2003. The diffusion of cohabitation among young women in West Germany, East Germany and Italy. European Journal of Population 19:47–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pearson, Karl, Alice Lee und Leslie Bramley-Moore. 1899. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. VI. genetic (reproductive) selection: Inheritance of fertility in man, and of fecundity in thoroughbred racehorses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A 192:257–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pollak, Reinhard. 2011. Soziale Mobilität. In Datenreport 2011. Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Hrsg. Statistisches Bundesamt und Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 180–187. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung.Google Scholar
  77. Popenoe, David. 1993. American family decline, 1960–1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and Family 55:527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Preston, Samuel H. 1976. Family sizes of children and family sizes of women. Demography 13:105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Prince Cooke, Lynn. 2011. Gender-class equality in political economies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Pullum, Thomas W., und Douglas A. Wolf. 1991. Correlations between frequencies of kin. Demography 28:391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Raab, Marcel, Anette E. Fasang, Aleksi Karhula und Erola Jani. 2014. Sibling similarity in family formation. Demography 51:2127–2154.Google Scholar
  82. Rippl, Susanne, und Klaus Boehnke. 1995. Authoritarianism: Adolescents from East and West Germany and the United States compared. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1995:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schönpflug, Ute. 2001. Intergenerational transmission of values: The role of transmission belts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32:174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shanahan, Michael J. 2000. Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology 26:667–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Silverstein, Merril, und Vern L. Bengtson. 1997. Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child–parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology 103:429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sulloway, Frank J. 1997. Born to rebel. Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  87. Wenzig, Knut. 2013. Startkohorte 6: Erwachsene (SC6) SUF-Version 3.0.1 Data Manual [Supplement]: Codebook (de). Bamberg: Universität Bamberg, Nationales Bildungspanel (NEPS).Google Scholar
  88. Western, Bruce, Dierdre Bloome und Christine Percheski. 2008. Inequality among American families with children, 1975 to 2005. American Sociological Review 73:903–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Widmer, Eric D. 1997. Influence of older siblings on initiation of sexual intercourse. Journal of Marriage and Family 59:928–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Winkelmann, Rainer, und Klaus F. Zimmermann. 1994. Count data models for demographic data. Mathematical Population Studies 4:205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zimmer, Basil G., und John Fulton. 1980. Size of family, life chances, and reproductive behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family 42:657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WZB-Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für SozialforschungBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations