The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? A Study of the Personal Ideal Family Size among Immigrant Women in Italy The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? A Study of the Personal Ideal Family Size among Immigrant Women in Italy* Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi Abstract: The role of the personal ideal family size for international migrants has rarely been studied in the current debate on fertility and migration in the European context. It is not known to which extent the reduction of fertility observed among immigrants who settle in a country where fertility is lower than in their country of or- igin is the result of a change in fertility norms among those immigrants. The study of migrants’ ideals family size has the potential to shed light on fertility norms without the interference of economic conditions and migration-related disruptive phenom- ena. Due to the complexity of its migration context, Italy is an interesting destination country for studying changes in migrants’ ideal family sizes. This paper uses data from the survey of the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) on immigrant families conducted in 2011-12. We compare the personal ideal family size of women of reproductive age with the prevalent norm in their country of origin, applying a multinomial logistic regression analysis. Results show that the country of origin has an important role in the determination of immigrants’ ideal family sizes. Women from countries where large families are the ideal are more likely to show a lower personal ideal family size compared to their non-migrant co-nationals, while wom- en from countries where two children are considered ideal mostly share the same norm. The occurrence of fertility preferences expressed in a non-numeric form (e.g. “Up to God”) changes between women with different countries of origin. This study confi rms that conformity with the ideal of the country of origin is more likely among women who migrated as adults. At the same time, the number of years spent in the destination country is not signifi cantly associated with a shift away from the norms prevalent in the country of origin. Finally, female empowerment and gender equity show their effects mainly on the reduction of non-numeric responses. Keywords: Ideal number of children · Fertility · Migrants · Italy · Gender Norms Comparative Population Studies Vol. 43 (2018): 243-274 (Date of release: 07.02.2019) Federal Institute for Population Research 2018 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2019-03en URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2019-03en9 * This article belongs to a special issue on migrant fertility. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi244 1 Introduction The importance of norms has long been recognised in both sociology and demog- raphy (Bulatao et al. 1983). Many scholars assigned a key role to fertility norms in explaining essential processes such as the historical fertility transition and the process of fertility decline in developing countries (Liefbroer/Billari 2010). Among fertility norms, personal ideal family size is considered to be a good indicator of in- dividual values and attitudes towards childbearing, though it has been established that it cannot be used to predict actual or fi nal fertility (Testa/Grilli 2006). Testa/Grilli (2006) emphasised the lack of scholarly refl ection on the personal ideal family size of native populations in Europe. This same conclusion can be drawn today regard- ing the study of the personal ideal family size of international migrants. In the last decades, migration fl ows have determined the relocation of a consid- erable number of women who grew up and were socialised in a context where fertil- ity ideals are remarkably different from those observed in their country of destina- tion. Current theories about the migration-fertility nexus consider the role of fertility ideals as key, but due to the scarcity of specifi c data, research has so far mostly been based on migrants’ actual behaviour. While some migrants move between ar- eas that share similar ideals of relatively small families, others move from countries at different stages of the demographic transition. Thus they may have been social- ised in contexts where large families are common and idealised (Fargues 2007). In the latter case, migrants may show fertility ideals and preferences similar to natives of the country of destination because they belong to select groups sharing ideals more similar to those in destination countries than in their origin country, a position known in the literature as the selection hypothesis (White et al. 1995). Alternatively, they may have different ideals upon arrival and then converge or adapt to the fertil- ity norm of the country of settlement (Rindfuss 1976; Nauck 1987; Mayer/Riphahn 2000). Finally, they may instead preserve their ideals while showing fertility behav- iour similar to destination-country natives due to transformations of their living con- ditions, including constraints and trade-offs typically related to migration – such as weak labour market attachment – which have an impact on both the timing and the number of births (Fargues 2007). However, the extent to which the reproductive behaviour observed among immigrants is consistent with fertility norms or instead differs as a consequence of fi nancial restrictions or other disruptive phenomena is unknown. The study of migrants’ ideals has the potential to shed light on fertility norms without the interference of migration-related disruptive phenomena. The few existing studies on the ideal family size of foreign-born citizens, which are mostly descriptive in their approach, show the presence of broad differences among ethnic or migrant communities, identifi ed as people who share the same foreign background. Individual factors such as religion, education, and the number of siblings emerge as signifi cant in shaping the ideal number of children in Great Britain, France, and Germany (Penn/Lambert 2002). To fi ll this gap in the literature, we compare individual personal ideal family size among migrant women in Italy with the prevalent norms in the respective countries of origin as a proxy for the normative environment in which migrants were social- The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 245 ised. We also focus on the role of gender equity and female empowerment among migrants, as several studies have underlined a direct relationship between these two dimensions and fertility in both developed and developing countries (Genereux 2007; Arpino et al. 2015; Blau 2015), which may also signifi cantly shape migrant fertility (Kulu et al. 2017). Even though Italy has a less expansive history as a country of immigration than other European states do, six million of its residents – 10 percent of the total popula- tion in 2017 – are foreign-born (Eurostat 2018). Due to the complexity of its migration context (King 2000), which is characterised by the presence of migrant communities from countries with different fertility behaviours, Italy emerges as an interesting country in the study of ideal family sizes of migrants. What furthermore makes Italy a compelling case is the persistence of the two-child family norm among native Italians, despite having de facto “lowest-low” fertility rates (Testa 2012). This paper aims to answer the following research questions: How many children would immi- grant women in Italy like to have? Do their preferences differ from the norms in their origin country? And what is the impact of country of birth, migration-related char- acteristics, female empowerment, and gender equity? To address these questions, we analysed data on 7,307 immigrant women of reproductive age residing in Italy in 2011-12 from 101 countries1 and compared their personal ideal family size with the national average ideal size in their origin country. 2 Background 2.1 Actual fertility, family size preferences, and ideals The analysis of fertility among migrants has so far been mostly based on data re- lated to their actual behaviour, typically the number of children born after migration (e.g. Ortensi 2015), the transition to different parities (e.g. Andersson 2004; Milews- ki 2010; Mussino/Strozza 2012a, 2012b), or the contribution of migrants to the total number of births (Sobotka 2008). Differences between cultural norms in the coun- tries of birth and destination have also been studied by looking at immigrants’ ac- 1 Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia. Americas: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, USA, Venezuela. Asia and Oceania: Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, China, Georgia, India, Indone- sia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Vietnam. Europe: Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Re- public, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Por- tugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Ukraine. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi246 tual fertility (Algan et al. 2012). Cultural adaptation has been conceptualised as the convergence to the fertility norms of the destination country (Andersson 2004). The selection hypothesis argues that many migrants’ behaviour may indeed not change at all – rather, people who choose to migrate in the fi rst place are a self-selected group, whose fertility preferences are different – usually lower – than than the general average in their country of origin (Kulu 2005). The maintenance of country of origin fertility behaviors after migration has been interpreted in the logic of the socialisation hypothesis, which similarly builds on the premise that the fertility behaviour of migrants primarily refl ects the fertility preferences dominant in their childhood environment (Kulu 2005; Baykara-Krumme/Milewski 2017). Never- theless, it is widely acknowledged that the timing and the number of births are not only shaped by norms and preferences, but also refl ect constraints and inequali- ties, such as precarious economic conditions, diffi culties in reconciling family life and demanding jobs, the unavailability of a suitable partner, poor health, infertility, or unplanned pregnancies (Martin 2004; Philipov/Bernardi 2011; Sedgh et al. 2014; Finer/Zolna 2016). In the case of migrants, the relation between norms, preferences, and actual fertility is even more complicated because – as with all life course events – fertility behaviours are sensitive to the act of migration (Holland/de Valk 2013). Consequently, the study of migrants’ ideals, is crucial to explain the possible change in fertility norms without the interference of personal, fi nancial or health-related trade-offs and migration-related disruptive phenomena. Differently from the analysis of actual and intended fertility, the study of con- cepts such as the “ideal family size”, the “personal ideal family size”, and the “de- sired/preferred family size” builds on evaluations made under “ideal conditions” (Philipov/Bernardi 2011), and it has been shown that societal norms concerning demographic behaviours are relevant, even in a society where the individualisa- tion process is fairly advanced (Liefbroer/Billari 2010). Fertility ideals and desires have nevertheless been subject to criticism for being relatively “soft”, abstract, and poorly defi ned concepts (Toulemon 2001; van de Kaa 2001; Quesnel-Vallée/Morgan 2003; Sobotka/Beaujouan 2014). However, family size desires are conceptually and empirically distinct from ideals: desires refl ect more “internal” factors, such as mo- tivations, attitudes, and beliefs and have, therefore, been considered as a personal norm (Testa/Grilli 2006; Kuhnt et al. 2017). Desires are often uncertain and subject to change over the life course in response to new experiences and conditions (Thom- son 2015). Personal ideals have instead been interpreted as refl ecting the normative context; they are shaped by the larger society after predominant societal pronatal- ist or antinatalist norms and, therefore, change more slowly than desires do (Trent 1980; Testa/Grilli 2006; Thomson 2015). The analysis of migrants’ personal ideal family size is not a trivial one: analyses of social distance between migrant groups and natives are at the core of academic and public discourses (Holland/de Valk 2013). While integration in some sectors such as the labour market and education can be relatively fast, changes in the private domain and the normative sphere, to which life course events are deeply related, are slower to occur and may require far more than a generation to be internalised (Gordon 1964; Lesthaeghe 2002). Ideals have the potential to provide insight into The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 247 the balance between the persistence of norms from the country of origin and the processes of family change and socialisation after migration. The few studies on fertility ideals carried out on ethnic groups or migrants in dif- ferent destination countries suggest the existence of differences between different ethnic groups in both the preferred timing for family formation and the ideal family size (Penn/Lambert 2002; Holland/de Valk 2013). However, socialisation seems to play an important role. In the Netherlands, de Valk (2013) found intergenerational differences among all ethnic groups: usually children prefer smaller families than their parents did. Penn and Lambert (2002), who conducted a cross-national analysis of the ideal number of children among different ethnic groups and nationalities, found substan- tial differences between ethnic groups in Britain, Germany, and France. Indian and Pakistani respondents in Britain expressed signifi cantly larger ideal families than native Brits; at the same time Maghrebians in France also valued large families, but the difference to French natives was less evident. The study also found a prefer- ence for ideal families of two children among Turkish and former-Yugoslav migrants in Germany, and no signifi cant differences with German natives. These fi ndings suggest that ethnic group differences are essential to understanding fertility norms among migrants. 2.2 What determines the ideal family size? Evidence from previous research Previous research in the fertility domain, mainly building on evidence from West- ern countries’ natives, has suggested a link between ideal family size and a set of potential explanatory variables. Age is one of them: attitudes and norms are more relevant at the beginning of the reproductive career, while perceived behavioural control plays a stronger role after the birth of the fi rst child (e.g. Testa/Grilli 2006; Mills et al. 2008; Billari et al. 2009). Age also has the potential to capture cohort effects and shape ideal family size according to respondents’ own experiences of childbearing and parenthood (Weston et al. 2005; Kuhnt et al. 2017). Some studies have suggested that fertility ideals are adjusted in line with the size of the respond- ent’s current number of children; for this reason, it is important to control for this item (Weston et al. 2005; Kuhnt et al. 2017). Family size ideals are also likely infl uenced by the respondent’s socioeconom- ic status. The infl uence of socioeconomic status here does not take hold through economic limitations that may affect childbearing, because ideals by defi nition are expressed regardless any current circumstance (Iacovou/Tavares 2011; Kuhnt et al. 2017). Rather, the role of socioeconomic deals with social norms of childbearing found within the social networks or categories which the respondents belong to and that are considered as their reference groups (Liefbroer/Billari 2010). Partnership status does not seem to alter fertility ideals (Kuhnt et al. 2017). Ideals are consequently more stable than intentions or desires, because they are related to a social norm rather than to a shorter-term personal preference or contingencies (Thomson 2015). • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi248 The role of education also needs to be discussed when examining fertility ideals. While in developing countries, higher education is usually related to lower ideal fer- tility (Doepke/Tertilt 2018), in the European setting, a diverging trend has occasion- ally been observed. In some countries, a positive relationship between education and fertility has been observed after experiencing a period of low fertility related to educational expansion (OECD 2016). Education and human capital are often inter- preted as a proxy for female empowerment, according to the idea that more edu- cated women have more bargaining power in marriage (Mills et al. 2008; Doepke/ Tertilt 2018). Higher levels of education allow women to question traditional roles (McDonald 2006) and are often associated with a more equal division of household chores (e.g. Mencarini/Tanturri 2004). Scholars have repeatedly pointed out a sig- nifi cant and complex link between unbalanced gender roles (in the form of unequal divisions of household labour) and fertility intentions and behaviour (Mills 2010; Tazi-Preve et al. 2004; Neyer et al. 2013). Consistently, gender equity, which cap- tures perceptions of fairness rather than the strict equality of observed outcomes (Mc Donald 2013), may signifi cantly impact fertility ideals. However, the results of the few studies that have considered the link between female empowerment and the ideal number of children in developing countries are mixed. A 2002 study based on Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data in Eritrea found that women having the fi nal say in decisions regarding day-to-day household purchases was associated with a smaller ideal family size (Woldemicael 2009). At the same time, a more recent study based on data on Guinea, Mali, Namibia and Zambia found women’s empowerment (measured as participation in household de- cision making, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attitudes toward refusing sex with one’s husband) is not consistently associated with a desire for smaller families (Upadhyay/Karasek 2012). Job participation is similarly related to gender roles: Homemaker mothers may be more likely to have traditional attitudes than employed mothers (Fan/Marini 2000; Zuo/Tang 2000; Bolzendahl/Myers 2004), but, more generally, gender equal- ity and fertility have a U-shaped relationship (e.g. McDonald 2013; Upadhyay et al. 2014; Esping-Andersen/Billari 2015). Religion has also proven to be an important factor relating to fertility. In many contexts, women who describe religion as “very important” have higher fertility than others, especially those who declare they are unaffi liated with any religion (Frejka/Westoff 2008; Berghammer 2012; Peri-Rotem 2016). However, just as for education and female labour force participation, it has been argued that the fertility-religion nexus expresses a widespread association between religiosity and family behaviour, rather than specifi cally pronatalist views held in specifi c religions. In fact, it appears that factor at play is less religiosity per se, but rather certain more specifi c notions of family life often associated with re- ligiosity, which include ideas about the importance of marriage and parenthood, the acceptability of non-marital sexual relations, and gender roles (Hayford/Morgan 2008). Previous studies on migrants have found that ideal family sizes are different among different ethnic groups (Penn/Lambert 2002; de Valk 2013). However, for fi rst-generation migrants, age at arrival emerges as a crucial dimension. Sociali- The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 249 sation studies assert that family (size) values formed in late childhood and early adolescence are retained throughout life (e.g. Westoff/Potvin 1967; Kulu 2005). Ac- cording to this theory, people who migrated after having spent their childhood and early adolescence in their country of origin should preserve family ideals typical of the countries where they were socialised, even if after migration they may choose adaptive strategies to deal with the new context of settlement. By contrast, accord- ing to classical theories on immigrant assimilation (Gordon 1964), a long residence abroad implies a growing infl uence of the dominant family formation patterns in the destination country, which may also be internalised as family ideals (Holland/de Valk 2013). The relation between socialisation and adaptation at the individual level, therefore, may be associated to immigrants’ duration of residence in the settlement country (Lieberson/Waters 1988; Alba/Nee 2003). A factor potentially related to the effect of migration on ideal formation is lan- guage, which is a functional factor positively associated with aspects of social inte- gration at the destination country (Ager/Strang 2008; Kearns/Whitley 2015). To be fl uent in the host country’s language is a precondition for communication across cultural boundaries (Statham/Tillie 2016). However, studies on the effect on internal- isation of norms are discordant. When analysing the association with fertility, Un- ger and Molina (1997) identifi ed language as an infl uential factor amongst Hispanic women in the United States: Those who spoke Spanish at home with their mother were far more likely to have a higher personal ideal number of children (particularly sons) than those who spoke English. By contrast, Penn and Lambert (2002) found no support for this “cultural” hypothesis in their study in Great Britain, France, and Germany. A fi nal remark is needed about the occurrence of non-numerical responses. Women sometimes provide their ideal number of children in terms of words rath- er than numbers, for example, “it’s up to God”, “as many as possible”, or simply ”I don’t know”. The occurrence of this kind of answer has recently been declining in fertility surveys, suggesting that “numeracy about children” (Van de Walle 1992) is increasing across the developing world. A recent study based on DHS carried out in 32 countries in Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa underlined that non-nu- merical responses are indicative of high fertility and pre-transitional contexts. Their occurrence declines with lower fertility rates. At the individual level, non-numerical responses are indirectly related to higher education and fertility-specifi c knowledge (Frye/Bachan 2017). Other studies suggest that women who provide non-numeric responses share traditional pronatalist cultural norms that imply preferences for “many” children rather than encouraging women to select a specifi c number as their ideal (Olaleye 1993). Other scholars have suggested that non-numeric responses are an indication of women’s perceived lack of control over their fertility (Hayford/ Agadjanian 2011; Van de Walle 1992). 2.3 Working hypotheses Based on the literature discussed above, the hypotheses tested in this study are the following: • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi250 • H1: The personal ideal number of children is associated with the ideal number of children in the country of origin (H1a), even when we control for migratory and socio-economic factors (H1b). • H2: Consequently, people arriving as adults are more likely to have a personal ideal number of children similar to that of their origin country, compared to those who migrated as children or young adults. • H3: At the same time, a long and uninterrupted presence in Italy might be as- sociated with a deviation from the prevalent norms of the country of origin. • H4: Higher levels of female empowerment (education and labour market par- ticipation) and support for gender equity imply higher numeracy about chil- dren, and therefore a lower proportion of non-numeric responses. In summary, this study analyses ideal family sizes of migrant women in Italy and how they differ from the prevalent norms in their countries of origin, thereby under- lining the role of the country of origin, migratory characteristics, and gender roles in fertility ideals – three specifi c points that are currently under-researched in the fi eld of fertility and migration. 3 Empirical analyses 3.1 Measures of fertility intentions and attitudes The norms observed in migrants’ countries of origin has been defi ned as the mean ideal family size observed in national surveys available worldwide on this topic. This means that we must rely on different sources and slightly different wording of ques- tions on the ideal family size in the country of origin. The fi rst survey that included a question on ideal family size was carried out in 1936 (Blake 1966). Since then, hundreds of surveys around the world have collected information about family ideals in different countries and contexts (Sobotka/Beaujo- uan 2014). The 2011-12 Italian National Institute of Statistics’ (ISTAT) survey “Social condition and integration of foreign citizens” formulated the question to measure personal ideal family size as follows: “How many children would you like to have in your life?” To account for the personal ideal family size norm in the immigrants’ countries of origin, we assembled information from different surveys. Unfortunately, not all the surveys were run in the same year, so, in order to allow comparability with our sur- vey and between countries, we rely on the most current version available. In these surveys, the questions did not always focus on the personal ideal family size – some focused on the general ideal family size (e.g. “What do you think is the ideal number of children for a family?”). To provide maximum comparability with the ISTAT sur- vey, we collected the information on personal ideal family size when it was possible; otherwise, we used the information on general family size ideals (Table 1). In a previous study, Testa (2012: 9) compared the relationship between respons- es to general and personal ideal family size using the 2011 Eurobarometer. She found a very close agreement between these two dimensions (see also Sobotka/ The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 251 Tab. 1: Measures of personal ideal family size from different surveys used to calculate the norm in the country of origin Survey Question Measure Countries Eurobarometer (2011) [And] for you personally, what would be the ideal number of children you would like to have or would have liked to have had? Personal ideal family size Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Nederland, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Hungary World Values Survey (1981-2008) What do you think is the ideal size of a family – how many children, if any? General ideal family size Algeria, Belarus, Bosnia- Herzegovina, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia Demographic Health Survey (DHS), Reproductive Health Survey (RHS) 1997- 2011; 2003 UNFPA Demographic, Social and Reproductive health situation in Kosovo (2003); Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey (MICS) 2006- 2016, PAP-FAM 2001 Women with children: If you could go back to the time you did not have any children and could choose exactly the number of children to have in your whole life, how many would that be? Personal ideal family size Albania, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Philippines, Eritrea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenia, Kirgizstan, Kosovo, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam Childless women: If you could choose exactly the number of children to have in your whole life, how many would that be? International Social Survey 2012 All in all, what do you think is the ideal number of children for a family to have? General ideal family size Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, South Korea, Croatia, Japan, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, USA, Switzerland, Turkey, Venezuela Source: Overview based on Eurobarometer, World Values Survey, Demographic Health Survey (DHS), Reproductive Health Survey (RHS) UNFPA Demographic, Social and Reproductive health situation; Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey (MICS), PAP-FAM and International So- cial Survey. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi252 Beaujouan 2014). We rely on the original data set in the case of the Eurobarometer and the Demographic Health Survey (DHS), while for the countries that were not included in these two surveys, we collected the information from other sources. We report the original questions for comparison in Table 1. For each country survey we calculated the mean ideal family size applying individual survey weights, ac- cording to Sobotka and Beaujouan’s (2014) approach. Data are always provided for women aged 15-49 except for countries covered by the World Values Survey, which is based on women aged 18-49. 3.2 Data and methods This paper uses data from the ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens”. The survey was conducted in 2011-12 with families that have at least one member with foreign citizenship. Families were randomly sampled from the civil registry. The fi nal sample survey is made up of 12,000 households in 800 mu- nicipalities of different demographic sizes. For this study, only foreign-born women were selected from the original sample. Our fi nal sample consists of 7,307 foreign- born women aged 15 to 49. They come from 101 countries for which information on the individual family size is available. About 37 percent of the foreign-born women in the sample were childless, 27 percent had 1 child, 26 percent had 2 children, and the remaining 10 percent had 3 or more children. We study the personal ideal family size by comparing the individual ideal number in Italy with the norm in the country of origin, by different origin groups. We plot and map personal ideal family size in Italy and in the countries of birth of migrant women. Through a set of multinomial logistic regression analyses, we investigate the factors that infl uence the (dis)agreement between the personal ideal family norm and the norm in the origin country. (Dis)agreement is categorised into 5 groups: the same personal ideal number of children as in the country of origin (–0.5 < x ≤ 0.5); a lower personal ideal number of children than in the country of origin (x ≤ –0.5); a larger personal ideal number of children than in the country of origin (x > 0.5); “as many as I may have” (as this category is generally translated as “Up to God”, we will also use this phrase); and “I don’t know”. The reference category is the one in which the personal ideal family size matches the country of origin norm. To show the sub- stantive and practical signifi cance of the fi ndings, we present population marginal means (e.g. Searle et al. 1980; Williams 2012) while holding the covariates fi xed at the population means for the main independent variables. Additional results are in Table A3 in the Appendix. Our study focuses on the (dis)agreement between the personal ideal number of children and the mean value observed in the country of origin. In analysing our data, we control for demographic and socioeconomic factors. To test hypotheses H1a, H1b, H2 and H3, in addition to country of birth,2 we examine the age at migra- 2 We aggregate countries with fewer than 50 women sampled into geographical macro areas. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 253 tion and distinguish if the women arrived before age 16, between 16 and 20, or after age 20; time since migration (up to 5 years in Italy, between 6 and 10, more than 10 years); and the stability of their presence (stable/uninterrupted vs. unstable/discon- tinuous). To test hypothesis H4 we examine labour market participation, education, and gender equity3 (no support for gender equity vs. support for gender equity). Additionally, we control for the frequency of religious-service attendance (some- times, never, often) and Italian profi ciency (good vs. bad) (see Appendix Table A1 for details). Because one of the aims of our study is to evaluate the importance of the country of birth for the difference between the personal ideal number of children in Italy ver- sus the origin norm, we compare the estimation power of the models using Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). These two tests allow for comparing non-nested models if the results come from the same data (results are in Table A2 in the Appendix). 4 Results 4.1 How many children would immigrant women in Italy like to have? Figure 1 illustrates the mean number of children that immigrant women in Italy would like to have, by country of origin. Among the migrants residing in Italy, the majority of groups would like to have 2 children. The mean ideal personal number of children for women from Ireland, Israel, The Gambia, Pakistan, Bolivia, Guinea, Senegal, and Burkina Faso is 3, and for women from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali, it is more than 4. The average for most of the women from Eastern Europe (Latvia, Belarus, Estonia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Geor- gia, Romania, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia), Southern Europe (Greece, Portugal), Af- rica (South Africa, Madagascar, Angola, Ethiopia), the Middle East and Asia (Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Kazakhstan), Western Europe (Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark), and the Americas (Honduras, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico) is less than 2 children. The data for Italian natives – 1.95 according to the 2011 Eurobarometer survey – is also included in Figure 1. 4.2 Do their preferences differ from the norms in their origin country? For each country of origin, or area (in the case of small communities in the sample), Table 2 shows the percentage of women who express same, lower or larger person- al ideal numbers of children than their country of origin average, and the incidence 3 We measure equity by agreement (“completely agree”) with the statement that men should help with domestic work. We tested different indicators; the survey contains seven questions related to gender norms. We ran separate models for each indicator and while the direction of the coeffi cients was the same for each indicator, the signifi cance level and the contribution in the model was signifi cantly higher for the selected indicator. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi254 of non-numerical answers. 32.8 percent of the women in the sample have the same ideal number of children as the norms in their country of origin, while 33.5 percent have a lower ideal. Women who have a larger ideal number of children than their non-migrant peers make up only 11.9 percent of the sample. Non-numerical responses indicating an undefi ned desired number of children (7.5 percent of the sample) are most common among women from Nigeria, Senegal and Sri Lanka. At the same time, women who are undecided (14.3 percent of the sample) are most common among those born in Macedonia, Nigeria and Bulgaria. Figure 2 shows the association between the prevalent norm among emigrants and non-migrants by origin country. We plot the mean personal ideal number of children in Italy for the main migrant groups (i.e. those with more than 50 women in the sample) alongside the mean calculated among women aged 15-49 in the respec- tive origin countries. The points near the 45° line represent the migrant groups living in Italy that have a preference close to the norms in their origin country. The greater the distance be- tween the points and the line, the higher the difference in the expressed ideal family size between the immigrant group in Italy and their counterparts in the origin coun- try. Few immigrant groups seem to share the same exact preference as that of their country of origin; namely, Romania, Bulgaria, and Ukraine have a desired number of children below 2 in both groups and Bosnia Herzegovina 2.5. Most of the groups living in Italy report a lower personal ideal family size than the one in their origin country, with the largest distances observed for women from Nigeria, Senegal, Pa- kistan, and Ghana, where the mean ideal family size at the national level is above 4 Fig. 1: Personal ideal family size of immigrants to Italy by country of origin Source: Own design based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of foreign citizens” 2011-12. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 255 Tab. 2: Personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin average norm by country of origin and areas. Percentages and absolute sample sizes (N = 7,307) Lower Same Larger Up to God I don’t Absolute Personal Personal Personal know numbers ideal ideal ideal family size family size family size Bulgaria 12.2 52.2 7.7 8.0 19.9 85 India 6.5 50.4 19.2 11.5 12.4 156 Russia 19.9 47.4 16.6 7.2 8.9 85 EU15 and ODCs1 21.5 44.9 12.7 7.2 13.7 204 Poland 20.3 44.8 10.3 9.7 14.9 263 Germany 13.4 44.6 23.6 6.6 11.8 58 Romania 19.8 44.2 14.0 6.7 15.3 1808 Bangladesh 5.0 43.1 29.2 9.0 13.7 84 Brazil 21.3 42.8 18.4 5.2 12.3 126 Ukraine 25.7 41.4 10.1 4.1 18.7 384 Other Latin America 27.5 41.0 14.5 8.5 8.5 127 Peru 15.8 37.5 27.8 2.6 16.3 187 Other Europe 31.8 36.0 9.9 5.4 16.9 294 France 18.4 34.9 31.4 3.2 12.1 79 China 13.0 32.4 30.4 10.7 13.5 267 Tunisia 39.8 32.0 5.6 8.2 14.4 109 Dominican Republic 38.6 31.1 13.5 3.1 13.7 69 Morocco 39.7 25.7 10.9 10.8 12.9 618 Macedonia 36.4 24.8 5.8 11.4 21.6 117 Kosovo 44.0 21.7 11.9 10.8 11.6 75 Other Asia 53.8 19.5 7.8 10.1 8.8 201 Ghana 62.9 18.8 3.1 9.7 5.5 57 Albania 57.3 18.7 5.1 7.3 11.6 673 Senegal 52.2 17.5 5.6 13.2 11.5 67 Other Africa 53.9 17.2 6.6 5.1 17.2 299 Moldova 64.1 16.4 2.8 4.7 12.0 269 Ecuador 59.8 15.8 6.3 3.1 15.0 167 Philippines 57.5 11.7 5.8 8.3 16.7 187 Sri Lanka 61.4 11.5 1.6 13.0 12.5 105 Nigeria 60.3 3.1 0.0 16.0 20.6 86 Total 33.5 32.8 11.9 7.5 14.3 7307 1 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Luxem- bourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. Source: Own calculations based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12 and nationals surveys (most recent year available). Fre- quencies are ordered by having the same preferences. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi256 children. Interestingly, women from China and Bangladesh have on average an ideal number of children slightly higher than that in their countries of birth. 4.3 And what is the impact of country of birth, migration-related characteristics, female empowerment, and gender equity? Because we aim to identify the control variables with high predictive values in ex- plaining differences with the norm in the origin country, we fi rst run AIC and BIC tests. These two statistical tests follow a similar approach that allows us to see the predictive power of different covariates when the models are not nested. BIC is more susceptible to the degree of freedom, which is why the results are not always identical. Results are presented in Table A2 (in the Appendix) and show that the in- formation with the largest predictive value is the parity; however, despite the large degree of freedom, the second-most important variables are the country of birth and gender equity. For graphical reasons, we present the adjusted predictions at the means ob- tained from the multinomial logistic regression analyses of having the same, a low- Fig. 2: Personal ideal family size in Italy compared to the country of origin norm for groups with at least 50 women sampled Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12; Eurobarometer 2011; World Values Survey (1981-2008); DHS (1997-2011); MICS (2006-2016); PAPFAM (2001); RHS (2003). The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 257 er, or larger personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin norm, or “Up to God” (UtG), or “I do not know” (IDK), by country of birth (Fig. 3), by age at arrival (Fig. 4), by duration of stay (Fig. 5), education (Fig. 6), labour market participation (Fig. 7) and by gender equity (Fig. 8). For each fi gure, the controls that were set to the population means are specifi ed in the notes. The details about rela- tive risk ratios obtained from the model for the independent variables are presented in Table A3 and A4 (in the Appendix). Figure 3 shows the adjusted predictions of (dis)agreement between the personal ideal family size and the prevailing norm in the origin country. On the left side of the graph, we have the nationalities for which we observed larger proportions of women who have the same or larger ideal numbers of children norms than those prevalent in their origin country. These are all women from countries with ideal fer- tility norms of around 2 children. Women from Peru, Brazil, Germany, France, Bang- ladesh, and China are among the group showing non-negligible shares (between 21 and 30 percent) of women with an ideal number of children higher than their non-migrant co-nationals. Women from India, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Ro- mania, other EU15, and other developed countries (ODC) for the most part share the same personal ideal family size of their country of birth (two children). Similar results were shown in the descriptive statistics (see Table 2). Conversely, shares of women with a personal ideal number of children lower than their non-migrant co-nationals are found among natives of Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, other African countries (residual category), Albania, Moldova, Kosovo, Macedonia, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and other Asian countries (residual category). Those who are unsure about their ideal number of children are mostly women from the Philippines, Nigeria, other African countries (residual category), Macedo- nia (FYROM), EU15 and ODC citizens, other European countries (residual category), the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador. Finally, larger shares of women who do not quantify an ideal number of children by leaving it to “fate” or “God” (between 10 and 14 percent) are found among women born in Nigeria, Morocco, Senegal, other Latin American countries (residual category), Sri Lanka, and India. We therefore observe a signifi cant effect of the country of origin even after controlling for other covariates (H1a and H1b). While agreement is more likely among women that move from a country charac- terised by the same average ideal fertility of Italy (two children), a deviation from the national norm towards a lower ideal number of children than the country of origin is more likely among women socialised in countries where large families are the norm. However, a non-negligible proportion of women who have a larger ideal than their country of origin (and also higher than the Italian norm) exists among women from countries characterised by the two-child norm. In our second hypothesis, we assume that arriving as an adult might strengthen the preference for a personal ideal number similar to the origin country, compared to migrating as a child or young adult (H2). Figure 4 shows that, according to the adjusted predictions at the means obtained from the multinomial logistic regression analyses, the largeest share of women with a personal ideal family size matching • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi258 the country of origin is estimated to be among those who migrated at an older age (41 percent). This proportion decreases among those who came as a young adult (37 percent) and even more among those who arrived as children (28 percent). Among the latter group, the share with an ideal number of children lower than the Fig. 3: Predicted probabilities of having the same, lower, or larger personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin norm, or non-numeric responses, by country of origin 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 B an gl ad es h B ul ga ri a In di a G er m an y Pe ru C hi na Po la nd R om an ia B ra zi l Fr an ce R us si a U kr ai ne EU 15 an dD C O th er Eu ro pe La tin A m er ic a D om in ic an R ep ub lic M or oc co M ac ed on ia Tu ni si a Ph ili pp in es O th er A si a K os ov o S ri La nk a Ec ua do r M ol d ov a A lb an ia O th er A fr ic a N ig er ia S en eg al G ha na Lower than in the home country Equal than in the home country Larger than in the home country Up to God I don't know in percent Personal ideal number of children Notes: We control for parity, marital status, age at the interview, age at interview squared, age at arrival, duration of stay, circular migration, education, gender equity, church at- tendance, labour market participation, and Italian profi ciency. The controls are set to the population margins in destination countries, adjusted predictions at the means (APMs). Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 259 norm in the country of origin or who were unsure increases considerably. The effect of the time spent in the country of origin on the match of personal ideals with fertil- ity ideals of the country of origin is, therefore, signifi cant. Although the effect of age at migration is signifi cant, almost no differences in the adjusted predictions at the means exist among groups with different durations of stay in Italy (H3). Therefore, once other variables are controlled for, no sign of diver- gence from the origin norm due to the time spent in Italy emerges from the analysis. The proportions of women who have the same preferences as their birth-country peers were 37 percent for women who arrived less than 6 years ago, 38 percent for women who migrated between 6 and 10 years ago, and 40 percent for those who have spent more than 10 years in Italy (Fig. 5). Fig. 4: Predicted probabilities of having same, lower, or larger personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin norm, or non- numeric responses, by age at arrival Notes: We control for parity, marital status, age at the interview, age at interview squared, country of birth, duration of stay, circular migration, education, gender ideology, church attendance, labour market participation, and Italian profi ciency. The controls are set to the population margins in destination countries (APMs). Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <16 16-20 21+ Lower than in the country of origin Same of the country of origin Larger than in the country of origin Up to God I don't know in percent Personal ideal number of children Age at arrival • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi260 Finally, we hypothesised an effect of variables related to female empowerment (education and labour market participation) and gender equity on holding fertility preferences typical of the country of origin (H4). The main effect we observe is mostly a reduction of non-numeric responses. In particular, among women with high secondary school and post-secondary education, the proportion of “I don’t know” decreases signifi cantly compared to other women. Labour market participation shows a similar effect of education: the share of non-numeric responses is higher among women not in the labour force. These women are also less likely to express a lower ideal than the country of origin. The effect of variables related to empowerment (education and job participation) is similar to that observed regarding gender equity. Strong differences emerge in Fig. 5: Predicted probabilities of having the same, lower, or larger personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin norm, or non-numeric responses, by duration of stay 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <6 years 6-10 years 11+ years Lower than in the home country Equal than in the home country Larger than in the home country Up to God I don't know in percent Personal ideal number of children Duration of stay Notes: We control for parity, marital status, age at the interview, age at interview squared, age at arrival, country of birth, circular migration, education, gender ideology, church at- tendance, labour market participation, and Italian profi ciency. The controls are set to the population margins in destination countries (APMs). Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 261 the proportions of adjusted predictions at the means by support for gender equity (Fig. 8). The effect of support for gender equity is most evident regarding a reduc- tion of the share of women who are unsure about their ideal family size, or who leave fertility to fate or God, thereby indicating a preference for having as many children as possible. Data show that women who support gender equity also have a clearer idea of their fertility ideals, showing that they have internalised the idea that fertility can be legitimately controlled and personal ideals matter (5 percent vs. 13 percent UtG and 13 percent vs. 20 percent IDK, respectively, for women with equal gender equity vs. no equity). Our main interest is to compare migrants’ ideal number of children with the typical ideal number of children of people remaining in the country of origin – by Fig. 6: Predicted probabilities of having the same, lower, or larger personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin norm, or non-numeric responses, by education 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Low secondary school Vocational school High secondary school Post-secondary education Lower than in the country of origin Same of the country of origin Larger than in the country of origin Up to God I don't know in percent Personal ideal number of children Education Low secondary school Vocational school High secondary school Post-secondary education Notes: We control for parity, marital status, age at the interview, age at interview squared, country of birth, duration of stay, age at arrival, circular migration, gender ideology, church attendance, labour market participation, and Italian profi ciency. The controls are set to the population margins in destination countries (APMs). Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi262 country of birth, age at arrival, duration of stay, woman empowerment and gender ideology. Relative Risk Ratios (RRR) for individual demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of immigrant women in Italy are shown and commented in Table A3 in the appendix. Fig. 7: Predicted probabilities of having the same, lower, or larger personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin norm, or non-numeric responses, by labour market participation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Working Looking for a job Out of labour force Lower than in the country of origin Same of the country of origin Larger than in the country of origin Up to God I don't know in percent Personal ideal number of children Labour market participation Working Looking for a job Out of labour force Notes: We control for parity, marital status, age at the interview, age at interview squared, country of birth, duration of stay, age at arrival, circular migration, gender ideology, church attendance, education, and Italian profi ciency. The controls are set to the population mar- gins in destination countries (APMs). Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 263 5 Conclusion and discussion The study of the personal ideal family size of immigrants has a promising and so far underdeveloped potential to disclose the relationship between migration and fertility. In this study, we compared the personal ideal family size of migrant women in Italy to the prevailing norm of stayers in their respective countries of origin and analyse determinants of agreement and disagreement between these norms. Despite fi lling an unexplored gap in the current literature related to the migra- tion-fertility nexus, our study has a limitation that should be taken into considera- tion when reading our results. The lack of information about personal fertility ideals before migration prevents us from explicitly testing two fundamental hypotheses Fig. 8: Predicted probabilities of having the same, lower, or larger personal ideal number of children compared to the country of origin norm, or non-numeric responses, by support for gender equity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No Yes Lower than in the country of origin Same of the country of origin Larger than in the country of origin Up to God I don't know in percent Personal ideal number of children Support for gender equity No Yes Notes: We control for parity, marital status, age at interview, age at interview squared, age at arrival, duration of stay, circular migration, education, country of birth, church at- tendance, labour market participation, and Italian profi ciency. The controls are set to the population margins in destination countries (APMs). Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi264 about migrant fertility – namely, the selection and the adaptation hypotheses. While analysing (dis)agreement with the country of origin norm, we cannot infer whether migrants shared that norm before migration. When analysing women who show a different ideal compared to their country of origin average, it is unknown whether they held such ideals even before migration (i.e. self-selection; the selection hy- pothesis) or if living in Italy changed their ideals (adaptation hypothesis). We cannot even a priori exclude, despite the hypothesis being highly unlikely, that a minority of women might have “reactivated” their “ethnicity” and adopted the country ideal due to phenomena of reactive ethnicity (Diehl/Schnell 2006), despite having a different fertility ideal before migration. Bearing this limitation in mind, our paper shows that among migrants residing in Italy, the majority would like to have two children. One woman out of three in the sample shares the norm of their country of origin, and another one in three has a lower ideal than the country of origin average. Women who have a higher ideal number of children than their non-migrant peers represent only 11 percent of the sample. The agreement between personal ideal family size at the moment of the survey and the average country norm is associated with women’s specifi c country of origin background (H1a), even when we control for socio-economic and demographic factors (H1b). Our results confi rm that the country of birth has a large predictive value in explaining the occurrence of agreement with the country of ori- gin norm and the possible direction of shift in the ideal family size. Agreement with the national fertility ideal is typical of women from countries where two children are the fertility norm. A deviation towards a lower ideal number of children than in the country of origin is more likely among women who grew up in countries where large families are idealised. However, women with larger ideal families than those in the country of origin are also observed. The country of origin background also has an overall effect on the prevalence of non-numeric responses. The share of women unsure or expressing a preference for a maximum number of children, leaving its determination to fate or God, varies signifi cantly by country of origin. Relations and social networks between members of the same origin community in the destina- tion country might build and reinforce fertility norms shared within a community, explaining the role of country of origin. Even more interestingly, our results show that the correspondence between the personal ideal and the ideal of the country of origin is mostly related to socialisa- tion in the country of origin: arriving as an adult is related to the overall agreement with the country of origin ideal (H2). Few differences exist between women who migrated at 21 and over and between age 16 and 20. This fi nding suggests that, in the likely event that women whose ideals match their average country norm had that same ideal even before migration, ideals are imprinted during the early years of a woman’s life and retained during adulthood according to the socialisation hypoth- esis. Moreover, the 1.5 generation has a higher share of “I don’t know” answers. De- spite model’s controls, this might still be affected by a younger age at the interview among these women, since fertility ideals of adolescents and young adults tend to be more uncertain compared to those of older women (Berrington/Pattaro 2014; Kraus/Castro-Martín 2017). The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 265 Another crucial result underlined by our study is that time since migration has no signifi cant impact on the match between personal ideals and the average family ideals of the country of origin, rejecting the hypothesis that a longer time spent in the country of migration might cause a shift away from the ideals imprinted during childhood and adolescence (H3). In other words, we cannot say whether women whose ideal stated in the survey does not match their country average formed that ideal before migration (selection) or changed it because of migration. However, we can say that if migration drove the change, the effect is not time-dependent. This result is entirely in line with the literature affi rming that personal ideal family size is more of an assimilated social norm than a personal preference, and for this reason does not change over time (Thomson 2015). Our study further confi rms the association between support for gender equity and empowerment and fertility ideals. The effect observed is most evident in the occurrence of non-numeric responses (family size is “up to God” or “I don’t know”). Higher support for gender equity, education, and participation in the job market results in a lower proportion of non-numeric responses. Support for gender equity and empowerment is related to a reduction in uncertainty, implying that more em- powered women who support gender equity are also more likely to consider fertility as a sphere in which they can have an opinion and express ideals. Finally, our results raise the question of whether a possible replication of this study in a more gender-equal country (e.g. those in Northern Europe), compared to the rather traditional Italy, would result in an even stronger effect of gender beliefs on fertility ideals. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe – Spade (grant registration number 349-2007-8701); the Swed- ish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare (FORTE), grant number 2016-07105 and 2018-00310 and the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), grant number 2017-01021. We would like to thank the reviewers and the editors for their thoughtful com- ments and suggestions. References Ager, Alstair; Strang, Alison 2008: Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Frame- work. In: Journal of Refugee Studies 21,2: 166-191 [doi: 10.1093/jrs/fen016]. Alba, Richard; Nee, Victor 2003: Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Algan, Yann et al. (Eds.) 2012: Cultural Integration of Immigrants in Europe, Studies of Policy Reform. Oxford University Press, UK. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi266 Andersson, Gunnar 2004: Childbearing after Migration: Fertility Patterns of Foreign- born Women in Sweden. In: International Migration Review 38,2: 747-774 [doi: 10.1111/ j.1747-7379.2004.tb00216.x]. Arpino, Bruno; Esping-Andersen, Gøsta; Pessin, Lea 2015: How Do Changes in Gender Role Attitudes Towards Female Employment Infl uence Fertility? A Macro-Level Analy- sis. In: European Sociological Review 31,3: 370-382 [doi: 10.1093/esr/jcv002]. Baykara-Krumme, Helen; Milewski, Nadja 2017: Fertility Patterns among Turkish Women in Turkey and Abroad: The Effects of International Mobility, Migrant Generation, and Family Background. In: European Journal of Population 33,3: 409-436 [doi: 10.1007/ s10680-017-9413-9]. Berghammer, Caroline 2012: Church Attendance and Childbearing: Evidence from a Dutch Panel Study, 1987-2005. In: Population Studies 66,2: 197-212 [doi: 10.1080/00324728.2012.655304]. Berrington, Ann; Pattaro, Serena 2014: Educational differences in fertility desires, inten- tions and behaviour: A life course perspective. In: Advances Life Course Research 21: 10-27 [doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2013.12.003]. Billari, Francesco C.; Philipov, Dimiter; Testa, Maria Rita 2009: Attitudes, Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control: Explaining Fertility Intentions in Bulgaria. In: European Journal of Population 25: 439-466 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-009-9187-9]. Blake, Judith 1966: Ideal Family Size among White Americans: A Quarter of a Century’s Evidence. In: Demography 3,1: 154-173. Blau, Francine D. 2015: Immigrants and Gender Roles: Assimilation Vs. Culture. In: IZA Journal of Migration 4,23: 1-21 [doi: 10.1186/s40176-015-0048-5]. Bolzendahl, Catherine I.; Myers, Daniel. J. 2004: Feminist Attitudes and Support for Gender Equality: Opinion Change in Women and Men, 1974-1998. In: Social Forces 83,2: 759-789 [doi: 10.1353/sof.2005.0005]. Bulatao, Rodolfo A. et al. 1983: Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries: A Summary of Knowledge. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. De Valk, Helga A.G. 2013: Intergenerational Discrepancies in Fertility Preferences among Immigrant and Dutch families. In: The History of the Family 18,2: 209-225 [doi: 10.1080/1081602X.2013.826591]. Diehl, Claudia; Schnell, Rainer 2006: “Reactive Ethnicity” or “Assimilation”? State- ments, Arguments, and First Empirical Evidence for Labor Migrants in Germany. In: International Migration Review 40,4: 786-816 [doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00044.x]. Doepke, Matthias; Tertilt, Michele 2018: Women’s Empowerment, the Gender Gap in Desired Fertility, and Fertility Outcomes in Developing Countries. In: IZA Discus- sion Paper Series. Bonn: IZA Institute of Labor Economics [https://ssrn.com/ab- stract=3111136, 08.11.2018]. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta; Billari, Francesco C. 2015: Re-theorizing Family Demo- graphics. In: Population and development review 41,1: 1-31 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728- 4457.2015.00024.x]. Eurostat 2018: Online Database [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, 08.11.2018]. Fan, Pi-Ling; Marini, Margaret Mooney 2000: Infl uences on Gender-role Attitudes During the Transition to Adulthood. In: Social Science Research 29,2: 258-283 [doi: 10.1006/ ssre.1999.0669]. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 267 Fargues, Philippe 2007: The Demographic Benefi t of International Migration: A Hy- pothesis and its Application to Middle Eastern and North African Countries. In: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4050. Washington, DC: The World Bank [doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-4050]. Finer, Lawrence B.; Zolna, Mia R. 2016: Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008-2011. In: N Engl Med 374: 843-852 [doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506575]. Frejka, Tomas; Westoff, Charles F. 2008: Religion, Religiousness and Fertility in the US and in Europe. In: European Journal of Population 24,1: 5-31 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-007- 9121-y]. Frye, Margaret; Bachan, Lauren 2017: The Demography of Words: The Global Decline in Non-numeric Fertility Preferences, 1993-2011. In: Population Studies 71,2 [doi: 10.1080/00324728.2017.1304565]. Gàlvez, Alyshia 2011: Patient Citizens, Immigrant Mothers: Mexican Women, Public Pre- natal Care, and the Birth-weight Paradox. New Brunswick/New Jersey/London: Rut- gers University Press [doi: 10.1111/j.1935-4940.2012.01258.x]. Genereux, Anne 2007: A Review of Migration and Fertility Theory through the Lens of African Immigrant Fertility in France. MPIDR Working Paper WP 2007-008. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Gordon, Milton 1964: Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. Hayford, Sarah R.; Morgan, Philip S. 2008: Religiosity and Fertility in the United States: The Role of Fertility Intentions. In: Soc Forces 86,3: 1163-1188 [doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0000]. Hayford, Sarah R.; Agadjanian, Victor 2011: Uncertain Future, Non-numeric Preferences, and the Fertility Transition: A Case Study of Rural Mozambique. In: African Population Studies 25,2: 419-439 [doi: 10.11564/25-2-239]. Holland, Jennifer A.; de Valk, Helga 2013: Ideal Ages for Family Formation among Im- migrants in Europe. In: Advances in Life Course Research 18;4: 257-269 [doi: 10.1016/j. alcr.2013.08.002]. Iacovou, Maria; Tavares, Lara Patrício 2011: Yearning, Learning, and Conceding: Rea- sons Men and Women Change their Childbearing Intentions. In: Population and Devel- opment Review 37,1: 89-123 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00391.x]. Kearns, Ade; Whitley, Elise 2015: Getting There? The Effects of Functional Factors, Time and Place on the Social Integration of Migrants. In: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41,13: 2105-2129 [doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2015.1030374]. King, Russel 2000: Southern Europe in the Changing Global Map of Migration. In: King, Russel; Lazaridis, Gabriella; Tsardanidis, Charalambos (Eds.): Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan [doi: 10.1057/9780333982525_1]. Kraus, Elizabeth K.; Castro-Martin, Teresa 2017: Does Migrant Background Matter for Adolescents’ Fertility Preferences? The Latin American 1.5 Generation in Spain. In: European Journal of Population 34, 3: 277-312 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-017-9427-3]. Kuhnt, Anne-Kristin; Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Trappe, Heike 2017: Fertility Ideals of Wom- en and Men Across the Life Course. In: Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Konietzka, Dirk (Eds.): Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. In: Demographic Re- search Monographs (A series of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research). Springer, Cham [doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7_11]. Kulu, Hill 2005: Migration and Fertility: Competing Hypotheses Re-examined. In: Euro- pean Journal of Population 21,1: 51-87 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-005-3581-8]. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi268 Kulu, Hill et al. 2017: Fertility by Birth Order among the Descendants of Immigrants in Selected European Countries. In: Population and Development Review 43,1: 31-60 [doi: 10.1111/padr.12037]. Lesthaeghe, Ron (Ed.) 2002: Meaning and Choice: Value Orientations and Life Course Decisions. The Hague: NIDI/CBGS. Lieberson, Stanley; Waters, Mary C. 1988: From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Liefbroer, Aart C.; Billari, Francesco C. 2010: Bringing Norms Back In: A Theoretical and Empirical Discussion of Their Importance for Understanding Demographic Behaviour. In: Population Space Place 16,4: 287-305 [doi: 10.1002/psp.552]. Martin, Steven P. 2004: Delayed Marriage and Childbearing: Implications and Meas- urement of Diverging Trends in Family Timing. In: Neckerman, Kathryn (Ed.): Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage: 79-118. Mayer, Jochen; Riphahn, Regina T. 2000: Fertility Assimilation of Immigrants: Evidence from Count Data Models. In: Journal of Population Economics 13,2: 241-261. McDonald, Peter 2006: Low Fertility and the State: The Effi cacy of Policy. In: Population and Development Review 32,3: 485-510 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2006.00134.x]. McDonald, Peter 2013: Societal Foundations for Explaining Low Fertility: Gender Equity. In: Demographic Research 28: 981-994 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.34]. Mencarini, Letizia; Tanturri, Maria Letizia 2004: Time use, family role-set and childbear- ing among Italian working women. In: Genus 60,1: 111-137. Milewski, Nadja 2010: Immigrant Fertility in West Germany: Is There a Socialization Ef- fect in Transitions to Second and Third Births? In: European Journal of Population/ Revue européenne de Démographie 26,3: 297-323 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-010-9211-0]. Mills, Melinda 2010: Gender Roles, Gender (In)equality and Fertility: An Empirical Test of Five Gender Equity Indices. In: Canadian Studies in Population 37,3-4: 445-474 [doi: 10.25336/P6131Q]. Mills, Melinda et al. 2008: Gender Equity and Fertility Intentions in Italy and the Nether- lands. In: Demographic Research 18,1: 1-26 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.18.1]. Mussino, Eleonora; Strozza, Salvatore 2012a: The Fertility of Immigrants after Ar- rival: The Italian Case. In: Demographic Research 26,4: 99-130 [doi: 10.4054/Dem- Res.2012.26.4]. Mussino, Eleonora; Strozza, Salvatore 2012b: Does Citizenship Still Matter? Second Birth Risks of Migrants from Albania, Morocco, and Romania in Italy. In: European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 28,3: 269-302 [doi: 10.1007/ s10680-012-9261-6]. Nauck, Bernhard 1987: Individuelle und kontextuelle Faktoren der Kinderzahl in türkis- chen Migrantenfamilien. In: Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 13,3: 319-344. Neyer, Gerda; Lappegård, Trude; Vignoli, Daniele 2013: Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters? In: European Journal of Population 29: 245 [doi: 10.1007/ s10680-013-9292-7]. OECD 2016: Ideal and Actual Number of Children. Online resource [https://www.oecd. org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-children.pdf, February 2018]. Olaleye, David 1993: Ideal Family Size: A Comparative Study of Numerical and Non- numerical Fertility Desires of Women in Two sub-Saharan African Countries. In: DHS Woking Paper 7. Calverton, MD: Macro International. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 269 Ortensi, Livia E. 2015: Engendering the Fertility-migration Nexus: The Role of Women’s Migratory Patterns in the Analysis of Fertility After Migration. In: Demographic Re- search 32: 1435-1468 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.53]. Penn, Roger; Lambert, Paul 2002: Attitudes Towards Ideal Family Size of Different Eth- nic/nationality Groups in Great Britain, France and Germany. In: Population Trends Summer 108: 49-58. Peri-Rotem, Nitzan 2016: Religion and Fertility in Western Europe: Trends Across Co- horts in Britain, France and the Netherlands. In: European Journal of Population 32,2: 231-265 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-015-9371-z]. Philipov, Dimiter; Bernardi, Laura 2011: Reproductive Decisions: Concepts and Meas- urement in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. In: Comparative Population Studies 36,2-3: 495-530 [doi: 10.4232/10.CPoS-2011-14en]. Quesnel-Vallée, Amélie; Morgan, S. Philip 2003: Missing the Target? Correspondence of Fertility Intentions and Behavior in the U.S.. In: Population Research and Policy 22,5-6: 497-525 [doi: 10.1023/B:POPU.0000021074.33415.c1]. Rindfuss, Ronald R. 1976: Fertility and Migration: The Case of Puerto Rico. In: Interna- tional Migration Review 10,2: 191-203. Sedgh, Gilda; Singh, Susheela; Hussain, Rubina 2014: Intended and Unintended Preg- nancies Worldwide in 2012 and Recent Trends. In: Studies in Family Planning 45,3: 301-314 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00393.x]. Searle, Shayle Robert; Speed, F.M.; Milliken, George A. 1980: Population Marginal Means in the Linear Model: An Alternative to Least Squares Means. In: The American Statistician 34,4: 216-221 [doi: 10.2307/2684063]. Sobotka, Tomáš 2008: The Rising Importance of Migrants for Childbearing in Europe. In: Demographic Research 19,9: 225-248 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.9]. Sobotka, Tomáš; Beaujouan, Éva 2014: Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe. In: Population and Development Review 40,3: 391-419 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2014.00691.x]. Statham, Paul; Tillie, Jean 2016: Muslims in Their European Societies of Settlement: A Comparative Agenda for Empirical Research on Socio-cultural Integration Across Countries and Groups: In: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42,2: 177-196 [doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2015.1127637]. Testa, Maria Rita 2012: Family Sizes in Europe: Evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer Survey. European Demographic Research Papers. Vienna: Institute of Demography. Testa, Maria Rita; Grilli, Leonardo 2006: The Infl uence of Childbearing Regional Contexts on Ideal Family Size in Europe. In: Population 61: 99-127 [doi: 10.3917/pope.601.0099]. Tazi-Preve, Irene M.; Bichlbauer, Dieter; Goujon, Anne 2004: Gender Trouble and Its Impact on Fertility Intentions. In: Yearbook of Population Research in Finland 40: 5-24. Thomson, Elizabeth 2015: Family Size Preferences. In: Wright, James D. (Ed.): Interna- tional Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. Toulemon, Laurent 2001: Why Fertility is Not So Low in France: Paper presented at the IUSSP – International Union for Scientifi c Study of Population – Seminar on Inter- national Perspectives on Low Fertility: Trends, Theories and Policies: Tokyo, 21-23 March 2001. Trent, Roger B. 1980: Evidence Bearing on the Construct Validity of “Ideal Family Size”. In: Population and Environment 3,3-4: 309-327 [doi: 10.1007/BF01255345]. • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi270 Unger, Jennifer B.; Molina, Gregory B. 1997: Desired Family Size and Son Preference Among Hispanic Women of Low Socioeconomic Status. In: Family Planning Perspec- tives 29,6: 284-287 [doi: 10.1363/2928497]. Upadhyay, Ushma D.; Karasek, Deborah 2012: Women’s Empowerment and Ideal Fam- ily Size: An Examination of DHS Empowerment Measures in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 38,2: 78-89 [doi: 10.1363/3807812]. Upadhyay, Ushma D. et al. 2014: Women’s Empowerment and Fertility: A Review of the Literature. In: Social Science & Medicine 115: 111-120 [doi: 10.1016/j.socsci- med.2014.06.014]. Van De Kaa, Dirk J. 2001: Postmodern Fertility Preferences: From Changing Value Ori- entation to New Behaviour. In: Population and Development Review 27, Supplement: Global Fertility Transition: 290-331. Van de Walle, Etienne 1992: Fertility Transition, Conscious Choice, and Numeracy. In: Demography 29,4: 487-502. Westoff, Charles F.; Potvin, Raymond H. 1967: College Women and Fertility Values. Princeton: Princeton University Press [doi: 10.1515/9781400876051]. Weston, Ruth; Qu, Lixia; Parker, Robyn 2005: It’s Not for Lack of Wanting Kids... A Report on the Fertility Decision Making Project. Research Report No. 11. Melbourne: Austral- ian Institute of Family Studies. White, Michael J.; Moreno, Lorenzo; Guo, Shenyang 1995: The Interrelation of Fertility and Geographic Mobility in Peru: A Hazards Model Analysis. In: International Migra- tion Review 29,2: 492-514 [doi: 10.2307/2546791]. Williams, Richard 2012: Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects. In: The Stata Journal 12,2: 308-331. Woldemicael, Gebremariam 2009: Women’s Autonomy and Reproductive Pref- erences in Eritrea. In: Journal of Biosocial Science 41;2: 161-181 [doi: 10.1017/ S0021932008003040]. Zuo, Jipingand; Tang, Shengming 2000: Breadwinner Status and Gender Ideologies of Men and Women Regarding Family Roles. In: Sociological Perspectives 43,1: 29-43 [doi: 10.2307/1389781]. Date of submission: 30.04.2018 Date of acceptance: 25.10.2018 Eleonora Mussino. Stockholm University. Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: eleonora.mussino@sociology.su.se, https://www.su.se/english/profi les/emuss-1.189704 Livia Elisa Ortensi (). University of Milan, Bicocca. Milan, Italy. E-mail: livia.ortensi1@unimib.it, URL: https://www.unimib.it/livia-elisa-ortensi Authors appear in alphabetical order. The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 271 Appendix Tab. A1: Sample description in absolute values and percentages (N = 7,307) Absolute % Absolute % Values Values Country of Birth: Previous children: Albania (Ref.) 673 9.2 0 (Ref.) 2520 34.5 EU15 and ODCs 204 2.8 1 1857 25.4 Other Europe 294 4.0 2 1933 26.5 Other Africa 299 4.1 3 996 13.6 Other Latin America 127 1.7 Age at arrival: Other Asia 201 2.8 <16 years (Ref.) 864 11.8 Bulgaria 85 1.2 16-20 years 1229 16.8 France 79 1.1 21 + years 5214 71.4 Germany 58 0.8 Duration of stay: Poland 263 3.6 <6 years (Ref.) 2135 29.2 Romania 1808 24.7 6-10 years 2796 38.3 Ukraine 384 5.3 11 + years 2376 32.5 Russia 85 1.2 Gender equity: Macedonia (FYROM) 117 1.6 No (Ref.) 3548 48.6 Moldova 269 3.7 Yes 3759 51.4 Kosovo 75 1.0 Marital status: Bangladesh 84 1.1 Never been married (Ref.) 2304 31.5 Sri Lanka 105 1.4 Married 3999 54.7 China 267 3.7 Separated/widowed/ Philippines 187 2.6 divorced 1003 13.7 India 156 2.1 Age interview 33.7 Ghana 57 0.8 Circular migration: Morocco 618 8.5 stable (Ref.) 7108 97.3 Nigeria 86 1.2 Circular 199 2.7 Senegal 67 0.9 Labour market: Tunisia 109 1.5 Working (Ref.) 3840 52.6 Dominican Republic 69 1.0 Looking for a job 1155 15.8 Brazil 126 1.7 Out of labour force 2312 31.6 Ecuador 167 2.3 Education: Peru 187 2.6 Low secondary school (Ref.) 2796 38.3 Vocational school 1207 16.5 High secondary school 2259 30.9 Post-secondary education 1045 14.3 Italian profi ciency: Good 6368 87.1 Bad 939 12.9 Religious-service attendance: Sometimes (Ref.) 2228 30.5 Never 2928 40.1 Often 1828 25.0 Missing 323 4.4 Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12 • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi272 Tab. A2: Akaike’s information criterion and Bayesian information criterion for models including only one variable Model Obs ll(null) ll(model) df AIC BIC Previous children 7,307 -10,650 -9,917 16 19,866 19,977 Country of birth 7,307 -10,650 -9,930 120 20,100 20,928 Gender equity 7,307 -10,650 -10,522 8 21,061 21,116 Marital status 7,307 -10,650 -10,548 12 21,119 21,202 Religious-service attendance 7,307 -10,650 -10,566 16 21,165 21,275 Age interview 7,307 -10,650 -10,577 8 21,171 21,226 Age interview squared 7,307 -10,650 -10,583 8 21,183 21,238 Education 7,307 -10,650 -10,577 16 21,187 21,297 Age arrival 7,307 -10,650 -10,601 8 21,218 21,274 Labour market 7,307 -10,650 -10,605 12 21,233 21,316 Duration of stay 7,307 -10,650 -10,619 8 21,255 21,310 Language profi ciency 7,307 -10,650 -10,628 8 21,272 21,327 Stability of presence 7,307 -10,650 -10,636 8 21,288 21,344 Note: Obs: Observations; ll(null): log likelihood for the null model; ll(model): log likeli- hood for the full model; df: degree of freedom; AIC: Akaike’s information criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion. Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12 The Same Fertility Ideals as in the Country of Origin? • 273 Tab. A3: Relative risk ratios (RRR) of personal ideal number of children compared to origin country. The reference category is “equal”. In the model we control for age at arrival, duration of stay, gender beliefs, and country of birth Lower than Higher than Up to I don’t in the origin in the origin God know country country Previous children: Ref = 0 1 1.22* 1.04 0.67** 0.61*** 2 0.24*** 1.22 0.27*** 0.15*** 3 0.02*** 16.09*** 0.18*** 0.14*** Marital status: Ref = Never been married Married 0.76** 0.72* 0.64** 0.58*** Separated/widowed/divorced 0.84 0.98 0.68* 0.75* Age at interview 1.17*** 1.09 1.31*** 1.27*** Age at interview squared 1.00* 1.00* 1.00*** 1.00*** Stability of the presence: Ref = Stable Circular 0.69* 1.13 1.29 0.83 Education: Ref = Low secondary school Vocational school 1.00 0.82 0.72* 1.22* High secondary school 1.10 0.84 1.04 0.75** Post-secondary education 0.86 0.64** 0.73* 0.48*** Italian profi ciency: Ref = Good Bad 1.10 1.20 1.16 0.96 Religious-service attendance: Ref = Sometimes Never 0.78** 0.82* 0.89 1.05 Often 0.87 1.23 1.02 1.21 Missing 0.92 0.82 1.38 3.49*** Labour market condition: Ref = Working Looking for a job 1.05 1.02 0.75* 1.15 Out of labour force 0.81* 0.86 1.06 1.42*** Age at arrival: Ref =<16 16-20 0.728* 0.778 0.658* 0.580** 21 + 0.607* 0.719 0.665 0.463*** Duration of stay: Ref =<6 years 6-10 years 1.035 1.009 0.796* 0.939 11 + years 0.880 1.174 0.762 0.877 Gender equity: Ref =No yes 0.828** 1.154 0.270*** 0.503*** Country of Birth: Ref Albania EU15 and ODCs 1.31 0.59* 1.41 1.31 Other Europe 2.37*** 0.73 1.08 1.77** Other Africa 26.86*** 0.20*** 3.70*** 7.27*** Other Latin America 2.35*** 0.66 2.11* 1.11 Other Asia 13.99*** 0.43* 4.94*** 2.49** Bulgaria 16.78*** 0.26*** 4.01*** 3.11*** France 0.47* 0.60 0.85 0.86 • Eleonora Mussino, Livia Elisa Ortensi274 Lower than Higher than Up to I don’t in the origin in the origin God know country country Germany 1.19 1.47 0.63 1.13 Poland 0.76 1.54 1.51 1.32 Romania 0.91 0.63* 1.15 0.86 Ukraine 1.12 0.85 0.61* 1.24 Russia 1.08 1.25 0.92 0.55 Macedonia 11.35*** 0.15*** 4.49*** 3.81*** Moldova 17.34*** 0.21*** 3.73*** 4.00*** Kosovo 13.52*** 0.42* 4.50*** 1.87 Bangladesh 0.45 1.53 1.30 1.14 Sri Lanka 21.88*** 0.10** 9.47*** 4.39*** China 0.96 1.34 1.75* 1.03 Philippines 21.03*** 0.39* 6.42*** 6.74*** India 0.56 0.79 1.56 0.84 Ghana 42.16*** 0.06*** 8.39*** 2.56 Morocco 9.87*** 0.28*** 4.14*** 2.54*** Nigeria 197.47*** 0.00 85.46*** 48.38*** Senegal 27.95*** 0.18** 8.90*** 3.97** Tunisia 10.25*** 0.10*** 2.52* 2.55** Dominican Republic 4.93*** 0.35* 0.90 1.93 Brazil 1.08 1.44 0.80 0.86 Ecuador 16.61*** 0.24*** 2.09 4.36*** Peru 0.90 1.98** 0.42* 1.06 Constant 0.48 0.02*** 0.04*** 0.07*** Log likelihood -8,503.53 Tab. A3: Continuation *** p<0.001 ** p<0.005 *p<0.05 Note: Up to God (UtG), I don’t know (IDK) Source: Own calculation based on ISTAT survey “Social condition and integration of for- eign citizens” 2011-12 Table A3 show that women with parity 0 have a higher RRR of giving non-numeric responses compared to the women that have a similar personal ideal family size in Italy compared to their origin country. The RRR of having lower ideals decreases with the increases of the parity and, conversely, the risk of having larger ideals than the origin country average increases if the women already have three or more children. Never-married women have a higher RRR of having the same personal ideal family size of their origin country. Women with a more dynamic (circular/in- terrupted) pattern of migration have a lower RRR of having fewer children than the norm in their origin country. No statistical effect is found for Italian language profi - ciency. Lack of religious service attendance decreases both the risk of having lower or higher numbers of children than the norm in the origin country. Published by Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider Federal Institute for Population Research D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany 2018 Managing Editor Dr. Katrin Schiefer Copy Editor Dr. Evelyn Grünheid Dr. Katrin Schiefer Editorial Assistant Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs Wiebke Hamann Layout Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientifi c Advisory Board Karsten Hank (Cologne) Michaela Kreyenfeld (Berlin) Marc Luy (Vienna) Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz) Nikola Sander (Wiesbaden) Zsolt Spéder (Budapest) Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers Martin Abraham (Erlangen) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn) Claudia Diehl (Konstanz) Andreas Diekmann (Zurich) Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock) Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna) Beat Fux (Salzburg) Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley) Sonja Haug (Regensburg) Hill Kulu (Liverpool) Aart C. Liefbroer (The Hague) Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz) Emma Lundholm (Umeå) Nadja Milewski (Rostock) Dimiter Philipov (Vienna) Roland Rau (Rostock) Tomáš Sobotka (Vienna) Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona) Olivier Thévenon (Paris) Helga de Valk (Brussels) Heike Trappe (Rostock) Michael Wagner (Cologne) << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice