a comparison of recent trends of international marriages and divorces in europe

A Comparison of Recent Trends of International Marriages and

Divorces in Europe

Giampaolo LANZIERI

This presentation is given to inform interested parties about research work and toencourage discussion. The views expressed are exclusively those of the author anddo not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission.

Seoul, 20 October 2011 IUSSP Seminar on Global Perspective on Marriage and International Migration

2

Contents• Main focus on intermarriages as overall

indicator of migrants’ integration– No distinction for marriage as cause of

migration

• Three main parts of the presentation:1) Methodology: review of existing intermarriage

measures and some proposals2) Description of the current situation in Europe3) Discussion points on direct use for policy

purposes (monitoring of migrants’ integration)


3

Background and research goals• Important migratory flows to Europe and ageing

populations relevance of migrants’ integration• Intermarriage as “litmus test of assimilation”• Research objectives:

– Overview of the latest intermarriage trends in Europe– Identification of appropriate indicator(s)– Testing adoption for integration analyses/policies

The “where”, the “how many”…but not the “who” and the “why”


4

Which (kind of) intermarriage?

• Several possible concepts:– Faith/religion– Ethnicity– Race– Country of birth– Citizenship– …

• Breakdown by citizenship

Totalmarriages /

divorces

Nationalmarriages /

divorces

Internationalmarriages /

divorces

Mixedmarriages /

divorces

Foreignmarriages /

divorces


5

Data sources on events• Special survey on international marriages

and divorces in 2008 on European Union (EU) Member States– Support to a EU regulation proposal– Breakdown by national, mixed and foreign

event

• Extended survey in spring 2011:– Covering more European countries (33) and

wider period (1990-2010)– Including the breakdown by citizenship of the

spouses (but only national/foreigner)


6

Other data sources

• On migration:– Eurostat database– MIMOSA

• On integration:– MIPEX– “Zaragoza”


7

General data issues

• Exclusion of de facto relationships and registered partnerships

• Same-sex marriages not distinguished• Coverage errors

– country of occurrence vs. country of residence

• No disaggregation (by age, educational attainment, single citizenship, etc.)

only possible limited analysis


8

Issues on data by citizenship• Characteristic not permanent nor unique• Influenced by national practices on

acquisition (especially marriages)• Data quite reliable• Not necessarily linked to individual

migration (ius sanguinis vs. ius soli)• Special cases (stateless, undefined

citizenship, non-citizens, unknown) added to foreigners


9

The marriage table

Year TNational brides

Foreign brides

Total brides

National grooms

nNN nNF nN+

Foreign grooms

nFN nFF nF+

Total grooms

n+N n+F n++


10

Measures w/out full breakdown

• Proportion of mixed marriages on total marriages:

mmix=(nNF+nFN)/n++

• Proportion of mixed marriages on total marriages with foreigners:

emix,F=(nNF+nFN)/(nNF+nFN+nFF)(intermarriage rate)

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms

nF+nFFnFNForeign grooms

nN+nNFnNNNational grooms

Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T


11

Measures on individuals

• Proportion of intermarrying national grooms:

sN,m=nNF/nN+

(intermarriage ratio)n++n+Fn+N

Total grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

Foreign brides

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

National brides

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

Foreign grooms


12

Measures using the full b/down

• Odds ratio:OR=(nNN*nFF)/(nNF*nFN)

– not limited within [-1,+1]– with and w/out adjustment for small numbers

• Yule’s coefficients: Q, H and Hstd

– range [-1,+1]– Q = (OR – 1)/(OR + 1)

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T


13

Other measures for subgroups

• With independence table:– Ratio observed/expected (by ctz)– Benini (by ctz)

• V of Gray (by sex and ctz)Example: data used for national grooms

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

Ratio obs/exp Benini

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

n++n+Fn+NTotal

grooms



Total brides

Foreign brides

National brides

Year T

V of Gray


14

Measures using further data• Total population:

– Crude rates

• Population by citizenship– (Extended) Group-specific rates

• Population by citizenship and sex– Sex- and group-specific rates– Approximated Z of Schoen (Z1)

• Population by citizenship, sex, age and legal marital status:– Z’ of Schoen


15

Crude rates international eventsAverage 2005-09 per thousand persons


16

Proportions international eventsAverage 2005-09


17

International events in Europe

• In general, the bulk of international events is due to the mixed ones– foreign events are stable on lower levels

• Foreigners have higher rates of marriages/divorces than nationals

• The proportion of foreigners does not fully explain the proportion of int.l events

analysis of endogamy / exogamy


18

Indexes of endogamy-exogamy• Endogamy:

propensity to marry within the same broad citizenship group

• Exogamy: propensity to marry out of the own broad citizenship group

• Range [-1,+1] = [max endogamy, max exogamy]

m2,mix = 2*mmix-1

e2,mix = eN,mix+eF,mix-1

s2,mix = (Σsctz,sex/2)-1

Q2 = -Q

H2 = -H H2,std = -Hstd

V2,mix = -ΣVctz,sex/4

Z2 = 2*Z1-1


19

Indexes and linear changes

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

mmix2 emix2 smix2 Q2 H2 Hstd2 V2 Z2

indifference

indifference

weak exogamy

weak endogamy

moderate endogamy

strong endogamy

moderate exogamy

strong exogamy


20

Indexes values for Europe• m2,mix generally lower (moderate/strong

endogamy), e2,mix generally higher (indifference)• s2,mix and H2 very close (indifference/weak

endogamy)• H2,std close as well, little shift toward endogamy• Q2 more volatile, higher endogamy/exogamy• V2 trends more smoothed, almost consistent

with s2,mix, H2 and H2,std

• Z2 values sometimes different from all others, sensitive to population-at-risk estimation issues


21

Z2 for Europe, 2005-09

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

CY MT IT ES EE LV DE DK FR BE AT FI IS CH PT LI* HU NO CZ SI* PL* LT SK BG* RO*

(*) average on shorter period


22

Trends of endogamy-exogamy

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AT

BE

BG

BH

BY

CH

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IS

IT

LI

LT

LU

LV

ME

MT

NL

NO

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

region (All) type event Marriages

Indicator Z2

year

country


23

Disaggregation by ctz and sex

• s2,mix gives exogamy higher for foreigners, women more than men

• V2 dependent on relative size of the groups unfit for disaggregation

• Z2 consistent with s2,mix, foreign men intermarry more than foreign women in Baltic countries and in France, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Slovakia


24

Interpretation for integration

• Difference between concepts of integration and assimilation

• Indifference (no endogamy, no exogamy) does mean integration?

• Full endogamy = isolation, full exogamy = assimilation

• Weak correlation of Z1 with MIPEX indicators, stronger correlation with Zaragoza indicators, but different ranking


25

To conclude: open questions - 1• Is intermarriage (still) a good indicator for

integration?– Yes. Important (unique?) summary indicator

for measuring social distances.

• Which characteristic should then be used between country of birth, citizenship, race, ethnicity, etc.?– Combination of country of birth and

citizenship– Breakdown in 2 categories: “native-born

nationals” and “others”.


26

To conclude: open questions - 2

• Which source of data should be used?– Annual marriage data for flows (administrative

source).– Search for comparable data sources for

stocks (between census years).

• Which indicator should be computed?– Z’ of Schoen or approximated version,

depending on data availability and quality, and timeliness requirements.


27

To conclude: open questions - 3• Which level of disaggregation should be

considered?– national level for all the groups together (overall

measure), possibly broken down by sex and group – single indexes should be computed as well for the

major migrants communities in the country– if there is strong geographical segregation, the

regional detail should also be considered

• How to interpret the values of the indicator?– Possible distinction between isolation, integration and

assimilation

Thanks for your attention!

[email protected]

a comparison of recent trends of international marriages and divorces in europe

Data & Analytics