Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics
Experiences with the German Microcensus
Andrea Janßen & Julia H. Schroedter
Paper presented at the Conference
Social Statistics and Ethnic Diversity:
Should we count, how should we count, and why?
Montréal, Quebec
December 6-8, 2007
Please quote with permission only.
Andrea Janßen – University of Applied Sciences, Esslingen:
[email protected]
Julia H. Schroedter – GESIS-ZUMA, Mannheim:
[email protected]
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
I
II
Introduction.............................................................................................................1
History of Immigration...........................................................................................2
II.1
Labor migration .................................................................................................2
II.2
Migration of Ethnic Germans ............................................................................3
III
Description of the German Microcensus ..............................................................4
IV Illustrating examples ..............................................................................................6
IV.1 Intermarriage in Western Germany ...................................................................6
IV.2
Identifying Ethnic Germans with Microcensus data........................................11
V
Conclusions............................................................................................................18
VI
References ..............................................................................................................20
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
I
1
Introduction
In the last decades, Germany has increasingly evolved into an immigrant country; a fact
which has been realized only recently by both society and politics. As a consequence, the
subject of assimilation of migrants and their descendants is gaining importance in
sociological discussion and in public perception as well. At the same time statisticians
and researchers face a difficulty to meet the growing demand for adequate data of the
immigrated and native population in Germany, given that for a long time most of the
Official Statistics – including the biggest continuous German household study, i.e. the
Microcensus – only surveyed the citizenship1 of respondents. This feature used to be
rather appropriate to distinguish between natives and migrants in Germany since the
barriers for naturalization were high (e.g. 15 years of residence). In the mid 1990s and
again in 2000 German naturalization laws were changed making naturalization easier.
For example, eight years of residence are enough to apply for naturalization now and in
most instances children from foreigners residing in Germany get German citizenship by
birth. Because a lot of immigrants – especially from Non-EU-countries made use of the
more simplified terms of naturalization, citizenship is less and less adequate to identify
migrants. To take the widening gap between citizenship and ethnic origin into account,
an amendment concerning the “Microcensus law” was passed in 2005 to survey not only
citizenship but also information on naturalization, former citizenship and ethnic origin.
This modification enables us to picture migration and integration in the Federal Republic
of Germany in more detail.
In the following, we give a short overview of the most important characteristics of
immigration history in Germany. Next, the German Microcensus is described and the
differences affecting the identification of migrants between the “modified” Microcensus
2005 and former Microcensuses are summarized (chapter III). Hereafter, we present two
examples to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of the present concept by using
data of the Microcensus 2005.
1
In the following “citizenship” and “nationality” are used as synonyms.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
II
2
History of Immigration
The history of immigration into Germany is mainly affected by two groups: The
migration of so-called “guest workers” (Gastarbeiter) and the migration of German
repatriates (Aussiedler). Beyond that asylum seekers play an important role.
II.1
Labor migration
In order to solve labor shortages, German authorities signed a recruitment agreement
with Italy in 1955. Additional recruitment agreements were signed with Spain and
Greece in 1960, followed by contracts with Turkey (1961), Morocco (1963), Portugal
(1964), Tunisia (1965) and (former) Yugoslavia (1968). In the course of this work-related
migration predominantly younger men came to Germany. In the beginning, their
residence was expected to be temporary: After one or two years the laborers were
supposed to return to their country of origin while the job vacancies should be filled with
new migrants (Münz et al. 1997). Because this concept of temporariness and rotation met
with neither the requests of the economy nor the expectations of the migrants, it could not
be implemented in the long run. In 1973, because of a decreasing demand of labor force,
the German government enacted to stop labor recruitment. As a consequence, laborrelated migration actually decreased, but at the same time families of migrant workers
joined them in the host country. Family reunification processes finally contributed to the
fact that migration of formerly called “guest workers” became enduring. The following
figure illustrates the population development of the numerically largest nationalities in
Germany coming from former recruitment countries from 1973 to 2004.
Fig. 1: Development of the foreign population in Germany
( in 1,000)
3000
2500
2000
1500
Turkish
1000
Yugoslavian
Italian
500
Greek
Spanish
0
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
Source: Microcensus scientific use files 1973, 1976, 1982, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996-2004 (weighted data),
since 1991 including the new states and East-Berlin, persons in households at the main-residence
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
3
Until the mid-nineties, the number of almost all nationalities increased, especially of the
Turkish migrants. The rise of the Yugoslavian group in the 1990s is mainly a result of
refugees who escaped from the civil war in Yugoslavia.
At the end of the nineties the number of foreigners in Germany began to decline. This is
partly due to legal changes. Among others naturalization policy – as was mentioned
above – was modified in 2000: The preconditions for naturalization were simplified and,
furthermore, aspects of the “ius soli” were integrated in the concept of naturalization
involving that – under certain conditions – children of foreign parents obtain the German
citizenship by birth. As a consequence especially persons with a Non-EU-nationality (e.g.
Turkey, states of the former Yugoslavia) who already had been living in Germany for a
long time, made use of naturalization in great number.
II.2
Migration of Ethnic Germans
Another remarkable characteristic of the German migration history is the immigration of
German repatriates – so called “Aussiedler” or “Ethnic Germans” – and their offspring.
Until the nineties of the last century predominantly polish people with German origin
remigrated from regions belonging to Germany before World War II. After the collapse
of the Soviet Union in the beginning of the nineties, a notable number of Ethnic Germans
emigrated from the Soviet Union. The migration to Russia started in the 13th century with
German salesman from Lübeck, a Hanseatic City. In the 18th century, Katharina II
initialized large resettlements of Germans to almost unpopulated regions near the Volga.
In the year 1850, about 165,000 “Russian Germans” or “Volga Germans” lived in Russia.
After World War II, the German settlers have been affected by discrimination because of
their ethnic origin.
Until Germany’s unification in 1990 the Ethnic Germans were legally not considered as
immigrants but as Germans in their rights to enter and to stay in the Country.
During the period from 1990 to 2005 almost two and a half million Ethnic Germans and
their relatives came to Germany. In order to immigrate to Germany, certain prerequisites
must be met: Before migration is permitted, the ethnic origin of the applicant has to be
verified. For this purpose, the candidate has, for instance, to pass a language test. Since
2005 this is also mandatory for family members accompanying him or her. In Germany,
Ethnic Germans are then assigned to a temporary residence. Since 2000 the number of
admission for Ethnic Germans is restricted up to 100,000 persons a year.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
III
4
Description of the German Microcensus
The Microcensus is the biggest continuous survey in Germany: Conducted annually by
the Federal Statistical Office since 1957, it covers one percent of the population living in
Germany, i.e. approximately 800,000 people in 350,000 households each year.2 All
households in Germany are equally likely to be interviewed (random sample). If a
household is selected, each member will be interviewed.
Because participation is mandatory unit non-response in the Microcensus is very low: In
2005 the rate amounts to about five percent. With respect to the few questions that are
not mandatory the item non-response – depending on the question’s sensitivity – can be
as high as 40 percent.
The main purpose of the Microcensus is to provide statistical information about the
economic and social situation of the population in Germany.3 Furthermore, other official
statistics or social surveys use census data as reference. An anonymized subsample of
70 percent (Microcensus scientific use file) is – in a cross-sectional design – made
available for scientific research.
Apart from basic sociodemographic characteristics like age, sex and citizenship the
Microcensus provides detailed information on a variety of topics: the person’s economic,
occupational and educational conditions are recorded by collecting data of labor
participation, type of current and former employment, general and vocational level of
qualification, income of households and individuals as well as social insurances and
financial precautions. In addition several variables provide information on the family and
household context of the interviewees.
Due to the representative sample and the broad scope of topics, the Microcensus is a
valuable data source for economics and social sciences. It is also of great interest for
researchers who are engaged in the field of migration and integration. The high number
of interviewees allows differentiated analyses of the social and economic integration of
various nationalities. Furthermore it is possible to distinguish within different
nationalities, for example between first and second generation.
A restriction of the Microcensuses until 2004 is that citizenship is the only feature to
differentiate between migrants and natives. Moreover the date of immigration is
surveyed, but the reply is voluntary. Information on citizenship of parents or partners of
2
3
The organizational and technical preparation of the Microcensus is done at the Federal Statistical
Office, while actually conducting the survey and processing the data are tasks of the statistical offices
of the Länder.
The European Union Labour Force Sample Survey is also integrated into the Microcensus.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
5
interviewees is solely available if they live in the same household. Up to 2004, analyses
concerning the social structure and the integration of migrants can therefore merely cover
foreigners or persons with dual citizenship (German and a further nationality). But
especially in the course of the modified naturalization policy, citizenship alone is no
longer suitable to identify (all) persons with either own immigration experience or a
migratory background by their parents.
In the context of a new Microcensus legislation in 2005 this deficiency was compensated
by integrating questions about the ethnic origin in the questionnaire. The added questions
include information on naturalization and – if applicable – the date of naturalization, as
well as the former citizenship. Besides, interviewees are asked if Germany is their
country of birth, and the information on the date of migration became mandatory. Every
four years corresponding information is also surveyed for the parents of the respondents.
The differences between the features surveyed before and since 2005 are summarized in
table 1.
The modified data collection program offers the opportunity to differentiate not only
between foreigners and Germans, but also between naturalized and non-naturalized
persons. This is an important factor for research in the field of integration as naturalized
migrants are often believed to be more assimilated than non-naturalized ones. But if this
actually holds true for migrants in Germany can only now be analyzed with official
statistics.
Tab. 1 Features to differentiate between Germans and migrants,
differences between the Microcensus 2005 and former years
Microcensus 1973-2004
citizenship
only if foreign citizenship:
date of (re)migration, born in Germany
respectively
(information is voluntary)
both also for parents living in the same
household
Microcensus 2005
citizenship
birth in Germany (yes / no)
date of (re)migration
(information is mandatory)
naturalization
date of naturalization
former citizenship
all items (except birth in FRG) also for
parents (exception: married couple living
in the same household as parents)
Researchers using Microcensus scientific use files have to accept another constraint of
the data which results from requirements of anonymization. Concerning the criterion
“citizenship” these are quite restrictive: A minimum of 50,000 persons in the population
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
6
is required to identify nationality. Members of smaller nationalities are pooled in larger,
more heterogeneous groups.
With reference to former citizenship the regulation of anonymization is less restrictive in
the Microcensus since 2005: in order to retain a category in the scientific use file it has to
hold at least 5,000 persons in the population.
IV
Illustrating examples
In the following we illustrate the analytical potential but also the constraints of the
modifications made in the Microcensus from 2005 onwards. Firstly, we show differences
in identifying migrants using an approach only relying on citizenship and a more
comprehensive concept that takes naturalization into account (IV.1). Marriage patterns of
Turkish migrants serve as an example to highlight that the results differ to a great extent
and that including naturalization is of great interest when analyzing social assimilation in
Germany. Secondly, we present an example which demonstrates that the new data
collection program of the Microcensus 2005 still has some disadvantages. We make an
attempt to identify Ethnic Germans whose integration is of major societal and
sociological relevance (IV.2). As we demonstrate, it is (still) not possible to identify them
properly in 2005. Further particulars in the questionnaire would be necessary to
distinguish the entire group of Ethnic Germans.
IV.1
Intermarriage in Western Germany
In the literature on assimilation different dimensions of integration often are
distinguished; i.e. cultural, structural, social and emotional assimilation which influence
each other reciprocally (Esser 2001). The social dimension measures interactions
between minority and majority group members. Because marriages between members of
different (ethnic) groups indicate frequent social interaction and strong social acceptance
among them, intermarriage is considered an important indicator of (social) assimilation
(Alba & Golden 1986; Gordon 1964; Lieberson & Waters 1990). In addition to the
indicating function, marriages between members of different ethnic groups foster the
integration of the minority group. Children of intermarried parents identify themselves
less often with a single group, especially if intermarriages are common in society
(Kalmijn 1998). On top of that intermarriages foster structural assimilation (Pagnini &
Morgan 1990; Lieberson & Waters 1986); immigrants who marry outside their own
group have a better economic position (Meng & Gregory 2005).
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
7
As aforementioned, until 2004, it was only possible to identify immigrants and their
descendents by their (foreign) citizenship. With data from the Microcensus, intermarriage
as an indicator for social assimilation could merely be analyzed by differentiating
between persons of different citizenships (“binational” marriages) (Schroedter & Kalter
2008). But this approach has some deficiencies as naturalized migrants are not included
in the analysis. Because of the increasing number of naturalized persons and the
assumption, that they are better integrated than non-naturalized migrants4, analyses which
do not consider naturalization might provide misleading findings. In order to get a more
comprehensive picture of social assimilation, it seems to be essential to take ethnic origin
and naturalization-status into account as well. This became possible with the enlarged
questionnaire of the Microcensus 2005.
Since intermarriage – by definition – means a marriage across specified group lines
(Lieberson & Waters 1988: 168), binational as well as interethnic marriages can both be
used as indicators – simply varying in how the groups are classified. In the following, we
will show differences between these indicators of intermarriage and consequences for the
estimated level of social assimilation of male migrants from some of the former
recruitment countries.
First, we focus on intermarriages based on citizenship as group membership. Table 2
gives an overview of the nationality of spouses of male Italian, Spanish, Greek, Turkish
and (former) Yugoslavian migrants in western Germany. In 2005, Spaniards are most
often married to a German wife: Almost 51 percent of all married Spanish migrants have
a German spouse. Turkish migrants are least often married to wives with a German
nationality; most of them are married to a Turkish wife.
Tab. 2: Nationality of wives from Italian, Spanish, Greek, Turkish and
(former) Yugoslavian migrants (percent in rows)
Nationality of husband
Italian
Spanish
Greek
Turkish
(former) Yugoslavian
Nationality of wife
German
Same
Other
37.7
54.0
8.3
50.7
45.7
3.6
16.3
77.1
6.5
16.7
82.2
1.1
19.2
77.8
3.0
Total
(N)
822
140
398
2,454
1,013
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, western Germany
4
A strong argument for the assumption is that the naturalization process itself is highly selective in
Germany; e.g. persons who apply for naturalization must not get social assistance.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
8
The following table illustrates the percentage of German wives who obtained the German
citizenship through naturalization (table 3). It shows that naturalization is of minor
importance for the German wives of migrants coming from countries belonging
meanwhile to the European Union like Italy, Spain and Greece. But it is of great
importance for the spouses of Turkish and Yugoslavian migrants. It turns out that more
than half of the German spouses of Turkish migrants are naturalized. Almost all of them
used to have the Turkish citizenship. This result is even more stunning if one takes into
account that Turks are among the groups (besides Greeks) with the lowest intermarriages
rates anyway. It reveals that only about 8 percent of the marriages between Turkish men
and German women in western Germany are actually interethnic.
Tab. 3: Percentage of naturalized spouses in binational marriages of Italian,
Spanish, Greek, Turkish and (former) Yugoslavian migrants (males)
Nationality of husband
Italian
Spanish
Greek
Turkish
(former) Yugoslavian
German nationality through
naturalization (wife)
no
yes
97.1
2.9
95.8
4.2
90.8
9.2
48.4
51.6
76.4
23.6
Total
(N)
310
71
65
411
195
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, western Germany
Given the low level of intermarriage and the high percentage of naturalized spouses it
seems warranted to take a closer look at the development of marriages of Turkish
migrants. Figure 2 illustrates the trend of intermarriage rates over birth cohorts for
Turkish males. The upper line represents all binational marriages with German spouses
and the lower line represents only marriages with native (non-naturalized) German wives.
Fig. 2: Trends over birth cohorts: Intermarriage rates of Turkish men
– with and without naturalized German spouses (5-years-moving average)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Turks (males)
German wife
Only non-naturalized
German wife
30%
20%
10%
0%
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, western Germany
1976
1980
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
9
Graph 2 shows that the intermarriage rates significantly increased since the birth cohort
1932. But especially the strong rise in the younger birth cohorts is caused in large part by
naturalized spouses. Actually the gap between both lines is widening more and more in
the younger birth cohorts. This finding suggests that binational and interethnic marriages
– at least for Turks in Germany – are diverging over time. But this might be a false
conclusion given that marriages between two German partners with different ethnic
origins (or former citizenships) have not yet been considered.
So in the next step we compare marriages of naturalized and non-naturalized migrants
regarding their rates of intermarriages with “native” Germans (table 4). This is only done
for Turkish and Yugoslavian migrants, because members of these two groups are
naturalized in reasonable numbers.
Tab. 4: Marriages of non-naturalized vs. naturalized migrants
(percentages in rows)
Other
Nationality of husband
(former)
Turkish
German (Turkish)
Yugoslavian
German (Yugoslavian)
1.1
1.7
3.6
5.5
Nationality of wife
Same
German
(Turkish resp.
(former:
Yugoslavian)
same)
82.2
8.3
26.7
59.5
77.8
2.6
21.3
41.7
German
(not
naturalized)
8.4
12.1
16.1
31.5
Total
(N)
2,454
771
1,013
127
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, western Germany
In the highlighted column of table 4 the percentage of non-naturalized German wives is
reported for the different groups under consideration. For the Turkish migrants the rate
amounts to 8.4 % while the analogical rate for naturalized Germans, whose former
nationality was Turkish, is 12.1 %. In case of the Yugoslavian migrants the difference
between the two groups is even more pronounced: The rate for the naturalized men is
almost twice as high as for the non-naturalized (16.1 % vs. 31.5%).
Below, we pool naturalized and non-naturalized migrants to indicate the ethnic origin5
and to compare the different operationalizations of intermarriage, i.e. interethnic and
binational marriages (table 5).
5
At this point the ethnic origin is operationalized merely approximately because the migratory
background (e.g. the nationality of the parents) is not considered. An operationalization on the basis of
birthplace of the parents would be preferable as well but this information is (still) not available in the
Microcensus.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
10
Tab. 5: Rates of intermarriages for male migrants according to two different
operationalizations of social assimilation
Concept based on “ethnic origin”
Turkish
(former) Yugoslavian
Interethnic marriages
9.3 %
18.3 %
Total (N)
3,225
1,140
Concept based on “citizenship”
Turkish
(former) Yugoslavian
Binational marriages
16.7 %
19.2 %
2,454
1,013
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, western Germany
Based on ethnic origin, only 9.3 % of the Turkish men are married to native – nonnaturalized German – women (table 5). Insofar, the rate of interethnic marriages is
markedly lower than that of intermarriages based on the concept of nationality (i.e.
binational marriages), which adds up to 16.7 %. Accordingly, the estimated level of
social assimilation of Turkish migrants differs to a high extent – depending on which
indicator (binational vs. interethnic marriages) is used. For the Yugoslavian migrants, in
contrast, the difference is merely marginal – which is of course also associated with the
lower rate of naturalized persons in the Yugoslavian group.
Finally, we have to conclude that – at least for the Turkish migrants – the level of social
assimilation is markedly higher and thereby possibly overrated if we use the indicator
“binational marriages”. But this was the only opportunity to look at intermarriages up to
2004, based not on ethnic origin but on citizenship.
The results show that – at least partly – it does indeed matter whether or not naturalized
persons are taken into account. The analysis presented here merely serves as an example
to illustrate that findings in the field of assimilation highly depend on the definitions of
concepts like migrant or migratory background.6
In this respect the analytical potential of the modified Microcensus questionnaire has
been extended explicitly. Formerly unobserved groups can now be identified and as our
analysis shows it is important to differentiate between them. The Microcensus 2005
offers a broad range of possibilities to identify and to differentiate between various
population groups.
Differences between naturalized and non-naturalized migrants in Germany have also
been found for the structural assimilation of migrants (Konsortium Bildungsberichterstattung 2006: chapter “H”, Seifert 2007). Nevertheless, the example of the Turkish
migrants here is rather untypical inasmuch the consideration of naturalized migrants
6
Further analysis could also account for the migratory background of the parents (for “ego” as well as
for “alter”).
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
11
often indicates higher level of assimilation (e.g. in regard to the educational system or the
labor market). So the more comprehensive picture of migrants we get from the
Microcensus 2005 might in the following contribute to a more positive perception of
certain groups of migrants.
IV.2
Identifying Ethnic Germans with Microcensus data
Below, we present an example which demonstrates that the modified questionnaire still
has some deficiencies. For that reason we use the Microcensus 2005 to identify German
repatriates and their descendants, so called Ethnic Germans.
State of research and need of data
The migration of Ethnic Germans is registered by the Federal Administrative Office
(Bundesverwaltungsamt) so that there is knowledge about the total amount of
immigration. By contrast, there is almost no reliable data about the level of integration of
Ethnic Germans. Until 1999, Ethnic Germans were naturalized, and afterwards they
obtained the German citizenship without a special procedure. Some of the repatriates still
had the German Citizenship and therefore did not have to be naturalized. Relatives and
family members of Ethnic Germans are entitled to be naturalized after a residence of at
least three years. Because naturalized people are not listed in official statistics separately,
research on the integration of Ethnic Germans depends on social surveys (Salentin 2007).
However, representative data are rare and in addition to that, partly out of date (Mammey
1998, with surveys in the years 1991 and 1994). Current research concerning Ethnic
Germans focuses on special subgroups like migrants from “Russia” resp. the former
Soviet Union or adolescents (Brüss 2004, Babka von Gostomski 2003, Dietz 1996,
Ingenhorst 1997, Koller 1997). According to these studies, the prospects for successful
integration seem to be small: low language skills, decreasing acceptance in the
population and deteriorating economical conditions particularly hinder integration in the
labor market. Nevertheless, because of focusing on “problematic groups” there is a risk
of ignoring better integrated Ethnic Germans. Hence, to analyze the current state of
integration, there is need of comprehensive and representative data.
Possibilities and restrictions of the Microcensus
As already mentioned, questions concerning ethnic origin are part of the Microcensus
questionnaire since 2005. Though, the attempt to identify Ethnic Germans in the Census
is quite problematic:
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
12
1. There is no explicit question if the respondent has come to Germany in the context of
the “Bundesvertriebenengesetz” (the law that regulates the immigration of Ethnic
Germans) so that Ethnic Germans and their relatives cannot be attributed explicitly.
2. Hence, the identification has to be made on the basis of the year of migration as well
as the German and the former citizenship respectively.
3. Due to anonymization requirements in the scientific use file, information of the
former citizenship is only available if the total population contains at least 5,000
persons with this very feature. Unfortunately, this does not apply to all citizenships
that are to be considered.
4. Apart from the general problem of identifying Ethnic Germans in the Microcensus,
the question arises how valid the replies to the question of naturalization are.
According to the regulations, Ethnic Germans who had migrated after 1999 are not
naturalized; they are Germans without a formal procedure of naturalization. A first
glance at data concerning persons with Russian migratory background leads to the
assumption that even persons who had migrated after 1999 see themselves as
naturalized and give the corresponding responses.
Table 6 shows persons with Russian “origin” who had migrated to Germany between
1990 and 2005. Though the share of persons who indicated to be naturalized decreases
after 1999, with 43.5 percent it still contains a relevant part of the persons who had
migrated since 1999. If taking the time span between migration and naturalization into
account as well, about 70 percent of these migrants stated that they have been naturalized
within one year after migration. With regard to the new legal regulations, these cases
should not exist.
Tab. 6: Date of migration of persons with Russian “origin”
(percent in columns)
Before 1990
Soviet or Russian citizenship
Naturalized, formerly Soviet or
Russian citizenship
German, not naturalized with
(formerly) Soviet/Russian parents
Total
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005
33
6.5
448
87.8
29
5.7
510
100
Date of migration
Between
Since 1999
1990 and
1998
353
724
9.9
45.0
3,031
699
85.3
43.5
168
185
4.7
11.5
3,552
1,608
100
100
Total
1,110
19.6
4,178
73.7
382
6.7
5,670
100
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
13
To give a first conclusion: An explicit identification of Ethnic Germans with Microcensus data is not possible which has to be assessed as an important drawback of the
questionnaire. To tap the full potential of the data, we will nevertheless make an attempt
to identify the majority of Ethnic Germans who had migrated to Germany since 1990.
Identification, calculations and results
To examine the level of assimilation of Ethnic Germans we generated a variable with
three characteristics: The first one includes all persons whose country of birth is not
Germany and who had migrated to Germany within the period of 1990 to 20007 and –
this is the distinctive feature – who are Germans, but not naturalized ones. This
characteristic should include Ethnic Germans but also other migrants like for instance
children of diplomats who were born in a foreign country but have the German
citizenship. Unfortunately, it is not possible to describe this group in a more detailed
way. When analyzing the results this important constraint has to be considered.
The second category contains people who also migrated to Germany between 1990 and
2000, but used to have the Russian citizenship and got naturalized within two years.8
Because of the special regulation of naturalization all persons with these characteristics
should be Ethnic Germans. The last group contains persons who are classified with
almost the same characteristics as the ones in the second group, with one exception: they
have been naturalized after a stay of at least three years. These characteristics are meant
to include the relatives of Ethnic Germans who are not repatriates themselves but were
permitted to migrate to Germany during the course of family reunification.9 However,
ecspecially this categorization is quite problematic, because it includes not only the
relatives of Ethnic Germans, but also other migrants, e.g. Jewish migrants from Russia.
Overall, this differentiation is not comprehensive but it is an attempt to get Ethnic
Germans into account at all.
7
8
9
Instead of 2005 the year 2000 was chosen for two reasons: Firstly, integration into the labor market
takes time so that it seemed reasonable only to examine persons with duration of stay of at least five
years. Secondly, the last category contains people who have been naturalized after at least three years
and would therefore only include persons who have migrated until 2002.
This example focuses on migrants from the Russian Federation, because other former citizenships are
partly anonymized.
We ignore the group of non-naturalized migrants with either a dual citizenship (German and Russian)
or a German citizenship and parents with a former Russian nationality (see tab. 6) because almost 80
percent of the members of this group are still underage so that the following analysis of assimilation
into the labor market does not seem to be reasonable.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
14
Tab. 7: Migrants with German or Russian background
(“Ethnic Germans”10, 1990-2000)
(1) Migrated with German Citizenship
(2) Formerly Russian, naturalized within two years after migration
(3) Formerly Russian, naturalized after at least three years
Total
Percent
50.5
43.0
6.6
100
Total
3,399
2,896
442
6,737
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005
In the following, these three groups will be compared concerning general and vocational
education, occupation, income and poverty.
General education
In the following tabulations, only persons at the age of 18-65 years are considered; the
different groups of migrants are compared with the remaining population of Germany,
that means, both “native” Germans and people with a foreign citizenship are included in
the reference category. As shown in table 8, the three groups of “Ethnic Germans” differ
in respect of their graduation: Whereas non-naturalized persons and those who have been
naturalized within two years are less likely to have an upper secondary degree, the
members of the third group are even better educated than the average population in
Germany. It must be pointed out that the Microcensus offers no possibility to survey the
precise foreign graduation; the respondent has to allocate his or her foreign graduation
into the German educational system. Nevertheless, the differences within the group of
“Ethnic Germans” are obvious and lead to the question whether this differentiation can
be found concerning other indicators of socio-economic integration as well.
Tab. 8: General education, “Ethnic Germans” migrated between 1990 and 2000
versus remaining population (percent in columns)
(1)
German and
migrated
Without degree
Lower secondary
degree
Intermediate
secondary degree
Upper secondary
degree
Total
107
4.4
1,013
41.3
852
34.8
478
19.5
2,450
100
(2)
Naturalized
within two
years
90
4.0
1,023
45.1
818
36.1
336
14.8
2,267
100
(3)
Naturalized
after at least
three years
11
-11
126
36.1
109
31.2
103
29.5
349
100
Remaining
population
9,289
3.2
104,033
36.2
94,868
33.0
79,137
27.5
287,327
100
Total
9,497
3.2
106,195
36.3
96,647
33.1
80,054
27.4
292,393
100
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, persons aged 18-65 years
10
11
Because of the referred deficiencies of identifying Ethnic Germans properly, the term will be put in
quotation marks.
Percentages of frequencies below 50 are not accounted.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
15
Vocational education
Concerning vocational education the “Ethnic Germans” are more often unskilled than the
remaining population in Germany. With almost 40 percent, the highest rate of persons
without any vocational education can be found in the group of the migrated Germans. In
contrast to this, persons who have been naturalized after at least three years are less often
unskilled (31.2 percent). This group has the highest rate of university graduates as well.
In this regard, they exceed the average in Germany. These results support the suggestion
of an internal differentiation of “Ethnic Germans”.
Tab. 9: Vocational education, “Ethnic Germans” migrated between 1990 and 2000
versus remaining population (percent in columns)
(1)
German and
migrated
Unskilled (without
voc. education )
Semi-skilled
Vocational
training/school
University (of
applied sciences)
Total
1,007
39.9
75
3.0
1,255
49.8
185
7.3
2,522
100
(2)
Naturalized
within two
years
888
38.3
102
4.4
1,189
51.2
142
6.1
2,321
100
(3)
Naturalized
after at least
three years
112
31.2
16
166
46.2
65
18.1
359
100
Remaining
population
68,075
23.3
4 799
1.6
180,755
61.9
38,273
13.1
291,902
100
Total
70,082
23.6
4,992
1.7
183,365
61.7
38,665
13.0
297,104
100
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, persons aged 18-65
Labor participation
Table 10 contains information about labor participation. As shown in the second row, the
unemployment rate of “Ethnic Germans” is higher than that of the remaining population.
At the same time, comparing the proportion of persons who are employed, the “Ethnic
Germans” have no noticeable lower rates of employment than the average population.
The reason for this seemingly inconsistent result is the higher proportion of persons in
Germany who are not employed but at the same time does not seek for a job. This might
be caused by differences concerning the demographic dissemination: Compared to the
population in Germany, “Ethnic Germans” are overrepresented in the age cohort of 18 to
30 and underrepresented in the age cohort of 60 to 65.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
16
Tab. 10: Labor participation, “Ethnic Germans” migrated between 1990 and 2000 versus
remaining population (percent in columns)
Employed12
Unemployed
(job-seeking)
Non-employed
(not job-seeking)
Total
(1)
German and
migrated
(2)
Naturalize
d within
two years
1,697
66.8
287
11.3
556
21.9
2,537
100
1,601
68.4
298
12.7
441
18.8
2,340
100
(3)
Naturalize
d after at
least three
years
250
68.3
52
14.2
64
17.5
366
100
Remaining
population
196,578
66.9
24,078
8.2
73,177
24.9
293,833
100
Total
200,123
66.9
24,715
7.3
74,238
24.8
299,076
100
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005, persons aged 18-65
Income and poverty
The last table refers to the economic situation of “Ethnic Germans” compared to the
average population in Germany and therefore includes persons of all ages (table 11). It
shows the average income of the household – measured both by median and mean – the
relevant person is living in. The values for the household income are not absolute but
relative to the number and the age of household members (equivalent-income). The
modification is based on the old OECD-Scale.13
Tab. 11: Equivalent-Income and rate of poverty (in percent), “Ethnic Germans” migrated
between 1990 and 2000 versus remaining population
migratory background
(1) German and
migrated
(2) Naturalized within
two years
(3) Naturalized after at
least three years
Remaining population
Total
Equivalent-income in €
Median
Mean
St. Dev.
(mean)
Poverty rate
(in percent)
Total
1,400
1,574
1,027
12.5
3,206
1,400
1,528
811
11.8
2,784
1,441
1,600
1,597
1,929
921
1,471
11.4
8.7
428
427,513
433,931
Source: Microcensus scientific use file 2005
The average household income of “Ethnic Germans” is significantly lower than the
income of the remaining population (table 11). This applies for the median as well as for
the mean. The higher employment rates of the “Ethnic Germans” do apparently not lead
12
13
The definition of employment follows the ILO-concept (International Labour Organisation).
According to this concept, employment is defined as any paid work that exceeds one hour per week.
According to the old OECD-Scale the first person of the household is weighted with 1, other persons
in the household at the age of at least 15 are weighted with 0.7 and younger persons in the household
are weighted with 0.5.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
17
to higher earnings. Even persons who have been naturalized after at least three years –
though being the most educated group of the “Ethnic Germans” – have significantly less
income than the remaining population in Germany. However, within the group of “Ethnic
German” they are most successful regarding their economic situation.
Including information on part-time occupation, the results indicate higher rates of parttime employment concerning “Ethnic Germans” (population: 6.5 percent; “Ethnic
Germans”: 8.0 percent). The same does apply to the rates of informal occupation:
Between 15.8 percent (naturalized migrants after at least three years) and 12.2 percent
(migrated Germans) of the persons who work usually more than 15 hours per week are
officially unemployed and job-seeking whereas the remaining population shows a lower
rate of 8.6 percent. The high share of informal occupation may lead to a higher
independence from the “formal” labor market but in many cases also imply low wages
and insecure labor relations.
The disadvantaged economic conditions are confirmed by examining poverty rates, that
is the share of persons, who have less than half of the average equivalent-income –
measured by the median – on their disposal. All in all “Ethnic Germans” seem to be
affected by poverty more often than other residents in Germany.
Inferring from the reported – mere descriptive – results, there is evidence that the
different groups of “identified” Ethnic Germans are disadvantaged in different
dimensions of assimilation. However, a differentiation within Ethnic Germans seems to
be appropriate. The presented analysis can merely give a first insight into the situation of
Ethnic Germans, but the findings support the impression that analyses in this field are
important and necessary.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
V
18
Conclusions
In Germany naturalization is often considered as a kind of “crowning finale” of the
assimilation process. According to the strict provisions of naturalization in Germany
before 2000, this was comprehensible. However, it is evident that there are still
differences between native and naturalized Germans regarding their marginal
distributions (or level of assimilation) in the different societal systems. As a consequence
the missing distinction between foreign and naturalized persons causes a “blind spot”
within analyses of assimilation. The modification of the Microcensus questionnaire
allows us to differentiate between various population groups in more detail. Thereby the
new potential might help to answer the question which differentiation – in the context of
defining migrants – is appropriate to meet and portray the realities in Germany.
Although the analytical potential of the Microcensus clearly enhanced since 2005, the
data still has some deficiencies. This primarily affects the large group of Ethnic
Germans.14 Here a need of information is explicit as well: Without any comprehensive
official data there will be no reliable findings.
The presented approach to identify Ethnic Germans in the Microcensus is not sufficient,
given that it is not possible to distinguish between persons who migrated to Germany
because of their German origin from persons who came from the same countries and
migrated for other reasons. Furthermore, there is no knowledge about to which extent the
Ethnic Germans have been naturalized.15
As a consequence of these complications, the German Federal Statistical Office itself
does no longer use the term “Ethnic Germans” – as they did in their first published results
about persons with migratory background in Germany, using data of the Microcensus
2005 (Statistisches Bundesamt/Federal Statistical Office 2006: 75).
Instead, they now use the label “Migrated Germans without Naturalization”, which
subsumes migrated Germans form every part of the world. This category embraces
indeed Ethnic Germans who already had the German citizenship before migration but it
does not include their relatives who obtained German citizenship several years after
migration. Furthermore, the Federal Statistical Office modified the questionnaire again in
2007 and integrated a question about whether the interviewee has the German citizenship
by birth, through naturalization or through his or her status of being an Ethnic German
14
15
Furthermore, full information of country of birth would be useful.
Another difficulty in identifying Ethnic Germans concerns the scientific use file: As a result of
anonymization requirements concerning the former citizenship it is not possible to estimate the whole
population of Ethnic Germans. Solely persons who migrated from special countries like e.g. Russia
can be identified.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
19
(Spätaussiedlerstatus). Moreover, in 2008 the Microcensus questionnaire differentiates
Ethnic Germans with or without naturalization. And also that question might not cover all
Ethnic Germans. An explicit question whether the interviewee migrated in the context of
the “Bundesvertriebenengesetz” could be even more comprehensive.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
VI
20
References
Alba, Richard D. & Reid M. Golden (1986): Patterns of Ethnic Marriage in the United
States. Social Forces 65: 202-223.
Babka von Gostomski, Christian (2003): Gewalt als Reaktion auf Anerkennungsdefizite?
Eine Analyse bei männlichen deutschen, türkischen und Aussiedler-Jugendlichen
mit dem IKG-Jugendpanel 2001. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie 55: 253-277.
Brüß, Joachim (2004): Zwischen Gewaltbereitschaft und Systemvertrauen. Eine Analyse
zu aggressivem und antisozialen Verhalten zwischen deutschen, türkischen und
Aussiedler-Jugendlichen. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 51: 201-212.
Dietz, Barbara (1996): Rückwanderung in eine fremde Gesellschaft. Zur sozialen
Integration russlanddeutscher Aussiedler in der Bundesrepublik, pp. 123-138 in: I
Graudenz und Regina Römhild (Ed.) Forschungsfeld Aussiedler, Ansichten aus
Deutschland. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang,
Esser, Hartmut, 2001: Integration und ethnische Schichtung. MZES-Arbeitspapier 40.
Gordon, Milton M. (1964): Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion,
and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ingenhorst, Heinz (1997): Die Russlanddeutschen: Aussiedler zwischen Tradition und
Moderne. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus
Kalmijn, Matthijs (1998): Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patters, Trends.
Annual Review of Sociology 24: 395-421.
Koller, Barbara (1997): Aussiedler der großen Zuwanderungswellen – was ist aus ihnen
geworden? Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung 4: 766-789.
Konsortium Bildungsberichterstattung im Auftrag der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (Ed.) (2006): Bildung in Deutschland. Ein
indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung und Migration.
Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag.
Lieberson, Stanley & Mary C. Waters (1988): From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial
Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mammey, Ulrich & Rolf Schiener (1998): Zu Eingliederung der Aussiedler in die
Gesellschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer Panelstudie des
Bundesinstituts für Bevölkerungsforschung. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Meng, Xin & Robert G. Gregory (2005): Intermarriage and the Economic Assimilation of
Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics 23: 135-175.
Münz, Rainer, Wolfgang Seifert & Ralf Ulrich (1997): Zuwanderung nach Deutschland.
Strukturen, Wirkungen, Perspektiven. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus.
Pagnini, Deanna L. & S. Philip Morgan (1990): Intermarriage and Social Distance among
U.S. Immigrants at the Turn of the Century. American Journal of Sociology 96:
405-432.
Salentin, Kurt (2007): Die Aussiedler-Stichprobenziehung. Methoden-Daten-Analysen 1:
25-44.
Schroedter, Julia H. & Frank Kalter (2008): Binationale Ehen in Deutschland. Trends
und Mechanismen der sozialen Assimilation. Forthcoming: Sonderheft 48 der
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie.
Janßen & Schroedter: Migration and Naturalization in German Federal Statistics – Experiences with the German Microcensus
21
Seifert, Wolfgang (2007): Integration und Arbeit. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 22-23:
12-19.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2006): Leben in Deutschland. Haushalte, Familien und Gesundheit – Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2005. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
[http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Publikatione
n/Fachveroeffentlichungen/Bevoelkerung/LebenDeutschland05,property=file.pdf]