Partner Choices in Long Established Migrant Communities in Belgium

Abstract

This paper aims to shed light on the partner choices of Moroccan, Turkish, Congolese, and Algerian migrants in Belgium. Three partner choices are distinguished: marrying a partner from the country of origin (partner migration), marrying a local co-ethnic partner, and establishing a mixed marriage. We focused on the role of migration history and transnational links, culture (religion, language), skin colour and structural characteristics of the district migrants live in (mainly community size) to gain further insight into the partner choices of migrants in Belgium. Our data comprise an extraction of the Belgian national register (2001-2008) and focus on first marriages among first, 1.5, and second generation migrants of Moroccan, Turkish, Algerian, and Congolese origin (N=52,142). We apply a multinomial logistic multilevel design to simultaneously incorporate individual and contextual effects at the district level. The main conclusion from this paper is that the partner selection pattern in early 21st century Belgian society still bears the traces of the starting conditions that migrant groups experienced when they first entered the country. While this continuity is important to understand the situation citizens with a migrant origin have to deal with today, it does not make change impossible. In fact, for the Turkish and Moroccan group, research recently showed a quite strong decline in transnational marriages and a modest increase in mixed marriages. These are indications that after 50 years of migration a transition towards full inclusion in Belgian society is not beyond reach. The conditions analysed in this paper, namely the strength of transnational networks, the cultural boundaries and the ethnic community size, may help to understand why this inclusion takes such a long period of time.

Partner selection patterns in transition: The case of Turkish and Moroccan minorities in Belgium

“…The prevalence of mixed marriages is generally low because of a strong preference for ethnic endogamy (Dupont et al 2017b;Hooghiemstra 2003). Marriage is seen as a bond between individuals and their families, and the reputation of potential partners is essential for the preservation of family honor (Esveldt et al 1995).…”

“…These levels of social control differ between minority members, which may explain two variations in the prevalence of mixed partnerships. It may explain, first, why men are more likely to choose a mixed marriage compared to women (Dupont et al 2017b;González-Ferrer 2006;Hooghiemstra 2003;Huschek, de Valk, and Liefbroer 2012) and, second, why the prevalence is higher among Moroccan compared to Turkish minority members (Dupont et al 2017b).…”

“…Furthermore, the likelihood of choosing a mixed partnership is higher for the second generation compared to the first (Dupont et al 2017b;Hooghiemstra 2003;Huschek, de Valk, and Liefbroer 2012). Second-generation minority members have been, for the most part, socialized in Belgium as they migrated at a young age or were born in Belgium.…”

“…First, we will test whether the effect of marriage age on the odds of entering into a mixed marriage decreases. Minority members marrying at an older age are more likely to choose a mixed marriage because they are less prone to the influence of third parties (Dupont et al 2017b;Lievens 1999). Hence, the reduced effect of marriage age on the decision to enter into a mixed marriage could indicate a decreasing parental influence on the partner selection process, as well as an increasing openness toward mixed marriages.…”

Socioeconomic preconditions to union formation: Exploring variation by migrant background

“…By contrast, men with a non-European migrant background find it more difficult to gain access to stable employment and income (FOD WASO and UNIA 2017), which may imply that the importance of male labour force participation diminishes in favour of female labour force participation, as suggested by Oppenheimer (1997). However, given that the majority of men with a Turkish or Maghrebi background marry a second-generation partner of the same origin group or a first-generation migrant from the country of origin (Dupont et al 2017b), this mechanism is likely to be counteracted by the particularly vulnerable socioeconomic position of the female partner, which does not challenge men's role as the main or sole financial provider (FOD WASO and UNIA 2017;Maes, Wood, and Neels 2019;Van den Broucke et al 2015). In sum, whereas these mechanisms can either strengthen or weaken the importance of male labour force participation as a socioeconomic precondition for union formation in groups with a migrant background, we expect to find that the link between male labour force participation and income on the one hand and entry into a coresidential union on the other is positive for secondgeneration men with a Turkish or Maghrebi background and similar or stronger than that of men with a Southern European or no migrant background (Hypothesis 3).…”