Partner Choices of the Second Generation of Turkish and Former Yugoslav Origin in Switzerland: A Comparative Analysis

Open access


This paper explores the partner choices (exogamy, local endogamy, and transnational endogamy) of the children of Turkish and former Yugoslav immigrants, who share a comparable migration history in Switzerland, based on the Swiss TIES (The Integration of the European Second Generation) survey. The comparison of these groups puts Turkish youths’ partner choice (low exogamy and relatively high transnational endogamy) into a wider perspective. Moreover, the comparison allows to disentangle ethnic and religious affiliations in order to test hypotheses on the role of ethnicity and religion in partner choices. While ethnic endogamy prevails in the two groups under study, religious boundaries are not stronger than ethnic ones. The second generations’ desire for religious and educational homogamy appears to be a reason for transnational endogamy.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alba Richard and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Çelikaksoy Aycan. 2004. Marriage Migration in Denmark. Draft paper. Denmark: Aarhus School of Business.

  • Erdem Ebru. 2009. Islam Secularism and Gender Equality: Empirical Findings from 1998 Demographic and Health Survey in Turkey. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting. Toronto Canada September 3-6 2009.

  • Fibbi Rosita Ceren Topgül Dusan Ugrina and Philippe Wanner. 2015. The New Second Generation in Switzerland: Youth of Turkish and Former Yugoslav Descent in Zurich and Basel. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  • FSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2009. Les comportements démographiques des familles en Suisse. Neuchâtel: FSO.

  • Geaves Ron. 2003. Religion and Ethnicity: Community Formation in the British Alevi Community. Numen 50(1): 52-70.

  • Girard Alain. 1964. Le choix du conjoint. Paris: PUF INED.

  • Gokalp Catherine. 1978. Le réseau familial. Population 33(6): 1077-1094.

  • Gonzalez-Ferrer Amparo. 2006. Who Do Immigrants Marry? Partner Choice among Single Immigrants in Germany. European Sociological Review 22(2): 171-185.

  • Hamel Christelle Doreen Huschek Nadja Milewski and Helga de Valk. 2012. Union Formation and Partner Choice. Pp. 225-284 in The European Second Generation Compared. Does the Integration Context Matter? edited by Maurice Crul Jens Schneider and Frans Lelie. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  • Hartung Anne Veronique Vandezande Marc Swyngedouw and Karen Phalet. 2009. Partnership Preferences of the Belgian Second Generation: Who Lives with Whom? Paper presented at the Seminar on Multi-attribute Analysis and Projection of Ethnic Populations. Jevnaker Norway June 3-5 2009.

  • Hooghiemstra Erna. 2003. Trouwen over de Grens. Achtergronden van Partnerkeuze van Turken en Marokkanen in Nederland. [Cross-border Marriage. Background to the Partner Choice of Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands]. SCP-publicatie 2003/4. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

  • Kalmijn Matthijs. 1998. Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes Patterns Trends. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 395-421.

  • Kalter Frank and Julia H. Schroedter. 2010. Transnational Marriage among Former Labour Migrants in Germany. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 22(1): 11-36.

  • Kennedy Ruby Jo Reeves. 1944. Single or Triple Melting Pot? Intermarriage Trends in New Heaven 1870-1940. American Journal of Sociology 49: 331-339.

  • Kennedy Ruby Jo Reeves. 1952. Single or Triple Melting Pot? Intermarriage Trends in New Heaven 1870-1950. American Journal of Sociology 58: 56-59.

  • Lievens John. 1999. Family-Forming Migration from Turkey and Morocco to Belgium: The Demand for Marriage Partners from the Countries of Origin. International Migration Review 33(3): 717-744.

  • Lucassen Leo and Charlotte Laarman. 2009. Immigration Intermarriage and the Changing Face of Europe in the Post War Period. History of the Family 14: 52-68.

  • Milewski Nadja and Christelle Hamel. 2010. Union Formation and Partner Choice in a Transnational Context: The Case of Descendants of Turkish Immigrants in France. International Migration Review 44(3): 615-658.

  • Sayad Abdelmalek 1979. Les enfants illégitimes. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 25: 61-81.

  • Song Miri. 2009. Is Intermarriage a Good Indicator of Integration? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35(2): 331-348.

  • Strassburger Gaby. 2004. Transnational Ties of the Second Generation: Marriages of Turks in Germany. Pp. 211-232 in Transnational Social Spaces: Agents Networks and Institutions edited by Thomas Faist and Eyüp Özveren. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Timmerman Christiane. 2006. Gender Dynamics in the Context of Turkish Marriage Migration: The Case of Belgium. Turkish Studies 7(1): 125-143.

  • Topgül Ceren. 2013. Partner Choice of Turkish Origin Youth in Switzerland: The Underlying Mechanisms and Social Implications for Women and Men Gender Dynamics. PhD dissertation Demography University of Geneva Switzerland.

  • Topgül Ceren. 2015. Family Influence on Partner Choice of Second Generation: What Are the Experiences of Turkish Origin Women in Switzerland? Pp. 43-65 in Spatial Mobility Migration and Family Dynamics edited by Can Aybek Johannes Huinink and Raya Muttarak. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Van Tubergen Frank and Ineke Maas. 2007. Ethnic Intermarriage among Immigrants in the Netherlands: An Analysis of Population Data. Social Science Research 36(3): 1065-1086.

  • Wimmer Andreas. 2008. Elementary Strategies of Ethnic Boundary Making. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(6): 1025-1055.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.141
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.087

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 252 133 7
PDF Downloads 153 105 8