This resulted in a few workshops, which later led to a series of short papers and, ultimately, to the production of the e-book Loneliness and social exclusion among older Europeans before and during the COVID-19 pandemic that is now available on the N-IUSSP website. Here is an excerpt from Bruno Arpino, Giuseppe Gabrielli and Heidrun Mollenkopf’s introduction.

The demographic changes of the past and coming years will profoundly modify the population structure in Europe. These transformations are associated with changes in the distribution of resources and opportunities across Europe and beyond – changes that require adjustments in all areas of life, both at individual level and across society as a whole. Among these changes, population ageing is a long-term trend, which began several decades ago in Europe. Increased life expectancy is a triumph for humanity but, coupled with fertility reduction and postponement, it causes population ageing.

Social isolation and feelings of loneliness among older people are among the challenges posed by population ageing and shrinking family networks. Isolation and loneliness have negative consequences on individuals that may result in poor physical health, unhealthy behaviours, poor wellbeing and, ultimately, depression.

Loneliness also has an economic cost for individuals and society; it reduces interpersonal interactions, and thus social capital, and adversely affects physical and mental health.  Research has estimated that the annual cost of loneliness is about 1,000 euros per capita. Individuals who feel lonely also tend to use healthcare services more than others, with negative consequences on public health expenditures.

Loneliness and social isolation among older adults were already important research and policy topics before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the spread of COVID-19 and the social distancing measures to limit transmission of the virus exacerbated pre-pandemic vulnerabilities linked to isolation and loneliness in ageing societies.

Isolation, loneliness, and the COVID-19 pandemic

In the decades preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, scholars and public health officials became increasingly concerned about the growing risks of loneliness driven by societal shifts such as fertility decline, the increase in one-person households and other factors, especially in the United States and Europe.

After the outbreak of the pandemic, physical distancing was imposed or encouraged at national, regional, and local levels, to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. People were asked to avoid public social spaces and minimize physical contact with others. Measures also included stay-at-home orders, and full physical isolation of high-risk individuals, such as older adults with pre-existing conditions. While these mitigation measures were effective in slowing the spread of COVID-19 and reducing mortality, they may have increased isolation among older adults, possibly exacerbating the “loneliness pandemic” and the risk factors for loneliness.

Studies have suggested that older adults were more resilient to loneliness than younger adults during COVID-19. Thus, increased physical isolation due to the anti-COVID restrictions does not seem, on the whole, to have exacerbated feelings of loneliness among older adults. This finding may reflect a combination of factors, including lowered expectations for social interaction during the pandemic or increased contact at a distance. 

Although possibly more resilient than younger adults, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, older adults across Europe experienced increases in loneliness during COVID-19. Existing evidence offers mixed results. In addition, although some studies showed unchanged feelings of loneliness among older adults overall, relevant heterogeneities may exist. Along this line, Arpino et al. (2022) show that individuals who lack certain close family ties (e.g., unpartnered people) have been at higher risk of reporting increased feelings of loneliness since the onset of the pandemic. This suggests that older people who lacked emotional and practical support might have been particularly exposed to its direct and indirect consequences. Van Tilburg (2022) shows that loneliness, and particularly emotional loneliness, increased between 2019 and 2020, although having a partner before the pandemic provided some protection. 

Given that informal caregiving is mostly provided by close family members, childless and unpartnered individuals were, in principle, those at highest risk of experiencing unmet care needs during the pandemic. In fact, research has shown that family caregiving continued during the pandemic, in some cases replacing formal care services to avoid possible contagion by care professionals. Studies have also reported higher anxiety and depression among family caregivers during the pandemic.

The increased need of care and the heavier burden placed on family caregivers call for new policy and practice solutions. Older people in residential care are at a particularly high risk of isolation, loneliness and reduced care. COVID‑19 has pointed up an urgent need for higher standards of care in nursing homes in Europe, and for the development of community-based alternatives and services to support persons with care needs and families with care responsibilities.

These alternatives and services could be inspired by the principles outlined in a UN (2020) policy brief launched in the early phases of the pandemic. The development of good quality, affordable, available, and accessible community-based services being paramount for meaningful inclusion in the community, these services should be developed in collaboration with all stakeholders, from users to practitioners, including persons with care needs and their families. In parallel, broader-scope interventions to reduce isolation and loneliness among the general population can, and need to be, implemented, e.g. by improving public transport and through laws and policies to address ageism, inequality and the digital divide (WHO 2021).

References

Arpino B., Mair C. Quashie N., and Antczak R.  (2022) Loneliness Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Are Unpartnered and Childless Older Adults at Higher Risk? European Journal of Ageing. 19, 1327–1338. 

United Nations (UN) (2020) The Impact of COVID-19 on older persons.

Van Tilburg, T. G. (2022). Emotional, social, and existential loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Prevalence and risk factors among Dutch older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 77(7), e179-e184.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2021). Social isolation and loneliness among older people: advocacy brief. WHO: Geneva.

The post Loneliness and social exclusion among older Europeans before and during the COVID-19 pandemic appeared first on N-IUSSP.

The relationship between fertility and migration is complex, because migrants are both selected and highly heterogeneous in their migration paths and living conditions at destination. To shed light on migrant fertility, scholars should compare their behaviour with that of two non-migrant groups: those of the destination countries and those in the origin countries who did not migrate. This double comparison would help to understand whether the reproductive behaviour of migrants reflects the values, norms and traditions that they absorbed during their childhood or, conversely, is affected by their life and migration experiences. Unfortunately, this comparative approach is rarely applicable: while data in destination countries are frequently available (Beauchemin, 2014), those in origin countries typically are not, and this has led to a sort of “methodological nationalism” (Wimmer and Glick-Schiller, 2003), i.e. a tendency to view the nation-state as the unit of analysis.

As an exception, in a recent study (Impicciatore, Gabrielli and Paterno, 2020) we provided an original and comprehensive picture of migrants’ fertility in Italy, merging five different datasets. Data taken from the Italian “Social Condition and Integration of Foreigners” survey (SCIF) carried out in 2011-2012, were combined with data on non-migrants living both in Italy (Multipurpose survey on “Families and Social Subjects” – FSS 2009), and in the three most important countries of origin: Albania, Morocco and Ukraine (Demographic and Health Surveys conducted, respectively, in 2008-09, 2003-04, and 2007).

A fragmented scenario of migrants in Italy

The history of immigration to Italy is relatively recent and stratified into different periods (Buonomo et al., 2020). Foreign immigration in Italy started in the late 1970s, the main origin areas being Northern Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt), the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (Philippines, China, and Sri Lanka). East-West migration increased during the 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the arrival of Albanians, and then of ex-Yugoslavian citizens during the Balkans conflict. Migration of workers from Central Europe (from countries such as Poland and Romania) increased likewise. Large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers have also arrived in recent years (Strozza and Gabrielli, 2020). Overall, there are currently around 6 million foreign residents in Italy, with widely different geographical origins, migration histories, and degrees of integration. Among the non-EU female population, Albanians, Moroccans and Ukrainians currently constitute the largest national groups (“third countries”) representing, respectively, 12.1%, 11.1% and 10.4% of the total number of resident non-EU women (Register data as of December 31, 2018).

Fertility at home and abroad

The increased number of births to immigrant parents (18% of births with at least one foreign parent in 2009, 22% in 2018) is the most immediate sign of the impact of foreigners on Italian fertility. Among migrants, however, there is considerable heterogeneity in the transition to parenthood (Mussino and Strozza, 2012; Ortensi 2015). For instance, most Ukrainian women (77%) had a child before migrating, versus only 42% of Moroccans and 45% of Albanians (Figure 1).

Median ages at first childbirth (irrespective of the child’s country of birth) (Table 1) show that the difference between migrants and stayers is negligible for women from Albania, but larger for those from Morocco and Ukraine (delay of +1.9 and +3.4 years, respectively, with respect to stayers). Figure 2 displays the Kaplan-Meier survival function, i.e. (a) the proportion of childless women, and (b) women with only one child, by age and migration background. Migrants from Ukraine are similar to stayers in that country at early ages, but they drastically reduce their propensity for childbearing after age 20. There are no significant differences in survival functions between migrants and stayers from Albania, whereas migrants from Morocco tend to postpone the first childbirth with respect to stayers. The difference disappears after age 30, however. Finally, first childbirth clearly occurs much later (compared to the other groups) among non-migrant women in Italy.

The delaying effect of migration is even more evident for the transition to second childbirth (Figure 2b): the Kaplan-Meier functions of migrants are higher than those of stayers in the three countries of origin. In particular, the pattern of migrants from Albania overlaps with that of non-migrants in Italy, whereas both migrants and stayers from Ukraine have the highest curves, indicating a delayed transition and a lower intensity (even later and lower than the Italians). Conversely, for Morocco, the two survival curves (of migrants and stayers) are relatively close to each other, and tend to converge as time since first birth increases.

Different fertility models for different migration models

Overall, among Moroccan women, childbearing is similar between movers (to Italy) and stayers (in Morocco), and significantly higher than among Italian women. This suggests the persistence of behaviours acquired in the context of origin. For first births, the fertility of Albanian women is similar for movers and stayers, but not for the second, for which Albanian women who immigrated to Italy “behave like Italians”. Ukrainians show “transition risks” (i.e. fertility behaviours) that are quite different from those of both Italian natives and Ukrainian stayers. These results are also fully confirmed by multivariate analyses (not shown here) that include, among other covariates, age at migration, thus distinguishing between children born in Italy or abroad, and taking into account the educational selectivity of migrants (see Impicciatore et al 2020).

Our results indicate that beyond individual characteristics, both migration strategies and country of origin affect fertility. Migrants from the three origin countries considered here reflect at least two different migration models in Italy. In the first classic model (observed mostly among migrants from southern and eastern Mediterranean countries), men arrive for work reasons at relatively young ages and are the “forerunners” in the process of settlement in the destination country. This is the case for Moroccans, characterized by a large proportion of single men, and also of Albanians, who tend to opt for a familial pattern, however, with a large percentage of migrant couples. The “female breadwinner” migration model observed mostly among migrants from Eastern Europe and Latin America is completely different. Here, the main actors are women, who typically arrive in Italy at an older age, with a previous family history, and are actively engaged in the labour market.

Bibliography

Beauchemin, C. (2014). A manifesto for quantitative multi-sited approaches to international migration. International Migration Review, 48(4), 921–938.

Buonomo A., Gabrielli G., Strozza S. (2020), Former Soviet Union Migration to Italy: Characteristics and Determinants of Women Condition in the Italian Labour Market, in Denisenko M., Strozza S., Light M. (eds) Migration from the Newly Independent States. 25 Years After the collapse of the USSR (pp. 295-421). Societies and Political Orders in Transition. Springer, Cham.

Impicciatore, R., Gabrielli, G. & Paterno, A. (2020). Migrants’ Fertility in Italy: A Comparison Between Origin and Destination. European Journal of Population.

Mussino, E., & Strozza, S. (2012). Does citizenship still matter? Second birth risks of resident foreigners in Italy. European Journal of Population, 28(3), 269–302.

Ortensi, L. E. (2015). Engendering the fertility-migration nexus: The role of women’s migratory patterns in the analysis of fertility after migration. Demographic Research, 32(53), 1435–1468.

Strozza S., Gabrielli G. (2020), Demographic Profile of Syrians in Italy, in Carlson E.D., Williams E.D. (eds) Comparative Demography of the Syrian Diaspora: European and Middle Eastern Destinations, European Studies of Population, Springer, Cham, 20: 237-259.

Wimmer, A., & Glick-Schiller, N. (2003). Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology. International Migration Review, 37(3), 576–610.

The post Migrants’ fertility in Italy: a comparison between origin and destination appeared first on N-IUSSP.