Journal of Applied Economic Research
ISSN 2712-7435
Analysis of the Influence of Pronatalistic Policy on Reproduction of Population and Position of Large Families
Zaitseva E.V., Goncharova N.V.
Abstract
The prolonged goal of state birth rate policy is creation of conditions for the appearance of large families in Russian society and the consolidation of the three-child model of the family as a social norm. In this article, we did not seek to analyze the demographic measures, but focused on the past 12-years; we analyzed the intermediate results of the state birth rate policy. Many indicators in the context of this topic were not only taken from population censuses, but also from sample surveys: federal and regional. At the same time, the insufficiency of regional level statistical material and the differences in methodological approaches to collecting statistical data on families with children were revealed, in particular, the difference in methodological approaches regarding families, both social groups and households, as well as groups of economic and labor ones, affected. In the framework of the resource approach, it is the household that is the main supplier and consumer of economic resources, and the family, as a social institution, is the supplier and consumer of sociocultural resources, performing a number of important functions, such as reproductive, recreational, communication, etc., the relationships in it are reciprocal character. Based on the fact, that the birth and upbringing of children in modern society cannot be unprofitable, otherwise no measures will lead to real changes in the reproductive plans of families, we considered changes in births and the total birth rate for the analyzed period, including the order of birth of children. We studied the dynamics of the number of large families, a comparative analysis of the structure of consumer spending of families with children, depending on the number of children in the family. The influence of demographic policies on the birth of the first, second and subsequent children, the level of employment, the unemployment rate and the participation rate of women of childbearing age with and without children were analyzed. A correlation was established between the number of children in the family and the unemployment rate, the level of employment and the level of participation of women with children in the labor force. We concluded that measuring demographic policy have led to a real increase in birth rate for second and other coming children, the number of large families and the average family size. In order to prolong the positive trend, it is necessary to continue and intensify state and regional support for large families.
Keywords
household; large family; socio-economic situation of the family; population policy; pronatalistic policies; population reproduction; fertility; social support; total fertility rate; reproductive attitudes; inequality.
References
1. Ilyshev, A.M., Bagirova, A.P. (2009). Otsenka polozheniia sfery reproduktivnogo truda v period krizisa i perspektivy ego izmeneniia (Appraisal of position of the sphere of reproductive labor in period of crisis and perspectives of its changes). Ekonomicheskii analiz: teoriia i praktika (Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice), 2009, No. 16, 4–6.
2. Becker, G.S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries. Columbia University Press, 209–240.
3. Greenwood, J., Guner, N., Vandenbroucke, G. (2017). Family economics writ large. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 55, No. 4, 1346–1434.
4. Gokova, O.V. (2017). Pronatalist politics from the perspective of political sociology. News of St. Petersburg State University of Economics. No. 6 (108), 140–144.
5. Bannykh, G.A., Zaitseva, E.V., Kostina, S.N. (2019). Motivation for the birth of children in large families with an average income: the results of a narrative interview // Family in the modern world: XI sociological readings in memory of V. B. Golofast: materials All-Russian Scientific Conference. St. Petersburg, Renome, 120–127.
6. Girard, A., Roussel, L. (1982). Ideal family size, fertility, and population policy in Western Europe. Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 323–345.
7. Maleva, T.M., Tretyakova, E.A., Makarentseva, A.O. (2017). Pronatalistic demographic policy through the eyes of the population: ten years later. Economic Policy. Vol. 12, No. 6, 124–147.
8. Milligan, K. (2005). Subsidizing the stork: New evidence on tax incentives and fertility. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 87, Issue 3, 539–555.
9. Khasanova, R.R., Maleva, T.M., Mkrtchyan, N.V., Florinskaya, Yu.F. (2019). Proactive demographic policy: 10 years later. Effects, tools, new goals. Moscow, RANXiGS, 58 p.
10. Miyazawa, K. (2016). Grandparental child care, child allowances, and fertility. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Vol. 7 (C), 53–60.
11. Scherbakova, E.M. (2019). Demographic results of the first half of 2019 in Russia (Part I). Demoscope Weekly, No. 823–824. Available at: demoscope.ru/weekly/2019/0823/barom01.php.
12. Arkhangelsky, V.N. et al. (2017). Current fertility trends in Russia and the impact of government support measures. Sociological Studies, No. 3, 43–50.
13. Browning, M., Chiappori, P.A., Weiss, Y. (2011). Family Economics. Tel Aviv University, unpublished textbook manuscript, 512 p.
14. Gass, T.A. (2013). Housing conditions of families with children: dynamics of inequality. Questions of Statistics, No. 3, 70–75.
15. Zaitseva, E. et al. (2018). Analysis of the socio-economic situation of large families: the regional dimension. 12th International Days of Statistics and Economics. Melandrium, 1991–2000.
16. Mendoza, P., Villarreal, P., Gunderson, A. (2014). Within-Year Retention among PhD Students: The Effect of Debt, Assistantships, and Fellowships. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 55, No. 7, 650–685.
17. Kostina, C.N., Zaitseva, E.V., Kuzmin, A.I. (2018). The state of the system of state support for large families at the regional level. Demographic and Family Policy in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals. Ekaterinburg, Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. I, 553–562.
About Authors
Zaitseva Ekaterina Vasilievna – Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Theory, Methodology and Legal Support of State and Municipal Administration, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Ekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); e-mail: e.v.zaiceva@urfu.ru.
Goncharova Natalia Vadimovna – Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Economics and Management at Metallurgical and Machine-Building Enterprises, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Ekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); e-mail: n.v.goncharova@urfu.ru.
For citation
Zaitseva E.V., Goncharova N.V. Analysis of the Influence of Pronatalistic Policy on Reproduction of Population and Position of Large Families. Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management, 2019, Vol. 18, No. 6, 967-988. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2019.18.6.047.
Article info
Received October 31, 2019; Accepted November 25, 2019.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2019.18.6.047
Download full text article:
~720 KB, *.pdf
(Uploaded
29.12.2019)
Created / Updated: 2 September 2015 / 20 September 2021
© Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»
Remarks?
select the text and press:
Ctrl + Enter
Portal design: Artsofte
Contact us
Rector's Office
Rector, Dr. Victor Koksharov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-45-03, e-mail: rector@urfu.ru
Vice-Rector for International Relations, Dr. Maxim Khomyakov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-46-27, e-mail: Maksim.Khomyakov@urfu.ru