Reproductive attitudes of Russians and how they regard government measures to support fertility
Abstract
This article is written on the basis of a survey conducted for the Agency for Strategic Initiatives by the Public Opinion Foundation and other surveys. The research is devoted, on the one hand, to the reproductive attitudes of men aged 18-55 years and women 18-45 years old. On the other hand, it explores how people relate to measures of demographic policy – both those already existing and those under consideration – and to their effectiveness.
The research shows that the most desired family model in terms of the number of children has not changed over the past ten years. People still want (in ideal conditions) two children. However, people’s desires don’t fully coincide with their intentions. Only one fourth of respondents say that they plan to have another child. The rest are stopped by material difficulties – a lack of stable sources of income sufficient for the birth and upbringing of another child. For this (but not only this) reason, the most popular demographic measures today are material – the maternity capital, the repayment of mortgage obligations for large families, and a monthly childcare allowance until the child reaches 1.5 years of age.
Demographers, however, doubt the effectiveness of such measures in terms of increasing birth rates, and the survey data confirm their doubts. Despite the fact that most respondents believe that demographic policies affect fertility, only a few took them into account when deciding whether or not to have a baby.
Downloads
References
Attwood L., Schimpfossl E., Yusupova M. (2018). Gender and Choice After Socialism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Belova V.A., Darskiy L.E. (1972). Statistika mneniy v izuchenii rozhdaemosti [Statistics of opinions in the study of fertility]. Moscow: Statistika. (In Russ.). Retrieved from http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/belova_darskij/belova_darskij.html
Bodrova V. (2002). Ideal’noye, zhelayemoe, ozhidayevoe kolichestvo detey: 1991-2000 [Ideal, desired and expected number of children]. Демоскоп Weekly, 81-81. (In Russ.). Retrieved from http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2002/081/tema01.php
Borisov V.A. (1976). Perspektivy rozhdaemosti [Fertility prospects]. Moscow: Statistika. (In Russ.). Retrieved from: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/borisov/borisov.html
Freedman R., Coombs L.C. (1965). Stability and Change in Expectations About Family Size: A Longitudinal Study. Demography, 2, 250-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2060117
Frejka T., Zakharov S.V. (2014). Fertility trends in Russia during the past half century: period and cohort perspectives. Demographic Review, 1(1), 106-143. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v1i1.1828
Isupova O.G. (2018). Attitudes to pronatalist policy measures according to the data of the 2015 micro-census. Demographic Review, 5(3), 25-56. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v5i3.8134
Maleva T., Makarentseva A., Tretyakova E. (2017). Pronatalistskaya demographicheskaya politika glazami naseleniya: desyat’ let spustya [Pro-natalist demographic policy through the eyes of the population: ten years later]. Economisheskaya politika [Economic Policy], 12(6), 124–147. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18288/1994-5124-2017-6-06
Pavlutkin I.V. (2017). Znachenie religii v sovremennoy rossiyskoy rozhdaemosti [The importance of religion in modern Russian fertility]. Aist na kryshe. Demographichesliy zhurnal [Stork on the roof. Demographic magazine], 4, 34-37. (In Russ.) Retrieved from: Proaist.ru/journal/vypusk-4/znachenie-religii-v-sovremennoy-rossiyskoy-rozhdaemosti-/
Population Policy Acceptance Study – The Viewpoint of Citizens and Policy Actors Regarding the Management of Population Related Change (2006). EU research on
social sciences and humanities. Retrieved from: https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/projects/files/HPSE/HPSE-CT-2002-00153/100124311-6_en.pdf
Shadrina A. (2017). Dorogiye deti. Sokrash’eniye rozhdaemosti i rost “tseny” materinctstva v XXI veke [Precious children. The decline in the birth rate and the increase in the “price” of motherhood in the 21st century.]. Moscow: Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye. (In Russ.).
Sh’urko T. (2013). Detskiy sad kak osnova usileniya sotsial’nykh pozitsiy zhenshin. [Kindergarten as a basis for strengthening the social position of women]. Nashe mneniye [Our opinion]. (In Russ.). Retrieved from https://nmnby.eu/news/analytics/5279.html
Slonimczyk F., Yurko A.V. (2016). Assessing the impact of the maternity capital policy in Russia. Demographic Review, 2(3), 30-68. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v2i3.1774
Tyndik A. (2012). Reproduktivniye ustanovki naseleniya v sovremennoy Rossii [Fertility attitudes of the population in modern Russia]. SPERO, 16, 95-112. (In Russ.). Retrieved from http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0553/analit01.php
Varlamova S.N., A.V. Noskova, N.N. Sedova (2006). Sem'ya i deti v zhiznennykh ustanovkakh rossiyan [Family and children in Russians` life attitudes]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Research]. 10, 61-73. (In Russ). Retrieved from http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0267/analit02.php
Westoff C.F., Ryder N.B. (1977). The Predictive Validity of Reproductive Intentions. Demography, 14(4), 431-453. DOI: 10.2307/2060589
Wilson F.D., Bumpass L. (1973). The Prediction of Fertility Among Catholics: A Longitudinal Analysis. Demography, 10(4), 591-597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2060589
Zakharov S.V. (2016). The modest results of the pronatalist policy against the background of long-term evolution of fertility in Russia. Part 1. Demographic Review, 3(3), 6-38. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v3i3.1745
