Attitudes to pronatalist policy measures according to the data of the 2015 micro-census
Abstract
The article aims to evaluate the possible motivational potential (in terms of having more children than planned) of various measures of family policy listed in the questionnaire of the Russian Microcensus-2015. During the last several decades, fertility in Russia has been below the level of simple reproduction. The state, starting in 2005, has expressed an interest in finding effective measures to raise fertility in the country. The latest Microcensus had, among other objectives, the goal of “testing” the attractiveness of different policy measures for the general population. These included both already existing policies (federal and regional “maternity capitals”, land grants) and those which were hypothetical at the moment (prolongation of paid childcare leave until the child reaches the age of three, a guaranteed place in kindergarten, benefits equal to the cost of living for every child starting from the third, tax benefits, flexible working hours/work from home, and interest-free loans for the purchase of housing).
Our research was conducted using methods of descriptive statistics, since data at the individual level were not available on the Microcensus site. We studied differences in the perception of the proposed measures by gender, age, education level, numbers of already existing and desired children, and employment status. The research showed a possible clustering of women (and probably men as well) into those who intend to have just one, two or three children. Measures focused on a third child were of no interest to the first and second groups of respondents. The interest-free housing loan was found to be the most popular measure among virtually all groups of respondents. On the whole, measures having a paternalistic character were perceived positively, while the least attractive measures included work from home and tax benefits. This is probably due to the fact that the former is associated with lower earnings, and the latter are relevant only to those who work in the official sector of the economy. An intention to have three children can be observed mostly among women with lower education and in rural areas.
Downloads
References
Andreev E.M (2012). O tochnosti rezul'tatov Rossiyskikh perepisey naseleniya i stepeni doveriya k raznym istochnikam informatsii [On the accuracy of the results of Russian population censuses and the level of confidence in different sources of information] // Voprosy statistiki [Issues of Statistics]. 11: 21-35.
Andreev E.M., S.V. Zakharov (2017). Mikroperepis'-2015 stavit pod somnenie rezul'tativnost' mer po stimulirovaniyu rozhdaemosti [Microperepis-2015 puts under question the efficiency of measures to stimulate fertility] // Demoscop Weekly [Demoscope Weekly]. 711-712. URL: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2017/0711/tema01.php (accessed: 07.12.2017).
Caldwell J.C., P. Caldwell, P. McDonald (2002). Policy responses to low fertility and its consequences: A global survey // Journal of Population Research. 19(1): 1-24.
Chesnais J.-C. (1985). Les conditions d’efficacite d’une politique nataliste: examen theorique et exemples historiques // Proceedings of the IUSSP International population conference. Florence: IUSSP: 413–425.
Doklad ob osnovnykh itogakh federal'nogo statisticheskogo nablyudeniya «Sotsial'no-demograficheskoe obsledovanie (mikroperepis' naseleniya) 2015 goda» [The report on main results of federal statistical observation «Social and demographic investigation (population microsensus) 2015»] (2016). Moscow: Rosstat.
Ekert O. (1986). Effets et limites des aides financieres aux familles: une experience et un modele // Population. 41(2): 327–348.
Elizarov V.V., V. Levina (2015). Proekt «Starenie naseleniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii»: Semeynaya politika v Rossii: vozmozhno li zamedlenie stareniya naseleniya putem mer, napravlennykh na povyshenie urovnya rozhdaemosti» [Family Policies in Russia: Could Efforts to Raise Fertility Rates Slow Population Aging?] // Rabochiy doklad World Bank [Work Report]. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/892801468196750951/pdf/99503-RUSSIAN-PUBLIC-Family-Policies-in-Russia-final-cover-Russian-final.pdf (accessed: 12.07.2018).
Esping-Andersen G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press: 9-54.
Gauthier A.H. (2002). Family policies in industrialized countries: Is there convergence? // Population (English edition). 57: 447-474.
Isupova O.G. (2016). Semeynaya politika v razvitykh stranakh [Family policy in developped countries] // Demoscop Weekly [Demoscope Weekly]. 701-702. URL:http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2016/0701/demoscope701.pdf (accessed: 07.07.2018).
Isupova O.G. (2017). Chemu uchit opyt semeynoy politiki [What the experience of family policy does teach us] // Demoscop Weekly [Demoscope Weekly]. 739-740. URL: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ 2017/0739/tema01.php (accessed: 07.07.2018).
Kaufmann K. X. (2002). Politics and policies towards the family in Europe: A framework and in inquiry into their differences and convergences // Family Life and Family Policies in Europe. Vol. 2: Problems and Issues in Comparative Perspective / F.-X. Kaufmann et al., eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 419-490.
Kuchmaeva O.V. (2017). Sovremennye problemy otsenki effektivnosti semeynoy politiki v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Contemporary problems of evaluation of family policy efficiency in Russian Federation] // Statistika i ekonomika [Statistics and Economics]. 14. 5: 85-93.
Maleva T., A. Makaretseva, E. Tretyakova (2017). Pronatalistskaya demograficheskaya politika glazami naseleniya: desyat' let spustya [Pronatalist demographic policy from the viewpoint of population: ten years after] // Ekonomicheskaya politika [Economic Policy]. 12. 6: 124–147.
Seregina L.V. (2012). Professional'noe obuchenie – garantiya sodeystviya trudoustroystvu [Vocational training – a guarantee of employment promotion] // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2: 26-35.
Siniavskaya O.V., S.S. Birukova, A.A. Fattakhova (2015). Vliyanie novykh mer rossiyskoy demograficheskoy politiki na veroyatnost' rozhdeniya vtorykh i posleduyushchikh detey [Influence of new measures of Russian demographic policy on probability of birth of second and higher order children] // Demoscop Weekly [Demoscope Weekly]. 625-626. URL: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2015/0625/analit05.php (accessed: 07.12.2018).
Slonimchik F., A. Yurko (2015). Otsenka vliyaniya politiki materinskogo kapitala v Rossii [Evaluation of the influence of Maternal Capital policy in Russia] // Demographicheskoe obozrenie [Demographic Review]. 2. 3: 30-68.
Teitelbaum M.S. (2006). History of population policies / G. Caseli, J. Vallin, G. Wunsh, eds. // Demography: Analysis and Synthesis. A Treatise in Population. Ch. 100. Academic Press: 71-82.
Thevenon O. (2008). Les politiques familiales des pays développés: des modèles contrastés // Population et societies. 448: 1-4.
Tyndik A. (2010). Obzor sovremennykh mer semeynoy politiki v stranakh s nizkoy rozhdaemost'yu [A review of contemporary measures of family policy in the countries with low fertility] // Sotsialnaya politika: expertiza, rekomendatsii, obzory [Social policy: expertize, recommendations, reviews]. 12: 157-177.
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.
Zakharov S.V. (2016a). Skromnye rezul'taty pronatalistskoy politiki na fone dolgovremennoy evolyutsii rozhdaemosti v Rossii [Moderate results of pronatalist policy on the background of longterm evolution of fertility in Russia]. Chast' 1 [Part 1] // Demographicheskoe obozrenie [Demographic Review]. 3. 3: 6-38.
Zakharov S.V. (2016b). Skromnye rezul'taty pronatalistskoy politiki na fone dolgovremennoy evolyutsii rozhdaemosti v Rossii [Moderate results of pronatalist policy on the background of longterm evolution of fertility in Russia]. Chast' 2 [Part 2] // Demographicheskoe obozrenie [Demographic Review]. 3. 4: 6-26.
Zelikova Yu., Zh. Chernova (2012). Paternalizm sovremennoy rossiyskoy semeynoy politiki: pozitsiya gosudarstva i ozhidaniya grazhdan [Paternalism of modern Russian family policy: state position and citizens`s expectations] // Chelovek, Soobshchestvo, Upravlenie [Human, Community, Management]. 4: 96-110.
