News

The number of potential mothers in Russia will be reduced twice

About “a demographic hole of the 90th”, unprecedented on scales, which Russia will face till 2020, and about by what methods it is possible to change a situation and to increase birth rate in the country next years, in the lecture on Gazeta.ru tell authors of a number of works on demography studying of Russia Andrey Korotayev, Darya Halturina and Yulia Zinkina.

(This text is written in cooperation with Yulia Zinkina — the candidate of historical sciences, the research associate of Institute of Oriental studies of RAS).

Next years Russia will face consequences of catastrophic recession of birth rate of the end of the 1980th — the beginnings of the 1990th years (i.e. consequences of a so-called “demographic hole of the 90th”). It is necessary to emphasize that we deal here with a demographic hole, absolutely unprecedented on scales, which Russia had not to face yet.

As it is possible to see, the demographic hole of World War II is slightly deeper, but the hole of the 90th is much more large-scale — number of the Russians who were not born as a result of catastrophic recession of birth rate of the end of the 80th — the beginnings of the 90th, several times exceeds number of the Russians who were not born as a result of World War II.

The greatest threat for the demographic future of our country is connected first of all with collapse of young women of childbearing age here as this age is reached by representatives of the small generation born in the 1990s.

As a result, by the mid-2020s, the number of potential mothers of the most highly reproductive age in our country will be almost halved. Accordingly, if we do not take extremely effective measures to stimulate fertility in the coming years (and of course, if we don’t finally end the anomalous Russian supermortality), then a new round of catastrophic extinction of our country can begin in the next ten years.

So, in the very near future, Russia categorically needs to introduce a set of measures aimed at enhanced stimulation of the birth rate. In connection with this need, it is necessary to consider the experience of European countries that have managed, thanks to an effective demographic policy, to achieve a high total fertility rate.

More recently, the decline in birth rates in the West seemed irreversible, macrosociologists predicted the decline of the West. However, the last decade has shown that this trend is changing to the opposite.

Growth of birth rate is observed in many countries of both Western and Eastern Europe.

Often say that the measures of family policy directed to stimulation of birth rate are inefficient as they allegedly only influence shift in the calendar of births and have an insignificant impact on increase in birth rate in general. After two-three years growth of birth rate slows down, and then its decrease follows.

Meanwhile actual data show that to those countries which apply really effective measures of family policy, spending for these purposes not less than 2% (and sometimes even 4% and more) the GDP, it is possible to try to obtain systematic (but not limited only two-three years) rise in birth rate. It is first of all about the countries of Northwest Europe.

In recent years thanks to purposeful measures of family policy of significant increase in birth rate it was succeeded to achieve also to a number of other countries. Great Britain, for example, managed to raise birth rate from 1.63 children on the woman in 2001 up to 1.94 in the 2008th. In Slovenia the birth rate grew about 1.2 children by the woman in 2003 up to 1.53 in 2008; Greece achieved growth of birth rate about 1.25 children on the woman in the 2001st up to 1.51 in 2008. It is noticeable it was succeeded to raise birth rate also to such countries as, for example, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Australia, Latvia, Spain, Bulgaria, etc.

At the same time researches show that, contrary to delusion, widespread among Russians, immigrants played rather small role in this rise in birth rate.

If the myth that measures of family support cannot increase birth rate, then in the West sociologists and demographers on empirical data conduct active discussions about what measures of social policy will give the greatest effect on a gain of number of children is distributed in Russia.

Definetaly, there is no reason to expect that in any of the developed countries the birth rate will rise to the level of three children per woman. However, practice shows that raising the birth rate by 0.5 children per woman can be achieved if approved, effective measures are applied. It should be noted that calculations based on mathematical models show that such a rise in the birth rate may turn out to be quite sufficient (naturally, provided the Russian supermortality is eliminated) to prevent the extinction of our country.

In each state, a significant part of government spending affects families with children in one way or another, but for comparison purposes the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has developed a standardized indicator – family policy expenditures. This indicator includes expenses for children’s allowances, payments related to childbirth and maternity leave, expenses for services for the care of young children (kindergartens, nurseries, babysitters), including payments to parents for these purposes, tax deductions for families with children.

In general, among the OECD countries, the birth rate is higher where there are higher family policy costs, although the correlation is not 100%. This is evidenced by the correlation between the level of spending on family policy and fertility in developed countries.

Thus, we see a fairly clear correlation between state spending on the family and the birth rate. It is very important to understand that for European countries, achieving a birth rate of 1.8–2 children per woman requires family policy expenditures of 3-4% of GDP, and it is necessary to ensure the effective use of these funds.

Notable exceptions to this correlation are the USA and the countries of Central Europe (Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia). The size of the US economy and the role of the US as a global dollar investor allow Americans to keep social spending low in relative terms, although the actual amount of social assistance can be quite significant. Thus, tax deductions for families with children in the United States allow them to increase income by 30%, which is one of the highest levels in developed countries. As for the Central European cluster, it is an example of how to spend money on family policies inefficiently, which will be discussed later.

Calculations according to the OECD methodology for the level of Russian state spending on family policy, including maternity capital, give a figure of 1.5% of GDP in 2010, which is well below the 3-4% needed to reach the level of 1.8-2 children per woman.

Let’s compare the costs of family support in the form of payments, services and tax benefits,% of GDP, in OECD countries in 2005 and in Russia in 2010.

Both in Russia and in the OECD countries, this indicator does not take into account all payments related in one way or another to families and children, but only those that directly reflect the family policy of the state.

These are payments to families with children, child benefits, benefits in connection with childbirth and pregnancy, state spending on kindergartens and other forms of care for children.

The size of payments to families with children in Russia (excluding maternity capital) is about 0.58% of GDP, which is lower than in countries with successful family policies, such as France or Sweden. The size of tax deductions in 2010 amounted to 0.044% of GDP, which is quite a bit compared to many other countries, but there is no reason to believe that this type of assistance to families is of higher priority compared to others.

The expenses of the Russian state on care services for young children (kindergartens, nurseries, babysitters) are not so different from other OECD countries, but it cannot be said that Russia is leading in this regard. Obviously, an increase is needed in both the amount of expenditures on family policy and the level of efficiency of these costs. The cost of payments of maternity capital in 2019 should be 0.63% of GDP, but in reality they may be lower, because the range of opportunities to realize these funds is limited.

Financial support for families with children in the form of payment of allowances and tax deductions is one of the most effective family policy measures, according to international surveys. At birth, the economic and career losses of parents are very sensitive, especially in the early years.

The birth rate in developed countries is largely determined by how much the state is willing and able to reduce the costs of a family in this difficult period.

For this reason paid grants to small children and the paid maternity leave are effective mechanisms of the state family policy.

For example, within the French family policy there are not less than 28 various measures directed to family support. They are directed as to “horizontal” redistribution of means in a segment of the population with one income level from childless people to families with children, and the “vertical” redistribution directed to reduction of social inequality. In general more than a third of funds distributed by the French National fund of family grants is spent for support of the early childhood.

Decretive payments are one of the most common forms of financial aid to families with children. Researches show that, on the one hand, the size of a decretive grant positively affects birth rate.

At the same time, it is not proved that long maternity leave increases the birth rate.

However, reducing the duration of maternity leaves, of course, can not increase the birth rate.

Of the three indicators of family policy expenditures in OECD countries, the cost of child care services (namely, kindergartens, nurseries and nannies) is best correlated with the birth rate.

Currently, among developed countries, fertility is higher where a higher percentage of women work, where the level of female education is higher and where unemployment is lower. That is, in developed countries such as the USA, Norway, Finland, the birth rate is 1.7–2 children per woman, while in poorer European countries with lower levels of female employment and education (Italy, Greece, Portugal, countries of Central and Eastern Europe) it is significantly lower.

What is the reason? Why in the modern world give birth more where women go to work early and not sitting with the child at home for a long period?

The high divorce rate in modern societies encourages women to value their work. On the other hand, in modern market societies, constant competition for better jobs and social positions leads to postponing or canceling the birth of children.

Therefore, woman is more likely decides on the second and third children in those societies where motherhood is less affected by her income and career.

The neglect of the “kindergarten factor” played a sad role in such Central European countries as Germany, Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic. In these countries, state spending on family policy is quite high, but until recently these countries did not take into account the importance of supporting working mothers. For example, in Germany, many kindergartens do not provide childcare services during the working day, but rather are development centers where the mother comes with the child. For example, while in Denmark, 60% of children under 3 years of age attended preschool day care facilities in 2003, in the Czech Republic, 1%. Practice has shown that this approach has led to a situation where, with a high level of spending on family and childhood, the birth rate remained low.

On the other hand, a positive experience in organizing the system of care for young children is observed in France and Sweden, where the birth rate is significantly higher than the average European level (2.0 and 1.91 children per woman in 2008, respectively).

Thus, the family policy of France sets as one of its goals to give women the opportunity to combine motherhood with work. To this end, the country has ensured the functioning of children’s institutions, where children go from 2 to 6 years. Modern French nurseries are ready to accept children from three months, although a very small percentage of families use this.

To solve the demographic problems and problems of female employment in France, the institute of nannies registered in special associations is developing. Such nannies can arrange kindergartens at home, sit with three or four children at home. The cost of the services of a registered nanny is subsidized by the state. Moreover, if parents hire someone to look after their children after kindergarten, they may not pay the income tax from the amount spent on the payment of such services. In France, 21% of children under three years of age were under the supervision of subsidized nannies, 10% in nursery.

In most Swedish families, both parents are employed; accordingly, the presence of a developed system of day-care institutions for nurseries, kindergartens, leisure centers, etc., which make it possible to combine parental responsibilities with work, is a more significant factor for Swedish society compared to child benefits.

Each parent is guaranteed a place for a child in a kindergarten; waiting time on average is not more than three months.

Now in Sweden the maximum amount of a payment which child care facilities for preschool children and younger school students can raise from parents is established (the institutions which established payment “ceiling” receive a special government grant). Moreover, this “ceiling” decreases for the second, third and subsequent children in family.

All these measures promoted that in Sweden 77% of children at the age of 1-3 and 97% of children at the age of 4-5 visit preschool institutions, and 74% of children at the age of 6-9 visit the centers of leisure for younger school students.

It gives to women the chance successfully combine motherhood and work. Really, the level of woman’s participation in labor market in Sweden one of the highest in Europe.

You can also refer to the experience of some other European countries. For example, Norway is a successful experience in solving the problem of access to kindergarten services through equal public funding of private and public kindergartens.

Approximately 50% of the gardens are private. Kindergartens are funded by the state (about $ 400 per month per child) and by municipalities, regardless of whether they are public or private. The contribution of parents is 22-30% of the cost of the child’s stay in the kindergarten. With regard to state grants, private and public gardens are equal.

As a result, in Norway, approximately 80% of preschool-age children have reached kindergartens. By the end of 2006, 62% of children in the first or second year of life and 93% of 3-5-year-olds had a place in the kindergarten.

Statistical analysis shows that the most effective are the costs of care for children under three years old – in other words, the cost of day care is better than the cost of kindergartens.

The birth rate is higher where women come to work early.

At the same time, studies show that the mother’s return to work, at least from the moment when the child is 1 year old and is not detrimental to his development.

Of course, in the era of the budget deficit it is difficult to find hundreds of billions of rubles to support families with children. However, in reality there are underutilized resources. In particular, raising excise taxes on cigarettes and spirits to the level of the Baltic countries over several years could bring the Russian budget more than 1–1.5% of GDP. This is exactly the amount of funding that is needed to bring the level of Russian spending on family policy to the level of countries progressive in this regard. As a management decision, it is possible to propose the creation of a national Fund for children’s allowances on the model of France, the income of which would be taxes on “goods of sin” – alcohol and tobacco.

Most of our compatriots are convinced that the norm of the number of children in a family is two children. Yes, it would seem, two children is enough for the normal reproduction of the population.

Meanwhile, simple calculations show that in order to prevent the extinction of a country, an average family should focus on the birth of not two, but three children.

Really, numerous researches show that the real number of children in families appears on average much less planned. It is quite obvious that very many families do not manage to bring that number of children which they want. The woman can be infertile; she can refuse the birth of the second planned child if her family suddenly breaks up. As a result, if all Russians are guided by two children in family, the average of the children falling on one woman will be much less than two. And even for steady simple reproduction of the population not less than 2.1 children have to fall on the woman.

Thus, to prevent extinction of our country, most of Russians has to be guided by the birth in their families not of two, but three children. It is obviously necessary that this fact was learned by children at schools; it needs to be lit widely in mass media, in particular on television, say, by systematic social advertizing.

Installations on the desirable or ideal number of children are not a constant, also as well as birth rate.

They are influenced by the attitude towards family in society, by positions of influential public forces and public figures, degree of social optimism and confidence in future.

Reproductive attitudes are higher in those societies where the family is placed at the center of social policy, where families receive both financial support and social services, where children’s institutions are not only accessible to all willing families, but also work according to a convenient schedule, with a comfortable environment.

An important role in creating the prestige of the family can be played by the position of the president and the state as a whole, the media, influential public figures up to show business stars and influential public forces, such as religious organizations. The data suggests that the desired and actual number of children is higher in religious families.

The UN report “Russia’s Demographic Policy” states that the reasons for the long-term decline in the birth rate in Russia were the weakening of the need for children and the perception of living conditions as interfering with the birth of children (both due to objective life difficulties and due to the increased level of claims and low children’s value compared to other life goals). Accordingly, in this area, the main objectives of the policy aimed at increasing the birth rate are:

– improving the social status of a family with several children, increasing the need for children, the formation of orientation towards the birth of at least two or three children;

– creating favorable conditions for the birth and upbringing of several children;

– preservation of reproductive health, providing the opportunity to have the desired number of children.

Thus, in addition to financial (benefits, benefits) and social (system of preschool institutions, flexible schedules for mothers, etc.) measures, it is necessary to introduce social and cultural measures aimed at developing and strengthening family values, increasing the prestige of parental work in raising several children.

The high level of inequality in Russia by European standards, which was formed as a result of the peculiarities of the Russian economy and the state tax policy, especially affects children.

Relative children’s poverty in Russia is 29.3% while in Europe — 6–8%.

With each childbirth, the family plunges into deeper and deeper poverty. Thus, according to a sample survey of household budgets (2009), the birth of a second child even in a full family increases the risk of poverty from 30 to almost 50%, and among families with three or more children this risk already exceeds 70%.

Meanwhile, in European countries, family policy measures have a significant impact on the level of child poverty, in particular in France, they reduce the poverty level of large families (three or more children) by more than a factor of two.

It is extremely common belief that supporting families with children is not economically viable. However, it is not. From a macroeconomic point of view, an extremely low birth rate leads in the future to an acute shortage of labor, especially young skilled personnel, while the population is rapidly aging. The increase in fertility makes it possible to obtain an adequate flow of labor in the medium term. In addition, support for families with children leads to the stimulation of the domestic market, which has a positive effect on economic development, especially for small and medium-sized businesses. It should also be borne in mind that, as practice shows, support for families often allows families to solve the problem of childcare, for example, by placing a child in kindergarten, especially when public policy takes this need of families into account. In this case, women return to the labor market, which is an incentive for the development of the economy.

Share it on

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Wherever you go, go with all your heart