Based on reliable sources of statistical information and its quantitative analysis, the authors address the following questions: what is the real prevalence of single motherhood in Russia, taking into consideration different modes of defining the phenomenon; to what extent do the socio-demographic characteristics of women raising children in single parent and two-parent families differ; what is the probability that women with children will transition from one partnership status to another; and whether the average duration of parenting children in single-mother families has increased or decreased over the last decades. The paper uses data from the population censuses, extensive vital statistics, as well as data from two waves of a large sample survey "Parents and children, men and women in family and society," performed in the framework of the UNECE "Generations and Gender" comparative research program of surveys. Although single-mother families are significantly present in the structure of Russian families, our analysis does not confirm the widespread opinion that the number of single parent families in Russia is growing. The proportion of single mothers varies from 12% to 21% and the proportion of children under 18 years of age living in single parent families varies from 10% to 25% depending on the definition being used. On the whole, the social and demographic characteristics of single mothers and mothers bringing up children in unions do not differ significantly. However, single mothers share certain characteristics: more experience of changing partners, fewer numbers of children ever born, early orphanhood, diversity of values regarding family and children’s education, and greater economic vulnerability. Nonetheless, single motherhood is a temporary condition for a considerable number of women, a stage in the establishment of a two-parent family. The dynamism of single motherhood directly influences the conditions in which children are socialized within the family. The average duration of living in a single-parent family has decreased for children who were born in single parent families, and has increased for children who were born in two-parent families. The data confirm the growing instability of mothers’ marital/partnership status in both types of families. At the same time, over the last decades, a child’s overall probability and average duration of living in a two-parent family with someone other than the biological father have increased over the last decades, which may be assumed to entail a specific type of parenting and upbringing.
The article focuses on the questions concerning quality of the human capital of workers in modern Russia, their heterogeneity in that respect, and the role played by human capital in differentiation of Russian labor force in general and workers in particular. The analysis is based on the data from 24th wave of the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey - Higher School of Economics (RLMS-HSE) (October 2014 - February 2015); the sample is 12908 individuals, including 2352 workers. Identification of professional statuses was based on the ISCO-08. The article gives an overall assessment of the human capital of working Russians. It is shown that in respect of their human capital quality, workers are divided in two groups with 3:1 ratio. The smaller group possesses high-quality human capital, including higher level of learning experience and skills of using modern digital technologies. This subgroup of workers can make basic labor pool for innovative transformations in the Russian economy in the conditions of development of clear signals on the importance of professional training, in particular – in case of rigid connection between professional training and wages. Using various specifications of Mincer equation, it is shown that currently the situation is quite different, and the quality of human capital has practically no effect on the wages of workers. As a result, even workers with high-quality human capital mostly do not have professional training that match their employment profile (except for on the job training) and do not seek to improve their skills, considering their professionalism to be already high enough.
The study is based on the GEM Russia Adult Population Survey (APS) 2006-2009 data sets. The APS survey in Russia is steadily based on the nationwide, multi-stage, stratified and probability sample (N=2000) that represents the entire adult population older than 18 years. The sample design is based on the Census 2002 data revised by the data of Rosstat (Russian Government Statistical Committee) on January 1st, 2009. To collect data, face-to-face interviewing is used. GEM estimates the level of involvement in early-stage entrepreneurial activity by calculating the sum of nascent entrepreneurs and new business owners. The GEM methodology is briefly characterized on the project website (www.gemconsortium.org).
The crisis in Russia lead to an increase of the role of economic reasons of business discontinuation, but most of former entrepreneurs who discontinued a business from economic reasons will in mid-term perspective try to (re)start anew, in contrast to those who would never try it once more; most of the latter group are escaping from other than economic reasons. They would hardly re-start again under any macroeconomic conditions. From this point of view, the crisis influenced the entrepreneurial potential only temporary.
Meanwhile, this temporary effect was rather strong - the intensity of business discontinuation under the crisis grew compared with previous years, and the difference between entries and exits became negative.
Persons with entrepreneurial past, who quit a business forever, form a ‘big loss’ of entrepreneurial potential because of their experience and skills. The factors which play a role in deciding whether to (re)start again or not, are gender and education: men and persons with higher education are more often considering a possible entrepreneurial comeback, while women and respondents with lower level of education tend more often to escape from business definitively.
Besides, there are subjective factors - negative perceptions of opportunities to do a business and low self-efficacy - which play an important role preventing a significant part of former entrepreneurs to start up anew.
The crisis have had a negative impact on the motivation to start-up among non-entrepreneurial part of population; however, the share of necessity driven should didn’t become higher than the share of opportunity driven potential entrepreneurs – maybe, because of a relatively moderate impact of the crisis on the situation on labour market.
The crisis in Russia did lead neither to a deterioration of motivational structure of early entrepreneurship nor to any dramatic increase of those who entirely resigned as entrepreneurs. That is why efficient government policy to promote entrepreneurship should encourage adults both to start-ups by promoting skills and self-efficacy (to increase the share of opportunity entrepreneurs) as well as to ease the process of closing down inefficient existing businesses.