Working paper
Comprehensive analyses of fertility trends in the Russian Federation during the past half century
The idea of the extraordinary growth of fertility in Russia is widespread in the Russian expert community and media space. This increase is believed to be indicative of the positive results of the special financial measures taken by the State after 2006 in order to stimulate the rise of fertility level. The author's viewpoint is more reserved. There are some positive developments, but their significance is quite insufficient to face the pink glasses on the future of Russian fertility and reproduction of population of the country. With this paper, the author continues his previous long-term research in the field of in-depth demographic analysis of Russian fertility involving the latest official statistical data for 2014. The paper provides an overview of the trends of key fertility indicators in a few decades, as well as develops some methodological issues of the cohort fertility analysis in order to obtain more reliable projections. The article consists of two interrelated parts. In the first part, presented in this issue of the Journal, the author examines period fertility indicators (for calendar years), taking into account the latest changes in the structural characteristics of the Russian model of fertility that have occurred over the past several decades. In the second part of the article, which will be presented in the next issue of the Journal, the author analyses cohort fertility indicators of generations of women, whose the actual and the expected reproductive activity has occurring in the second half of the XX - the first decades of the XXI century.
Russia has a long history of pronatalist policies dating back to the 1930s. Two sets of pronatalist measures were implemented during the past 40 years. The one designed in the early 1980s proved to be a clear failure. Instead of raising fertility, completed cohort fertility declined from 1.8 births per woman for the 1960 to 1.6 for the 1968 birth cohort. The government of president Putin became very concerned with the dire demographic conditions of high mortality and low fertility in Russia in the1990s and early 2000s. Among others, a reasonably comprehensive set of pronatalist measures came into effect on 1 January 2007. The period total fertility rate increased from1.3 births per woman in 2006 to 1.6 in 2011 which the authorities view as an unqualified success. An unbiased demographic evaluation as well as analyses of Russian experts reveals that apparently the measures mainly caused a lowering of the age at birth and shortening of birth intervals. It appears that any real fertility increase is questionable, i.e. cohort fertility is not likely to increase appreciably. The recent pronatalist measures may turn out to be a failure.
The point of view of the extraordinary growth of fertility in Russia is widespread in the Russian expert community and media space. This increase is believed to be indicative of the positive results of the special financial measures taken by the State after 2006 in order to stimulate the birth rate. Do demographers have strong bases to support the increased optimism that demonstrated today by politicians and administrators of different levels? According to the author, there are some positive developments, but their significance is quite insufficient to face the pink glasses on the future of Russian fertility and reproduction of population of the country. With this paper, the author continues his previous long-term research in the field of in-depth demographic analysis of Russian fertility involving the latest official statistical data for 2014. The paper provides an overview of the trends of key fertility indicators in a few decades, as well as develops some methodological issues of the cohort fertility analysis in order to obtain more reliable projections. The article consists of two interrelated parts. In the first part, presented in the previous issue, the author examines period fertility indicators (for calendar years), taking into account the latest changes in the structural characteristics of the Russian model of fertility that have occurred over the past several decades. In the second part of the article, which presented in this issue of the Journal, the author analyses cohort fertility indicators of generations of women, whose the actual and the expected reproductive activity has occurring in the second half of the XX - the first decades of the XXI century.
The author examines the latest trends in Russia's fertility in light of the pro-natalistfamily policy. Changes in period and cohort fertility indicators in the context of the changes in age- and birth order profile of fertility are under discussion. In particular, the author is showing that, given the very modest increase in cohort total fertility in Russia continues to increase in the relative number of permanently childless women, and an increasing proportion of women who gave the birth to three or more children. As a result there is an increase in heterogeneity of the Russian model of childbirth from the perspective of distribution of women by number of children ever born, as well as strengthened regional specifics of Russian fertility patterns.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.