Modern fertility trends in Russia and the impact of the pro-natalist policies
Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Head of the Sector at the Center for Population Problems Studies at the Economic Faculty of the Moscow State University; Leading Researcher of the International Research Laboratory for Demography and Human Capital, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia email@example.com
Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Senior Research Fellow, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Sci. (Hist.), Prof., Head of Laboratory for Sociopolitical Destabilization Risks Monitoring, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Leading Researcher, International Laboratory of Demography and Human Capital, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia. email@example.com
Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Vice-Head of the International Research Laboratory for Demography and Human Capital, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia firstname.lastname@example.org
In the 1990s Russia, along with many Eastern European countries, hit lowest-low fertility levels (TFR lower than 1.3 children per woman) which were persistent throughout the early 2000s despite some small growth of TFR. This spurred the introduction of pro-natalist policies, the most prominent of which was a large lump-sum payment on the birth of a second or a higher-order child, the “maternity capital”, in 2007. This had an immediate impact upon fertility. In order to assess the impact of pro-natalist policies upon the TFR dynamics let us calculate an estimate what the TFR in 2015 would be if there were no such policies. The annual increase of TFR for second and higher-order births in 2000–2004 was about 0.02. If this increase had persisted in 2007–2015, the TFR for second and higher-order births in 2015 would have equalled 0.731, while in reality it was 0.990, or 35.4% higher. The TFR for all births would have been in this case 1.518, while in reality it was 1.777, or 17.1% higher. We can take these figures as estimates of the effect of the pro-natalist policies realized in 2007–2015. Notably, the increase is observed not only in TFR, but in fertility rates of real cohorts of women as well.
Frejka T., Zaharov S. (2014) Jevoljucija rozhdaemosti v Rossii za polveka: optika uslovnyh i real’nyh pokolenij. Demograficheskoe obozrenie [Demographic Review]. Vol. 1. No. 1: 106–143.
Zaharov S.V., Bogojavlenskij D.D., Isupova O.G., Sakevich V.I., Komleva R.N., Churilova E.V. (2014) Dajut li tendencii rozhdaemosti 2007–2012 gg. povod dlja optimizma? Naselenie Rossii 2012. Dvadcatyj ezhegodnyj demograficheskij doklad. [Population of Russia 2012. The 20th annual demographic report] Moscow: Izd. dom VShE: 131–153.