Family and Fertility Issues in Value Conflicts During the 2010s

Klupt M.A.

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, St. Petersburg State University of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia

DOI: 10.31857/S013216250014119-3
ID of the Article: 8634

For citation:

Klupt M.A. Family and Fertility Issues in Value Conflicts During the 2010s. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2021. No 5. P. 36-46


The article discusses the conflicts of values related to family and fertility in the turbulent 2010s. Three conflicting value complexes, the traditional natalism, the new natalism and post-materialism are examined. It is argued that in the period under review all of them, both in Russia and in the West, failed to prove their undeniable advantages. Enthusiasm of the new natalism’s proponents was to some extent dispelled by dramatic decline of fertility in the Scandinavian countries during the 2010s. Backlash of “authoritarian populism” (in Norris and Inglehart terms) as well as the labour market precarisation questioned further expansion of emancipative values even in the most developed countries. In Russia, unlike many western countries, the conflicts over issues of gender and reproductive rights were not among main items of political agenda and protest rallies. Although these issues were widely disputed by the experts and media, the paternalist paradigm of state-family relations remained dominant, indeed. Surveys show that adherence to certain concepts of theoretical discourse, such as traditional values, or family egalitarianism declared by respondents often disagrees with their real practices caused by many circumstances of the everyday life. Given a variety of family life patterns in contemporary Russia, demographic and family policy should be multifaceted and friendly to all of them

family; value conflict; fertility; new natalism; traditional natalism; post-materialism; precarisation


Алмакаева А.М., Мавлетова А.М. Модернизационные процессы в России: ожидать ли сдвига в сторону эмансипативных ценностей? // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2018. № 6. С. 91–112. [Almakaeva A.M., Mavletova A.M. (2018) Modernization Process in Russia: Can We Expect the Shift to Emancipative Values? Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social'nye peremeny [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 6: 91–112. (In Russ.)] DOI:

Харчев А.Г. Социалистическая революция и семья // Социологические исследования. 1994. № 6. С. 90–95. [Kharchev A. (1994) Socialist Revolution and the Family. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 6: 90–95. (In Russ.)]

Bréchon P. Politisation et vote des jeunes // Agora debats/jeunesses. 1995. № 2. P. 9–21. [Bréchon P. (1995) Politicization and Young People's Voting Behaviour. Agora debats/jeunesses [Agora Debates/Youth]. No. 2: 9–21. (In Fr.)]

Kobold K., Schmiedel S. Wahlverhalten bei der Bundestagswahl 2017 nach Geschlecht und Alter. Ergebnisse der repräsentativen Wahlstatistik // WISTA. 2018. No. 3. S. 142–157. [Kobold K., Schmiedel S. (2018) Electoral Behaviour in the 2017 Bundestag Election by Gender and Age. The Results of Representative Electoral Statistics. WISTA. No. 3: 142–157. (In Germ.)]

Bongaarts J., Feeney G. (1998) On the Quantum and Tempo Effect of Fertility. Population and Development Review. 1998. Vol. 24. No. 2: 271–291. DOI: 10.2307/2807974.

Bueno X., Brinton M. (2019) Gender Egalitarianism, Perceived Economic Insecurity, and Fertility Intentions in Spain: A Qualitative Analysis. Population Studies. Vol. 73. No. 2: 247–260. DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2019.1604979.

DeRose L. (2021) Gender Equity, Religion, and Fertility in Europe and North America. Population and Development Review. Vol. 47. No. 1: 41–55. DOI: 10.1111/padr.12373.

Hellstrand J., Nisén J., Myrskylä M. (2020) All-time Low Period Fertility in Finland: Demographic Drivers, Tempo Effects, and Cohort Implications. Population Studies. Vol. 74. No. 3: 315–329. DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2020.1750677.

Inglehart R., Welzel Ch. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI:

Lindberg L., Van Vusse A., Mueller J., Kirstein M. (2020) Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the 2020 Guttmacher Survey of Reproductive Health Experiences. New York: Guttmacher Institute. DOI: 10.1363/2020.31482.

Luppi F., Arpino B., Rosina A. (2020) The Impact of COVID-19 on Fertility Plans in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Demographic Research. Vol. 43: 1399–1412. DOI: 10.4054/ DemRes.2020.43.47.

Matysiak A., Sobotka T., Vignoli D. (2021) The Great Recession and Fertility in Europe: A Sub-national Analysis. European Journal of Population. Vol. 37. No. 1: 29–64. DOI: 10.1007/s10680-020-09556-y.

Norris P., Inglehart R. (2018) Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1111/heyj.13385.

Seltzer N. (2019) Beyond the Great Recession: Labor Market Polarization and Ongoing Fertility Decline in the United States. Demography. 2019. Vol. 56. No. 4: 1463–1493. DOI:10.1007/s13524-019-00790-6.

Van de Kaa D. (1996) Anchored Narrative: The Story and Findings of Half a Century of Research into the Determinants of Fertility. Population Studies. Vol. 50. No. 3: 389–432. DOI: 10.1080/0032472031000149546.

Content No 5, 2021