IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hit/hitcei/2015-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Struggling for new lives: Family and fertility policies in the Soviet Union and modern Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Selezneva, Ekaterina

Abstract

During the 20th century, Russian women were assigned the triple role of social and political activists, workers, caregivers and mothers. This paper makes an overview of the main steps undertaken first by the Soviet and later by the modern Russian governments to influence family formation models and fertility levels, in order to improve the demographic situation over the period from 1917 until 2015. The overview pays close attention to such measures of demographic policy as marriage and divorce regulation, support of families through family benefits and the tax system, reconciliation of family and work spheres (maternity/paternity leaves, workplace flexibility measures), fertility promotion, childbearing and childcare support, as well as rare reproductive health protection initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Selezneva, Ekaterina, 2015. "Struggling for new lives: Family and fertility policies in the Soviet Union and modern Russia," CEI Working Paper Series 2015-8, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    • Handle: RePEc:hit:hitcei:2015-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/hermes/ir/re/28289/wp2015-8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nikolai Botev, 2008. "'Can policies enhance fertility in Europe?' and questions beyond," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 6(1), pages 29-34.
    2. Sergei Zakharov, 2008. "Russian Federation: From the first to second demographic transition," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(24), pages 907-972.
    3. Larisa A. Popova, 2014. "The Results of the Modern Demographic Policy in Russia," International Journal of Regional Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 1(1), pages 26-38, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ekaterina Selezneva, 2016. "Struggling for new lives: Family and fertility policies in the Soviet Union and modern Russia," Working Papers 355, Leibniz Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung (Institute for East and Southeast European Studies).
    2. Allan Puur & Leen Rahnu & Liili Abuladze & Luule Sakkeus & Sergei Zakharov, 2017. "Childbearing among first- and second-generation Russians in Estonia against the background of the sending and host countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(41), pages 1209-1254.
    3. Sunnee Billingsley, 2010. "The Post-Communist Fertility Puzzle," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 29(2), pages 193-231, April.
    4. Ekaterina Mitrofanova & Alyona Artamonova, 2016. "The perspectives of family policy in Russia amid increasing cohabitation," European Journal of Government and Economics, Europa Grande, vol. 5(1), pages 47-63, June.
    5. Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2008. "Ukraine: On the border between old and new in uncertain times," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(29), pages 1145-1178.
    6. Theodore P. Gerber & Danielle Berman, 2010. "Entry to Marriage and Cohabitation in Russia, 1985–2000: Trends, Correlates, and Implications for the Second Demographic Transition," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 26(1), pages 3-31, February.
    7. Nikolai Botev, 2015. "Could Pronatalist Policies Discourage Childbearing?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 301-314, June.
    8. Diana Sabotinova, 2009. "Economic Aspects of Public Fertility Policies," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 85-102.
    9. Ashwin, Sarah & Isupova, Olga, 2014. "“Behind every great man…”: the male marriage wage premium examined qualitatively," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 55689, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Leen Rahnu & Allan Puur & Luule Sakkeus & Martin Klesment, 2015. "Partnership dynamics among migrants and their descendants in Estonia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(56), pages 1519-1566.
    11. Victor Agadjanian & Premchand Dommaraju, 2011. "Culture, Modernization, and Politics: Ethnic Differences in Union Formation in Kyrgyzstan [Culture, modernisation et politiques: différences ethniques dans la formation des unions au Kirghizstan]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 27(1), pages 79-101, February.
    12. Mikucka, Malgorzata, 2015. "How does parenthood affect life satisfaction in Russia?," MPRA Paper 65376, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Nicole Hiekel & Aart C. Liefbroer & Anne-Rigt Poortman, 2014. "Income pooling strategies among cohabiting and married couples," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(55), pages 1527-1560.
    14. Nina Kouprianova, 2013. "Modernity and natalism in Russia: Historic perspectives," European Journal of Government and Economics, Europa Grande, vol. 2(2), pages 148-159, December.
    15. Zuzanna Brzozowska, 2014. "Fertility and education in Poland during state socialism," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(12), pages 319-336.
    16. Maneesh Kumar Pandey & Irina G. Sergeeva, 2022. "A research on the role of women in economic development in the BRICS countries," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 43-65, April.
    17. Sebastian Klüsener & Aiva Jasilioniene & Victoriya Yuodeshko, 2019. "Retraditionalization as a pathway to escape lowest-low fertility? Characteristics and prospects of the Eastern European “baby boom”," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2019-014, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    18. Yuri Frantsuz & Eduard Ponarin, 2020. "The Impact of Societal Instability on Demographic Behavior (The Case of Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia)," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(6), pages 1087-1117, December.
    19. Nazim Habibov & Hakim Zainiddinov, 2017. "Effect of TV and radio family planning messages on the probability of modern contraception utilization in post-Soviet Central Asia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 17-38, January.
    20. Busygin V.P. & Kulakov D.A., 2016. "Comparative efficiency of child benefits in different European countries," World of economics and management / Vestnik NSU. Series: Social and Economics Sciences, Socionet, vol. 16(3), pages 42-56.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fertility; Russia; family policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J18 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Public Policy
    • P30 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hit:hitcei:2015-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Reiko Suzuki (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cehitjp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.