How to encourage Russian women to give birth
On the eve of International Women's Day, let's talk about demography again. More precisely, about what prevents our women from becoming mothers of many children, whether it is possible to force them to give birth, and when Russia will make the second demographic transition.
We asked the well-known demographer Alexei Raksha about this.
Now, according to independent experts, there are no more than 140 million of us. And, although the demographic crisis was predicted a long time ago, and there are many reasons for it, it is somehow sad to see firsthand how it all happens. It's like being a spectator in the stalls of a performance called «The Last Day of Pompeii».
I can judge by myself. I live next to a large park, five years ago with strollers in the mornings a dozen mothers walked here at the same time, regardless of the time of year, now you will meet a maximum of two. Pregnant same last six months do not see at all. I understand that this is the subjective opinion of one person, but the trend, as they say, is obvious.
If we take data only for peaceful years, we get a stunning result: the number of births in 2022 can be compared with 1999, 1943, 1812 (!) years. Not the best dates in the history of our country.
However, this is not a unique situation in today's world.
But not only are we, Russians, born little, we are also dying rapidly.
The demographer of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Kinolas Eberstadt, recently stated that the Russian Federation is a country with a level of education characteristic of the first world countries and a death rate characteristic of the third world countries.
From 2020 to 2022, the country lost 1.2 million more people than expected. 1.12 million were killed by the coronavirus. The exact number of forced emigrants and immigrants in 2022 is unknown and is unlikely to be known in the near future, but these figures, according to various estimates, are 500-800 and 500-1000 thousand people, respectively.
Trying to rectify the situation, the government uses either a “carrot” — an increase in maternity capital, payments already for the first child, and not just for the second, benefits for the poor and singles, then a “stick” — the State Duma is about to adopt a bill criminalizing child propaganda -free, but, alas, it does not get better.
It seems that we are doing something wrong. But what? We talked about this with the well-known demographer Alexei Raksha.
— The birth rate of second children has really fallen due to the transfer of most of the mother's capital to the first. The officials who changed the approach to these payments simply did not think.
If you talk in detail, you get a fairly long conversation. In a nutshell, amateurs sat at the top, vying with each other to advise on demographics. But none of them is a professional in this topic. They do not want to compare Russia with other countries and look only at what is happening in our country. As if we are a system isolated from the whole world, existing according to its own laws.
Elderly scientists, former party workers, rely on Soviet experience: they proceed from the fact that once in the USSR there was a socially homogeneous society and strict rules that were presented as the only normal ones. And after all, they gave birth …
Although more than thirty years have passed since then, and much has changed dramatically, the previous demographic experience means nothing at all. As it happened in the Soviet Union: a 20-year-old guy was returning from the army and during the first year he had to get married, and a year later to give birth to one child. If he did not meet these deadlines, he was forced to pay a tax on childlessness in the amount of 6% of earnings.
Therefore, the birth rate of the first children of young parents in the USSR was high, the second — worse, the third — below the baseboard. Yes, the general birth rate was then already below reproduction, but still more or less kept at the level: 1.8–1.9.
In the late USSR, paid decrees and benefits were introduced, then, under Gorbachev, an anti-alcohol campaign began — the birth rate with sober men also rose slightly. Nurseries and kindergartens remained available, they to some extent supported the birth rate of the first and second children.
Today's Russia is a capitalist country with wild inequality and stratification in society. We no longer have a welfare state. A return to the past is not possible. Although kindergartens are being built, and places have appeared in them recently, since the birth rate has fallen.
— Indeed, there should be as many families with many children as possible. Large families are great. But the ways to achieve this goal are not at all the ones that are offered to us.
Abortion restrictions? Look at Poland, where there is a strict ban on artificial termination of pregnancy and at the same time the birth rate is lower than in Russia. Look at Ireland, while there were abortion restrictions, the birth rate was high, then the birth rate dropped, the restrictions were lifted, but it remained that way. In Spain, the birth rate first fell, then abortion restrictions were lifted.
I think that the tax on childlessness will not work either, since young people now allow themselves their first children only when they have already accumulated some material cushion. And if the state also begins to keep additional money, this will prevent them from creating it. Some young people will generally prefer to move abroad, stop being tax residents of Russia.
“It's just that for people who make decisions about population policy, ideology is above all. In our country, demography has been replaced by propaganda and someone's personal life experience. Ideology should not be higher than science, facts, studies, examples from other countries.
—Meanwhile, the birth rate can still be increased. We see this in the example of France and Hungary, wherever the state allocates a large amount of funds, where a socially oriented demographic policy is pursued, where money is generously given for kindergartens, where taxes are quite high, but at the same time families are supported, the birth rate in comparison with similar countries gets higher. France in this regard is generally the champion of Europe.
Only the social state is able to solve this problem. But both under neoconservatism and under neoliberalism, where they live according to the principle of the jungle «every man for himself», the birth rate of the first and second children will not be high.
— High birth rate in the USA for decades it was supported by a large percentage of minorities, primarily Latin Americans. On top of that, there were separate religious communities that cultivated large families. The same Mormons.
Gradually, in this environment, the birth rate fell and approached the national average. Now it is lower than in France, Ireland, Iceland. If we take some Massachusetts, that is, a state that, in terms of population characteristics, is most similar to the UK, then the birth rate there today will be lower than in the UK. So we can say that the US has lost its leadership in this regard. And I believe that there will be no reverse process.
— It used to be a very strong gradient: the lower the level of education, the higher the birth rate. And vice versa. But now in the advanced countries, and above all the Scandinavian ones, this dependence has decreased. Today, the birth rate among women with higher education in these countries is not lower, and sometimes even slightly higher, than among women with secondary education.
— No. Just women with a good education, with a decent job, financially stable and confident, calmly looking to the future, generally prosperous, give birth to as many children as they want to have.
In Russia, the level of education among women is also growing, it is likely that such a trend is being laid. At least now, compared to late Soviet times, Russian educated urban family women are much more likely to have three or four children. You probably notice this in your surroundings too.
— I think that these are echoes of the peasant consciousness. Then it was believed that the advanced and educated should have few children. Give birth to the village and those who have recently moved from the countryside. It was unfashionable to give birth. This showed denseness, lack of education and a lower social status of the family. Unfortunately, such stereotypes of behavior change very slowly.
— Because I like it. There are those who just like being parents of many children. And there really aren't that many people like that. Those who choose to manage their lives more consciously and independently — when and how to get married, whether to get married at all, how to live, how many children to have.
The limits of what is acceptable are expanding. There are no clear boundaries. There is freedom of choice. You can have children. You may not have children. You may or may not want children. You can give birth to children in marriage and out of marriage. You can give birth early or give birth later. No one will say a word to you.
In the process of the second demographic transition, which from the 1970s to the end of the 20th century gradually covered all developed countries and continues to cover many developing countries, there is a gradual gap in sexual, matrimonial and reproductive behavior.
…The concept of the second demographic transition was proposed in 1986. Its authors argued that since the mid-1970s, most states have entered a new stage in their demographic history. By this time, the post-war surge in the birth rate, the so-called baby boom, had already ended, and a long-term downward trend was established.
The prevailing point of view is that this transition is associated with a general change in the system of values and norms of behavior, including demographic. The man of the future becomes free both in the choice of models of individual goals, and in the means of achieving them.
— No, there will simply be a wide variety of behavior models.
< /p>
— But for this, a generous family and demographic policy of the state is needed, then the second demographic transition can be saddled in a timely manner and directed towards the choice of having many children. If, however, everything is left to chance, as is being done now, and unjustified and amateurish decisions are made, then, of course, there will be a certain number of families with many children, but then there will be even more childless ones.
< p> — For the second child to give one million, for the third one and a half. Subsidies for mortgages and home purchases, organize the institute of state-certified nannies, which can be ordered in two clicks through the State Services. Ideally, you need an unconditional basic income for each child in the amount of one subsistence minimum until they reach adulthood.
Giving money only to the poor, as the authorities are doing now, does not affect the birth rate in any way, but it strongly spurs the growth of fictitious divorces when women deliberately separate from their husbands in order to fall under the category of the poor and become eligible for benefits. This is especially often observed in the Caucasus, since for their society the stamp in the passport does not mean much at all.
— I think that so far it is 5– 10 thousand unborn children and about 15-20 thousand excess born abroad.