• Home
  • Issues
  • 2020
  • No 4
  • Modeling marital fertility in Russia in terms of regional multi-variations in family policy

Modeling marital fertility in Russia in terms of regional multi-variations in family policy

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 18 (no. 4),

Russia’s population is forecasted to decline annually by 2024, the updated version of the Unified Plan for Achieving the National Development Goals of the Russian Federation for the Period until 2030 says. The total decrease may be equal to 1,2 million people. According to key Russian officials, low level of marital fertility is seen as one of the main reasons for depopulation. Russian authorities are “implementing active measures” to increase the birth rate and to protect mothers and children, with an emphasis on traditional family support. In terms of regional multi-variations in family policy, however, these measures do not always result in positive impacts. This paper contributes to the problem of assessing marital fertility in the Russian Federation by developing a classifier for estimating the likelihood of marriage. The study proposes a grouping of regions by the level of marital fertility to assess the scope of deinstitutionalization of marriage in Russia. The authors suggest that the tendency of the marriage deinstitutionalization in Russian can be explained by the regional population structures, which negatively impact the reproduction of the institution of marriage and family. With an increase in the average age of marriage for women, there is a shift to contract marriages, which results in a gradual accumulation of institutional exceptions and breakdown of the traditional family. This study relies on the data of the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey – Higher School of Economics (RLMS-HSE). The authors evaluate the binomial logit model of the probability of marriage. The results suggest that the effectiveness of the family policy may be increased through the institutional strengthening of shared strategies according to the regional context.
Citation: Kapoguzov, E. A., Chupin, R. I., Kharlamova, M. S. (2020). Modeling marital fertility in Russia in terms of regional multi-variations in family policy. Terra Economicus, 18(4), 32–46. DOI: 10.18522/20736606-2020-18-4-32-46 (In Russian)
Acknowledgment: The article is supported by the state assignment of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, titled «Family households as an economic entity».

Keywords: marital fertility; family policy; deinstitutionalization of marriage; regional multi-variations; institutional statements; institution of family institutional isomorphism

JEL codes: D10; B52; C71

  • Barbashin, M. Yu. (2016). The theory of institutional disintegration: Conceptual potential and methodological frameworks. Journal of Institutional Studies, 8(1), 36–53. (In Russian.)
  • Cherlin, A. J. (2003). Should the government promote marriage? Contexts, 2(4), 22–29.
  • Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of marriage and family, 66(4), 848–861.
  • Cherlin, A. J. (2020). Degrees of change: An assessment of the deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 62–80.
  • Coale, A. J., Trussell, T. J. (1974). Model fertility schedules variations in the age structure of childbearing in human populations. Population Studies, 40(2), 185–258.
  • Coale, A. J., Trussell, T. J. (1978). Finding the two parameters that specify a model schedule of marital fertility. Population Index, 44(2), 203–213.
  • Crawford, S. E., Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American political science review, 89(3), 582–600.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  • Elyutina, M. E., Bykova, N. O. (2012). Age-asymmetric marriage in the assessments of spouses. Sociological Research, 1, 83–93. (In Russian.)
  • Erznkyan, B. A. (2017). Institutional reinforcement: Three types of relations. Journal of Institutional Studies, 9(1), 27–38. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2017.9.1.027-038 (In Russian.)
  • Kapoguzov, E. A., Chupin, R. I., Kharlamova, M. S. (2019). Institutionalized arenas of marriage games. Journal of Institutional Studies, 11(4), 26–39. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2019.11.4.026-039 (In Russian.)
  • Kapoguzov, E. A., Chupin, R. I., Kharlamova, M. S.(2020a). Family policy narratives in Russia: Focus on regions. Journal of Economic Regulation, 11(3), 6–20. DOI: 10.17835/2078-5429.2020.11.3.006-020 (In Russian.)
  • Kapoguzov, E. A., Chupin, R. I., Kharlamova, M. S. (2020b). Russian constitutional conversion in the context of deinstitutionalization of marriage in the USA. Journal of Institutional Studies, 12(2), 86–99. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2020.12.2.086-099 (In Russian.)
  • Malaeva, T. M. (2015). Economic Crisis – Social Dimension (2016). Moscow: Delo, RANEPA Publ. (In Russian.)
  • Mironova, A. A., Prokofieva, L. M. (2018). Family and household in Russia: demographic aspect. Demographic review, 5(2), 103–121. (In Russian.)
  • Radaev, V. V. (2018). Millennials compared to previous generations: an empirical analysis. Sociological studies, (3), 15–33. DOI: 10.7868/S0132162518030029 (In Russian.)
  • Zakharov, S. V. (2010). Value-normative “timetables” of human life: the perceptions of residents of different countries about when a girl becomes an adult. Monitoring of public opinion: economic and social changes, 98(4), 166–193. (In Russian.)
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606