IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/socinc/v10y2022i3p112-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Home Alone: Exploring Childcare Options to Remove Barriers to Second Childbearing in Belarus

Author

Listed:
  • Kamila Ishchanova

    (Department of Demography and Geodemography, Charles University, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between childcare usage and parents’ intentions to have a second child in Belarus. Previous research has established that low fertility in Belarus can be primarily explained by falling second birth rates. However, a substantial research gap remains regarding the determinants of the low rate of second childbearing in Belarus. Based on a comprehensive review of hypothesised fertility barriers and family policy options in Belarus, this study leverages data from the Belarusian Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) from 2017 to examine the relationship between formal, informal, and mixed childcare usage and parents’ intention to have a second child. The analysis is based on fertile individuals aged 18–45 who have a partner and one biological child under 11 years old (i.e., up to the age at which children leave primary school). The model controls for sex, age, education, respondents’ economic wellbeing, the employment status of both partners, and the age of their child. Applying logistic regression, the analysis demonstrates that mixed childcare support increases respondents’ intentions to have an additional child. Having a child aged 3–6 years, being below 26 years old and male, are also associated with a higher likelihood of intentions to have a second child. No association was found between economic wellbeing or employment status and second‐parity fertility intentions. The results of this study suggest that gender‐egalitarian family policy instruments that improve institutional childcare and that incentivise men to participate in childcare could reduce barriers to second childbearing in Belarus.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamila Ishchanova, 2022. "Home Alone: Exploring Childcare Options to Remove Barriers to Second Childbearing in Belarus," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 112-123.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v10:y:2022:i:3:p:112-123
    DOI: 10.17645/si.v10i3.5223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/5223
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/si.v10i3.5223?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter McDonald, 2000. "Gender Equity in Theories of Fertility Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 427-439, September.
    2. Melinda Mills & Maria Letizia Tanturri & Katia Begall & Letizia Mencarini, 2008. "Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 18(1), pages 1-26.
    3. Anna Matysiak, 2011. "Fertility Developments In Central And Eastern Europe: The Role Of Work–Family Tensions," Demográfia, Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, vol. 54(5), pages 7-30.
    4. Aliaksandr Amialchuk & Katerina Lisenkova & Mykhaylo Salnykov & Maksim Yemelyanau, 2014. "Economic determinants of fertility in Belarus," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 22(3), pages 577-604, July.
    5. Thomas A. DiPrete & S. Philip Morgan & Henriette Engelhardt & Hana Pacalova, 2003. "Do Cross-National Differences in the Costs of Children Generate Cross-National Differences in Fertility Rates?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 355, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Gerda Neyer & Trude Lappegård & Daniele Vignoli, 2013. "Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(3), pages 245-272, August.
    7. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Goldstein, Joshua R. & Koulovatianos, Christos & Li, Jian & Schröder, Carsten, 2017. "Evaluating how child allowances and daycare subsidies affect fertility," CFS Working Paper Series 568, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivett Szalma & Hana Hašková & Livia Oláh & Judit Takács, 2022. "Fragile Pronatalism and Reproductive Futures in European Post‐Socialist Contexts," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 82-86.

    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. Kamila Ishchanova, 2022. "Home Alone: Exploring Childcare Options to Remove Barriers to Second Childbearing in Belarus," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 112-123.
    2. Barbara S. Okun & Liat Raz‐Yurovich, 2019. "Housework, Gender Role Attitudes, and Couples' Fertility Intentions: Reconsidering Men's Roles in Gender Theories of Family Change," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 169-196, March.
    3. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    4. del Rosario de Fatima Juárez Carcaño, María & De Rose, Alessandra & Testa, Maria Rita, 2023. "The relationship between education and fertility preferences in Mexico: Lessons from Italy," SocArXiv cw8xd_v1, Center for Open Science.
    5. Kristen Harknett & Francesco Billari & Carla Medalia, 2014. "Do Family Support Environments Influence Fertility? Evidence from 20 European Countries," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(1), pages 1-33, February.
    6. Roberto Impicciatore & Gianpiero Dalla Zuanna, 2017. "The impact of education on fertility in Italy. Changes across cohorts and south–north differences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 2293-2317, September.
    7. Anne Gauthier, 2007. "The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(3), pages 323-346, June.
    8. Victor Leocádio & Ana Paula Verona & Simone Wajnman, 2025. "A review of research of the relationship between gender equity and fertility in low-fertility settings," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 1-26, March.
    9. Pau Baizan & Bruno Arpino & Carlos Eric Delclòs, 2016. "The Effect of Gender Policies on Fertility: The Moderating Role of Education and Normative Context," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(1), pages 1-30, February.
    10. del Rosario de Fatima Juárez Carcaño, María & De Rose, Alessandra & Testa, Maria Rita, 2023. "The relationship between education and fertility preferences in Mexico: Lessons from Italy," SocArXiv cw8xd, Center for Open Science.
    11. Henrik-Alexander Schubert & Christian Dudel & Marina Kolobova & Mikko Myrskylä, 2023. "Revisiting the J-shape: human development and fertility in the United States," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2023-022, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    12. Branislav Šprocha, 2022. "Growing Childlessness and One‐Child Families in Slovakia in the Shadow of Fragile Pronatalism," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 100-111.
    13. Cygan-Rehm, Kamila & Maeder, Miriam, 2013. "The effect of education on fertility: Evidence from a compulsory schooling reform," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 35-48.
    14. Arnstein Aassve & Daria Mendola & Giulia Fuochi & Letizia Mencarini, 2015. "What is your couple type? Gender ideology, housework sharing, and babies," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(30), pages 835-858.
    15. Francesca Modena & Concetta Rondinelli & Fabio Sabatini, 2014. "Economic Insecurity and Fertility Intentions: The Case of Italy," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(S1), pages 233-255, May.
    16. Menghan Zhao & Yang Zhang, 2019. "Parental childcare support, sibship status and mothers’ second-child plans in urban China," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 41(47), pages 1315-1346.
    17. Gerda Neyer & Trude Lappegård & Daniele Vignoli, 2013. "Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(3), pages 245-272, August.
    18. Fleckenstein, Timo & Lee, Soohyun Christine & Mohun Himmelweit, Sam, 2023. "Labour market dualization, permanent insecurity and fertility: the case of ultra-low fertility in South Korea," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117935, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Seongsoo Choi & Riley Taiji & Manting Chen & Christiaan Monden, 2020. "Cohort Trends in the Association Between Sibship Size and Educational Attainment in 26 Low-Fertility Countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(3), pages 1035-1062, June.
    20. Jonas Wood & Sebastian Klüsener & Karel Neels & Mikko Myrskylä, 2017. "Is a positive link between human development and fertility attainable? Insights from the Belgian vanguard case," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2017-014, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

    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:cog:socinc:v10:y:2022:i:3:p:112-123. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    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.