IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/68-soc-2016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating effects of 2007 family policy changes on probability of second and subsequent births in Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Svetlana Biryukova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Oxana Sinyavskaya

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Irina Nurimanova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

From 2007 to 2014 total fertility rate in Russia increased from 1.42 to 1.75. To what extent this growth is related to a package of family policy measures introduced in 2007? Although the maternity (family) capital program is the most well-known innovation of the 2007 reform, we argue that the new rules of monthly childcare allowance assignment is its another major component. Since all measures were introduced simultaneously, it is only possible to estimate their cumulative effect on subsequent fertility behavior. Using panel Russian Generations and Gender Survey data collected in 2004, 2007 and 2011, this study assesses how family policy changes introduced in 2007 were related to the fertility behavior in Russia in recent years. We find a statistically significant increase in the chances of having second and subsequent births in September 2007 to Summer 2011 in comparison with the period of Summer 2004 to September 2007. We interpret that as a cumulative effect of the 2007 policy changes. We acknowledge that the observed effects might be related only to the calendar shifts in fertility behavior and further data and studies are needed to make any conclusions about completed fertility of the cohorts affected by 2007 family policy measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Svetlana Biryukova & Oxana Sinyavskaya & Irina Nurimanova, 2016. "Estimating effects of 2007 family policy changes on probability of second and subsequent births in Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 68/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:68/soc/2016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hse.ru/data/2016/02/03/1137672794/68SOC2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angela Luci & Olivier Thevenon, 2011. "The impact of family policy packages on fertility trends in developed countries," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00657603, HAL.
    2. Nick Parr, 2011. "The contribution of increases in family benefits to Australia’s early 21st-century fertility increase: An empirical analysis," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 25(6), pages 215-244.
    3. Mike Brewer & Anita Ratcliffe & Sarah dSmith, 2012. "Does welfare reform affect fertility? Evidence from the UK," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 245-266, January.
    4. John Bongaarts, 2008. "What can fertility indicators tell us about pronatalist policy options?," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 6(1), pages 39-55.
    5. Robert Drago & Katina Sawyer & Karina M Shreffler & Diana Warren & Mark Wooden, 2009. "Did Australia's Baby Bonus Increase the Fertility Rate?," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2009n01, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    6. Walker, James R, 1995. "The Effect of Public Policies on Recent Swedish Fertility Behavior," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 8(3), pages 223-251, August.
    7. Fabián Slonimczyk & Anna Yurko, 2013. "Assessing the Impact of the Maternity Capital Policy in Russia Using a Dynamic Model of Fertility and Employment," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 125, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    8. Cigno, Alessandro & Ermisch, John, 1989. "A microeconomic analysis of the timing of births," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 737-760, April.
    9. Alma Cohen & Rajeev Dehejia & Dmitri Romanov, 2007. "Do Financial Incentives Affect Fertility?," NBER Working Papers 13700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Anne H. Gauthier, 2008. "Some theoretical and methodological comments on the impact of policies on fertility," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 6(1), pages 25-28.
    11. Kevin Milligan, 2005. "Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(3), pages 539-555, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Tomas Frejka & Sergei Zakharov, 2013. "The Apparent Failure of Russia's Pronatalist Family Policies," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(4), pages 635-647, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Gerda Neyer & Gunnar Andersson, 2008. "Consequences of Family Policies on Childbearing Behavior: Effects or Artifacts?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 34(4), pages 699-724, December.
    16. Giovanna Boccuzzo & Gianpiero Dalla Zuanna & Marcantonio Caltabiano & Marzia Loghi, 2008. "The impact of the bonus at birth on reproductive behaviour in a lowest-low fertility context: Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy) from 1989 2005," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 6(1), pages 125-147.
    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. Kryštof Zeman & Eva Beaujouan & Zuzanna Brzozowska & Tomáš Sobotka, 2018. "Cohort fertility decline in low fertility countries: Decomposition using parity progression ratios," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(25), pages 651-690.
    2. Berde, Éva & Kovács, Eszter, 2016. "A svéd és a magyar termékenységi arányszám összehasonlítása [Comparison of Swedish and Hungarian fertility levels]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1348-1374.
    3. Maleva, Tatiana M. (Маллева, Татьяна) & Makarentseva, Alla O. (Макаренцева, Алла) & Tretyakova, Ekaterina A. (Третьякова, Екатерина), 2017. "Pronatalist Demographic Policy in the Eyes of the Population: Ten Years Later [Пронаталистская Демографическая Политика Глазами Населения: Десять Лет Спустя]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 124-147, December.

    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. Gordey Yastrebov, 2016. "Intergenerational Social Mobility in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 69/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    2. 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.
    3. Sinclair, Sarah & Boymal, Jonathan & de Silva, Ashton J, 2012. "Is the fertility response to the Australian baby bonus heterogeneous across maternal age? Evidence from Victoria," MPRA Paper 42725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    5. Nikolai Botev, 2015. "Could Pronatalist Policies Discourage Childbearing?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 301-314, June.
    6. Nakajima, Ryo & Tanaka, Ryuichi, 2014. "Estimating the effects of pronatal policies on residential choice and fertility," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 179-200.
    7. Magdalena Smyk & Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas van der Velde, 2021. "A Cautionary Note on the Reliability of the Online Survey Data: The Case of Wage Indicator," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 429-464, February.
    8. Kamila Cygan-Rehm, 2016. "Parental leave benefit and differential fertility responses: evidence from a German reform," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(1), pages 73-103, January.
    9. Krzysztof Makarski & Joanna Tyrowicz & Magda Malec, 2018. "Evaluating welfare and economic effects of raised fertility," GRAPE Working Papers 25, GRAPE Group for Research in Applied Economics.
    10. Ralph Lattimore & Clinton Pobke, 2008. "Recent Trends in Australian Fertility," Staff Working Papers 0806, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    11. Sunnee Billingsley & Gerda Neyer & Katharina Wesolowski, 2022. "Social Investment Policies and Childbearing Across 20 Countries: Longitudinal and Micro-Level Analyses," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 38(5), pages 951-974, December.
    12. Cygan-Rehm, Kamila, 2013. "Earnings-Dependent Parental Leave Benefit and Fertility: Evidence from Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 80021, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Mengni Chen & Chris J Lloyd & Paul S F Yip, 2018. "A new method of identifying target groups for pronatalist policy applied to Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, February.
    14. Micaela Bassford & Hayley Fisher, 2020. "The Impact of Paid Parental Leave on Fertility Intentions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 96(315), pages 402-430, December.
    15. Edith Duclos & Pierre Lefebvre & Philip Merrigan, 2001. "A 'Natural Experiment' on the Economics of Storks: Evidence on the Impact of Differential Family Policy on Fertility Rates in Canada," Cahiers de recherche CREFE / CREFE Working Papers 136, CREFE, Université du Québec à Montréal.
    16. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2013. "Childbearing Age, Family Allowances, and Social Security," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(2), pages 385-413, October.
    17. Haan, Peter & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2011. "Can child care policy encourage employment and fertility?: Evidence from a structural model," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 498-512, August.
    18. Regina T. Riphahn & Frederik Wiynck, 2017. "Fertility effects of child benefits," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1135-1184, October.
    19. Taryn Ann Galloway & Rannveig Kaldager Hart, 2015. "Effects of income and the cost of children on fertility. Quasi-experimental evidence from Norway," Discussion Papers 828, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    20. Malte Sandner & Frederik Wiynck, 2023. "The Fertility Response to Cutting Child-Related Welfare Benefits," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(2), pages 1-29, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Family Policy; Pro-Natalist Policy; Russian Maternity Capital Program; Fertility; Births; Generations and Gender Survey; Russia;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    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:hig:wpaper:68/soc/2016. 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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.