Рус Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2065,   Articles in work: 293 Declined articles: 786 
Library

Back to contents

Sociodynamics
Reference:

Influence of the socioeconomic environment upon the reproductive plans of generations in the northern region of the Russian Federation
Sukneva Svetlana Aleksandrovna

Doctor of Economics

Docent, Chief Scientific Associate, Head of Laboratory, National Research University of Regional Economy of Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University

677000, Russia, Respublika Sakha (Yakutiya), g. Yakutsk, ul. Stroitelei, 8, of. 208

sukneva@mail.ru
Barashkova Anastasiya Spiridonovna

PhD in Economics

Leading Scientific Associate, National Research University of Regional Economy of Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University

677000, Russia, Respublika Sakha (Yakutiya), g. Yakutsk, ul. Stroitelei, 8, of. 208

asbarashkova52@mail.ru
Neustroeva Aiza Borisovna

PhD in Sociology

Leading Scientific Associate, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia); Docent, the Institute of Psychology, Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University

677000, Russia, Respublika Sakha (Yakutiya), g. Yakutsk, ul. Lenina, 33

aizok@mail.ru
Другие публикации этого автора
 

 
Tarasova-Sivtseva Oksana Mikhailovna

Senior Scientific Associate, National Research University of Regional Economy of Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University

677000, Russia, Respublika Sakha (Yakutiya), g. Yakutsk, ul. Stroitelei, 8, of. 208

toksana19@mail.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7144.2019.12.31575

Review date:

03-12-2019


Review date:

03-12-2019


Publish date:

03-12-2019


Abstract.

This article explores separate elements of the socioeconomic environment exerting influence upon the reproductive plans of women of various generations. The goal of this article is to determine the factors contributing to or impeding the realization of the reproductive plans of women and the variability of this influence. The generation of indigenous minorities born in the 1990’s, and now reaching the childbearing age demonstrate visible changes in the reproductive plans of the population of the northern region, which was formerly known for its high birth rate. A direct correlation is determined between the model of the parental family and plans for childbirth in the families of respondents. The information base consists of materials from the socio-demographic polling conducted through questionnaires from thirteen administrative districts of Yakutia during 2017-2018 (n = 833). It is established that the decision-making for having a child is greatly influenced by financial situation, and that living conditions along with uncertainty of tomorrow and state of health impact the reproductive plans of urban women more than rural women. The results of this research allow concluding that the place of residents of the respondents is a socioeconomic element of its own, exerting substantial influence upon the reproductive plans of the generations, which underlines the importance of consideration of this factor in development of measures of birth support on the state level.

Keywords: socio-demographic survey, socio-economic environment, expected number of children, desired number of children, generations of women, reproductive plans, northern region, family, respondents, demographic processes
This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 07.05.2018 № 204 «O natsional'nykh tselyakh i strategicheskikh zadachakh razvitiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii na period do 2024 goda».
2.
Poslanie Prezidenta Federal'nomu Sobraniyu. URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/59863 (Data obrashcheniya: 08.04.2019).
3.
Natsional'nyi proekt «Demografiya». URL: https://rosmintrud.ru/ministry/programms/demography (Data obrashcheniya: 20.10.2019).
4.
Sukneva S.A. Sovremennye trendy rozhdaemosti v Respublike Sakha (Yakutiya) // Uroven' zhizni naseleniya regionov Rossii. 2017. № 2 (204). S. 51-57.
5.
Rybakovskii O.L., Tayunova O.A. Rozhdaemost' naseleniya Rossii i demograficheskie volny // Narodonaselenie. 2017. № 4. S. 56-66. DOI: 10.26653/1561-7785-2017-4-4.
6.
Kalabikhina I. E. Demograficheskaya volna rozhdenii i budushchie kolebaniya chislennosti naseleniya v raznykh vozrastnykh gruppakh: vyzovy dlya sotsial'noi politiki // Ekonomicheskie strategii. 2015. T. 17. No 2 (128). S. 50–57. [Elektron. resurs] Rezhim dostupa: http://www.inesnet.ru/wp-content/mag_archive/2015_02/es2015-02-50-56_Irina_Kalabikhina.pdf
7.
Arkhangel'skii V.N., Zin'kina Yu.V., Shul'gin S.G. Demograficheskii potentsial polovozrastnoi struktury kak faktor dinamiki chislennosti naseleniya // Statistika i Ekonomika. 2018. T. 15. № 6. S. 69-79. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21686/2500-3925-2018-6-69-79
8.
Zakharov S.V. Potentsial strukturnykh faktorov rosta rozhdaemosti ischerpan? Chast' pervaya// Demoskop Weekly. 2017. No 731-732. URL: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2017/0731/tema01.php
9.
Arkhangel'skii V.N., Zin'kina Yu.V., Korotaev A.V., Shul'gin S.G. Sovremennye tendentsii rozhdaemosti v Rossii i vliyanie mer gosudarstvennoi podderzhki // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2017. № 3 (395). S. 43-50.
10.
Kalachikova O. N., Shabunova A. A. Vozmozhnosti i rezervy povysheniya rozhdaemosti v Rossii // Problemy razvitiya territorii. 2013. № 6 (68). S. 66–72.
11.
Zyryanova (Shishkina) M.A., Popova L.A. Faktornyi analiz protsessov rozhdaemosti v severnykh regionakh Rossii // Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka. 2018. № 3 (59). S. 111-121.
12.
Lee R., A. Mason Fertility, human capital, and economic growth over the demographic transition // European journal of population. 2010. No 26(2). P. 159–182.
13.
Sobotka T., V. Skirbekk, D. Philipov. Economic recession and fertility in the developed world // Population and development review. 2011. No 2. P. 267–306.
14.
Begall K., M. Mills. The impact of perceived work control, job strain and work–family conflict on fertility intentions: a European comparison // European journal of population. 2011. No27(4). P. 433–456.
15.
Kreyenfeld M. Uncertainties in female employment careers and the postponement of parenthood in Germany // European sociological review. 2010. No 26(3). P. 351–366.
16.
Schoen R., N.M. Astone, Y.J. Kim, C.A. Nathanson, J.M. Fields Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? // Journal of marriage and family. 1999. No 61(3)/ P. 790–799.
17.
Philipov D. Fertility intentions and outcomes: The role of policies to close the gap // European journal of population. 2009. No 25. P. 355–361.
18.
Berrington A. Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behavior // Population trends. 2004. No. 117. P. 9–19.
19.
Testa M.R. Childbearing preferences and family issues in Europe. Special Eurobarometer. 2006. No253/Wave 65.1—TNS Opinion & Social.
20.
Murphy M., D. Wang Family-level continuities in childbearing in low-fertility societies // European journal of population. 2001. No 17. P. 75–96.
21.
Rijken A.J., A.C. Liefbroer The effects of relationship quality on fertility // European journal of population. 2009. No 25. P. 27–44.
22.
Antonov A.I. Izmerenie reproduktivnykh orientatsii i ustanovok v vyborochnykh oprosakh rossiiskogo naseleniya 1976-2015 gg. // Nauchnyi internet-zhurnal «Sem'ya i demograficheskie issledovaniya». 05.10.2016. https://riss.ru/demography/demography-science-journal/34469.
23.
Sukneva S.A. Tendentsii i perspektivy rozhdaemosti na Dal'nem Vostoke Rossii // Natsional'nye demograficheskie prioritety: podkhody i mery realizatsii. Seriya «Demografiya. Sotsiologiya. Ekonomika». Tom 5. № 4. M.: Izd-vo «Ekon-Inform», 2019. C. 332-335.
24.
Arkhangel'skii V.N., Elizarov V.V., Zvereva N.V., Ivanova L.Yu. Demograficheskoe povedenie i ego determinatsiya (po rezul'tatam sotsiologo-demograficheskogo issledovaniya v Novgorodskoi oblasti). M.: TEIS, 2005. 352 s