Политика в отношении рождаемости и семей с детьми: современные подходы и оценки эффективности

С 2020–2021 годов и до настоящего времени наблюдается очередной виток снижения суммарного коэффициента рождаемости (СКР) во многих развитых странах, включая те, которые имеют наиболее эффективную систему поддержки семей с детьми. За колебаниями СКР стоят как экономические кризисы (стагнация доходов на фоне роста потребительских стандартов и притязаний, повсеместное снижение доступности жилья и др.), так и социокультурные сдвиги (влияние социальных сетей, распространение норм «интенсивного родительства», усложнение поиска баланса родительства и занятости на рынке труда в условиях высокой материнской нагрузки и др.). Большинство развитых и многие развивающиеся страны проводят демографическую политику, которая может прямо артикулироваться в нормативных актах или осуществляться через отдельные мероприятия. В статье рассматриваются классические системы поддержки рождаемости с акцентом на их трансформации в последнее десятилетие, приводятся оценки эффективности мер на основе пула зарубежных исследований и показывается, в каком направлении могут идти их изменения на новом этапе снижения календарных показателей рождаемости. Согласно результатам обзора исследований о мерах поддержки рождаемости, наибольший эффект дает комбинированный подход к реализации мер, охватывающий несколько разных направлений. При этом крайне важна последовательность политики, а также экономический, социальный, исторический и культурный контекст страны. Меры поддержки лучше влияют на время рождений, но не на итоговое число детей. Одна из причин этого – быстро меняющиеся социальные и экономические условия, значительные культурно-ценностные сдвиги, происходящие за время жизни современных поколений.

1. Aassve A., Lappegård T. Cash-Benefit Policy and Childbearing Decisions in Norway. Marriage & Family Review, 2010, vol. 46, no 3, pp. 149-169. DOI: 10.1080/01494929.2010.490094.

2. Baizan P. Regional Child Care Availability and Fertility Decisions in Spain. Demographic Research, 2009, vol. 21, article 27, pp. 803-842. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2009.21.27.

3. Bauernschuster S., Hener T., Rainer H. Does Expanding Public Child Care Encourage Fertility? County-Level Evidence From Germany. ifo Institute, Working Paper Series 158, 2013. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/73789.

4. Bergsvik J., Fauske A., Hart R. K. Can Policies Stall the Fertility Fall? A Systematic Review of the (Quasi‐) Experimental Literature. Population and Development Review, 2021, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 913-964. DOI: 10.1111/padr.12431.

5. Billingsley S., Neyer G., Wesolowski K. The Influence of Family Policies on Women’s Childbearing: A Longitudinal Micro-Data Analysis of 21 Countries: Stokholm Research Reports in Demography. Stokholm, Stokholm University, 2018. https://su.figshare.com/articles/preprint/The_influence_of_family_policies_on_women_s_childbearing_A_longitudinal_micro-data_analysis_of_21_countries/6754193?file=12315542.

6. Boccuzzo G., Caltabiano M., Dalla Zuanna G., Loghi M. 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, 2008, vol. 6, pp. 125-147. DOI: 10.1553/populationyearbook2008s125.

7. Brauner-Otto S. R. Housing and Fertility: A Macro-Level, Multi-Country Investigation, 1993-2017. Housing Studies, 2021, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 569-596. DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2021.1893279.

8. Doepke M., Kindermann F. Bargaining Over Babies: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications. American Economic Review, 2019, vol. 109, no. 9, pp. 3264-3306. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20160328.

9. Drago R., Sawyer K., Sheffler K., Warren D., Wooden M. Did Australia’s Baby Bonus Increase the Fertility Rate? Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series, Working Paper no. 1/09, 2009. https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-bibliography/working-discussion-research-papers/2009/Drago_etal_Did_Australias_Baby_Bonus_Increase_the_Fertility_Rate.pdf.

10. Elhoro O., Badey D. New Media and Marital Instability: Exploring the Implications of Social Media on New Marriages. International Journal of Innovative Development and Policy Studies, 2021, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 116-126. /https://www.seahipublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/IJIDPS-S-13-2021.pdf.

11. Ellingsæter A. L., Kitterød R. H., Hansen M. N. How Does Parental Time Relate to Social Class in a Nordic Welfare State? Acta Sociologica, 2022, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 150-165. DOI: 10.1177/00016993211052079.

12. Esping‐Andersen G., Billari F. C. Re‐Theorizing Family Demographics. Population and Development Review, 2015, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00024.x.

13. Esping-Andersen G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990.

14. Faircloth C. Intensive Parenting and the Expansion of Parenting. In: Parenting Сulture Studies. Cham, Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 33-67.

15. Gábos A., Gál R. I., Gábor K. The Effects of Child-Related Benefits and Pensions on Fertility by Birth Order: A Test on Hungarian Data. Population Studies, 2009, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 215-231. DOI: 10.1080/00324720903215293.

16. Gathmann Ch., Björn S. Taxing Childcare: Effects on Childcare Choices, Family Labor Supply, and Children. Journal of Labor Economics, 2018, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 665-709. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/10813/taxing-childcare-effects-on-childcare-choices-family-labor-supply-and-children.

17. Gauthier A. H. The Impact of Family Policies on Fertility in Industrialized Countries: A Review of the Literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 2007, vol. 26, pp. 323346. DOI: 10.1007/s11113-007-9033-x.

18. Gauthier A. H., Bryson C., Fadel L., Haux T., Koops J., Mynarska M. Exploring the Concept of Intensive Parenting in a Three-Country Study. Demographic Research, 2021, vol. 44, pp. 333-348. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2021.44.13.

19. Gauthier A. H., Gietel‐Basten S. Family Policies in Low Fertility Countries: Evidence and Reflections. Population and Development Review, 2025, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 125-161. DOI: 10.1111/padr.12691.

20. Gauthier A. H., Hatzius J. Family Benefits and Fertility: An Econometric Analysis. Population Studies, 1997, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 295-306. DOI: 10.1080/0032472031000150066.

21. Global Fertility in 204 Countries and Territories, 1950-2021, With Forecasts to 2100: А Comprehensive Demographic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet, 2024, vol. 403, article 10440, pp. 2057-2099. DOI: 10.1016/S01406736(24)00550-6.

22. González L. The Effect of a Universal Child Benefit on Conceptions, Abortions, and Early Maternal Labor Supply. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2013, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 160-188. DOI: 10.1257/pol.5.3.160.

23. Huang Jr-Tsung. Personal Tax Exemption: The Effect on Fertility in Taiwan. Developing Economies, 2002, vol. 40, pp. 32-48. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2002.tb00909.x.

24. Lebano A., Jamieson L. Childbearing in Italy and Spain: Postponement Narratives. Population and Development Review, 2020, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 121-144. DOI: 10.1111/padr.12313.

25. Lin P. S., Chang C. O., Foo Sing T. Do Housing Options Affect Child Birth Decisions? Evidence From Taiwan. Urban Studies, 2016, vol. 53, no. 16, pp. 3527-3546. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2585216.

26. Luci-Greulich A., Thévenon O. The Impact of Family Policies on Fertility Trends in Developed Countries. European Journal of Population, 2013, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 387-416. DOI: 10.1007/s10680-013-9295-4.

27. Matysiak A., Szalma I. Effects of Parental Leave Policies on Second Birth Risks and Women’s Employment Entry. Population, 2014, vol. 69, pp. 599-636. DOI: 10.3917/pope.1404.0599.

28. Mörk E., Sjögren A., Svaleryd H. Childcare Costs and the Demand for Children Evidence From a Nationwide Reform. Journal of Population Economics, 2013, vol. 26, pp. 33-65. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1752111.

29. Novoa C., Cova F., Nazar G., Oliva K., Vergara-Barra P. Intensive Parenting: The Risks of Overdemanding. Trends in Psychology, 2025, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 53-66. DOI: 10.1007/s43076-022-00229-9.

30. Pellegrino A., Abe M., Shannon R. The Dark Side of Social Media: Content Effects on the Relationship Between Materialism and Consumption Behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, vol. 13, article 870614. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870614.

31. Puur A., Klesment M. Signs of a Stable or Provisional Increase in Fertility? Reflections on Developments in Estonia. Demográfia. English Edition, 2011, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 31-55. https://ideas.repec.org/a/nki/journl/v54y2011i5p31-55.html.

32. Raute A. Can Financial Incentives Reduce the Baby Gap? Evidence From a Reform in Maternity Leave Benefits. Journal of Public Economics, 2019, vol. 169, pp. 203-222. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/media/econ/research/workingpapers/2018/wp871.pdf.

33. Raybould A., Sear R. Children of the (Gender) Revolution: A Theoretical and Empirical Synthesis of How Gendered Division of Labour Influences Fertility. Population Studies, 2021, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 169-190. DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2020.1851748.

34. Rindfuss R. R., Guilkey D., Morgan S. P., Kravdal Ø., Guzzo K. B. Child Care Availability and First-Birth Timing in Norway. Demography, 2007, vol. 44, pp. 345-372. DOI: 10.1353/ dem.2007.0017.

35. Rindfuss R. R., Guilkey D. K., Morgan S. P., Kravdal Ø. Child-Care Availability and Fertility in Norway. Population and Development Review, 2010, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 725-748. DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00355.x.

36. Rotkirch A. The Wish for a Child. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2020, vol. 18, pp. 49-62. DOI: 10.1553/populationyearbook2020.deb05.

37. Society at a Glance 2024. OECD Social Indicators. OECD Publishing, 2024. https://www. oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-2024_918d8db3-en.html.

38. Sun S. H. L. Population Policy and Reproduction in Singapore: Making Future Citizens. London, Routledge, 2012.

39. The Global Risks Report 2023. World Economic Forum, 2023. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2023.pdf.

40. Van Wijk D. House Prices and Fertility: Can the Dutch Housing Crisis Explain the Post2010 Fertility Decline? Population, Space and Place, 2024, vol. 30, no. 7, article e2787. DOI: 10.1002/psp.2787.

41. Vignoli D., Bazzani G., Guetto R., Minello A., Pirani E. Uncertainty and Narratives of the Future: A Theoretical Framework for Contemporary Fertility. In: Schoen R. (ed.). Analyzing Contemporary Fertility. The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis. Cham, Springer, 2020, vol. 51, pp. 25-47. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48519-1_3.

42. Wood J., Neels K. Local Childcare Availability and Dual-Earner Fertility: Variation in Childcare Coverage and Birth Hazards Over Place and Time. European Journal of Population, 2019, vol. 35, pp. 913-937. DOI: 10.1007/s10680-018-9510-4.

43. World Population Policies 2021. New York, United Nations, 2021. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2021_wpp-fertility_policies.pdf.