Influence of Family Policy and Normative Beliefs about Family on Fertility: Comparative Analysis

The article analyzes the differences in the interrelations between family (or demographic) policy and fertility in familist and paternalist societies. It is argued that explanations of such differences based on multiple modernities theory and institutional approach are more comprehensive and better consistent with the empirical data than those presented by second demographic transition theory. The paternalistic nature of state-family relations caused the earlier launch of pronatalist measures, such as paid maternal leave in Soviet Russia in 1981 and “speed premium” in Sweden in 1986, as compared with Japan and South Korea, in which familism long prevented to implement the similar measures. Besides, in both Russia and Sweden fluctuations of fertility, due to its procyclical changes and jumps in response to pronatalist policy measures, were much stronger than in Southern Europe, South Korea and Japan. Although transmission of family loyalty patterns to corporative sphere strongly contributed to successive economic and technological modernizations of Japan and South Korea, it had a negative effect on fertility. Due to peculiarities of modernization, in Russia, as well as in Japan and South Korea, paternal leaves, unlike the Scandinavian countries, are still not popular. While solidarity of family members continues to play a vital role, it cannot oneself to provide for satisfactory level of fertility today and should be supplemented by policy aimed at increase of fertility.

Keywords

family, family policy, fertility, familism, state paternalism, cross-country comparative analysis

Received

14.03.2020

Publication date

16.03.2020

Number of characters

33287

Cite

GOST	Klupt M. Influence of Family Policy and Normative Beliefs about Family on Fertility: Comparative Analysis // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – 2020. – Issue 3 C. 40-50 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/socis/s013216250008812-6-1-en (circulation date: 26.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008812-6
MLA	Klupt, Mikhail A "Influence of Family Policy and Normative Beliefs about Family on Fertility: Comparative Analysis." Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 3 (2020):40-50. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008812-6
APA	Klupt M. (2020). Influence of Family Policy and Normative Beliefs about Family on Fertility: Comparative Analysis. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (3), pp.40-50 DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008812-6

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1954

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Антонов А.И. Микросоциология семьи (методология исследования структур и процессов). М.: Nota Bene, 1998. [Antonov A.I. (1998) Microsociology of the Family (Methodology of Structure and Process Studies). Moscow. Nota Bene. (In Russ.)].

2. Безрукова А.Н., Самойлова В.А. Отцовский отпуск в России: мечты или реальность? // Социологические исследования. 2017. № 7. С. 116–125. [Bezrukova O. Samoylova V. (2017) Paternity Leave in Russia: a Dream or Reality? Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 7: 116–125. (In Russ.)] DOI: 10.7868/S0132162517070133.

3. Albrecht С., Fichtl A. Redler P. (2017) Fathers in Charge? Parental Leave Policies for Fathers in Europe. ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich. Vol. 15. No. 1: 49–51.

4. Anderson Th., Kohler H.-P. (2015) Low Fertility, Socioeconomic Development, and Gender Equity. Population and Development Review. Vol. 41. No. 3: 381–407.

5. Andersson G. (1999) Childbearing Trends in Sweden 1961–1997. European Journal of Population. Vol. 15. No. 1: 1–24.

6. Banfield E. (1958) with the assistance of L. Banfield. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

7. Chang Kyung-Sup, Song Min-Youn (2010) The Stranded Individualizer under Compressed Modernity: South Korean Women in Individualization without Individualism. British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 61. No. 3: 541–564.

8. Chzhen Y., Gromada A. Gwyther R. (2019) Are the World’s Richest Countries Family Friendly? Policy in the OECD and EU. Florence: UNICEF.

9. Comolli Ch. (2017) The Fertility Response to the Great Recession in Europe and the United States: Structural Economic Conditions and Perceived Economic Uncertainty. Demographic Research. Vol. 36. Article 51: 1549–1600.

10. Earles K. (2011) Swedish Family Policy – Continuity and Change in the Nordic Welfare State Model. Social Policy and Administration. Vol. 45. No. 2: 180–193.

11. Esping-Andersen G., Billari F. (2015) Re-Theorizing Family Demographics. Population and Development Review. Vol. 41. No. 1: 1–31.

12. Farré L., González L. (2017) The Effects of Paternity Leave on Fertility and Labor Market Outcomes. Universitat Pompeu Fabra Economics Working Paper Series. Working Paper No. 1572. Barcelona.

13. Ginsborg P. (2003) Italy and its Discontents 1981–2001. London: Penguin.

14. Ochiai E. (2011) Unsustainable Societies: the Failure of Familialism in East Asia’s Compressed Modernity. Historical Social Research. Vol. 36. No. 2: 219–245.

15. OECD. (2016) Background Brief on Fathers’ Leave and its Use.

16. Population and Social Security in Japan. (2019) National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. Working Paper No. 85.

17. Saraceno Ch. (2016) Varieties of Familialism: Comparing Four Southern European and East Asian Welfare Regimes. Journal of European Social Policy. Vol. 26. No. 4: 314 –326.

18. Seung Hyun Seo (2019). Low Fertility Trend in the Republic of Korea and the Problems of its Family and Demographic Policy Implementation. Population and Economics. Vol. 3. No. 2: 29–35.

19. Toivonen T. (2007) Is Japanese Family Policy Turning ‘Nordic’? Oxford: University of Oxford.