pro natalist policy france pros and cons

Pro Natalist Policy France Pros And Cons Free Public Full

As of March 2013, period age- specic fertility rates by single year of mothers age were available for the years 1959 to 2010. 1 Age-specic cohort fertility data were available starting with the 1940 birth cohort.

Two sets of pronatalist measures were implemented during the past 40 years.

The one designed in the early 1980s proved to be a clear failure.

Instead of raising fertility, completed cohort fertility declined from 1.8 births per woman for the 1960 birth cohort to 1.6 for the 1968 cohort.

The government of President Putin became concerned with the dire demographic conditions of high mortality and low fertility in Russia in the 1990s and early 2000s.

A comprehensive set of pronatalist measures came into effect in January 2007.

An unbiased demographic evaluation as well as analyses of Russian experts reveals that apparently the measures mainly caused a lowering of the age at birth and shortening of birth intervals.

It appears that any real fertility increase is questionable, i.e.

The recent pronatalist measures are likely to turn out to be a failure.

Cohort total fertility rate at age 40 (lagged by 26 years) and period total fertility rate, Russian Federation, 1960-2011 Figures - uploaded by Tomas Frejka Author content All figure content in this area was uploaded by Tomas Frejka Content may be subject to copyright.

Pro Natalist Policy France Pros And Cons Free Public Full

Discover the worlds research 20 million members 135 million publications 700k research projects Join for free Public Full-text 1 Content uploaded by Tomas Frejka Author content All content in this area was uploaded by Tomas Frejka on Oct 15, 2017 Content may be subject to copyright.

During the next four decades emphasis was placed on frequently modied family allowances, at rst for third and higher-order births and eventually also for second births.

Despite these measures, fertility continued on a path of moderate decline from the 1940s through the 1970s (Zakharov 2008).

The most recent four decades were again marked by waves of concern about low fertility and policy responses.

In the 1970s period fertility was moderately below replacement level, which triggered a new round of pro- natalist policy measures in 1981.

Period fertility rates rose temporarily, but then plummeted in the 1990s.

Once again, concern for low fertility led to the implementation of pronatalist measures in 2007.

In recent months, fertility has returned to the political center stage in Russia.

In this article we discuss the 1981 and the 2007 policy packages, describ - ing the circumstances that led to their adoption and evaluating their effect on fertility levels and trends.

Our main goal is to analyze the success or failure of pronatalist policies using cohort fertility rates, as well as period fertility rates.

The latter can be mis- leading because many couples may react to birth incentives by lowering the age at childbearing rather than increasing the number of births per woman (Bongaarts and Feeney 1998; Frejka 2011).

A meaningful assessment of the impact of a policy change on cohort fertility can only be made with a lag of at least 10 to 15 years following implementation of the policy, meaning that the results presented for the 2007 measures must be interpreted as prelimi- nary.

Nonetheless, this preliminary analysis casts doubt on the effectiveness of those measures.

PDR394.Frejka-file.indd 635 111413 2:42 PM.

As of March 2013, period age- specic fertility rates by single year of mothers age were available for the years 1959 to 2010.

Age-specic cohort fertility data were available starting with the 1940 birth cohort.