Population Decline In Russia - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

Population Decline In Russia
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 10kDragons

Interesting and informative article from Yahoo news about the ongoing population decline in Russia (see below). The economic and social reasons why most Russian women do not have more than one child appear to be the same reasons why many of them are interested in marrying foreign men. It is sobering news that Russia's divorce rate and percentage of children born out of wedlock exceed those of many Western countries. Are these statistics representative of other FSU countries? Please share your opinions about any of the issues raised in this article.

******************

By Fred Weir, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Fri May 19, 2006 4:00 AM ET

MOSCOW - Cash for babies is the Kremlin's offer to women in its latest bid to reverse a population decline that threatens to leave large swaths of Russia virtually uninhabited within 50 years.

President Vladimir Putin last week defined the crisis as Russia's most acute problem, and promised to spend some of the country's oil profits on efforts to relieve it. He ordered parliament to more than double monthly child support payments to 1,500 rubles (about $55) and added that women who choose to have a second baby will receive 250,000 rubles ($9,200), a staggering sum in a country where average monthly incomes hover close to $330.

On Monday, young women at the Family Planning Youth Center, a nongovernmental clinic for northwest Moscow, said they liked the sound of more money, but suggested that Mr. Putin has no concept of their lives. "A child is not an easy project, and in this world a woman is expected to get an education, find a job, and make a career," says Svetlana Romanicheva, a student who says she won't consider babies for at least five years. She hopes to have one child, but says a second would depend on her life "working out very well." As for Putin's offer, she says "it won't change anything."

Russia's birthrate, falling for decades, has plunged in post-Soviet times, to just 1.17 in 2004 from 2.08 babies per woman in 1990 - far below the 2.4 children required to maintain the population - according to the Federal State Statistics Service. The average rate from 2000-05 in the US, by contrast, was 2.0, according to UN figures, while Mexico, for example, weighed in at 2.4 and Italy at 1.3.

Russia also has one of the world's highest abortion rates. In addition, the death rate has climbed to levels seldom seen in peacetime, to 16.3 in 2002 from 10.7 per thousand people in 1988. The result is a population that is shrinking by an average of 700,000 people each year - and aging. A UN report last year predicted that Russia's population, around 145 million in 2002, could fall by one-third by 2050.

Experts foretell the grim prospect of a Russia that can no longer man its factories, field a decent hockey team, or defend its borders. "I think Putin's main concern is a lack of future soldiers," says Yury Levada, head of the Levada Center, an independent polling agency. "That's a narrow perspective, but one that resonates politically."

Some women say they resent the suggestion, made explicit by many nationalist politicians, that their lack of enthusiasm for bearing children is to blame. "This problem began long ago, and even if we were to have more babies it wouldn't mean the situation ... would improve," says Irina Isayeva, a medical student who volunteers at the family center. "A woman has to ... ensure that her conditions are adequate to raise children. Women may want fewer children, but be able to give them better chances in life."

Young women also say that it's hard to find a good partner. Official statistics show that almost 8 of every 10 marriages end in divorce, and one-third of children are born out of wedlock. "The interests of men and women seem different, so women just depend less on men," says Olga Istomina, a student. "A lot of people live together. Partners change all the time."

Others say Putin is moving in the right direction. "Russian women typically have one child ... but many of my patients would like a second if they felt they had enough support," says Galina Dedova, a gynecologist at Happy Families, a private Moscow clinic. "Most of my patients count their rubles.... If they could reliably expect more money, some might [consider] more children."

Putin also doubled subsidies for foster families, to 4,500 rubles ($166) per month, a move widely welcomed by child- care experts. In recent years, Russia has cracked down on foreign adoptions, leaving 700,000 institutionalized children with few options. "I believe the situation will begin to improve after Putin's measures, and more people will see the importance of adopting," says Galina Krasnitskaya, an adviser to Russia's State Duma.

Critics point to the high male death rate, a problem Putin barely addressed. Men's ranks have been decimated by alcoholism, war in Chechnya, AIDS, and accidents. "Male life expectancy is less than 60 years," says Yevgeny Gontmakher, research head of the Center of Social Studies, an independent Moscow think tank. "Trying to stimulate the birthrate is pure populism; it's naive to think a demographic revolution can happen."

Low birthrates and high mortality could deliver an economic wallop that could dash Putin's hopes of restoring Russia as a great power. "If current trends persist, there will be four dependents for every Russian worker by 2025," Regional Development Minister Vladimir Yakovlev warned last month. "Russia needs a million new workers every year. If we don't get them, we can forget about economic growth."

Some say that Russia must open its doors to immigrants, as many Western countries have done. But Putin insists that only ethnic Russians - about 25 million remain stranded in former Soviet countries - will be eligible for easy entry. Polls show large majorities remain hostile to the idea of mass immigration of non-Slavs.

Nadezhda Kalmikova, director of the Family Planning Center, says she believes that money will solve little. "[F]amilies need to be sure there will be all the things children need," she says. "That goes beyond material requirements.... [W]e need children who will grow up well and become good citizens. You can't buy that."

Posted by: BradIL

hi 10kDragons--- welcome to the RMP.

This was Putin's big address to Parliament earlier in the week, akin to the U-S President's State of the Union address to Congress, I guess.

From the information I gleaned out of the AP story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Putin's proposal also included a $10,000 one-time payment to women who bore a second child.

I recall Soviet authorities also may grand promises, but rarely kept them. Putin has some credibility since oil prices are so high, but the durability of such guarantees could be questionable.

It would seem that the highest birthrates in the world are all south of the Equator.

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradIL

It would seem that the highest birthrates in the world are all south of the Equator.

And not in western style countries, but poor developing nations where the people don't have the fiscal resources to give a child the sort of material possessions that western society craves. You know what's the difference? I believe it is a sense of community and family that the western world, and possibly the FSU, has lost because we are more interested in ourselves. It is a real pity.

Posted by: Texas Proud

A few idle thoughts on this...

> Wow, an 80% divorce rate!!

> The more educated women are the fewer children they have....

> The 'first world' countries have fewer children than 'third world'... this is because children are a 'burden' in first world and an 'asset' in some third world... let me explain a bit before I get flamed... in the developed countries, we spend a lot of money on children to get them grown and educated.. in the third world (except for those places that never seem to get their stuff in order) a child is a free worker when they are a bit older.. the more you have the more you can get from the fields etc.. they are an asset..

> Russia is going to have to change their politics before thier decline is to stop.. the incentive system is still not there in my opinion... wages will have to increase and standard of living for the masses must go up.. the strength of the 'Western World' is the big middle class..

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Fairly well spot on TP.

Posted by: deccie

Not only the raw birth rates are important in the third world.

Both India and China will undergo interesting population dynamics because of prevalance of female infanticide.

Posted by: 10kDragons

BradIL, OZ, TP, deccie: Thanks for your feedback on this issue. I've learned a lot from your many posts on other threads. It opens my mind to read differing opinions from informed people.

Would you agree that it's NOT A COINCIDENCE most of the poor developing countries with the highest birth rates are concentrated in the Southern hemisphere? I suspect this reality is due in great part to the legacy of Western European countries (and the USA) conquering and exploiting much of Africa, South America, and Asia/Pacific in their empire-building era. The mineral riches and other natural resources extracted from these colonies helped fuel and sustain the industrial revolution as well as the agricultural advances that brought great wealth and higher standards of living to Western Europe and North America.

Most of these former colonies are still grappling with the economic disparties and geopolitcal consequences of that colonial legacy: sectarian and ethnic conflicts due to arbitrarily drawn political boundaries or artificially contructed countries; weak/ineffective/corrupt governments (many of them headed by dictators and warlords); crushing debts due to trade imbalances and heavy borrowing of hard currency to develop infrastructure; and an unsustainable population growth resulting from mortality rates declining well below birth rates (with the exception of certain African countries currently suffering high mortality rates due to wars and/or the AIDS pandemic).

The long-term trend of declining mortality rates in developing countries is largely due to improvements healthcare education, modern medicines, and other medical technologies acquired from developed countries. However, the social/economic/cultural/religious traditions that historically motivated men and women in developing countries to want lots of children and to value large families--no matter how poor-- usually do not change quickly nor easily. Consequently, the birth rate remains high even as more people live much longer and the infant mortality rate declines significantly. The result is a population boom.

If a country's economic growth or its land and other natural resources cannot keep pace with its population boom, very bad things can happen (Bangladesh is one example). Without a mass exodus of the population to other countries and/or drastic intervention by the governement to slow or reverse the population growth (like China's strict one-child policy), the country will suffer overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, high unemployment, famine, pandemics, rioting, and very likely political upheaval. A hungry and hopeless population is ripe for troublemaking.

If, however, the country's economic growth, land and other natural resources can keep pace with the population growth, then the economic expansion can sustain the surging population. Eventually (perhaps as early as within two or three generations), the resulting higher standard of living and correspondingly higher cost of living tend to motivate many people to value 'quality-of-life' over 'quantity-of-life' and therefore have fewer children (especially if parents can earn enough to not have to rely on their children to help support the family). I'm fascinated by this correlation between rising standards of living and declining birth rates. This historical trend appears to hold true in BOTH affluent Western countries like Western Eruope/ USA/ Australia as well as affluent Eastern countries like Japan/ South Korea/ Taiwan despite significant cultural differences between West and East.

Texas Proud, do you think there are other logical and rational reasons besides selfishness and matieralism for this generational shift in values away from the desire for lots of children and toward smaller families with fewer children or even no children at all (DINKs: Double Income - No Kids). Maybe another reason is that in developed countries with higher costs of living, two incomes are typically necessary in order to maintain a comfortable standard of living (comfortably above the povery level, but not wealthy). With both spouses/partners working full-time outside the home, they have far less time and energy to create a large family unless one partner chooses to give up a career and stay home to raise the children. Many families cannot afford to get by on just one income, nor can they afford the prohibitive cost of child-care for more than one child. This is an example where the Western European model of socialsim with its generous maternity and child-care benefits appear to trump the U.S. free-market approach, yet why is the birth rate in Western Europe NOT significantly higher than in the USA?.

Does anyone know of a developed country with a relatively high birth rate? Are there any developing ('third world") countries with a naturally low birth rate (birth rate is not artificially suppressed by government intervention)?

Posted by: Jutman

In Russia's case is different.

If you look at the economics and ressouces in Russia, its just a severe uneven distribution of the funds.

Russia has a plus at the statebudget, at the tradebalance and will be/ or has reach a zero debt situation.

So its all a mater of social politics, something Putin starts to look at. Its a long discussion, but basically I t think was needed to to other political issues first, like to stabilize the overall economy. When this has been achived, then its time to look at the distribution and others social issues, like edicationa and health.

Its preddicted that Russia will be the next large market for hospital eqipment or and so on. So I think it has started. Russia as a country just need time, of course something the individual family don't have.

Posted by: deccie

Personally I think the reasons for declining birth rates in the West are complex and not down to a single issue...

These include :
Individualism and a shift of focus from the community.

The need for women in particular to spend time building a career and longer working hours in general. Not offical hours but the "extra" time one seems to be expected to work now to "get noticed" for advancement. This is also tied to the amount of household wealth held in the family home. We have saying at my own workplace. "we get tax free overtime". This is because my workplace has no maximum hours of work in place and we get a salary package. My last contract for a local university literally had the clause "no set hours of work" in the contract itself.

Finally, I think how we interact with the world also has a part tio play since the western view of the world tends to imply some small degree of control in how we live. The control is to a large degree illusory though!

Do you think a subsistence farmer in the third world has any illusions as to how precarious his existence is? I think that influences things a lot.

All this is then tied to easy access to birth control and less acceptance of practices espouged by organisations like the Catholic church.

My own mother had her first child at 15. I think that event affected her life quite adversely.

Posted by: BradIL

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10kDragons

Does anyone know of a developed country with a relatively high birth rate? Are there any developing ('third world") countries with a naturally low birth rate (birth rate is not artificially suppressed by government intervention)?

10kDragons... there is an adage among some sociologists in the U-S that says... economic development is the most effective form of birth control on the planet.

I have not checked the stats (sure sign I'll be wrong)... BUT... it occurs I read that Chile has a higher birthrate than most developed countries. Chile has made impressive economic progress since the 1980's, it seems that more Chileans have a higher net worth in per capita comparisons with other nations in South America. Beyond that... I would only guess that, perhaps, Indonesia/Singapore might have had a high birthrate... but this may have changed in the last 10 years.

The effect of economic development on birthrates is getting a test in China... too early to say what the results will be, and also, perhaps, in India.

I will say, as I have before, that I subscribe to the theory that romantic relationships are hobbled, or de-prioritized, by the images and messages contained in mass media. Media celebrates individuality (normally good), especially when it involves the story of an underdog, or an individual of a presumably oppressed faction in society. The constant repetition creates a set of expectations among many that are simply not realistic.

I believe the societal attitudes in eastern europe will follow media trends, both to the benefit and liability of the current culture, as it has in the west.

Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Great topic and one that really intersts me alot. Ok I will spill the beens on some theories and other info for you all.

1st China's 1 child poilcy is only for the Han Chinese, all other ethnic groups in China can have as many kids as they like, infact there is a group, I will have to check up who it is for you, who on average have 2 or more kids per woman. The kinship systeme does not link men to the family structure unless they are boys, no child has a father as such.

2nd, prior to the great empire building activites of the European powers and then America, yes America. Subsistance cultures (hunter gatherers, small scale agricuturalist etc) lived within the means of the environment. Ths basically means that if there was not enough food for 40 people in envirnoment available to them then the group would have at the most 39 so those that were in it could still live a fairly comfortable existance. It was family planning before it become a catch phrase and it worked. Most, not all but most, of these cultures were not a drain on the environment, they did modify it there is no dount but it was not harmed directly through their actions.

3rd. Economic growth has fueled the population explosion the world has experienced, again there is no doubt about this. European population rose dramatically when Europe was the economic centre of the world. When globalisation become a reality, in the sense of multinational corporations, the popluation boom moved from Europe to the New World and to colonial assests in SE Asia and Africa. Why is this? Well if you have a business of shore you need workers. Where do these workers come from? The previously mentioned subsistence groups who because you have invaded their territoey and used their resources have to work somewhere else to survive. You pay them they buy food they get leasure time of a weekend and they make babies. These babies grow up and by the time they are in their teens they are working for you.

Going further they then have babies and in 2 generations your business has totally disrupted a lifestyle that had the people working 3 maybe 4 hours a day 6 days a week to working for you for 8 hours a day minimum 5 and 6 days a week just to survive to feed the family. Not only this they have more kids so that when they are older they can work to keep the family going as well and help top keep the oler generation as it slows down and waits to die as they are unhealthier than they would have bee if they had been left alone.

All this while westerners in general have gone the other way and have slowed down dramatically having kids or even getting married anyway so they can ejoy the fruits of their labour. While i actual fact we are enjoying the fruits of the labour of cheap labour who are being used to make commodities they cannot afford themselves because they have families to look after.

4th there is a theory called ghost acres, I have mentioned it in another threaf that someone who was a doom and gllom merchant started up. Yes I know that seems weird after what I just typed above. Anyway Ghost Acres is the extra land that is usd to produce a commodity for consumption for a given population outside of their own territory. This means that if a country needs to have say more wheat than what they can produce themselves on their own land the land that is used to produce this extra requirement becomes part of the countries Ghost Acres tally. If you are intersted in this theory do a google search and see what countries and continents are using more than they produce. ALso check where this produce is coming form and you will see it is from the developing countries that are undergoing population booms.

On a side note. Australia has enough fresh water to supply its current populations of slightly more than 20 million. That is when we have a "normal" season of rain. Unfortunately we haven't had a normal season for over 10 years and it is getting drier. Methinks we have a problem. Globalisation and its dependancy on fossil fuels and arable land, therefor burning of the forests of the world, has caused Global Warming. Something I fear we shall never recover from properly and if we cant what hope do the developing countries have.

Posted by: Jutman

Interesting theories.

Beside side, there is also factor of the public service. This exist in Russia*, (even its not perfect) but in many 3ed world countries, there is none. So get insurance in your old days, you get a lot of kiddos, being aware of some of them wouldnt see the the adulthood.

* Not only Russia, but many western countries.