1. Family Strategies and Labor Market Behavior in Modern Russia - Grant # R04-9161
Project Team:
Oxana Sinyavskaya, IISP
Dilyara Iragimova, IISP,
Marina Kartseva, CEFIR,
Sergey Zakharov, CDHE

2. Rationales of the project
Family policy in Russia:
addressed to married couples
assumes direct positive link between economic & housing situation and fertility
supports traditional family and gender roles
Whether one can expect that this policy would be successful?
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

3. Objectives
How do employment and fertility decisions correlate within families? What are their determinants? And what are the implication for employment and demographic policies?
Goal: To reveal typical models of Russian people’s labor market and reproductive behavior for different types of households
To determine models of decision-making in households
To estimate labor supply for different types of households
To study causality between fertility and employment & estimate the probability of intentions to have a(nother) child
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

4. Database Russian Generations and Gender Survey:
a part of international GGP
conducted in summer 2004
multistage probability sample
11261 respondents from 32 regions
1 respondent = 1 household
respondent speaks about him/herself, his/her partner, and household members
more than 2000 variables,
including questions on fertility history and intentions, current economic activity, couples decision-making, attitudes and values
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

5. Target population
The following groups were excluded from the analysis:
Respondents in pension ages, i.e. of age 55 years old and over (females) and of age 60 and over (males),
Those with co-resident partners of pension ages,
Respondents of active ages, who are pensioners, ill or disabled for a long time or permanently, students, and those in military or alternative civilian services
Respondents with co-resident partners – pensioners, students, ill or disabled for a long time or permanently, students, and those in military or alternative civilian services.
6405 respondents of 18-54/59 years old, including 4192 people with co-resident partners
Analysis of respondents and partners together – observations
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

6. Decision-making in partnerships
Subgroup
Partner in the household
Single
females
Total
Decision-making type
Female decides
Male decides
Partners decide jointly
External type
Number of families
2075
166
802
1158
1408
5609
% of sample
37.0%
3.0%
14.3%
20.7%
25.1%
100%
% of subgroup
49.4%
4.0%
19.1%
27.6% -
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

7. Labor market status of females from different type families
Variable
Partner in the household
Single
females
Female decides
Male decides
Partners decide jointly
Employed
89.2%
54.8%
74.9%
85.8%
Have no job
10.8%
45.2%
25.1%
14.2%
Unemployed
7.8%
13.9%
8.0%
9.3%
OLF
3.0%
31.3%
17.1%
4.9%
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

8. Female Labor Supply Main Hypotheses:
For women from “female-dominated” partnerships partner’s wage has no influence on their LS decision
Wage of partner matters for women from “male-dominated” partnerships
Wage of partner matters for women from “egalitarian” type of families
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

9. Female LS: Methodology
Logit-model:
age – age of agent; age2 – age of agent (squared);
Education: ed1- primary professional; ed2 – secondary professional; ed3 – higher professional;
Family structure: ch_03 – number of children aged 0-3; ch_46 – number of children aged 4-6; ch_716 – number of children aged -716; num_ad – number of adults in the household; old_female – pre-retirement age female
Decision-making type: female-dominated partnership; male-dominated partnership
Information about partner: social_par– level of social security at partner’s job; linc_par – log of average monthly income of partner;
Regional LM: rural – dummy for living in rural area; unemp_lev- regional unemployment level
To estimate if there is significant variation across different types of households with respect to determinants of female labor supply we use interaction terms (variable of interest*dummy for family type) instead of estimating our equation on separate subsamples
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

10. Methodology: dependent variable
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

11. Female LS: Results - + Family type Variables Female decides
Partners decide jointly
Number of adults in the HH -
Potential grandmother +
Index of social security at partner’s job
Partner’s wage
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

12. Reproductive intentions: methodology
“Do you personally want to have a (another) child now?” / “Does your partner (spouse) want to have a(nother) child now?”
“yes” / “no” / “not sure”
Intentions = potential probability to give birth
Factors:
R’s personal characteristics (age, education, marriage, N of children born + employment status),
HH characteristics (incomes, potential grandma, housing),
attitudes (religiosity, family-child-gender values, decision-making mode)
settlement, region
Interactions of some factors * children already born
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

13. ref category: secondary general & primary professional
Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships
Children already born
Variable 1 2+
Legal (registered) marriage
Secondary professional ref category: secondary general & primary professional -
Higher professional
ref category: secondary general & primary professional +
Household income (labor R’s income subtracted) ++
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

14. ref category: urban settlement
Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships
Children already born
Variable 1 2+
Rural settlement
ref category: urban settlement
Have a job
0 (+)
Housing: Number of rooms per capita (if a child would be born)
Have a potential grandmother in HH
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

15. Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships
Children already born
Variable 1 2+
Religiosity
ref category: formally associated & not associated to any religion +
Family type of decision making
Female-dominated -
Male-dominated
ref category: egalitarian type of family
0 (+)
Family values, traditional gender roles
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

16. Relative variation of actual at the censor date and expected mean number of children ever born by age and education (All levels of education = 1).
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

17. Conclusions & Policy Implications
significant changes in family formation and fertility behavior
maximum potential of the expected fertility growth – 0.2 children per one woman
most unsatisfied with the actual number of children – women with higher education
family policy - at the group of well-educated women.
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

18. Conclusions & Policy Implications
Effects on intentions to have a(nother) child
either economic variables or attitudes – no impact on intentions to give birth to the 1st child BUT significant on the intentions to have 2nd and further children
the family policy oriented at improving family wellbeing would have a certain effect on increasing the probability of the 2nd births
no negative effect of high incomes & female employment
family policy – at increasing births among employed women as well
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

19. Conclusions & Policy Implications
Effects on probability to be employed for women:
number of children - negative
non-labor incomes - negative
family policy: if benefits for mothers not related to female employment were increased - some women will leave their jobs
Potential grandmother – positive
development of affordable childcare institutions with comfortable working hours would increase female employment in a majority of families.
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006

20. Conclusions & Policy Implications
decision-making about female employment: attitudes; in 50% - women decides for herself, while in only of 5% - only the man’s decision
man’s income and employment, other household characteristics - different effects on the female LS in partnerships with different decision-making models
Family policy
supporting traditional families with one male breadwinner - only limited impact
increasing the compatibility of female employment and fertility - most effective for individualistic decision-making partnerhsips
should be more differentiated and flexible
MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006