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

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 2

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

1.

To determine models of decision-making in households

2.

To estimate labor supply for different types of households 3.

To study causality between fertility and employment & estimate the probability of intentions to have a(nother) child

MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 3

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 4

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 civilian services.

– pensioners, students, ill or disabled for a long time or permanently, students, and those in military or alternative 

6405 respondents of 18-54/59 years old, including 4192 people with co-resident partners

Analysis of respondents and partners together – 10597 observations MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 5

Decision-making in partnerships

Subgroup Partner in the household Decision making type Female decides Male decides Partners decide jointly External type Single females Total

Number of families 2075 166 802 1158 1408 5609 % of sample 37.0% % of subgroup 49.4%

3.0% 4.0%

14.3% 19.1% 20.7% 27.6% 25.1% 100% 100% MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 6

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 8

Female LS: Methodology

 Logit-model:

P

(    

y

6  *  9  12   1 )

ch

 _  ( 03

female

  _ 0   7  1 *

type

 

ch age

_ 46     2 8  10 

male

* * _

age

2

ch

_

type

   716  3 11

grandma

  13 

grandma



female

_ * *

ed

1 

num type

 _   4

ad

14 * 

ed

2   5

grandma

* 

ed

3

male

    15  18  21 * *

social

*

linc

_

rural

_

par par

   19  16  

social linc

_

par

_ 

par



female female

_ _

type

  22 *

unemp

_

lev type

  20    17

linc

 _

social par

 _ _

par male type

 _

male type

_

type

age – age of agent; age2 – age of agent (squared);

Education:

ed1- primary professional; ed2 – secondary professional; ed3 – higher professional; To estimate if there is significant variation across different types of age female interaction terms (variable of interest*dummy for family type) instead of 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 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 9

Methodology: dependent variable

y

   1 0  

not employed

_

employed

MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 10

Female LS: Results

Family type Variables Number of adults in the HH Female decides + Potential grandmother Index of social security at partner’s job + Partner’s wage Male decides Partners decide jointly 0 0 + + 0 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 11

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 12

Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships

Children already born

0 1 2+

Variable 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) 0 0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 + ++ MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 13

Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships

Children already born

0 1 2+

Variable Rural settlement ref category: urban settlement 0 0 0 Have a job 0 (+) 0 (+) 0 Housing: Number of rooms per capita (if a child would be born) 0 (+) 0 (+) 0 (+) Have a potential grandmother in HH 0 0 0 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 14

Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships

Children already born

0 1 2+

Variable 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 Family values, traditional gender roles + 0 0 (+) 0 + 0 (+) + + 0 0 0 (+) MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 15

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).

1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 ALL Low_Exp Low_Born Middle_Exp Middle_Born High_Exp High_Born MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 2006 16

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 17

Conclusions & Policy Implications

Effects on intentions to have a(nother) child  either economic variables or attitudes significant on the intentions to have 2 – no impact on intentions to give birth to the 1st child BUT nd and further children  the family policy oriented at improving family wellbeing would have a certain effect on increasing the probability of the 2 nd 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 18

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 19

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 20