Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Family Strategies and Labor Market Behavior in Modern Russia - Grant # R04-9161 Project Team: Oxana Sinyavskaya, IISP Dilyara Iragimova, IISP, Marina Kartseva,"— Presentation transcript:

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

2 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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?

3 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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

4 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, Database Russian Generations and Gender Survey: a part of international GGP conducted in summer 2004 multistage probability sample 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

5 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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 respondents of 18-54/59 years old, including 4192 people with co-resident partners Analysis of respondents and partners together – observations

6 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, Decision-making in partnerships SubgroupPartner in the household Single females Total Decision- making type Female decides Male decides Partners decide jointly External type Number of families % of sample 37.0%3.0%14.3%20.7%25.1%100% % of subgroup 49.4%4.0%19.1%27.6%100%-

7 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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%

8 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 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

9 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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

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

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

12 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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

13 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships Children already born Variable 012+ Legal (registered) marriage 000 Secondary professional ref category: secondary general & primary professional 00- Higher professional ref category: secondary general & primary professional +++ Household income (labor R’s income subtracted) 0+++

14 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships Children already born Variable 012+ Rural settlement ref category: urban settlement 000 Have a job 0 (+) 0 Housing: Number of rooms per capita (if a child would be born) 0 (+) Have a potential grandmother in HH 000

15 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, Probability of wanting a (another) child for a female respondents in partnerships Children already born Variable 012+ Religiosity ref category: formally associated & not associated to any religion +++ Family type of decision making Female-dominated 0-0 Male-dominated ref category: egalitarian type of family 0 (+) 0 Family values, traditional gender roles 0+0 (+)

16 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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).

17 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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.

18 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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 2 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

19 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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.

20 MIR Workshop, Kiev, July 8, 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


Download ppt "Family Strategies and Labor Market Behavior in Modern Russia - Grant # R04-9161 Project Team: Oxana Sinyavskaya, IISP Dilyara Iragimova, IISP, Marina Kartseva,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google