The Apparent Failure of Russia's Pronatalist Family Policies
Abstract
Russia has a history of pronatalist policies dating back to the 1930s. 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. The period total fertility rate increased from 1.3 births per woman in 2006 to 1.6 in 2011, which the authorities view as an unqualified success. 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. cohort fertility is not likely to increase appreciably. The recent pronatalist measures are likely to turn out to be a failure.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In countries with very strong pronatalist policy frameworks, such as Iran, Hungary, and Russian Federation, family-supporting policies can be effectively drowned out by narrative and, in some cases, policies which directly push back against women's rights, including the right to work.
“In countries with very strong pronatalist policy frameworks, such as Iran, Hungary, and Russian Federation, it is often the case that family-supporting policies (such as baby bonuses, childcare, and parental leave) can be effectively drowned about by narrative and, in some cases, policies which directly push back against women's rights, including the right to work (Cook, Iarskaia-Smirnova, and Koz”
From Family Policies in Low Fertility Countries: Evidence and Reflections (2025) · cites this paper as Frejka and Zakharov 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cohort fertility decline in low fertility countries: Decomposition using parity progression ratios
Zeman, K., Beaujouan, E., Brzozowska, Z., & Sobotka, T. (2018) · Demographic Research · doi:10.4054/demres.2018.38.25 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Family Policies in Low Fertility Countries: Evidence and Reflections
Gauthier, A. H., & Gietel‐Basten, S. (2025) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.1111/padr.12691 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Could Pronatalist Policies Discourage Childbearing?
Botev, N. (2015) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00048.x · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Frejka, T., & Zakharov, S.
- Affiliations
- Independent consultant Sanibel Florida
- Deputy Director, Institute of Demography, Higher School of Economics State University Moscow
- Venue
- Population and Development Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 635-647
- ISSN
- 0098-7921 (ISSN-L)
- 1728-4457
- OpenAlex
- W2059465947
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 14.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Population and Development Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Policies and Family
- Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences
- Keywords
- pronatalist policy, family policy, fertility policy, cohort fertility, age at first birth, birth interval, low fertility, Russia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review