Transformation of Age Model of Fertility in Volgograd Region
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2023.6.2424Keywords:
fertility, Volgograd region, tempo-adjusted total fertility rate Bongaarts—Feeney, age-specific fertility pattern, postponement transition, timing of fertility, mean age of women at first birthAbstract
The article considers the transformation of the age model of fertility in the urban and rural population of the Volgograd region from 1989 to 2022. Currently, aging fertility, characterized by postponement of motherhood to more mature ages, is a global trend in developed countries. To identify the scale of postponement of childbearing, the authors use a method based on the decomposition of changes in the total fertility rate for conditional generations into components of the tempo and quantum effects. To eliminate timing shifts, the authors estimate an adjusted coefficient proposed by J. Bongaarts and G. Feeney. The study shows that the postponement of the childbirth in the Volgograd region began in 1992 and continues up to the present times. The most significant impact of the tempo effect on the total fertility rate was observed in 1994-1999. The average age of the mother at the first birth increased from 22.5 years in 1989 to 25.5 years in 2021, while the contribution of women aged 35 and older to the number of first-borns over the same period increased from 1.66% to 5.09%. Generally, aging of the fertility model in the urban population turned out to be slightly higher than in the rural population.
Acknowledgments. The article was prepared as part of the implementation of the State Assignment of the Southern Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, project “Strategic Vectors of Development of the Socio-Economic Complex of the South of Russia Taking into Account Regional Resilience (Economic and Demographic Aspects)”, State Registration No. 122020100349-6.
References
Алпатов А.В. Смертность в Волгоградской области на фоне пандемии COVID-19 // Статистика и экономика. 2022. Т. 19. № 2. С. 23—35. https://doi.org/10.21686/2500-3925-2022-2-23-35.
Alpatov A.V. (2022) Mortality in the Volgograd Region Against the COVID-19 Pandemic. Statistics and Economics. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 23—35. https://doi.org/10.21686/2500-3925-2022-2-23-3. (In Russ.)
Алпатов А.В., Рубинштейн Е.Ю. Статистический анализ динамики рождаемости в Волгоградской области // Бизнес. Образование. Право. Вестник Волгоградского института бизнеса. 2016. № 3. С. 41—49.
Alpatov A.V., Rubinshteyn E.Yu. (2016) Statistical Analysis of the Dynamics of Fertility in Volgograd Region. Business. Education. Law. Bulletin of Volgograd Business Institute. No. 3. P. 41—49. (In Russ.)
Архангельский В.Н. Рождаемость в реальных поколениях российских женщин: тенденции и региональные различия // Экономика. Налоги. Право. 2019. Т. 12. № 2. С. 59—69. https://doi.org/10.26794/1999-849X-2019-12-2-59-69.
Arkhangelskiy V.N. (2019) Fertility in Real Generations of Russian Women: Trends and Regional Differences. Economics, Taxes & Law. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 59—69. https://doi.org/10.26794/1999-849X-2019-12-2-59-69. (In Russ.)
Вакуленко Е.С., Макарова М.Р., Горский Д.И. Репродуктивные намерения и динамика рождаемости населения разных стран в период пандемии COVID-19: аналитический обзор исследований // Демографическое обозрение. 2022. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 138—159. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v9i4.16747.
Vakulenko E.S., Makarova M.R., Gorskiy D.I. (2022) Reproductive Intentions and Fertility Trends in Different Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analytical Review of Studies. Demographic Review. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 138—159. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v9i4.16747. (In Russ.)
Деточенко Л.В., Лобанова Н.А. Демографическая ситуация в Волгоградской области на рубеже XX—XXI вв. // Известия Волгоградского государственного педагогического университета. 2018. № 2. С. 190—196.
Detochenko L.V., Lobanova N.A. (2018) Demographic Situation in the Volgograd Region at the Turn of XX—XXI Centuries. Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University. No. 2. P. 190—196. (In Russ.)
Казенин К.И., Митрофанова Е.С. Изменения в рождаемости на фоне пандемии COVID-19: опыт исследования российских регионов // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2023. № 2. С. 14—30. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2023.2.2370.
Kazenin K.I., Mitrofanova E.S. (2023) Changes in Fertility Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study of Russian Regions. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 2. P. 14—30. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2023.2.2370. (In Russ.)
Калабихина И.Е., Смулянская Н.С. Постарение рождаемости: методы измерения, этапы, типология // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 6. Экономика. 2018. № 5. С. 149—166. https://doi.org/10.38050/01300105201858.
Kalabikhina I.E., Smulyanskaya N.S (2018) Aging of Fertility: Measurement Methods, Stages, Typology. Moscow University Economic Bulletin. No. 5. P. 149—166. https://doi.org/10.38050/01300105201858. (In Russ.)
Короленко А.В., Калачикова О.Н. Причины откладывания рождений и отношение общества к бездетности: результаты глубинных интервью с российскими семьями // Социальное пространство. 2022. Т. 8. № 3. С. 1—22. https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2022.3.35.2.
Korolenko A.V., Kalachikova O.N. (2022) Reasons for Postponing Childbirth and Society’s Attitude to Childlessness: Results of In-Depth Interviews with Russian Families. Social Area. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 1—22. https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2022.3.35.2. (In Russ.)
Макаренцева А.О. Динамика вступления в материнство в современной России // Мир России. Т. 31. № 1. С. 162—182. https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038x-2022-31-1-162-182.
Makarentseva A.О. (2022) The Dynamics of Motherhood Entry in Modern Russia. Universe of Russia. Vol. 31. No. 1. P. 162—182. https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038x-2022-31-1-162-182.
Синдяшкина Е.Н. Отражение демографической политики в показателях рождаемости в России // Социально-трудовые исследования. 2021. № 1. С. 75—85. https://doi.org/10.34022/2658-3712-2021-42-1-75-85.
Sindyashkina E.N. (2021) Reflection of Demographic Policy in Fertility Rates in Russia. Social & Labor Research. No. 1. P. 75—85. https://doi.org/10.34022/2658-3712-2021-42-1-75-85. (In Russ.)
Сувернева А.А. Возрастные аспекты антенатальных, интранатальных и ранних неонатальных потерь // Медико-фармацевтический журнал «Пульс». 2022. Т. 24. № 6. С. 120—125. https://doi.org/10.26787/nydha-2686-6838-2022-24-6-120-125.
Suverneva A.A. (2022) Age-Related Aspects of Antenatal, Intrapartum and Early Neonatal Losses. Medical & Pharmaceutical Journal “Pulse”. Vol. 24. No. 6. P. 120—125. https://doi.org/10.26787/nydha-2686-6838-2022-24-6-120-125. (In Russ.)
Сущий С.Я. Этнодемографический потенциал Волгоградской области: современное состояние и перспективы // Региональная экономика. Юг России. 2016. № 4. С. 41—56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/re.volsu.2016.4.5.
Sushchiy S.Ya. (2016) Ethno-Demographic Potential of the Volgograd Region: Current Status and Perspectives. Regional Economy. South of Russia. No. 4. P. 41—56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/re.volsu.2016.4.5. (In Russ.)
Фрейк Т., Захаров С. Эволюция рождаемости в России за полвека: оптика условных и реальных поколений // Демографическое обозрение. 2014. Т. 1. № 1. С. 106—143. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v1i1.1828.
Frejka T., Zakharov S. (2014) Fertility Trends in Russia During the Past Half Century: Period and Cohort Perspectives. Demographic Review. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 106—143. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v1i1.1828. (In Russ.)
Щевьёва Л.С. Влияние социально-экономических и демографических факторов на вероятность рождения недоношенного ребенка // Демографическое обозрение. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. С. 44—57. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v9i3.16469.
Shchevyeva L. S. (2022) Impact of Social-Economic and Demographic Factors on Probability of Preterm Birth. Demographic Review. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 44—57. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v9i3.16469. (In Russ.)
Beaujouan É., Sobotka T. (2017) Late Motherhood in Low-Fertility Countries: Reproductive Intentions, Trends and Consequences. VID Working Papers No. 02/2017. Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography. https://doi.org/10.1553/0x003cd014.
Bongaarts J., Feeney G. (1998) On the Quantum and Tempo of Fertility. Policy Research Division Working Paper No. 109. New York, NY: Population Council. https://doi.org/10.31899/pgy6.1010.
Bongaarts J., Sobotka T. (2012) A Demographic Explanation for the Recent Rise in European Fertility. Population and Development Review. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 83—120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00473.x.
Joseph K.S., Allen A. C., Dodds L., Turner L. A., Scott H., Liston R. (2005) The Perinatal Effects of Delayed Childbearing. Obstetrics & Gynecology. Vol. 105. No. 6. P. 1410—1418. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000163256.83313.36.
Kohler H.-P., Billari F.C., Ortega J.A. (2002) The Emergence of Lowest‐Low Fertility in Europe During the 1990s. Population Development Review. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 641—680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x.
Miettinen A., Rotkirch A., Szalma I., Donno A., Tanturri M.-L. (2015) Increasing Childlessness in Europe: Time Trends and Country Differences. Families and Societies Working Paper Series No. 33.
Mills M., Rindfuss R.R., McDonald P., te Velde E. (2011) Why Do People Postpone Parenthood? Reasons and Social Policy Incentives. Human Reproduction Update. Vol. 17. No. 6. P. 848—860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026.
Schmidt L., Sobotka T., Bentzen J.G., Nyboe Andersen A. (2012) Demographic and Medical Consequences of the Postponement of Parenthood. Human Reproduction Update. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 29—43. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr040.
Schoen R. (2004) Timing Effects and the Interpretation of Period Fertility. Demography. Vol. 41. No. 4. P. 801—819. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2004.0036.
Sobotka T. (2003) Tempo-Quantum and Period-Cohort Interplay in Fertility Changes in Europe. Evidence from the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Demographic Research. Vol. 8. P. 151—214. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2003.8.6.
Sobotka T. (2017) Post-Transitional Fertility: Childbearing Postponement and the Shift to Low and Unstable Fertility Levels. VID Working Papers No. 01/2017. Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography. https://doi.org/10.1553/0x003cd016.
Sobotka T., Zeman K., Lesthaeghe R., Frejka T. (2011) Postponement and Recuperation in Cohort Fertility: New Analytical and Projection Methods and Their Application. European Demographic Research Paper No. 2. Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography.
van Noord-Zaadstra B.M., Looman C.W., Alsbach H., Habbema J.D., te Velde E.R., Karbaat J. (1991) Delaying Childbearing: Effect of Age on Fecundity and Outcome of Pregnancy. British Medical Journal. Vol. 302. P. 1361—1366. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.302.6789.1361.
Wesselink A. K., Rothman K. J., Hatch E. E., Mikkelsen E. M., Sørensen H. T., Wise L. A. (2017) Age and Fecundability in a North American Preconception Cohort Study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Vol. 217. No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.09.002.
Yi Z., Land K.C. (2001) A Sensitivity Analysis of the Bongaarts-Feeney Method for Adjusting Bias in Observed Period Total Fertility Rates. Demography. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 17—28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088285.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal (Public Opinion Monitoring) ISSN 2219-5467
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
