Project description - Fertility Patterns and Family Forms in St Petersburg

Project leader: Anna Rotkirch, VTT, University of Helsinki / Collegium for Advenced Studies, POB 4, 00014 University of Helsinki, tel. + 358 (0)9 191 23438, anna.rotkirch(at)helsinki.fi, www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/rotkirch/

This project analyses, explains and predicts fertility patterns and family forms in St Petersburg compared to its Northern neighbours. The next five years will show to what extent Russian women have changed their life course towards postponed maternity or whether there will be record numbers of childless women. St Petersburg is especially interesting, as it may align itself with other fertility patterns than Russia as a whole. We explore the dramatically changing birth rates in St Petersburg from the perspectives of demography and family sociology. Our central research question is: How are the timing and number of children, parental intentions and cultural rhetoric related to different types of families and to social class? The current demographic transition is thus approached in a social, cultural and political context.

Theretical concepts and research questions

Fertility patterns. By fertility patterns, we refer to fertility in a broad social context, including fertility trends, intentions of adults to have or not to have children, and political ideologies regarding childbearing and child rearing. Fertility patterns vary cross-regionally. In today's Europe, countries where cohabitation, divorce and single motherhood are accepted show signs of an increasing birth rate, while countries with strong patriarchal and religious traditions and a low level of welfare state services today have the lowest birth rates. This variance is studied by our cross-country survey comparisons and we ask how St Petersburg fits in with regards to these European and Russian fertility patterns, and how the dramatic fluctuations in post-Soviet Russia can be theoretically explained.

During the first decade of post-socialism in Russia, fertility rates dropped dramatically in all age categories, almost by 50 % in ten years, from 2.02 in 1989 to 1.17 in 1999. In St Petersburg, they fell from 1.6 to an all-time low of 0.9. The sharpest change took place from the fertility peak in the early perestroika year of 1987 to the economically most insecure years in the early 1990s. The economic crisis of 1998 also influenced fertility statistics. This is reflected in political discourse, where themes of "family" and maternal love were used by several parties in the election campaign for the Duma in 2003.

The decline in fertility is due to a combination of several factors: smaller age cohorts of potential mothers; the age cohorts that had had their children earlier due to Brezhnevian social policies; the increase in reproductive health problems and infertility; the social and economic problems during the transition to a market economy; and the postponement of maternity among of the women who entered a more "western" lifestyle with late marriages and no obligation to have children immediately after marriage. Scholars now agree that the last two factors are the most significant ones.

Since 1999, there are weak signs of growing fertility in Russia. The future fertility trends are still open to speculation and will be determined during the next five years. In principle there are two possible trajectories. Either the transformation processes result in one or several generations with an exceptionally small number of children in relation to the size of these generations. In this case, social stratification has indeed led to a polarisation also between those who have and do not have children. The other possibility is that we are seeing a postponement of childbearing to older ages. In this scenario, the present generations in the fertile ages "catch up" with childbearing and the resulting completed cohort fertility will approach the replacement level. Interestingly, St Petersburg may here represent a different development from Russia as a whole. Current statistics also show that Estonia occupy an especially interesting point "between" the former socialist countries and today's Nordic countries.

Family forms. Fertility patterns also vary inter-regionally, especially with regards to social class. With family forms we therefore denote our hypothesis that household type (number of generations living in the same household, number of breadwinners in the family) is related to fertility patterns. Our pilot interviews indicate that part of the population continues to follow the "Soviet" maternity pattern, in which a woman has her first child in her early twenties and the grandparents are crucially involved in caretaking. It remains to be explored how this Soviet habit is related to socio-economic status and education. Russia also shows signs of polarised childbearing, where the number of children is more strongly related to social class, for instance so that the poorest and the richest families have two or more children. By using qualitative data like life history interviews and text analysis, which are rare in current population studies, we will provide detailed case study analysis of the conditions and decisions regarding children in different families.

Fertility patterns and family forms are linked with the social gender system as a whole. Scholars agree that gender equality today tends to promote fertility. The gender system is also related to questions of kinship structures (matrilineal vs. patrilineal families). This aspect is studied both in our survey data and in the in depth interviews. We also analyse the prevailing attitudes to gender roles in a particular society through the public responses to the decline in fertility. By analysing printed public speeches of decision makers we describe the relationship of nationalist rhetoric and gender ideology.

Methods and material of research

Our multidisciplinary project combines research on register and survey data, in depth interviews and textual analysis of fertility discourses. The situation in St Petersburg is contrasted with Estonia and Finland. Specifically, we study the following themes through five subprojects:

1. Validity of official Russian registers concerning demographic trends and fertility.
2. Fertility levels and trends in St Petersburg: changes in childbearing with respect to the timing of births, completed cohort fertility, and social class.
3. Intentions of younger women and couples to have (additional) children; factors and constraints affecting their decision-making.
4. Patterns of childbearing and parenting with regards to social class, family formation and type of household (gendered division of work, intergenerational care, child care services).
5. Public responses to declined fertility (political discourses on nativity and the nation).

The project's five subprojects use the following methods and materials:

1 & 2. Analysis of official statistics and registers.  The data collection of official statistics was efficient in the USSR and there is extensive information on reproductive health. Most of these data are based on vital statistics on births and deaths, as well as on outcome-specific statistics and registers, such as Medical Birth Registers and Registers on Congenital Anomalies. These data will be used to study fertility levels and trends, especially with respect to the timing of births, completed cohort fertility, and social class. We will also analyse to what extent deteriorated data quality explain some of the fertility figures and the improvement in maternal and infant health outcomes.

2. Survey material. Anonymous surveys in three populations in St. Petersburg and in Estonia covering childbearing patterns, reproductive problems, sexual behaviour, and reproductive health services. As fertility statistics are not always the best tool for predicting future fertility trends, we use the surveys to examine the intentions of younger women and couples in both regions to have (additional) children. The surveys include questions about the desired number of children, childbearing intentions, factors (including constraints) affecting the decision-making at different parities, and forms of paid and unpaid child care. (Survey conducted jointly with part I of the Cnsortium.)

3. Life history material. 50 life history interviews will be collected in St Petersburg in collaboration with the Centre for Independent Social Research and covering different family forms: (i) single working mothers (ii) married career mothers, (iii) married housewives and (iv) single or married older mothers (women who have given birth after 37). In all four groups, both three and two generational households will be studied. This material highlights changes in women's life course, in the informal and formal care work provided by kin and non-kin, and in cultural perceptions of parenting.

4. Population policy documents, newspapers and other printed sources concerning fertility rhetoric. Population politics in Russia, Estonia and Finland during the 1990s will be analysed using rhetoric and discourse analysis. The politicians whose speeches are studied include presidents, ministers and members of the parliament. In addition, comments of other national opinion leaders such as the church and NGOs are studied.

Senior researchers in Finland

The two parts of the consortium share partly same researchers (in different capacities) and use partly same data (see the consortium application).

Senior researchers in this part of the consortium and their primary subprojects:

Mika Gissler, expertise in fertility trends, STAKES.
Pekka Martikainen, expertise in fertility, Dept of Sociology, University of Helsinki.
Kari Pitkänen, demography, Dept of Sociology, University of Helsinki.
Anna Rotkirch, comparative research on families, sexuality and gender, Dept of Social Policy, University of Helsinki.

PhD-training and researcher education

The research involves two Finnish and two Russian PhD-students, supervised by Russian and Finnish scholars. Additionally, several Russian and Estonian scholars are involved in the collection and analysis of materials. Yearly seminars for the whole consortium provide a forum for joint analysis and criticism of the projects work and results.