woeamМир экономики и управленияWorld of Economics and Management2542-04292658-5375Новосибирский национальный исследовательский государственный университетwoeam-309Research ArticleМАКРОЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ: МЕТОДЫ И РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫMACROECONOMIC ANALYSIS: METHODS AND RESULTSСравнительная эффективность семейных пособий в странах ЕвропыComparative efficiency of child benefits in different European countriesБусыгинВладимир ПетровичBusyginV. P.

кандидат физико-математических наук, доцент ВАК, профессор

dkul90@yandex.ruКулаковДмитрий АндреевичKulakovD. A.

аспирант

dkul90@yandex.ruНациональный Исследовательский Университет – Высшая Школа Экономики, МоскваРоссияNational Research University – Higher School of Economics, MoscowRussian Federation20161801202216342–56Copyright © Бусыгин В.П., Кулаков Д.А., 20162016Бусыгин В.П., Кулаков Д.А.Busygin V.P., Kulakov D.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://woeam.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/309

В статье анализируется влияние основных типов семейных пособий, выплачиваемых в разных европейских странах, на уровень рождаемости. Особый акцент делается на декретный отпуск как основную для большинства европейских стран компоненту демографической политики. Кроме того, оценивается воздействие на рождаемость и эффективность семейной политики особенностей развития этих стран в двадцатом веке

Most of European countries have policies aiming on improving fertility rates in these countries. The main purpose of this article is to compare the efficiency of these policies in different countries, with the focus on the parental leave as the major part in the cash inflow to the household related to childbearing and its effect on fertility. Differences in the history of these countries in the twentieth century, their choice between socialism and capitalism during the Cold War was also taken into account. The direct effect of this choice on the fertility was estimated.

семейная политикарождаемостьпособияЕвропаchildcare allowancesfamily policyfertilityEuropeReferencesИванов С. Ф. Демографические тревоги прошлого и настоящего // Demoskop Weekly. 2013. №. 543–544.Billingsley S., Ferrarini T. Family policy and fertility intentions in 21 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2014, vol. 76, № 2, pp. 428–445.Вишневский А. Г., Андреев Е. М., Трейвиш А. И. Перспективы развития России: роль демографического фактора. М., 2003. 24 с.Billingsley S., Puur A., Sakkeus L. Jobs, careers, and becoming a parent under state socialist and market conditions: Evidence from Estonia 1971–2006. Demographic Research, 2014, vol. 30, pp. 1733–1768.Бусыгин В. П., Кулаков Д. А. Меры по стимулированию рождаемости: сравнительный анализ // Финансы и бизнес. 2015. № 2.Botev N. Could Pronatalist Policies Discourage Childbearing? Population and Development Review, 2015, vol. 41, № 2, pp. 301–314.Осипов Г. В., Рязанцев С. В. Демографическая политика в России: трансформация, ре- зультаты, перспективы // Вестн. РАН. 2014. Т. 84, № 11. С. 963–972.Busygin V. P., Kulakov D. A. Mery po stimulirovanju rozdaemosti: sravnitelni analiz [Birth rate stimulating policy: comparative analysis]. Finansy i biznes [Finance and Business]. 2015. No. 2. (In Russ.)Римашевская Н. М. Социально-экономические и демографические проблемы совре- менной России // Вестн. РАН. 2004. Т. 74, № 3. С. 209–218.De Rose A., Racioppi F., Zanatta A.L. Italy: Delayed adaptation of social institutions to changes in family behaviour. Demographic Research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 665–704.Рыбаковский Л. Л. Демографическое будущее России и миграционные процессы // Со- цис. 2005. № 3. С. 71–81.Fahey T., Nixon E. Family Policy in Ireland Handbook of Family Policies across the Globe. Ed. Robula, 2014, pp. 125–136.Zakharov S. V. Russian Federation: From the first to second demographic transition // Demographic research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 907–972.Gehringer A., Klasen S., Witkowska D. Labour Force Participation and Family Policies in Europe: an Empirical Study. Metody Ilosciowe w Badaniach Ekonomicznych, 2014, vol. XV-1, pp. 37–49.Вишневский А. Г. Есть ли альтернатива у безальтернативного? // Общественные науки и современность. 2012. № 2. С. 78–91.Goldstein J. R., Kreyenfeld M. Has East Germany Overtaken West Germany? Recent Trends in Order Specific Fertility. Population and Development Review, 2011, vol. 37, № 3, pp. 453–472.Botev N. Could Pronatalist Policies Discourage Childbearing? // Population and Development Review. 2015. Vol. 41, № 2. Р. 301–314.Ivanov S. F. Demograficheskiye trevogi proshlogo i nastoyashego [Demographical alarms of the past and present] Demoskop weekly [Demoscope weekly] 2013. №. 543–544. (In Russ.)Gehringer A., Klasen S., Witkowska D. Labour Force Participation and Family Policies in Europe: An Empirical Study // Metody Ilosciowe w Badaniach Ekonomicznych. 2014. Vol. XV-1. Р. 37–49.Kotowska I., Jozwiak J., Matysiak A., Baranowska A. Poland: Fertility decline as a response to profound societal and labour market changes? Demographic Research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 795–854.Lesthaeghe R. Europe's demographic issues: fertility, household formation and replacement migration // Interface Demography. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2000.Lesthaeghe R. Europe's demographic issues: fertility, household formation and replacement migration. Interface Demography. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2000.Billingsley S., Ferrarini T. Family policy and fertility intentions in 21 European countries // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014. Vol. 76, № 2. Р. 428–445.Muresan C., Haragus P.-T., Schroder C. Romania: Childbearing metamorphosis within a changing context. Demographic Research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 855–906.Goldstein J. R., Kreyenfeld M. Has East Germany Overtaken West Germany? Recent Trends in Order Specific Fertility // Population and Development Review. 2011. Vol. 37, № 3. Р. 453–472.Osipov G. V., Ryazantsev S. V. Demogficheskaya politika v Rossii: transformatsija, rezultaty, perspectivy [Demographic policy in Russia: transformation, results, perspectives]. Vestnik rossijskoi akademii nauk [Bulletin of the Russian academy of sciences], 2014, vol. 84, № 11, pp. 963–972. (In Russ.)Prskawetz A., Sobotka T., Bube, I., Engelhardt H., Gisser R. Austria: Persistent low fertility since the mid-1980s // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 293–360.Perelli-Harris B. Ukraine: On the border between old and new in uncertain times. Demographic Research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 1145–1178.Speder Z., Kamaras F. Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period fluctuations // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 599–664.Prskawetz A., Sobotka T., Buber I., Engelhardt H., Gisser R. Austria: Persistent low fertility since the mid-1980s. Demographic Research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 293–360.Fahey T., Nixon E. Family Policy in Ireland // Handbook of Family Policies across the Globe / Ed. Robula. 2014. Р. 125–136.Rimashevskaya N. M. Socialno-economicheskie I demograficheskie problem sovremennoi Rossii [Socio-economic and demographic problems of modern Russia]. Vestnik Rossijskoi akademii nauk [Bulletin of the Russian academy of sciences], 2004, vol. 74, № 3, pp. 209–218 (In Russ.)De Rose A., Racioppi F., Zanatta A. L. Italy: Delayed adaptation of social institutions to changes in family behaviour // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 665–704.Rybakovskyi L. L. Demograficgeskoe buduschee Rossii I migratsionnie processi [Russian demographic future and migration]. Socis [Socis], 2005, № 3, pp.71–81 (In Russ.)Kotowska I., Jozwiak J., Matysiak A., Baranowska A. Poland: Fertility decline as a response to profound societal and labour market changes? // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 795–854.Sobotka T. Fertility in Austria, Germany and Switzerland: Is there a Common Pattern? Comparative Population Studies, 2011, vol. 36, № 2–3, pp. 263–304.Muresan C., Haragus P.-T., Schroder C. Romania: Childbearing metamorphosis within a changing context // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 855–906.Sobotka T., Stastna A., Zeman K., Hamplova D., Kantorova V. et al. Czech Republic: A rapid transformation of fertility and family behaviour after the collapse of state socialism. Demographic Research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 403–454.Perelli-Harris B. Ukraine: On the border between old and new in uncertain times // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 1145–1178.Speder Z., Kamaras F. Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period fluctuations. Demographic Research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 599–664.Sobotka T., Stastna A., Zeman K., Hamplova D., Kantorova V. et al. Czech Republic: A rapid transformation of fertility and family behaviour after the collapse of state socialism // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19. Р. 403–454.Vishnevsky A. G. Est li alternative u bezaleternativnogo? [If this non-alternative issue has some alternatives]. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost [Social sciences and modernity], 2012, № 2, pp. 78–91. (In Russ.)Sobotka T. Fertility in Austria, Germany and Switzerland: Is there a Common Pattern? // Comparative Population Studies. 2011. Vol. 36, № 2–3. Р. 263–304.Vishnevsky A. G., Andreev E. M., Treyvish A. I. Perspektivy razvitija Rossii: Rol demograficheskogo faktora [Perspectives of Russian development: role of demographic factor]. M.: Insitut economiki perehodnogo perioda [Transitional economic institute]. 2003. 24 p. (In Russ.)Billingsley S., Puur A., Sakkeus L. Jobs, careers, and becoming a parent under state socialist and market conditions: Evidence from Estonia 1971–2006 // Demographic Research. 2014. Vol. 30. Р. 1733–1768.Zakharov S. V. Russian Federation: From the first to second demographic transition. Demographic research, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 907–972

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.