in the context of state pronatalist measures Konstantin Kazenin Stockholm University Demography Unit Sergei Zakharov Strasbourg University Institute of Demography EAPS Conference ID: 1038651
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Fertility of ethnic minorities of Russia" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. Fertility of ethnic minorities of Russia in the context of state pronatalist measuresKonstantin Kazenin (Stockholm University, Demography Unit)Sergei Zakharov (Strasbourg University, Institute of Demography)EAPS Conference “Fertility and Family Dynamics in Migrant and Minority Groups”Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden (Germany) October 12-13, 2023
2. Population of Russia: major ethnic clustersEthnic Russians; Majority ethnicities of other post-Soviet states (Ukrainians, Belorussians, Kazakhs, Armenians…): mixture of migrants of different generations and of autochthonous population; Autochthonous ethnic groups of non-Slavic origins (the Caucasus, the Volga basin, Siberia…).
3. Largest autochthonous non-Slavic ethnic minorities of Russia, censuses 1989 and 2010 19892010N%N%Tatars5,522,0963.76Tatars5,310,6493.87Chuvashs1,773,6451.21Bashkirs1,584,5541.15Bashkirs1,345,2730.92Chuvashs1,435,8721.05Mordva1,072,9390.73Chechens1,431,3601.04Chechens898,9990.61Avars912,0900.66Udmurts714,8330.49Mordva744,2370.54Mari643,6980.44Dargins589,3860.43Avars544,0160.37Udmurts552,2990,40Buryats417,4250.28Mari547,6050.39Ossetians402,2750.27Ossetics528,5150.38Kabardians386,0550.26Kabardians516,8260.38Yakuts380,2420.26Kumyks503,0600.37Dargins353,3480.24Yakuts478,0850.35Komi336,3090.23Lezgians473,7220.34Kumyks277,1630.19Buryats461,3890.34by self-identification at censuses; percentage among those who declared any ethnicity Russians119,865,94681.5Russians111,016,89680.9
4. What is common for fertility and nuptiality of most of autochthonous non-Slavic ethnic minorities of Russia?The first demographic transition started later than for ethnic Russians (between the 1960s – 1990s), when it was almost completed for Russians and other Slavic peoples; Large proportions of population of each minority group resides compactly; High prevalence of monoethnic marriages in most ethnic groups.(Zakharov 2008, Bogojavlenski 2010, Soroko 2011, Kazenin & Kozlov 2023)
5. TFR in Russia, 1990-2022: decline after 1990, growth after introducing pronatalist measures in 2007, decline since 2015
6. Research questionsHow did minorities differ from ethnic Russians in their reaction to the pronatalist measures? What are possible reasons for these differences: Higher demand for state support of families among minorities due to economic reasons?Legacy of higher fertility of minorities in the 1960s-1990s?..
7. Method:Ratios of cumulative fertility of 28 minor ethnicities to ethnic Russians, by age groups: Censuses 1979, 1989, 2002, 2010; Microcensuses 1994, 2015. Census 2010, age group 20-24 as having the largest proportion of the reproductive time spent between introducing the pronatalist measures and the Census:Poisson regression models for cumulative fertility, with dummies for ethnic groups, with and without control on socio-demographic parameters;Linear regression models for cumulative fertility, with socio-demographic parameters and fixed effects of ethnicity: measuring amount of interethnic differences explained by socio-demographic parameters.
8. Cumulative fertility of age groups: ethnic Russians vs. minoritiesMean ratio of 28 minorities to RussiansVariance coefficient of the mean ratioSource: Published data on the (micro)censuses. All data analysis was carried out at Higher School of Economics (Moscow).
9. Poisson models for cumulative fertility, census of 2010, women aged 20-24, incidence rate ratios by ethnic groups (ref.: ethnic Russians)Controls: only ageControls: age, education, marital status, urban/rural residenceSource: www.IPUMS.orgColored bars show significance at 95% level
10. Linear models with ethnicity fixed effects, cumulative fertility of women aged 20-24, Census 2010Source: www.IPUMS.orgCoefficientStd. err.P>tAge0.047.0010.000Education (ref: secondary)lower than secondary0.165.0080.000higher-0.181.0080.000Residence (ref: urban)rural.0860.0080.000Marital status (ref. married, registered)married, not registered-0.326.0170.000divorced-0.018.0280.527separated-0.106.0780.189widowed0.104.0260.000never married-0.658.0350.000R2 within=0.368R2 between=0.524, nearly half of variance between means for ethnicities is explained by the socio-demographic parameters
11. Conclusions and further questions:A remarkable cumulative fertility increase and growth of interethnic variance three years after introducing the pronatalist measures among age group 20-24 – a result of different reaction of ethnic groups upon the pronatalist measures? Part of the interethnic differences in age group 20-24 after introduction the pronatalist measures is explained by socio-demographic parameters – what explains the other part of the differences?
12. Danke!Merci!Спасибо!