M. A. Zyryanova. Fertility and Reproductive Attitudes of the Population Before and After the Epidemiological Situation Worse

UDК 314.12:616-036.21

DOI: 10.15507/2413-1407.121.030.202204.903-923


Introduction. The preservation and growth of the population is a key task of the Russian Federation Demographic Policy Concept until 2025. Nevertheless, in recent years, the achievement of this task has been difficult due to escalation of socio-economic and demographic problems. The purpose of the article is to determine and compare birth rates and reproductive attitudes of the population in various periods after the beginning of the 2000s, which differ in the socio-economic context and the list of demographic policy measures, including under the latest circumstances – the worsening epidemiological situation.

Materials and Methods. The study is based on a statistical analysis of time series data indicators for conditional generations that reflect the demographic situation of fertility in Russia and the Komi Republic – crude and total fertility rates, natural population growth (decline), the number of women in reproductive age (15–49 years) in total structure of the female population, the number of women aged 15–24 in the structure of the female population of reproductive ages. Also, the methodological basis of the presented work is based on the results of three sociological studies, conducted by a team of scientists of The Institute for Social Economic and Energy problems of the North of the North Federal Research Center Komi Science Centre UB RAS in 2008, 2013 and 2020 among the population of the Komi Republic.

Results. It is revealed that the most successful period of demographic development in Russia was 2013–2016 and in the Komi Republic in 2011–2016, which consists in achieving natural population growth. Further, there was a decrease in the birth rate. It is determined that the situation in the field of population reproduction has worsened in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia and the Komi Republic. The study reveals that reproductive attitudes in all generations are the best in 2013. The significant success in this period is the growth of reproductive attitudes even among young cohorts. Further in 2020, the expected number of children decreased in all age cohorts. In 2020, the pattern remains – the lowest reproductive orientations are in the two youngest age cohorts of 1996–2000 and 2001–2005 birth.

Discussion and Conclusion. The main result of the work was the confirmation on the example of the northern region of Russia the thesis that the growth of the standard of living is accompanied by an increase in the reproductive attitudes of the population and the birth rate, and vice versa. From a theoretical point of view, the usefulness of the article lies in the description of the processes of fertility and the dynamics of the reproductive attitudes of the population, taking into account the changing socio-economic and epidemiological conditions. From a practical point of view, the information obtained can be useful as an assessment of future fertility prospects and confirmation of the high role of the socio-economic well-being of the population in addressing the issue of increasing the level of children in the families.

Keywords: fertility, coronavirus, demographic policy, mortality, natural increase (decline), real generation, reproductive attitudes, standard of living

Funding. The work was carried out on the subject of research work “Human resources of the northern regions of Russia: development potential or limitation of economic growth” (registration number 122012700169-9, 2022–2024).

For citation: Zyryanova M.A. Fertility and Reproductive Attitudes of the Population Before and After the Epidemiological Situation Worse. Regionology. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2022;30(4):903–923. doi: https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.121.030.202204.903-923


1. Clark A.E., Knabe A., Ratzel S. Boon or Bane? Others’ Unemployment, Well-Being and Job Insecurity. Labour Economics. 2010;17(1):52–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2009.05.007

2. Kreyenfeld M. Uncertainties in Female Employment Careers and the Postponement of Parenthood in Germany. European Sociological Review. 2010;26(3):351–366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp026

3. Kreyenfeld M., Andersson G., Pailhe A. Economic Uncertainty and Family Dynamics in Europe. Demographic Research. 2012;27:835–852. doi: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2012.27.28

4. Page M., Schaller J., Simon D. The Effects of Aggregate and Gender-Specific Labor Demand Shocks on Child Health. The Journal of Human Recourses. 2019;54(1):37–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.54.1.0716.8045R

5. Kreyenfeld M., Andersson G. Socioeconomic Differences in the Unemployment and Fertility Nexus: Evidence from Denmark and Germany. Advances in Life Course Research. 2014;21:59–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.007

6. Grishina E.E. Epidemiological Crisis of 2020: Financial Situation of the Population and Social Support. Population. 2021;24(1):15–23. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2021.24.1.2

7. Chapargina A.N. COVID-19 Distribution and Structure of the Population by Age and Gender of the Arctic Regions: Is there Any Connection? Fundamental Research. 2021;(11):185–189. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.17513/fr.43143

8. Aganbegyan A.G. How to Restore the Safety of the People of Russia. Population. 2021;24(2):4–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2021.24.2.1

9. Herteliu C., Richmond P., Roehner B.M. Coupling between Death Spikes and Birth Troughs. Part 1: Evidence. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2018;506:97–111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.04.044

10. Herteliu C., Richmond P., Roehner B.M. Deciphering the Fluctuations of High Frequency Birth Rates. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2018;509:1046–1061. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.06.057

11. Rostovskaya T.K., Arkhangelskiy V.N., Kuchmaeva O.V., Sudin S.A. The Factors of Birth of Second Child in Contemporary Russia: The Analysis of Sociological Survey Results. Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and the History of Medicine. 2021;29(3):430–436. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2021-29-3-430-436

12. Ilyshev A.M., Bagirova A.P. Factors of Reproductive Activity of Population: Analysis of Regional Differentiation. Region: Economics and Sociology. 2009;(1):92–110. Available at: http://recis.ru/region/magazine/33/1630 (accessed 24.05.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

13. Zhuravleva T.L., Gavrilova Ya.A. Analysis of Fertility Determinants in Russia: What do RLMS Data Say? HSE Economic Journal. 2017;21(1):145–187. Available at: https://ej.hse.ru/2017-21-1/204563899.html (accessed 24.05.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

14. Kuzmin A.I. Socio-Economic Factors of Fertility in Light of the Concept of Demographic Transition. Uchenye zapiski Zabaikal’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya, sotsiologiya, kul'turologiya, sotsial’naya rabota. 2013;(4):62–69. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=20279477 (accessed 24.05.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

15. Luppi F., Arpino B., Rosina A. The Impact of COVID-19 on Fertility Plans in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Demographic Research. 2020;43:1399–1412. doi: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2020.43.47

16. Lindberg L., VandeVusse A., Mueller J., Kirstein M. Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the 2020 Guttmacher Survey of Reproductive Health Experiences. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2020. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/early-impacts-covid-19-pandemic-findings-2020-guttmacher-survey-reproductive-health.pdf (accessed 24.05.2022).

17. Wilde J., Chen W., Lohmann S. COVID-19 and the Future of US Fertility: What Can We Learn from Google? Discussion paper series. IZA: Institute of Labor Economics. 2020. No. 13776. doi: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2bgqs

18. Aassve A., Cavalli N., Mencarini L., Plach S., Livi Bacci M. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Human Fertility. Science. 2020;369(6502):370–371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc9520

19. Arkhangel’skii V.N., Kalachikova O.N. Women and Men: Differences in Fertility and Reproductive Behavior Indicators. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2021;14(5):165–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.10

20. Kulkova I.A. The Coronavirus Pandemic Influence on Demographic Processes in Russia. Human Progress. 2020;6(1). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.34709/IM.161.5

21. Noskova A.V. Demographic Aspects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Consequences. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2021;(4):151–153. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250013740-7

22. Pavlov Y.N. Demographic Problems at the National Level. Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University. Medical Sciences. 2021;(4):62–66. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.25587/SVFU.2021.25.4.009

23. Rudakova E.K. Multi-Factor Analysis of Internal Demographic Threats for Russia. Vlast’ (The Authority). 2020;28(6):30–38. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v28i6.7708

24. Ryazantsev S.V., Smirnov A.V. The Preconditions of Occurrence and Social Demographic Consequences of Pandemics. Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and the History of Medicine. 2021;29(3):389–397. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2021-29-3-389-397

25. Popova L.A., Shishkina M.A. Marriage and Family and Reproductive Attitudes of Today’s Young People. Problems of Territory’s Development. 2016;(5):57–71. Available at: http://pdt.vscc.ac.ru/article/1992 (accessed 24.05.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

26. Korolenko A.V., Kalachikova O.N. Reproductive Attitudes of Young Families: Driving Forces and Implementation Conditions (on the Basis of In-Depth Interviews). Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2022;15(2):172–189. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2022.2.80.11

27. Popova L.А., Milaeva Т.V., Zorina Е.N. Self-Preservation Behavior: Generational Aspect. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2021;14(5):261–276. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.15

Submitted 31.05.2022; approved after reviewing 06.07.2022; accepted for publication 15.07.2022.

About the author:

Maria A. Zyryanova, Junior Researcher, the Institute for Social Economic and Energy Problems of the North, Federal Research Centre “Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences” (26 Kommunisticheskaya St., Syktyvkar 167982, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3567-3470, Researcher ID: C-6046-2018, zyryanova.1809@mail.ru

The author has read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

To download article


Лицензия Creative Commons
Материалы журнала "РЕГИОНОЛОГИЯ REGIONOLOGY" доступны по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная