Особенности социальной динамики типов структуры семьи в России
The article considers the major factors affecting family structure dynamics in Russia and its change. The consequences of “the second demographic transition” are shown, in particular the growth in the number of informal “fragile” families caused the increase in the number of incomplete single-parent families. The main difference between Russia and the Post-Soviet countries in the field of family structure types dynamics is overlapping effects of social destabilization caused by the crash of socialist ideology and economy and the phenomena of the so-called “second demographic transition”, general for the whole Europe. This large-scale demographic transformation in the sphere of the family relations presents general decrease in the number of marriages increase in specific weight of officially unregistered families, and increase in the number of children born out of official marriages and change of the traditional sequence of events: even more often children appear before official marriage. The complex of these changes is called “pluralization”, “destandartization” or “individualization” of society. Such terms are connected with the weakening traditional ideas on the forms and sequence of events in the family sphere: now it is allowed to depart from strict following prescribed canons more and more.
1 Российский статистический ежегодник 2002–2012 // Федеральная служба государственно статистики : [сайт]. URL: http://www.gks.ru (дата обращения: 20.11.2014).
2 Итоги Всероссийской переписи населения 2010 г. : в 11 т. Т. 6. Число и состав домохозяйств. М. : Федер. служба госстатистики, 2012.
3 Van de Kaa D. J. Europe’s Second Demographic Transition // Population Bulletin. 1987. Vol. 42, iss. 1. P. 1–59.
4 Billari F. C., Liefbroer A. C. Towards a New Pattern of Transition to Adulthood? // Advances in Life Course Research. 2010. Vol. 15, № 2–3. P. 59–75.
5 Bruderl J. Family change and family patterns in Europe. 2003. URL: www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/projects/changequal/papers.asp?selbut=2 (дата обращения: 12.09.2016).
6 Mills M. Stability and Change : The Structuration of Partnership Histories in Canada, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation // European Journal of Population. 2004. Vol. 20, iss. 1. P. 141–175.
7 Billari F. C. Choices, Opportunities and Constraints of Partnership, Childbearing and Partnering. 2004. URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.569.6987&rep=re... (дата обращения: 11.10.2016).
8 Furstenberg F. F., Kennedy S., McLoyd V. C., Rumbaut R. G., Settersten R. A. Growing up is harder to do // Contexts. 2004. Vol. 3, iss. 3. P. 33–41.
9 Sobotka T., Toulemon L. Overview Chapter 4 : Changing Family and Partnership Behavior : Common Trends and Persistent Diversity Across Europe // Demographic Research. 2008. Vol. 19, № 6. P. 85–138.
10 Jensen A.-M. Partnership and Parenthood in Contemporary Europe : A Review of Recent Findings // European Journal of Population. 1998. Vol. 14, iss. 1. P. 89–99.
11 Elzinga G., Liefbroer A. Destandardization of Life Trajectories of Young Adults : A Crossnational Comparison Using Sequence Analysis // European Journal of Population. 2007. Vol. 23, iss. 3–4. P. 225–250.
12 Potarca G., Mills M., Lesnard L. Family Formation Trajectories in Romania, the Russian Federation and France : Towards the Second Demographic Transition? // European Journal of Population. 2013. Vol. 29, iss. 1. P. 69–101
13 Motiejunaite A. Women’s Employment in Eastern Europe – Towards More Equality? // Inblick Osteuropa. 2008. Vol. 1. URL: http://www.inblick.org/?p=/2articles/16/motiejunaite.html (дата обращения: 12.03.2017).
14 Philipov D., Kohler H.-P. Tempo Effects in the Fertility Decline in Eastern Europe : Evidence from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Russia // European Journal of Population. 2001. Vol. 28, iss. 1. P. 37–60.
15 Hoem J. M., Kostova D., Jasilioniene A., Mures C. Traces of the Second Demographic Transition in Four Selected Countries in Central and Eastern Europe : Union Formation as a Demographic Manifestation // European Journal of Population. 2009. Vol. 25, iss. 3. P. 239–255.
16 Gerber T., Berman D. Entry to Marriage and Cohabitation in Russia, 1985–2000 : Trends, Correlates, and Implications for the Second Demographic Transition // European Journal of Population. 2010. Vol. 26, iss. 1. P. 3–31.
17 Bavel J. van. Choice of Study Discipline and the Postponement of Motherhood in Europe : The Impact of Expected Earnings, Gender Composition and Family Attitudes // Demography. 2010. Vol. 47. P. 439–458.
18 Mills M., Rindfuss R. R., McDonald P., Velde E. Why do People Postpone Parenthood? Reasons and Social Policy Incentive // Human Reproduction Update. 2011. Vol. 17, iss. 6. P. 848–860.
19 Perelli-Harris B., Sigle-Rushton W., Kreyenfeld M., Lappegard T., Keizer R., Berghammer C. The Educational Gradient of Childbearing within Cohabitation in Europe // Population and Development Review. 2010. Vol. 36, iss. 4. P. 775–801.
20 Овчарова Л. Н., Прокофьева Л. М. Социально-экономические факторы феминизации бедности в России // Экономика и социальная политика : гендерное измерение / под ред. М. М. Малышевой. М. : Academia, 2002. С. 36–63.
21 Овчарова Л. Н. Бедность и экономический рост в России // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2008. № 5. С. 439–456.