Assessment of the social well-being of families in Russian regions: A sociological analysis

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Under the current humanitarian and technological revolution, the change of the paradigm of the social-economic development from the principle ‘man for economy’ to the principle ‘economy for man’ has become a priority criteria for positioning countries in the global space. The term ‘quality of life’ plays the key role in this concept, since the high quality of life allows the state to accumulate on its territory the main resource - human capital. Improving the quality of life takes a leading place among the Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) approved by the UN General Assembly [19]. The 2020 Human Development Report underlines “the meaning of a good life and the ways in which we can achieve it,” and the emphasis is made on “achieving the well-being of everyone” [10]. The article is based on the data of the authors’ representative sociological survey on “Demographic well-being of Russian regions” conducted in 2020. The survey aimed at revealing the assessments of respondents from different regions of Russia of the metrics of family well-being, and at identifying family problems for the development of differentiated/narrowly focused measures to support families with children. Based on the survey data, the authors conducted a detailed analysis of the parameters of family well-being and of the role of the state social support in ensuring it in the respondents’ perspective. Russian families differ in their assessments of the significance of measures necessary to support the family, focus on measures of economic support, on the development of social infrastructure, and on the role of ideological influence. The cluster analysis confirmed the need for differentiated measures of the state social support, which would take into account the stages of the family life cycle (age of family members, number of children). The factor analysis allowed to identify the structure of Russians’ ideas about the main measures that would contribute to strengthening the family, which must be taken into account when developing managerial decisions in the field of the social-demographic development.

About the authors

T. K. Rostovskaya

Institute for Demographic Research of FCTAS RAS

Author for correspondence.
Email: kuchmaeva@yandex.ru

доктор социологических наук, заместитель директора по научной работе Института демографических исследований

Fotievoy St., 6-1, Moscow, 119333, Russia

O. V. Kuchmaeva

Institute for Demographic Research of FCTAS RAS; Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: rostovskaya.tamara@mail.ru

доктор экономических наук, главный научный сотрудник Института демографических исследований

Fotievoy St., 6-1, Moscow, 119333, Russia; Leninskie Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991, Russia

O. A. Zolotareva

Institute for Demographic Research of FCTAS RAS

Email: OAMahova@yandex.ru

кандидат экономических наук, ведущий научный сотрудник Института демографических исследований

Fotievoy St., 6-1, Moscow, 119333, Russia

References

  1. Antonov A.I. Potrebnost v detjah [The need for children]. Narodonaselenie. Moscow; 1994. (In Russ.).
  2. Antonov A.I., Medkov V.M. Sotsiologija sem’i [Sociology of Family]. Moscow; 1996. (In Russ.).
  3. Arhangelsky V.N., Shulgin S.G., Zinkina Yu.V. Reproduktivnoe povedenie rossijskih zhenshhin v zavisimosti ot obrazovatelnogo statusa [Reproductive behavior of Russian women as depending on their level of education]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2020; 20 (3). (In Russ.).
  4. Borisenkov V.P., Gukalenko O.V. Institut sem’i i semejnaja politika v sovremennoj Rossii: problemy, tendentsii i perspektivy [The institute of family and family policy in contemporary Russia: Problems, trends and prospects]. URL: http://naukovedenie.ru/PDF/130PVN514.pdf. (In Russ.).
  5. Borisova T.S., Plotkin M.M. Semejnoe i sotsialnoe vospitanie: sovremenny molodezhny kontekst [Family and social education: Contemporary youth context]. Pedagogika. 2018; 7. (In Russ.).
  6. Vasilieva E.N., Rostovskaja T.K., Sulejmanly A. Demograficheskie ugrozy natsionalnoj bezopasnosti v politicheskom diskurse RF (1992–2019) [Demographic threats to national security in the political discourse of the Russian Federation (1992–2019)]. Vestnik VolGU. Serija 4: Istorija. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenija. 2021; 26 (2). (In Russ.).
  7. Golod S.I. Sotsiologo-demografichesky analiz sostojanija i evoljutsii sem’i [Sociological-demographic analysis of the state and evolution of the family]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovanija. 2008; 1. (In Russ.).
  8. Gurko T.A. Novye semejnye formy: tendentsii rasprostranenija i ponjatija [New family forms: Distribution trends and concepts]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovanija. 2017; 11. (In Russ.).
  9. Dementieva I.F., Golenkova Z.T. Teorija semejnogo vospitanija v obshheteoreticheskom kontekste sotsialnyh nauk [Theory of family education in the general theoretical context of social sciences]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2018; 18 (3). (In Russ.).
  10. Doklad o chelovecheskom razvitii 2020. Sledujushhy rubezh. Chelovecheskoe razvitie i antropocen [Human Development Report 2020. The Next Milestone. Human Development and the Anthropocene]. URL: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2020_overview_ russian.pdf. (In Russ.).
  11. Zasedanie prezidiuma Gossoveta, posvjashhjonnoe politike v oblasti sem’i, materinstva i detstva [Meeting of the Presidium of the State Council on the policy in the field of family, motherhood and childhood]. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20265. (In Russ.).
  12. Il’inyh S.A. “Mozaichnost” soznanija i gendernye aspekty v predstavlenijah o sem’e: analiz dannyh [“Mosaicity” of consciousness and gender aspects in representations of the family: Data analysis]. Vestnik ChGU. Seriya: Filosofija. Sotsiologija. Kulturologija. 2012; 35. (In Russ.).
  13. Il’inyh S.A., Loginova E.S. Habitualizatsija semejnyh praktik v molodyh sem’jah: faktory neustojchivosti [Habitualization of family practices in young families: Factors of instability]. Obshhestvo: Sotsiologija, Psihologija, Pedagogika. 2016; 3. (In Russ.).
  14. Kontseptsija gosudarstvennoj politiki v otnoshenii molodoj sem’i [Concept of the State Policy in Relation to the Young Family]. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/902060617. (In Russ.).
  15. Kostina E.Ju., N.A. Orlova, Panfilova A.O. Sostojanie sistemy tsennostej kak faktor anomii v sovremennom rossijskom obshhestve [The state of value system as a factor of anomie in the contemporary Russian society]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2018; 18 (4). (In Russ.).
  16. Kuchmaeva O.V. Idealnaja model sem’i v glazah rossijan i strategija po povysheniju tsennosti semejnogo obraza zhizni [The ideal family model in the eyes of Russians and the strategy for increasing the value of the family lifestyle]. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Pravo. 2019; 2. (In Russ.).
  17. Magun V.S. Normativnye vzgljady na sem’ju i rossijan i frantsuzov: traditsionnoe i sovremennoe [Normative views on the family of both Russians and French: Traditional and Contemporary]. URL: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2011/0449/analit02.php. (In Russ.).
  18. Okolskaja L.A. Individualisticheskie i sotsialno orientirovannye roditelskie tsennosti v rossijskih regionah [Individualistic and socially oriented parental values ​​in Russian regions]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovanija. 2020; 7. (In Russ.).
  19. Preobrazovanie nashego mira: Povestka dnja v oblasti ustojchivogo razvitija na period do 2030 goda [Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development]. URL: http://www.globalcompact.ru/assets/uploads/Povestka_dny_v_oblasti_UR_do_2030.pdf. (In Russ.).
  20. Pecherskaja N.V. Mifologija roditelstva: analiz diskursivnogo proizvodstva idealnoj sem’i [The mythology of parenting: An analysis of the discursive production of the ideal family]. Zhurnal Issledovanij Sotsialnoj Politiki. 2012; 10 (3). (In Russ.).
  21. Rasskazova E.I., Leontiev D.A., Lebedeva A.A. Pandemija kak vyzov sub`ektivnomu blagopoluchiju: trevoga i sovladanie [Pandemic as a challenge to subjective well-being: Anxiety and coping]. Konsultativnaja Psihologija i Psihoterapija. 2020; 28 (2). (In Russ.).
  22. Rostovskaja T.K., Kuchmaeva O.V. Transformatsija obraza zhelaemoj modeli sem’i u raznyh pokolenij: rezultaty vserossijskogo sotsiologicheskogo issledovanija [Transformation of the desired family model in different generations: Results of the All-Russian sociological study]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2020; 20 (3). (In Russ.).
  23. Skopin A.Ju., Klimov A.I., Zajtsev D.G. Aktorny podhod v sovremennyh sotsialnyh naukah: ekonomike, sotsiologii i politologii [The actor approach in contemporary social sciences: economics, sociology and political science]. URL: https://www.hse.ru/data/2012/12/16/ 1300987726/Skopin%20A.Ju.,%20Klimov%20A.I.,%20Zajcev%20D.G.%20Ak.v%20sovremennyh%20social'nyh%20naukah.pdf. (In Russ.).
  24. Tyndik A.O. Reproduktivnye ustanovki i ih realizatsija v sovremennoj Rossii [Reproductive attitudes and their implementation in contemporary Russia]. Zhurnal Issledovanij Sotsialnoj Politiki. 2017; 10 (3). (In Russ.).
  25. Chernova Zh., Shpakovskaja L. Molodye vzroslye: supruzhestvo, partnerstvo i roditelstvo. Diskursivnye predpisanija i praktiki v sovremennoj Rossii [Young adults: Matrimony, partnership and parenthood. Discursive prescriptions and practices in contemporary Russia]. Laboratorium. 2010; 3. (In Russ.).
  26. Shpakovskaja L.L. Sovremennaja sem’ja sovremennymi glazami [Contemporary family in the contemporary perspective]. Demograficheskoe Obozrenie. 2019; 6. (In Russ.).
  27. Brown S.L., Manning W.D., Stykes J.B. Family structure and child well‐being: Integrating family complexity. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015; 77 (1).
  28. Frejka T. Parity distribution and completed family size in Europe: Incipient decline of the two-child family model? Demographic Research. 2008; 19 (4).
  29. Mustillo S., Li M., Wang W. Parent work‐to‐family conflict and child psychological well‐being: Moderating role of grandparent coresidence. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2020; 83.
  30. Öztürk S., Hazer O. Youth perspectives on intergenerational solidarity in families. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2016; 10 (4).
  31. Shelton N., Grundy E. Proximity of adult children to their parents in Great Britain. International Journal of Population Geography. 2000; 6 (3).

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2021 Rostovskaya T.K., Kuchmaeva O.V., Zolotareva O.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies