Since 2015, the size of the country’s indigenous population has been shrinking steadily due to lower birth rates. Data from a large demographic study conducted by the Russian State Social University confirm this trend, based on a survey of 9,350 respondents across six regions of the Russian Federation.
Today the average family has 1.5 children, and newborns account for about 9.6 per thousand people. Analyses indicate that to preserve the current population level, the figure should be 13 to 14 births per thousand. In practical terms, this means roughly half of Russian families would need three or more children.
This concept is presented as a national idea. A family with three children is portrayed as the cornerstone of social stability and fulfillment.
But what does safety look like in this context The average salary in the country now stands at around 59 thousand rubles. It is clear that state support for families with three children should be guaranteed, yet the most effective means of delivering that support remains a question. Even the maternity capital program has not maintained its original boosting effect.
Consequently, the RSSU study outlines several social and economic proposals for discussion that could shape policy in the near term.
The initial cluster of measures does not require sweeping changes. The first proposal is to provide a one time payment equal to 12 minimum wages at the birth of a child. This payment does not contradict the concept of maternal capital, as it is designed to address practical, day to day needs and to empower families to manage funds as they see fit.
The second measure expands the scope and amount of aid and subsidies and includes non financial forms of support. The emphasis here is on creating a broad relief network that helps families cope with rising costs and improves social outcomes.
In the author’s view, priority should go to guaranteeing comfortable access to schools and preschools for all children from extended families, with no queues. This approach ought to be proclaimed as a national priority and implemented across all regions.
State policy should center on the family as the basic unit of society rather than on the individual, reflecting longstanding social norms and the needs of households that raise children.
Realistically, these measures may not immediately reverse demographic trends. Therefore a mid term demographic policy package should be developed as a steady, reliable response rather than a quick fix.
Among the recommended steps is a relaxation of duties for men with minor dependents when the total number of children is three or more, including exemption from conscription during non mobilization periods. This would provide a sense of stability for families and address the concern that uncertainty about the future discourages childbearing.
A mechanism should be introduced to offer subsidies that offset loan interest rates for extended families on consumer, business, and mortgage loans. The subsidy framework should be declarative in nature, with calculations tied to the number of underage children and manageable for qualified financial professionals to administer.
Additionally, a broader social policy discussion should include in vitro fertilization as part of the compulsory medical insurance program with abortions limited to medical indications. The argument here is that addressing birth outcomes requires more than simple convenience; it requires sustained, thoughtful policy that considers family realities.
Another idea is to support a social nanny agency aimed at extended families as a public service. The objective is to ease caregiving burdens and improve quality of life for parents juggling work and childrearing.
Long term, the creation of proactive living solutions for large families should be pursued. This includes guaranteed housing standards tailored to social employment conditions, ensuring that average large families can access suitable homes. In rural areas, highly favorable loans to build houses should be offered similar to progressive programs in remote regions. Housing affordability ranks as a major barrier to higher birth rates, and tackling it could yield meaningful improvements.
There is also consideration of establishing federal state retail chains with fixed trade margins. The aim is to counterbalance the pricing power of private chains, reduce inflationary pressure on food, and protect purchasing power for vulnerable groups and priority segments of the population. This would complement broader market reforms and help ensure stable prices for essentials.
Last but not least, a debated proposal involves reintroducing a childlessness tax. The collected funds could be earmarked for demographic programs under a framework similar to the personal income tax. A related idea would be to limit participation in certain roles to individuals with children, underlining social responsibility and emphasizing the importance of child welfare in leadership positions. Adoption remains a viable option for those who want to contribute to population growth in meaningful ways. A broader social culture that values responsibility can help encourage such choices.
The proposals may spark debate, but the core aim remains clear. Addressing today’s demographic challenges is essential to securing tomorrow’s outlook for the country. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives and is intended to inform policy rather than dictate a single course of action.