Norway - territory, population, economy, mining. Fertility and Family Policy in Norway: Reflections on Trends and Possible Links Norway Population by Year
· Armed forces · Administrative divisions · Population · History · Economy of Norway · Transport · Culture · Travelers · Related articles · Notes · Official site & middot Video "Norway"
Number and location
The population of Norway is about 5 million people, it is one of the least populated countries in Europe. The population density is 16 people / km2. However, the distribution of the population is extremely uneven. Over 1 5 of the population is concentrated in the south of Norway, on the narrow coastal strip around the Oslofjord (1 2) and the Trondheimsfjord. More than 80% of the population is concentrated in Southern, Western and Eastern Norway, with almost half in the latter. Urban population - 78%, including over 1 5 - in the metropolitan area. An urban area is understood as such settlements that have a population of more than 200 people and consist of houses located at a distance of not more than 50 meters from each other. About a third of the country's population is concentrated in the Oslofjord area, therefore this is the region with the highest density - 1404 people / km. Moreover, in the actual urban agglomeration of Oslo is home to 906,681 people (as of January 1, 2011). Other major cities are Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger, Kristiansand, Fredrikstad, Tromsø and Drammen.
Age and sex structure
Norway has a predominantly working-age population between the ages of 16 and 67. The pyramid reflects not only an increase in life expectancy, but also an increase in fertility. The numerical superiority of men is small and is replaced by the prevalence of women from 55-59 years old. This factor is typical for a number of northern states.
Ethnic composition
More than 90% are Norwegians. The largest national minority is the Arabs - several hundred thousand people. Also, the Sami live in Norway (about 40 thousand people, exact calculations are difficult), Kvens (Norwegian Finns), Poles, Swedes, Russians, Gypsies, etc.
Migration
Throughout most of its history, Norwegian society has been ethnically homogeneous. However, since the 1980s, immigration to Norway has increased dramatically, with many of the newcomers settling in the Norwegian capital Oslo and its suburbs. By 2008, the number of immigrants amounted to 10% of the total population of the country, with 70% of them from non-Western countries. This statistic does not include children of migrants born in Norway. The total number of people who came to Norway in 2010 is 73,852, of which 65,065 are foreign nationals. A large influx of migrants is observed in the northern provinces, which is associated with the government's policy to attract labor to these regions, which are unfavorable from a climatic point of view. The balance of migration is positive, despite the fact that the number of emigrants is increasing every year and already in 2010 reached the level of 31,506 people.
In addition to external migration, there is also internal migration in Norway, both between municipalities and districts, the former of which is twice as developed as the latter. In 2010, the number of people who moved to another municipality reached a record high of 214,685 people. Migration does not depend on gender and mainly takes place in the direction from the north and northwest to southeast.
Languages
Article 2 of Section A of the Constitution of Norway guarantees every citizen of the country the right to freedom of religion. At the same time, the same article indicates that Evangelical Lutheranism is the state religion of Norway. By law, the king of Norway and at least half of the ministers must be Lutheran. As of 2006, according to official statistics, 3,871,006 people or 82.7% of the population belong to the State Church of Norway (Norwegian Den norske kirke). However, only about 2% of the population attend church regularly. Another 403,909 people, or 8.6% of the population as of 2007, belong to other confessions and teachings. Among them, the most numerous are adherents of Islam (79,068 people or 1.69% of the population), the Roman Catholic Church (51,508 people or 1.1%) and the Pentecostal Movement in Norway (40,398 people or 0.86%). The Foreningen Forn Sed neo-pagan community is officially registered in the country.
NORWAY - a state in Northern Europe
Norway square- 324.2 thousand km 2 (67th place in the world, see the map of Norway)
Population of Norway- 5.23 million people (data for 2015, 117th place in the world),
incl. urban population - 79%
Official language- Norwegian
Ethnic composition: about 88% are Norwegians; 11.4% - migrants (Pakistanis, Iraqis, Swedes, Poles, Vietnamese, etc.)
Number of Russians permanently residing in Norway: 14 thousand people
Number of Russian citizens visiting Norway: 178.3 thousand people (data for 2014)
Capital of Norway: Oslo (59º56´ N, 10º45´ E; 613 thousand inhabitants)
Big cities: Bergen (252 thousand inhabitants), Stavanger (123 thousand inhabitants), Trondheim (170 thousand inhabitants)
Climate: temperate marine in the south, subarctic in the north, arctic in Svalbard
Landscape: mostly mountains; the coastline is deeply indented by fjords
Lowest point of the country: sea coast, 0 m
Highest point of the country: Galhoppigen, 2 469 m
Norway GDP (purchasing power parity):$ 345 billion (data for 2014, 49th place in the world)
GDP per capita: 66 thousand dollars
National currency of Norway: Norwegian krone (NOK, code 578)
Time Zones: GMT + 1. Time is 2 hours behind Moscow
Telephone code: +47 (8-10-47)
Internet domains:.no
Official holidays in Norway:
moving date in March-April - Palm Sunday,
moving date in March-April - Maundy Thursday,
moving date in March-April - Good Friday,
moving date in March-April - Easter (celebrated for 2 days),
movable date in May - Ascension of Christ,
moving date in May-June - Trinity (celebrated in 2 days),
Road traffic: right-hand
Voltage in the electrical network: 230V / 50Hz, socket types: C, F
(Published in the magazine "Spero" # 5 2006, p. 134-150)
1. Is fertility a question for prime ministers?
Former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's traditional New Year's greetings in 2001 may have surprised some viewers. Instead of starting his speech as usual with words about economic development, he congratulated Norwegian parents and especially mothers for having had so many children over the past year. He stressed that no other western country has women giving birth to so many children. At the same time, Norwegian women receive education and enter the labor market much more often than in most other countries. According to Mr. Stoltenberg, this high birth rate testifies to the optimism of citizens about the future, as well as the “quality” of Norwegian society. The Prime Minister did not elaborate on what is meant by “quality”, but did mention that Norwegian women have been very successful in combining parenting and paid work, probably by “quality”, referring to the society that helps implement these two strategies.
This paper analyzes the possible relationship between fertility and family politics in Norway. Let's start with a comparative analysis of Norwegian fertility trends: primarily relative to other Scandinavian countries, but two countries with low fertility from the European and Asian regions, Spain and Japan, will also be mentioned. Then we will try to explain the prevailing Norwegian trends in the field of fertility and for this we turn to the analysis of the individual components of fertility. Finally, family politics in Norway will be briefly outlined and the issue of the possible impact of family politics will be discussed in more detail.
2. Opposing fertility trends
Like many other countries, Norway experienced a baby boom after World War II. However, this surge lasted longer here than in most other countries, and in the early 1970s Norway's total fertility rate was still 2.5. In other Scandinavian countries (with the exception of Iceland), it has already dropped to less than 2 children per woman (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Total fertility rate in the Scandinavian countries, 1970-2000, births per woman during life
A source: Recent demographic developments in Europe 2001, Council of Europe
For almost all of the 1970s, fertility declined in all Scandinavian countries with the exception of Finland, which saw some growth in the mid-1970s. In the early 1980s, fertility rates in Norway and Sweden stabilized at 1.6-1.7, falling in 1983 to unprecedented lows for these countries - 1.66 and 1.61, respectively. In Denmark, the decline in fertility continued into the early 1980s, registering the lowest rate in its history - around 1.4 - also in 1983. Unlike other Scandinavian countries, Finland experienced a brief period of fertility growth in the early 1980s, followed by a temporary decline in 1986-1987 (about 1.6 per woman).
Since around the mid-1980s, fertility increases in all Scandinavian countries have attracted the attention of researchers and policymakers from other regions as well. The reason is, of course, that this model is in stark contrast to the experience of most other European countries, where fertility continued to fall to unprecedentedly low levels. This decline has been particularly noticeable in the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe. As an example, let's compare Norway and Spain (see Fig. 2). As in Norway, in Spain the birth rate fell in the 1970s, albeit less rapidly at first. However, unlike in Norway, the decline here did not stop by the early 1980s, but continued until the 1990s: in 1995, the fertility rate was 1.2 children per woman. Such an unacceptably low (according to most analysts) birth rate was observed not only in Spain, but also in a number of other European countries: Italy, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the countries of the former USSR (Georgia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, Estonia, and Latvia) ... A similar trend took place in Japan (see also Fig. 2). As in other countries, the birth rate in Japan has fallen more or less evenly since the early 1970s - from more than 2 to less than 1.4 (in 2000, it was registered at around 1.35). Thus, the current low birth rate in Japan is not too different from the situation in European countries.
Figure 2. Total fertility rate: Norway, Spain, Japan, 1970-2000, births per woman during life
A source: Recent fertility rate. Norway, Spain and Japan. 1970-2000
Against this background, an interesting question is why the Scandinavian model turned out to be different and what we can learn from the analysis of these differences. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this question, but the relatively generous family policy in Scandinavia, including extended paid parental leave, as well as a developed (although still not quite enough) network of subsidized by the state of preschool institutions. These measures definitely reduce the cost of having a child and, therefore, can encourage women to have children. It is therefore not surprising that the hypothesis of the positive impact of government policies on fertility has rekindled interest. We will return to this issue a little later, but first, let's look at the latest trends in fertility in a country with a high fertility rate - we will talk about Norway.
3. Beyond Norwegian Trends
3.1. Delayed childbirth
The generations of women born after World War II found themselves in a structure of opportunity that was in many ways different from that of previous generations. The development of contraception, the simplified possibilities of abortion have allowed women to choose more freely, when give birth to a child and how have children. At the same time, improved educational levels and increased entry into the labor market have significantly increased the economic independence of women. Along with this, gender equality increased, new forms of family organization became widespread, especially living together without marriage registration.
All of these factors have contributed to the delayed childbearing that we have seen in Norway over the past decades. Among all women born after 1935, those born around 1950 gave birth to their first child at the youngest age (Fig. 3). Half of them became mothers at 22.8 years, while the median age of a woman who gave birth to her first child among the younger age cohorts gradually increased and for women born in 1970 was 26.7 years. The lower quartile of the age distribution of primiparas (the age at which 25% of women become mothers) also increased, from 20.2 years for women born in 1950 to 22.6 years for women born in 1970. Recent data show that the trend towards delayed childbearing persists: the lower quartile for the 1974 cohort is was 23.8 years.
Figure 3. Median and lower quartile ages of first childbirth: Norwegian women born in 1935-1974
A source: Population Statistics System, Statistics Norway
Delaying the birth of the first child is more common in certain groups, and educational attainment is an important watershed. Even if the postponement of motherhood is observed in all educational groups (see Fig. 4), the most educated women are still in the lead in this indicator: among them this trend can be traced back to the 1945 cohort. In the least educated group, aging of motherhood was not observed much longer, up to the cohorts born in the mid-1950s. Educational differences between generations are evident at the age when a woman has her first child. Among women born in 1950 the median age of first childbirth was 20.6 years in the least educated group and 28.4 years in the most educated group; and already in the cohort born in 1967. - respectively 21.9 and 30.7 years. Thus, the difference between the most and the least educated groups increased by a whole year - from 7.8 years for the 1950 cohort. up to 8.8 years for the 1967 cohort.
Figure 4. Median age at first birth by educational level. Norwegian women born in 1935-1974
A source: Population Statistics System and Educational Statistics Systems, Statistics Norway.
The rise in educational level in the post-war generations clearly influenced the increase in the age of the mother at the birth of her first child. In about one generation (from cohorts born in the mid-1930s to cohorts born in the mid-1960s), the proportion of people with only primary or primary secondary education declined from more than 40% to less than 10%, with this proportionally increased the proportion of people with higher education (see table. 1). The largest increase in the number of groups with incomplete complete higher education, however, the proportion of women with a complete higher education (more than four years of study at a university) is still small - only 5% of women born in 1965.
Table 1. Highest educational attainment among women born in 1935-1965
Cohort by year of birth |
Share (%) of those who completed their education at the level of: |
|||
Primary or incomplete secondary (1-9 years) |
Completed secondary (10-12 years old) |
University, incomplete higher education (13-16 years old) |
University, complete higher education (17-20 years old) |
|
A source: Educational Statistics System, Statistics Norway.
3.2. More and more childless?
When women postpone childbirth further and further, a natural question arises: does this lead to an increase in the number of childless women? Consider the situation with the cohorts of Norwegian women. The tendency to postpone childbirth was started by women born in the early 1950s, of which about 10% were childless, which is very few by international standards. For younger cohorts still of childbearing age, it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, the proportion of women in their 40s who do not have a child increased from 9.8% in the 1950 cohort. up to 12.6% in the 1960 cohort (see Table 2), while for 35-year-olds this proportion was 11.6% in the 1950 cohort. and 16.5% in the 1963 cohort. ... Even if younger cohorts partially fill the fertility gap compared to older cohorts, it is unlikely that the proportion of childless among them will remain at the 10% level, as in the case of the latter. So far, the available data indicate a slight increase in the number of childless women.
The proportion of women who are childless increases markedly with the level of education (see Fig. 5). Among women born in 1954-1958 19% of women from the most educated group and 9% from the least educated did not have a child at the age of 40. It is curious, however, to trace the conflicting trends in different cohorts. The only group in which the proportion of childless in the cohorts of the second half of the 1950s. did not increase to the level of cohorts born in the 1930s, is the most educated group; in other educational groups, there is an increase in childlessness. Thus, we can talk about the convergence of trends in childlessness among different educational groups in younger cohorts. There may be more compelling reasons for this, but the interpretation is often given that the family policy introduced since the late 1980s has increasingly helped women unwilling to leave the labor market to combine parenting and paid employment. In addition, women with a university degree make up only a very small proportion of the older age cohorts, but as the number of women with a higher education increases, this proportion also increases. Therefore, their choice - to give birth or not to give birth to a child - could become more similar to the same choice in other groups of women.
Figure 5. Percentage of childless people by education level. Norwegian women born in 1935-1958
A source: Population Statistics System and educational Statistics Systems, Statistics Norway.
3.3. Increasing variation in the number of children
It is still very common for Norwegian mothers with one child to have another child (approximately 80% do this, see Fig. 6). This proportion has remained fairly stable among all cohorts since the 1950s, and in the cohorts born before the war and immediately after it, it was even higher - 90%. The proportion of mothers with two children who decide to have another child has declined more sharply: from about 60% in the pre-war cohorts to about 40% in the cohorts born in the early 1950s. In younger cohorts, there is a trend towards an increase in the proportion of mothers with two children giving birth to a third child. For example, for 35-year-olds this proportion was 37% for mothers born in 1953, compared with 41% for mothers born 10 years later - in 1963.
Figure 6. The proportion of childless and the proportion of those who have given birth to a second and third child by the age of 30 and 40 among those who have given birth is one less child. Norwegian women born in 1935-1963
A source
Among cohorts born before the war, almost half of the women had at least three children by the age of 40 (Table 2). This share fell sharply for the post-war cohorts, and for women born after 1950 it stabilized at about 30%. The decline in the proportion of women with two children, and the increase in the proportion of one-child and childless, all indicate an increase in the variation in the number of children in the younger cohorts.
Table 2. The number of children in the family and the average number of children in 40-year-old women, cohorts born in 1935-1960.
Cohort by year of birth |
The number of children in the family,% |
Average number of children |
||||
A source: Population Statistics System, Statistics Norway.
The average number of children in 40-year-old women fell sharply in cohorts born before 1950: from 2.41 in the 1935 cohort to up to 2.06 in the cohort born in 1950, and stabilized at the level of 2.02-2.03 in younger cohorts. Based on the latest data, all cohorts born before 1960 are projected to achieve fertility rates of at least 2.05 children per woman. Therefore, despite the steady trend of delayed childbearing, the younger cohorts of Norwegian women do not lag behind the cohorts born 5-10 years earlier in fertility.
3.4. Reducing educational differences
We have shown that education is an important factor in determining both the age of motherhood (“timing”) and the proportion of women who remain childless. Unsurprisingly, it also affects the total number of children a woman has. Women with lower levels of education have more children than women with higher levels of education, but the differences are not as large as one would expect from the huge differences in timing of first birth. Women with higher education partially fill the gap in fertility, they simply do it at a later point in their childbearing period, compared to less educated women. In addition, the differences in the total number of children among 40-year-old women with different educational levels are more significant in the older cohorts (see Fig. 7). The reduction in disparity is mainly the result of a decrease in the number of children in the least educated group. In fact, among the group of women with university degrees born after World War II, the average number of children is increasing. A more detailed study of the number of children in a family shows that this picture reflects a decrease in the proportion of mothers with one child and, on the contrary, an increase in mothers with two, and especially three children.
The likelihood of having a third child increased in all educational groups, including age cohorts born after 1950. This means a trend towards a more proportional representation of women with different educational levels in the group of women with three children. O. Kravdal first drew attention to the positive influence of education on the probability of having a third child in Norway in his work using data up to 1989, and this influence persists even if we control other factors of fertility.
Later, similar results were obtained on Swedish data for both the second and the third child, and they were confirmed with respect to the likelihood of having a second child in Norway. As L. Ola suggested, this may mean that large-scale family policy programs in the Scandinavian countries have helped reduce the costs of having a child for educated women.
Later, on the basis of data from the Norwegian census, Kravdal revealed a positive effect of education level on the likelihood of having a second child as well - if we analyze the likelihood of each child separately. However, if you include the probability of the first, second and third children in one model and control the unobservable differences, there is a negative impact on the level of education. It is less pronounced for women born in the 1950s than for older cohorts. Among younger cohorts, the differences in the effect of education on fertility are rather subtle, largely due to the higher proportion of childless women in the well-educated group.
Figure 7. Average number of children a 40-year-old woman has, according to her educational level. Norwegian women born in 1930-1958
A source: Population Statistics System and Educational Statistics System, Statistics Norway.
Recent Norwegian fertility studies have focused on more than just level education, but also on its profile. An interesting result was obtained: the profile of education can act as an even stronger factor in fertility than the level of education. For example, in Norway, T. Lappégard found that the proportion of childless women is almost as low among university-educated nurses and teachers as among women who have completed only secondary school; at the same time, the tendency is fulfilled: women of the first group who have given birth to one child will have more children at the age of 40 than women of the second group. A similar trend is observed in Sweden. The reason for the relatively high birth rate among nurses and teachers may be due to the fact that this group is focused on both family and work, has strong attitudes in both directions. A developed public sector with many jobs and flexible employment opportunities may have prompted ambivalent strategies driven by such attitudes. Another related reason is that workers in these sectors lose little from interruption in terms of future career opportunities and potential earnings, primarily due to the high representation of women and relatively equal income throughout their employment.
4. Family policy
4.1. Norway context
The Norwegian welfare state has a long tradition of ambitious family-oriented social policies. However, this policy was motivated not so much by the desire to increase the birth rate as by the ideology of gender equality and concern for the general well-being of children and their families. Undoubtedly, among the programs that most reduce the cost of having a child is the legislatively enshrined, universal parental leave program, as well as expanded government support for kindergartens.
In Norway, the universal right to paid maternity leave is guaranteed by the National Insurance Act of 1956. To receive this benefit, a mother must have worked for at least 6 out of 10 months before the child is born. Women who do not meet these requirements receive a one-time assistance amounting to (as of 2002) NOK 32,138 (approximately € 3,900). Initially, the benefit period was only 12 weeks and the amount of compensation was small. The situation did not change until 1977, when the period for receiving benefits was increased to 18 weeks, while fathers also received the right to be on such leave for almost the entire period. At the same time, the period of guaranteed job retention (such a guarantee was always given in the case of parental leave) was increased to one year, i.e. parents could take additional, already unpaid leave without fear of losing their jobs. A year later, the amount of compensation was significantly increased and began to cover 100% of earnings for most mothers who had a job before the birth of a child. Then, after almost another decade, the vacation period was further extended and increased several times since 1987, reaching the following options in 1993: 52 weeks with 80% salary compensation or 42 weeks with full compensation. This scheme remains at the present time (as of 2004).
Fathers can also take leave for this entire period, with the exception of 3 weeks before birth and 6 weeks after birth, which are only given to the mother. Fathers can also get 2 weeks of unpaid leave immediately after the baby is born. Typically, fathers use this opportunity, and only a very few are then on vacation the entire period with the child's mother. To encourage both parents to participate in childcare, an amendment was introduced in 1993 to reserve 4 weeks of the "long" portion of parental leave - the so-called "dad quota". Usually these weeks cannot be transferred to the mother, they are simply deducted from the total length of the vacation if the father does not use them. So there is a strong incentive for fathers to take this leave, and experience has shown that the reform has been successful. In 1996, 3 years after its introduction, almost 80% of those eligible for such leave took advantage of the “dad quota”; moreover, the proportion of fathers on long leave with their mother increased from 4% to 12%.
In August 1998, cash payments were introduced to parents who do not use the services of state-subsidized kindergartens, and from January 1999 this program began to cover all children 1-2 years old. The allowance is paid on a monthly basis, is tax-free, the rate is fixed and at the time of introduction was approximately equal to the state aid to pay for a place in a kindergarten. The current (2004) monthly allowance is NOK 3,657 (approximately $ 450). To be eligible for the full benefit, a child does not have to be in a public kindergarten full day (more than 32 hours a week). Parents of children who send their children to a public kindergarten for a shorter period of time may receive a reduced allowance. The new scheme turned out to be very popular: most parents of children of 1-2 years old apply for this benefit. In the spring of 1999, about 4 months after the final introduction of this scheme, 75% of parents of children aged 1-2 years received this allowance, since then their share has remained more or less constant. However, only 5% of recipients are fathers.
Government-subsidized kindergartens expanded rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s and by 2002 reached 56% of preschool children. If you subtract from this share children who are being cared for by parents on parental leave (ie 0-12 months), coverage is 66%. Since kindergarten attendance increases with the age of the child, the coverage of 3-5 year olds in kindergarten is much higher than that of 1-2 year olds: 83% versus 41% in 2002. Kindergarten owners and managers can be public or private enterprises. However, it is possible to receive subsidies for both forms of ownership - the main thing is that the kindergarten has the approval of the state. The subsidy is a contribution to the kindergarten budget based on the number of children attending it. The amount of the subsidy increases depending on the number of hours children spend in the kindergarten and is higher for children 0-2 years old than for other preschool children. Many private kindergartens also receive subsidies at the municipal level.
The basic principle of financing kindergartens is that costs should be shared between the state, municipalities and parents. It was planned that the state will cover 40% of the costs, and the remaining 60% will be divided equally between parents and municipalities. However, due to the proliferation of private kindergartens, the average contribution of municipalities was lower and the average contribution of parents was higher. For example, in 1994, parents paid 44.5% of the cost of maintaining a child in a private kindergarten and 28.8% in a public kindergarten. At the state level, the size of the parental contribution is not regulated. The subject of local self-government, i.e. the municipality or private enterprise can set prices independently. In about half of public kindergartens, parental pay is based on income, while private kindergartens generally use a flat rate that is independent of parental income. However, both public and private kindergartens usually offer a discount if parents bring more than one child to kindergarten. This gives rise to significant variations in the amount paid by the parents for the kindergarten. In 1998, the average amount paid by parents for a full day of kindergarten in large cities and towns was about NOK 3,500 (approximately EUR 430) per month in private kindergartens and slightly less in public ones.
Until the 1990s, Norwegian parental leave and kindergarten policies lagged behind those in other Scandinavian countries. Sweden was ahead of everyone here: the duration of parental leave here was one year already in 1980, and in 1989 it was increased to 15 months. The Swedish program was also more flexible: it provided opportunities to combine leave and part-time work, as well as split the leave into several parts before the child turns 8 years old. In addition, the Swedish program has one unique feature that encourages shortening the time between births - the so-called "speed bonus". Under this provision, the mother is entitled to receive the same benefit as the previous child if she gives birth to the next child within 30 months (up to 1986 - 24 months), even if she does not return to work between births. children.
4.2. Does politics affect fertility?
Not surprisingly, the growth in fertility observed in the Scandinavian countries during the 1980s and 1990s has renewed interest in the question of whether generous family policies can stimulate fertility, and prompted new research in this area. The fundamental point here is the question of how to measure this influence. Of course, in a very rough approximation, conclusions can be drawn based on comparisons between countries: to compare levels and trends in fertility using aggregate statistics. This approach can give a general idea of the possible impact, however, it obviously has many drawbacks, since other factors associated with those included in our analysis can also act at the same time. For example, both fertility and the expansion of family politics can be associated with economic growth and recession. To control biases caused by other factors, you can resort to time series analysis using multivariate analysis techniques. This approach was applied by A. Gauthier and J. Hatzius to analyze the total fertility rate in 1970-1990 based on aggregated data for 22 industrialized countries, using a model that, in addition to the traditional determinants of fertility, included parameters of maternal parental leave (duration and ratio earnings allowance) and child allowance. Their results suggest that the birth rate is directly related to the size of the child allowance; with the parameters of the holiday, no significant connection was found.
As is always the case with aggregated data, the problem remains that the sum of individual behaviors is not necessarily a reflection of the average individual behavior. Therefore, data at the individual level may be more suitable for analyzing the possible impact of family politics. Unfortunately, there is very little such data. Recently, however, there has been a good
For several years now, life in northern Norway has been recognized by experts as the most comfortable in comparison with other countries of the world. In recent years, the kingdom has often been awarded the status of the state with the highest standard of living.
Speaking about the political and economic situation, we can say that the government managed to build the socialism that the Soviet Union only dreamed of. There are neither very rich people nor beggars here. The majority of the population is middle class. It is believed that the more people with an average income level, the more prosperous the country is. It has cheap medicine, preferential loans for education for students, and well-developed social support for the population.
However, Norwegian socialism cannot be called a paradise for everyone. This system has its pros and cons. It is not easy for private entrepreneurs, as pensions and benefits are paid at the expense of high taxes.
Another source of income for the state treasury is the extraction of minerals: oil and gas. Along with the Russian Federation, the kingdom is the largest supplier of natural gas to the European Union, with about 95% supplied by pipeline and only 5% in liquefied form. The largest oil fields are located in the North Sea.
The government of the kingdom has done a very wise thing: back in 1963, a law was passed, according to which absolutely all underwater resources are the property of the state. Thus, only government organizations are eligible to receive income from mining on the continental shelf. Several onshore fields are being developed by large international companies. However, the state seeks to maintain a monopoly there, too, taxing their profits with a triple tax. Up to 75% of the amount that a private company manages to earn in the field of oil production is still returned to the state treasury.
Another secret is effective resource management. For the Russians, it would be quite possible to live in an equally prosperous power, given the supply of oil and gas. However, in Russia, the lion's share of profits ends up in the pockets of officials, while in this kingdom there is no corruption.
When prices per barrel reached $ 80-100, a fund for future generations was established. At the moment, it turns out to put aside up to 20 billion US dollars annually. Obviously, they did not hear about the budget deficit here. In addition, the production cost is quite low due to advanced technologies.
In addition to the material advantages that make moving to this Scandinavian region so attractive, the nature here is simply very beautiful: unique fjords are rocks that rise directly from the water, the sea is bright blue due to a special chemical composition. Despite the developed industry, the authorities pay attention to the environment, so factories and factories do not harm the health of citizens.
Tax system
Since the answer to the question why Norway has the highest standard of living lies in taxes, special attention should be paid to this. The tax code states that the more a person earns, the more he must return back to the state treasury. This is exactly how a balance is achieved between the number of rich and poor people: the one who earns decently is forced to share with less fortunate fellow citizens.
In addition, the duty will have to be paid to the owners of items that can be regarded as luxury: cars, real estate, yachts, antiques, and so on. When earning up to 250 thousand kroons per year, the Norwegian deducts 36%, that is, a third of his income, to the budget. If the annual salary exceeds this number, taxes increase to 50%.
When a foreigner arrives in the country intending to find a job, he must register with the tax office within two weeks and receive an identification number. There are several videos in Russian on the Internet in which migrants talk about their own experience of communicating with the tax authorities.
average salary
Average salary statistics in Norway according to Statistics Norway, Norwegian kroner per month
Teachers earn about 300,000 - 350,000, the same as doctors. The wages of workers are considered the highest in comparison with other countries, but managers and managers receive less than anywhere else. Thus, there are no prestigious and non-prestigious professions here. In the eyes of Russians, a typical situation looks strange when mothers are proud of their sons who have entered a vocational school for the specialty "mechanic", "electrician" or "machinist". Any work is appreciated here.
Overtime is paid at a special rate, such work is considered any activity that lasts more than 7.5 hours a day.
Social programs and benefits from the state
Special preferential terms of loans are provided for those who need housing, and students subsequently give government loans for studies at very low interest rates.
Unemployment benefit in Norway is paid only when the applicant meets the following requirements:
- Before he was fired, the unemployed worked at the enterprise for at least 2 months (8 weeks).
- The foreigner stayed in the country legally and worked under a contract.
- The migrant was able to find a job within three months after the move.
- Students are not eligible to receive unemployment benefits, even if they have worked before.
- The most important requirement is that the applicant should not be a "parasite". A prerequisite is registration at an employment center, visiting this institution every two weeks, actively looking for a new job (interviews, refresher courses, and so on).
The amount of money that an unemployed person receives depends primarily on the level of his income in the previous position. The period during which the assistance is paid is from 52 to 104 weeks.
In addition, unlike the European Union, the institution of the family and fertility are supported here. Although several years ago the legislature approved the right of homosexuals to same-sex marriage, the majority of families here are traditional. It is characteristic that many are not limited to one child, usually some parents have two or three children. For such families, taxes are reduced, babies, their mothers and fathers can enjoy a variety of benefits. The maternity allowance in European currency is about 120 euros, but this amount is not enough for a comfortable existence. The second parent must definitely work.
Prices for food, clothing, transport
Food is expensive, and locals are trying to save money on it, not to mention food in restaurants, which the average citizen can hardly afford. A large pizza at a pizzeria costs about 250 CZK, and a hamburger at a fast food restaurant chain costs 80-120. Prices in Norway for food in 2019 look something like this (numbers are in kroons):
- potatoes, bakery products, cereals - from 5 to 9;
- vegetables: tomatoes, cucumbers, bell peppers - up to 50 in winter;
- chicken - 40;
- fish products: trout, shrimps - 30-40;
- sunflower oil - 40.
Prices for everyday goods - clothes, household chemicals, stationery and other trifles - do not exceed the usual figures for Russians. For some unknown reason, children's clothing is cheaper. But transport is expensive. This is likely due to how much gasoline costs. Despite the fact that this country does not need to purchase raw materials for fuel from abroad, the cost of 1 liter is even higher than that of Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Belgium, Portugal, which import oil. 1 liter of gasoline costs 3 times more than in the Russian Federation.
If a Norwegian needs to get to a neighboring town, the bus trip will cost 50-60 CZK. Buying a car will not save you money because the car will be taxed. If you buy your own transport abroad, you will still have to fork out when crossing the border by paying a fee. Public transport is also expensive, so life in Norway is impossible without bicycles in summer and skis or sledges in winter.
Medical care and education
Only a foreigner who has spent at least 1 year in the kingdom can apply for the preferential medical program. In addition, such a person must monthly deduct a certain amount to the insurance company. Only minors and pregnant women can be treated free of charge. All others can receive free medical care within the amount stipulated by the insurance program; if the costs are exceeded, they will have to pay extra from their own pockets.
Every Norwegian has the right to choose a doctor of their own choosing. The disadvantages include the quality of treatment for mental illness. Due to the northern climate, living in Norway is accompanied by frequent depression, especially among visitors. However, treatment for depression is not covered by insurance, and only treatment for severe mental disorders is provided on preferential terms. These include autism, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy. Dental procedures will also have to be paid out of pocket.
Norwegian education, both school and university, is considered significantly weaker than the European average. But this does not prevent the inhabitants of the northern state from enjoying life and well-being.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Overpopulation of the planet and the subsequent struggle for survival is one of the main fears of civilization over the past centuries. Dystopian writers have more than once described a world without birth control in dark tones.
The problem is global and, most importantly, urgent. Society took the challenge seriously in the mid-1900s, launching reproductive health and family planning programs, from promoting barrier contraception to regulating abortion and managing migration. The measures taken predictably resulted in violent demographic disputes, most of which rested on basic human rights.
Birth control also performs the opposite function, which is important for many countries - it contributes to population growth. For example, one such campaign is being launched by the Thai government. This year, starting from Valentine's Day, that is, from February 14, married women between the ages of 21 and 34 can receive free complexes of nutritional supplements that contribute to a woman's reproductive health.
The experience of various countries pursuing an active demographic policy can be found in the material of Izvestia.
Russia
Our country ranks ninth in terms of population, but the government expects to improve performance and increase the number of citizens, given the size of the territories. 2013 became a transitional year in this matter, when the first natural population growth since 1991 was witnessed. Positive changes were noted in 43 subjects of the federation, and the number of citizens increased by 24 thousand people.
One of the leading instruments for stimulating the birth rate in Russia is maternity capital. During the existence of the program, 7.8 million families received benefits, and the amount of payments almost doubled - from 250 thousand rubles to 453 thousand. Two more factors played an important role: the mortality rate in the country decreased and the average life expectancy increased. For example, in 1995 a Russian citizen lived to be 65 years old, and now the threshold has increased to 71–72 years.
However, of the 146 million people in the Russian Federation, about 68% live in the European part. To attract the population to the east, the Far Eastern Hectare program was developed, within the framework of which any resident of the country can receive a plot of land for free.
Norway
The Scandinavian countries are the champions in demographic stimulation of the population. The fertility rate (the ratio of the number of children born to the number of women) in Norway is approximately 1.8. And they have been able to maintain such an indicator for far from the first year. At the same time, the role of migrants in the process is insignificant, since the birth rate in the regions most saturated with newcomers is close to the national average.
An active demographic policy has been carried out in Norway since the 2000s. Mothers who went to work before the birth of their baby began to receive full wages over the next 42 weeks. Alternatively, they are offered 80% of their salary, but throughout the year.
Norway also provides maternity leave for men. This way, fathers can spend more time with their spouses and children. Few people know, but such a program exists in Russia as well. The head of the family can receive benefits in the same way, but there are strict restrictions: the father's allowance is 40% of the earnings, but the total amount cannot exceed 23,089 rubles.
China
Countries close to or exceeding one billion people face serious overpopulation problems. More than 1.3 billion citizens live in China - according to various sources, 138-144 people per square meter. km. The issue of birth control is very acute in the PRC. In 1979, the Chinese government launched a program called "One Family - One Child", which implied a fine of four to eight average annual income in the region of birth for the second and subsequent children.
The campaign as a whole bore fruit, and by 2000 the number was reduced to 1.2 billion. But the solution to one problem led to the emergence of another: over time, the gender imbalance began to increase, and there were almost 20 million more men in the country than women.
In 2016, the authorities met the citizens halfway and allowed married couples to have two children without penalties. As noted by the director of the National Commission on Health and Family Planning of the People's Republic of China, Wang Peian, it will take at least 20-30 years before they decide to close the program.
It is worth noting that such a policy has another flaw - birth control can lead to an overall aging of the population, but, according to Peian, the main task of the PRC is not to increase the number of labor force, but to improve its quality.
India
One of the most stringent methods of birth control has been implemented in India. In 1976, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi approved the mass sterilization of women and abortion for mothers with two or three children. Those who refused to undergo the procedure in exchange for a monetary reward were forcibly sent to the operation. The reward system also worked in favor of informants who reported large families to the authorities. As a result, about 8 million men and women were sterilized during the year.
Despite the severity of the method, India has returned to it more than once. First, in the 1980s, when about 5 million people agreed to voluntary sterilization, and then in 2011-2012, when about 4.6 million women underwent surgery. In return, they were offered a lump sum payment of 1,400 rupees, an amount exceeding two weeks' wages in some particularly poor regions. The procedures were often carried out in poor conditions, and as a result, more than 1,400 medical interventions led to tragedies. And only in 2016, by a court decision, a decision was made to close all sterilization camps over the next three years.
The United States is an interesting example of demographic regulation. The authorities managed to increase the birth rate without directly interfering with family affairs.
In 2011, the birth rate reached a record low in 90 years: about 3.95 million children were born, that is, 63 children per 1000 women. The reasons were both the economic crisis and the fact that immigrants began to give birth to fewer children. Over the next six years, the total number increased from 311 million to 325 million.
The United States has created very favorable conditions for attracting immigration flow, not to mention social support provided to citizens in particular need. The social and economic policy of the state has led to the fact that life expectancy in the country has increased to 78.4 years, which is seven years higher than the world average. The system of benefits provided by organizations also plays an important role. Many large companies have family support programs: expecting fathers and mothers are given paid family leave, allow work schedules to be tailored, and pay for preschools.
- Death regiment: male workers still die at times more often than women Mortality in Russia by year
- Fertility and Family Policy in Norway: Reflections on Trends and Possible Links Norway Population by Year
- China's new demographic policy China's new demographic policy
- RBC study: how much Russia actually spends on its citizens