[雙語翻譯]生育政策外文翻譯--區(qū)域人口生育政策的問題與展望（英文）

1、ISSN 2079?9705, Regional Research of Russia, 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 71–74. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013. Original Russian Text © O.V. Shipunova, 2012, published in Region: Ekonomika i Sotsiologiya, 2012,

2、 No. 1(73), pp. 174–184.71Depopulation in Russia is affected by two factors: excessive death rates and low birth rates. If most fam? ilies continue to give birth to only one or two children, natural depopulation will be

3、inevitable no matter how low death rates are. In these conditions, the influence of the society and public authorities on fertility, i.e., the most important determinant of the parameters of natural reproduction, appears

4、 to be extremely urgent.An increase in birth rates is a cross?cutting problem with a lot of aspects. To solve this problem, it is neces? sary to integrate and coordinate the activities of fed? eral and regional authoriti

5、es, local administration, public associations, and religious and charity organi? zations.It is impossible to distinguish unambiguously between federal and regional competences. There are three approaches to including thi

6、s relation in regional demographic policy: (1) the demographic policy and, first of all, means of its implementation, must be uni? form for all regions; (2) the demographic policy must be regionalized; and (3) the demogr

7、aphic policy must be based on a reasonable combination of nationwide and regional activities.The clearest distinction between supporters of a uniform fertility policy and advocates of a regionalized one can proceed from

8、the fact what particular researchers think about the potential regionalizationof economic measures of demographic policy and, specifically, the system of monetary benefits. Looking back through history, we can see that i

9、n the 1960s an emphasis was put on a nationwide demo? graphic policy, which was due to the dominance of centralist methods in theory and the practice of the government. Concurrently, the territorial differences, the ethn

10、ic specifics of demographic processes, the structure of the population, and the specifics of family relations were considered incompletely. Because of ideological aims to blur the border between a city and the country si

11、de, equalizing the degree of economic development of different territories, and producing a integrated community across the country, regional demographic research was not encouraged for a long time. That is why a lot of

12、significant regional differ? ences were ignored and a uniform social and economic policy was realized across the entire country, which resulted in serious disproportions and negative effects on the demographic and socioe

13、conomic development of regions. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were different opin? ions among the country’s scientists concerning the regionalization of a fertility policy: some denied it completely (E.L. Manevich) and s

14、ome considered this differentiation to be necessary for the Soviet Union as a multiethnic state (B.Ts. Urlanis, T .V. Ryabushkin, and L.L. Rybakovskii) [1]. The task to pay more atten?POPULATION GEOGRAPHYProblems and Pr

15、ospects of Regional Demographic Fertility PolicyO. V. Shipunova Moscow State University e?mail: oksana.shipynova@mail.ru Received September 08, 2011Abstract—The necessity to reasonably combine federal and regional measur

16、es of fertility policy is substanti? ated. The aspects, objectives, and tasks of regional fertility policy are distinguished. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the experience of Russia’s regions in forming the

17、 organizational, legal, and financial bases of demographic fertility policy. Among the essential problems of statutory and regulatory support of regional fertility policy, the absence of a uniform system of legal acts go

18、verning demographic development is distin? guished. The factors classified by the author as decreasing the quality of organizational support of regional demographic fertility policy in Russia are disassociation and incon

19、sistency in the actions of authorities aimed at improving birth rates and the absence of a due regional and municipal scientific and HR potential. It is proved herein that the inconsistency of spending powers with income

20、 sources for regional fertility policy and the replacement of basic means of ensuring proper budget income with target financing makes authorities develop their demographic measures not according to the reasonability of

21、expenses necessary to achieve defined objectives but proceeding from the remaining opportunities; as a result, regional fertility policy is often declarative.Keywords: territorial birth rate differentiation, regional aut

22、horities, regionalization, budget provision, hous? ing conditionsDOI: 10.1134/S2079970513010103REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA Vol. 3 No. 1 2013PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC FERTILITY POLICY 73organizational

23、 and economic body—the Council for the Realization of Demographic Policy. In some regions, namely, Chelyabinsk, Kirov , and Lipetsk oblasts and the Republic of Mordovia, such bodies have already been established.Very oft

24、en regional measures of demographic pol? icy, being complementary to the national policy, do not have scientific support. In addition, there is no practical procedure for assessing the efficacy of the current demographic

25、 policy. Usually, subfederal and municipal establishments do not have due scientific and human resource potential necessary to implement demographic policy [8].Despite all the importance of the statutory, organi? zationa

26、l, and human resource framework, a fertility policy without substantial economic expenditures will remain declarative. It is therefore necessary to ensure the clear and legal separation of duties and compe? tences in dem

27、ographic policy among different institu? tions of public authority and, at the same time, provide them with necessary sources of income.Regional spending on fertility policy measures are financed at the expense of budget

28、s of different levels and nonbudgetary funds: measures established by the federal legislation are related to federal budget expen? ditures; measures stipulated at the federal level are reg? ulated and financed by federal

29、 subjects; and measures established and regulated by regions are financed from regional budgets.In the federal budget, expenditures on demo? graphic policy are included in the expanded item “expenditures on social and cu

30、ltural activities,” which also includes expenses on social policy, healthcare, physical education, education, culture, art, cinema? tography, and mass media.Pregnancy and delivery benefits, lump sum benefits to women reg

31、istered at healthcare establishments at the beginning of their pregnancy, lump?sum childbirth benefits, and monthly childcare benefits are paid by the Social Security Fund. Similar benefits are paid from the federal budg

32、et to women that undergo mili? tary service and receive full?time education. Maternity capital payments, monthly childcare benefits to peo? ple caring after their children in reality but ineligible for social security, a

33、nd subsidies to regional budgets for partial compensations of parental income spent on care after children in public and municipal educa? tional establishments are also financed from the fed? eral budget.Medical services

34、 rendered by public and municipal healthcare establishments to women during pregnancy and delivery are financed from the Social Security Fund in the form of delivery certificates.Monthly childcare benefits are paid from

35、the bud? gets of federal subjects. Considering that the amount and the order of setting, indexing, and paying these benefits are fixed by laws and other regional regulatoryacts, there are reasons to believe that the diff

36、erences in family support among regions may increase. The regional experience of implementing measures not stipulated by the federal legislation deserves special interest. These measures can be divided into two groups: (

37、1) additional financial support for federal measures on a region’s initiative and at its expense; (2) specific mea? sures implemented in particular territories. One of the essential socioeconomic measures aimed at improv

38、ing fertility is assistance to families in improving their housing conditions. In particular, young families in many regions have their debts (loan repayment) partially written off when children are born. The writing?off

39、 is done in different ways: by decreasing the cost of a certain number of square meters of housing (in Omsk, Lipetsk, Samara, and Kurgan oblasts), deducing a certain percentage from the cost of housing (in the Chavash Re

40、publish; Omsk, Irkutsk, and Moscow oblasts; and Altai krai), and in the form of a fixed sum (in the Yamalo–Nenets Autonomous Okrug and Belgorod oblast). In certain regions, amounts written?off depend on the order of a ch

41、ild born, for instance, in the Republic of Bashkor? tostan; Republic of Mordovia; Sakha (Yakutia) Republic; Udmurt Republic; Kaluga, Ryazan, and Sakhalin oblasts; and in Moscow. In some federal subjects, additional lump?

42、sum childbirth benefits and monthly benefits for children of 1.5–3 years of age are paid. Concurrently, with every next child born, families are usually paid higher benefits, which is certainly an encouraging factor. In

43、the Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Karelia, Republic of Mordovia, and Kaluga, Lipetsk, Murmansk, Omsk, Saratov , Sverd? lovsk, and Yaroslavl oblasts, families with many chil? dren (or needy

44、families) are paid higher monthly ben? efits for their minor children. In Moscow and Penza oblast, authorities make attempts to influence not only the number of children in a family but also the time of their birth by pa

45、ying additional benefits when children are born in the first one to three years of marriage. In all regions parents have allowances for enrolling their children in preschool facilities (20–100% of the spending, depending

46、 on the number of children, standing, and degree of prosperity). Particular atten? tion should be paid to the experience of Kamchatka krai, Kaliningrad oblast, and the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic in adopting different forms

47、 of preschool education (short?time groups, home kindergartens, centers for disorganized children, and family tutoring services). Organization of vocational studies for unemployed women with children under three years of

48、 age has also become widespread. Family education and entertainment projects (clubs for young families, mothers’ schools, theme festivities, etc.) are being actively adopted as well. Currently, there are considerable dif