DELEGATING PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ON PARENTAL LEAVE: OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRANSFORMATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2304-3369-2023-4-54-67Keywords:
parental leave, parental labor, subjects of parental labor, relatives, grandparents, baby-sitters, “family-work” conflict, family policy, demographic policyAbstract
Introduction. In recent decades, despite the introduction of new economic measures to support families with children, a steady decline in birth rate has been observed in Russia. According to the researchers, negative reproductive attitudes may stem from the highly likely conflict between family and work, which families face after childbirth. A Russian demographic policy measure to mitigate this conflict could be the paren- tal leave regulation. Despite the fact that the Russian labor legislation guarantees parental leave not only for mothers, but also for fathers or other child’s relatives, it is mothers, who most often use this right. Prolonged absence from labor market may cause difficulties for women on their returning to work. As a result, parents need to delegate parental functions to other subjects - grandparents, uncles and aunts, nannies or babysit- ters. The purpose of the research is to identify opportunities for parental leave system transformation as a demographic policy measure based on sociological assessments of delegating parental functions to non- parents during parental leave.
Materials and methods. The empirical basis of the research was a survey of parents whose families for that time had the right for parental leave. 1000 people living in different federal districts of Russia were surveyed.
Results. A rather weak parental functions implementation by other subjects was revealed until the child reaches the age of 1.5 years, with the need to increase the workload of grandparents during this period. Moreover, a need to delegate part of household functions to nannies and other child’s relatives was identified.
Discussion. Applying several tools at a time can contribute to resolving the conflict between family and work among working parents - stimulating more active childcare involvement of non-parents (for example, introducing maternity leave for non-working grandparents or material compensation of their childcare costs), possibility to use childcare leave by two family members at the same time with a reduction in the leave period, active outreach efforts to inform population about the existing measures to support families with children.
References
1. ISHIZUKA, P. (2021). The Motherhood Penalty in Context: Assessing Discrimination in a Polarized Labor Market. Demography, 58(4), 1275–1300. https://doi. org/10.1215/00703370-9373587.
2. БАГИРОВА А. П., БЛЕДНОВА Н. Д. Совмещение профессионального и родительского труда в оценках уральских женщин: объективные и субъективные барьеры // Женщина в российском обществе. 2021. № S. С. 150–167. DOI 10.21064/ WinRS.2021.0.10. EDN RQREMU.
3. ОСТАПЧУК С. В., КЛЕЩЕНОК М. И. Взаимосвязь уровня удовлетворенности браком и эмоционального труда у женщин // Вестник Полоцкого государственного университета. Серия Е. Педагогические науки. 2019. № 15. С. 49–54. EDN SQCRTB.
4. DUVANDER, A.-Z., EYDAL, G. B., BRANDTH, B., GÍS- LASON, I. V., LAMMI-TASKULA, J., & ROSTGAARD, T. (2019). Gender equality: Parental Leave design and evalu- ating its effects on fathers’ participation. In P. Moss, A.-Z. Duvander, & A. Koslowski (Eds.) Parental Leave and Beyond: Recent InTernational Developments, Current Issues and Future Directions (pp. 187–204). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447338772.003.0011.
5. KOSLOWSKI, A., BLUM, S., DOBROTIĆ, I., KAUFMAN, G., & MOSS, P. (2022). 18th International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research. https://doi. org/10.18445/20220909-122329-0.
6. БОРИСЕНКО Ю. В. Особенности ценностного отношения к отцовству детей вовлеченных и невовлеченных отцов // Известия Иркутского государственного университета. Серия: Психология. 2018. Т. 24, . С. 23–33. DOI 10.26516/23041226.2018.24.23. EDN XRTQXJ.
7. ГРУЗДЕВ В. В., ГРУЗДЕВА М. Л., ЕРШОВ В. Н., СМИРНОВ В. А. Семейные ценности и нормы, регулирующие семейные отношения // Теория государства и права. 2022. № 2 (27). С. 109–127. DOI 10.47905/MATGIP.2022.27.2.010. EDN FTFZXE.
8. ЯНАК А. Л. Отцовская вовлеченность в семьях различных типов // Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н.И. Лобачевского. Серия: Социальные науки. 2018. №2(50). С.124–131. EDNXWPOOD.
9. КОЗЛОВА Н. Н., РАССАДИН С. В. Отцовские сообщества в современной России: дискурсы и практики // Социальные и гуманитарные знания. 2023. Т. 9, № 1. С. 44–57. DOI 10.18255/2412- 6519-2023-1-44-57. EDN QXYESH.
10. РОСТОВСКАЯ Т. К., ЕГОРЫЧЕВ А. М. Особенности межпоколенных взглядов на формирование представлений о семейных ролях // ЦИТИСЭ. 2022. № 1 (31). С. 170–186. DOI 10.15350/2409-7616.2022.1.14. EDN LPGBLA.
11. БАТУРИНА Н. В. Изменение представлений о гендерных ролях в семье (на примере Сибирского федерального университета) // Мир науки. Социология, филология, культурология. 2020. Т. 11, № 3. С. 12 EDN JICAFL.
12. БЕЛЕХОВА Г. В., ИВАНОВСКАЯ А. Л. Удовлетворенность балансом труда и семьи: взгляд работающих женщин (региональный аспект) // Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденции, прогноз. 2022. Т. 15, № 1. С. 209–222. DOI 10.15838/esc.2022.1.79.11. EDN DOIXRG.
13. ГОЛЕВА М. А. Социальное значение времени в семье с детьми (на примере многодетных семей) // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2019. №3(151). С. 239–260. DOI 10.14515/monitoring.2019.3.14. EDN IFKQEX.
14. ИЛЬВЕС Э. В. Родительский труд как феномен прекаризированной занятости // Демографические процессы на постсоветском пространстве : сборник материалов VI Уральского демографического форума с международным участием (Екатеринбург, 4-5 июня 2015 г.) / под ред. А. И. Татаркина, А. И. Кузьмина. Екатеринбург : Институт экономики Уральского отделения РАН, 2015. С. 293–297. EDN UMEFHB.
15. ЧЕРЕШОВА С. В. Мотивы субъекта родительского труда: теоретико-методологический аспект // Современные исследования социальных проблем (электронный научный журнал). 2017. Т. 8, № 12-1. С. 124–140. EDN YNZYSL.
16. СИВАК Е. В. Установки интенсивного материнства и уберизация заботы о детях // Психология семьи в современном мире : сборник материалов Международной научно-практической конференции (Екатеринбург, 18-19 октября 2017 г.) / под ред. Н. Н. Васягиной, Е. А. Казаевой. Екатеринбург, 2017. С. 302–306. EDN YUMAIX.
17. РОМАНОВСКАЯ М. А. Социально-психологические типы мам детей, воспитывающихся в семье с наемным работником (няней) // Вестник Московского государственного областного университета. Серия: Психологические науки. 2016. № 1. С. 44–53. DOI 10.18384/2310-7235-2016-1-44-53. EDN VXKNTD.
18. ПШЕНИЧНИКОВА М. М. Родительский труд как объект экономического анализа // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. 2010. № 39 (204). С. 23–29. EDN MWITSF.
19. HERBST, C. M. (2013). The impact of non-pa- rental child care on child development: Evidence from the summer participation. Journal of Public Econom- ics, 105, 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco. 2013.06.003.
20. CLARKE-STEWART, A., & MINER, J. L. (2008). Child and Day Care, Effects of. In M. M. Haith, & J. B. Benson (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development (pp. 268–278). https:// doi.org/10.1016/b978-012370877-9.00033-5.
21. KUCAB, M., KEOWN-STONEMAN, C., BIRKEN, C., PERLMAN, M., & MAGUIRE, J. (2022). Centre-Based Child Care Attendance in Early Childhood and Growth in Later Childhood: A Prospective Cohort Study. Current Developments in Nutrition, 6(1), Article 1069. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzac070.028.
22. KEMP, C. L. (2007). Grandparent - grandchild ties. Reflections on continuity and change across three generations. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 855– 881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07299599.
23. SARTI, R. (2010). Who cares for me? Grand- parents, nannies and babysitters caring for children in contemporary Italy. Paedagogica Historica, 46, 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2010.526347.
24. YUNRONG, L. (2017). The effects of formal and informal child care on the Mother’s labor supply – Evidence from urban China. China Economic Review, 44, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.04.011.
25. КОЗЬМИНА Я. Я., СИВАК Е. В. Влияют ли на родительскую самоэффективность разногласия с родственниками по поводу правил воспитания и ухода за ребенком? // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2015. Т. 18, № 4. С. 65–81. EDN VKQMIH.
26. ЗДРАВОМЫСЛОВА Е. А. Няни: коммерциализация заботы // Новый быт в современной России: гендерные исследования повседневности : труды факультета политических наук и социологии. Вып. 17 / под ред. Е. А. Здравомысловой, А. Роткирх, А. А. Темкиной. Санкт-Петербург : Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге, 2009. С. 94–136. EDN XNGZQT.
27. БАГИРОВА А. П., БЛЕДНОВА Н. Д., ВОРОШИЛОВА А. И., НЕШАТАЕВ А. В., САИТОВА Д. Г., ШМАРОВА И. В., ШУБАТ О. М. Прародительский труд как ресурс российской демографической политики: оценки, прогнозы, возможности реализации : монография. Екатеринбург : Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина, 2022. 210 с. EDN TURSLM.
REFERENCES
1. ISHIZUKA, P. (2021). The Motherhood Penalty in Context: Assessing Discrimination in a Polarized Labor Market. Demography, 58(4), 1275–1300. https:// doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9373587.
2. BAGIROVA, A. P., & BLEDNOVA, N. D. (2021). Combination of professional and parental labor in assessments of Ural women: Objective and subjective barriers. Woman in Russian Society, (S), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.21064/WinRS.2021.0.10.
3. OSTAPCHUK, S. V., & KLESHCHENOK, M. I. (2019). Relationship between marital satisfaction and emo- tional labor in women. Herald of Polotsk State Uni- versity. Series E. Pedagogical Sciences, (15), 49–54. https://elibrary.ru/sqcrtb.
4. DUVANDER, A.-Z., EYDAL, G. B., BRANDTH, B., GÍS- LASON, I. V., LAMMI-TASKULA, J., & ROSTGAARD, T. (2019).
Gender equality: Parental Leave design and evalu- ating its effects on fathers’ participation. In P. Moss, A.-Z. Duvander, & A. Koslowski (Eds.) Parental Leave and Beyond: Recent InTernational Developments, Current Issues and Future Directions (pp. 187–204). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/ 9781447338772.003.0011.
5. KOSLOWSKI, A., BLUM, S., DOBROTIĆ, I., KAUFMAN, G., & MOSS, P. (2022). 18th International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research. https://doi. org/10.18445/20220909-122329-0.
6. BORISENKO, YU. V. (2018). Specificity of value attitude towards paternity of children of engaged and non-engaged fathers. The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series: Psychology, 24, 23–33. https://doi. org/10.26516/2304-1226.2018.24.23.
7. GRUZDEV, V. V., GRUZDEVA, M. L., ERSHOV, V. N., & SMIRNOV, V. A. (2022). Family values and norms reg- ulating family relations. Theory of State and Law, (2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.47905/MATGIP.2022.27.2.010.
8. YANAK, A. L. (2018). Father involvement in different types of families. Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod. Series: Social Sciences, (2), 124–131. https://elibrary.ru/xwpood.
9. KOZLOVA, N. N., & RASSADIN, S. V. (2023). Paternal communities in modern Russia: Discourses and practices. Social’nye i Gumanitarnye Znania, 9(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.18255/2412-6519-2023-1-44-57.
10. ROSTOVSKAYA, T. K., & EGORYCHEV, A. M. (2022). Features of intergenerational views for the formation of ideas about family roles. CITISE, (1), 170–186. https://doi.org/10.15350/2409-7616.2022.1.14.
11. BATURINA, N. V. (2020). Changes in the gender roles representation in family (the example of Sibe- rian Federal University). The world of science. Soci- ology, philology, cultural studies, 11(3), Article 12. https://elibrary.ru/jicafl.
12. BELEKHOVA, G. V., & IVANOVSKAYA, A. L. (2022). Satisfaction with the work-life balance: Working women’s view (regional aspect). Economic and So- cial Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 15(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2022.1.79.11.
13. GOLEVA, M. A. (2019). The social significance of time in a family with children (on the example of large families). Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, (3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.3.14.
14. ILVES, E. V. (2015). Parental labour as phenomenon of precarious employment. In A. I. Tatar- kin, & A. I. Kuzmin (Eds.) Demographic processes in the post-Soviet space (pp. 293–297). Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. https://elibrary.ru/umefhb.
15. CHERESHOVA, S. V. (2017). The motivation of the subject of parental labor: Theory and methodology. Modern research of social problems (electronic scientific journal), 8(12-1), 124–140. https://elibrary.ru/ ynzysl.
16. SIVAK, E. V. (2017). Intensive motherhood and uberization of childcare. In N. N. Vasyagina, & E. A. Ka- zaeva (Eds.) Family psychology in the modern world (pp. 302–306). https://elibrary.ru/yumaix.
17. ROMANOVSKAYA, M. A. (2016). Socio-psychological types of mothers bringing up children in fam- ilies with a wage worker (a baby-sitter). Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Psychology, (1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7235-2016-1-44-53.
18. PSHENICHNIKOVA, M. I. (2010). Parental labor as an object of economic analysis. Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, (39), 23–29. https://elibrary.ru/ mwitsf.
19. HERBST, C. M. (2013). The impact of non-paren- tal child care on child development: Evidence from the summer participation. Journal of Public Econom- ics, 105, 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco. 2013.06.003.
20. CLARKE-STEWART, A., & MINER, J. L. (2008). Child and Day Care, Effects of. In M. M. Haith, & J. B. Benson (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development (pp. 268–278). https:// doi.org/10.1016/b978-012370877-9.00033-5.
21. KUCAB, M., KEOWN-STONEMAN, C., BIRKEN, C., PERLMAN, M., & MAGUIRE, J. (2022). Centre-Based
Child Care Attendance in Early Childhood and Growth in Later Childhood: A Prospective Cohort Study. Current Developments in Nutrition, 6(1), Article 1069. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzac070.028.
22. KEMP, C. L. (2007). Grandparent - grandchild ties. Reflections on continuity and change across three generations. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 855– 881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07299599.
23. SARTI, R. (2010). Who cares for me? Grand- parents, nannies and babysitters caring for children in contemporary Italy. Paedagogica Historica, 46, 789– 802. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2010.526347.
24. YUNRONG, L. (2017). The effects of formal and informal child care on the Mother’s labor supply –Evidence from urban China. China Economic Review, 44, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017. 04.011.
25. KOZMINA, YA. YA., & SIVAK, E. V. (2015). Does disagreement over child-rearing rules affect parental self-efficacy?. The Journal of Sociology and Social An- thropology, 18(4), 65–81. https://elibrary.ru/vkqmih.
26. ZDRAVOMYSLOVA, E. A. (2009). Babysitters: the commercialization of care. In E. A. Zdravomyslova,
A. Rotkirch, & A. A. Temkina (Eds.) New way of lifein modern Russia: gender studies of everyday life (pp. 94–136). European University at St. Petersburg. https://elibrary.ru/xngzqt.
27. BAGIROVA, A. P., BLEDNOVA, N. D., VOROSHILOV, A. I., NESHATAEV, A. V., SAITOVA, D. G., SHMAROVA, I. V., & SHUBAT, O. M. (2022). Ancestral labor as a resource for russian demographic policy: Estimates, forecasts, implementation possibilities. Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin. https://elibrary.ru/turslm.
