THE PARENTING PROJECT: MOTIVATION, COSTS, RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND THE REGULATORY MECHANISM
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article analyzes a research gap: the insufficient integration of economic and sociological mechanisms aimed at studying costs in the context of parenthood, as well as the formation of tools for inducing population reproduction. The article demonstrates how the profitability of the "Parenthood" project affects its investment attractiveness from the side of direct participants in the reproduction process (the child's parents). The goal is to identify the economic attractiveness of the "Parenthood" project by calculating the author's indicator - the cost of acquiring human capital (Human Capital Acquisition Cost). Methodological basis: publicly available data sources reflecting demographic and socio-economic indicators at the level of the Republic of Belarus and foreign countries. Results: The "Parenthood" project does not have signs of investment attractiveness due to the long payback period. However, the investment involvement of direct and indirect participants in the reproduction process can be regulated through a high-quality selection of project parameters. The results obtained can be used in the development of family and pronatalist policies, as well as in socioeconomic studies of labor and demography.
Further research requires empirical verification on regional samples, including small economies that are close in socio-economic structure to the Belarusian economy.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Пшеничникова М.М. Родительский труд как объект экономического анализа // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. – 2010. – № 39(204). – С. 23–29. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/roditelskiy-trud-kak-obekt-ekonomicheskogo-analiza/viewer.
Багирова А.П., Бледнова Н.Д., Нещатаев А.В. Факторное моделирование мнений российских родителей о влиянии системы отпусков по уходу за ребенком на рождаемость // Население и экономика. – 2024. – № 8(2). – С. 97–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.8.e106333.
Stearns S. C. Trade-offs in life-history evolution // Functional ecology. – 1989. – Vol. 3/ – P. 259–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2389364.
Death, hope, and sex: life-history theory and the development of reproductive strategies [and comments and reply] / J. S. Chisholm, P. T. Ellison, J. Evans et al. // Current anthropology. – 1993. – № 34. – P. 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/204131
Ellis B. J., Figueredo A. J., Brumbach B. H., Schlomer G. L. Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk // Human nature. – 2009. – Vol. 20. – P. 204–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7.
Подольная Н.Н. Экономическая пассивность населения на рынке труда // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. – 2015. – № 14. –С. 38–45.
Винокуров Е.Ф., Винокурова Н.А. Предложение на российском рынке труда: гендерный аспект // Народонаселение. – 2021. – Т. 24, № 3. – С. 191–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2021.24.3.15.
Леонова В.А., Никулина И.Е. Развитие гендерных подходов в экономике труда // Экономика труда. – 2025. – Т. 12, № 1. – С. 25–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18334/et.12.1.122482
Колянов А.Ю. Профессиональная гендерная сегрегация в научном дискурсе: тенденции и противоречия // Дискурс. – 2023. – Т. 9, № 6. – С. 90–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2023-9-6-90-100
Goldin C. Understanding the Economic Impact of COVID-19 on Women // NBER. – 2022. – P. 65–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w29974.
Baizan P., Arpino B., Delclòs C-E. The Effect of Gender Policies on Fertility: The Moderating Role of Education and Normative Context // European Journal of Population. – 2016. – Vol. 32. – P. 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9356-y.
Воронов Ю.П. Женщина в семье и на рынке труда (о Нобелевской премии по экономике в 2023 г.) // ЭКО. – 2024. – № 1. – С. 246–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2024-1-246-256.
Панов А.М. Гендерный анализ российского рынка труда // Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденции, прогноз. – 2014. – № 3(33). – С. 235–247.
Hipp L., Kelley K. Gender differences in paid work over time: Developments and challenges in comparative research // PLoS ONE. – 2025. – 20(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322871.
Philipov D. The effect of competing intentions and behaviour on short-term childbearing intentions and subsequent childbearing // European Journal of Population. – 2009. – Vol. 25. – P. 525–548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9197-7
Kariman N., Simbar M., Ahmadi F., Vedadhir A. A. Concerns about one's own future or securing child's future: paradox of childbearing decision making // Health (NY). – 2014. – Vol. 6. – P. 1019–1029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2014.610128.
Langdridge D., Sheeran P., Connolly K. Understanding the reasons for parenthood // Journal of reproductive and infant psychology. – 2025. – Vol. 23. – P. 121–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830500129438.
Mayer B., Trommsdorff G. Adolescents’ value of children and their intentions to have children: a cross-cultural and multilevel analysis // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. – 2010. – Vol. 41. – P. 671–689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110372195.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior // Organizational behavior and human decision process. – 1991. – Vol. 50. – P. 179–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen I., Klobas J. Fertility intentions // Demographic research. – 2013. – Vol. 29. – P. 203–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8.
Miller W. B. Why some women fail to use their contraceptive method: a psychological investigation // Family Planning Perspectives. – 1986. – Vol. 18. –P. 27–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2135198.
Greenberg J., Pyszczynski T., Solomon S. The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: a terror management theory // In Public self and private self (ed. Baumeister RF.). Springer, 1986. – P. 189–212.
Zhou X., Liu J., Chen C., Yu Z. Do children transcend death? An examination of the terror management function of offspring // Scandinavian journal of psychology. – 2008. – Vol. 49. –P. 413–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00665.x.
Aarssen L. Explaining below-replacement fertility and increasing childlessness in wealthy countries: legacy drive and the ‘transmission competition’ hypothesis // Evolutionary Psychology. – 2006. – Vol. 4. – P. 290–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400125.
Aarssen L., Altman S. Fertility preference is inversely related to ‘legacy drive’ in women, but not in men: interpreting the evolutionary roots, and future, of the ‘childfree’ culture // Open Behaviour. Science. – 2012. – Vol. 6. – P. 37–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874230001206010037.
Kaplan H., Lancaster J. B., Tucker W. T., Anderson K. G. Evolutionary approach to below replacement fertility // American Journal of Human Biology. – 2002. – Vol. 14. – P. 233–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.10041.
Boldrin M., Nardi M., Jones J.E. Fertility and Social Security // Journal of Demographic Economics. – 2005. – Vol. 81(3). – P. 261–299.
Kagitcibasi C., Ataca B. Value of children and family change: a three-decade portrait from Turkey // Applied psychology. – 2005. – Vol. 54. – P. 317–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00213.x.
Seedat S., Rondon M. Women’s wellbeing and the burden of unpaid work // BMJ. – 2021. – 374(1972). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1972.
Braunstein E., Seguino S., Altringer L. Estimating the role of social reproduction in economic growth // Care, work and the economy. (CWE-GAM working paper series). – 2019. – Vol. 19-02. – 42 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17606/rv6p-6f66.
Finlay J. Women’s reproductive health and economic activity: A narrative review // World Development. – 2021. – Vol. 139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105313.
Ильвес Э.В. Родительский труд как неустойчивая занятость: принципы оценки // Экономика труда. – 2017. – Т. 4, № 3. – С. 257–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18334/et.4.3.38322.
Newson L., Postmes T., Lea S. E. G., Webley P., Richerson P. J., Mcelreath R. Influences on communication about reproduction: the cultural evolution of low fertility // Evolution and Human Behavior. – 2007. – Vol. 28. – P. 199–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.01.003.
Wilson E. K., Koo H. P. The relationship context: its effects on low-income women's desire for a baby // Journal of Marriage and Family. – 2006. – Vol. 68. – P. 1326–1340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00331.x.
Carter M., Kraft J. M., Hock-Long L., Hatfield-Timajchy K. Relationship characteristics and feelings about pregnancy among Black and Puerto Rican young adults // Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health. – 2013. – Vol. 45. – P. 148–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1363/4514813.
Rijken A. J., Thomson E. Partners’ relationship quality and childbearing // Social science research. – 2011. – Vol. 40. – P. 485–497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.10.001.
Chipman A., Morrison E. Family planning: fertility and parenting ideals in urban adolescents // Archives of Sexual Behavior. – 2014. – Vol. 44. – P. 695–703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0254-2.
Waynforth D. Grandparental investment and reproductive decisions in the longitudinal 1970 British cohort study // Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. – 2012. – Vol. 279. – P. 1155–1160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1424.
Straits B. C. Factors influencing college women's responses to fertility decision-making vignettes // Journal of Marriage and the Family. – 1985. – Vol. 47. – P. 585–596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/352260.
Guedes M., Pereira M., Pires R., Carvalho P., Canavarro M. C. Childbearing motivations scale: construction of a new measure and its preliminary psychometric properties // Journal of Child and Family Studies. – 2015. – Vol. 24. – P. 180–194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9824-0.
Trommsdorff G., Nauck B. (eds). The value of children in cross-cultural perspective. – Lengerich: Pabst, 2005. – 280 р.
Zare Z., Saffari E., Tabar R. K. Fertility Motivations and their Relation with Attitude towards Government Incentives for Childbearing in Women of Reproductive Age // Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. – 2018. – Vol. 28(162). – P. 104–114.
Rajati R., Khadivzade T., Esmaeili H., Danesh F. Female or Male Fertility Motivation? Which One Determines the Number of Children? (A Comparative Study) // Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. – 2023. – Vol. 28. – P. 144–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_189_21.
Борисенко Я.А. (препринт). Влияние гендерного равенства на рождаемость. – Preprint series of the economic department 0038. URL: https://www.econ.msu.ru/sys/raw.php?o=82790&p=attachment (Дата обращения: 13.08.2025).
Miller A. R. The effects of motherhood timing on career path. Journal of population economics // Journal of the European Society for Population Economics (ESPE). – 2011. – Vol. 24(3). – P. 1071-1101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-009-0296-x.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- R. SARVARY, I. ZYANKOVA, THE FINTECH INDUSTRY IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, Vestnik of Polotsk State University. Part D. Economic and legal sciences: No. 5 (2022)
- R. SARVARY, I. ZYANKOVA, THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF FINTECH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, Vestnik of Polotsk State University. Part D. Economic and legal sciences: No. 6 (2022)