(Published in the magazine "Spero" No. 5 2006, p. 134-150)

1. Fertility - an issue for prime ministers?

Former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's traditional New Year's greeting in 2001 may have surprised some viewers. Instead of starting his speech as usual with words about the development of the economy, he congratulated Norwegian parents and especially mothers for having so many children over the past year. He emphasized that in no other Western country do women give 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 shows citizens' optimism about the future, as well as the "quality" of Norwegian society. The Prime Minister did not explain what was meant by “quality”, but mentioned that Norwegian women are very successful at combining child-rearing and paid work - perhaps by “quality” he means a society that helps implement these two strategies.

This paper analyzes the possible relationship between fertility and family policy in Norway. We will begin with a comparative analysis of Norwegian fertility trends: primarily relative to other Scandinavian countries, but two low-fertility countries from the European and Asian regions will also be mentioned - Spain and Japan. We will then try to explain current Norwegian fertility trends by looking at individual components of fertility. Finally, family policy in Norway will be briefly outlined and the possible impact of family policy will be discussed in more detail.

2. Opposite trends in fertility

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 fallen 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

Source: Recent demographic developments in Europe 2001, Council of Europe

Throughout much of the 1970s, fertility rates fell in all Scandinavian countries except Finland, which experienced 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, recording the lowest rate in its history - about 1.4 - also in 1983. Unlike other Scandinavian countries, Finland experienced a brief period of rising fertility in the early 1980s, followed by a temporary decline in 1986–1987 (about 1.6 per woman).

The increase in fertility in all Scandinavian countries, which began around the mid-1980s, has attracted the attention of researchers and politicians from other regions. The reason, of course, is that this pattern stands in stark contrast to the experience of most other European countries, where fertility continued to fall to unprecedentedly low levels. This decline was particularly noticeable in Southern and Eastern European countries. As an example, let’s compare Norway and Spain (see Fig. 2). As in Norway, the birth rate in Spain fell in the 1970s, although at first less rapidly. However, unlike Norway, the decline here did not stop by the early 1980s, but continued into 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 occurred in Japan (also see Fig. 2). As in other countries, Japan's fertility rate has fallen more or less evenly since the early 1970s, from over 2 to under 1.4 (it was recorded at 1.35 in 2000). 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

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 one option is often pointed to the relatively generous family policy in Scandinavia, including long paid parental leave, as well as a developed (though still not fully sufficient) network of subsidized state preschool institutions. These policies clearly reduce the costs of childbearing and may therefore encourage women to have children. It is therefore not surprising that the hypothesis of a positive impact of government policies on fertility has received renewed interest. We will return to this issue a little later, but first let's look at the latest trends in fertility using the example of a country with a high birth rate - we will talk about Norway.

3. Beyond Norwegian trends

3.1. Delayed childbearing

Generations of women born after World War II found themselves in an opportunity structure that differed in many respects from that available to previous generations. The development of contraception and simplified abortion options allowed women to choose more freely When give birth to a child and How many have children. At the same time, increased levels of education and increased access to the labor market have significantly increased women's economic independence. At the same time, gender equality increased, and new forms of family organization became widespread, especially living together without registering a marriage.

All of these factors contributed to the delay in childbearing that we have seen in Norway in the past decades. Among all women born after 1935, those born around 1950 had their first child at the youngest age (Figure 3). Half of them became mothers at 22.8 years, while the median age of a woman giving birth to her first child among younger age cohorts gradually increased and for women born in 1970 was 26.7 years. The bottom quartile of the age distribution for first-time mothers (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 continues: the lowest quartile for the 1974 cohort. was 23.8 years.

Figure 3. Median and lower quartile age at first birth: Norwegian women born 1935-1974

Source: Population Statistics System, Statistics Norway

Postponing having a first child is more common in certain groups, with educational attainment being an important dividing line. Even if postponing motherhood is observed in all educational groups (see Fig. 4), the leaders in this indicator are still the most educated women: among them, this trend can be traced back to the cohort born in 1945. In the least educated group, the aging of motherhood was not observed for much longer—until the cohorts born in the mid-1950s. Educational differences between generations become apparent at the age when a woman has her first child. Among women born in 1950 the median age at first birth 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. - 21.9 and 30.7 years, respectively. Thus, the difference between the most and least educated groups increased by a whole year - from 7.8 years for the cohort born in 1950. up to 8.8 years for the cohort born in 1967.

Figure 4. Median age at first birth, by education level. Norwegian women born 1935-1974

Source: Population Statistics System and Educational Statistics Systems, Statistics Norway.

The increase in educational levels in post-war generations clearly influenced the increase in the mother's age 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 lower secondary education fell from more than 40% to less than 10%, with this proportionally increased the share of people with higher education (see Table 1). The number of groups with incomplete higher education has increased most of all, but the share of women with complete higher education (more than four years of university study) is still small - only 5% of women born in 1965.

Table 1. Highest level of education received among women born in 1935-1965

Cohort by year of birth	Proportion (%) of those who completed education at the level:
Cohort by year of birth	Primary or incomplete secondary (1-9 years)	Completed secondary (10-12 years)	University, incomplete higher education (13-16 years old)	University, full higher education (17-20 years old)

Source: Educational Statistics System, Statistics Norway.

3.2. More and more childless?

When women postpone having a child more and more, a natural question arises: does this not lead to an increase in the number of childless women? Consider the situation with cohorts of Norwegian women. The trend of postponing childbirth began with women born in the early 1950s, of whom about 10% remained childless, which is very low by international standards. For younger cohorts still of childbearing age, it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. However, the proportion of women who are childless at age 40 has increased from 9.8% in the cohort born in 1950. up to 12.6% in the cohort born in 1960 (see Table 2), while for 35-year-olds this share was 11.6% in the cohort born in 1950. and 16.5% in the cohort born in 1963. . Even if younger cohorts fill some of the fertility gap compared to older cohorts, it is unlikely that the proportion of childless among them will remain at the 10% level that is the case for the latter. So far, available data indicates a slight increase in the number of childless women.

The share of childless women increases markedly with increasing levels of education (see Figure 5). Among women born 1954-1958 19% of women from the most educated group and 9% from the least educated group did not have a child at the age of 40. It is interesting, however, to observe contradictory trends in different cohorts. The only group in which the proportion of childless people was 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; Other educational groups have seen an increase in childlessness. Thus, we can talk about convergence in childlessness trends among different educational groups in younger cohorts. There may be more compelling reasons for this, but the interpretation often given is that family policies introduced since the late 1980s have increasingly helped women who do not intend to leave the labor market to combine child-rearing and paid employment. In addition, women with an advanced university degree make up only a very small proportion of older age cohorts, but as the number of women with higher education increases, this proportion also increases. Therefore, the choice they made - 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 educational level. Norwegian women born 1935-1958

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 (about 80% do so, see Figure 6). This proportion remained fairly stable among all cohorts born since the 1950s, and in cohorts born before and immediately after the war it was even higher - 90%. The share of mothers with two children deciding to have another child fell more sharply: from about 60% in pre-war cohorts to about 40% in 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, the proportion was 37% for mothers born in 1953, compared to 41% for mothers born 10 years later in 1963.

Figure 6. The share of childless people and the share of those who gave birth to a second and third child by the age of 30 and 40 years among those who gave birth to one child less. Norwegian women born 1935-1963

Source

Among cohorts born before the war, almost half of women had at least three children by age 40 (Table 2). This proportion fell sharply for post-war cohorts and stabilized at around 30% for women born after 1950. The decline in the proportion of women with two children, the increase in the proportion of those with one child and those without children, all point to increased variation in the number of children in younger cohorts.

Table 2. Number of children in the family and the average number of children among 40-year-old women, cohort born 1935-1960.

Cohort by year of birth	Number of children in the family, %	Average number of children
Cohort by year of birth		Average number of children

Source: Population Statistics System, Statistics Norway.

The average number of children among 40-year-old women fell sharply in cohorts born before 1950: from 2.41 in the 1935 cohort. to 2.06 in the cohort born in 1950, and stabilized at 2.02-2.03 in younger cohorts. Based on recent data, all cohorts born before 1960 are projected to achieve a fertility rate of at least 2.05 children per woman. Therefore, despite the strong trend towards delayed childbearing, younger cohorts of Norwegian women are not lagging behind in terms of fertility compared to cohorts born 5-10 years earlier.

3.4. Reducing Educational Disparities

We have shown that education is an important factor determining both the age of motherhood (“timing”) and the proportion of women who remain childless. It is not surprising that 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 might be expected from the huge differences in the timing of first birth. College-educated women bridge some of the fertility gap; they simply do so at a later point in their childbearing years than less-educated women. In addition, differences in the total number of children among 40-year-old women with different levels of education are more significant in older cohorts (see Fig. 7). The reduction in disparities is mainly the result of a decrease in the number of children in the least educated group. In fact, among the group of university-educated women born after World War II, the average number of children is increasing. A more detailed study of the number of children in the 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.

Later, similar results were obtained on Swedish data, both for the second and third child, and they were confirmed in relation to the probability of having a second child in Norway. As L. Ola has suggested, this may mean that large-scale family policy programs in the Scandinavian countries have helped reduce the costs of childbearing for educated women.

Later, based on Norwegian census data, Kravdal identified a positive effect of educational level on the probability of having a second child as well - if the probability of each child is analyzed separately. However, if we include the probability of having a first, second, and third child in one model and control for unobserved differences, a negative effect of educational level emerges. It is less pronounced for women born in the 1950s than for older cohorts. Among younger cohorts, differences in the impact of educational attainment on fertility are fairly subtle, largely explained by the higher proportion of childless women among well-educated women.

Figure 7. Average number of children a 40-year-old woman has, depending on her level of education. Norwegian women born 1930-1958

Source: Population Statistics System and Educational Statistics System, Statistics Norway.

Recent Norwegian fertility studies have focused not only on level education, but also on its profile. An interesting result was obtained: the educational profile can be an even stronger factor in fertility than the level of education. For example, in Norway, T. Lappegård found that the proportion of childless women was almost as small among university-educated nurses and teachers as among women who had only completed secondary school; At the same time, the trend 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 oriented toward both family and work and has strong attitudes in both directions. A developed public sector with many jobs and flexible employment opportunities could encourage the implementation of dual strategies due to such attitudes. Another, related reason is that workers in these sectors have little to lose from a career break in terms of future career opportunities and earnings potential, primarily due to the high female representation and relatively equal earnings throughout their working lives.

4. Family policy

4.1. Norwegian context

The Norwegian welfare state has a long tradition of extensive family-oriented social policies. However, this policy was driven 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 costs associated with the birth of a child are a legally mandated, universally applicable 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, passed in 1956. To receive this benefit, the mother must work for at least 6 of the 10 months preceding the birth of the child. Women who do not meet these requirements receive a one-time benefit of (as of 2002) NOK 32,138 (approximately EUR 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 take 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, 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 the child. Then, almost a decade later, 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 continues to this day (as of 2004).

Fathers can also take leave for this entire period, with the exception of 3 weeks before the birth and 6 weeks after the birth of the child, which is only available to the mother. Fathers can also receive 2 weeks of unpaid leave immediately after the birth of their child. Typically, fathers use this opportunity, and only a very few then go on vacation for the entire period with the child’s mother. To encourage both parents to participate in child care, an amendment was introduced in 1993 reserving 4 weeks of the “long” part of paternity leave - the so-called “dad quota”. Usually these weeks cannot be transferred to the mother, they are simply deducted from the total duration of leave if the father does not use them. So there is a strong incentive for fathers to take such leave, and experience shows 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 “quota for dads”; Moreover, the share 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 since January 1999, this program began to cover all children 1-2 years old. The benefit is paid monthly, is tax-free, the rate is fixed and at the time of its introduction was approximately equal to state aid for paying for a place in kindergarten. Currently (2004) the monthly benefit is NOK 3,657 (approximately $450). To be eligible to receive the full benefit, the child must not be in public kindergarten full time (more than 32 hours per week). Parents of children who send their children to public kindergarten for a shorter period of time may receive a reduced benefit. The new scheme turned out to be very popular: most parents of children 1-2 years old apply for this benefit. In the spring of 1999, approximately 4 months after the final introduction of the scheme, 75% of parents of children aged 1-2 years received this benefit, 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, reaching 56% of preschool-age children by 2002. If children cared for by parents on parental leave (i.e. 0-12 months) are subtracted from this share, the coverage is 66%. Because kindergarten enrollment increases with the child's age, kindergarten enrollment for 3-5 year olds is much higher than for 1-2 year olds: 83% versus 41% in 2002. The owners and managers of kindergartens can be state or private enterprises. However, receiving a subsidy is possible 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 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 would cover 40% of the costs, and the remaining 60% would be divided equally between parents and municipalities. However, due to the rapid expansion 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 costs of raising a child in a private kindergarten and 28.8% in a public kindergarten. At the state level, the amount of parental contribution is not regulated. Subject of local government, i.e. a municipality or a private enterprise can set prices independently. In about half of public kindergartens, fees for parents are based on their income, while private kindergartens usually use a flat rate that does not depend on the parents' income. However, both public and private kindergartens usually offer a discount if parents bring more than one child to the kindergarten. This results in significant variations in the amount parents pay for kindergarten. In 1998, the average amount paid by parents for their children to attend full-time kindergarten in large cities and suburbs was about NOK 3,500 (approximately 430 euros) per month in private kindergartens and slightly less in public ones.

Until the 1990s, Norwegian parental leave policies, as well as child care leave policies, lagged behind similar policies 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, with opportunities to combine holidays and part-time work, as well as to split holidays up to the child's 8th birthday. In addition, the Swedish program has one unique feature that encourages reducing the time between births of children - the so-called “speed bonuses”. Under this provision, the mother is entitled to receive benefits in the same amount as in the case of the previous child if she gives birth to her next child within 30 months (before 1986 - 24 months), even if she does not return to work between births children.

4.2. Does politics affect fertility?

Not surprisingly, the rise in fertility observed in the Scandinavian countries throughout the 1980s and 1990s has renewed interest in the question of whether generous family policies can stimulate fertility and has prompted new research in this area. The fundamental point here is the question of how to measure this influence. Of course, to the roughest approximation, one can draw conclusions based on comparisons between countries: compare fertility levels and trends using aggregate statistics. This approach may provide a general idea of possible influences, but obviously has many disadvantages, since other factors associated with those included in our analysis may also be operating simultaneously. For example, both fertility and the expansion of family policies can be associated with economic growth and contraction. To control for bias caused by other factors, time series analysis can be done using multivariate analysis techniques. This approach was used by A. Gauthier and J. Hatzius to analyze the overall level of fertility in 1970-1990 based on aggregated data for 22 industrialized countries, using a model that, in addition to traditional determinants of fertility, included parameters of maternity leave (duration and ratio earnings allowance) and child benefit. Their results suggest that the birth rate is directly related to the amount of child benefit; No significant connection was found with the vacation parameters.

As always with aggregated data, the problem remains that the sum of individual behaviors is not necessarily a reflection of the average individual behavior. Therefore, individual-level data may be more appropriate for analyzing the possible impact of family policies. Unfortunately, there is very little such data. However, recently a good one has appeared

The number of inhabitants of Norway does not exceed 5,250,000 people. A fifth of the population lives in the south of the country. Fifty percent of Norwegians are registered in the lands around the Oslo Fjords. The maximum population density is observed in large populated areas. Rural residents are leaving their native lands and flocking to the cities.

Settlement

The maximum population in Norway is noted in the west, east and south of the state. Almost eighty percent live in these territories. Ten years ago, the number of citizens in the country was seven hundred thousand fewer. Its growth is associated with an influx of migrants, which amounted to 26,000 people in 2017. Natural increase does not exceed 18,000. In 2016, the population of Norway increased by 40,000.

List of major cities in the country:

Bergen (224,000).
Trondheim (145,000).
Stavanger (106,000).
Boerum (98,000).
Kristiansand (70,000).
Fredrikstad (66,000).
Tromsø (57,000).
Drammen (53,000).

The capital of the state is Oslo. The metropolis occupies the top of the fjord of the same name. It has a large seaport where ocean-going ships moor.

The surge in birth rates in the country occurred in the seventies of the last century. At that time, every Norwegian family had two or three children. In 1980, this figure changed downwards.

Ethnic structure

Until recently, the country was mononational. Native Norwegians accounted for 95% of Norway's population. The Sami are considered a relatively large ethnic group in the state. Their number is forty thousand people. In addition to them, ethnographers identify diasporas of Kvens, Swedes, Jews, Gypsies and Russians. The Kven category usually includes Finns who adopted the customs and traditions of the indigenous Norwegians.

The number of immigrants from the USSR grew in the last decades of the 20th century. After a wave of Russian-speaking immigrants, the population of Norway increased due to refugees from the countries of the Middle East. In the 19th century, the main flow of migrants came from neighboring Sweden.

The share of Poles does not exceed 1.3%, Germans 0.8%. Danes account for only one percent. The number of Swedes in the country is gradually decreasing, today it has reached 1.6%.

Migration policy

At the beginning of the 20th century, the stagnation of the Norwegian economy provoked a massive outflow of local residents from the country. Most left for the United States of America. In 1860, more than ten percent of the inhabitants left the country. The migration flow stopped only after the outbreak of World War II. It led to a deterioration in the standard of living in wealthy European powers.

In 1960, there was a sharp increase in immigrants, which had a direct impact on the country's population. Norway has accepted refugees from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America. The lion's share of newcomers settled in areas of Oslo and other large population centers in the country.

In 2017, about 49,000 people received migrant status. About seventy foreigners remain in the country every day. According to 2013 statistics, the country annually receives about 76,000 foreign nationals. Of these, about 40,000 are established in Norway.

Due to mass unrest and protests by local residents, the authorities tightened migration policies. Only people from developed European countries have the chance to obtain the right to long-term stay in the country and the status of citizen. The priority task of the demography committee is to correct the national composition of the Norwegian population.

Religious groups

The state's social policy is family-oriented. We are talking about the leave system that is provided to young parents. Every year, 12% of fathers go on long leave due to the birth of an heir. In 1996, this value was only 4%. Plus Norway pays benefits to mothers whose children do not attend preschool. In this way, the state stimulates family education.

Population density

The country's territory is 323,000 km². The population density of Norway in 2017 is approximately 16 people per square kilometer.

Economy

The basis of the country's well-being is the activities of the Norwegian oil and gas industry. In the 21st century, the state was included in the rating based on oil production volumes. Dependence on exports reached 50%. Technology trade accounts for 15%. Norway has a developed public sector of the economy. It began to take shape in the middle of the 20th century.

State-owned enterprises account for eighty percent of all industrial facilities in the country. They are represented by companies involved in television and radio broadcasting, communications, and postal services. And also in railway and air transport, electricity, forestry, metallurgy, alcohol production, banking services, coal mining, production of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Population policyNorway

1. Population of Norway

population demographic policy childbirth

The population of Norway is about 5 million people. Men - 49.5%. 95% of the population is Norwegian. National minorities in Norway occupy only a few percent of the total population. Kvens, Swedes, Danes, Sami, Jews, Gypsies, Chechens and Russians are the main ones. The Sami, numbering about 40 thousand, live mainly in the north of Norway, the rest mostly inhabit the southern regions of the country.

Apart from Iceland, Norway is the least populated country in Europe. In addition, the distribution of the population is extremely uneven. About 500 thousand people live in the country's capital, Oslo, and approximately a third of the country's population is concentrated in the Oslo Fjord area. Other large cities - Bergen (224 thousand), Trondheim (145 thousand), Stavanger (106 thousand), Bærum (98 thousand), Kristiansand (70 thousand), Fredrikstad (66 thousand), Tromso (57 thousand .) and Drammen (53 thousand). The capital city is located at the top of the Oslofjord, where ocean-going ships moor near the town hall. Bergen also enjoys an advantageous position at the top of the fjord.

Thus, despite the fact that the population of Norway is small and growing at a slow rate, the population of Norway has not decreased for several years, moreover, improvements in health care and rising living standards have ensured constant, albeit slow, population growth over the past two years. generations. Norway has record low infant mortality rates.

2. Origins of demographic policy

Total fertility rate in the Scandinavian countries, 1970-2000, births per woman during life. Source: Recent demographic developments in Europe 2001, Council of Europe

3. Delayed childbearing

Generations of women born after World War II found themselves in an opportunity structure that differed in many respects from that available to previous generations. The development of contraception and simplified abortion options allowed women to choose more freely when to give birth to a child and how many children to have. At the same time, increased levels of education and increased access to the labor market have significantly increased women's economic independence. At the same time, gender equality increased, and new forms of family organization became widespread, especially living together without registering a marriage.

All of these factors contributed to the delay in childbearing that we have seen in Norway in the past decades. Among all women born after 1935, those born around 1950 had their first child at the youngest age (Figure 2). Half of them became mothers at 22.8 years, while the median age of a woman giving birth to her first child among younger age cohorts gradually increased and for women born in 1970 was 26.7 years. The bottom quartile of the age distribution for first-time mothers (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.

Median and lower quartile age at first birth: Norwegian women born 1935–1974. Source: Population Statistics System, Statistics Norway

Postponing having a first child is more common in certain groups, with educational attainment being an important dividing line. In the least educated group, the aging of motherhood was not observed for much longer—until the cohorts born in the mid-1950s. Educational differences between generations become apparent at the age when a woman has her first child.

Increasing educational levels in post-war generations clearly influenced the increase in the mother's age 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 lower secondary education fell from more than 40% to less than 10%, with this proportionally increased the share of people with higher education (see Table 1). The number of groups with incomplete higher education has increased most of all, but the share of women with complete higher education (more than four years of university study) is still small - only 5% of women born in 1965.

Highest level of education attained among women born 1935-1965

The trend of postponing childbirth began with women born in the early 1950s, of whom about 10% remained childless, which is very low by international standards. For younger cohorts still of childbearing age, it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. However, the proportion of women who are childless at age 40 has increased from 9.8% in the cohort born in 1950. up to 12.6% in the cohort born in 1960 (see Table 2), while for 35-year-olds this share was 11.6% in the cohort born in 1950. and 16.5% in the cohort born in 1963. Even if younger cohorts fill some of the fertility gap compared to older cohorts, it is unlikely that the proportion of childless among them will remain at the 10% level that is the case for the latter. The proportion of childless women increases markedly with increasing levels of education (see Figure 3).

Percentage of childless people by level of education. Norwegian women born 1935-1958. Source: Population Statistics System and educational Statistics Systems, Statistics Norway.

4. Increasing variation in the number of children

Among cohorts born before the war, almost half of women had at least three children by age 40 (Table 2). This proportion fell sharply for post-war cohorts and stabilized at around 30% for women born after 1950. The decline in the proportion of women with two children and the increase in the proportion of those with one child and those without children all point to increasing variation in the number of children in younger cohorts.

Number of children in the family and the average number of children among 40-year-old women, cohort born 1935-1960.

5. Reducing educational disparities

Women with lower levels of education have more children than women with higher levels of education, but the differences are not as large as might be expected from the huge differences in the timing of first birth. College-educated women bridge some of the fertility gap; they simply do so at a later point in their childbearing years than less-educated women. In addition, differences in the total number of children among 40-year-old women with different levels of education are more significant in older cohorts.

The likelihood of having a third child has increased in all educational groups, including age cohorts born after 1950. This means a trend towards more proportional representation of women with different levels of education in the group of women with three children. Recent Norwegian fertility studies have focused not only on educational attainment, but also on educational profile. An interesting result was obtained: the educational profile can be an even stronger factor in fertility than the level of education. For example, in Norway, T. Lappegård found that the proportion of childless women was almost as small among university-educated nurses and teachers as among women who had only completed secondary school; At the same time, the trend 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.

6. Family policy

In Norway, the universal right to paid maternity leave is guaranteed by the National Insurance Act, passed in 1956. To receive this benefit, the mother must work for at least 6 of the 10 months preceding the birth of the child. Women who do not meet these requirements receive one-time assistance. 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 take 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, 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 the child. Then, almost a decade later, 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.

7. Current demographic situation

Norway is often considered one of the exemplary countries in terms of the ratio of births and deaths relative to the rest of Europe. In 2010, the fertility rate here was 1.95 children per woman. Only Iceland, Ireland and France are higher. And one cannot say that all this “grew on its own.” No. This indicator is a direct result of the targeted demographic policy implemented in the country over the past 10-15 years.

In general, of course, in terms of birth rates, the Country of the Fjords has always been slightly ahead of the rest of Europe. For example, the post-war baby boom in Norway ended only at the end of the 70s, that is, a decade later than the continental average. However, by the mid-80s, the fertility rate had dropped to extremely low values by local standards - 1.68. It was then that the government began to stir.

In the 1990-2000s, large-scale programs to support motherhood were adopted in the country. (One of the measures mentioned above: mothers who were employed before the birth of the child receive 100% salary reimbursement from the state for the next 42 weeks after birth. Or they can choose 80% of the salary - but for a whole year) . For fathers, special leave is provided during the pregnancy of their spouse and after the birth of a child, in order to encourage fathers to spend more time with their family and thereby relieve the woman a little from postpartum worries. In addition, the state actively supports the system of preschool institutions. Unlike their Russian counterparts, they are easily accessible, although for a certain fee (less than a third of the total cost of keeping a child in kindergarten).

The development of the healthcare system and its improvement, characteristic of the Nordic countries, has a positive effect on the growth of life expectancy and improves the quality of life.

Of course, it is not only individual family policy measures that have a positive effect on the birth rate in Norway. Rather, they are an important part of the program of “Scandinavian socialism”, the roots of which go back to the distant past. Population reproduction is ensured by a good environmental situation and strong but accessible medicine, the absence of overpopulated noisy megacities, and to some extent the country's rural atmosphere. The main thing is that the people are given confidence in the future, with which they are not afraid to have four or five children.

Although the population has been growing steadily (an annual increase of approximately 0.5%) in recent decades, this is mainly due to the influx of immigrants to Norway, who already make up about 9% of the population, rather than due to natural increase.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Number and placement

Norway has a population of about 5 million people and is one of the least populated countries in Europe. The population density is 16 people/km. However, the distribution of the population is extremely uneven. Over 1 5 of the population is concentrated in southern Norway, on a narrow coastal strip around the Oslofjord (1 2) and 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 agglomeration. Urban areas are defined as settlements that have a population of more than 200 people and consist of houses separated from each other at a distance not exceeding 50 meters. About a third of the country's population is concentrated in the Oslofjord area, so this is the region with the highest density - 1404 people/km. Moreover, the Oslo metropolitan area itself is home to 906,681 people (as of January 1, 2011). Other major cities are Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger, Kristiansand, Fredrikstad, Tromso and Drammen.

Sex and age structure

Norway has a predominantly working-age population aged 16 to 67 years. The pyramid reflects not only an increase in life expectancy, but also an increase in the birth rate. The numerical superiority of men is small and is replaced by a predominance of women from 55-59 years old. This factor is typical for a number of northern states.

Ethnic composition

More than 90% are Norwegian. The largest national minority is the Arabs - several hundred thousand people. Also living in Norway are the Sami (about 40 thousand people, exact calculations are difficult), Kvens (Norwegian Finns), Poles, Swedes, Russians, gypsies, etc.

Migration

Throughout almost all of its history, Norwegian society has been ethnically homogeneous. However, since the 1980s, immigration to Norway has increased sharply, with many newcomers settling in the Norwegian capital Oslo and its suburbs. By 2008, the number of immigrants accounted for 10% of the country's total population, with 70% of them coming from non-Western countries. These statistics do not take into account the children of migrants born in Norway. The total number of arrivals to Norway in 2010 is 73,852, of which 65,065 are foreign citizens. A large influx of migrants is observed in the northern provinces, which is due to the government’s policy of attracting labor to these climatically unfavorable regions. The migration balance is positive, despite the fact that the number of emigrants is increasing every year and already in 2010 reached 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 occurs in the direction from the north and northwest to the southeast.

Languages

Article 2, Section A of the Norwegian Constitution 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 profess Lutheranism. 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 regularly attends church. Another 403,909 people, or 8.6% of the population as of 2007, belong to other faiths 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 of Norway (40,398 people or 0.86%). The neo-pagan community Foreningen Forn Sed is officially registered in the country.

There are four types of population reproduction:

1. “Demographic winter”:

It is characterized by relatively low birth and death rates (low birth rate and low death rate), mainly characteristic of the most economically developed countries. For example, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain, Japan, France, the Netherlands, Norway.

2. Second type of reproduction:

Characterized by high fertility and low mortality. Characteristic of most developing countries, for example, countries in Africa and Asia.

3. Third type:

Characterized by high fertility and high mortality, it is characteristic of the least developed countries (for example, Ethiopia), or certain territories of prosperous countries.

4. Fourth type:

Characterized by low fertility and high mortality. Characteristic of “post-communist” countries. Reproduction indices are negative. For example, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine. The level of the reproduction index indicates the focus of policy in these countries.

This is interesting:

Analysis of the possibilities of using remote sensing methods for regional assessment of the ecological state of forests
The Moscow region is a region with a high population density and developed industrial potential, which creates a significant anthropogenic and recreational load on forest ecosystems. The forest, as an open ecological system, finds...

Mosolovs
Along with the Demidovs and Batashovs, a prominent place in the history of domestic metallurgy belongs to another family - Mosolovs, who came from the Tula Arms Settlement. The Mosolov company began its activities as a group of four brothers...

Japanese forest policy. forest protection.
The 90s are designated in the world as a period of transition to sustainable forest management and growing public awareness of the importance of the ecological and social functions of forests. In many countries in the Asia-Pacific region, forest management goals and practices...