Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of MedicineProblems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of Medicine0869-866X2412-2106Joint-Stock Company Chicot141510.32687/0869-866X-2025-33-1-90-97НеопределенThe natality sensitivity to stimulating measures of financial characterGuzN ANAGuz@fa.ruStrelnikovA Mnot@provid.edThe Federal State Budget Educational Institution of Higher Education “The Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation”, 125167, Moscow, Russia1604202533117042025Copyright © 2025,2025<p>In Russia, a number of financial instruments of state policy, including maternity (family) capital, are targeted to overcome negative demographic situation. The purpose of the study is to determine efficiency of this instrument and to assess degree of its effect on birth rate. The data with open access were used. The differentiation of birth rate was analyzed on the basis of data from the Unified Interdepartmental Information Statistical System. The analysis of cause-and-effect relationship between improvement of state program of maternity capital (20072024) and possibility of its transformation into real tool of demographic policy was carried out. The progressive dynamics of changing of conditions of granting maternity capital in accordance with national goals and social economic conditions is revealed. The limitations of implementing this financial tool and prospective conditions of increasing attractiveness of maternity capital as measure of state financial support are highlighted.</p>birth ratefinancial incentivesgovernment chargessocial supportnational project “Demography”maternal (family) capitalрождаемостьфинансовые стимулыгосударственные расходысоциальное обеспечениеНациональный проект «Демография»материнский (семейный) капиталBongaarts J. What can fertility indicators tell us about pronatalist policy options? Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. 2008;6(1):39–55.Lutz W., Skirbekk V., Testa M. R. The low-fertility trap hypothesis: Forces that may lead to further postponement and fewer births in Europe, 2006. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. 2006;4:167–92.Becker G. An economic analysis of fertility. In: Bureau U.-N. (ed.). Demographic and economic change in developed countries: a conference of the Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research. Vol. 11. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1960. P. 209–31.Cohen A., Dehejia R., Romanov D. Do Financial Incentives Affect Fertility? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 2007. №. 13700. Available at: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13700/w13700.pdfNieto A. Can subsidies to permanent employment change fertility decisions? Labour Economics 2022;78;102219. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2022.102219Gauthier A. H., Hatzius J. Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis. Population Studies. 1997;51(3):295–306.Vikat A. Women’s labor force attachment and childbearing in Finland. Demogr. Res. 2004;3(8):177–212. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.8Luci-Greulich A., Thévenon O. The impact of family policies on fertility trends in developed countries. Eur. J. Population = Revue Européenne De Démographie. 2013;29(4):387–416.Cohen A., Dehejia R., Romanov D. Financial incentives and fertility. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2013;95(1):1–20. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00342González L. The effect of a universal child benefit on conceptions, abortions, and early maternal labor supply. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy. 2013;5(3):160–88. doi: 10.1257/pol.5.3.160Raute A. Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits. J. Publ. Econ. 2019;169:203—22. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco. 2018.07.010Riphahn R. T., Wiynck F. Fertility effects of child benefits. J. Populat. Econ. 2017;30(4):1135–84. doi: 10.1007/s00148-017-0647-yOlivetti C., Petrongolo B. The economic consequences of family policies: lessons from a century of legislation in high-income countries. J. Econ. Perspect. 2017;31(1):205–30. doi: 10.1257/jep.31.1.205Spéder Z., Murinkó L., Oláh L. S. Cash support vs tax incentives: The diferential impact of policy interventions on third births in contemporary Hungary. Population Studies. 2020;74(1):39–54. doi: 10.1080/00324728.2019.1694165Alijanzadeh M., Bahrami N., Jafari E., Noori M., Miri F., Joftyar M. Iranian women’s attitude toward childbearing and its’ association with generalized trust, social support, marital satisfaction and governmental childbearing incentives. Heliyon. 2023;9(5):e16162. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16162Doepke M., Kindermann F. Bargaining over babies: theory, evidence, and policy implications. Am. Econ. Rev. 2019;109(9):3264–306. doi: 10.1257/aer.20160328Tudor S. Financial incentives, fertility and early life child outcomes. Labour Economics. 2020;64;101839. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101839Zhang J., Li X., Tang J. Effect of public expenditure on fertility intention to have a second child or more: Evidence from China's CGSS survey data. Cities. 2022;128:103812. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103812Proshin A. Impact of Child Subsidies on Child Health, Well-Being, and Investment in Child Human Capital: Evidence from Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey 2010–2017. Eur. J. Populat. 2023;39:14. doi: 10.1007/s10680-023-09653-8Vakulenko E. S., Ivashina N. V., Svistyilnik Y. O. Regional Maternity Capital Programmes: Impact on Fertility in Russia. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Regions. 2023;19(4):1077–92. doi: 10.17059/ekon.reg.2023-4-10Becker G. S., Tomes N. Child Endowments and the quantity and quality of children. J. Polit. Economy. 1976;84(4, Part 2):143–62.González L., Trommlerová S. K. Cash transfers and fertility: How the introduction and cancellation of a child benefit affected births and abortions. J. Human Resources. 2023;58(3):783–818.Dorofeev M. L. State financial regulation of demographic processes in Russia: problems and solutions. E-Management. 2023;6(4):83–94. doi: 10.26425/2658-3445-2023-6-4-83-94 (in Russian).