THE IMPACT OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE FACTORS ON FERTILITY IN TIMES OF UNCERTAINTY

Abstract

The article examines a complex of objective and subjective factors that determine fertility on a macro and micro level, as well as the specificity of their relationships during periods of uncertainty. The purpose of this study is to identify objective and subjective factors of fertility, analyze the relationships between them, and the characteristics of their influence under conditions of socio-economic and military-political uncertainty in Ukraine. To accomplish this, a range of methods were employed, including systematization and generalization, critical evaluation of scientific progress in the relevant field, categorization, conceptual modeling of factors affecting demographic processes (reproductive behavior and fertility), structural-logical analysis, comparative analysis and others. The novelty of the work lies in identifying the nature of the influence of objective and subjective factors, their interrelationships and role in the determination of fertility on a macro and micro level in conditions of uncertainty. Objective and subjective factors are interrelated and, depending on the context and level of fertility determination (macro or micro level), their significance and the nature of influence differ. The specificity of the relationship between objective and subjective factors of fertility is reflected in the “transition” of ones into others at various levels. The influence of objective factors on fertility is mostly mediated and occurs through subjective perception by individuals of any particular objective factors and circumstances. Subjective perceptions at the micro level are characterized by variability and may not coincide with the nature of changes in objective factors. In conditions of uncertainty and social upheavals (such as economic crisis, pandemic, war, etc.), discrepancies increase, and the influence of the subjective in fertility determination increases and takes on special characteristics. One manifestation of this is the increased role of expectations for the future (narratives of the future) in reproductive decision-making. Positive narratives about the future, reinforced by the implementation of measures to improve the quality of life for the population in a free democratic space, could become a driving force for increasing birth rate in Ukraine, parti - cularly for strengthening the compensatory effect in its dynamics after the war.

REFERENCES

1. Aksyonova, S. Yu. (2007). Paradoxical problems of modern childbearing activity in Ukraine. Demography and social economy, 2, 14—23 [in Ukrainian].
2. The Basics of philosophy (2017). Kyiv: Center for Educational Literature, 412 p. [in Ukrainian].
3. Fukuyama, F. (2012). The End of History and the Last Man. https://archive.org/details/ TheEndOfHistoryAndTheLastMan
4. Kubiszewski, I., Zakariyya, N., & Costanza, R. (2018). Objective and Subjective Indicators of Life Satisfaction in Australia: How Well Do People Perceive What Supports a Good Life? Ecological Economics, 154, 361—372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.017
5. Savych, V. O. (2020). Unity of objective and subjective in political science. Regional studies, 20. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-6170/2020.20.29 [in Ukrainian].
6. Macku, K., Caha, J., Paszto, V., & Tucek, P. (2020). Quality of life indices: how robust are the results considering different aggregation techniques? https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/363939070_Quality_of_life_indices_how_robust_are_the_results_ considering_different_aggregation_techniques
7. Li, L., Young, D., Wei, H., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., & Xiao, S. et al. (1998). The relationship between objective life status and subjective life satisfaction with quality of life. Behavioral Medicine, 23(4), 149—159. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289809596371
8. Vignoli, D., Guetto, R., & Bazzani, G. et al. (2020). A reflection on economic uncertainty and fertility in Europe: The Narrative Framework. Genus, 76, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41118-020-00094-3
9. Busetta, A., Mendola, D., & Vignoli, D. (2019). Persistent joblessness and fertility intentions. Demographic Research, 40(8), 185—218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26726997 https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2019.40.8
10. Comolli, С. L., & Vignoli, D. (2021). Spreading Uncertainty, Shrinking Birth Rates: A Natural Experiment for Italy. European Sociological Review, 37 (4), 555—570. https://doi. org/10.1093/esr/jcab001
11. Araujo, L., Teixeira, L., Ribeiro, O., & Paul, C. (2018). Objective vs. Subjective Health in Very Advanced Ages: Looking for Discordance in Centenarians. Frontiers in Medicine (Lausanne), 5, 189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00189
12. Kurylo, I. O. (2003). Socio-demographic features of self-assessment of the state of health by the population of Ukraine. Demographic studies. Interdepartmental collection of scientific papers. Kyiv: Institute of Economics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. 25, 44—55 [in Ukrainian].
13. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2012. Ukraine (2012). Final Report. https://microdata. worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/2348
14. Abrams, M. (1973). Subjective social indicators. Social trends, 4, 35—50.
15. Strоm, S., & Bernhardt, E. (2012). First Births in Sweden: Objective and Self-perceived Constraints on Childbearing. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.17045/sthlmuni.14519670.v1
16. Preis, H., Tovim, S., & Mor, P. et al. (2020). Fertility intentions and the way they change following birth — a prospective longitudinal study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 20, 228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-02922-y
17. Vignoli, D., Mencarini, L., & Alderotti, C. (2020). Is the effect of job uncertainty on fertility intentions channeled by subjective well-being? Advances in Life Course Research, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2020.100343
18. Мoglie, М., Мencarini, L., & Rapallini, C. (2015). Is it just a matter of personality? On the role of subjective well-being in childbearing behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 117, 453—475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.07.006
19. Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of Social Influence on Reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 427—555. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:POPU.0000020892.15221.44
20. Moors, G. (2008). The valued child. In search of a latent attitude profile that influences the transition to motherhood. European Journal of Population, 24(1), 33—57. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10680-007-9123-9
21. Matera, C., Dommermuth, L., & Bacci, S. et al. (2022). Perceived Economic Uncertainty and Fertility Intentions in Couples: A Dyadic Extension of the Theory of Planned Be haviour. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-022-09872-x
22. Vignoli, D., Bazzani, G., Guetto, R., Minello, A., & Pirani, E. (2020). Uncertainty and Narratives of the Future: A Theoretical Framework for Contemporary Fertility. Analysing Contemporary Fertility. The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis, 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48519-1_3
23. Guetto, R., Bazzani, G., & Vignoli, D. (2022). Narratives of the future and fertility decision-making in uncertain times. An application to the COVID-19 pandemic. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 20, 1—38. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook 2022.res1.6
24. Brown, Е. А. (2021). The pandemic delivered a surprise to Nordic countries: a baby boom. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-pandemicdelivered-a-surprise-to-nordic-countries-a-baby-boom
25. Nineteenth National Survey. Results of the year. Expectations for the future. Sociological group «Rating» (2022, November). https://ratinggroup.ua/research/ukraine/nineteenth_ national_survey_results_of_the_year_expectations_for_the_future_november_20-21_ 2022.html [in Ukrainian].