This paper follows previous research on the role of social capital and gender equity in fertility behavior. Our research question is to what extent social capital and gender equality in housework and childcare can explain fertility intentions and subsequent births in Russia. Russia is a country with prevalence of one-child families, whereas social norm is still two-children family. Since state support of families with children is weak and public childcare is underdeveloped, families bear most of child-related costs. The paper is based on two waves of Generations and Gender Survey (GGS), conducted in Russia in 2004 and 2007. Sample includes women of 18-44 and men with partners of the same age. We used binary logit models. Dependent variables include a) intentions to give birth within 3 years, b) births between two waves. Main explanatory variables include gender equity and social capital. The former varies from traditional to egalitarian partnerships. The latter is measured by five variables - 'parental family', 'attitudes toward intergenerational support', 'financial transfers', 'closeness to parents' and 'received childcare'. We control for sex, birth cohort, regional availability of public childcare, socio-economic status. The results show that social network for childcare does not influence either intended or actual fertility. Close relations with separately living parents increase only intentions to become parents. But access to financial transfers influence both intended and actual births of the first and second child. Besides, egalitarian division of housework and childcare significantly increases the probability of first and second births and probability of intentions to have a second child. The tentative conclusion is that gender equity concept is more relevant to explaining fertility behavior of Russian population than social capital.
Our intention is to determine which of the most used theoretical constructs (“gender ideology”, “relative resources”, and “time availability approach”) manages to better foresee the amount of housework done by an individual (hours spent for this activity), and the division of housework inside the family. To fulfil our intention we have used the databases from three surveys conducted in Romania in the last years: Gender Poll, conducted in 2000, and a replication and extension of it from 2007 (Life of the couple) and the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) from 2005. Specific to our analysis is the testing of different models on two distinct populations, at each step: men and women from the sample. The reasons are clear: the analysed variables have a totally different distribution for the two populations and the control variables have, most often, inverse effects. Constructing different models for each gender will show that the effects of the same determinant are different on women and men. Our research shows that the gender ideology can not explain the allocation of housework in a satisfactory way, and many times, the attitudes toward housework or the ideological orientation of family members do not have any significant effect on the behaviour. Most often, this happens in the case of wives: they do most of the housework, no matter how egalitarian or traditional their vision of domestic roles is. “Relative resources perspective” comes to fill in the aspects remained unexplained by the gender ideology approach, but it does not have the effect demonstrated in the Anglo-Saxon cultural space. Our research also shows that the “time availability” approach has explanatory power only for men from urban areas, which can mean that they use the greater amount of hours of paid work rather as a justification of their reduced involvement in the housework.