Dealing with falling birth rates

The USSR is currently looking into a problem
which has surfaced in recent years, that of the
country’s low birth rate and its effects.

A two-child family has become the most com-
monin the USSR, while there is a tendency in cities
to have only one child. It should be mentioned,
though, that the reproduction of the population on
the scale of the country is still an expanded one, i.e.
there are more children than are necessary for the
simple replacement of the present generation.

A considerable drop in the birth-rate took place

in the 1960’s. In 1960, 5.3 million children were

born in the country, while in 1967, 1968 and 1969
only 4.1 million children were born each year. In
1960 there were 25 births for every 1,000 people,
while in 1969 there were only 17. Se
In order to work out a correct demographic poli-
cy, it is necessary to understand the reasons for
this phenomenon. There are several of them.
The reduction in the number of births in the
1960’s was to a considerable extent due to the
results of the war of World War Two. In 1942-1946
the number of births was much lower than usual. In
the 1960’s women born during those years became
mothers. As there were few of them, the number of
children born to them became correspondingly
smaller. However, the main reason for the reduc-
tion in the number of births was the drop in the real

~ birth-rate, i.e. the reduction of the number of chil-

dren in the family.

Sociologists observed that the reduction in the
birth-rate corresponded with the intensive drawing
of women into the national economy, particularly
into industry, as well as with the migration of the
population from the countryside. This coincidence
was not accidental. It has been shown by special
surveys that women who do not work have on the
average more children than those who go out to
work:

Such factors as the sharp reduction of infant
mortality and the improvement of women’s educa-
tional and vocational standards have also
influenced the birth-rate.

The educational standard of Soviet women.has
greatly improved in recent years. While in the
1960’s nearly all young women received at least an

~ eight-year education, in the 1970’s they received a

ten-year eduction. A great percentage of women

Backgrounder

have received a special secondary or higher educa-
tion. Women predominate among students, and six
out of ten specialists engaged in the national
economy are women.

Young women are now more educated than men
and the system of their life values has changed
considerably.

In a recent survey women were asked if they
would prefer not to work at all and devote them-
selves completely to bringing up their children if
their husbands fully provided for the family. Se-
venty seven per cent said *‘no’’.

At the same time many scientists maintain that
though the absolute majority of women consider a
family with two-three children the most normal,
they restrict themselves to the birth of only one or
two children.

It is quite obvious that more flexible forms of
using women’s working time are necessary — for
instance, a reduced working day, or reduced work-
ing week which are already being gradually intro-
duced in the country. There are also plans to intro-

duce in 1981-1983 a partly paid leave for mothers so.

that they can take care of their children till they
reach the age of one year.

According to existing legislation, women are
granted a fully paid leave of 56 days before the birth
of a child and 56 days after its birth (with the
exception of special cases of complicated births,

etc. when this term is extended to 72 days). In the ©

past a woman could also stay home with her baby
until it reached one year of age, but without pay.
Her job was held for her.

Now the state will pay the mother from 35 to 50

roubles a month (the size of the payment depends

on the place of residence —in northern regions it is
higher). This partly-paid leave has begun to be
introduced in various parts of the country. In the
future i will be extended -until.the child.reaches
the «.,. vf 18 months. ,

It is intended to introduce lump-sum grants to
mothers of 50 roubles on the birth of the first child
and of 100 roubles on the birth of the second and

SS=.<
SET fF

Two-thirds of engineers in the Soviet Union are wo-
men, in fact six out of 10 specialists in the economy
are women. Soviet legislators are now trying to deal
with women trading off having children for a career.

third child, as well as to increase the annual vaca-
. tion of working women with two and more children
under the age of 12 years by 3 days.

The number of places at pre-school children’s
institutions, particularly at kindergartens, will in-
crease as rapidly as before. The further develop-
ment of the service sphere aimed at helping women
spend less time on domestic chores is also envis-
aged.

All these social measures require big expendi-
tures. In the current five-year period the state is
allocating over 9 billion roubles (about $12-billion
U.S.) measures aimed at aiding families with chil-
dren.

The control of the birth-rate is a very complex
matter. After all, it is the right of each woman to
decide whether she wants to have a baby or not.
However, it is possible to create such conditions
that would allow her to solve this problem positive-
ly. The state measures are aimed at the creation of
these conditions. The future will show how effec-
tive they are..

* * *
This study was prepared for the Soviet news
agency APN by Victor Perevedentsev, Doctor of
Science, demographer.

Champion of p

Last week we showed why the threat
of a world nuclear war is rooted in the
expansionist aims of the imperialist rul-
ers of the USA and other NATO powers.
Threats of a military nature are trum-
peted almost daily from Washington by
the trigger-happy Reagan Administra-

tion, which are invariably accompanied _

by measures to beef up the military arse-
nals of the USA and NATO. This cannot
help but fire up the arms race, intensify
the danger of war and push down the
- Peoples’ living standards.

* * *

The people everywhere, no matter
whether they live in the capitalist coun-
tries, the socialist countries or in the
newly-developing countries, must bear
the economic and financial burden of the
arms race. And for what purpose? We

are told that we must bear the burden, |

including the horrifying possibilities of a
nuclear catastrophe, in order to counter
an alleged ‘‘Soviet threat”’. Let us take a
look at that ‘‘threat’’.

For our foremost authority on such a

Vital question we turn to USSR President
Leonid Brezhnev. In his report to the
26th Congress of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union on Feb. 26 of this year,
Brezhnev stated before the press of the
whole world the Soviet vision of the fu-
ture in these words:

“Not war preparations that doom
Peoples to a senseless squandering of
their material and spiritual wealth, but

‘consolidation of peace — that is the clue

to the future.”’
* * *

In his speech Brezhnev stressed that
on the international level “‘no task is
more important’’ for the Soviet Union,
for the Soviet people ‘‘and, for that mat-
ter, all the peoples of the world”’ than “to
safeguard peace’. He underlined that by
safeguarding peace ‘‘we are working for
the happiness of dozens of future genera-
tions”’.

The Soviet president went on to say:
“If there is peace, the creative energy of
the peoples backed by the achievements
of science and technology is certain to
solve the problems that are now troubl-
i ople.”’
ne these extracts from the report made’
by Leonid Brezhnev to the 26th Con-
gress of the CPSU on behalf of the Par-

ty’s Central Committee present, albeit in

concentrated form, the moral and
philosophical basis of the peace policy of

the Soviet Union.
* * *

Let us examine some aspects of the

Soviet peace plan that bear on the prob-
lem of containing the arms race and dis-

eace, detente, di

Marxism-Leninism Today

Alfred Dewhurst

armament negotiations. The principled
position of the Soviet Union in such
negotiations is that disarmament talks
must be conducted on the basis of equal-
ity and equal security. The Soviet
Government’s position is quite clear in
this respect, and rightly so. It has stated
more than once, that the Soviet Union
will not consent to any agreement that
gives a unilateral advantage to the USA.

The Soviet Union sees limitation and
reduction of strategic nuclear armaments
aS a paramount issue. The government
of that country has publicly on a number
of occasions stated its willingness to con-

- tinue the relevant negotiations with the

United States without delay, preserving
all the positive elements that have so far
been achieved in this area. It is prepared
to negotiate limitation of any sort of.
weapon. This includes limiting the
deployment of new submarines such as
the U.S. Trident system and the
corresponding Soviet system, and ban-
ning modernization of existing ballistic
missiles for submarines.
* * *
The Soviet Union views the stock-pil-
ing of nuclear weapons in Europe as

sarmament

especially dangerous which proceeds ina
vicious circle, with the actions of one
side precipitating counter-measures by
the other. It spokesmen pose the ques-
tion ‘‘how to break this chain?’’ Their
answer is an immediate moratorium on
the deployment in Europe of new
medium-range nuclear weapons of the
NATO countries and of the Soviet
Union. To freeze the existing destructive
capacity and number of such weapons,
including the new U.S. forward-based
nuclear weapons.

The Soviets suggest that the morator-
ium could enter into force the moment
negotiations begin, and could operate
until a permanent treaty is concluded on
limiting or, better still, reducing nuclear
weapons in Europe. They stress that
both sides should stop all preparations
for the deployment of corresponding ad-
ditional weapons such as the U.S. Persh-
ing missiles and land-based strategic
cruise missiles.

* * *,

A final point, worthy of note, is USSR .

President Brezhnev’s suggestion that a

- competent international committee

should be established, which would
show the vital necessity of preventing
nuclear war. The committee, he
suggests, should be composed of the
most eminent scientists of different
countries and, the whole world should be
informed of the conclusions they draw.

Where lies the threat to the West in the
Soviet disarmament proposals?

> Qeeereven

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOV. 6, 1981—Page 5

gee