Fertility Policy in Ceausescu's Romania

Abstract

This study tests a model for the impact that Ceausescu's pro-natalist policies had on the Romanian fertility rate between 1967 and 1989. Using time-series analysis the authors' findings show that the Ceausescu regime continually struggled with the Romanian population to increase the national birthrate. As a result the regime's policies, there was a significant increase in overall fertility between 1967 and 1989, when the Ceausescu regime was overthrown. Reasons are offered as to why Romania pursued such policies and was able to make them work, while other Eastern and Central European regimes proved to be less able to sustain drives to increase national fertility. This article also presents a model of what has happened to the Romanian fertility rate since 1989, showing that there has been a significant decline in fertility in the post-Communist period.

The limited effect of increasing educational attainment on childlessness trends in twentieth-century Europe, women born 1916–65

“…In regimes which vigorously fought individualism and actively promoted sexual puritanism and conservative gender roles, post-materialistic values could not make much progress (Sobotka 2008). The spread of the second demographic transition (SDT), though it temporarily emerged in places (Sobotka et al 2003; Spéder and Kamarás 2008; Hoem et al 2009), was hindered by social policies that supported the traditional family, comprising a married couple with children (McIntyre 1975; Keil and Andreescu 1999). For instance, except in East Germany, the chance of getting their own apartment was very low for single mothers or childless couples (Sobotka 2011).…”

The educational gradient of childlessness and cohort parity progression in 14 low fertility countries

“…Nursery attendance (children under 3) and especially kindergarten attendance (3-to 6-year olds) was high from a European perspective 10 and extensive leave arrangements were provided (Avdeyeva 2009;Keil and Andreescu 1999;Oláh and Fratczak 2004;Klesment and Puur 2010;Kocourková 2002;Moskoff 1980;Spéder and Kamarás 2008;Aassve, Billari, and Spéder 2006;UNICEF 1999). In addition, housing policies favoured young married couples with children (Keil and Andreescu 1999;Sobotka 2004;McIntyre 1975), cash family benefits were granted (McIntyre 1975), and access to rationed goods was easier for parents (Keil and Andreescu 1999). Despite high labour force participation, women were also expected to take care of all childrearing and household tasks (Sobotka 2004;Spéder and Kamarás 2008;Oláh and Fratczak 2004;Zakharov 2008).…”

“…Communist regimes were also characterized by repressive pronatalist measures. Tax schemes often favoured married couples and parents (Keil and Andreescu 1999;McIntyre 1975;Moskoff 1980;Zakharov 2008) and contraceptives were scarce or legally restricted (McIntyre 1975;Keil and Andreescu 1999). The latter resulted in high abortion rates in the CEE region compared to other European countries 12 (UNICEF 1999).…”

“…Notwithstanding the severe housing problems (Hegedüs, Eszenyi, and Teller 2009;Bodnár and Böröcz 1998;Oláh and Fratczak 2004), communist Hungary has often been referred to as "the happiest barrack in the socialist camp" in that Hungary resembled Western Europe the most (available amenities, urbanization, industrialization, education, etc.) (Keil and Andreescu 1999;Zakharov 2008). Furthermore, Hungary almost exclusively relied on non-repressive policies to stimulate second and third births (McIntyre 1975).…”

“…By contrast, Bulgaria introduced a mix of repressive (restrictions on abortion) and stimulating measures (family allowances, maternity leave, child-care facilities, housing) at the end of the 1960s with the aim of increasing second and third birth rates. While displaying a relatively moderate package of stimulating policies (Moskoff 1980), Romania holds a remarkable position with respect to abortion policy (abortion was banned in 1966 after strong falls in fertility) (Keil and Andreescu 1999;Moskoff 1980;Muresan et. al.…”