In this article, it was claimed by McDonald (2006) that core reasons for the low rates of fertility in advanced societies are the economic and social changes - new capitalism and the social liberalism respectively. Even while there is still stong personal desire for intimacy and individuation in families, the new economic and social realities are faced by the spouses and that is why, the family desires are not reached by significant number of families to the full extent.
That is why, the institute of family has faced with significant risk, associated with these changes - both in terms of intimate relations between spouses and in family planning. That is why, there is a need of involvement of the states into the social balance’ restoration. The core argumentation for this statement is that formation of the individual preferences takes its place in accordance with the norms and regulations, set by the economic and social institutions of the society. The role of institutions, in turn, is influenced by the realm of political choice.
In order to manage the low rates of fertility, it is critically important to understand that the solution can neither be found in call of Right’s for social liberalism nor in the agenda, offered by Lefts (the one, pertaining to the economic deregulation) – as both directions have already brought the set of significant achievements in different areas- employment, social freedom and right for personal choice. At the same time, people prefer to have the long-lasting intimate relationships and to give a birth for their children. That is why, it is critically important to issue the third wave of social change, which should imply the strong priority to the long-standing support of family life – especially such aspects as bearing and upbringing of children. Such approach is needed for recognition of the critical role of family life and that it should be integrated into the agendas of societies and economies to twenty-first-century.
References
McDonald P 2006, Low Fertility and the State: The Efficacy of Policy. Population and Development Review 32(3): 485–510
