Unlike the FMC, the definition of the RMC varies from one region to another and is established by the relevant regulatory legal act. For example, according to the legislation of the Kaluga Oblast, “the maternity (family) capital” is a social support benefit granted at the birth of a second and any subsequent child and provided in the form of a lump sum payment to the applicant family that may be spent on any purpose (Law of the Kaluga... 2011). In the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the “maternity (family) capital” is the Okrug budget funds provided in the form of a certificate at the birth of a third child, which may only be spent on improving the living conditions or medical care for the family members (Law of the Yamalo-Nenets... 2011). According to the Resolution of the Government of the Khabarovsk Krai, families with children are entitled to two benefits, a lump-sum payment in connection with the birth of their first child in the amount of twice the subsistence minimum, and an additional benefit in connection with the birth of their second child in the amount of 30% of the FMC (Resolution of the Government of the Khabarovsk... 2019]. This benefit is defined by the above Resolution as the regional maternity (family) capital that may only be used for improving living conditions, education of the child (children) or for the purchase of goods and services intended for social adaptation and integration into society of children with disabilities. In order to receive it, the family needs to apply for the RMC funds at the social support centre. The legislation of the same region also establishes the concept of “Krai-level maternity (family) capital,” which is defined as the funds of the Krai budget to be provided in the form of a letter of guarantee for the use of the Krai-level maternity (family) capital (Law of Khabarovsk... 2011). The Krai-level maternity (family) capital may only be spent on improving living conditions, education of the parent or child, or on payment for medical services provided to the parent or child. The terms and conditionalities of the Krai-level maternity (family) capital as introduced by Law (Law of Khabarovsk... 2011) are different from those introduced by the Resolution of the Government of the same region (Resolution of the Government of the Khabarovsk...2019).

In view of the lack of consistency of the concept of “maternity capital” in the regulatory legal acts across various regions of the Russian Federation, the term “RMC” hereinafter means payments as part of support measures for families with children, made by the Russian federal constituent’s own budget regardless of the form of issue, be it a certificate, a lump-sum monetary payment, or a letter of guarantee.

The RMC payments were initially introduced in 2011, when only four regions introduced payments for a second child: the Kaluga Oblast (50,000 RUB), Moscow Oblast (100,000 RUB), Sakhalin Oblast (204,263 RUB), and Ulyanovsk Oblast (50,000 RUB). In 2011, 33 regions introduced payments for a third or any subsequent child; the minimum payment was set by the Nizhny Novgorod Oblast at 25,000 RUB, the maximum, by the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug at 350,000 RUB. The first region to introduce payments in the form of a certificate for a first child was the Kamchatka Krai: in 2015, the region started to issue certificates in the amount of 100,000 RUB for the birth/adoption of a first child. In 2017, the Ivanovo Oblast introduced a benefit (as a lump sum monetary payment) in the amount of 50,000 RUB for a first child. In 2019, more regions started to provide the RMC to families for the birth of their first child. Table 1 below explains the introduction of the RMC in regions in different years. It is worth noting that not all of the regions have currently an RMC programme in place. Some regions have discontinued the benefits, while others have never introduced them.

The above table allows to monitor not only the fluctuations in the number of RMC-paying regions along with the highest and lowest levels of benefits, but also the instances of benefit impairment. The column designated “Real Value” contains the ratios of the nominal RMC value to the subsistence minimum in the corresponding region. Evidently, some of the values have declined over time. This suggests that the inflation growth rate outpaced the growth rate of the RMC programme benefits. A detailed description of the regions where benefit impairment has taken place is provided below.

Variation in the size of RMC benefits at the birth of a first child (Figure 2) increased sharply in 2021, and an increase in the median value was also evident (the horizontal line in the diagrams), which is due to the termination or suspension of the RMC programmes for a first child in 11 regions (out of 15 in 2020) where the benefits were low. In 2019, an outlying case was observed due to the introduction of an RMC programme in the Novgorod Oblast with a benefit size of 100,000 RUB. Then in 2020, an RMC programme was launched in the Sakhalin Oblast, where the RMC amounted to 150,000 RUB.

Variation in the RMC benefits at the birth of a second child (Figure 3) was observed at approximately the same level from 2011 to 2018, while the situation changed in 2019, with decreased variation. Also, outlying cases were observed, with the peak value at the launch of an RMC programme in the Voronezh Oblast with a benefit size of 200,000 RUB as a lump-sum payment for any needs, and the minimum value of 50,000 RUB under the RMC programme for the Ulya­novsk Oblast, which had been in effect since 2011 providing for the issuance of a certificate with limited conditionalities of use. The diagram also shows an increase in the average benefit size starting in 2019, which suggests either an indexation of the RMC for a second child or the introduction of similar programmes in another regions with benefits in excess of 100,000 RUB.

Variation in the size of benefits under RMC programmes for the birth of a third and any subsequent child is quite large (Figure 4), which is caused by certain large-benefit RMC programmes. For example, in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the benefit amounted to 350,000 RUB starting in 2011 and 500,000 RUB starting in 2020. In the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, 300,000 RUB starting in 2011 and 379,911 RUB starting in 2020. In the Khabarovsk Krai, 200,000 RUB starting in 2011 and 297,824 RUB starting in 2023. There has also been an increase in the median value and the maximum RMC size, which suggests a gradual indexation of benefits.

Figure 2.

RMC benefits at the birth of a first child. Source: plotted by the authors.

Figure 3.

RMC at the birth of a second child. Source: plotted by the authors.

Figure 4.

RMC at the birth of a third and any subsequent child. Source: plotted by the authors.

The link (https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D2ygs/4/) takes the reader to an interactive map of RMC provision in different payment formats (a lump-sum payment or issuance of a certificate). Also, the terms and conditionalities for using the RMC funds in various regions and the last year of operation of the programme (drop-down programme data cards for each region) are presented there.

As of 2021, a total of 11 regions of the Russian Federation have never introduced any RMC programme. Some of them do run programmes to support families with children, but these are social benefits unrelated to the maternity capital.

Some regions discontinued their RMC benefits until 2023. The interactive map shows the last year of operation of the relevant programme for each region. Furthermore, Table 1 shows the number of regions (by the okrug) that ran RMC programmes from 2011 to 2023.

Various regions establish various conditionalities for the use of state funds received in the form of regional maternity capital. The basic conditionalities established in most regions include purchase (construction) of a home, improvement of living conditions, payment for educational services, obtaining of paid medical services, purchase of goods and services intended for social adaptation and integration into society of children with disabilities. However, some regions do not impose some of these conditionalities, or, conversely, introduce additional ones, such as, for example, payment of costs of subsistence farming, purchase of a domestic vehicle, a down payment on a mortgage to buy or build a home, etc. Some regions allow using the RMC funds for any needs. To learn more about the conditionalities of use of the maternity capital in a particular region, the reader is referred to the interactive map at (https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D2ygs/4/) .

Initially, regional maternity capital benefits for a first child were introduced in the Far Eastern Federal District in 2015, although they were confined to the Kamchatka Krai. In 2017, the Ivanovo Oblast (Central Federal District) started to pay out the RMC. In 2019, families in the Lipetsk Oblast (Central Federal District) and Novgorod Oblast (Northwestern Federal District) were made eligible for the benefits. In the same year, almost all regions of the Far East started to pay the RMC to families with one child. The Tyumen Oblast (Ural Federal District) joined the list in 2020. As of 2023, two regions of the Central Federal District, one region of the Northwestern Federal District, one region of the Ural Federal District and eleven regions of the Far East pay the regional maternity capital for a first child.

The regional maternity capital for a second child was initially introduced in 2011, but by a few regions only: the Kaluga and Moscow Oblasts (Central Federal District), the Ulyanovsk Oblast (Volga Federal District) and the Sakhalin Oblast (Far Eastern Federal District). In 2012, families in the Jewish Autonomous Region (Far Eastern Federal District) started receiving the benefits. In 2017, the Moscow Oblast terminated the benefits. In 2019, the Voronezh Oblast (Central Federal District) introduced the benefits, but only until 2020. In 2020, the benefits were introduced in Sevastopol (Southern Federal District), the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (Northwestern Federal District) and in two regions of the Ural Federal District, the Tyumen Oblast and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. The Smolensk Oblast (Central Federal District) introduced the benefits in the same year, too, only to terminate them in 2021. Since 2019, families in almost all regions in the Far East have been receiving the benefits for a second child.

RMC programmes for a third child were initially introduced in 2011 in 33 regions of the Russian Federation. In 2012, the number of such regions almost doubled to reach 65. Many of the regions where the benefits were introduced in 2012 have retained them to this day. In the North Caucasus Federal District, however, only two regions introduced the benefits for a third child. This policy may be related to the fact that the overwhelming majority of families in the Caucasus usually have more than four children. In some parts of the North Caucasus Federal District, allowances are paid for a fifth and any subsequent child, but these are not part of the RMC programme.

Based on the analysis of the number of regions by the federal districts that pay the maternity capital, we can conclude that the RMC is paid at the birth of a third child in the vast majority of regions. Two federal districts stand out from the general picture, the North Caucasus, and the Far East. In the former case, strong traditions mean the district has no fertility problems. According to the Rosstat data, the North Caucasian Federal District has the highest TFR among all the districts of Russia at 1.8 (Rosstat 2022). In the latter case, it is the opposite. The birth rate in the Far East is falling every year due to the high mobility of the young reproductive population. To encourage regional fertility, many oblasts have introduced an RMC starting from a first child.

We developed and calculated the following index to determine the ordinal number of the child who is mainly targeted by the RMC programme, with due account of the respective benefits:

$\text{Target Child}=\frac{\sum _{n=1}^3{y}_n^{2}n}{\sum _{n=1}^3{y}_n^2}\text{,}$ (1)

where y – benefit size for a child of the birth order n, RUB;

n – ordinal number of the child; first, second, and third children were included in the analysis.

Following are maps showing the target child indices by the region for 2015 (the first year of introduction of the RMC for a first child).

Figure 5 shows the distribution of benefits for the target child across all the regions in 2015. Regions shown in grey are those with no RMC programme in place in 2015 (17 regions), dark blue, where the target child is a third child (64 regions). Only a few regions had a higher weight of benefits for a second child in 2015, the Jewish Autonomous Region and the Kamchatka Krai. In the Moscow and Sakhalin Oblasts, the index is equal to 2.5, as the benefits for a second and a third child in 2015 were the same in these two regions.

The figure at the link (https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sDv8b/3/) shows the distribution of the target child indices across all regions in 2023. Regions shown in grey are those with no RMC in place for 2023 (20 regions), dark blue, those where a third child is the target (53 regions). There is a significant increase in the number of regions where a second child is the target (11 regions). In general, benefits for a second child have a greater weight in the Far East and in the Novgorod and Tyumen Oblasts. In the Ivanovo Oblast alone, the benefits for a first child have a greater weight, since, as of 2023, the region retained the maternity capital programme only for mothers under 24 years of age who give birth to their first child. The RMC programme for a second and third child in the Ivanovo Oblast was terminated in 2016.

As we compare the two maps, we observe a downward trend in the target child index. This is due to the introduction or increase of benefits for a first and second child. Whereas at the outset of the RMC programmes regional benefits mainly focused on a third child, later on many regions started to introduce programmes covering families that had their first or second child. This trend may be related to the decline in the total fertility rate, as previously mentioned above. Fewer and fewer families are having more than two children. Moreover, the child-free ideology, a deliberate reluctance to have children, has recently become popular among the young population (Garifullina & Mukhametshina 2023), which also contributes to the decline in fertility.

Figure 5.

Target Child Index for the regions of the Russian Federation in 2015. Source: compiled by the authors. Figures stand for the target child index. The index is equal to zero for regions that have no RMC programmes in place. The interactive map is found at https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/iiVSy/5/

Since a third child is the target child in most regions, this section considers RMC benefits for a third and any subsequent child. The following maps present the values of RMC benefits by the region during the first year of the programmes (2011 – RMC for a second, third and any subsequent child)⁴.

According to the maps (https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sfl1g/1/), compared to the programme’s first year, the benefit size and the number of regions where the programme operates have increased significantly in 2023 (Figure 6).

The Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug provides the largest benefits (500,000 RUB in the form of a certificate). However, according to the respective strategy of socio-economic development, despite the fact that oil and gas production is the region’s strategic industry and that 70% of the Autonomous Okrug’s budget revenues comes from the fuel and energy sector, the region remains one of the most sparsely populated (Resolution of the Legislative Assembly... 2021). The Autonomous Okrug is situated in the extreme natural and climatic zone of the Far North and the Arctic Circle, belongs to the zones of extreme (tundra and forest-tundra) or high (northern taiga) climatic discomfort, and since 2012 there has been an outward migration of individuals seeking, among other things, employment opportunities in regions with a more favourable climate.

The Nenets Autonomous Okrug ranks second after the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug in terms of the benefit size, 379,911 RUB (in the form of a certificate). Similar to the region described above, the Nenets Autonomous Okrug focuses on production and processing of gas and oil products and encounters the same challenges: harsh climate, low population density and outflow of population. However, the Okrug is the only federal constituent located in the European part of Russia that does not have a permanent land transport connection with other regions, so transport accessibility is a challenge, and the quality of life in the Arctic is affected by the outdated social infrastructure (Resolution of the Assembly of Deputies... 2019).

The regions of the Far Eastern Federal District, too, provide large benefits under the RMC programmes. According to the Khabarovsk Krai development strategy (Resolution of the Government of the Khabarovsk... 2018), the region is one of the leaders in the extraction and processing of mineral resources. Machine building, metal processing, ferrous metallurgy and fishing industry are also well developed in the Krai. However, the Krai is also sparsely populated, has a monsoon continental climate, the winter is long and harsh, and therefore the regional conditions are comparable to the Far North.

The Sakhalin Oblast, despite its high level of development of the fishing industry, oil and gas production, coal mining, as well as its high fiscal capacity and high social spending (Resolution of the Government of the Sakhalin... 2019), faces the problems of poor infrastructure development and, due to its insularity, poor transport accessibility. There is a decline in the population, and finding a job in the neighbourhood is problematic. The socio-economic development strategy notes the lack of appeal to talent and youth as a challenge, along with low public satisfaction with the quality of services.

The Primorsky Krai is the most populated region of the Far Eastern Federal District. It serves as Russia’s transit export hub in the Far East, being the largest exporter of fish products, oil products, metals, and wood products. The region’s development strategy (Resolution of the Primorsky... 2018) mentions the Krai’s high financial capacity, with the resources primarily focusing on the development of social assets. Decline in the labour force resulting from an outward migration is a major challenge facing the region.

Benefits are larger in size in the Bryansk and Kostroma Oblasts than in other regions of the Central Federal District. The Bryansk Oblast has well developed industries such as food, machine building (railway, road construction, agricultural and specialty machinery), metalworking, manufacturing of electronic and electrical equipment for road transport, timber processing. However, according to the region’s development strategy (Resolution of the Government of the Bryansk... 2019), the shortage of labour and skills and low wages are among the Oblast’s main challenges.

The Kostroma Oblast is one of the sparsely populated regions of the Central Federal District. According to the region’s development strategy (Order of the Administration… 2021), its main industries include woodworking, jewellery (over 60% of Russia’s total jewellery output), metalworking and electric power industry. However, the region faces challenges such as a shrinking working-age population, a notable disparity in the living standards between urban and rural areas, as well as a shortage of financial resources. Despite the latter, the region provides a welfare benefit of 200,000 RUB to build or buy a home to families who had their third child.

Figure 6.

The RMC benefit size for a third child in 2011. Source: compiled by the authors. Interactive map: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/akACY/1/

We have calculated the benefit growth rate as follows to analyse the evolution of RMC benefits across the regions:

$\text{Benefit growth rate}=\frac{\text{RMC size in the last operating year}}{\text{RMC size in the first year of operation}}\text{.}$ (2)

The RMC size was considered in both nominal and real terms. The higher the regional rate, the greater the indexation of benefits. The largest growth of the nominal value of benefits during the period under review was observed in the Magadan and Ivanovo Oblasts, at 4.06 and 3.27 times, respectively. In the Lipetsk, Saratov, and Tyumen Oblasts, the rate was equal to 1, i.e. no indexation of benefits took place during the period under review. In the other regions, the rate was slightly above 1, i.e. there was an insignificant increase in the benefit size.

The analysis of the benefit growth rate as calculated from the nominal RMC values suggests that no decrease in the benefit size has taken place in any region during the entire period of the programme⁵ . However, if calculated based on the real RMC values⁶, the same rate in some regions falls below 1, i.e. the growth rate of the subsistence minimum outpaced the growth rate of RMC benefits. The real benefit growth rate for a first child for regions running an RMC programme varies from 0.77 to 3.19. The rate is below 1 in the Jewish Autonomous Region, the Lipetsk, Sakhalin, Tyumen Oblasts, the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, and the Khabarovsk and Primorsky Krais. The growth rate leaders, similar to the case of the nominal RMC values, are the Magadan and Ivanovo Oblasts, at 3.19 and 2.32, respectively. The other regions showed an insignificant growth of benefits in real terms.

As for the benefits for a second child, their growth rate in nominal terms varies from 1 to 1.67. That is, the indexation of benefits for a second child was not as high as the indexation of benefits for a first child during the period under review. The rate was at its maximum in the Far East, namely, in the Amur Oblast (1.66), the Primorsky Krai (1.66), and the Zabaykalsky Krai (1.67). Nine regions saw no variation in the RMC size: the Voronezh, Kaluga, Moscow, Smolensk, Tyumen, and Ulyanovsk Oblasts, the Chukotka, Yamalo-Nenets, and Nenets Autonomous Okrugs.

Considering the growth rate calculated on the basis of real RMC values, the rate is below 1 in many regions, too. Those are mostly the regions where there were no amendments to the benefit size during the period under review, since the real rate decreases as the subsistence minimum grows every year. The Kaluga and Ulyanovsk Oblasts saw the lowest real impairment rate, 0.39 and 0.42, respectively. The highest one was in the Primorsky Krai (1.29) and in Yakutia (1.28). In these regions, the growth rate of the subsistence minimum was lower than the rate of indexation of RMC benefits.

The benefit growth rate for a third child in nominal terms varies from 1 to 4. The highest rate was observed in the Nizhny Novgorod and Bryansk Oblasts, where the size of RMC benefits for a third child grew four times over the period under review. In several regions (the Arkhangelsk, Tula, Lipetsk, Chelyabinsk Oblasts, the Republic of Kalmykia and the Primorsky Krai), the benefit size grew two times. In 24 regions, the RMC growth rate was equal to 1, i.e. the size of maternity capital benefits has not changed.

If calculated on the basis of real RMC values, the same rate is below 1 in more regions (63). This suggests that in many regions, although indexation of RMC benefits did occur, it was not sufficient to keep pace with the annual adjustment of the subsistence minimum. The most significant decrease in the real RMC was observed in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug (growth rate = 0.35) and in the Tambov Oblast (growth rate = 0.38). The highest growth was observed in the Nizhny Novgorod and Bryansk Oblasts, 2 and 1.6 times, respectively.

Looking at the RMC growth rates across all the regions, it is noteworthy that no region decreased their benefit size in nominal terms. However, if analysed in real terms, the indexation of benefits in most regions does not cover the annual inflation growth. In those regions, there is a gradual impairment of the RMC benefits.