Studia nad Rodziną 2016 R. XX nr 4 (41)UKSW
Bogdan WiĘCKieWiCz*1
Piotr t. NoWaKoWSKi**2Bogdan WiĘCKieWiCz,PiotR t. NoWaKoWSKi
THE IMPACT OF THE FINANCIAL SITUATION ON THE OPERATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
OF POLISH FAMILIES
Wpływ sytuacji materialnej na funkcjonowanie polskich rodzin
Streszczenie:
Współczesna rodzina polska podlega wielu przemianom – nie tylko kulturowym i społecznym, ale również ekonomicznym. Po okresie transformacji gospodarczej rozpoczętej w 1989 roku obserwuje się w społeczeństwie wzrost zróżnicowania zarobków i poziomu zamożności Polaków. Oprócz osób, które zarabiają bardzo dobrze, wciąż jest duży odsetek tych, którzy mają problemy z zaspokojeniem nie- zbędnych potrzeb związanych z ich egzystencją. Status materialny rodziny w sposób istotny wpływa sposób życia człowieka, jego aktywność społeczną i kulturową, jak też na podejmowanie ważnych decyzji dotyczących jego życia. W artykule omówiono przemiany sytuacji materialnej polskich rodzin w ostatnich kilku latach, a także znaczenie statusu materialnego w wyborze przyszłego modelu rodziny oraz
* Bogdan Więckiewicz – doktor, Wydział zamiejscowy Prawa i Nauk o Społeczeństwie KUL w Stalowej Woli; obszary zainteresowań naukowych: socjologia rodziny, socjologia kultury, socjologia polityki.
** Piotr T. Nowakowski – doktor habilitowany, prof. KUL, Wydział zamiejscowy Prawa i Nauk o Społeczeństwie KUL w Stalowej Woli; zainteresowania badawcze: pro- filaktyka społeczna, patologie społeczne, praca socjalna, pedagogika resocjalizacyjna, pedagogika mass mediów.
sposób, w jaki sytuacja materialna wpływa na decyzje prokreacyjne i inwestowanie we własne dziecko.
Słowa kluczowe: rodzina polska, małżeństwo, gospodarstwo domowe, sytuacja materialna.
Introduction
Modern family functioning is fundamentally different from the traditional functioning up until a few years ago. for a long time, the traditional peasant fam- ily integrated itself within the confines of the farm. the work of all its members constituted a significant contribution to the family budget. Crops harvested from cultivation were allocated primarily for their own needs. the acceptance of the good work within the household determined the wealth of the family. in a secure and safe way, it allowed the chance of survival in winter but also investment for the family in the future1.
the possession of material goods was an important factor in binding the couple and the whole family together. the material goods were the basis for the formation of the so-called family mausoleum2. approximately 10 thousand years ago, when people started to rear and breed animals and grow grain, they abandoned the no- madic life. this was the creation of agriculture3. People discovered that farming and livestock brings greater benefits than nomadism. they began the gathering of more and more material goods. it was now difficult to move the entire property and its distribution was not an easy task, therefore, the creation of monogamous relationships were now permanent and lifelong.
Until the era of industrialization, traditional farm families were not directed to sell products produced on their own farm for profit, but above all – for the satisfaction of their own needs. the farm was closely associated with the house- hold4. the products were usually controlled by the father as the head of the family.
the wife and mother were above all the head of the household and determined the decisions of the home, meals, care and the upbringing of the children. the father had a duty to ensure the family’s survival, and he distributed all the goods that his own work had produced. the family was closely linked not only by the family
1 a. giza-Poleszczuk, Rodzina a system społeczny. Reprodukcja i kooperacja w per- spektywie interdyscyplinarnej, Warszawa 2005, p. 228.
2 t. Szlendak, Rodzina, in: H. domański et al. (eds.), Encyklopedia socjologii, vol. 3:
o-R, Warszawa 2000, p. 315.
3 e. Levetin, K. McMahon, Plants and society, Boston 2008, p. 178-183.
4 f. adamski, Rodzina. Wymiar społeczno-kulturowy, Kraków 2002, p. 176.
bonds but also by economic and living conditions5. all these factors carried out many important functions essential to the life of this fundamental social group.
the total force of generational solidarity and the special reverence bestowed upon the elders, ones who possessed wisdom, were former mediators of the cultural heritage of their own family, community and nation, where the family grew and functioned6. the family in a difficult financial situation could not only count on their relatives but also on the immediate surroundings, especially their neighbours.
Neighbourhood assistance was reciprocated but not in the form of the payment of money but with reciprocal help, i.e. material and physical7.
The impact of industrialization on family life
the industrial Revolution fundamentally altered the structure of the family but it also changed the system of work of the individual family members. those most mobile began to leave the rural areas and small villages in order to seek and find employment in the large emerging industrial plants. this changed the structure of the family from a large one to a small one. in the newly urbanized societies, the work of the household changed in conjunction with the economic contribution towards the family budget. the small family’s economics and sustenance came mainly from employment and not from goods obtained on the farm. the factories and industrial plants often employed both spouses and in this manner the family obtained additional income towards the family budget8. these factors did not only change the system of work but also the time schedule. they reduced the time for leisure between spouses and the involvement in other activities. they even reduced the time for entertainment and cultural activities.
in case of a small family, vocational paid work, on the one hand, makes it possible to generate more income, and on the other hand – in the case of children – creates the problem of caring for them and their upbringing. in the nuclear family, unlike with the traditional multi-generational family, there are no grandparents and other family members who would help parents to care for the youngest off- spring. these functions are taken over by other institutions, such as nurseries
5 L. dyczewski, Kultura polska w procesie przemian, Lublin 1995, p. 154.
6 t. Szlendak, op. cit., p. 313.
7 See more: J. turowski, Socjologia wsi i rolnictwa. Metody i wyniki badań, Lublin 1992, p. 158-161.
8 z. tyszka, Rodzina współczesna – jej geneza i kierunki przemian, in: M. ziemska (ed.), Rodzina współczesna, Warszawa 2001, p. 196.
and kindergartens9. this involves additional financial expenditure. the more children, the greater the cost of the living. in modern families, the role of children has significantly changed. they no longer have the responsibility of work for the whole family and they require, above all, the greater involvement of parents and the expenses related to ensuring their proper development and health.
the number of children is of less and less importance, and now the importance of the “quality of the child” rises, that is to say, a proper education and preparation for future life. Spouses postpone the decision for the birth of their first child. this is also connected with the influence of a new culture in which material and post-material values dominate. Some families save for the purchase of material goods, others prefer to do things on the spur of the moment and achieve self-realisation. for this reason, many young people postpone the decision of marriage and, consequently, of having a baby. the priorities are education, career, adequate wages or salaries and self-realization, and only later – a shared relationship10.
Theories of fertility
Parents often face the dilemma of whether to take the decision of having a child, and if so, for what reasons. in terms of the decisions concerning the birth of a child, one should refer to the theories of fertility within the current economy, according to the concept proposed by Harvey Leibenstein and gary S. Becker, using the de- scription of Marek okólski11. the theories assume that fertility is a result of the sovereign decision of the parents under the influence of the economic variables.
Parents compile the benefits and costs associated with the birth of a child. according to Leibenstein, the decision is based on the general level of the economic devel- opment of society, and above all – on the real income of the parents. the primary utilities include: consumption utility – associated with having a baby, then the security utility – linked to security in old age, and production utility – related to the additional contribution of the child to the overall family income. the costs of having a child are: direct – related to the education and maintenance of the off- spring, and indirect – reducing the family income, which is associated with the
9 See more: M. Muczyński, Dostosowanie systemu instytucjonalnej opieki nad małym dzieckiem do potrzeb pracujących rodziców, in: C. Sadowska-Snarska (ed.), Godzenie życia zawodowego i rodzinnego w Polsce, Białystok 2011, s. 41-55.
10 e. Jarosz, Jakość dzieciństwa w Polsce – diagnoza krytyczna i rekomendacje, „Prawa dziecka. dwumiesięcznik Biura Praw dziecka” 2014, no. 2, p. 2-3.
11 M. okólski, Demografia. Podstawowe pojęcia, procesy i teorie w encyklopedycznym zarysie, Warszawa 2005, p. 222-223.
additional expenses for the child12. the Becker’s theory is related to the terms of a wealthy society, in which children do not contribute to the family budget. they are primarily a source of pleasure from their possession. taking this case into consideration, the parents take care of the child and ensure that it is of the “best and highest quality”. Parents, seeking the maximum pleasure from having a child, limit the number of children in favour of the material resources they have, such as their own home or a higher class car. taking this theory into consideration, an increase in income results in the demand to have more children13. another the- ory, proposed by Richard a. easterlin, can be interpreted in terms of consumer behaviour: demand for children, reproductive potential and costs of birth control are the most important determinants of fertility within the micro-environment.
the observed processes of fertility are associated with modernization processes that are taking place in contemporary european society14.
apart from economic factors, an important role in the decision of having a cer- tain number of children plays a normative, religious, cultural or professional stance. However, another important factor includes the age of the parents and the relationship between the spouses15.
Career, material values and the child
Nowadays, we can distinguish several major reasons of why families decide to have fewer children than before. according to a study conducted in 2012 by the Public opinion Research Centre (CBoS), the most common reasons for the smaller number of children in families can include the following: women’s fears of losing their jobs (60%), followed by poor housing conditions (48%), the feeling of lack of support from the state, i.a. as regards upbringing, education, medical care (41%), fear of lowered standard of living (32%), women’s desire to make a professional career, widespread popularization of the model of financially independent woman
12 H. Leibenstein, Economic backwardness and economic growth. Studies in the theory of economic development, New york 1957, p. 159-165.
13 g.S. Becker, An economic analysis of fertility, in: C.J. dwyer (ed.), Demographic and economic change in developed countries. A conference of the Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research held at Princeton, N.J., 1960, New york 1960, p. 209-240.
14 R.a. easterlin, An economic framework for fertility analysis, “Studies in family Planning” 1975, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 54-63.
15 K. Kowalczuk (ed.), Postawy prokreacyjne Polaków, Research Report no. BS/4/2010, Warszawa 2012, p. 14-15.
(26%), the difficulty of reconciling family and work responsibilities (23%), and convenience, the desire to enjoy life, fear to meet family responsibilities (16%)16. the analysis of these answers show that women, in general, are afraid of losing their jobs, what implies a reduction in material status. additional problem may be the lack of work, husband or low income. this is one of the reasons for which parents limit the number of children. these results indicate that, for the modern family, very important is, above all, the financial stability but also the sense of support from state institutions which are assessed on the whole critically (what will be mentioned below). it should be noted as well that for every fourth interviewee the most important thing in women’s life is career, not children.
according to the survey Public opinion Research Centre held in May 2012 on the support for the Polish family in order to increase fertility rate, more than half of the respondents (56%) indicated the help to return to work after the birth of a child or finding work for them. these actions, in respondents’ eyes, would contribute to an increase in the number of births. one third of respondents (33%) pointed to investments in nurseries and kindergartens in order to increase their number of children. Slightly more than a quarter (27%) felt that the state should effectively give cover to the poorest families, every fourth (25%) respondent stated that the most important is the extension of maternity leave, one-fifth (21%) indi- cated the reduction of the cost of childcare, and every eighth respondent (12%) thought that child allowances should be raised after the birth of a child, while 2%
of respondents indicated that there should be extended paternity leave17. the social policy of the state towards families was poorly assessed – the worst since 1996.
this was usually a result of the difficult financial situation within the majority of Polish society and the belief that the state should support not only the poorest but also all the families. Respondents indicated the need to facilitate the mothers return to work after the birth, increasing the number of places in nurseries and kindergartens, and expected support for the funding of childminders and direct support related to the care of children.
State aid for families
as to the role of the state to help families, Poles’ views have changed dependent on the year of the study. in 2000, state aid for all the families who were raising children was supported by 36% of respondents, in 2006 – 43%, and in 2012 – 60%.
16 idem (ed.), Polityka państwa wobec rodziny, Research Report no. BS/67/2012, Warszawa 2012, p. 4.
17 ibidem, p. 6.
the state aid only for families that were in a difficult financial situation was sup- ported by 61% of respondents in 2000, slightly more than half (53%) – in 2006, and much less, i.e. 37% – in 2012. the change did not hold the views that you should not at all support the families: in all the years in which the study was conducted, only 1% of the respondents were against any support for families18.
the policy of state support for the families was at its lowest rating since 1966. in 2012, less than one in ten were satisfied with it (9%). one third of them (33%) judged pro-family policies as sufficient, and more than half (51%) regarded it as insufficient.
State support for families was best assessed in 2006. this support as good or very good was assessed by 16% of respondents, as sufficient – by 45%, and insufficient – by 31% of surveyed Poles19.
Income of Polish families
according to the Central Statistical office (gUS), in 2014 the highest income was reached by married couples without children (1654 zł per person), while the lowest – by marriages with three dependent children (697 zł)20. the biggest burden for the budget of families was expenditure for food and non-alcoholic beverages and the cost of housing. these expenses accounted for the largest burden for married couples with at least three children (38.6%), single parents with at least one child (37.5%) and married couples without children (37.2%).
on recreation and culture the largest share of spending occurred among single parents with at least one child (9.5%) as well as the marriages with two children (8.8%), and the lowest – among married couples without children (6.0%)21. Most families at risk of poverty were among the married couples with at least three dependent children (34.4%) and among single parents with at least one dependent child (29.6%). the highest rate of families at risk of poverty was among a family of people with disabilities22.
the data of the Central Statistical office showed that in 2013 married couples without children were in the best financial situation. the income of such a family for one person in a household was 44.2% higher than the national median income.
the most difficult material situation was faced by people living in a non-marital
18 ibidem, p. 4.
19 ibidem, p. 1.
20 główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warunki życia rodzin w Polsce, Warszawa 2014, p. 61.
21 ibidem, p. 73-74.
22 ibidem, p. 76.
relationship and by parents having three and more children. their revenues were 39.1% lower than the average national income23.
a particular problem for families is a mortgage with an excessive interest rate.
Many couples cannot afford to be in debt and may have problems with maintain- ing financial stability. in this case, young families especially count on support from the state. the situation was much more difficult when the unemployment rate exceeded 10%. young people have trouble finding a job – any job, not only compatible with their skills. So the situation is unfavourable for the formation of marriages and the decision about having more children.
Families at risk of poverty
in 2011, 15.5% of Polish households were facing the risk of poverty. this ratio was varied depending on the type of the family. the income of families was de- pendent on the place of residence, i.e. many more families were at risk of poverty in rural areas (23.5%) than in urban areas (11%). due to the structure of the family, the most at risk of poverty (regardless of residence) were families with at least three dependent children (34.4%) as well as the third the single parent with at least one dependent child (29.6%). With a slightly better situation were single parents with children and other persons (27.9%). the significant risk of poverty was with families who resided with people suffering from disabilities. the risk of poverty decreased in the case of elderly people (aged 60 and more) and amounted to 5.9%24.
due to the bad financial situation, Polish families usually limited: trips to see other family members (57.5%), followed by the inability to meet an unexpected expense in the amount of 900 zł (49.2%). the next most unmet need for family finance was the ability to benefit from consulting a specialist doctor (24.4%) and buying a car (11%). to a lesser extent, for financial reasons, the family have not been able to meet such needs as eating meat, making timely payments for their property and the timely repayment of loans or advances25. these needs were not usually met for families with many children and persons with disabilities. Poverty is often faced by families living in the countryside rather than the city, families with three or more dependent children as well as single parents with dependent
23 Sytuacja materialna polskich rodzin – bezdzietni mają najlepiej, http://forsal.pl/
artykuly/837048,sytuacja-materialna-polskich-rodzin-bezdzietni-maja-najlepiej.html, 23 November 2014.
24 główny Urząd Statystyczny, op. cit., p. 75-77.
25 ibidem, p. 77-82.
children. for these families, the risk of poverty rate in the country exceeded 40%, and in the city – 25%26.
Conclusion
there is no doubt that the difficult financial situation of families has a significant impact on the proper functioning of the family. Lack of funds limits the partic- ipation in cultural life, additionally paid extracurricular activities, development of physical culture and education, but also the ability to maintain an adequate standard of housing, the purchase of clothing, development interests or the use of a widely available infrastructure. the difficult financial situation of the family in many cases leads to the alienation of the family’s social life. Related to this could be an aspect of the cultural and social environment in which the family lives and works. it can be pushed to the margins of social life or simply close contact with other families. this is more and more due to the observed formation of class seg- regation. an example can be gated communities27 for the wealthy who send their children to elite schools as well as the creation of classes for children who have rich parents or have a high social status28.
Bogdan Więckiewicz, Piotr T. Nowakowski, The impact of the financial situation on the operative effectiveness of Polish families
Abstract:
the modern Polish family has been subject to many changes – not only cultural and social but also economic. the society, after a period of economic transforma- tion ever since 1989, has noted an increase in the diversification of earnings and the level of affluence of Poles. in addition to people who earn very well, there is still a large percentage of the poor who have problems with satisfying the essential
26 ibidem, p. 86.
27 See more: B. Jałowiecki, W. łukowski (eds.), Gettoizacja polskiej przestrzeni miej- skiej, Warszawa 2007; d. owczarek, Zamknięte osiedla, czyli dylemat współczesnych polskich miast. Badanie porównawcze mieszkańców zamkniętych i otwartych osiedli w Warszawie, „Przegląd Socjologiczny” 2011, vol. 60, no. 2-3, p. 365-391.
28 See more: W. Woźniak, Rola systemu edukacyjnego w kreowaniu i utrwalaniu nierówności społecznych, in: P. Szukalski (ed.), Szansa na sukces. Recepty współczesnych Polaków, łódź 2006, p. 151-168; P. Mikiewicz, Dlaczego elitarne szkoły nie znikną? O nie- usuwalności nierówności społecznych w edukacji, „Rocznik Lubuski” 2008, vol. 34, no. 1, p. 13-25.
needs of their existence. the economic status of the family is a mean that signifi- cantly affects the way of people’s life, both their social and cultural activity, but it also participates in many important decisions which have to be taken in their lives.
the article outlines the conversion of the material situation of Polish families over the last few years as well as the relevance of the material status for the choice of a future model for the family, including the fact that the material situation affects fertility decisions and investments for the family’s offspring.
Key words: Polish family, marriage, household, financial situation.
Bibliografia:
adamski f., Rodzina. Wymiar społeczno-kulturowy, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków 2002.
Becker g.S., An economic analysis of fertility, in: C.J. dwyer (ed.), Demographic and economic change in developed countries. A conference of the Universities- National Bureau Committee for Economic Research held at Princeton, N.J., 1960, National Bureau of economic Research, New york 1960, p. 209-240.
dyczewski L., Kultura polska w procesie przemian, tN KUL, Lublin 1995.
easterlin R.a., An economic framework for fertility analysis, “Studies in family Planning” 1975, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 54-63.
giza-Poleszczuk a., Rodzina a system społeczny. Reprodukcja i kooperacja w per- spektywie interdyscyplinarnej, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2005.
główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warunki życia rodzin w Polsce, gUS – departament Badań Społecznych i Warunków Życia, Warszawa 2014.
Jałowiecki B., łukowski W. (eds.), Gettoizacja polskiej przestrzeni miejskiej, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar – Wydawnictwo Szkoły Wyższej Psychologii Społecznej academica, Warszawa 2007.
Jarosz e., Jakość dzieciństwa w Polsce – diagnoza krytyczna i rekomendacje,
„Prawa dziecka. dwumiesięcznik Biura Praw dziecka” 2014, no. 2, p. 2-10.
Kowalczuk K. (ed.), Polityka państwa wobec rodziny, Research Report no.
BS/67/2012, CBoS, Warszawa 2012.
Kowalczuk K. (ed.), Postawy prokreacyjne Polaków, Research Report no. BS/4/2010, CBoS, Warszawa 2012, p. 14-15.
Leibenstein H., Economic backwardness and economic growth. Studies in the theory of economic development, Wiley, New york 1957.
Levetin e., McMahon, K. Plants and society, Mcgraw Hill, Boston 2008.
Mikiewicz P., Dlaczego elitarne szkoły nie znikną? O nieusuwalności nierówności społecznych w edukacji, “Rocznik Lubuski” 2008, vol. 34, no. 1, p. 13-25.
Muczyński M., Dostosowanie systemu instytucjonalnej opieki nad małym dzie- ckiem do potrzeb pracujących rodziców, in: C. Sadowska-Snarska (ed.), Godzenie życia zawodowego i rodzinnego w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły ekonomicznej w Białymstoku, Białystok 2011, s. 41-55.
okólski M., Demografia. Podstawowe pojęcia, procesy i teorie w encyklopedycz- nym zarysie, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2005.
owczarek d., Zamknięte osiedla, czyli dylemat współczesnych polskich miast.
Badanie porównawcze mieszkańców zamkniętych i otwartych osiedli w Warszawie, “Przegląd Socjologiczny” 2011, vol. 60, no. 2-3, p. 365-391.
Sytuacja materialna polskich rodzin – bezdzietni mają najlepiej, http://forsal.pl/
artykuly/837048,sytuacja-materialna-polskich-rodzin-bezdzietni-maja-najle- piej.html, 23 November 2014.
Szlendak t., Rodzina, in: H. domański et al. (eds.), Encyklopedia socjologii, vol.
3: o-R, oficyna Naukowa, Warszawa 2000, p. 313-321.
Woźniak W., Rola systemu edukacyjnego w kreowaniu i utrwalaniu nierówności społecznych, in: P. Szukalski (ed.), Szansa na sukces. Recepty współczesnych Polaków, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu łódzkiego, łódź 2006, p. 151-168.
turowski J., Socjologia wsi i rolnictwa. Metody i wyniki badań, Norbertinum, Lublin 1992.
tyszka z., Rodzina współczesna – jej geneza i kierunki przemian, in: M. ziemska (ed.), Rodzina współczesna, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2001, p. 193-200.
