Concentration of the Population and the Economy in the Capitals of Post-Soviet Countries
The paper examines factors and trends of concentration of the population and economy in the capitals of 11 countries of the former Soviet Union. Differences in population concentration dynamics over the post-Soviet period have been identified: partial deconcentration during the crisis-stricken 1990s and accelerated concentration since the 2000s. Strong differences in the concentration of the economy, industry, and investments in these capitals are shown to be largely governed by the size and economic structure of their respective countries. The absence of common trends in concentration of the economy in the capitals is shown. High concentrations of housing construction and retail trade that exceed population concentration have been revealed in almost all the capitals. The degree of personal income inequality in the capitals and in the countries outside the capitals is considered, which mainly determines the directions of labor migration: to capitals or outside the national territory.
Over the past 60 years, the topic of social inequality has been one of the key to educational research. Since the 90's years of the last century, thanks to the advent of international monitoring, the main focus is on comparisons of different countries in terms of educational opportunities, as well as academic and social segregation in schools. At the same time, it is known that even within countries, especially those with a great geographical extent, differences in access to educational resources and in learning outcomes can be very large.
Our work complements the existing discussion on spatial inequality in education. In this paper, we analyze the hierarchical structure of the educational system in countries with a moderate level of centralization, when access to resources can vary at three levels: between schools in a municipality, between municipalities in regions and between regions. We analyze the variation of school ICT-resources, teachers’ characteristics, and students’ outcomes in Russian language, mathematics and computer science on between- and within-regional levels. For these aims, we operate a unique dataset of nearly 40 000 Russian schools.
Our results show the existing gap between Russian schools, municipalities, and regions in access to educational resources and educational results. The uneven distribution of resources between territories, as a result of unbalanced decentralized policy, creates a situation of “double penalty” or “double bonus” for students.
The article analyses the dynamics of the population of 75 regional centers and second by population size cities of the regions in Russia. The analysis is based on the population census data from 1959 to 2010 and on the current recording data for 2011–2017. In the vast majority of regions, there is a significant dominance of the regional center over the second city. It manifests itself both in the absolute parameters of the population size and in the shares of regional centers and second cities in the population sizes of their regions. In 31 regions of the country, the share of the regional center by 2002 already reached 35% and continued to increase. Fifteen years later, in 13 regions of the country, it exceeded 45%. The maximum bar of possible concentration of the population in the regional center is not yet visible. Over time, the prevailing of regional centers over the second cities of the regions is increasing. The analysis showed that the opportunities for population increase in the second cities depend on their population size: gradually, between the second cities with a population of more than 250 000 people, the number of growing cities is increasing; between second small cities, the share between depopulating and growing cities is practically unchanged. Thus, the tendencies of centrism in the regions take precedence over polycentricity. The population is increasingly concentrated in separate points, vested with power. These processes are based on historical and evolutionary (history of settlement, development and urbanization), functional-economic, administrative-territorial and demographic determinants. An increasingly important factor contributing to the concentration of the population is institutional factor (associated with the performance by the regional centers of the capital functions and reducing the costs of business and consumers).
The article reviews factors and key trends of the population and economic development concentration in the capitals of 11 ex-Soviet states. Contradictory trends of the population concentration during the crisis period of 1990-th and since 2000-th are shown. The levels of economic concentration in the capitals as well as industrial output and investment concentration are extremely different and supplemented by the diversity of trends due to the infl of many factors. The higher level of housing construction and retail concentration is revealed for almost all capitals. Population money incomes inequality between the capitals and the whole country differs essentially and seems to be a signifi factor of labor migration to the capital or abroad.
The paper is concerned with the topical issues of regional economics – urban inequality in the Russian Federation. Empirical investigations of Zipf's law were studied in the foreign and Russian literature. Application of this law for assessment of urban inequality using the method of least squares was substantiated. Assessment of urban inequality within the boundaries of the RF federal districts by the indices of population, volume of own production of goods and services is carried out in the paper. The authors used the data of the Federal State Statistics Service for 2014, the investigation included the settlements with the status of a town and with the population over 100 thousand people. Zipf's law displays over the entire territory of Russia. By the population index in the federal districts, Zipf's factor varies within the range from – 0.7 (Northwestern Federal District) to – 0.9 (North Caucasian Federal District). As a result of the performed analysis of the Russia's cities by the population index, Zipf's factor is within the range from –0.3 (Northwestern Federal District) to –1.2 (Central Federal District). Analysis of the volume of production of goods and services determined the range of Zipf's factor from –0.26 (North Caucasian Federal District) to – 0.7 (Central and Volga Federal Districts). By the index of population and volume of production of goods and services the following "primate cities" are determined: Moscow and Saint Petersburg, Yekaterinburg (population), which allows to draw a conclusion on their dominance in urban system and high differentiation of cities by these indices. The obtained empirical estimators prove that Russia has no intermediate group of cities macroregional centers. The results of the investigation can be used for creation of methodological tools to develop the mechanisms of smoothing of interregional inequality, program of economic and social development of cities.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.