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.
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.
One of the central questions of social policy is control over the level and
depth of inequality. The simplest, and therefore most common, means for
measuring its variation is differentiating the incomes of the population.
However, studying social inequality also requires an assessment of the risks
and life chances among the population through access to socially valuable
benefits and resources. It is these elements that generate life options, which
require either instruments of compensation or open up a new window of
opportunities. This article is based on representative surveys from Institute
of Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences. It uses a Weberian logic
of life chances and negative / positive privileges. This allows an examination
of the main risks and opportunities of the Russian population in terms of
(1) economic living conditions, (2)
consumption and leisure patterns, (3)
ations at work, (4)
educational opportunities and health maintenance. What
is shown is that positive privilege is mainly obtained through consumption
and economic conditions while negative privilege is about the condition of
Russians in the industrial sphere. Such life conditions in the population reflect
limitations in technological capacities for the country’s development, where
human capital is the main form of production. Those living in Russia’s
'capitals' (Moscow and St. Petersburg) have absorbed consumer practices
that differ strongly from the rest of the country, which only imitates these
forms of behaviour. The next area that Russians are learning is skills for
surviving in the digital age. Even the inhabitants of Russia’s capitals face
risks, as do the rest of the population, that limit the positive dynamics of
human capital potential in the country’s future. Negative privilege is most
commonly localised in rural areas, while in the industrial sector it has even
become a commonplace way of life
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.