The article assesses the dynamics of migration effectiveness by Russian regions over a long time period. Russian and foreign studies have found that people with migration experience change their place of residence more easily compared with those who have never moved. Migrants are divided into two main groups, namely, newcomers and long-time residents who have lived in a migration destination for a long time, and a transitional group from newcomers to long-time residents. Moscow, St. Petersburg, and their oblasts are subjects where migrants adapt the best. For a long time, in most Far Eastern and Siberian subjects (except for the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug), the large number of migrants who departed a region were compensated by large number of arriving migrants. The collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent socioeconomic crisis have shown that population outflow occurs primarily in regions with the highest share of new settlers. Attempts to force the development of areas with harsh natural conditions and low adaptation by the population led to a massive return migration. Ensuring the adaptation of new settlers and their transition to long-time residents, rather than a high number of arrivals, is important for regional migration policy. Adaptation largely depends on the level of socioeconomic development of regions and particular localities.
Based on the data on addresses of real estate buyers, we assess the investment activity of residents of Russian regions and cities in the primary housing market of the Moscow capital region (MCR) compared to the activity of their labor migrations to the MCR. The objects of our analysis are 149 Russian cities and 80 remaining parts of regions. This enabled us to analyze the specifics of migration and investment behavior for the first time, taking into account differentiation between cities and rural areas, between size classes of cities, and between individual large cities. This enabled us to fill in the gap in assessing the mobility of inputs, i.e., capital and labor. A sharp contrast between settlements of different sizes was revealed in the nature of their interaction with the MCR agglomeration. The intensity of labor migration to the Moscow agglomeration is decreasing rapidly and monotonically with increasing settlement size. The activity of nonresident homebuyers, depending on the population of the city of their residence, varies nonmonotonically, reaching its highest level for cities with populations of 250000–500000 people for Moscow’s housing market and 100000–500000 people in Moscow oblast. Small towns and rural areas (except for the Khanty–Mansi and Yamalo–Nenets autonomous okrugs) are a source of labor for the Moscow agglomeration and show low investment activity in the capital’s housing market. Million-plus cities provide a negligible inflow of labor migrants and are characterized by moderate activity in the MCR housing market, close to the national average. Compared to the premium housing and labor market of the City of Moscow, investment and migration flows to Moscow oblast are shifted to smaller settlements and lower-income regions. The attraction of Moscow oblast rapidly decreases with distance, extending to first- and second-order neighbors, while Moscow’s influence is nationwide.
This paper analyzes regional features of migration of the elderly population in Russia. Data compiled from the 2010 All-Russia Population Census have revealed the share of people aged 60 years and older in the structure of interregional and intraregional migration flows and the intensity of this type of migration. Assessment of the migration intensity of the elderly in Russia demonstrates significant regional differentiation. Compared to Russia as a whole, the Far East and northern territories are distinguished by a high level of elderly migration intensity. At the same time, the beginning of “retirement” departures from these regions usually occurs earlier than is set by the retirement age limit for men and women in Russia. And in general, migration of the elderly from northern regions involves the relocation of the “young elderly.” The overwhelming majority of republics and autonomous entities are among the regions with a low intensity of migration of the elderly. This paper also identifies the main centers of attraction and outflow of elderly migrants within the Russian Federation and general features of elderly migration in Russia.
On the basis of data for the 1989–2002 and 2003–2010, the migration of young people at the level of cities and areas of 19 Russian regions is analyzed. Migration is estimated by the “age-group shift” for the corresponding periods between censuses which provides more accurate estimates in comparison with the data of current statistics. Migration of young people has an expressed centripetal nature everywhere; their migration rate from the province is higher the farther one goes from regional centers. All regional capitals attracted young people in the period under review which has a positive effect on the age structure of their population, and only large cities could retain young people among their population. Migration of young people from the periphery is sustainable; it depends on the common migration attractiveness of regions and reaches the greatest extent in the East and in the depressed areas of the Center. In small and medium-sized cities on the periphery of regions, the outflow of young people almost always reaches the same intensity as in the countryside.
Macroeconomic dynamics affects incomes of regions’ population and level of poverty: positive shifts in the distribution of regions in relation to these indicators slowed down in the 2010s and were replaced by a negative shift (more apparent in poverty rate) during the crisis of 2014–2017. Income dynamics had a stronger effect on consumption structure and less on population financial behavior. The share of food expenditures is declined in all regions until the 2014 crisis; the most developed regions have the lowest percentage. Structural shift in expenditures in favor of durable goods, including housing, is far from complete in most regions. The increase in the share of expenditures for services is largely due to the growth of tariffs for public utility services. Regional differences are small, with the exception of the Far North regions. The share of spending on human capital reproduction is low and varies slightly between regions. The population of “rich” regions prefers to spend money on recreation and entertainment, but these expenses are shrunken during the last crisis. Individuals' savings behavior is mostly developed in the largest federal cities. Overdue loans are higher in underdeveloped republics and in resource-producing regions, whose population seeks to maintain the level of consumption using loans. The main factor in change structure of consumption and financial behavior is the population incomes, but demographic, settlement and institutional factors must be considered to explain regional differences.
The paper studies population dynamics of 75 regional centers and secondary cities in the Russia’s regions. The information base for the analysis was population census data from 1959 to 2010 and the current population accounting for 2011–2017. In the vast majority of regions, the center dominates over the secondary city significantly. This manifests itself both in the absolute parameters of the population and in the share of centers and secondary cities in the populations of their regions. In 31 Russian regions, the share of the center by 2002 had already reached 35% and continued to grow. After 15 years, it exceeded 45% in 13 regions. The upper limit of the possible population concentration in the regional center has not yet been revealed. Over time, the prevalence of centers over secondary cities has been increasing. The analysis showed that the possibilities of population increase in secondary cities depend on the size of said population: among secondary cities with a population greater than 250 000, they continue to increase; among secondary small cities, the share between depopulating and growing cities hardly changes at all. Thus, trends towards centrism in the regions prevail over polycentricity. The population is increasingly concentrated at 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. Recently, an increasingly important factor contributing to population concentration is the institutional factor (associated with the execution of capital functions by regional centers and reducing the costs of business and consumers).
On the basis of the first results of Russia’s 2010 population census, the population dynamics of Russia’s regions for the 2002—2010 period is described and discrepancies between the census data and the results of the current record of the population for the recent intercensus period are analyzed. The results of the census are critically considered with allowance for problems in its operation in such regions as the North Caucasus republics, Moscow, and certain other regions; the incorrectness of the 2002 census data on the population size in certain regions is argued. Population migration between particular macroregions is estimated based on the net balance of the population size from the results of the 2010 census.
The regional differentiation of buyers' activity in the primary market of the Moscow agglomeration (MA) is analyzed based on address data of the buyers' initial registration. Acquisition of real estate by nonresident buyers (17% of transactions in Moscow and 23% in Moscow oblast) provides housing for about 100000 people per year, or 40% of the net migration inflow. The factor of the agglomeration effect gives leadership to buyers from St. Petersburg, and the factor of natural resource rent produces a high share of buyers from the Khanty–Mansi and Yamalo-Nenets autonomous okrugs (6.4% vs 1.6% of population), making their residents purchase real estate in Moscow under a low level of migration to the Moscow metropolitan area (MMA). Most nonresident buyers come from regions of the Russian provincial areas and earn the money to buy their housing in the labor market of the MMA. The distance factor makes the share of buyers from firstorder neighboring regions of the MMA 2.1 times higher than their share in the population in Moscow and 2.5 times higher than in Moscow oblast.
About the spatial-temporal approach in terrorism studies
Housing construction in the Moscow urban agglomeration is the main incentive mechanism for migration inflow via the lowering of such important barrier as housing prices. There is a positive feedback between the extensive development of the Moscow urban agglomeration and migration inflow to the metropolitan area, leading to hyperconcentration of population and economic activity. Theoretical analysis has shown that there is an equilibrium ratio between the new housing supply and the net migration into the Moscow metropolitan area. Empirical evidence shows that the ability of the Moscow urban agglomeration to accumulate migration in the 2000s at the respective rate of construction fell by half compared to the 1990s. Migration inflow is mostly contributed by extensive model of agglomeration development and urban sprawl due to the dominance of large-scale economy-class construction projects on unoccupied lands in a 30-km zone between the Moscow Automobile Ring Road (MKAD) and the Moscow Small Ring Road (MMK). The construction in this zone is a key regulator of the migration balance in the Moscow urban agglomeration and at the national level. Extensive development is subsidized by regional and federal budgetary investments, including transportation infrastructure, which contradicts state efforts to mitigate interregional inequality through fiscal redistribution.
Abstract—An analysis of the differences in the salaries of municipal officials and employees of large and mediumsized enterprises in 465 major Russian cities and towns in 2009–2011 has been conducted. On aver age, municipal officials earn 30% more than industrial employees; in some cases, twice more. The influence of factors, such as the size of a city or a town (the urban district’s population), the model of local government (the existence of a city manager), the economic welfare (the population’s standard of living), the budget bal ance, the financial independence, the geographical location, and the regional identity, on the level of differences has been studied. The smallest gap between salaries was observed in the Siberian Federal District; the largest one, in the Far Eastern and Southern federal districts. In 2010 and 2011, the gap between the salaries in cities and towns, where the model of local government with a city manager was used, was much larger. A direct dependence between the measures of efficiency of economic development and the level of the gap almost does not exist; on the contrary, in cities and towns with poor population, the gap is larger.
This article defines the framework for identifying social and economic challenges that the timber industry currently faces in the regions of Northern European Russia. The analysis of identified problems on a regional and local scale for the case of Kostroma oblast is presented. The main institutional shifts during the
1990s–2000s are discussed, along with economic problems of regional timber industry systems and their social implications, as well as how companies and rural communities of Kostroma oblast have adapted to the challenges of the ongoing economic recession in 2009.
The paper presents the position of the Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, on the elaboration the Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation. It is shown that in the formation of conceptual approaches to developing the strategy, there was a fundamental change in its priorities, focus, and implementation mechanisms. Whereas the first version of the strategy concept contained a truly progressive vision of the problems, challenges, priorities, possible scenarios of the country’s spatial development, and mechanisms for implementing the strategy, with each subsequent workflow step, these progressive approaches were lost. It is shown that, although the Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025 adopted in early 2019 partly took into account comments and suggestions, it nevertheless remained very vulnerable to criticism. The article considers conceptual defects in the Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation, such as ignorance of new trends, challenges, and threats arising in the Russian economic space; the dominance of the idea of allocation of funds to implement the strategy only through the development of urban agglomerations, neglecting the tasks of ensuring social justice and supporting the human potential of Russian society, ensuring the environmental safety of business operations, and life of the population in particular territories, etc.
It is shown that the global spatial organization of the oil and gas field services sector depends largely
on the characteristics of assets available in the mineral resources sector and that Russian service companies
still remain players in the regional league. Our analysis reveals the key role of oilfield service companies in the
innovative processes in the oil and gas industry. Science-intensive services can significantly reduce the unit
costs of reserves increment and production costs. Endogenous, network, and exogenous models are used to
summarize the formation and development processes for the oil and gas component of regional innovation
systems. It is shown that resource regions cannot follow a single model of innovative development targeting
the needs of the oil and gas industry. These models should take into account a wide range of regional features.
The results demonstrate the need to strengthen the role of resource regions in regulating the oil and gas field
services sector and innovative processes in the oil and gas industry. The focus is on developing a methodology
for studying innovative processes within regional socioeconomic systems and on providing practical recommendations.
The first sprouts of a new type of domestic suburbanization shown with a case study of Belgorod. The features of spatio-temporal dynamics of suburban development, the influence of different factors on this process, and the place of the new suburbia in the structure of the suburban area of the city are considered. A satellite image interpretation method is proposed based on remote analysis. Image selection criteria are considered. Interpretation features of different types of single-story development are given. The possibilities and limitations of this method are demonstrated. It is proved that the key feature of the Belgorod suburbanization in the post-Soviet period was the formation of vast areas of sprawl development that differed from the previously established areas of dacha and rural single-story settlements. There are two waves of sprawl development in this territory: the first wave was induced by the inflow of migrants from neighboring countries, and the second wave was induced by relatively high rates of economic development of the country and the region in the 2000s, which declined in the early 2010s. The expansion of genetically bound sprawl areas formed tree graphs, the roots of which are centers of suburban multistory development and leaves are younger generations of sprawl areas. The main factors affecting the emerging spatial configuration are access to engineering communications and transportation routes.
The goal of the research is to identify main types of large and the largest cities of Russia taking into account particularities of their structure and economic performance. The objects of the research are Russian cities – administrative centers of regions and autonomous districts of Russian Federation, as well as other Russian cities with population exceeding 100 thousand citizens. The research was done, using statistical data, reflecting the structure of employment by sectors of cities’ economy. To build up a typology the cluster analysis method, based on the results of the principal components analysis, was used. The research has proved, that mostly significant factors, influencing the structure of employment of Russian cities, are factors not depending on human activity: natural resources endowment and geographical location. Next factors after them are development of manufacturing sector and agglomeration effects. Detailed analysis of factors and results of social and economic development of cities allows to apply a system approach to building up their typology in post-soviet period, the typology still missing in academic literature.
The paper considers approaches to analyzing and setting directions in the development of Siberia. The view of Siberia widely adopted by the scientific community, taking it to be a socially and economically linked region, is shown to be largely premature. For 60 years, the Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences has been developing and elaborating approaches that can provide a comprehensive rationale for the development of Siberia in line with modern spatial economics concepts (creating and distributing value in the interests of Siberia and its individual regions). The approaches developed at the institute make it possible to analyze the synergistic effects from the integrating efforts of individual territories within the Siberian macroregion.