?
Study of “Digital Portraits” and Value Priorities of Rural and Urban Residents as a Component of Strategic Planning and Forecasting of Rural Socio-economic Development
The key criteria for the sustainable economic development of rural areas are stable
growth and increased economic productivity of the rural economy based on balanced
reproduction of productive potential and its rational use. In this case, the role of the
social component is to constantly improve the quality of life of the rural popula-
tion, stabilize migration and demographic processes in rural areas, maintain tradi-
tions and culture, and involve the population in decision-making to ensure the stable
development of rural areas. The sustainable long-term development of rural areas
can be achieved only if the development of social, institutional, and environmental
components is balanced (Fidorenko, 2015).
One of the main objectives of the Federal program of the Russian Federation
“Integrated development of rural areas” is to maintain the share of the rural population
in the total population of Russia at the level of at least 25.1% in 2025. In this regard,
issues related to attracting population for permanent residence and work in rural
areas (return migration) and the preservation of the potential of the rural population
are critical and urgent.
Proponents of reverse migration emphasize its positive impact on the socio-
economic organization of rural areas, especially in times of demographic and
economic decline. Many scholars have noted that migrants become new economic
actors who bring diverse capital and a flood of new ideas for reconstructing sedentary
agriculture (Bosworth, 2010; Stockdale et al., 2013). However, some authors find the
negative side of reverse migration. Urban citizens make life difficult for local people:
they build luxury housing in the countryside, turning locals into servants. As a result,
the term “colonization” of the countryside by city dwellers was created (Taylor,
2011). Reverse migration creates contradictions and conflicts between migrants and
locals (Löffler & Steinicke, 2006; Murdoch & Lowe, 2003).
Studying the issue of return migration in Russia, V. I. Zvyagintsev and M. A.
Neuvazhayeva revealed a logic that is the opposite of reverse migration in Western
countries in many ways. The analysis of interviews with immigrants showed that it is
primarily the middle-class representatives who move from the city to the countryside;
many of these people have already had the experience of living in the countryside.
The main type of employment for most migrants is labor in private subsidiary farms
or organizing farms. Alternative types of employment in the service sector, of which
there is much talk in Western studies, are almost absent. In most cases, the migra-
tion was motivated by the economic conditions prevailing in the city. The inability
to maintain urban consumer standards due to limited resources and cope with the
risks of urban life are the main reasons contributing to reverse migration in Russia.
Nevertheless, having moved to the rural area, people do not become active subjects
of the renewal of rural life (Zvyagintsev & Neuvazhaeva, 2015).