During almost the entire 20th century, the processes of settlement evolution in Russia were characterized by significant stability. Until the 1990s, the country continued extensive urbanization, which was expressed in a constant increase in the size and share of the urban population. Since the late 1920s, Russia's rural population has steadily declined.

But in the 1990s, these trends changed dramatically. The size of the country's urban population began to decline, while the rural population began to grow. Accordingly, the share of the rural population has also increased. What are the reasons for these changes? How will the ratio between urban and rural populations change in Russia in the near and distant future? This article is devoted to the answers to these questions.

Urbanisation processes in Russia in the 80s

During the period between the general population censuses in 1979 and 1989, urbanization processes in Russia developed quite rapidly. The share of the urban population during this period increased from 69.3% to 73.6%. The urban population grew from 95.4 million to 108.4 million people in 1979-1988. The average annual growth rate was 1.37 %. This is slightly lower than in the previous inter-census period, when the annual growth was 1.6 million people, or 1.97 %.

As you know, the size of the urban or rural population in a country can change due to three components:: 1) natural population movement (the ratio of birth and death rates); 2) mechanical population movement (migration); 3) administrative - territorial transformations (AP) of rural localities to urban or urban - to rural ones. During this period, due to natural growth, the urban population increased by 6.3 million people (48.5% of the increase), due to migration - by 5.7 million people (43.8 %); due to administrative-territorial transformations (AP) - by 1 million people (7.7% of the increase). During the previous inter-census period, migration from rural localities accounted for 54.0% of the urban population growth, while administrative - territorial changes accounted for 6.8 %.

From 1979 to 1998, 217 new urban settlements appeared in Russia, including 209 new urban-type settlements and 8 new cities. Thus, the number of urban settlements in Russia increased from 3,045 during the inter-census period.

page 66

(999 cities and 2,046 villages) to 3,230 (1,037 cities and 2,193 villages), or by 185 settlements. At the same time, more than half of all urban settlements added accounted for only 7 regions (out of 89 regions - subjects of the Russian Federation). These are 37 newly added villages in the Moscow Region, 5 cities and 24 villages in the Tyumen Region (in the Khanty-Mansi and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Districts), 9 each in the Chelyabinsk and Omsk regions, and 7 each in Yakutia and the Volgograd Region.

As a result, during the period of 1979 - 1988, extensive urbanization, which was typical of the previous decades, continued in Russia. A significant number of new urban settlements appeared (more than 20 annually); the growth of the urban population was mainly due to the reduction of the rural population.

In 1989-1990, this extensive development of urbanization continued, but with a sharp slowdown. In 1989, for the first time since the 1950s, urban population growth was less than 1 million people. The share of the urban population in Russia increased from 73.6 % to 73.9 %, i.e. it grew by an average of 0.15% per year, which is 3 times less than the annual growth over the previous decade. The urban population grew by 1.4 million people, or 0.7 million on average per year, which is almost 2 times less than the annual growth of the urban population in the inter-census period before that (the average annual relative growth decreased by almost 2 times - to 0.7 %).

There are 31 new urban settlements (28 villages and 3 cities), or an average of 15.5 settlements per year. This is 1.5 times less than the average annual figure for the previous 10 years. As a result, by 1991 there were 3256 settlements in Russia, including 1052 cities and 2204 villages. It is significant that in 1990, 3 villages (one district center) in the Republic of Buryatia with a total population of 19.8 thousand people were transformed into rural settlements at once. This fact became the "first sign" of the subsequent mass transformations into rural settlements of fairly large villages. In previous decades, if such transformations took place, it was only with villages that did not meet the statistical criteria of an urban-type settlement. The share of urban population continued to equalize between the country's regions, but not as noticeably as before.

Dynamics of urban and rural population in 1991-1997

The overall dynamics of the country's population since 1991 is presented in Table 1.

It is clearly seen that if the dynamics of the urban and rural population separately was "turning point" in 1991, then for the dynamics of the country's population as a whole - in 1992.Starting from this year, the death rate of the population exceeded the birth rate, and the population of Russia began to decline due to natural decline. The total reduction by 1998 was 1.6 million people, or 1.1 % of the maximum number at the beginning of 1992.

The urban population of the country steadily declined over the period 1991-1997, decreasing by 2.3 million people by 1998, or 2.1 % of the maximum number at the beginning of 1991. The dynamics of the rural population was more complex. By 1995, the population increased by 1.3 million people (or 3.4%) from the minimum population in the 20th century at the beginning of 1991. But then, like the urban population, it began to decline, decreasing by 0.4 million people by 1998 (or 1% of the population at the beginning of 1995). Nevertheless, compared to 1991, the rural population still increased by 2.3 %.

The reduction could have been much more significant - the number of deaths in the country for the period 1992-1997 exceeded the number of births by 4.2 million people. But Russia as a whole has had a positive migration balance of 2.6 million people over the years. That is, the natural decline was "compensated" by migration growth of more than 3/5 of its absolute value. The share of the urban population also changed accordingly. For the period 1991-1994, it is quite high.

page 67

Table 1

General dynamics of the Russian population for the period 1991-1998

Table 2

Changes in the urban population of Russia for the period 1991-1997

it shrank rapidly, then grew again. As a result, by 1998, the share of the urban population in Russia decreased by 0.8 percentage points compared to 1991. As noted above, these fluctuations are very significant, since throughout the XX century (except for the period of revolutions and civil war), the share of the urban population in Russia steadily increased [1].

Consider the change in the urban population of Russia over the period 1991-1997 by individual components (Table 2).

The table shows that in 1991 and 1992, the main reason for the decline in the urban population of Russia was administrative and territorial changes. The migration balance of urban settlements in these years was negative. Since 1993, the main factor of population decline has been natural decline, which has been gradually decreasing in both absolute and relative sizes since 1994. Migration growth, which also reached its maximum in 1994, "compensated" for the natural decline by no more than 4/5 of its value.

At the same time, changes in the size of the rural population of Russia were characterized by specific features (Table 3).

In 1991 and 1992, the main reason for the changes noted in the table was also the administrative and territorial changes that contributed to the rapid growth of the rural population in the country. The maximum migration growth also occurred in 1992. In 1993 and 1994, the rural population increased mainly due to the positive migration balance, which in these years covered the natural decline. But since 1995, the positive migration balance has sharply decreased (more sharply than for the urban population), while the natural decline has reached its maximum. As a result, the rural population began to

page 68

Table 3

Changes in the rural population of Russia for the period 1991-1997

decrease, and at a slightly faster rate than the urban one. This is hindered by administrative and territorial changes, which are approximately equal in scale to the migration balance.

The migration balance of the rural population, which was positive throughout the entire period under review, reached its maximum in 1992, after which it declined gradually at first, and then sharply. The migration balance of the urban population was initially negative, grew sharply by 1994 (but did not cover the natural decline), and then gradually decreased.

The dynamics of the migration balance is associated with changes in the relative attractiveness of rural and urban settlements for the population in the context of the socio-economic crisis. In the first years of the crisis (especially in 1992), there was a "spurt" of the population from urban settlements to rural areas as more resistant to socio - economic shocks. In addition, in the early 1990s, it was in rural areas that most of the immigrants to Russia from other republics of the former USSR (including internally displaced persons) settled. They were encouraged to do so by fears of instability in cities, the availability of free housing in rural areas, and other factors.

Starting from 1994, the main part of migrants to Russia began to settle in urban settlements. The outflow of the urban population to rural areas and within Russia disappeared, as people began to gradually adapt to new socio-economic conditions. In general, urban settlements have once again become more attractive to people than rural areas. At the beginning of the period under review, the situation with natural population decline in rural areas of the country was more favorable than in urban settlements, and at the end of the period - the opposite. The natural decline of the urban population reached its maximum in 1994, after which it gradually began to decline.

The main factor that determined the decline in the share of urban population in Russia over the period 1991-1997. Administrative-territorial transformation of urban settlements into rural ones was responsible for 3/4 of this decline. They occurred mainly in 1991-1992, but continued in subsequent times. At the same time, in some regions, the APCs were in line with the general direction of changes (i.e., a decrease in the share of the urban population), and in some they contradicted this direction.

page 69

Typology of Russian regions

The typology of regions was carried out taking into account all 89 subjects of the Russian Federation. In total, the Moscow Region (Moscow and the Moscow Region) and the St. Petersburg Region (St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region) were taken into account. The following groups of indicators were used for each region:: 1) annual change in the size of urban and rural population for the period 1991-1997; 2) annual change in the share of urban population; 3) the reasons (components) of these changes with the inclusion and exclusion of AP.

Violations caused by the "introduction" of data on the population of closed administrative - territorial entities into official statistics, which changed the values of the urban population share for many regions of the country, were excluded. The resulting computer typology of regions was subsequently corrected by expert analysis. The main typological factors (excluding ATP) make up the matrix (tab. 4), which can be compiled for the population of the regions as a whole, and separately for the urban or rural population.

One cell of the matrix was not filled in - there are no regions in Russia with a natural increase in the urban population and with an increase in its share. The regions distributed over the rest of the matrix cells form seven types, the main characteristics of which should be considered in more detail. The list of regions included in this or that type is shown in Table 5.

Table 4

Matrix of typologizedmtsix factors

Table 5

Types of Russian regions by changes in the ratio of urban and rural population for the period 1991-1997

Type:

1. Bryansk, Orel, Kursk, Belgorod, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Ulyanovsk regions;

the republics of Chuvashia, Mari El, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Udmurtia, Altai, Khakassia, and Tuva; the autonomous districts of Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamalo-Nenets.

2. The Primorye, Khabarovsk, and Krasnoyarsk Territories; the Sakhalin, Kamchatka, Amur, Chita, Irkutsk, Tomsk, and Murmansk Regions; the Komi, Buryatia, and Kalmykia Republics; the Jewish Autonomous Region; and the Koryak and Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Districts.

3. The Republics of Karelia and Mordovia; the regions of Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk, Tver, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Ivanovo, Vladimir, Ryazan, Tula, Kaluga, Tambov, Penza, Nizhny Novgorod, Kirov; the autonomous District of Komi-Permyatsky.

4.Krasnodar, Stavropol, and Altai Territories; Rostov, Volgograd, Astrakhan, Saratov, Samara, Orenburg, Kurgan, Tyumen, Omsk, Novosibirsk, and Kaliningrad regions.

5. Republics of Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan: Aginsky Buryat Autonomous District.

6. The Republics of Sakha and Chechnya; the autonomous districts of Nenets, Taimyr, Evenki, and Chukotka.

7. Moscow and St. Petersburg regions; Sverdlovsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk, and Kemerovo regions.

page 70

The first type is regions where the population is growing mainly due to migration (usually both urban and rural). But the migration flow is mainly directed to urban settlements, so the share of the urban population is increasing. This situation - an increase in the share of the urban population due to migration - was typical in almost all regions of Russia in the previous decades. That is, we can say that in this type of region, the processes of urbanization were the most stable, practically unchanged in the 90s. In essence, this is a type of region with ongoing extensive urbanization.

Geographically, the regions of the first type are located in four compact areas. The first two are located in the west and east of the European part of Russia-around the Kursk region and the Republic of Tatarstan. They are distinguished by a low proportion of the urban population (usually between 60 and 70 %), which grew rapidly in the 1980s. The third area includes republics in southern Siberia (Khakassia, Tyva and Altai) with a low level of urbanization (less than 50 % - except for Khakassia). In fact, these three areas represent regions that in previous decades lagged behind the national level on the path of urbanization, but were rapidly approaching it. The situation has not changed in recent years.

The fourth area of the first type of regions is formed by the Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs. They stand apart in this type, as they currently represent a group of newly developed regions with continuing settlement (unlike all other similar regions, which have been sharply losing population in recent years). This situation is related to the economic specialization of the autonomous regions in oil and gas production.

The second type is regions where the population is rapidly declining due to migration. Moreover, people leave rural areas more intensively than from urban settlements. As a result, the share of the urban population is growing. Regions of this type are located mainly in the south of Siberia and the Far East. They are characterized by rather unfavorable natural conditions for agriculture. In general, the level of socio-economic development in rural areas is much lower than in urban areas, since in Soviet times the priority in these areas was given to the development of industry and urban settlements. This type of region has the highest percentage of urban population in the country. Accordingly, there were more people in rural areas who were not rooted, with sharply worsened living conditions as a result of the economic crisis. In fact, the population is concentrated in relatively rare, but rather large and developed cities, with depopulation and degradation of the countryside, which is gradually returning to its original state - the remote North Asian taiga. There is a change in the processes to the opposite - in previous decades, there was development and settlement.

The second type also includes the Murmansk Region and the Komi Republic located in the European part of Russia (which are almost complete analogues of the regions of southern Siberia and the Far East), as well as the Republic of Kalmykia. In the latter, a more intensive outflow of the population from rural areas is associated with the actual outbreak of an environmental catastrophe - a sharp spread of desertification, which undermined agricultural production in large areas of the republic.

The third type is regions with a declining population due to natural decline. These are regions of the European part of Russia with a predominance of the Russian population. In the previous decades, they were characterized by a rather intensive migration outflow, which led to an aging of the age structure of the population. Moreover, the outflow from rural areas was more intense. Accordingly, today the age structure of the population in rural areas is more "old" and the natural decline is greater than in urban settlements. As a result, the share of the urban population increases.

The fourth type is regions with an increase in population due to migration. It is mainly aimed at rural areas, so the share of urban traffic is mainly used in rural areas.

page 71

the population is shrinking. As a rule, regions of this type also had a significant migration influx in the 1980s. But then it went mainly to urban settlements, and therefore the share of citizens increased. In the 1990s, the terrain became more attractive for migrants in this type of region, which is largely due to favorable natural conditions.

The fifth type is regions with an increase in population due to natural growth. These are the republics of the North Caucasus (the differences of the Chechen Republic are related to the military conflict and its consequences). Urban population growth is lower in them, as the share of non-indigenous (Russian) population is higher in cities. Accordingly, the share of the urban population is decreasing. This pattern is violated only by the transition of rural localities to urban localities (which are typical for this type of region in the period under review), but this does not change the overall picture. This type of region has a minimal urban population (usually less than 50 %). We can say that they are the most backward in Russia in urban and demographic terms (as well as socio-economic), and in recent years their lag behind the national level has increased even more. The Aginsky Buryat District in southern Siberia is adjacent to this type.

The sixth type is regions with rapid population decline due to migration. These are national autonomies, where the indigenous population (living mainly in rural areas) is not characterized by migration. Accordingly, the outflow of the population, mainly Russian-speaking, from urban settlements is more intense, and the share of the urban population is decreasing. The decline of the population in the Chechen Republic, which also falls into this type (population decline due to migration outflow mainly from cities), is associated with the military conflict and its consequences.

The seventh type of regions is characterized by a natural decline in population, while the share of the urban population has slightly decreased. Among the rest of the country's regions, this type of region is distinguished by a high proportion of urban population (about 80 %), the largest cities, and the presence of multi - million urban agglomerations (or a multi-million cluster of agglomerations-as in the Kemerovo region). The decline in the share of the urban population in this case is due to the fact that migration to rural areas (in fact, entirely suburban - in the zone of influence of the largest cities) is more intense than migration to urban settlements. At the same time, there is no agrarianization (in contrast to the fourth type of regions). In the context of declining industrial and agricultural production, the role of the non-manufacturing sector (the tertiary sector of the economy) is increasing.

The difference from previous decades in this type of region is that earlier migrations were mainly directed to cities. And in recent years, suburban rural areas seem to have become more attractive to migrants (compared to urban settlements). This is also consistent with the outflow of population from cities to suburbs on some scales (2).

The selected seven types of regions indicate the heterogeneity of changes that have occurred in recent years. Thus, in the regions of the first type, the processes of changing the ratio of urban and rural populations practically did not change. In the regions of the sixth type, they were replaced by the opposite ones. Under these circumstances, a natural question arises as to what changes can be expected in the area under consideration in the future.

Forecast of changes in the ratio between urban and rural populations in the near future

We have to admit that in the near future, the main conditions (socio-economic and political) that affect the dynamics of the ratio of urban and rural population in the country will practically not change (that is, they will not significantly change).

page 72

they will improve). Accordingly, the trends described above will apply in the next 5-10 years. This will result in the following.

The stratification of the country's regions by the share of urban population will continue, corresponding to the general increase in socio-economic polarization in modern Russia. At the same time, regions with different trends have clearly defined geographical areas. The share of the urban population will continue to decline: 1) in the regions of the fourth and fifth types that occupy the southernmost part of the country, 2) in the regions of the sixth type that occupy the far north, and 3) in the most urbanized regions of the seventh type. It is likely that the impact of the decline in type 6 regions will be negligible, since less than 2% of the country's population is concentrated in them. The impact of the decline in type seven regions will also be insignificant, as the share of the urban population will decrease very gradually (0.1-0.2 percentage points over 10 years). Significantly affecting the overall situation will be a decrease in the share of urban population in the regions of the fourth and fifth types.

The share of urban population will continue to increase in the regions of the first, second and third types, which occupy the middle part of the country and concentrate about half of its area and population. Judging by the data of recent years, it will prevail over the decline in the share of urban residents in other types of regions. Consequently, in the long run, the share of the urban population in Russia will gradually increase (by 0.4-0.6 percentage points over 10 years).

In the event of a sharp aggravation of the socio-economic situation in the country, a significant disruption in the above forecast can be made by administrative-territorial transformations of urban localities into rural ones. The most likely candidates for transformation are 565 urban-type settlements with fewer than 3,000 inhabitants. In total, 0.65% of the country's population lives in such settlements. In other words, with mass APCs, it is possible to return the share of the urban population to the level of 1995 - 73.0 %.

Long-term prospects for changing the ratio between urban and rural populations in Russia can best be described using Gibbs ' theory of settlement (3), which is well established in practice, including for the territory of the former USSR [4]. At the same time, it is significant that different types of Russian regions are at different stages of urbanization (according to Gibbs) and their progress to the next stages is possible only if the overall level of socio-economic development increases, i.e. in the long term.

According to Gibbs, the most developed regions of the world (Western Europe, USA, Japan) are currently experiencing the fifth stage of urban development. The rest of the developed countries are usually in the fourth stage, and only their most backward parts are in the third stage. At the third stage are the most "advanced" developing countries (Korea, Mexico). Most of the world's developing countries are now entering the second stage. And the first stage prevails in the most backward developing countries of the world, mainly in Africa.

In the 1980s, Russia as a whole was at the third stage, but with great internal contrasts. The most developed regions of the country (Moscow, St. Petersburg) were about to begin the transition to the next - fourth - stage of urbanization. At the same time, the least developed (North Caucasian republics) could not move from the first stage to the second. In the 90s, there was a certain "rollback" on the path of urbanization. But internal differentiation has increased even more. The most developed regions have almost "not retreated" or even slightly "advanced", approaching the most developed countries of the world. At the same time, many regions of the country "returned" to the second or even first stages, approaching the backward developing countries.

Regions of the fourth, fifth, and sixth selected types are located on the first page.

page 73

urbanisation stages - the rural population is growing faster than the urban population. Moreover, if the regions of the fifth type (republics in the south of Russia) were at this stage during the Soviet period, then the regions of the fourth type (southern agrarian regions) and the sixth type (the most northern regions) "went down" from the second stage as a result of the socio-economic crisis of recent years. If the socio-economic situation improves, they are likely to quickly "rise" back - the share of the urban population in them will begin to increase. Although for the northern regions, this also depends on the overall territorial development strategy of the country to be implemented. They will "rise" if the emphasis is again placed on the development of the northern territories. Otherwise, these regions will eventually (after the departure of the bulk of the Russian population) "merge" into the fifth type. In the regions of the fifth type, and in the long term, the share of the urban population is likely to decline.

Regions of the first type (the most stable) are at the second stage of urbanization. Perhaps their "stability" is due to the fact that they have "descended" from the third stage, which is also characterized by an increase in the share of the urban population. However, in any case, the share of urban population in this type of region will continue to grow over several decades (both in the second and third stages).

Regions of the second and third types are at the third stage of urbanization. It is possible that the regions of the second type (southern Siberia and the Far East) as a result of the crisis even "rose up" from the second stage, as the population concentration in cities in these regions increased.

The position of the third type of regions (the middle zone of Russia), most likely, has not changed. The share of urban population in both types of regions will grow, and in the future it is possible to move to the fourth stage and reduce the share of citizens.

Regions of the seventh type (the most developed) are probably already at the fourth stage of urbanization (the stage of suburbanization), or at least such a transition is beginning. The impact of the socio-economic crisis in this case is not obvious. It is possible that it has spurred urbanisation processes. But, most likely, the crisis still slows them down. In the future, the decline in the share of the urban population will continue, and with the transition to the fifth stage, it will increase.

Thus, in Russia as a whole, the share of the urban population will increase in the future. This is due to the fact that the largest number of regions of the country is at the second and third stages of urbanization. The decline in the share of urban population, as the example of the most developed regions of the seventh type shows, will begin after reaching the level of 80 % of the urban population by the majority of individual regions (and the country as a whole), which is possible no earlier than in three to four decades.

Naturally, this forecast is approximate, based on the current situation. In fact, the course of these processes may strongly depend on specific conditions, the main one being changes in the overall level of socio-economic development.

list of literature

1. JJanno G. M., Polyan P. M. Novye tendentsii v izmenenii geourbanisticheskoi situatsii v Rossii [New trends in changing the geo-urban situation in Russia]. Geographical series. 1996. N 6.

2. Simagin Yu. A. Sovremennyi etap suburbanizatsii v Moskovskom stolichnom regione [The modern stage of suburbanization in the Moscow metropolitan region].

3. Fpu Iiflu O. V., Ioffe G. V., Treivish A. I. Center and periphery in regional development. Moscow, 1991.

4. Kymmel T. Stadialnaya kontseptsiya urbanizatsii: metodologiya i metody analiza [Stadium concept of urbanization: methodology and methods of analysis] // Metody izucheniya rasseleniya [Methods of studying settlement], Moscow, 1987.

page 74

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: