Historical factors of urbanization in eastern Russia

Abstract In the first half of the 1990s, Russia’s urban population continued to decrease. The proportion of urban population in the total population dropped, approaching the level of some developing countries, and the total population showed a negative growth trend, similar to that in the West. A phenomenon unique to developed countries in the stage of counter-urbanization. Therefore, some Russian scholars believe that counter-urbanization also occurred in Russia after the level of urbanization reached a very high level. The author reviewed the urbanization process in Russia since the mid-19th century and conducted some quantitative analysis on different city groupings. The research results show that the events that occurred in Russia in the 1990s were not counter-urbanization phenomena, but only temporary fluctuations caused by unrest. After the economy gradually recovered, Russia's urbanization process once again returned to the right track before the unrest. Due to the instability of Russia's current economic development, Russia's future urbanization process is also quite uncertain.

Keywords Russia’s urbanization process; counter-urbanization; urbanization level; urban population; city grouping

Since the 1980s, Russia’s urbanization process has begun to slow down , which attracted the attention of many sociologists and economists, who conducted in-depth research on it [1] (pp.65-77). Western urban theory believes that when a country's urbanization level reaches a certain level, a reversal phenomenon will occur, so some researchers also believe that this is the case in Russia [2]. However, due to the uncertainty of Russia's economic development, the process of urbanization in Russia is still unclear. Therefore, it is doubtful that Russia's urbanization process has entered the counter-urbanization stage. Many phenomena are not consistent with the counter-urbanization phenomenon in Western countries. . This is the original intention of writing this article, which will answer this question through a large amount of data analysis.

1. Challenges to urbanization theory posed by Russia’s urbanization process

In 1900, Russia was still a purely agricultural country, with only 15% of the country’s population living in cities. During the same period, the urbanization level of Western countries was 2.5 times that of Russia. Twenty years later, after Russia experienced the baptism of World War I and suffered considerable human losses, this ratio remained unchanged. However, after that, with the large-scale industrialization of the Soviet Union, Russia's urbanization process began to accelerate. By 1980, the level of urbanization in the Soviet Union was close to that of developed Western countries, and much higher than that of most Third World countries. However, since 1991, Russia's urban population and total population have begun to decrease, and the level of urbanization has begun to decline significantly. This phenomenon of population decline is not the first time in the history of Russia, but this time it is not because of war or plague, but because of some internal factors. This is the first time in the history of the Russian state [3]. During this period, Russia's negative population growth rate even exceeded that of Western European countries, which was in sharp contrast to the rapid population growth of third world countries. At the same time, Russia's urbanization level is also declining rapidly and is close to the level of the world's semi-peripheral countries (more developed developing countries), while its negative population growth trend is similar to that of Western countries. The proportion of Russia's urban population is declining and the total population is decreasing at the same time. This is the current basic situation in Russia.

What needs to be mentioned here is the impact of the Soviet Union on the level of urbanization in Russia. We must know that the achievements of the former Soviet Union in urbanization are remarkable. Of the 1,090 cities in Russia today, approximately 630 were founded after 1917. The industrialization process of the former Soviet Union absorbed a large number of rural labor forces and established a large number of cities in the core and periphery areas of the former Soviet Union. These cities grew rapidly. In this process, many cities have developed ahead of schedule, which has caused many social and economic problems [4]. Therefore, beginning in the 1930s, the Soviet Union began to control urban population migration and industrialization, and after the 1960s, it further restricted the development of large cities. This kind of urbanization policy of the Soviet Union can be called the "decentralization and concentration" strategy, which is somewhat similar to the policy of "controlling the size of large cities, rationally developing small and medium-sized cities, and actively building county towns and market towns" advocated in my country in the 1980s. At this stage, the population of the core area of ??the Soviet Union (the European part) spread to many areas in the east, north, and south. In the past, these backward peripheral areas had been relatively well developed. These policies were clearly implemented to avoid excessive concentration of population and industry.

Harris believes that the former Soviet Union was a land full of big cities[5]. The situation is even more true in Russia, which has 51% of the population of the federation, 57% of the urban population, and 62% of the Soviet Federation's cities with a population of more than 500,000. However, Russia’s large cities with a population of more than 1 million account for a small proportion of the country’s total population, which is far lower than the world average and even lower than countries in Latin America and the Far East [6] (pp.34-48). This coincides with the “decentralization and concentration” urbanization strategy adopted by the Soviet Union.

During the same period, the establishment of many low-level small Soviet industrial towns and semi-urban towns inspired many scholars to discuss the issue of "over-urbanization"[7](pp.219- 244).

There may be some problems with the terminology itself, but debaters believe that the development of the Soviet urban system is incomplete, the urbanization process is imperfect, and the level of urbanization has not yet reached the level of Western developed countries. If this view is correct, then the events that occurred in the 1990s should be regarded as a "pause" for Russia's urbanization process, rather than as the advent of the counter-urbanization stage. The more important fact is that the collapse of the Soviet Union coincided with the stagnation of urbanization in Russia, which is very puzzling.

Here, the author would also like to mention another point of view of Russian scholars. In a recent study, Medvedkov believed that 1991 was the turning point of the S-curve of Russian urbanization, that is, the turning point of the urbanization process developing into the counter-urbanization stage. Generally speaking, before this turning point comes, the level of urbanization has been highly developed. The difference between urban and rural areas has been significantly reduced, and the population of big cities has begun to migrate to suburbs or small cities [8]. (The turning point in the United States probably came in 1970). The author believes that this stage of counter-urbanization will come sooner or later, regardless of whether the Soviet Union failed or not, or regardless of how political and economic conditions changed. He also found that the growth of Russia's urban population mainly shifted from large cities to medium-sized cities. Cities with a population of more than one million lost 2 million residents from 1991 to 1996, while cities with a population of 0.25 to 1 million lost 1 million residents during this period. Small cities continued to grow. In the city grouping of 0.05-0.25 million, the total population reached 2.5 million, an increase of more than 2 million people compared with before 1991. Clearly, this is a counter-polarization trend.

On the other hand, this view is questionable. Because most small cities are located in areas with immature urbanization, life in these small cities can only be described as semi-marginal urban life. You know, before the counter-urbanization phase occurs, the differences between big cities and small cities and suburbs have been greatly reduced. During the same period, the urbanization level in some places in Russia was very high and the urbanization process reached a stage of stagnation, while the urbanization level in many other places was still very backward [8]. From this point of view, it is wrong to conclude that Russia's urbanization level has reached a highly developed state in general. Because in the following period (1996-1999), Russia's economy recovered and large cities began to grow again, with an increase of 1.4 million people, while the population growth of small cities slowed down, with only an increase of 200,000 people. , while medium-sized cities with 20,000 to 500,000 residents lost 2 million residents. After experiencing a four-year growth period from 1991 to 1994, the rural population began a new stage of decline.

The above discussion proves that the Russian urban system was extremely unstable after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has not actually reached the stage of counter-urbanization in the West. By and large, by the time this stage began in the West, the gap in wealth and living standards between the core and the periphery had been largely eliminated. In Russia, unrest has further widened the gap between a few metropolitan areas and remote areas. The population in remote areas experiences severe poverty. In many remote cities, local industries cannot satisfy the lives of locals, so there are many People returned to the countryside. Next, this article will analyze Russia's urbanization process over the past century by analyzing changes in the total population and migration status of urban groups of different sizes, allowing us to further understand the historical evolution and future development trends of Russia's urbanization process.

2. Time series analysis of the urbanization process in Russia: changes in the total population and net migration status of different city groups

In order to deeply analyze the historical process of the development of large, medium and small cities in Russia, first, the author Cities need to be grouped based on population size. It should be noted that the definition of large, medium and small cities has changed over time, because the population of cities continues to grow, and the previous standards are no longer applicable now. Russia's average urban population increased from 5,000 people in 1800 to 21,000 people in 1900, and to 90,000 people in 1990. This is why this article uses time periods to define the size of large, medium and small cities. According to the author's various references, first the size of medium-sized cities is defined by time periods. After defining the size of medium-sized cities, the natural population of big cities and small cities The scale also comes out accordingly. The author defines the population size of medium-sized cities in Russia in different periods as follows: 5,000-20,000 people in the 19th century; 10,000-50,000 people from 1897 to 1926 at the turn of the century; 20,000-100,000 people from 1926 to 1959; In 1970 it was 40,000-200,000; finally, after 1970 it was 50,000-250,000. The lower limit of the standards after 1970 refers to the standards of developing countries, while the lower limit of 250,000 people in large cities is the normal level of contemporary Russian regional center cities [9].

According to the above criteria, in 2000, Russia had 74 large cities, 263 medium-sized cities and 2,630 small cities (755 of them were cities in the full sense, and the other 1,875 were small towns).

In 1897, by 19th century standards, Russia had 85 large cities, 306 medium-sized cities and 430 small cities (excluding small towns).

Because in a long time series, the census data is relatively complete, while the migration data is relatively scattered, so the author first analyzes the former situation. Figure 1 reflects the development overview of Russia’s urbanization process since the mid-19th century, from which we can also see the many twists and turns of Russia’s urbanization process. After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, a large number of farmers were liberated from the land, and many farmers began to work in cities. Russia also gradually transitioned from a feudal urban system to an industrialized urban system. However, during the period 1914-26, this development process was seriously affected by the First World War, the Soviet Revolution and the Civil War. During this period, two major cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg, lost nearly half their populations. As can be seen from the curve in the figure, during this period, the population growth rate of Russia's large cities was almost zero, and the situation in rural areas was similar. Medium-sized cities were the most affected, and only small towns performed very stably. This shows that when a crisis comes, because big cities cannot meet people's lives, a large number of residents will move to small towns or rural areas to tide over the crisis. Compared with larger cities, medium-sized cities have a poorer foundation, so they have been hardest hit.

Figure 1 Average annual growth rate of different city groups in Russia

The period from 1926 to 1939 was the stage of forced industrialization and collectivization in the Soviet Union. During this period, cities were greatly improved. Great development (of course this development was achieved at the expense of rural areas). Large cities developed the fastest, while small cities developed the slowest, indicating that Russia gradually transitioned from the early urbanization stage to the polarization stage. This process lasted until 1940. The Second World War once again disrupted the process of urbanization development in Russia, causing all the curves in the graph to point downward. In the later 1950s, the Russian economy recovered to a certain extent, and Russia restarted the normal development process of urbanization for the third time. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that it slowly returned to the pre-war level, and the growth rate also began to gradually slow down.

It can be seen from Figure 1 that the development process of urbanization in Russia was interrupted by political turmoil for the second time, which formed a wavy urbanization development curve. After the third recovery of development, the speed of urbanization was obviously not fast and has been on a downward trend. On the one hand, this shows that the speed of urbanization in Russia will inevitably slow down after reaching a certain level; but on the other hand, the Soviet Union paid too much attention to cities. The development of industry, especially heavy industry, while despising the support and development of secondary and tertiary industries, has obviously restricted the further development of urbanization in the Soviet Union. Although its urbanization level is relatively high, the quality of urban life still lags behind that of Western developed countries. gap. This stage lasted until the disintegration, during which Russia's urbanization level once reached more than 73%.

There are two main factors affecting population changes, namely natural growth and net migration. Since 1992, both rural and urban areas in Russia have experienced negative population growth, with the urban population declining at a faster rate. During the urban crisis of 1991-1992, food shortages and soaring prices caused a short-term massive out-migration of the urban population. On the other hand, rural areas have absorbed a large number of Russians from other former Soviet Union countries, and some urban residents from eastern and northern Russia have also moved to rural areas in traditional Russian areas. A third specific factor contributing to urban population decline is administrative redifferentiation: hundreds of semi-urban towns are demanding a return to rural status, which would make their residents less able to afford water, electricity, public transport, and more. fees, and can also own large tracts of private land. These factors have simultaneously led to the growth of the population in rural areas and the decline of the total population in semi-urban areas. Large cities have also experienced population decline, while other groups have remained basically stable (see Table 1).

Table 1 Population and number of cities in different city groups in Russia in 1989, 1994 and 1999

Population size (unit: dry people) 1989 1994 1999

Total population (unit: million)

Urban population>250 54.2 53.4 52.8

Urban population 50-250 24.4 25.8 25.8

Urban population 20- 50 11.6 11.6 11.8

Urban population<20 4.3 4.5 4.8

Semi-urban residence 13.5 12.2 11.5

Rural 39.1 39.9 39.5

Urban population>250 78 76 74

Urban population 50-250 252 264 264

Urban population 20-50 360 361 365

Urban population<20 349 358 383

Semi-urban residence 2,193 2,066 1,922

Rural 152,900 No data No data

Data source : State Statistical Committee of the Russian Federation, the same below.

Figure 2 is a graph of the net migration rate of Russia’s urban and rural populations since 1970. As can be seen from the figure, except for the early 1990s, Russian cities were relatively popular. Before the crisis, Russia's rural population had been experiencing a long period of net emigration. In the classic urbanization theory, rural-urban migration has always been the main flow direction, and reverse flow is generally only possible during war periods. But what happened in Russia in the 1990s was different. For the first time in Russia, urban residents migrated to the countryside during peaceful times. However, with the gradual recovery of the Russian economy, this process only experienced a short period of time. The migration from rural areas to cities has once again become the mainstream, and immigrants from the former Soviet Union countries have also moved from their original places of residence in rural areas to cities. .

Figure 3 is a net population migration rate curve divided according to city size levels. Due to incomplete data, only some typical years are selected. It can be seen from the figure that before the crisis broke out, Russia slowly transitioned to the early mature stage of urbanization, and the net out-migration rate in rural areas slowly transitioned from very high to very low; in large and medium-sized cities, the in-migration rate was very high at the beginning. , it also begins to decline slowly after reaching a certain level. The unrest in the early 1990s caused the development process of all urban groupings to return to the early urban development stage. As mentioned earlier, during the 1992-94 crisis, rural areas and small cities became popular destinations for immigrants, attracting large numbers of Russians from large cities and former Soviet Union states. Immigrants from other countries and countries are often first resettled in villages and small cities and forced to make this their destination. But surveys show that these foreign settlers are not doing well in villages and small towns, and many of them are asking to leave. Unrest and these anti-urban government actions were the primary reasons for the regression and stagnation of Russia's urbanization process in the 1990s.

Figure 2 Inter-annual net migration of urban, rural and total population in Russia

Figure 3 Changes in inter-annual net migration rates of cities and rural areas of different sizes

Nonetheless, only one year, 1992, shows negative net migration rates for Russia's large cities. Relatively speaking, it is easier to make money in Russia's big cities. The bigger the city, the easier it is. For example, the population of the capital Moscow only accounts for 6% of the country, while the GDP accounts for 13.5% of the country, and the proportion of fiscal revenue is as high as 40%. Therefore, when the Russian economy began to recover, the net population migration rate in large cities rose steadily, while the net migration rate in rural areas and small cities declined rapidly. Over the years, Russia's urbanization process has returned from the anti-polarization stage during the crisis to the normal stage in the late 1980s. In addition, it should be noted that the rebound in the immigration rate of Russia's large cities is also closely related to the relaxation of entry barriers to large cities since the 1990s and the increasingly serious aging of the population in large cities, which requires a large number of young labor forces to supplement them.

3. Conclusion

Russia’s urbanization development has stagnated since the early 1990s, and its urbanization level once dropped to the level of some developed developing countries. The continued economic recession and social unrest have caused a significant increase in the mortality rate of Russia's urban population. Young couples are unwilling to have children, which has led to negative population growth and aging problems. These problems also appear in Western developed countries. Therefore, some scholars believe that Russia is developing into a counter-urbanization stage after experiencing a very high level of urbanization. However, through the above analysis, the author proves that this argument is wrong.

The counter-urbanization phenomenon that has occurred in Russia in recent years is not the counter-urbanization stage that Western countries have experienced. On the contrary, Russia's good urbanization process has been disrupted by the turmoil that has lasted for more than ten years. It has only been certain with the economic recovery in recent years. recovery, but it will take time to reach the mature stage of urbanization in Western developed countries.