Transcript Handbook of Russian Economy Economic Geography

Russian Economic Geography: Past and Present
Экономическая география России:
история и современность
А. Маркевич, Т. Михайлова
Российская Экономическая Школа
Круглый стол «Пространственная экономика и
моделирование развития в федеративном
государстве»
21 октября, 2011
Центр по исследованию проблем федерализма и местного
самоуправления в федеративном государстве
Geographical allocation of
economic activity in Russia
= Three standard forces at work:
1. First nature of geography (endowment)
•
climate, terrain, natural resources
2. Second nature of geography (man-made
infrastructure)
•
•
History
Policy
These are the main factors explaining current
location of productive resources
3. Third nature of geography (interaction among
economic agents)
•
last 20 years
Endowment
History
• History of Russian Empire = territorial
expansion
– Core regions (traditionally Russian): Moscow
and north-west
– The rest of the country was a frontier at some
point in history
 spatial population dynamics
• History of the USSR = regional industrial
policy
Territorial expansion
1460
1462-1553
1553-1584
1581-1689
1682-1725
1762-1796
1801-1856
1856-1894
Population diffusion
in Russian Empire
• Migration to better lands: shift to the south and eastward
– Constraint: external (nomad) military threat
• Low level of migration: 0.2 percent per year in the 17-19th Cc.
(Mironov 1999)
– State-controlled migration
• Barriers to migration (elites demand cheap labor in ‘old’ regions)
– Domar hypothesis (1970): serfdom introduced because
of negative shock to labor to land ration in the 16th C.
Overpopulation in the central and black earth region
Population geography in historical
perspective
1795
Population geography in historical
perspective
1858
Population geography in historical
perspective
1905
Population geography in historical
perspective
1995
Population diffusion
in the 20th century
• Late 19 – early 20th Cc. - relatively free migration
– the only period in Russian history!
Rapid growth of migration to South Siberia and
redistribution of labor onto available land
– Constraints: transportation costs and poor access to
credit (Chernina et al. 2011)
• Back to state control during the Soviet times
• Eastward (and to the north) shift of population
because of industrial policy
– The WWII shock
So, how does Russian population
geography compare to other countries’?
• Too cold
– large share in cold climates (Below -20ºC in january Russia –
25%, Canada < 5%)
• Too spread out
– Centered population concentration measures are among the
lowest cross-country (Campante&Do, 2009).
– Why? Not only endowment, but also Soviet policy.
• Far from borders, ports, world markets
– Soviet legacy
• On the other hand, infrastructure, transport, political
power are too centralized
– connections center-periphery dominate
– (exceptions in Siberia, b/c of linear gegraphical structure)
– connections between peripheral regions are weak (L. Dienes:
“Archipelago Russia”)
– Why? Legacy of centralized state + territorial expansion
Urbanization in historical perspective:
• Imperial period
– Expansion of territory  fortress/towns
– Catherine the Second administrative reform
• need region and district capitals
• spread them over the territory
– Non-industrial occupations of urban citizens
• ‘city’ was a legal, not economic, category
– Regulation of mobility and occupation of urban citizens by the
state
• Soviet period
– Move labor to natural resources and construct new cities where
necessary
• Mono-cities and working settlements
– Rapid growth of large cities after the WWII
So, what do we know about
Russian cities?
• too many of them for the population size
– meaning, they are too small on average too few of
them for the territory
• too few of them for the territory
– meaning, they are too far away from each other
(Treivish, 2007)
Legacy of both RE and USSR
(WDR 2009: isolation of small cities, urbanization data
overstated)
 Agglomeration externalities are weak (exceptions
are few: Msk, SPb, Ekt,…)
• many are essentially rural population centers
– was this way since imperial times
Industrial and regional policy in
USSR
• Stated goal of regional equality
– Was it achieved? No
– Did it change regional structure of industry compared
to the counterfactual? Likely, yes.
• Consumer goods production is too spread out
• Indirect evidence: local monopolies in consumer good
production (Ickes), violation of one-price law (Glushenko,
others)
• Emphasis on proximity to natural resources +
rigidity of Soviet capital investments  relative
prices change, attraction of resources change, but industries are still
there
1913-1928, growth of industrial output
1928-1940, growth of industrial output
1940-1950, growth of industrial output
1950-1959, growth of industrial output
1959-1970, growth of industrial output
1970-1975, growth of industrial output
1980-1989, growth of industrial output
Soviet regional policy
• South-western Siberia grew faster than
average, always
• Southern ethnic republics
• Other regional priorities changed in
“waves”
– North, Far East – more often
Major shift of population to the east
Transition and present time
• Population migration
– General trend: from north and east to south and west (reversal of
Soviet subsidized trend), concentration (Heleniak, 2002, Kim
2007, others)
– Exceptions: oil regions
• Regional investment
– market potential attracts, remoteness dampens investment,
concentration (Brown at al, 2008, others)
– Exceptions: oil regions
• Divergence of regional incomes, productivity, quality of
life (Lugovoi et al, 2007)
– mitigated partially through transfers
– exceptions: neighbours of rich become a bit richer (Kholodilin et
al, 2008)
Conclusions
• Economic Geography of Russia now is a product
of history:
– History = history of state’s involvement in the
economy
• free migration of factors was an exception, not a rule
– Soviet regional policy is most important legacy
– But Soviet policies had Imperial legacy as a starting
point, and some of it still survives
• International experience suggests further spatial
concentration of economic activity, and data
support this