The Attractiveness of the Centers and Secondary Cities of the Regions for Internal Migrants in Russia
https://doi.org/10.31857/S258755662004007X
Abstract
The article examines the intensity of net intraregional and interregional migration of the population of regional centers and the secondary (by population) cities in 74 regions of Russia between 2012–2016. The information basis of the study is formed by municipalities’ indicators database for the relevant years. The low saturation of the Russian territory with cities should logically lead to the migration attractiveness of the secondary cities in the intraregional migration process, as they should be the important focuses of social and economic life. That should be expressed by a positive net migration coefficient. In fact, this is the case in 42 regions. In other regions, the final balance of intraregional migration of the secondary cities is negative. At the same time, migration can be considered as an indicator of the conditional well-being of the secondary cities both in the context of having their own stable hinterland and from socio-economic perspective. Regional centers are attractive for intraregional migrants almost everywhere. Such consistency is the result of the concentration of financial and other flows and powers in the regions’ capital cities and, regardless of the socio-economic situation, a better quality of life there compared to other municipalities of the same regions. Indicators of interregional migration are more ambiguous: from the standpoint of the net-migration balance not only the second cities of the regions, but also many regional centers are unattractive for interregional migrants. Limited demographic resources and the presence of the two powerful centers of migration attraction at the country level (Moscow and St. Petersburg) do not leave room for interregional migration growth to the most regional centers.
Supporting agencies: The article is an output of a research project implemented as part of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
About the Author
L. B. Karachurina
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Breslavskii A.S. Rural migrants in the post-Soviet Ulan-Ude: expectations, strategies, practices of settling. Oikumena. Reg. Issled., 2012, no. 4, pp. 55–61. (In Russ.).
2. Vakulenko E.S. Migration in Russian cities: econometric analysis. Prikladnaya Ekonometrika, 2012, no. 25 (1), pp. 25–50. (In Russ.).
3. Vendina O.I. Russian space: old and new development criteria. In Krupnye goroda i vyzovy globalizatsii [Large Cities and Challenges of Globalization]. Kolosov V., Jekkert D., Eds. Smolensk: Oikumena Publ., 2003, pp. 114–127. (In Russ.).
4. Zubarevich N.V. Rent of the capital status. Pro et Contra, 2012, no. 6, pp. 6–18. (In Russ.).
5. Kaganskii V.L. Boom of secondary cities. Russkii Zhurnal, 2005. Available at: http://old.russ.ru/culture/20050221_kag.html (accessed: 10.03.2020). (In Russ.).
6. Karachurina L.B. Population dynamics of centers and secondary cities of Russia’s regions: trends towards polycentricity? Reg. Res. Russ., 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 308–321.
7. Karachurina L.B., Mkrtchyan N.V. The dynamics of the population numbers in municipal areas of the Russian Federation as the reflection of the center-periphery conception of spatial development. Reg. Issled., 2010, no. 3, pp. 69–83. (In Russ.).
8. Karachurina L.B., Mkrtchyan N.V. Change of population numbers in administrative units and cities of Russia (1989–2010): centrer-periphery relationships. In Voprosy geografii. Sb. 135: Geografiya naseleniya i sotsial’naya geografiya [Problems of Geography. Vol. 135: Geography of Population and Social Geography]. Alekseev A.I., Tkachenko A.A., Eds. Moscow: Kodeks Publ., 2013, pp. 82–107. (In Russ.).
9. Lappo G.M. Vice-capitals of Russian regions. Geografiya, 2008, no. 3, pp. 5–13. (In Russ.).
10. Leksin V.N., Karacharovskii V. The reasons and the consequences of overconcentration of Russian economic and social potentials in the largest cities. Ross. Ekon. Zh., 2007, no. 1-2, pp. 26–46. (In Russ.).
11. Mkrtchyan N.V. Population dynamics of Russia’s regions and the role of migration: critical assessment based on the 2002 and 2010 censuses. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2011, no. 5, pp. 7–21. (In Russ.).
12. Mkrtchyan N.V. From Russia to Russia: from where and where do internal migrants go. Mir Rossii, 2003, no. 2, pp. 151–164. (In Russ.).
13. Naselenie Rossii 2013. Dvadtsat’ pervyi ezhegodnyi demograficheskii doklad [Population of Russia 2013. TwentyFirst Annual Demographic Report]. Zakharov S.V., Ed. Moscow: Vyssh. Shkola Ekonomiki, 2015. 428 p.
14. Nefedova T.G. Urban migration attraction as indicator of transformation of the russian post-Soviet urban space. Nauka. Innovatsii. Tekhnologiya, 2014, no. 2, pp. 106–135. (In Russ.).
15. Pokshishevskii V.V. The problem of the secondary city. In Problemy urbanizatsii i rasseleniya (II sovetskopol’skii seminar po urbanizatsii) [Problems of Urbanization and Settlement Patterns (II Soviet-Polish Seminar on Urbanization)]. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ., 1976, pp. 178–187. (In Russ.).
16. Treivish A.I. Russia: population and space. Demoskop Weekly, 2003, no. 95–96. Available at: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2003/095/tema05.php (accessed: 26.02.2020). (In Russ.).
17. Treivish A.I. Gorod, raion, strana i mir. Razvitie Rossii glazami stranoveda [City, District, Country, and the World. The Development of Russia through the Eyes of a Regional Geographer]. Moscow: Novyi Khronograf Publ., 2009. 373 p.
18. Angel S., Blei A., Parent J., Civco D. Atlas of Urban Expansion. Cambridge: Lincoln Inst. of Land Policy, 2012. 398 p.
19. Argent N., Walmsley J. Rural youth migration trends in Australia: an overview of recent trends and two inland case studies. Geogr. Res., 2008, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 139–152. doi 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2008.00505.x
20. Kanna A., Chen X. Introduction: Bringing the less familiar cities in and together (Editorial). In Rethinking global urbanism: Comparative insights from secondary cities. Chen X., Kanna A. (Eds.). New York, London, Center for Urban and Global Studies, United States, 2012, pp. 1–14.
21. Karachurina L., Mkrtchyan N. Age-specific net migration patterns in the municipal formations of Russia. GeoJournal, 2018, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 119–136. doi 10.1007/s10708-016-9757-4
22. Morrill R. Aging in place, age specific migration and natural decrease. Ann. Reg. Sci., 1995, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 41–66.
23. Raymer J., Abel G., Smith P.W.F. Combining census and registration data to estimate detailed elderly migration flows in England and Wales. J. Royal Stat. Soc., Ser. A Stat. Soc., 2007, vol. 170, no. 4, pp. 891–908.
24. Roberts B. Managing Systems of Secondary Cities. Cities Alliance, UNOPS. Brussels: Cities Alliance, 2014. 232 p.
25. The Role of Small and Medium-Sized Towns (SMESTO). Final Report. Vienna: European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON 1.4.1), 2006. Available at: https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/fr-1.4.1_revised-full.pdf (accessed: 26.02.2020).
Graphical Abstract
|
1. PDF | |
| Subject | ||
| Type | Исследовательские инструменты | |
Download
(3MB)
|
Indexing metadata ▾ | |
Review
For citations:
Karachurina L.B. The Attractiveness of the Centers and Secondary Cities of the Regions for Internal Migrants in Russia. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2020;84(4):506–516. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S258755662004007X
Views:
558
Email this article 
