Moving Up: Migration between Levels of the Settlement Hierarchy in Russia in the 2010s

For the first time on Russian data for 2011–2020 the flow of population between 7 levels of the settlement hierarchy is estimated. Levels of the settlement hierarchy are represented by cities of different population sizes and their suburbs, other urban and rural settlements. Indicators of migration icrease (decrease) of the population and indicators of demographic efficiency in the form of matrices are calculated for the hierarchy levels. It is shown that the scale of this flow is affected by changes in the system of migration registration in Russia in the 2010s, namely, the automatic return of migrants to their place of permanent residence after the end of the period of registration at the place of residence. The beneficiaries of the population “vertical migration” are cities with over 250 thous. inhabitants, the biggest winners are the urban agglomerations of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Each next settlement hierarchy level gives the population “up” and receives replenishment from the lower “layers.” In contrast to countries where similar studies were conducted (USA, Canada, the Netherlands, etc.), there is no population flow from top to bottom in Russia, and upward flows have a very high efficiency; it is especially high for Moscow, St. Petersburg, and their suburbs. Despite the population movement between neighboring settlement hierarchy levels, its demographic effect is not as great as in irregular migrations. The research calculations are based on the migrants’ individual depersonalized data, which allow detailing migration flows to individual settlements in Russia. Spatial data referencing was carried out based on 15-digit Rosstat codes unique for each settlement. This made it possible to analyze migration not between administrative units, but between settlements grouped by population size. It was also possible to identify the influence of the features of accounting for migration on the population flow between the selected groups of settlements in the 2010s.

1. Bjarnason T., Stockdale A., Shuttleworth I., EimermannM., Shucksmith M. At the intersection of urbanisation and counterurbanisation in rural space: Microurbanisation in Northern Iceland. J. Rural Studies, 2021, vol.87, pp. 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.009

2. Chudinovskikh O.S. On Revision of the UN Recommendations on Statistics of Migration (1998) and the Russian Context. Vopr. Statistiki, no. 8, pp. 61–76. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2019-26-8-61-76

3. Denisov E.A. Migration processes in the cities of the Russian North in the 1990s–2000s. Reg. Res. Russ., 2018, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 158–168.

4. de Jong P.A., Brouwer A.E., McCann P. Moving up and down the urban hierarchy: age-articulated interregional migration flows in the Netherlands. Ann. Reg. Sci., 2016, 57 (1), pp. 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-016-0772-7

5. Fielding A.J. Counterurbanisation in Western Europe. Progress in Planning, 1982, vol. 17, pp. 1–52.

6. Karachurina L.B., Mkrtchyan N.V. Intraregional Population Migration in Russia: Suburbs Outperform Capitals. Reg. Res. Russ., 2021, 11 (1), pp. 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970521010068

7. Karachurina L.B., Mkrtchyan N.V. The role of migration in enhancing settlement pattern contrasts at the municipal level in Russia. Reg. Res. Russ., 2016, 6 (4), pp. 332– 343. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970516040080

8. Karachurina L.B., Mkrtchyan N.V., Petrosian A.N. Spatial Patterns of Net Migration in the Suburbs of Russian Regional Centers. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., 2021, no. 6, pp. 123–134. (In Russ.).

9. Korpi M., Clark W.A.V., Malmberg B. The urban hierarchy and domestic migration: The interaction of internal migration, disposable income and the cost of living, Sweden 1993–2002. J. Economic Geogr., 2011, vol. 1, no. 6, pp.1051–1077. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq043

10. Kurichev N.K., Kuricheva E.K. Regional differentiation of buyersэ activity in the primary housing market of the Moscow agglomeration. Reg. Res. Russ., 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 322–333.

11. Liu T., Wang J. Bringing city size in understanding the permanent settlement intention of rural-urban migrants in China. Popul. Space Place, 2020, vol. 26, no. 4, e2295. (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2295

12. Ma T., Lu R., Zhao N., Shaw S.-L. An estimate of rural exodus in China using location-aware data. PLoS One, 2018, vol. 13, no. 7, e0201458. (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201458

13. Makhrova A.G., Babkin R.A. Analysis of Moscow agglomeration settlement system pulsations based mobile operators data. Reg. Issled., 2018, no. 2, pp. 68–78. (In Russ.).

14. Makhrova A.G., Kirillov P.L. The ‘Housing dimension’ of contemporary urbanization in Russia. Reg. Issled., 2014, no. 4, pp. 134–144. (In Russ.).

15. Mkrtchyan N.V. Migration balance of russian cities: on the role of population size and position in the system of central peripheral relations. Nauchnye trudy: INP RAN, Korovkin A.G., Ed. Moskow: MAKS Press Publ., vol.9, pp. 416–430. (In Russ.).

16. Mkrtchyan N. Problems in the statistics of internal Russian migration caused by changes in accounting methods in 2011. Demographic Rev., 2020, 7(1), pp. 83–99. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v7i1.10821

17. Mkrtchyan N.V. Regional Capitals of Russia and Their Suburbs: Specifics of the Migration Balance. Reg. Res. Russ., 2019, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970519010076

18. Nefedova T.G. Contrasts of socio-economic space in the center of Russia and their evolution: two cross-section cases. Reg. Issled., 2020, no. 2, pp. 18–38. (In Russ.).

19. Nefedova T.G., Slepukhina I.L., Brade I. Migration attractiveness of cities in the post-Soviet space: A case study of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Reg. Res. Russ., 2016, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970516020088

20. Nefedova T.G., Treyvish A.I. TheUrbanization and Seasonal Deurbanization in Modern Russia. Reg. Res. Russ., 2019, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970519010088

21. Newbold K.B. Migration Up and Down Canada’s Urban Hierarchy. Canadian J. Urban Research, 2011, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 131–149.

22. Plane D.A., Henrie C.J. The role of hierarchical proximity in migration and population growth: Urban shadow versus urban synergy effects. Studies Reg. Sci., 2012, vol.42, no. 1, pp. 109–128. https://doi.org/10.2457/srs.42.109

23. Plane D.A., Henriec C.J., Perry M.J. Migration up and down the urban hierarchy and across the life course. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. United States of America (PNAS), 2005, vol. 102, no. 43, pp.15313–15318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507312102

24. Plane D.A., Jurjevich J.R. Ties That No Longer Bind? The Patterns and Repercussions of Age-Articulated Migration. Professional Geographer, 2009, vol. 61, no. 1, pp.4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802577558

25. Schur А.Е. Cities of over a million people on the mortality map of Russia. Demographic Rev., 5(4), 66–91. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v5i4.8663

26. Song Y., Zhang С. City size and housing purchase intention: Evidence from rural-urban migrants in China. Urban Studies, 2020, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 1866–1886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019856822

27. van Leeuwen E. S., Venhorst V.A. Do households prefer to move up or down the urban hierarchy during an economic crisis? J. Geog. Sys. 2021, vol. 23, pp. 263–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-021-00353-7

28. Yaojun Z., Danlin Y., Qiao C. Investigating China’s interprefecture migration from a place attractivity perspective, its spatial patterns, and demographic characteristics. Demographic Res., 2019, vol. 41, pp. 1007–1020. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2019.41.34

29. Zubarevich N. Moscow as a rentier city. Pro et Contra, 2012, vol. 16, pp. 6–18. (In Russ.).