Kolomak evolution of the spatial proportions in the post soviet

Evolution of the Spatial

Proportions in the Post-Soviet

Russia

Yevgenia Kolomak

Novosibirsk State University

40th EERC RESEARCH WORKSHOPMay 21, 2016

Soviet spatial policy

The soviet spatial policy was aimed at:

• even distribution of economic activity;

• support to Eastern and Northern

regions;

• restrictions on the rural-urban migration

• restrictions on the migration to primary

and large cities.

Expected transformations

The expected results of the market reforms:

• spatial concentration of the economic activity;

• migration from the East to the West;

• growth of the urban population;

• growth of the primary and the largest cities.

Relevant theories

The evolution of the spatial proportions is the transition from the “out-of-market” structure towards the market-based spatial equilibrium and gives materials for the testing:

• agglomeration economy and multiplicity of spatial equilibria;

• random growth theory;

• locational fundamentals theory.

Spatial concentration of economic activity

(geographical units are regions)

1995 2013 Δ 2013-1995

Theil index

Population 0.28 0.35 0.07

Employment 0.31 0.37 0.06

Gross regional product 0.46 0.86 0.40

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

Population 0.02 0.03 0.01

Employment 0.02 0.03 0.01

Gross regional product 0.03 0.08 0.05

Variation coefficient

Population 0.82 0.97 0.15

Employment 0.89 1.04 0.15

Gross regional product 1.17 2.13 0.96

Migration of the economic activity from

the East to the West

1995 2013 Δ 2013-1995

Theil-between index (differences between macro-regions East and West )

Population 0.004 0.007 0.003

Employment 0.004 0.005 0.001

Gross regional product 0.003 0.002 -0.001

Contribution of Theil-between index into Theil index, %

Population 1.4 2.1 0.7

Employment 1.3 0.4 0.1

Gross regional product 0.7 0.2 -0.5

Urban population

1991 2013 Δ2013-1991

Share of the urban

population, %

73.6 74.2 0.6

Mean city size,

thousand people

94.2 96.7 2.5

Median city size,

thousand people

31.0 28.7 -2.3

Coefficient of variation 3.8 4.5 0.7

Development of the primary and

the largest cities

1991 2013 Δ2013-1991

Share of Moscow in the

urban population, %

9.36 12.28 2.92

Share of the five largest

cities in the urban

population

19.00 21.76 2.76

Share of large cities in the

urban population, %

42.25 46.22 3.97

Rank-size distribution

1991 2013

Summary

• The spatial concentration increased,

however the rate of these process is

greatly lower than the predicted.

• The influence of the transitional shock on

the spatial proportions in Russia was not

drastic or even serious.

• The development of the Russian spatial

structure followed the global tendencies.

Relevant theories

• The low sensitivity of the Russian spatial structure to the new institutional environment is in accordance with the random growth theory and location fundamentals theory.

• The rank-size relationship do not change essentially.

• The location fundamentals (geographical, cultural and historical) stabilize spatial structure.

• The multiplicity of spatial equilibria rather is not confirmed.

Gross regional product

Independent variable 1995-2012

Capital 0.132*** (0.028)

Employment 0.962*** (0.137)

Population density 0.474*** (0.108)

Herfindhal-Hirschman index 0.286*** (0.075)

Market potential 3.235*** (0.785)

Higher education 0.013 (0.039)

Number of the observations 924

Number of regions 77

R2within 0.979

City population

Independent variable 2006-2011

Distance to railway station -0.152*** (0.006)

Population density 0.152*** (0.011)

Average wage 0.429*** (0.429)

Herfindal-Hirschman index -0.396*** (0.024)

Higher education 56.065*** (5.129)

Administrative center of region 1.008*** (0.088)

Number of observations 6354

R2 0.47

Conclusion

• Market forces had the influence on the evolution of the Russian spatial structure;

• The agglomeration economy including concentration, diversification, market size, transport and social infrastructure participated into shaping of the spatial proportions.

• Probably the role of the market mechanisms was restricted and the agglomeration potential in the Russian economy was not enough to speed up the transformation of the spatial structure.

Thank you!