.

1. Evolution of the Spatial
Proportions in the Post-Soviet
Russia
Yevgenia Kolomak
Novosibirsk State University
40th EERC RESEARCH WORKSHOP
May 21, 2016

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Rank-size distribution
1991 2013

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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
R2
within 0.979

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Thank you!