Factors of migration of the northern regions’ population

For the Russian North the period of 1990s and 2000s turned out to be complicated in the demographic development. The national economy’s transition to the market principles, the change of the state’s role in the northern areas’ development resulted in the essential population’s and manpower resources’ reduction (tab. 1) .

From 1990 to 2009 the population of the North of Russia decreased from 9 million 807 thousand to 8 million 204 thousand people, i.e. the cumulative losses of the northern territories’ population made 1 million 603 thousand people. The European part of the Russian North has 65.9% of losses, the Asian part has 34.1% of them. As a result the ratio between the Asian and European shares of population changed. If in the beginning of 1980s in the European North more than 50.0% of the total number of population lived, by 2009 the number reduced to 45.7%. Thus, it is possible to note that from the mid-1980s the population of the Asian North began to outnumber the population of the European North.

During the period of the Russian North development in the decision of the problem of the enterprises’ providing with manpower resources migration had special value. The point is that natural resources are situated far from the inhabited areas of the country. For their economic circulation it is necessary to involve the enormous quantity of people. In such areas there is a situation when the number of migrants starts to outnumber the native population in many times.

Nowadays the role of migration is also great. Though at the initial stage of the extensive North territories’ development migration caused the population’s growth, at present time, on the contrary, it takes up a significant part of the northern territories’ population (tab. 2) .

Table 1. Population of the northern regions which territories completely belong to the Far North and to the districts compared to them in 1990 – 2009, thousand persons

Regions	1990	1995	2000	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
The Russian Federation	147,665	148,460	146,890	143,474	142,754	142,221	142,009	141,904
The North of Russia	9,807	9,111	8,509	8,295	8,260	8,233	8,229	8,204
European North	4,808	4,493	4,124	3,877	3,839	3,805	3,782	3,751
Karelia Republic	792	771	735	703	698	693	691	688
Komi Republic	1,249	1,157	1,058	996	985	975	968	959
Archangelsk region	1,576	1,498	1,390	1,305	1,291	1,280	1,272	1,262
Murmansk region	1,191	1,067	941	873	865	857	851	842
Asian North	4,999	4,618	4,385	4,418	4,421	4,428	4,447	4,453
Sakha Republic (Yakutia)	1,111	1,037	963	951	950	950	951	950
Tyva Republic	313	303	306	308	308	309	312	314
Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets Autonomous District)	52	43	38	39	39	38	38	37
Evenki Autonomous District	24	20	18	18	17	17	17	16
Kamchatka Territory	477	422	372	352	349	347	346	344
Magadan region	390	267	202	175	172	169	166	163
Sakhalin region	714	659	569	532	526	521	519	515
Hanty-Mansijsky Autonomous District (Yugra)	1,267	1,293	1,360	1,469	1,478	1,488	1,505	1,520
Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District	489	478	496	523	531	539	543	544
Chukotsky Autonomous District	162	96	61	51	51	50	50	50

Table 2. Population increase in the northern regions, which territories completely belong to the Far North and to the districts compared to them in 1990 – 2009, thousand persons

Regions	Years	Increase / Decrease			Annual average increase / decrease
		Total	Natural	Mechanical	Natural	Mechanical
The Russian Federation	1991 – 1995	17,892	-2,599396	2,617288	-519,879	523,458
	1996 – 2000	-1,988027	-4,127058	2,139031	-825,412	427,806
	2001 – 2005	-3,550060	-4,406566	856,506	-881,313	171,301
	2006 – 2008	-849,572	-1,519397	669,825	-506,466	223,275
The North of Russia	1991 – 1995	-844,654	58,171	-902,825	11,634	-180,565
	1996 – 2000	-505,299	-23,549	-481,750	-4,710	-96,350
	2001 – 2005	-183,181	-32,707	-150,474	-6,542	-30,094
	2006 – 2008	-57,760	37,060	-94,820	12,353	-31,607
The European North	1991 – 1995	-379,853	-51,645	-328,208	-10,329	-65,642
	1996 – 2000	-345,550	-86,151	-259,399	-17,230	-51,880
	2001 – 2005	-225,159	-110,443	-114,716	-22,089	-22,943
	2006 – 2008	-87,995	-33,908	-54,087	-11,303	-18,029
The Asian North	1991 – 1995	-464,801	109,816	-574,617	21,963	-114,923
	1996 – 2000	-159,749	62,602	-222,351	12,520	-44,470
	2001 – 2005	41,978	77,736	-35,758	15,547	-7,151
	2006 – 2008	30,235	70,968	-40,733	23,656	-13,578

As it is represented in table 2, for the last 18 years the population dynamics in the Russian North was basically determined by the migratory population decrease. Negative migration dynamics is characteristic both for the European and the Asian North. However the Asian North, in comparison with the European

North, had the stable positive natural increase at the mentioned period of time.

For each period of the North territories’ development a specific approach was characteristic. For example, the migration policy developers of the 1920-s and 1930-s believed that after the population “attraction” to the northern areas the most part of it will stay to live and work in the North. In this plan the experience of the migratory policy, got at the period of the New Economic Policy by the Karelia Republic government and by the Transport and Industrial colonization complex of the Murmansk railway is of interest. In 1923 the Murmansk railway got at its disposal the territory of 3.3 million hectares along the route from Petrozavodsk to Murmansk for the period of 10 years. The colonization department of the Murmansk railway and the Transport and Industrial colonization complex of the Murmansk railway developed active economic activities on this under-populated territory. The main part of takings in the colonization road fund was fine payment for wood. The main part of funds was spent on land-utilization, amelioration, and immigrants’ needs.

At first there were some doubts, whether there would be the migrants wishing to move to the uninhabited northern territory. However the number of those who wished to settle on the colonization grounds outnumbered the opportunities to accept them. The experience showed, that the most enduring immigrants were the persons who had arrived in search of a job and accustomed with the northern climate; 55.6% of the migrants were natives of the North-West area (Cherepovets, Petrograd, Novgorod, Pskov, and Murmansk provinces and the Karelian ASSR), including 35% from Karelia.

There was established a number of privileges for the migrants: they were exempted for 10 years from a compulsory military service; moving to the new residence was carried out at the expense of the colonization fund; all the migrants were given the right of free-of-charge deforestation for building needs, material and monetary loans were granted for house construction and ameliorative works. The loans were to be returned after two privileged years for 10 years with the equal annual payments without tax charge. At successful housekeeping one third of the loan could be transferred into the permanent loan. To tell the truth, the loans were rather small: in 1924 the average rate was

914 rubles for an economy; in 1925 the rate was 337 rubles, in 1926 about 500 rubles for a family.

Each resettled family was obliged to construct the house within the first two years, and before the house construction to pay the occupied lodging at its own expense. The potential migrant should have some capital for settling on a new place. The construction of a house demanded from 1 thousand to 2.5 thousand rubles to be spent. As a rule, the houses included the living space of 10x12 m and consisted of two halves, one of which was let out. By the end of 1920s about 75% of all migrants lived in their own houses and only about 3% had not started house construction. For the successful housekeeping a migrant should have a horse or a cow, agricultural and trade equipment. In practice, cattle were about 46%, small livestock – about 42, horses – only 9% of arrivals.

A migrant in Karelia was in heavy conditions from the very beginning. He came to the place where there was neither habitation, nor roads. In the migrants’ settlements the inhabitants arranged markets, built bath-houses; in 1920s the accent was made on the point that a migrant could stay in the severe conditions of the North. Therefore each new house constructed by a colonist, was considered as “a new step to the economical and cultural development of the region” [1, pp. 33-36].

The experience of formation of the northern territories’ population in 1930s is worth mentioning. In 1930 G. Yagoda stated the idea of the North colonization and enormous natural resources’ development by prisons’ and camps’ foundation, and also by means of colonization settlements. The streams of the compulsory migration preceded more realized since 1931, in view of the purposes and tasks of the colonization policy’s realization. Henceforth in the labor force’s balance “special contingent” played an important (in some economic programs the main) role. The population arrived in such a way, was infringed in the civil rights and could not leave the place of “registration”. However after the term of banishment expired, convicts intended to return to their native places. The local party bodies, concerned with the convicts’ opportunity to leave and to aggravate the situation with the labor force at forest harvesting operations, with a view to attract such type of settlers to manufacture, suggested to force house construction with granting free-of-charge forest products, to sell them cattle for a reduced price, to hold the political and educational work through schools [2, pp. 27, 79]. The reaction of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR towards such state of affairs was prohibition for the persons restored in the civil rights to leave their settlements; they were just allowed to change jobs and addresses within the limits of the administrative area. We shall note, that at the beginning of the North development the party bodies began to realize, that the measures of economic and other character are necessary for the population fastening in the areas of economic development.

The problem of the population fastening in the Northern areas was also important during the following years. It was understood that solving the problem of inter-district manpower redistribution and creating constant settled population in the re-developed areas of the North, Siberia and the Far East depend on various factors. Speaking about influence on migration, Professor L.L. Rybakovsky marked, that “the important element of control is the mechanism of influence on the migration processes. The central place in it belongs to studying the factors of population migration” [3, p. 132] . We shall consider this moment in detail.

Factors don’t influence a phenomenon directly, they influence mediately, through consciousness, through a person’s mentality. For the social phenomena the factors and the reasons are logically arranged into the ternary scheme: factors - reasons - phenomenon. Here a reason is an intermediate between a factor and an action. Human behavior (including in the migration sphere), is determined by the internal system of needs and by the environment, i.e. by the subjective and objective components in their organic interrelation. The existing variety of factors’ sets with their division in importance can be explained by the distinctions in hierarchy of people’s needs. The sequence and the measure of change of the territorial or lodged distinctions are entirely determined by the population’s attitude towards them, by the structure of its needs [4, pp. 316-317] .

All factors can be divided into invariable or permanent factors (climate, location, etc.); temporary or slowly varying factors (structural factors, territories’ development, etc.) and variable or changeable factors (directly or indirectly) during a rather short period of time. As a matter of fact, they are regulators of the population migration.

It is obvious, that factors should be considered not concerning the population migration as a whole, but, following the points of the theory of the three-staged migratory process, they should be analyzed either at the first stage (mobility formation), or at the final stage (new settlers’ habitation). Such approach is caused by the fact that the factors’ sets at the first and at the third stages are not the same. The point, that absolute factors’ values, whether they are in the areas of leaving or in the places of migrants’ settlements, don’t influence migrations, but their regional levels’ differentiation, also repeats. And the orientation of this differentiation can abruptly vary.

Factors of the population migration – primary and minor – both in the previous planning-regulated system, and in the market con- ditions, don’t operate separately, but jointly, just changing their importance in different places and at different times. It concerns both internal and external, both voluntary and compelled population migrations though the factors’ sets can be different in all cases. The exception is only made for the compelled migrations, where the legal factor is dominating.

In the migrations’ control system, where influence is directed on the adjustable factors, four directions are usually mentioned:

• -    legal factors – laws and other normative acts making a legal field within the framework of which migration regulation is carried out;

• -    economic factors are mainly financial expenses for attraction, property losses’ indemnity and migrants’ arrangement, including budgetary and off-budget means;

• -    organizational factors and informational propaganda.

According to these four directions both federal and regional migration programs are usually formed. In many respects their efficiency is determined by the fact, so far as these programs take into account the value of the subjective factor.

Table 3. Allocation of the migrants at the age of 14 years and older, according to the circumstances, which caused the address change, in the Northern regions, which territories completely belong to the Far North and to the districts compared to them, in 2005 and 2008, %

Reasons of the address change	Migrants on arrival
	2005*				2008 *
	н	н	н	н	н	н	н	н
All reasons of departure	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
- in connection with studies	8.8	9.8	15.5	6.2	7.3	8.8	15.2	5.5
- in connection with work	10.4	23.0	13.6	28.8	10.7	25.5	14.7	31.1
- return to the previous address	15.4	17.8	20.3	16.3	10.8	12.3	13.9	11.5
- because of the interethnic relations’ aggravation	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1
- because of the criminogenic situation’s aggravation	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0
- ecological ill-being	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.4
- discrepancy to the natural and climatic conditions	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.3
- the reasons of the private character	59.3	45.0	45.2	44.9	63.0	48.3	50.8	47.1
- other reasons	5.1	4.0	5.1	3.2	7.4	4.4	5.0	4.0

* The Russian Federation population and its migration in 2005. Statistical bulletin. – M., 2006. – Pp. 106-108.

** The Russian Federation population and its migration in 2008. Statistical bulletin. – М., 2009. – Pp. 99-101.

It is possible to observe how the migration factors operate in practice (by the example of the reasons of the population arrival or leaving in the regions of the North). We shall start analyzing with the reasons according to which the population comes to the North to live and work (tab. 3) .

Among the set of the arrival reasons, offered to the migrants, first of all they chose the reasons of “private character” (48.3%); every fourth chose the reason “in connection with work” (25.5%); “return to the previous address” ranks third (12.3%), and “in connection with studies” ranks fourth (8.8%). The reasons of arrival to the Asian North coincide with the reasons of arrival to the North of Russia in general. The European North has a different rank of the reasons’ importance. The reason “in connection with studies” ranks second (15.2%); “in connection with work” ranks third (14.7%); “return to the previous address” ranks fourth (13.9%). As the European North is considered to be more habitable, people come here more to study, and less to work.

It is a well-known fact, that non-realized needs induce the population to change either the job, or the address, or even both things simultaneously. Therefore the second step on the studying the population’s migration mobility is studying the reasons according to which the population leaves the North (tab. 4) .

According to the departure reasons it is possible to draw the following conclusions. There are only four main reasons of departure from the Russian North: 1) the reasons of “private character” – 56.0%; 2) “return to the previous address” – 12.6%; 3) “in connection with studies” – 12.3%; 4) “in connection with work” – 12.1%. In the Asian North the reason “in connection with work” ranks third, and “in connection with studies” ranks fourth. The European North has its distinctive set of the departure reasons. The general reason of “private character” ranks first – 58.1%; “in connection with studies” ranks second – 14.7%; “return to the previous address” ranks third – 10.5%; “in connection with work” ranks forth – 9.6%.

Table 4. Allocation of the migrants at the age of 14 years and older, according to the circumstances, which caused the address change, in the Northern regions, which territories completely belong to the Far North and to the districts compared to them, in 2005 and 2008, %

Reasons of the address change	Migrants on leaving
	2005*				2008 *
	н	s н	н	н	н	S н	н	н
All reasons of departure	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
- in connection with studies	9.1	11.7	14.1	10.0	8.1	12.3	14.7	10.8
- in connection with work	10.8	12.2	9.9	13.7	10.7	12.1	9.6	13.6
- return to the previous address	16.0	16.3	14.5	17.6	11.6	12.6	10.5	13.9
- because of the interethnic relations’ aggravation	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1
- because of the criminogenic situation’s aggravation	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
- ecological ill-being	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.2	0.5
- discrepancy to the natural and climatic conditions	0.3	1.0	0.9	1.2	0.3	1.0	0.9	1.1
- the reasons of the private character	58.5	53.6	55.0	52.6	61.9	56.0	58.1	54.8
- other reasons	5.0	5.0	5.3	4.7	7.2	5.5	5.9	5.2

* The Russian Federation population and its migration in 2005. Stat. bull. – М., 2006. – Pp. 109-111.

** The Russian Federation population and its migration in 2008. Stat. bull. – М., 2009. – Pp. 102-104.

It is possible to conclude, that just as before, scientific community and experts face the question on the mechanism of the population formation in the areas of the new economic development, and managing subjects face the problem of providing them with human resources. The experience shows, that in the new market conditions the former rather effective methods of the population’s attraction to the country’s northern areas do not operate. The exception belongs to such territories as the Usinsky area in Komi Republic and Hanty-Mansijsky Autono- mous District (Yugra) in the Tyumen area. “But all these are the areas, where there is powerful resourceful and economic base (oil, gas, nickel, diamonds, appetites), the spots of the comparative well-being among huge amount of suffering territories” [5, p. 26]. Today it is necessary to define, what factors it is possible to influence on so as to develop new economic areas with the smaller economic and social costs, so as to support the population in the developed and still having the important strategic value areas of the North, Siberia and the Far East.