The demographic situation in Russia is usually painted in apocalyptic terms. The Russian Cross – the post-Soviet transition into a world of death without new life – will supposedly preclude it from attaining First World living standards and wreck any Great Power, let alone superpower, pretensions. Is Russia Too Sick to Matter and the Sick Man of Europe, as alleged by Nicholas Eberstadt in two reports in 1999 and 2004, respectively? Are we seeing the Death of a Nation?
To answer these questions, we’ll look at the statistics and trends, and extrapolate into the future under three different scenarios – 1. Stagnation, 2. Improvement and 3. Transformation. In the end we conclude that while the demographic, or rather the mortality, problem is indeed serious, it need not entail pessimism if appropriate measures are taken. Nor will it have anything but a negligible effect on the economy.
First, let us look at the historical trends. Below, I have collated the birth and death rate for Russia from 1959-2008 using data from The Human Mortality Database, Soviet Economic Statistical Series and Rosstat. Subtracting the death rate from the birth rate gives the rate of natural increase.
The rate of natural increase would have closely correlated with overall population growth in Soviet times, since migration either way was small then. The same cannot be said of the 1990’s, though, when there was a large-scale influx of ethnic Russians from the newly independent Near Abroad. While throughout much of the period the rate of natural increase was below -0.5% annually, the population decreased at a much lower rate – indeed, serious decline manifested itself only from around 2000, by which time the flow of migrants had slowed down).
As you can see, the birth rate experienced two transitions – in the early 1960’s and early 1990’s. The fertility rate fell from 2.6 children per woman in 1960 to replacement level (2.1) by the late 1960’s, where it hovered until 1990.
In the 1990’s, it dropped precipitously, to 1.34 in 1995 and reaching a trough of 1.17 in 1999. Since then, there has been a slow recovery up to 1.30 in 2006 and rapid spurt recently. In fact, as contributor Oleg pointed out, this is getting noticed in the Western media – Russia Has First Post-Soviet Baby Boom. A booming economy, state sponsored pro-natality propaganda campaign and a 2007 law that ‘expanded maternity leave benefits and payments, and granted mothers educational and other vouchers worth $10,650 for a second child and any thereafter’, contributed to the fertility rate rising to 1.39 in 2007 and more than 1.50 this year. This is more than the average for the European Union and approaching the United Kingdom.
Is this a sustainable trend? Nicholas Eberstadt doesn’t think so.
The other side of the equation is the fertility level, and Russian fertility is very low these days, although it has crept up over the past five or six years. But it is still down 30-40 percent below the replacement level. Is it feasible to think that Russian fertility will rise to replacement level over the next decade or so? Well if Russian fertility does rise up to replacement level, if it does rise by 50 percent from its current levels, this would be because of change in desired fertility on the part of parents in the Russian Federation. So far I don’t think we’ve seen any big signs of a big demand for more children. Rather, what we seem to be observing is that Russia is becoming part of the rest of Europe with respect to ideas about ideal family size. In the rest of Europe, fertility levels are very far below the replacement level. There are a few exceptions like France’s, which are close to replacement levels, but for the most part, European norms on fertility are one or at most two children as the ideal family size. What drives births in modern, relatively affluent societies, more than any other factor, are parental desires about how many children to have. Unless there is a transformation of Russian attitudes about children, its going to be hard for any kind of program of birth incentives or birth schemes to convince Russian parents to have more children then they see as the ideal.
This is an assumption backed up by the raw data – the chart below shows historic fertility rates from an international perspective, in which Russia appears to plummet into and beneath mainstream European levels since the late 1980’s.
On the other hand, a 2005 Rosstat study, Family and Fertility, challenges Eberstadt’s assumptions about desired fertility in Russia. The average desired amount of children, within favorable economic and social conditions, was 2.24, 2.40 and 1.99 for women, men and 15-17 year old teenagers respectively in Tver oblast, 2.26, 2.63 and 2.15 in Nizhnij Novgorod and 2.33, 2.56 and 2.11 in Marij El. On the other hand, the amount of children people are prepared to have in the present circumstances is substantially lower. Amongst women, men and teenagers, it is: 1.75, 1.87 and 1.72 in Tver Oblast; 1.60, 1.78 and 1.97 in Nizhnij Novgorod; 1.83, 2.05 and 1.92 in Marij El. According to Rosstat, the birth rate in these regions in 2005 was 9.3, 8.9 and 10.5 / 1000 people respectively, which is similar to the Russian average of 10.2 As such, it’s possible to construct the following table. Italics are estimates based on linear extrapolation from other data in the table.
| Real BR | Real Fertility | Planned Fertility |
Desired Fertility |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tver Oblast | 9.3 | 1.18 | 1.78 | 2.21 |
| Nizhnij Novgorod | 8.9 | 1.13 | 1.78 | 2.35 |
| Marij El | 10.5 | 1.33 | 1.93 | 2.33 |
| Russian Federation | 10.2 | 1.29 | 1.95 | 2.44 |
As we can see above, in 2005 there was a gap of 0.65 children between real fertility and planned fertility, and a further 0.5 child gap between planned fertility and desired fertility. A number of points can now be made.
Firstly, the post-Soviet fertility drop had much more to do with transitional shock rather than a values shift. That was to be expected; following the collapse of Communism, the state of women’s rights and education (the two biggest determinants of fertility) remained largely unchanged. While religious influence did increase (for instance, the percentage of people believing in the Life Hereafter rose from 21% in 1990 to 37% in 1999 and 45% in 2008), its extent is somewhat exaggerated – it still needs to be borne in mind that proposals to introduce voluntary Orthodox Christianity courses into schools are contentious and that only a very small percentage of people go to church regularly. Russia remains (thankfully) a secular society.
Secondly, opinion polls indicate that the era of transition is coming to an end. For the first time during the transition period, the majority of people are confident in tomorrow. The year 2007 was probably the decisive tipping point, and it is reflected in the fact that it was then that fertility rates began the rapid phase of their recovery. Seen in this context, the current demographic doubleback is not surprising, since real fertility rates are simply converging with planned fertility rates. Moreover, as the economic situation improves by 7%+ per year and healthcare expands, planned fertility rates will edge towards desired fertility rates, while the latter are inflated even higher by government propaganda.
Thirdly, the current trajectory upwards is not going to last. This year’s January-on-January 12.7% increase and last year’s 8.7 % increase in the number of births is not sustainable and indeed a significant portion of them are due to a one-off increase in the case of previously fence-sitting parents who chose to have another child to get the new benefits package. There is a direct precedent for this – from the early 1980’s, state pro-natality policies increased the fertility rate from 1.9 to 2.2, as shown on the graph, but the effect peaked off by 1987. Nonetheless, I think it is reasonable to assume that eventually, say, by around 2015, the birth rate will settle at somewhere in between 1.7 and 2.1, i.e., coinciding with planned fertility. From then on they will probably again resume their decline, following the European (and pre-reform Soviet) pattern.
Fourthly, fertility rates are not birth rates. This is especially the case for Russia, whose age pyramid resembles a pine tree, due to the demographic heritage of the Great Patriotic War (1941-45). As you can see, today there is a relatively large number of women of childbearing age.
However, the transitional shock, coupled with the echos of war, means that the number of women in the 20-29 age range is going to peak by 2013, and then go into rapid decline. By 2020, it will be surprising if the overall birth rate equals today’s. This means that to avoid an intensified resumption of population decline after that period, Russia will have to massively lower its mortality rates. This aspect is covered in Part II.
Alarmist media and certain demented Russophobe bloggers have raised the spectre of Russia becoming a majority Muslim country within the next 50 years. As is usually the case with such sensationalist claims, closer examination clears up the clutter.
Below, I worked out the rate of annual increase for Russians and Muslims and linearly projected both to 2025 and 2050 (note that linear projection in demographics is meaningless – in reality, Muslim rates “merely reflect an earlier stage of development and will ultimately fall”). Even in 2002, the vast majority of Muslim people’s fertility rates were below replacement level and falling fast (i.e. there was a big difference in fertility rates between older and younger women). The main reason absolute birth rates remained high was because Muslims, particularly in the South, still have young populations. Even so, their demographic gains in 1989-2002 were not spectacular. According to the 2002 Census, there were 14.5mn Muslims (I see no reason to trust the 23mn figure given by the head of the Council of Muftis of Russia), of whom 13.0mn were from the largest eleven ethnic groups. Using backwards and forwards linear extrapolation (i.e. 1989-2002 growth rates), I estimate the Russian, Muslim and Neither population from 1989 to 2050. The RF population is the sum of the three.
| 1989 | 2002 | 2025 |
2050 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Russian Federation | 147.0 | 145.2 | 144.4 | 148.9 |
| Russians | 119.9 | 115.9 | 109.1 | 102.3 |
| Muslims | 11.4 | 14.5 | 22.0 | 34.7 |
| Neither | 15.7 | 14.8 | 13.3 | 11.9 |
In 1989, Russians made up 81.5% of the population of the RSFSR; in 2002, that figure was 79.8%. In the above scenario, it falls to 75.6% in 2025 and 68.7% in 2050 – Russians remain by far the dominant ethnic group. For a Muslim majority we’ll have to wait well into the next century. Of course, demographically linear extrapolation is a pointless exercise, since Muslim fertility rates will continue falling (as is the experience practically everywhere else), while ethnic Russian rates are likely to rise (as shown above). Nonetheless, the very fact that even with just primitive linear extrapolation we can show that Russians will remain dominant in Russia should shut up the likes of Paul Goble, Islamic fundamentalists and La Russophobe.
Of course, the reason the above people relish the thought of Russia becoming Islamic is because they associate Russian Muslims with their less savoury counterparts in the Middle East. Actually, vodka has long since dissolved away the Koran in Rusia. Tatars, by who make up more than a third of Russia’s Muslim population, are almost as secular regarding Islam as ethnic Russians are to Orthodoxy. Even amongst the Chechens Wahabbism never truly took root, despite the best efforts of Arab mujahideen. As contributor fedia put it, ‘the whole idea of Muslim takeover is predicated on one giant falsification — the substitution of the term “Muslim” for the term “representative of a traditionally Muslim ethnicity”…Absolutely nothing would change in the country if Tatars became the majority, however unlikely that situation is.’
Finally, to demolish one last myth – no, the Chinese are not colonizing Siberia. They come as traders and seasonal workers, make a quick buck, or rather, ruble, and leave. There is little evidence of illegal Chinese settlement in Siberia outside the yellow press.
Now for Demographics II – Climbing out of the Death Spiral… (about mortality rates. Third part will be about projections).
Stalker,An area where I am critical of Putin’s Policy is in relation to Ukraine. Why is Russia so passive in regards to the forced Ukrainization in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? Russia must stand up and protect the rights of those in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine who want to be educated and conduct their affairs in Russian. DJP
@djp,I suspect that this card is going to be played in earnest if/when Ukraine accedes to MAP.
Very interesting and well-written analysis. A lot to think about. Can’t wait for the next two parts.Several comments:1. The chart after “…than a values shift).” needs a description. I assume it’s real fertility rate, but since it’s stuck in the middle of the discussion on desired fertility, it’s confusing.2. I’d say the situation with women’s rights deteriorated after the Soviet collapse.3. You should point out that the whole idea of Muslim takeover is predicated on one giant falsification — the substitution of the term “Muslim” for the term “representative of a traditionally Muslim ethnicity”. Tatars, for example, are as secular toward Islam as ethnic Russians are toward Orthodox Christianity. Absolutely nothing would change in the country if Tatars became the majority, however unlikely that situation is.
DJP:You have to understand that most Russian speakers in Ukraine are ethnic Ukrainians, so while the forced Ukrainization is being conducted to the tune of nationalist propaganda (i.e. ethnic Ukrainians are “better” than ethnic Russians), it cannot cause too much protest, since it appeals to the basest human instincts.How exactly can Russia counteract that, without descending to the same level?
@fedia,1. Fixed. Yes, its it’s real fertility rate.2. Deteriorated? Possibly. By how much? Not that much, if it did. At least IMO.3. Very true. I actually put it in at first but then deleted it as it wasn’t strictly on topic. But OK, I’ll bring it back. 🙂
Looks like Russia will soon surpass Saudi Arabia as 1 in reserves.Russia’s Arctic Oil Could Supply U.S. for 9 Years (Update1) April 11 (Bloomberg) — Russia’s Arctic region holds as much as 100 billion barrels of oil and natural gas, enough to meet U.S. fuel demand for almost nine years, OAO Lukoil said. “By our estimates, Russia’s Arctic zone contains gigantic reserves,” Leonid Fedun, deputy chief executive officer of Russia’s largest independent oil company, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in London yesterday. “We’re talking about 100 billion barrels of potential hydrocarbons.” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a9d3J3q8fOlgDJP
Fedia,I will defer to you but from my reading it seems that anywhere from 25-40% of Ukraine has claimed to be Russian-Ukrainian, depending on the poll. Most of these people are in Eastern Ukraine. It seems to me they overwhelmingly desire to use Russian as their first language – thus the Party of Regions. Areas like the Crimea, Nikolaev, Poltava, Donetsk seem to be actively discriminated against. Furthermore I live in an Area of the USA where Russian “Jews” have been immigrating since the 70’s(most aren’t actually jewish) my next door neighbor had to leave Western Ukraine about 10 years ago because Russians are so badly persecuted in that area. Why does Russia continue to tolerate this? Furthermore I lived in Latvia for 2 years and witnessed the situation there and was amazed that all Russia did was verbally berate Latvia.
Regarding how Russia can react to the injustices committed to its compatriots (I’m not sure if this is the correct term) in Ukraine, the Baltics, etc.Be strong (no one listens to weaklings). Use soft power. Become the world’s preeminent economic force (this is more than possible). Stop Anglo-American socioeconomic imperialism at its tracks.Russia cannot rely on anyone but itself and being strong not only ensures its own survival, but also the survival of its spirit. And if there is a strong Russian spirit, nationalists in Ukraine and the Baltics will either have to adjust or go away. In my opinion.
Oh, check out how Russian colleges simply dominated a science competition sponsored by IBM:http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/23868.wss
DJP, Saudi reserves are half of the official figure, at best. That’s why they can’t increase their production, despite their constant jaw-boning. Their Gawar field – world’s largest – is in decline. No other large discoveries were announced in the past 30 years. In fact, I suspect that they have told Bush just as much 7 years ago, when US started filling its Strategic Reserve at accelerated pace. Kuwait already downsized its reserves 2-fold. North Sea is tanking fast. Mexico too. I can’t wait for Western multinationals to get back into Iraq and comprehensively debunk myth of “huge Iraqi reserves”. The world may not be running out of oil completely, but definitely is running out of cheap crude. Oil sands cost 30 bucks a barrel to develop, and oil shales will yield oil at 100 per barrel. In the meantime demand is rising by 2 million barrels/day annually, and every year there is 30 billion barrels (two Norways) of black gold less than a year before. It’s fun to be Russian today, and it’ll be even more so tomorrow.
coleen, cool blogs. Am I unduly subjective, or Russophiles are really smarter than Russophobes? Ok, who am I kidding? Of course, they are…
stalker, money talks. 5 years from now 90% of new families in Russia will have 2-3 kids, mark my words. It’s fascinating how the same people who say that money can fix any problem, insist that that doesn’t apply to demography. Of course, it does. Pay 50k to Americans for every second child, and you’ll have gettoes full of future brainwashed soldiers eager to die in Iraq. In Russian case, mix in a resurgent national pride – and you’ve got a veritable incipient demographic resurrection of Russia. Russophobes will always deny it until they look utterly silly in doing so. All of their thesis is based on catastrophic Russian demography. Therefore, attaching any significance to their prognostications is a fool’s game. stalker, it’s a hell of a statistical potpurri that you have assembled in your post. Awesome piece of work. It’s interesting, though, how Western media never highlights utterly apocalyptic population trends in the Baltics and in the Ukraine. I guess calling them “democratic” makes their own far worse than Russian dying-off somehow more respectable.
“It’s interesting, though, how Western media never highlights utterly apocalyptic population trends in the Baltics and in the Ukraine. I guess calling them “democratic” makes their own far worse than Russian dying-off somehow more respectable.”Yes, that is very interesting. Ukraine’s death rate is a tiny bit higher than Russia’s while Ukraine’s birth rate is similar to Russia’s birth rate in 1998. Add in Russia’s new immigration, and Ukraine’s net emigration, and you see that Ukraine’s population decline is really precipitous.
Hello, just though I’d point out that a) I’ve tidied up the last News into a proper post (http://darussophile.blogspot.com/2008/04/news-7-apr.html), b) the second and third parts ARE coming and c) I’m also planning the next News and a new Core Article: 10 Russophile Predictions.For c), I am going to make 10 predictions about Russia up to 2020, so please e-mail or post me ideas – that would be appreciated. I’ll post the 10 predictions. Then I’ll send off e-mails to all the Russophobes of this world I can think of inviting them to submit or post their own predictions, preferably in a list of 10, and see who’s right. It’s time we fed them some of that “accountability” medicine they’re always harping about.@anonymous,What could Russia do? Its foreign policy instruments were circumscribed. It was militarily weak, had no energy trump card and most of all was financially dependent on Western institutions. Otherwise what colleen said. Considering recent noises in the Russian government about toughening up against Ukraine and Georgia on NATO, though, things might get more active soon.@colleen,Heard of that. I actually used it to make one of my points in Top 10 Russophobe Myths.@oleg,Completely agreed, both on demographics and energy.In fact on energy I’ll add that even though unconventional crude costs more to produce, not only that, but if we are indeed at the peak as of now, then there is no way that even unconventional production can be increased fast enough to offset conventional declines.It will indeed be fun to be Russia, especially if the gov’t does the prudent thing and caps off oil production, and keep reducing the cap in a managed way. What it basically means is that Russia will have an extra two decades in which to adjust to a post-oil world, while almost everyone else will have to do a crash transition probably from 2012 at the latest.
Oleg,You understand the situation with oil perfectly. Stalker is still a sceptic. I believe the cost of tar sands is 50-60 a barrel and growing rapidly. By 2020 there will not be enough gas for tar sands and residential needs. Russia is in such a good place it seems to good to be true. In addition to having # 1 gas and maybe # 1 oil Russia has the highest percent of freshwater/land area in the world at 13%. You can research the signifigance of this, it may be more important than oil + gas. One point: I disagree with Russia’s publicly stated policy of pumping as much oil and gas as possible(Privately this may not be the policy). I believe Russia should cut back to about 6-7 million barrels a day and stretch out the reserves as long as possible. The price will then spike so the reciepts will be approximately the same. Russia should also cancel the china pipeline and carefully consider south stream. If south stream is using primarily turkmen gas then it is ok.Classic video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHrfYJQBrjkDJP
Stalker,it looks like you have come around. You were a sceptic when I emailed you back in Jan. While the peak is impossible to predict it is certainly a matter of when, not if. Deep water + unconventional are very expensive and consequently have a low EROEI (energy return on energy invested) thus the net available energy from these sources is low.DJP
Oleg, Stalker:There is not a doubt in my mind that the birth rate will be 2.2-2.4 in short order. I have not seen a culture who values Children more than Russian. I have one myself and hope to have at least 3. The hard part is convincing my wife to move back to Russia after the trauma of 90’s! We’ll be there soon for a month, hopefully that will change her mind.DJP
Stalker,In an unrelated topic you should give Vlad’s Daily Gloat a plug. It is genuinely funny. Here is a link to my favorite gloat:http://www.exile.ru/blog/detail.php?BLOG_ID=17809DJP
stalker, I’ve just read that Russian government plans reduced taxation of oil cos, in order to free more resourses for exploration and ramping up of production. So, although I’d also like to see Russia capping its hydrocarbon output, we’ll just have to wait for that. I guess infrastracture build-up is a far more urgent need right now.
DJP, Vlad’s Daily Blog is a riot. Undoubtedly written by an American, though.
Oleg,I am certain he is Russian, I can detect it through minor grammatical errors. He claims to have lived in USA for few years.DJP
DJP, I also spotted few minor errors. Could be editor’s omission. Or you could be right. The badass, scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, no-holds-barred, teeth-crushing arrogance of that blog strikes me as typically American. I guess if it’s written by a Russian, his having lived in the USA may explain it. Very entertaining. Never thought that I’d live long enough to witness something like that. American readers of EXILE must be popping Xanax with every click. Being on a receiving end of writing like that must be an entirely new and exteremely unpleasant experience for most Americans, to say the least. But then again, whether God blessed America or not, electing a complete dimwit – twice! – as their representative in the world, has got to have some consequences.
From what I understand, all of those “Russian” personae on The Exile are actually Mark Ames’s alter egos. He writes that stuff.As for “Vlad Kalashnikov”, I don’t know if that’s Ames or not, but that column is most definitely not written by a Russian. The one DJP linked to, for example, assumes that the letter written by “a 14 year old girl” was actually written by a native Russian speaker (however bad their Russian has become). No Russian would make that mistake, since the Russian of the letter is quite clearly a translation from English. So that “14 y.o. girl” is actually a native English speaker, and “Vlad” is most certainly not a native Russian speaker.