Russian Periphery is Dying in Movement: A Cohort Assessment of Russian Internal Youth Migration Based on Census Data

Abstract

In this paper we study youth migration in Russia at the sub-regional level of administrative division. The aim of the research is to assess the volume of internal youth migration. The task is only doable with the use of census data, which not only allows us to research at the sub-regional level, but also provides much more accurate information on youth migration than the current migration record does. We used the survival method to study sub-regional population dynamics. As mortality is quite insignificant at young ages, most of the change in cohort size is caused by migration. Our estimates show that during the last intercensus period (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010) up to 70 percent of youth cohorts have left the regional periphery for good after graduating from school, and there was no significant return to the demographically depleted periphery in the young working ages.

Dull Place or Green Idyll: Local Identity and Migration Intentions of Small City Youth

“…Migration is highly selective in terms of age and gender (Kashnitsky & Mkrtchyan 2014;Wiest 2016), and with regard to urban development, a key issue is the migration of youth. There are two main reasons for this: first, young people markedly shapes the future demographic structure of regions of inand out-migration (Ediev et al 2014).…”

Unequally ageing regions of Europe: Exploring the role of urbanization

“…NUTS-2 regions are rather large: on average, a NUTS-2 region has the size of 19.7K sq. km and the population of 1.87M -that is comparable to a small country like Slovenia (European Commission, 2014;Kashnitsky and Mkrtchyan, 2014). And almost every NUTS-2 region includes both urban and rural population, which makes it difficult to classify the regions binary into urban or rural.…”

Untitled

“…1). Yet, this improvement in Russian statistics, though incredibly valuable, does not apply to [2003][2004][2005][2006][2007][2008][2009][2010], which is the best part of the analyzed period (for a more detailed analysis of discrepancies between registration and census data in the last intercensal period, see our previous works [Kashnitsky, 2015;Kashnitsky, Mkrtchyan, 2014]). …”