Atlantic Council EURASIA CENTER
ISSUE BRIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow JUNE 2019
GAIANE SAFAROVA
Introduction
L
ike every country, Russia has a very specific demographic footprint; its fertility, mortality, and migration rates, as well as its age composition, all affect its performance domestically and on the world stage. Russia’s current demographics were shaped by its history, particularly crises like World War II, and its future will be deeply affected by conditions like its dropping fertility rate and aging population. The objective of this paper is to briefly present Russia’s current demographic situation and future trends. Given the limited size of the material, it is only possible to identify the main issues that should be touched upon when talking about the country’s demographic situation. This paper begins by presenting dynamics of total population size, followed by a consideration of the main demographic processes: fertility, mortality, and migration. Then changes in age composition are analyzed and the most significant of them, population aging, is examined. Russia’s largely heterogenous demographic development—e.g., it is characterized by a significant gender imbalance, rural/urban differences, and regional differentiation of demographic indicators—is also touched upon. Finally, future potential trends of population size and age structure are discussed.
The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia, and Central Asia in the East.
This analysis uses census and vital statistics data provided by the Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat),1 the Human Mortality Database (HMD, a joint initiative of the University of CaliforniaBerkeley and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research), 2 UN 1
Russian Federation Federal State Statistics Service, “Russia in figures,” http://www.gks. ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/en/figures/population/.
2
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, The Human Mortality Database, Human Mortality Database, https://www. mortality.org/.
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
World Population Prospects (WPP), 3 and UN World Population Aging (WPA).4
Dynamics of the Total Population Size, Russian Federation, Since 1990 Based on population size, the Russian Federation (RF) is the ninth-largest country in the world, and is the largest in Europe. 5 Table 1 shows its main demographic indicators. Table 1. Main Demographic Indicators, Russian Federation, 2015 TOTAL POPULATION SIZE (million) (January 1, 2016)
146.5
Total Fertility Rate*
1.78
Life Expectancy at Birth (years) Both Sexes
71.4
Average Male Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
65.9
Average Female Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
76.7
Net Migration*** (per 1000 population)
1.7
* Total fertility rate: The average number of children born to a woman during her lifetime. ** Life expectancy at birth: The average number of years a newborn would live if subjected to the age-specific mortality rates of a given period for his/her entire life. *** Net migration: The difference between the number of people entering a country or region and those leaving. Source: The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, Section 1, 2, Rosstat.
Figure 1 represents dynamics of the total population size of the Russian population since 1990. According to Rosstat estimates, the population of Russia at the beginning of 2016 amounted to 146.5 million people, including 2.3 million in the Crimean Federal District (FD) formed in 2014.6 Even without taking into account the Crimean FD, Russia’s population increased for six consecutive years (2010-2015) after a long period of population decline between 1995 and 2009. The population was at its largest—148.6 million people—in 1993, and by 2009 it had fallen to 142.7 million. Though moderate growth took place in the following years, Russia’s population has not yet fully rebounded. It should be noted that Russia occupies the largest land area in the world, with more than 17 million square kilometers. However, the country’s population is dispersed extremely unevenly over that vast territory, and the population density is very low—just 8.5 people per square kilometer.7 Fertility, mortality, and migration are the main demographic processes that determine the changes in total population, and are considered below.
Changes in the Total Fertility Rate, Russian Federation, Since 1990 Total fertility rate (TFR) is an indicator that does not depend on the population age structure. Its changes (see Figure 2) indicate that, with the exception of 2005-2006, there was a steady increase in the intensity of childbearing in Russia from 1999 to 2014. According to the European Demographic Datasheet 2016, Russia’s 2014 TFR (1.75) was not among the top five in Europe, though it exceeded the average European level (1.57). For reference, the United States had a TFR of 1.86 births per woman. All given values of TFR are below replacement level, which is 2.1 births per woman.
3
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, “World Population Prospects 2018,” 2018, https:// population.un.org/wpp/.
4
United Nations, DESA,World Population Aging 2017, 2017, https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/ WPA2017_Highlights.pdf.
5
European Demographic Data Sheet 2016, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2016, http://www.eurrep.org/wp-content/uploads/VID_DataSheet2016_printfile.pdf.
6
The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, Russian Federation, Federal State Statistics Service, http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/doc_2017/ demo17.pdf.
7
World Bank, “Population density (people per sq. km of land area): Russian Federation,” accessed February 4, 2019, https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=RU.
2
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
142 141
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 4 20 0 6 20 0 8 20 10 20 12 20 14 20 16 *
ISSU E B RIEF
95
1.9
1.8
total size
relative to 1990
1.7
149
101
1.4
100
148
1.3
147
99 1.2
146 145
98
1.1
144
97
19 9 0 19 9 1 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 0 20 3 0 20 4 0 20 5 0 20 6 0 20 7 0 20 8 0 20 9 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15
1
143 142
96
RF TFR
141 * 16 20
14 20
12 20
10 20
8 0 20
6 0 20
4
2 0
0 20
20
Total Size
20
0
0
98 19
96 19
94 19
19
19
92
95
Size of the Population Relative to 1990 (Percentage)
1.5
150
90
Total Population of the Russian Federation (Millions)
Figure 1. Dynamics of the Total Population of the Russian Federation (Millions) and the Relative Size of the Total Population of the Russian Federation in Comparison to 1990, 1990-2015 1.6
Percentage of the Population Relative to 1990
Source: The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, Rosstat; and the author’s own computations based on Rosstat data.
Figure 2. Total Fertility Rate, Russian Federation, 1990-2015 (Average Number of Births per Woman) 1.9
Number of Children per Household
1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15
96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 02 20 03 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 07 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 10
19
95 19
94 19
93 19
92
19
91 19
19 90
1
Total Fertility Rate of the Russian Federation Source: The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, Section 2, Rosstat.
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
3
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow both sexes
males
20 14
20 12
20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 4 20 0 6 20 0 8 20 10
8 19 9
6 19 9
4 19 9
2 19 9
ISSU E B RIEF
19 9
0
52 50
females
Figure 3. Dynamics of Life Expectancy at Birth for Males, Females, and Both Sexes, in Years, Russian Federation, 1990–2015 84 82 80 Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52
Average Life Expectancy
Average Male Life Expectancy
14 20
12 20
10 20
20
0
8
6 0 20
4 0 20
2 0 20
0 0 20
98 19
96 19
94 19
92 19
19
90
50
Average Female Life Expectancy
Source: The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, Rosstat.
According to the annual demographic report Population of Russia 2014, the increase in the number of potential mothers aged twenty-five and over, and in the intensity of fertility at these ages, 8 led to an increase in the number of births in 2000-2014. However, growth in the number of potential mothers has since come to an end, as the number of women in the twenty-five to twenty-nine category peaked in 2012 and then began to decline.9 By 2017, this number may have already decreased by more than one million, and even dropped to a level lower than that seen in 2000.10 And for the thirty to thirty-four age group, the turning point may 8
may have been in 2018. Given the steep reduction in the number of potential Russian mothers, maintaining the current level of births seems unlikely, and this is a challenge to the country’s demographic security.11 Like Russia, all developed countries are experiencing a low fertility rate, and it is perceived as a challenge everywhere. Though the TFR in some countries is slightly higher or lower than in Russia, there is no fundamental difference in this respect between Russia and European countries, the United States, Canada, Japan, or South Korea; in none of these countries does the
Sergei V. Zakharov, The Modest Demographic Results Of Pronatalist Policy Against The Background Of The Long-Term Evolution Of Fertility In Russia, Demographic Review: Saint Petersburg State University School of Higher Economics, 2016, https://demreview.hse.ru/article/ view/7310/8182.
9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.
4
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
TFR ensure the replacement of previous generations. This indicates a profound condition of low fertility at the present stage of development of all urban, industrial, and postindustrial societies—including Russia.12
Mortality and Life Expectancy, Russian Federation, Since 1990 Life expectancy at birth is an integral characteristic of mortality that does not depend on the population’s age structure. Figure 3 depicts dynamics of life expectancy at birth (LE 0) for males, females, and both sexes. After 2003, there was a steady increase in life expectancy at birth for males, females, and both sexes. It should be noted that more than 70 percent of the increase in life expectancy is owed to a decrease in male mortality between the ages of twenty and sixty-four years, and in female mortality from fifty years of age and up.13 The annual demographic report Population of Russia 2012 attempted to determine the main factors behind the decade-long increase in Russia’s population size and life expectancy. The overall increase in life expectancy at birth was presumed to be the the result of a combination of three main factors: a decrease in mortality linked to the reduced consumption of alcohol; success in the fight against cardiovascular diseases, the modern stage of which has been called the “cardiovascular revolution”; and a less defined but overall positive trend in living conditions and public health.14 The goal for future years should be to maintain these favorable trends. However, the level of life expectancy at birth in Russia is still very low compared to developed countries. It lags behind most developed countries, even exceeding ten years for men. According to European Demographic Datasheet 2016, LE 0 in Russia is one of the lowest in Europe (see Figures 4 and 5). This lag leads to huge human and economic
Table 2. Russia’s Lag in Life Expectancy at Birth Compared to the United States and the EU-28, in Years, 2014 Compared to
For Males
For Females
EU-28
12.8
6.9
USA
11.2
4.6
Source: European Demographic Datasheet 2016, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
losses, and indicates the inadequacy of the Russian social welfare system. It is a matter not only of quantitative gaps but also qualitative differences. This disparity is great, and overcoming it will require a qualitative breakthrough—which cannot be achieved if Russia continues to underfund its entire healthcare system. High life exptectancy is expensive, and even countries that are not very rich spend more of their gross domestic product (GDP) on this goal than Russia does. Public expenditures on healthcare in Russia amount to 3.5 percent of GDP; by comparison, the same figure expenditure is 8.1 percent of GDP in the United States.15 With Russia spending so little on healthcare, it is impossible to respond to the challenge of high mortality.16 It should be stressed that life expectancy figures for Russia highlight a significant gender imbalance (see Figure 6). High male mortality compared to that of women is typical, to some extent, for all economically developed countries, and is heavily influenced by excessive mortality of men at working ages due to external causes of death (accidents, poisoning, and injuries). But it is particularly high for Russia. The difference in LE 0 between women and men, which was 11.2 years in 2014, is the greatest in Europe (see Figure 7). This phenomenon has been studied in detail (see, for example, Andreev E., 2003).
12 A. G. Vishnevsky, et al., “Demographic Challenges of Russia,” Demoscope Weekly 751-752 (2017), 1-21, http://www.demoscope.ru/ weekly/2017/0751/demoscope751.pdf. 13 A. G. Vishnevsky, Population Report 2012, Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, National Research University, Institue of Demography, 2014, accessed February 4, 2019 via http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/ns_r12/akrobat/nr12.pdf. 14 Ibid, 262. 15 Vishnevsky, et al., “Demographic Challenges of Russia,” 20. 16 Ibid.
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
5
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
ISSU E B RIEF
Figures 4 and 5. Ranking of European Countries According to Life Expectancy at Birth
Male Life Expectancy at Birth 2014 (Years) Switzerland
Female Life Expectancy at Birth 2014 (Years)
81.1
Spain
86.2
Cyprus
80.9
Italy
85.6
Italy
80.7
France
85.4
Spain
80.4
Switzerland
85.4
Sweden
80.4
Luxembourg
85.2
EU-28
78.1
EU-28
86.3
Latvia
69.1
Belarus
78.0
Belarus
67.3
Macedonia, FYR
77.5
Ukraine
66.2
Russia
76.5
Russia
65.3
Ukraine
76.4
Moldova
64.9
Moldova
73.7
Ranking based on 40 countries with populations above 500,000. Source: European Demographic Data Sheet 2016, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Figure 6. Difference in Life Expectancy at Birth Between Women and Men in the Russian Federation, 1990-2015
13.5
11.2 10.7
11.0
Latvia
10.3
10.5
Uktaine
10.2
10.0
EU-28
Cyprus
3.8
Sweden
3.8
United Kingdom
3.7
Netherlands
3.5
Source: The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, Rosstat.
6
14 20
12 20
8
6
4
10 20
0 20
0 20
0
2 0
20
3.9
20
98
5.5 19
19
Albania 19
19
19
96
Belarus
94
10.9
92
Lithuania
11.5
0
Russia
12.0
0
12.5
Difference in Life Expectancy at Birth Women – Men, 2014 (Years)
20
13.0
90
Difference in Life Expectancy at Birth (Years)
14.0
women-men
Ranking based on 40 countries with populations above 500,000.
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
Ranking based on 40 countries with populations above 500,000.
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
Figure 7. Ranking of European Countries According to Gender Differences in Life Expectancy at Birth
Figure 8 shows the dynamics of Russia’s net migration and migration rates.
Difference in Life Expectancy at Birth Women – Men, 2014 (Years)
In the beginning of the period under consideration, both net migration and natural population increase were positive, and net migration accounted for about half of the total increase in population size.17 Then, for fifteen years (1993–2008, with the exception of 1994), both total increase and natural increase were negative, and positive net migration only partially compensated for the negative natural increase. Since 2009, total population has increased, due to net migration that compensated for negative natural increase. In 2013–2014, both natural increase and net migration were positive, but natural increase was far less than net migration: in 2014, an increase due to migration (270,000) was 88.5 percent of the 305,000 total increase, while natural increase (35,000) was 11.5 percent.
Russia
11.2
Lithuania
10.9
Belarus
10.7
Latvia
10.3
Uktaine
10.2
EU-28
5.5
Albania
3.9
Cyprus
3.8
Sweden
3.8
United Kingdom
3.7
Netherlands
3.5
Ranking based on 40 countries with populations above 500,000. Source: European Demographic Data Sheet 2016, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Migration in the Russian Federation, Since 1990 In low-fertility countries, migration becomes an important factor for population growth. Demographic processes are hard to change quickly and, among them, migration is recognized as the easiest to regulate. Migration is not only one of the main components of population growth but it is also the phenomenon that most transforms a country’s demographic dynamics, structure, and behavior. Russia’s main migration partners are Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, which represent about 90 percent of the country’s migration growth.
The majority of migrants to Russia are labor migrants from CIS countries. However, the instability of political and economic approaches to migration regulation— along with frequent and sharp changes in requirements and rules—often disorients both employers and migrants. In connection with migration, the following should be noted. United Nations (UN) publications rank Russia second, after the United States, among countries with the largest number of migrants residing within their borders; in Russia, that number is between 11 and 12 million people. However, UN reports specifically indicate that in the case of the former Soviet Union, their estimates refer to people who were internal migrants and turned into international migrants without leaving the country, solely as a result of new borders that were formed when the Soviet Union dissolved.
Changes in the Population Age-Sex Composition Changes in the main demographic processes affect population age structure. Age-sex structure is another fundamental characteristic of a population. Along with fertility, “age structure is the demographic “engine” that drives or diminishes population growth” because
17 The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, 15-19.
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
20
20
20 20
20 20
20
2
20
20
19 19
19 19
19
19 19
net. migr.
migr. rate
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
ISSU E B RIEF
6
850
5.5 5
750
4.5
650
4
550
3.5 3
450
2.5
350
2
250
1.5 1
150
0.5 14
15 20
13
20
12
20
11
20
20
9
10
0
20
20
net. migr.
20
0
8
7
6 0
0 20
5 0
20
20
4 0
3
20
0 20
20
0
2
1 0
0
20
0
99
20
19
98 19
97
96
19
95
19
19
19
19
94
0
93
50
Rate of Migration to the Russian Federation, 1993-2015 (Percentage of Population per 1,000 Citizens)
Net Migration to the Russian Federation, 1993-2015 (Thousands)
Figure 8. Dynamics of Net Migration (Thousands)
migr. rate
Source: The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, Rosstat.
Figure 9. Dynamics of Major Russian Age-Group between Russia, 1990–2015. Including: Children and Youth (0-14), Working-Age Population (15-59), and Elderly and Retirement Age (60+)
Percentage of the Population of the Russian Federation
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0 - 14
15 - 59
20 14
20 12
20 10
0 8 20
20
0
6
4 20 0
0 2 20
0 20 0
98 19
6 19 9
4 19 9
2 19 9
19 9
0
10
60+
Source: Author’s own computation, based on Human Mortality Database data.
8
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
“in many developing countries, large proportions of young people virtually guarantee that the population will continue to grow even during periods of declining fertility and for quite some time after fertility drops to replacement level.” 18 Russia’s population is characterized by several deformations of age structure throughout history, due to numerous crisis events in the country’s history (e.g., the social perturbations of the 1930s, World War II). These deformations have a considerable effect on the process of population aging in the country. Figure 9 depicts the dynamics of three major age groups: children (under the age of fifteen), the working-age population (fifteen to fifty-nine), and the elderly (sixty and older). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the proportion of those sixty and over (prop. 60+) declined, reflecting the consequences of World War II. In the middle of its first decade, however, that proportion began to grow. In general, for one-quarter of a century, the proportion of those sixty and over increased, from 15.8 percent in 1990 to 19.9 percent in 2015, while the share of children declined from 23.0 percent in 1990 to 16.75 percent in 2015. Before 2000, the proportion of children exceeded the proportion of the elderly; after 2000, an inverse inequality took place. It should be noted that an increase in the proportion of children began in the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, indicating a fertility increase. Against the backdrop of growth in the proportions of children and the elderly, the proportion of the working-age population has declined since the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Population pyramids serve as illustrations of a country’s demographic history.19 Figure 10, for instance, serves as an example of demographic transition in Russia. This pyramid shows dramatic changes in Russia’a age composition between the year the first Russian census was conducted, 1897, and 2017. From 1897 to 2017, the
Figure 10. Comparison of the Population of Russia, 1897 - 2017 100+ 95 – 99 90 – 94
Males
Females
85 – 89 80 – 84 75 – 79 70 – 74 65 – 69 60 – 64 55 – 59 50 – 54 45 – 49 40 – 44 35 – 39 30 – 34 25 – 29 20 – 24 15 – 19 10 – 14 5–9 0–4 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Russia 1897
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Russia 2017
Source: Human Mortality Database and Demoscope Weekly.
proportion of children in Russia decreased from 37.7 percent to 17.4 percent, while the proportion of the elderly increased from 7.3 percent to 20.8 percent in the same time frame. The pyramid representing Russia in 1897 “is typical of a population before the beginning of demographic transition; it has a broad base and a narrow vertex.”20 Figure 10 also illustrates both “age-structure deformations (i.e., sharp disproportions between sizes of adjacent age groups) due to crisis events in the country’s history” and gender imbalances. For instance, due to circumstances related to World War II, “there are sharp decreases in the size of the age group between seventy and seventy-four years old in 2017”
18 Arthur Haupt, Thomas T. Kane, and Carl Haub, PRB’s Population Handbook, 6th Edition, Population Refernce Bureau, 2011, https://www.clake. org/view/343.pdf. 19 Gaiane Safarova, “Population Ageing In Russia: Gender Dimension,” United Nations ESCAP, Subregional Meeting on Enhancing Long-Term Care and Social Participation of Older Persons in East and North East Asia (presentation, Incheon, Republic of Korea, November 3-4, 2011), https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Gayane_Safarova_1.pdf. 20 Ibid.
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
9
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
ISSU E B RIEF
Figure 11. Comparison of the Population of Russia, 1990-2015
The world population is experiencing a historical shift in its age distribution, from the mostly young age structures of the past, towards larger proportions of middle-aged and older persons in the present and future decades. This shift is driven by the demographic transition from high to lower levels of both fertility and mortality. The social and economic consequences of these changes vary greatly across regions and countries. 22
100+ 95 – 99 90 – 94
Males
Females
85 – 89 80 – 84 75 – 79 70 – 74 65 – 69
Aging, and its impact on nearly every other sphere of life, is a challenge that all countries face, especially in terms of the “labor market and the sustainability of social security systems” because, “globally, the size of the elderly is growing faster than the size of other age groups” and this kind of “rapid growth will require far-reaching economic and social adjustments in most countries.”23
60 – 64 55 – 59 50 – 54 45 – 49 40 – 44 35 – 39 30 – 34 25 – 29 20 – 24 15 – 19 10 – 14 5–9 0–4 5
4
3
2
1
0
Russia 1990
1
2
3
4
5
Russia 2015
Source: Human Mortality Database.
and there are distinctly smaller numbers of older men in that age group. 21 By comparison, Figure 11 shows changes in Russia’s population age structure over a shorter period, from 1990 to 2015. These two graphs are far more similar than the preceding ones, with the primary difference being a contraction in the number of children being born in 2015.
Aging Russian Population At a United Nations expert group meeting on Changing Population Age Structures and Sustainable Development, presenters stated that
For Russia, issues related to aging are of the utmost importance—the country’s total population size has decreased for more than fifteen years, starting in the early 1990s, while its age structure has become progressively older. As a result, the country’s population is relatively old, even by Western standards. That observation is borne out using conventional demographic tools to measure population. Traditional measures of characterizing population aging represent ratios of various aggregated age groups, including children, the working-age population, and the elderly. They usually include: • prop. 60+ or prop. 65+ (proportion of the elderly); • an aging index (the number of people aged sixty and over per one hundred children younger than fifteen); and • the old-age dependency rate (OADR, the relative size of the old-age population sixty or sixty-five and over to the working-age population aged fifteen to fifty-nine or sixty-four). For Russia in 2015, prop. 60+ was equal to 19.9 percent; the aging index was 119 people aged sixty and over per one hundred children; and the OADR was thirty-one
21 Ibid. 22 United Nations, DESA, Population Division, “United Nations expert group meeting on ‘Changing Population Age Structures and Sustainable Development’,” October 2016, https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/expert-group/25/index.asp. 23 Carles Simo Noguera, Salvador Mendez Martinez, and Gaiane Safarova, “Regional differences in population ageing in Spain (the case of the Valencian Community),” Paper prepared for the European Population Conference 2014, Princeton University, last updated June 28, 2014, https://epc2014.princeton.edu/papers/140432.
10
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
persons aged sixty and over, per one hundred persons aged fifteen to fifty-nine. This data demonstrates, again, that the proportion of the elderly in Russia was remarkably high in 2015.
negative impact of population aging on the economy and other spheres of a country’s life that are based on only traditional indicators of population aging should be examined with a critical eye.
And, in general, population aging in Russia is progressing. Over the period in question, all of the aging characteristics under consideration increased, though the pace of increase varied: due to the irregularities of Russia’s population pyramid, aging indicators changed unevenly. The aging index shows the highest and most consistent increase, while the increase in the OADR was rather small.
Having a proportion of the elderly that is not simply high but also growing, requires large-scale, effective, and versatile actions. In Russia, the elderly are often considered dependents, people who are a burden on the state and present a threat to the country’s pension system—though it is acknowledged that if old people remain in good health, they are a resource for society.
In 2015, the UN’s World Population Aging (WPA) report ranked 201 countries with at least 90,000 inhabitants according to the estimated and projected percentage of their population aged sixty and over for 2000, 2015, 2030, and 2050. In 2000, Russia ranked twenty-ninth, with 18.4 percent of its population sixty or older (for comparison, the United States ranked forty-first, with 16.2 percent of its population aged sixty or older) and in 2015, Russia ranked forty-fourth, with 20.0 percent (the United States was thirty-seventh, with 20.7 percent). In 2030, Russia is projected to rank sixty-first, with 24 percent, while the United States is projected to rank forty-sixth, with 26.1 percent. By 2050, Russia is projected to fall to sixty-eighth, with 28.8 percent, and the United States is projected to fall to seventy-sixth, with 27.9 percent. Often, alarmist statements suggest that population aging has a negative impact on Russia’s development and security. With this in mind, it is worth considering a new approach to the measurement of age and aging— one that takes into account remaining years of life. The argument for this approach is the idea that a person’s behavior in many spheres of life depends not only on his or her chronological age but also on the number of years of life ahead. 24 Therefore, in addition to traditional measures of aging, some new ones, called prospective measures, have been introduced that take these remaining years of life into account. With these prospective aging measures in mind, claims about the
The Russian government views aging as an issue of major concern. Special attention is given to the “Strategy of Action in the Interests of Citizens of the Older Generations up to the Year 2025,” which Russia adopted in 2016. 25 The strategy stipulates national policy goals, principles, tasks, and priorities aimed at steadily increasing older people’s longevity and quality of life.
Heterogeneity of Russian Demographic Development As Figure 11 clearly shows, modern Russia’s age structure is characterized by a significant gender imbalance. Additionally, about a quarter of the country’s population lives in rural areas where lifestyles and living conditions differ greatly from those in urban areas. Additionally, Russia posesses the largest territory in the world and it is populated by numerous ethnic groups with different demographic behaviors. Thus, consideration of demographic development in Russia is incomplete if it ignores the country’s heterogeneity in all these dimensions. Demographic development in Russia is characterized by a significant difference in mortality and life expectancy by sex (see Figures 3 and 6) and a significant imbalance between the number of males and females in the population. In Russia, the percentage of elderly (sixty and older) members of the female population since 1990 has been about twice that of the male population. Thus, aging indicators have greater values for the female population. 26
24 Warren C. Sanderson and Sergei Scherbov, “A New Perspective on Population Aging,” Demographic Research, 2007, https://www. demographic-research.org/volumes/vol16/2/16-2.pdf. 25 Government of the Russian Federation, “The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation N 164-r,” February 5, 2016, http://gov. garant.ru/SESSION/PILOT/main.htm. 26 The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, 20.
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
11
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
3.5
83
3 2.5
81
2 79
1.5 1
77
0.5
Proportion of Ethnic Russians (Percentage of total population)
85
4
75 ni
A
ze
K
rb
ai
az
ja
ak
an vi do or
s
hs
s
rs va M
ia en rm
A
A
ns
s en ch he
C
hu C
hk as B
ni ai U
kr
va
irs
s an
ta Ta
sh
0 rs
Proportion of the Largest Ethnic Minorities in the Russian Federation (Percentage of Total Population)
Figure 12. Proportions of Russians (right scale) and the Next Ten Most Numerous Nationalities (left scale), 2010 All-Russian Population Census, Percentage
Population Identifying as a Member of the Russian Federation's 10 Largest Ethnic Minorities Population Identifying as Ethnic Russians Source: Socio-Demographic Portrait of Russia: According to the 2010 All-Russian Population Census, Statistics of Russia.
For urban and rural populations, fertility and mortality indicators have markedly different values. According to the Rosstat data, the total fertility rate for the urban population (1.59) is lower than that for the rural population (2.32). The inverse is true for life expectancy (LE). LE at birth for men is 65.8 years (76.8 for women) for the urban population and 64.1 years (75.4 for women) for the rural population. 27 In modern Russia, rural areas have both fertility and mortality rates higher than those in urban areas, but, due to migration outflows from rural to urban areas, this does not result in higher proportions of the elderly among the urban population. Thus, the share of the elderly in the rural population has been higher than that in the urban population. These differences have numerous socioeconomic consequences, and has raised questions about how to provide transportation and access to social and health care and deal with issues of loneliness in rural areas.
As of January 1, 2015, there were eighty-five regions in the Russian Federation, arranged into nine federal districts (FD). There are wide regional differences between them in regard to characteristics such as fertility, mortality, and migration. In 2015, the highest TFR (3.39) was observed in the Republic of Tuva in the Siberian FD, and the lowest (1.29) in the Leningrad region in the Northwest FD. 28 In 2015, the Republic of Ingushetia in the South FD had the highest LE (75.6 years for males and 83 years for females), while the Republic of Tuva had the lowest (58.1 years for males and 68.3 years for females)—a difference of 18.4 and 14.4 years, respectively. 29 These differences in demographic characteristics lead to age-structural differences, which in turn result in regional differentiation in the aging process. More than 150 nationalities inhabit Russia. According to the 2010 All-Russian Population Census, ethnic Russians are the most numerous (80.9 percent), with a proportion twenty times higher than that of the next
27 The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017, 45-46. 28 Russian Demographic Datasheet 2016, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2016, http://www.populationrussia. ru/data/RussianDemographicDataSheet2016_web.pdf. 29 Ibid.
12
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
largest nationality, the Tatars. 30 Figure 12 shows the proportions of ethnic Russians and the next ten most numerous nationalities; combined, their population is 92.4 percent of the country’s total population. 31
Future Trends of Population Size and Structure Various institutions have made countless population projections rooted in different approaches, including both deterministic and probabilistic projections, but this paper will not touch on probabilistic projections. Those considered, including from WPP, are based on a scenario approach. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty which of these trajectories will be realized, possible scenarios for changes in the three key demographic processes—fertility, mortality, and migration, as well as various combinations of these scenarios—allow us to outline the range within which the most probable trajectories of demographic development can be contained. Usually, this involves considering low, medium, high, and constant scenarios of assumed changes of main demographic indicators. Table 3 shows projections of Russia’s total population size in 2030 and in 2035–36, given different scenarios and using projections of Rosstat and WPP 2017: The twentieth annual demographic report Population of Russia 2012 considered three variants of fertility changes, three of life-expectancy changes, and four of changes in net migration (thirty-six scenarios in total). Per those scenarios, Russia’s total projected population size in 2030 varies from 128.8 to 153 million, indicating that total size could either decrease or increase.
Conclusions Russia’s demographic development faces challenges from its main demographic processes and population age-sex structure. Although the country’s total size is increasing in the second decade of the twenty-first century, many projections show that it may decline in the medium term. In any case, very low population density will aggravate the situation.
Table 3. Future Scenarios Scenario
2030
2035
High
145.6
145.0
Medium
140.5
138.1
Low
135.5
131.2
Constant fertility
138.4
136.6
Source: World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
The country’s demographic security is challenged by the diminishing number of women who are at ages associated with high fertility. Also, in spite of the observed increase in Russian life expectancy, it is still low compared to other developed countries. Russia spends too little on healthcare to effectively respond to the challenge of high mortality. The Russian population is aging, and population aging requires large-scale, effective, and versatile actions. Demographically, Russia is not among countries considered to be very old—in terms of the percentage of the population sixty and over, between 2000–2015 and 2015–2030, Russia ranks near the middle of the 201 countries studied. Thus, it is important not to overdramatize the possible negative consequences of population aging. Russia’s demographic development is heterogeneous in several dimensions (e.g., gender imbalance, rural/ urban differences, regional differentiation, and ethnic differences). To be effective, all population-related policies should take this heterogeneity into account. Understanding the challenges discussed in this report is key to developing effective responses. Dr. Gaiane Safarova Leading Research Scientist; Head of the Laboratory of Analysis and Modeling Socio-Demographic Processes, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg Institute for Economics and Mathematics
30 Socio-Demographic Portrait of Russia: According to the 2010 All-Russian Population Census, Statistics of Russia, 2012, http://www.gks.ru/ free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/Documents/portret-russia.pdf. 31 Ibid., 72-73.
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
13
ISSU E B RIEF
The Population of Russia, Today and Tomorrow
References
Sanderson W., Scherbov S. A new Perspective on Population Ageing/ European Demographic Research Papers VID, 2005, N 3
Andreev, E.M. Why is the gap in the life expectancy of men and women so great in Russia/ Demoscope Weekly. 2003. N 131-132. http:// demoscope.ru/weekly/2003/0131/analit05. (Андреев Е.М. Почему в России так велик разрыв в продолжительности жизни мужчин и женщин /Demoscope Weekly. 2003. N 131-132.)
Sanderson W. and S. Scherbov. 2008. “Rethinking Age and Ageing.” Population Bulletin. Vol.63, N 4. December 2008.
Demoscope Weekly. (Applications.) http://demoscope.ru/weekly.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. October 13–14, 2016. United Nations expert group meeting on Changing Population Age Structures and Sustainable Development. New York. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/ publications/ageing/age-structure.shtml.
European Demographic Datasheet. 2016. www.populationeurope.org. Government of the Russian Federation. 2016. “Strategy of action in the interests of citizens of the older generations up to the year 2025.” Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, N 164r. February 5, 2016. government.ru/docs/21692/. (Стратегия действий в интересах граждан старшего поколения в Российской Федерации до 2025 года. Распоряжение Правительства РФ №164-р от 5 февраля 2016 г.) Government of the Russian Federation. 2017. Federal Law “On monthly payments to families with children,” December 28, 2017, N 418-ФЗ (Федеральный закон “О ежемесячных выплатах семьям, имеющим детей” от 28.12.2017 N 418-ФЗ ). Human Mortality Database, www.mortality.org. Petrostat. 2017. Estimated population of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region until 2035. Statistical Bulletin. p. 64. (Предположительная численность населения Санкт-Петербурга и Ленинградской области до 2035 года. Статистический бюллетень. / Санкт-Петербурга. Петростат, 2017. 64 с.) Russian Demographic Datasheet. 2016. www.populationrussia.ru. Russian Federal Service of State Statistics (Rosstat). http://www.gks.ru/. Russian Federal Service of State Statistics (Rosstat). 2010. Information materials on the final results of the 2010 All-Russian Population Census. Russian Federal Service of State Statistics. 2012. “Socio-demographic portrait of Russia: According to the 2010 All-Russian Population Census.” Statistics of Russia, p. 183.( Социально-демографический портрет России: По итогам Всероссийской переписи населения 2010 года/Федер. служба гос. статистики. – М.: ИИЦ «Статистика России», 2012. – 183 с.) Russian Federal Service of State Statistics. 2015. The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2015 Statistical handbook. Rosstat.-M. 263 p. http:// www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/B15_16/Main.htm. Russian Federal Service of State Statistics. 2017. The Demographic Yearbook of Russia 2017 Statistical handbook. Rosstat.-M., 2017. 263 p. http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/B17_16/Main.htm. Safarova, G. “Heterogeneity of Population Ageing in Russia and Policy Implications,” in Population Ageing in Central and Eastern Europe. Societal and Policy Implications. Ed. A. Hoff, England and USA: Ashgate, 2011. pp. 53–76
14
Sanderson W. and S. Scherbov. 2010. “Remeasuring Aging” Science, vol. 329, September 10, 2010.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2015. World Population Ageing 2015. https://www.un.org/ en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_ Report.pdf. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2015. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. http:// unpopulation.org. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2017. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. http:// unpopulation.org. Vishnevsky, A. 2000. “Migration and Demographic Security in Russia.” In Migration and Demographic Security in Russia. G. Vitkovskaya and S. Panarin, eds. Moscow Carnegie Center. M.: Interdialekt. pp. 55-83 (Вишневский А. Миграция и демографическая безопасность России // Миграция и безопасность России. Под ред. Г. Витковской и С. Панарина; Моск. Центр Карнеги. М.: Интердиалект, 2000. С. 55-83). Vishnevsky, A. Ed. 2006. Demographic Modernization of Russia. (Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo, 2006, p. 608). (Демографическая модернизация России/ Под ред. А. Вишневского, М.: Новое издательство, 2006. -608 с.) Vishnevsky, A.G. Executive Editor. 2012. Population of Russia 2012: the twentieth annual demographic report. (Moscow: HSE Publishing House, 2014. p. 412). (Население России 2012: двадцатый ежегодный демографический доклад / отв. ред. А. Г. Вишневский. М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2014. — 412 с.) Vishnevsky, A.G., E.M. Andreev, S.V. Zakharov, V.M. Sakevich, E.A. Kvasha, and T.L. Kharkova. 2017. Demographic challenges of Russia: Part 2—Fertility and Mortality. Demoscope Weekly. N 751-752. http:// demoscope.ru/weekly/2017/0751/tema01.php. Zakharov, S.V. Executive editor. 2014. Population of Russia 2014: the twenty-second annual demographic report. HSE Publishing House, p. 357. (Население России 2014. двадцать второй ежегодный демографический доклад/отв. Ред. С. В. Захаров. — М. : Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2016. — 357 с.)
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
Board of Directors
CHAIRMAN *John F.W. Rogers EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN EMERITUS *James L. Jones
CHAIRMAN EMERITUS Brent Scowcroft
PRESIDENT AND CEO *Frederick Kempe
EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRS *Adrienne Arsht *Stephen J. Hadley
VICE CHAIRS *Robert J. Abernethy *Richard W. Edelman *C. Boyden Gray *Alexander V. Mirtchev *Virginia A. Mulberger *W. DeVier Pierson *John J. Studzinski TREASURER *George Lund
SECRETARY *Walter B. Slocombe
DIRECTORS Stéphane Abrial Odeh Aburdene Todd Achilles *Peter Ackerman Timothy D. Adams Bertrand-Marc Allen *Michael Andersson David D. Au�hauser Colleen Bell Matthew C. Bernstein *Ra�ic A. Bizri Dennis C. Blair Thomas L. Blair Philip M. Breedlove Reuben E. Brigety II Myron Brilliant *Esther Brimmer R. Nicholas Burns *Richard R. Burt Michael Calvey James E. Cartwright John E. Chapoton
Ahmed Charai Melanie Chen Michael Chertoff *George Chopivsky Wesley K. Clark *Helima Croft Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. Nelson W. Cunningham Ivo H. Daalder *Ankit N. Desai *Paula J. Dobriansky Thomas J. Egan, Jr. *Stuart E. Eizenstat Thomas R. Eldridge *Alan H. Fleischmann Jendayi E. Frazer Ronald M. Freeman Courtney Geduldig Robert S. Gelbard Gianni Di Giovanni Thomas H. Glocer Murathan Günal John B. Goodman *Sherri W. Goodman *Amir A. Handjani Katie Harbath John D. Harris, II Frank Haun Michael V. Hayden Brian C. McK. Henderson Annette Heuser Amos Hochstein *Karl V. Hopkins Robert D. Hormats Andrew Hove *Mary L. Howell Ian Ihnatowycz Wolfgang F. Ischinger Deborah Lee James Reuben Jeffery, III Joia M. Johnson Stephen R. Kappes *Maria Pica Karp Andre Kelleners Sean Kevelighan Henry A. Kissinger *C. Jeffrey Knittel Franklin D. Kramer Laura Lane Richard L. Lawson Jan M. Lodal Douglas Lute Jane Holl Lute William J. Lynn Wendy W. Makins Mian M. Mansha
Chris Marlin Gerardo Mato Timothy McBride John M. McHugh H.R. McMaster Eric D.K. Melby Franklin C. Miller *Judith A. Miller Susan Molinari Michael J. Morell Richard Morningstar Mary Claire Murphy Edward J. Newberry Thomas R. Nides Franco Nuschese Joseph S. Nye Hilda OchoaBrillembourg Ahmet M. Oren Sally A. Painter *Ana I. Palacio Carlos Pascual Alan Pellegrini David H. Petraeus Thomas R. Pickering Daniel B. Poneman Dina H. Powell Robert Rangel Thomas J. Ridge Michael J. Rogers Charles O. Rossotti Harry Sachinis Rajiv Shah Stephen Shapiro Wendy Sherman Kris Singh Christopher Smith James G. Stavridis Richard J.A. Steele Paula Stern Robert J. Stevens Mary Streett Nathan D. Tibbits Frances M. Townsend Clyde C. Tuggle Melanne Verveer Charles F. Wald Michael F. Walsh Ronald Weiser Geir Westgaard Maciej Witucki Neal S. Wolin Jenny Wood Guang Yang Mary C. Yates Dov S. Zakheim
HONORARY DIRECTORS James A. Baker, III Ashton B. Carter Robert M. Gates Michael G. Mullen Leon E. Panetta William J. Perry Colin L. Powell Condoleezza Rice George P. Shultz Horst Teltschik John W. Warner William H. Webster
*Executive Committee Members List as of June 18, 2019
The Atlantic Council is a nonpartisan organization that promotes constructive US leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the central role of the Atlantic community in meeting today’s global challenges. © 2019 The Atlantic Council of the United States. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Atlantic Council, except in the case of brief quotations in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. Please direct inquiries to: Atlantic Council 1030 15th Street, NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 463-7226, www.AtlanticCouncil.org