FINAL REPORT TONATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H

TITLE : Regional Population Growthin the USS R

and Its Impact on Society :1897-197 9

AUTHOR :

Robert A . Lewi s

CONTRACTOR :

The Trustees of Columbia University in th eCity of New York

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Robert A . Lewi s

COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER: 627- 6

DATE: May, 198 5

The work leading to this report was supported by funds provide dby the National Council for Soviet and East European Research .

Executive Summar y

Regional Population Growth in the USS R

And its Impact on Society : 1897-197 9

Robert A . Lewi s

Columbia University

Executive Summar y

Purpos e

The research completed during this contract is a part of a

broader study on regional trends in population growth and thei r

impact on Soviet society . The purpose of this study is t o

describe and analyze regional population growth in total, urban ,

and rural categories by disaggregating them into thei r

components : natural increase, fertility, mortality, and ne t

migration . To appraise the demographic effect of thes e

population changes, we order age and ethnic data into th e

appropriate regional units and make select projections to th e

year 2000 . The geographic units are the 19 economic regions o f

1961, four quadrants, and the total present-day territory of th e

USSR . The six census years (1897, 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, an d

1979) comprise the time units, although after 1959 mortality an d

fertility data will be provided by region as available, and afte r

1974 regional rates will be estimated . Thus, this study wil l

provide for the first time a wide array of basic demographic dat a

in the USSR for the census years since 1897 according t o

comparable regions and definitions, so that comparisons over tim e

for this period can be made . Our general approach is to test i n

the Soviet context demographic formulations drawn from th e

general demographic literature, and where they prove to b e

inadequate in explaining trends, to investigate condition s

specific to the USSR .

The research in this contract was directed toward orderin g

the necessary data into comparable territorial and definitional

- 2-

categories, especially age data, describing and analyzing th e

regional cha n g es in the total, urban, and rural age structur e

that occurred between 1897 and 1979, and appraising the impact o f

the changes in age structure on Soviet society . The major effor t

during the contract period was devoted to data processing an d

estimation that resulted in a consistent series of age data b y

five-year age groups for the present day territory of the USSR ,

for the six census years since 1897, for 19 economic regions an d

four quadrants, for the total, male and female population i n

total, urban and rural categories . All of the data for 1979 ha d

to be estimated, using a procedure that we adopted for thi s

purpose . Thus, for the first time changes in the age structur e

of the USSR since 1897 can be measured and analyzed in consisten t

definition and regions . Another major effort was devoted t o

estimating and adjusting regional mortality and fertility fo r

1897 and 1926 .

Finding s

The major demographic effect within a closed population o f

the decline in mortality and especially fertility associated wit h

modernization is a drastic change in the age structure from a

younger to an older population . This process is mainly governe d

by changes in fertility. Within a closed population, however, i n

addition to fertility and mortality, migration affects the ag e

structure . Consequently, there is usually considerable regiona l

and urban-rural variation in age structure with modernization ,

because the population transition occurs at different times and

- 3 -

rates regionally depending on the level of economic and socia l

development, and because economic migration is age selective .

With further economic development, however, there is regiona l

convergence toward the older age groups within a society .

In the USSR, these universal patterns have prevailed an d

were related, as expected, to differing rates of fertility an d

mortality decline and of migration, although idiosyncrati c

events, such as war, have had some effect . For example, th e

total, urban, and rural shares of the working age populatio n

(ages 20-59) rose appreciably since 1897 in all quadrants excep t

the Non-Slavic South, where the share declined despite a

significant rise between 1970 and 1979 . The share of the youn g

dependents (ages 0-19) in the total, urban, and rural categorie s

declined sharply since 1897 in all quadrants except the non -

Slavic South where it remained high despite a decline betwee n

1970 and 1979 . Since 1897, there has been an appreciable rise i n

the share of old dependents (ages 60 and over) in all quadrant s

and in all categories . The overall trends between 1970 and 197 9

were a sharp decline in the share of young dependents, a sharp

increase in the share of the population of working age, and a

moderate increase in the share of all dependents in al l

quadrants, regions, and categories for both sexes .

Implication s

Our research provides no basis for dire predictions o f

demographic crises in the USSR . With respect to changes in ag e

distribution, what has occurred in the USSR is essentially what

- 4 -

has occurred in other modernized countries . The overall change s

in the Soviet age structure have been primarily related t o

fertility decline, although mortality decline and war have ha d

some effect . If one assumes that relatively more workers an d

fewer dependents are advantageous to economic development ,

consumption, and production, the overall changes in the ag e

structure that occurred between 1970 and 1979 were favorable fo r

Soviet society, because the share of the population in th e

working ages, which in the USSR closely approximates the wor k

force, rose with only very few exceptions in all populatio n

categories, in all quadrants, and in all regions for both sexes .

The share of the young dependents declined much more than th e

share of the old dependents rose, which resulted in the declin e

in the combined dependent category and the corresponding increas e

in the working age population, Even if the cost per dependent o f

supporting old dependents exceeded the cost of supporting youn g

dependents as in the United States, the mix of the change i n

dependency would appear to be favorable because of the shar p

decline in young dependents . If the age-specific mortality rate s

had remained constant during this period, the crude death rate o f

the USSR and most parts would have risen, because there was a n

aging of the population, which accounts for some of the rise i n

the crude death rate that has recently occurred in the USSR .

Changes in the composition of the working age population ca n

also affect economic development and production, if a less o r

more productive cohort or component increases its share of th e

working age population . The overall trend between 1970 and 1979

- 5 -

was an aging of the population of working age . If experience i s

emphasized, this change is favorable, but if higher levels o f

education is emphasized, the change is unfavorable . Considerin g

the great increase in levels of education since World War II ,

particularly in non-European areas, and the increasin g

educational requirements of a modern economy, it would appea r

that the aging of the working age population that occurre d

between 1970 and 1979 was an unfavorable influence, and it ma y

have adversely affected productivity .

Suffice it to say, however, these changes have not resulte d

in a demographic crisis, and simplistic interpretations based o n

a crude demographic determinism should be avoided in th e

appraisal of the impact of population change on Soviet society .

Regional Population Growth in the USSR an d

Its Impact on Society : 1897-197 9

Robert A . Lewi s

Columbia University

Introduction

Good empirical demographic research requires the following :

1) ordering the required data into consistent definitional and

territorial categories, 2) evaluating the data, 3) calculating

standardized measures, 4) applying methods to estimate data tha t

are wanting, and 5) applying theory and methods to analyze the

data and to appraise the societal impact of population trends .

This final report and the study that it describes are based on

this proposition and this perspective . Moreover, with respect to

demographic research on the USSR, these requirements ar e

compounded by especially severe problems in data comparability, a

lack of data and G l 1 011 01 O. G La ,

which requires much data processing and estimation to overcome.

Such research should go well beyond Soviet demographic work on

the USSR, particularly in terms of theory and method, with it s

disabilities imposed by secrecy, ideology, and bureaucracy .

Results of Soviet research should, of course, be incorporate d

where appropriate, but empirical demographic work should not b e

based exclusively, or nearly so, on such studies .

In order to describe the work that has been done on th e

project during the past two years, this report is divided into

- 2 -

five main parts : 1) Purpose, 2) Work Completed, 3) Methodology ,

4) Findings, and 5) Implications . The Purpose will comprise a

summary of the original proposal . The Work Completed sectio n

will emphasize data processing and estimation, because of thei r

importance in this stage of our work . Methodology will be

devoted to the methods that were used to derive the age data .

Findings will be concerned with age distribution, because thi s

work was the chief emphasis during the contract period .

Implications will investigate the societal influence of change s

in age distribution between 1970 and 1979 . However, befor e

discussing these subjects, it would be appropriate to discus s

briefly the publications that have or will shortly result fro m

our recent work .

There were four sessions at the 1984 Meetings of th e

Association of American Geographers dedicated to Professo r

Chancy Harris, who is retiring from the University of Chicago .

We read two papers based on the project at these sessions, and I

contributed a paper to a festschrift in his honor . These paper s

are appended .

At present, we are preparing two papers on age distribution .

The chief problem in publishing the results of our age estimate s

is that the 1897-1979 series would require upwards of 150 page s

of tables, so most of the data will have to be published in th e

book. One article will be short and will present data in gros s

regions and gross categories . The other will deal in some detai l

with the 1979 estimates . Two journal editors have shown som e

interest in publishing these papers .

- 3 -

Although not directly related to this contract, it is worth y

of mention that Richard Rowland, I, and three of our assistant s

(Craumer, Liebowitz, and Schwartz) contributed papers to the Cle m

project on Soviet Censuses during the contract period .

Purpos e

The proposed research is the continuation of a long-term ,

20-year project whose chief purpose has been to describe an d

analyze, both on an all-Union and regional basis, populatio n

change in the present-day territory of the USSR since 1897 and t o

attempt to determine its impact on society . In the most genera l

sense, the following questions are posed : (1) What is th e

expected theory with respect to population trends? (2) Wha t

trends occurred in the USSR, and what factors were they relate d

to? (3) How did government policy affect these trends? (4) Wha t

impact have these trends had on Soviet society? Because o f

immense problems in data comparability, it was and continues t o

he necessary to reorder the data in t he various Russian an d

Soviet censuses, as well as data from censuses of surroundin g

countries, into a consistent set of internal units according t o

consistent definitions . Thus, for the chief demographi c

variables, we have generated and continue to generate an origina l

series of data for the total, urban, and rural populations tha t

permit comparisons over time for the census years since 1897 fo r

the first time . The first two volumes, which were devoted t o

nationality and population redistribution, of a three-volum e

series have been completed .

- 4 -

The current research involves regional population growth and

its impact on society . Our major effort was to generate b y

economic region since 1897 the necessary consistent serie s

relating to population growth in total, urban, and rura l

categories, which include natural increase, net migration ,

fertility, mortality, age distribution, ethnic distribution, an d

select projections to the year 2000 . The changes in age an d

ethnic distribution, of course, relate to the implications o f

population growth, whereas the other variables relate to th e

analysis of population growth. This stage of the work emphasize s

these consistent series as a step toward answering the fou r

questions that were posed . These data comparable by territor y

and definition have considerable value independent of the broade r

study .

Work Complete d

Because of severe problems of data comparability among th e

Soviet censuses and a lack of data, particularly for 1979 ,

considerable data processing is required to order the data int o

territorial and definitional categories that can be analyzed ove r

time, and considerable estimation is required to fill in dat a

gaps . Thus, a major effort has been directed toward thes e

activities . However, because of the broad scope of this project ,

work progressed in a number of other areas as well, such a s

bibliography, mapping, data compilation, the typing of tables ,

and computer programs .

Age Distribution

The major effort during the contract period was devoted to

- 5 -

data processing that resulted in a consistent series of age dat a

in meaningful regions for a major portion of the earth for almos t

a century . This series was five-year age groups for the present -

day territory of the USSR, for the six census years since 1897 ,

for 19 economic regions and four quadrants, for the total, male ,

and female populations, by total, urban, and rural categories .

This work required about eight man-years of work .

Age data are probably the most important variables derive d

from a census, because of its many uses, and age is a primar y

human characteristic . Declining birth and death rates associate d

with modernization result in drastic changes in the age structur e

of a population, and age data in appropriate categories ar e

required to analyze these changes and their effect on society .

Thus, age data are important in analyzing changes in ag e

structure and in appraising the impact of population change on

society . Because so many aspects of society are age specific ,

includin g birth, death, marria g e, work forc e pa r ticipation ,

educational attainment, crime, consumption, retirement, and lif e

styles, major shifts in age distribution can have desirable o r

undesirable effects on a society and constitute a majo r

demographic force shaping a society .

Age data, normally by five-year age groups, are als o

essential inputs for a variety of demographic methods, such a s

stable population and life table procedures, direct and indirec t

standardization and the derivation of a variety of ratios .

Therefore, age data in appropriate categories are essential to

- 6 -

the study of population .

All of the 1979 age data had to be estimated, because th e

published results of the 1979 Soviet Census include no age data .

To make these estimates taking into account migration, we adapte d

the Deming-Stephan Inflation Method, which is normally used t o

correct samples. As inputs, we use 1970 census data and marginal s

from the 1979 census or estimates . We also attempted to estimat e

similar data for 1939, but because of the lack of data we hav e

only been able to estimate the total age distribution by economi c

region by five-year age groups, but not by sex . We have suc h

estimates by sex only for the republics for 1939 .

Age data for 1897, 1926, 1959, and 1970 required considerabl e

reordering of census data with respect to territory an d

definition. Suffice it to say that no tertiary territorial uni t

was the same in all censuses, and aside from age and sex, n o

definition was the same in all census years . With respect to ag e

data, the 1897 and 1926 censuses required considerable adjustmen t

with respect to territory, but no adjustment with respect t o

definition, because data were available by single years of age .

Although the urban population could be allocated with precisio n

by urban center, many units had to be apportioned to derive th e

rural age data . Moreover, data for border areas, which wer e

formerly outside the border of Russia and the USSR but currentl y

are within the USSR, were particularly difficult to derive ,

because of problems of comparability between the East Europea n

censuses and the Soviet censuses and the lack of age data in th e

required categories . Consequently, considerable estimation was

- 7 -

required . Age data for 1959 and 1970 required relatively littl e

territorial adjustment, but much more definitional adjustment ,

because data in five-year age groups were often lacking .

This series of data was worth the great effort that i t

required, because it fills a major demographic gap regionally ,

for a primary demographic characteristic, for the total, urban ,

and rural categories, for one-sixth of the eart h ' s surface, fo r

almost a century . For example, such a series of data are no t

available for most of the world ' s population .

Fertility and Mortality Estimates by Economic Regio n

To analyze total, urban, and rural growth, total, urban, an d

rural mortality and fertility rates are required . Because of th e

lack of data and the unreliability of data, considerabl e

estimation is also required to derive these necessary series .

For 1897, vital statistics are only available for the 50 Europea n

gubernii, for 1926 the reported data are highly suspect, and fo r

the postwar p eriod urban and rural data are lackin g . I n

addition, standardized measures are required to take into accoun t

varying age and sex structures .

Another major effort in the past two years has been th e

estimation of the necessary mortality and fertility data for 189 7

and 1926 using age distribution and a variety of procedures ,

including stable-population and life-table procedures an d

indirect standardization . For example, for 1926, fertility wa s

estimated nine different ways, although the 1897 estimates wer e

not done this many times . We have yet to arrive at a final

- 8 -

series, but work is nearing completion, and we will have a n

interesting discussion of the results of the various estimatio n

procedures . We have also gathered the necessary mortality an d

fertility data for the border area for 1897 and 1926 from th e

published vital statistics of neighboring countries, an d

estimated standardized rates for the postwar period for 1959 an d

1970 by economic region .

Compilation of Tables and Maps

A major effort was made to collect available mortality an d

fertility data and tabulate them . This past year the followin g

sources were surveyed : 800 volumes of the Narodnoye Khozyaystv o

series at the republic and oblast level, all volumes of Vestni k

Statistiki from 1950 to present, all volumes (130) of the leadin g

Soviet and republic public health journals (Zdravookhraneniye )

since 1950, and 150 monographs on Soviet population . Th e

following data where available were tabulated from these sources :

1) crude fertility, mortality and national increase rates and i n

thousand of persons for 1940 and 1950 to the present at the SSR ,

oblast, and city level, 2) infant mortality rates for 1940 and

1950 to present at the SSR and city level, 3) crude fertility an d

mortality rates at republic level by urban-rural for 1940 an d

1950 to present, 4) age-specific death rates at the USSR an d

republic level by sex and by urban-rural for available years, an d

5) age-specific fertility rates at the USSR and republic level b y

urban and rural, where available . In addition, a variety o f

other data were collected but not tabulated, such as USSR an d

regional life tables and life-table data, and data on causes of

- 9 -

death . Richard Rowland spent two weeks at the Berkeley an d

Hoover libraries and I spent a month in the USSR doin g

bibliographical work .

We have also compiled, drawn, and reproduced 30 maps base d

on our age distribution data, and compiled many more . We hav e

typed about 30 to 40 pages of tables and written rough-draf t

material .

Thus, a significant portion of the work necessary for th e

third volume has been completed . Furthermore, I think that th e

opportunity afforded to my graduate students to work on thi s

project has been very beneficial for their future careers .

Methodology

Modern Russian and Soviet censuses since 1897 cover abou t

one-sixth of the worl d ' s land surface, and thus constitute a

major source of basic demographic data for a large portion of th e

earth for a significant period of time . The censuses conducte d

in 1897, 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, and 1979 are the chief source s

of socioeconomic data for Russia and the USSR, even though th e

periods covered, the intervals between the various enumerations ,

and the range of data published are not uniform or entirel y

satisfactory . Russian and Soviet census figures measure suc h

essential elements of society as age, sex, ethnicity, marriage ,

migration, education, and work force according to total, urban ,

and rural categories .

Data comparability--definitional, territorial, an d

temporal--is the central statistical problem in using the

- 1 0 -

censuses in the study of the population and society of the USSR .

Owing to severe comparability problems, trends which are crucia l

to demographic analysis cannot be established among censuse s

unless data are rendered comparable . These statistical obstacle s

largely account for the fact that the censuses have been use d

relatively little in the study of Russian and Soviet society. To

compound these problems, it appears that only very limite d

results, and virtually none of the vital age data, will b e

published from the 1979 census .

Because the national territory of the USSR has change d

several times over the last century, its present-day border s

differ from those of 1897, 1926, and 1939 . Consequently, i n

order to provide even comparable aggregate data based on th e

territory of the USSR today, it is necessary to gather data fro m

East European and other censuses for the border areas formerl y

outside, but currently within the USSR. However, aggregate dat a

for a country as large and diverse as the USSR are not especiall y

meaningful, and therefore some sub-national regionalization i s

necessary to analyze population and socio-economic trends .

Unfortunately, frequent and drastic changes in the interna l

political-administrative divisions into which census and othe r

data are ordered make it very difficult to compare regiona l

demographic and socioeconomic characteristics over time . Fo r

example, the number of major enumeration units in 1897 was 89 ; i n

1926, 189 ; and in 1959, 1970, and 1979, about 140 . Furthermore ,

no enumeration unit in any census had the same boundaries in al l

census years . Thus, the major tasks with respect to territorial

- 1 1 -

comparability of Soviet census data are to gather data for borde r

areas from the censuses of neighboring countries, and to reorde r

the Russian and Soviet data into a consistent set of territoria l

units .

Problems of definitional comparability are especiall y

nettlesome in demographic research on Russia and the USSR .

First, and most obviously, many important categories are define d

differently from census to census, including such key socio -

economic indicators as urban residence, educational attainment ,

ethnicity, and occupations . In fact, sex and age were the onl y

two characteristics for which the definitions were directl y

comparable in all censuses, although the age categories in whic h

the data were published were not always comparable . A second ,

and more subtle problem is that little systematic attention i s

given to definitions, and consequently it is often difficult t o

determine changes in categories .

Still another problem is that of temporal comparability, a

difficulty that arises because of the irregular intervals ove r

which censuses have been taken in Russia and the USSR .

Therefore, when measuring change among the various censuses, i t

is necessary to use average annual rates of change to standardiz e

for the different intercensal periods . One should also avoi d

assuming that change between two censuses was linear . Fo r

example, in the two intercensal periods which included wars, mos t

demographic trends were not linear, but fluctuated considerably .

Even between 1926 and 1939, when there was no war, it is not

- 1 2 -

reasonable to assume that change in such variables as mortalit y

and fertility was linear, because famine, drastic economi c

reorganization, and variations in socioeconomic condition s

clearly had a specific temporal impact .

The 1897 census was conducted on February 9 (January 2 8

according to the Julian calendar), the 1926 census on Decembe r

17, the 1939 census on January 17, and the 1959, 1970, and 197 9

censuses on January 15 . In the computation of average annua l

rates, a period of 29 .9 years is used for the 1897-1926 period ,

12 .1 years for the 1926-39, 20 .0 for the 1939-59, 11 .0 years fo r

the 1959-70, 9 .0 for 1970-79, and 82 years for 1897-1979 .

For the past two decades, we have done considerable researc h

on problems of territorial and definitional comparability relate d

to the Russian and Soviet censuses . As a result of thes e

efforts, we have generated a wide array of variables that ar e

comparable both in terms of territory and definition . I wil l

describe in brief the procedures that we derived in an attempt t o

solve the many comparability problems associated with th e

original census data, because these procedures were used in thi s

study .1

There is no ideal set of regions for the study of al l

'For a more detailed discussion of procedures, see : Rober tA. Lewis, Richard H . Rowland, and Ralph S . Clem, Nationality an dPopulation Change in Russia and the USSR (New York : Praeger ,1976), pp . 29-60 ; J . William Leasure and Robert A . Lewis ,Population Changes in Russia and the USSR : A set of Comparabl eTerritorial Units (San Diego : San Diego State College Press ,1966), pp . v-41 ; and Robert A . Lewis and Richard H . Rowland ,Population Redistribution in the USSR (New York : Praeger, 1979) ,pp . 30-36 .

- 1 3 -

aspects of demographic change . Nevertheless, a careful selectio n

of regions into which population data will be ordered i s

important to avoid biasing the data excessively . For our study ,

the 19 major (Krupnyye) Soviet economic regions of 1961 wer e

selected as the consistent territorial units into which th e

original data would be ordered . These regions were chose n

because their scale was appropriate for regional analysis ,

because it was easier to order data into these regions than th e

more numerous lower order political-administrative units, an d

because they were largely congruent with the ethnically-base d

federal structure of the USSR . Moreover, the 1959, 1970, an d

1979 political-administrative and census units conform to thes e

regions without major adjustments, and other data pertinent t o

demographic analysis have been presented in these regions .

In order to allocate original data into the comparabl e

territorial units (i .e ., the 19 economic regions), it was assume d

that the rural population was evenly distributed within eac h

administrative unit. Thus, a variation in area would result in a

proportionate variation in rural population . For our purposes ,

the rural population was defined as the population not living i n

centers of 15,000 and over ; because the census definitions o f

"urban" varied considerably from census to census, we chose th e

size criterion of 15,000 (the smallest urban center for whic h

data were available in all censuses) . The procedures fo r

allocating the rural population are simple and straightforward .

The first major step was to superimpose a map of the economic

- 1 4 -

regions over a map of the political units for each census year ,

and then to measure with a polar planimeter the percent of th e

area of a given political unit that fell into a given region ,

what we termed the "area allocation ." Equal area maps o f

relatively small scale were used, and where possible the result s

were checked with larger scale maps . In practice, many politica l

units fell totally within the larger economic regions, obviatin g

the need for allocation . Thus, the rural populations of th e

units that comprised an economic region were multiplied by thei r

area allocation and summed to obtain the estimate for the rura l

population of that region .

The allocation of the urban population actually require d

fewer calculations, because the urban population is spatiall y

concentrated and its location known ; urban centers could b e

allocated directly into the appropriate economic region .

Accordingly, the summation of the population in centers of 15,00 0

or more from the given political units allocated to a give n

economic region yielded the urban population estimate for tha t

region . An estimate was made of the urban and rural population s

and of the total (i .e ., urban plus rural) population of a give n

political unit that were allocated to a given region . Th e

percentage that this allocated population comprised of the tota l

population of the original unit was termed the "populatio n

allocation ." Once the total, urban, and rural populations o f

each unit had been allocated to the appropriate regions, it wa s

possible to estimate these populations for each economic regio n

simply by a summation of all constituent allocations . These

- 1 5 -

procedures--with adjustments for census dates--were also applie d

to border areas currently within the USSR that were outside th e

boundaries of the Russian Empire or the USSR in 1897 and 1926 an d

thus not included in the Russian and Soviet censuses .

To estimate demographic variables for the total populatio n

of each region in 1897 and 1926, the number of persons in a give n

unit with certain characteristics was multiplied by th e

population allocation . For the few border areas for which dat a

were not available, we assumed that the characteristics of the

population for which we had data could be applied to the entir e

population of the region, or we made independent estimates . The

allocation of the demographic characteristics of the urba n

population wa s

procedure wa s

characteristics

somewhat more complicated . The most logica l

the urban (census definition )

of the urban (census definition )

to allocat e

on the basi s

population of a unit that was fitted into an economic region .

The summation of the allocated figures for each region resulte d

in an estimate of th e

definition) population

characteristic s

of each region .

of the urban (censu s

In order to derive a n

estimate of the characteristic s

population, these data were

of the urban (15,000 and over )

adjusted by assuming that th e

characteristics of the urban (census definition) population coul d

be applied in the same proportion to the urban (15,000 and over )

population . Available facts indicate that the error involved i n

these procedures was small .

In summary, the most basic aspect of demographic research is

- 1 6 -

the determination of trends over time, which in turn ar e

essential in the analysis of the determinants of populatio n

change and demographic comparisons over time and space . As w e

have seen, population trends cannot be derived from the Russia n

and Soviet censuses unless major problems in territorial an d

definitional comparability are solved . The procedures that w e

derived make it possible for the first time to establish thes e

trends over time for the present-day territory of the USSR for a

wide variety of census variables such as ethnicity, urbanization ,

labor force, sex, age, fertility,and literacy for the total ,

urban, and rural populations .

To estimate the age data for 1979 required additiona l

procedures . We adapted the Deming-Stephan inflation formula t o

make these estimates . This method is normally used to correct a

defective sample based on a know universe . What is required i s

1970 age data by appropriate cat e g ory and territorial unit an d

sums of rows and columns for 1979 . A complete set of data fro m

one census year, known as the sampling frequencies, is inflate d

by means of an iterative procedure to equal the sums of the row s

and columns referred to as the marginal or control totals . Thi s

produces a second set of cells which are estimates of the missin g

information . A considerable disaggregation of the data that ar e

being run is required . It was also necessary to devise age dat a

by five-year age groups by region and sex for the total, urban ,

and rural categories for 1970 as a basis for the estimation .

Ours is a unique application of this method, and our results see m

reasonable and take into account migration . Our test estimates

- 1 7 -

of known 1970 data were reasonably close, and our estimates ar e

very close to the scattered 1979 age data that have bee n

published . For example, our estimates of rural 0-14 for the tota l

USSR was exactly the same as the published one, and our estimate s

of the rural working age population of Kirgiziya was about a

percentage point off from the published 1979 figure . There are ,

however, some inconsistencies in the five-year cohorts for 1979 ,

but they do not appear in the ten-year cohorts .

Finding s

Because much of our effort was directed toward generatin g

the age data, it would seem appropriate to use these data t o

exemplify the results of our research . Tables 1-14 present ag e

data that are greatly aggregated with respect to both territor y

and definition, because the tables by five-year age groups ,

economic region, and sex for the total, urban, and rura l

population that we derived for the census years since 1897 woul d

require much space . Thes e patterns, however are somewha t

. gross ,

and disaggregated data would reveal variations within regions an d

definitional categories . Nevertheless, these regions an d

categories are sufficiently homogeneous to provide a basis fo r

analysis of the changing age structure of the USSR, and permi t

for the first time regional and national comparisons over tim e

since 1897 .

The major demographic effect within a closed population o f

the decline in mortality and especially fertility associated wit h

modernization is a drastic change in the age structure from a

- 1 8 -

younger to an older population . This process is mainly governe d

by changes is fertility . Within a closed population, however,i n

addition to fertility and mortality, migration affects the ag e

structure. Consequently, there is usually considerable regiona l

and urban-rural variation in age structure with modernization ,

because the population transition occurs at different times an d

rates regionally, depending on the level of economic and socia l

development, and because economic migration is age selective .

With further economic development, however, there is a regiona l

convergence toward the older age groups within a society . Fo r

example, a stationary population with life expectancy at birth o f

about 70, which is about that of the USSR at present, would hav e

27 percent of its population 0-19 ; 52 per cent, 20-59 ; and 2 0

percent, over age 60 . These figures provide a reference wit h

which to compare the trends over time in Soviet age structure ,

and are probably reasonable approximation of levels that will b e

reached around the turn of the century as the Soviet populatio n

approaches a stationary population. Fertility in the Slavic and

Baltic areas is generally below replacement for a stabl e

population, but in the Non-Slavic South, especially Central Asia ,

it is generally well above replacement .

As to the total population 0-19 (Table 1), there have bee n

drastic declines in the share of young dependents, which in th e

western part of the USSR is approaching that of the abov e

stationary population. The share of young dependents in the Non -

Slavic South has changed very little since 1897, although it ros e

between 1959 and 1970, and since 1970 has declined . The rise was

- 1 9 -

probably the result of declining infant mortality and some ris e

in fertility, which has not been conclusively documented, and th e

decline largely reflects the decline in fertility that occurre d

after 1970 especially in Central Asia . Clearly, the Non-Slavi c

South is in an earlier stage of the population transition, wit h

higher levels of fertility . In general, declines in infan t

mortality have dampened the effect on the age structure o f

declining fertility in the USSR . The influence of migration o n

regional age structure at the quadrant scale was minimal for th e

total population, particularly after 1970 . Between 1970 an d

1979, all quadrants experienced an appreciable decline in thei r

share of young dependents .

Changes in the 0-19 urban population were roughly similar t o

that of the total, although the levels were generally lowe r

because of lower urban fertility (Table 1) . Conversely, th e

levels of the 0-19 rural population was generally higher becaus e

of 1, 4 ,- ,, ,- c r- ;

it th e rural area s , e'.

though the pattern s

of change were roughly similar to the total population 0-1 9

(Table 1) . The share of the young dependents in the urba n

population was affected more by net in-migration, particularly i n

the earlier period when the urban population was small . As th e

rural population declined in the postwar period in the norther n

areas, the influence of net out-migration on regional ag e

distribution increased . The share of young dependents in th e

rural population of the Non-Slavic South is notably high even i n

1979 .

- 2 0 -

As expected, a sharp decline in the share that the youn g

dependents comprised of the total population resulted in a ris e

in other age cohorts, especially the old dependents (Table 2) .

The population over age 60 was characterized by a sharp increase ,

although in general the levels were lower than might be expected ,

largely because of the very high war losses . The rise in th e

Russian East was dampened by net in-migration, especially befor e

1959, and in the Non-Slavic South by relatively high fertility ,

especially before 1970 . The pattern of change for the urban an d

rural old dependents reflect these factors as well (Table 2) .

The high levels for the western USSR in 1979 for the rura l

population reflect the out-migration of the young from rura l

areas, and the generally lower levels in the urban areas reflec t

the influence of the net in-migration of a younger population .

The generally lower levels in the Non-Slavic South reflect th e

higher fertility in these regions, especially Central Asia.

Because the share comprised by the young dependents decline d

to a much greater extent that the old dependents increased, th e

working age population increased its share in all quadrant s

except the Non-Slavic South (Table 3) . The total population 20 -

59 in the northern quadrants increased to levels higher than fo r

a corresponding stationary population, largely because of hig h

war losses, so in time these levels are expected to subside . The

working age population of the Non-Slavic South has remaine d

relatively low, largely because of higher fertility an d

relatively limited net in-migration . In general, lower fertilit y

and net in-migration has resulted in higher shares in the urban

- 2 1 -

working age population, particularly in the northern quadrant s

(Table 3) . The opposite conditions resulted in the low share s

for the rural working age population, especially in the Non -

Slavic South, where both high fertility and declining infan t

mortality have depressed the share in the working age population .

It is worthy of note that since 1970 the trend in the total ,

urban, and rural working age population has been a marke d

increase in its share of the total, urban, and rural populations .

These patterns in age distribution further demonstrate th e

major dichotomy with respect to demographic processes that exist s

between the Non-Slavic South and the regions to the north or th e

European areas of the USSR . In addition to the differences i n

age structure, the European areas are characterized by low rate s

of natural increase and population growth, high rates o f

urbanization and urban growth, high levels of urbanization, hig h

and intensifying rates of rural depopulation, and high rates o f

Characteristic feature : cf the Non-Slavic Sout h

include moderate to high rates of natural increase and populatio n

growth, low rates of urbanization but high rates of urban growth ,

rural population growth, particularly in Central Asia, a

predominantly rural population, and a relatively immobile rura l

population . Although the Non-Slavic South contains only one -

fifth of the Soviet population, between 1970 and 1979 i t

accounted for 44 .1 percent of the total population growth, s o

there has been a redistribution of population to the Non-Slavi c

South, where the percentage of the total Soviet population

- 2 2 -

increased from 15 .6 to 20 .7 between 1959 and 1979 .

With respect to the working age population, however, ther e

is a definite trend toward convergence in the level between th e

Non-Slavic South and the northern areas . For example, betwee n

1980 and 1990, the Non-Slavic South will account for an estimate d

72 .8 percent of the growth of the total working age population o r

7 .4 million, if migration is not considered, whereas in th e

remainder of the USSR it will increase by only 2 .7 million . Th e

respective average annual growth rates are 2 .6 and 0 .2 percent .

If the 1970-79 migration pattern of little or no net migratio n

between the Non-Slavic South and the remainder of the countr y

persists, these estimates should be fairly reliable . In th e

absence of migration, 61 .0 percent of the increase in the rura l

population of working age between 1980 and 1990, or 5 .5 million ,

would be accounted for by the Non-Slavic South, where it woul d

grow 3 .7 percent per year in contrast to 0 .8 percent per yea r

elsewhere in the USSR . The urban working age population of th e

Non-Slavic South would increase by 1 .9 million, or 1 .4 percen t

per year, without migration, and would decline by 754,000 in th e

remainder of the USSR . The crux of the situation is that no t

only will the working age population of the USSR grow slowly, 0 . 7

percent per year in the 198 0 ' s, but the geographic distributio n

of this growth will be unfavorable for economic development i n

that it will be concentrated in the rural areas of the Non-Slavic

- 2 3 -

South . 2

Tables 4-12 present our estimates of the age distribution o f

the Soviet population in 1979 and change since 1970 by the sam e

gross age categories, but with more regional detail and the se x

component . In general, the influence of migration is greater a t

the economic-region scale than at the quadrant scale . Th e

demographic dichotomy between the northern regions and th e

southern tier is particularly obvious at this scale of analysis .

The pervasive decline in the total young dependents betwee n

1970 and 1979 reflects the pervasive decline in fertility in th e

USSR in the past 20 years (Table 4) . In regions of highe r

fertility, the percentage of the population 0-19 was higher tha n

in regions of low fertility (Map 1) . For example, in Centra l

Asia young dependents comprised almost a half of the tota l

population, whereas in the northern areas this cohort varied fro m

about one-fourth to one-third . Young dependents accounted for a

larger percentage of the total male population than female s

comprised of the total female population, largely because o f

higher male mortality and war losses . The pervasive increase i n

old dependents was much less than the decline in youn g

dependents, and the disparity in the share for males and female s

was particularly wide, again reflecting differences in mortalit y

(Table 5) . The lowest levels were registered in the regions o f

2 Robert A. Lewis, " Regional Manpower Resources and Resourc eDevelopment in the USSR : 1970-1990," in Soviet Natura lResources in the World Economy, eds . Robert G . Jensen, Theodor eShabad, and Arthur W . Wright (Chicago : The University of Chicag oPress, 1983), pp . 72-96 .

- 2 4 -

the southern tier where fertility was the highest, and in region s

of net in-migration (Map 2) . There was also a pervasive rise i n

the population of working age (Table 6) . Higher levels reflec t

lower fertility and in-migration (Map 3) . Regions of relativel y

high levels of fertility, such as Central Asia, have notably lo w

levels of their total population in the working ages . Th e

disparity in levels, of course, has implication for economi c

development and dependency .

As to urban and rural patterns in age distribution (Table s

7-12 and Maps 4-9), the young dependents in rural region s

generally comprised a greater share of the rural population i n

1979 than they comprised of the urban population, because o f

higher fertility, and this rural share was particularly high -i n

Central Asia . The decline since 1970 was greater in rural area s

than urban, because of greater declines in fertility and out -

migration. The levels of old dependents were the highest by fa r

in rural northern areas and the charge between 1970 and 1 9 7 9 w a s

greater reflecting once again net out-migration in addition t o

relatively low fertility . The working age population wa s

especially high in the northern urban regions and rising betwee n

1970 and 1979, largely as a result of low fertility an d

considerable net in-migration . Because the working ag e

population in the USSR closely approximates the work force, i n

that participation rates are generally high for both sexes ,

variations in levels of the working age population are goo d

indicators of labor supply .

- 2 5 -

In summary, the total, urban, and rural shares of th e

working age population rose appreciably since 1897 in al l

quadrants except the Non-Slavic South, where the share decline d

despite a significant rise between 1970 and 1979 . The share o f

the young dependents in the total, urban, and rural categorie s

declined sharply since 1897 in all quadrants except the non -

Slavic South, where it remained high despite a decline betwee n

1970 and 1979 . Since 1897, there has been an appreciable rise i n

the share of old dependents in all quadrants and in al l

categories . The overall trends between 1970 and 1979 were a

sharp decline in the share of young dependents, a sharp increas e

in the share of the population of working age, and a moderat e

increase in the share of old dependents in all quadrants ,

regions, and categories for both sexes .

Implications

The USSR s not an exceptional case wi t h respect 4- r. th e

demographic change associated with modernization and its impac t

on society . Our research makes possible for the first tim e

investigation of trends over time in Soviet age structure for th e

census years on a regional basis for the total, urban, and rura l

populations, including 1979 for which almost no data have been

published . Our research provides no basis for dire prediction s

of demographic crisis in the USSR . What has occurred in the USS R

with respect to changes in age distribution is essentially wha t

has occurred in other modernized countries . The overall change

- 2 6 -

that has occurred in the Soviet age structure has been primaril y

related to fertility decline, although mortality decline and wa r

have had some effect .

A conceptual knowledge of demographic processes is necessar y

to understand the implications of population change on a society ,

because demographic variables are interrelated and interrelat e

with the socioeconomic and natural environment . These comple x

interrelationships are the essence of demography . A n

understanding of how demographic processes interrelate provide s

insight into and is essential to the analysis of the societa l

implications of population change . Thus, societal implication s

must be analyzed conceptually and comparatively, and th e

universal experience is a major guide to what will happen i n

modernizing countries .

If significance in the social sciences is defined in term s

of increasing our understanding of ourselves and the society an d

the world around us, then a knowledge of basic demographi c

processes is essential, because these processes involv e

fundamental aspects of human experience and comprise a majo r

force shaping any society . We are born, we age, we go to school ,

we reproduce, we move, we die . The most momentous and pivota l

events in human history have been the dramatic declines i n

mortality and fertility and the rapid urbanization of societ y

that have affected virtually all aspects of society and ou r

lives .

The major consequences of the changing patterns of fertilit y

and mortality associated with modernization are drastic changes

- 2 7 -

in the age and ethnic composition of societies . The principa l

reason why a knowledge of demographic processes is essential t o

understanding societal change - aside from the obvious fact tha t

they are interrelated - is that so many aspects of society ar e

age-specific, and include such crucial events as birth, death ,

marriage, migration, work-force participation, education, crime ,

consumption, voting, retirement, and life style . Consequently ,

major shifts in age distribution commonly resulting from decline s

primarily in fertility, but also mortality, can have desirable o r

undesirable effects on a society . Ethnic differentials i n

fertility and mortality, which ultimately converge wit h

modernization, affect the differential growth of ethnic group s

within multinational states, and most countries ar e

multinational . Such differential growth can lead to ethni c

tension and change voting patterns in democratic societies .

Thus, in addition to economic, political, geographic, and socia l

factors, demographic forces shape a societ y and must be studie d

if we are to understand society and make guarded forecasts as t o

future trends .

Even though virtually every social or economic problem facin g

a country has a demographic dimension, one must avoid what migh t

be termed "demographic determinism" in appraising the effects o f

population change on a society, because demographic processe s

interrelate with a variety of societal factors . That is, one

must avoid exaggerating the influence of population change, an d

realize that these processes are interrelated, very complex, and

- 2 8 -

should not be oversimplified or overstated .

With respect to the impact of population change on society ,

one should think more in terms of demographic influences, som e

favorable and some unfavorably, than demographic determinants ,

and avoid the dire analysis and crisis mentality that is s o

characteristic of demographic writing on the USSR in the West .

Tables 13 and 14 present summary age data for components of th e

working age population from which we can isolate some of th e

influences of recent changes in age composition in the USSR . I n

our analysis of the effect of changes in age distribution on the

working age population between 1970 and 1979, our purpose is t o

stress both the advantage and disadvantages of such change, an d

to avoid the pervasive tendency in the press and elsewhere t o

analyze population trends in the USSR in terms of a crud e

demographic determinism, which exaggerates the effects o f

population change in Soviet society to the point of a demographi c

crisis, and features only the disadvantages of population change .

If one assumes that more workers and fewer dependents ar e

advantageous to economic development, consumption, an d

production, the overall change in the age structure that occurre d

between 1970 and 1979 was favorable for Soviet society, becaus e

the share of the population in the working ages, which in th e

USSR clearly approximates the work force, rose in all populatio n

categories and quadrants (Tables 13 and 3) . For the tota l

population, it rose more than three percentage points to about 5 4

percent . The young and old dependents combined declined to th e

same degree that the working age population increased, so the

- 2 9-

dependency burden decreased during this period (Table 1 and 3) .

The share of the young dependents declined much more than th e

share of the old dependents rose, which accounts for the declin e

in the share of the combined category . For the total population ,

the young dependents decreased by more than four percentag e

points, whereas the old dependents increased by about on e

percentage point . Even if the cost per dependent of supportin g

old dependents exceeded the cost of supporting young dependent s

as in the United States, the mix of the change in dependenc y

would appear to be favorable . 3 If per capita expenditure s

remained the same, one would expect that expenditures fo r

education and other consumption related to the young woul d

decline more than expenditures for retirement, medicine and othe r

needs of the older population would increase .

If the age-specific mortality rates had remained the sam e

during this period, the crude death rate of the USSR and mos t

parts would have risen, because there was an aging of th e

population . There was, however, a rise in reported age-specifi c

mortality rates, although it is questionable how much of the ris e

was real and how much was the result of improvements i n

reporting. Because there was only a slight change in the shar e

of the women in the prime reproductive years (Table 13) and ther e

was an increase in the total population of the USSR, a sligh t

3 Robert L . Clark and Joseph J . Spengler, The Economics o fIndividual and Population Aging (New York: Cambridge Universit yPress, 1980), pp . 28-48 .

- 3 0 -

decline in the crude birth rate could be expected, even i f

fertility remained constant . There was, however, a genera l

decline in fertility in the 1970 ' s, even in Central Asia .

Changes in the composition of the working age population ca n

also affect economic development and production, if a more o r

less productive cohort or component increases its share of th e

working age population . The overall trend in the USSR betwee n

1970 and 1979 was an aging of the population of working age . I f

experience is emphasized, this change was favorable, if highe r

levels of education are emphasized, the change was unfavorable .

Considering the great increase in levels of education since Worl d

War II, particularly in non- European areas, and the increasin g

educational requirements of a modern economy, it would appea r

that the aging of the working age population that occurre d

between 1970 and 1979 is an unfavorable influence and it may hav e

adversely affected productivity .

The change in the ratio of the new entrants to and th e

departures from the work force is approximated by the 10-19 a s

opposed to the 50-59 cohort, even though there is no adjustmen t

for mortality and not all enter or leave the work force in thes e

ages (Tables 13 and 14) . There were sharp declines in this rati o

between 1970 and 1979, reflecting the declining shares of the ne w

entrants relative to departures, and this trend is estimated t o

continue in the 1980 's when the growth of the working ag e

population will be less than half that of the 197 0s. However,i n

1979 the 10-19 cohort was still more than 50 percent higher tha n

the 50-59 cohort for the total, urban, and rural population .

- 3 1 -

This ratio was particularly high in the Non-Slavic South, whic h

in the 1980's will contribute about three-fourths of the growt h

of the native working age population .

The changes in the ratio of the cohorts 10-19 and 20-59 by

quadrant and population category further indicate the declinin g

share of the new entrants relative to the working age populatio n

during the 1970-79 period, although the potential new migrant s

comprised about one-third of the 1979 total working ag e

population (Tables 13 and 14) . On the other hand, the changes i n

the ratio of the 50-59 and 20-59 cohorts show an increase in th e

older component of the working age population, which constitute d

about 20 percent of the total working age population in 1979 ,

although shares were lower in urban and higher in rural areas .

The ratios of the 20-29 to the 50-59 cohort, however, show a n

increasing share for the younger cohort not affected by wa r

relative to the older which was greatly affected the war .

Moreover, the younger cohort had an appreciably higher share tha n

the older in 1979 (Table 14) . The ratio of the 20-39 to the 40 -

59 divides the working age population in half, and changes i n

this ratio further support the aging of the working ag e

population in all quadrants and categories . The low ratios i n

rural areas largely reflect net out-migration . The 1979 ratio s

indicate that to a significant degree declines in fertility hav e

offset the effect of war and subsequent mortality , because th e

levels of the two cohorts were reasonably close in 1979 .

In summary, the outstanding trends in age distribution in

- 3 2 -

the USSR between 1970 and 1979 were the increasing share of th e

population comprised by the working age population, the aging o f

the working age population, and the concomitant decline in th e

dependency burden . Although virtually all socioeconomic dat a

contain error and these trends are partially based on estimates ,

it is felt that the data are sufficiently accurate to distinguis h

the basic trends in age distribution in the USSR and thei r

magnitude . Furthermore, the changes that have occurred ar e

expected in that they are consistent with demographic theory an d

historical events that have affected the age distribution .

Moreover, our estimates by five-year age groups permit a furthe r

refinement of these trends, as well as age trends back to 1897 .

As to the impact of the age trends between 1970 and 1979 o n

Soviet society, it is difficult to define with precision, but the

increasing share of the population in the working ages wa s

probably economically advantageous, even though the aging of th e

working age population was not . Suffice it to say, however ,

these changes have not resulted in a demographic crisis .

PRELIMINARY, NOT TO BE CITE DWITHOUT PERMISSIO N

Table 1

PERCENT OF THE TOTAL, URBAN, AND RURAL POPULATIONS COMPRISED BY YOUNG DEPENDENTSBY QUADRANT : 1897-197 9

PERCENT COMPRISED BY PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE

0-19 Cohort1897- 1926- 1959- 1970- 1897 -

1897 1926 1959 1970 1979 1926 1959 1970 1979 197 9Total Population

Northern European USSR

48 .31 47 .25 35 .13 33 .85 29 .11 -1 .06 -12 .12 -1 .28 -4 .74 -19 .20

European Steppe

50 .81 49 .63 34 .87 34 .81 30 .17 -1 .18 -14 .76 -0 .06 -4 .64 -20 .64

Russian East

47 .61 50 .33 40 .13 39 .40 34 .23 2 .72 -10 .20 -0 .73 -5 .17 -13 .38

Non-Slavic South

45 .23 46 .18 44 .05 50 .20 46 .02 0 .95 -2 .13 6 .15 -4 .18 0 .7 9

USSR Total

48 .2 5

Urban Population

47 .95 37 .43 38 .09 33 .71 -0 .30 -10 .52 0 .66 -4 .38 -14 .5 4

Northern European USSR

38 .63 38 .30 32 .68 32 .04 28 .47 -0 .33 -5 .62 -0 .64 -3 .57 -10 .1 6

European Steppe 43 .76 40 .76 32 .41 32 .70 28 .79 -3 .00 -8 .32 0 .29 -3 .91 -14 .9 7

Russian East 39 .24 43 .90 37 .84 36 .70 32 .51 4 .66 -6 .06 -1 .14 -4 .19 -6 .7 3

Non-Slavic South 40 .48 42 .81 40 .02 43 .79 41 .21 2 .33 -2 .79 3 .77 -2 .58 0 .7 3

USSR Tota l

Rural Population

39 .86 39 .92 34 .76 34 .90 31 .38 0 .06 -5 .16 0 .14 -3 .52 -8 .4 8

Northern European USSR 49 .69 49 .27 37 .16 36 .22 30 .52 -0 .42 -12 .11 -0 .94 -5 .70 -19 .1 7

European Steppe 52 .07 51 .93 37 .57 37 .85 32 .61 -0 .14 -14 .36 0 .28 -5 .24 -19 .4 6

Russian East 48 .29 51 .52 43 .08 44 .24 38 .29 3 .23 -8 .44 1 .16 -5 .95 -10 .0 0

Non-Slavic South 45 .81 46 .86 46 .81 55 .48 51 .52 1 .05 -0 .05 8 .67 -3 .96 5 .7 1

USSR Total 49 .42 49 .73 39 .89 42 .20 37 .97 0 .31 -10 .84 2 .31 -4 .23 -11 .45

The quadrants in this table are composed of the following 1961 economic regions . NorthernEuropean USSR : Northwest, West, Center, Volga-Vyatsk, Central Chernozem, Volga, Belorussia, an dthe Southwest . European Steppe : Moldavia, South, Donetsk-Dnepr, and the North Caucasus .Russian East : Ural, West Siberia, East Siberia, and the Far East . Non-Slavic South :Transcaucasus, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia .

PRELIMINARY, NOT TO BE CITE DWITHOUT PERMISSIO N

Table 2

PERCENT OF THE TOTAL, URBAN, AND RURAL POPULATIONS COMPRISED BY OLD DEPENDENT SBY QUADRANT : 1897-197 9

PERCENT COMPRISED .BY PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE

60-PLUS COHORT1897- 1926- 1959- 1970- 1897 -

1897 1926 1959 1970 1979 1926 1959 1970 1979 197 9Total Population

Northern European USSR 7 .16 7 .32 10 .39 13 .66 14 .76 0 .16 3 .07 3 .27 1 .10 7 .6 0

European Steppe 6 .04 5 .94 9 .91 12 .93 13 .96 -0 .10 3 .97 3 .02 1 .03 7 .9 2

Russian East 7 .48 6 .68 7 .16 9 .36 10 .44 -0 .80 0 .48 2 .20 1 .08 2 .9 6

Non-Slavic South 6 .34 6 .55 8 .82 8 .67 9 .52 0 .21 2 .27 -0 .15 0 .85 3 .1 8

USSR Tota l

Urban Population

6 .92 6 .91 9 .44 11 .81 12 .76 -0 .01 2 .53 2 .47 0 .95 5 .8 4

Northern European USSR 6 .66 6 .39 8 .42 11 .37 12 .44 -0 .27 2 .03 2 .95 1 .07 5 .7 8

European Steppe 6 .07 5 .65 8 .73 11 .80 12 .78 -0 .42 3 .08 3 .07 0 .95 6 .7 1

Russian East 7 .10 5 .19 6 .08 8 .58 9 .55 -1 .91 0 .89 2 .50 0 .97 2 .4 5

Non-Slavic South 5 .96 6 .09 7 .23 8 .12 8 .56 0 .13 1 .14 0 .89 0 .44 2 .60

USSR Total

Rural Population

6 .50 6 .07 7 .79 10 .38 11 .30 -0 .43 1 .72 2 .59 0 .92 4 .8 0

Northern European USSR 7 .23 7 .53 12 .01 16 .65 19 .19 0 .30 4 .48 4 .64 2 .54 11 .9 6

European Steppe 6 .04 6 .02 11 .20 14 .56 16 .06 -0 .02 5 .18 3 .36 1 .50 10 .0 2

Russian East 7 .51 6 .96 8.56 10 .74 12 .51 -0 .55 1 .60 2 .18 1 .77 5 .0 0

Non-Slavic South 6 .38 6 .65 9 .91 9 .12 10 .41 0 .27 3 .26 -0 .79 1 .29 4 .0 3

USSR Total 6 .98 7 .10 10 .95 13 .65 15 .20 0 .12 3 .85 2 .70 1 .55 8 .22

The quadrants in this table are composed of the following 1961 economic regions . NorthernEuropean USSR: Northwest, West, Center, Volga-Vyatsk, Central Chernozem, Volga, Belorussia, an dthe Southwest . European Steppe : Moldavia, South, Donetsk-Dnepr, and the North Caucasus .Russian East : Ural, West Siberia, East Siberia, and the Far East . Non-Slavic South :Transcaucasus, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia .

PRELIMINARY, NOT TO BE CITE DWITHOUT PERMISSION

Table 3

PERCENT OF THE TOTAL, URBAN, AND RURAL POPULATIONS COMPRISED BY WORKING AGECOHORT, BY QUADRANT : 1897-197 9

PERCENT COMPRISED BY PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE20-59 Cohort

1897- 1926- 1959- 1970- 1897 -1897 1926 1959 1970 1979 1926 1959 1970 1979 197 9

Total Population

Northern European USSR 44 .54 45 .43 54 .48 52 .48 56 .13 0 .88 9 .05 -2 .00 3 .65 11 .5 9

European Steppe 43 .15 44 .43 55 .20 52 .25 55 .87 1 .28 10 .77 -2 .59 3 .62 12 .7 2

Russian East 44 .91 42 .99 52 .70 51 .24 55 .33 -1 .92 9 .71 -1 .46 4 .09 10 .4 2

Non-Slavic South 48 .43 47 .21 47 .13 41 .13 44 .46 -1 .16 -0 .14 -6 .00 3 .33 -3 .97

USSR Tota l

Urban Population

44 .83 45 .14 53 .13 50 .10 53 .53 0 .31 7 .99 -3 .03 3 .43 8 .7 0

Northern European USSR

54 .71 55 .31 58 .90 56 .59 59 .09 0 .60 3 .59 -2 .31 2 .50 4 .38

European Steppe 50 .17 53 .59 58 .86 55 .50 58 .43 3 .42 5 .27 -3 .36 2 .93 8 .26

Russian East 53 .66 50 .91 56 .08 54 .72 57 .94 -2 .75 5 .17 -1 .36 3 .22 4 .2 8

Non-Slavic South 53 .56 51 .10 52 .75 48 .10 50 .23 -2 .46 1 .65 -4 .65 2 .13 -3 .3 3

USSR Total

Rural Population

53 .6 4i

54 .01 57 .44 54 .72 57 .32 0 .37 3 .43 -2 .72 2 .60 3 .68

Northern European USSR 43 .08 43 .20 50 .83 47 .14 50 .29 0 .12 -2 .37 -3 .69 3 .15 7 .2 1

European Steppe 41 .89 42 .05 51 .23 47 .59 51 .33 0 .16 9 .18 -3 .64 3 .74 9 .4 4

Russian East 44 .20 41 .52 48 .36 45 .02 49 .20 -2 .68 6 .84 -3 .34 4 .18 5 .0 0

Non-Slavic South 47 .81 46 .49 43 .28 35 .40 38 .07 -1 .32 -3 .21 -7 .88 2 .67 -9 .7 4

USSR Total 43 .60 43 .16 49 .16 44 .15 46 .83 -0 .44 6 .00 -5 .01 2 .68 3 .23

The quadrants in this table are composed of the following 1961 economic regions . Norther nEuropean USSR : Northwest, West, Center, Volga-Vyatsk, Central Chernozem, Volga, Belorussia, an dthe Southwest . European Steppe : Moldavia, South, Donetsk-Dnepr, and the North Caucasus .Russian East : Ural, West Siberia, East Siberia, and the Far East . Non-Slavic South :Transcaucasus, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia .

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permissio n

Table 4

PERCENT OF THE TOTAL POPULATION COMPRISED BY YOUNG DEPENDENT SBY ECONOMIC REGION :

1970-197 9

Percent Comprised by Percentage Point Chang e0-19

Cohort :

1979 1970-1979Femal eTotal

Male

Female Total Mal e

Northwest 29 .43 36 .61 26 .72 -3 .18 -0 .17 -2 .4 2

West 26 .86 29 .24 24 .78 -4 .66 -5 .61 -3 .8 8

Central 26 .85 30 .58 23 .85 -4 .10 -5 .25 -3 .2 3

Volga-Vyatsk 34 .60 39 .26 30 .76 -2 .86 -3 .72 -2 .3 0

Central Chernozem 29 .33 33 .58 25 .94 -5 .45 -6 .69 -4 .4 6

Volga 32 .97 36 .88 29 .72 -3 .47 -4 .10 -2 .9 7

Belorussia 33 .35 36 .58 30 .53 -4 .19 -5 .19 -3 .4 1

Moldavia 38 .09 40 .48 35 .95 -3 .74 -4 .53 -3 .1 0

Southwest 29 .00 32 .50 26 .06 -4 .89 -5 .97 -4 .0 7

South 30 .30 33 .39 27 .62 -2 .89 -3 .57 -2 .3 6

Donetsk-Dnepr 28 .87 31 .91 26 .33 -3 .32 -4 .34 -2 .5 2

North Caucasus 32 .06 35 .33 29 .24 -5 .14 -5 .79 -4 .6 1

Transcaucasus 42 .88 45 .22 40 .70 -4 .20 -4 .92 -3 .5 6

Urals 36 .38 39 .86 33 .35 -3 .00 -3 .74 -2 .4 5

West Siberia 35 .42 38 .59 32 .62 -3 .56 -4 .23 -3 .0 4

East Siberia 36 .47 37 .88 35 .12 -4 .88 -5 .44 -4 .4 0

Far East 34 .24 34 .70 33 .76 -3 .05 -3 .83 -2 .3 2

Kazakh 43 .28 45 .48 41 .22 -3 .98 -4 .46 -3 .5 5

Central Asia 49 .88 51 .39 48 .40 -4 .19 -4 .78 -3 .68

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permissio n

Table 5

PERCENT OF THE TOTAL POPULATION COMPRISED BY OLD DEPENDENT SBY ECONOMIC REGION : 1970-197 9

Percent Comprised by Percentage Point Chang e60-PLUS Cohort :

1979Total

1970-197 9Total Male Female Male

Femal e

Northwest 12 .16 6 .85 16 .69 0 .58 -0 .20 1 .3 4

West 17 .40 13 .02 21 .22 1 .27 0 .11 2 .3 2

Central 14 .81 8 .91 19 .55 0 .90 0 .15 1 .5 6

Volga-Vyatsk 13 .57 7 .78 18 .34 1 .11 0 .25 1 .9 6

Central Chernozem 16 .53 10 .27 21 .52 1 .53 0 .55 2 .3 2

Volga 13 .67 8 .16 18 .26 1 .16 0 .21 1 .9 8

Belorussia 14 .62 10 .63 18 .10 1 .49 0 .64 2 .2 9

Moldavia 10 .54 8 .33 12 .52 0 .81 0 .20 1 .3 9

Southwest 15 .89 11 .50 19 .59 1 .19 0 .42 1 .9 2

South 13 .36 9 .36 16 .82 0 .92 0 .04 1 .6 6

Donetsk-Dnepr 14 .43 9 .83 18 .29 0 .86 -0 .20 1 .8 1

North Caucasus 14 .28 9 .37 18 .51 1 .17 -0 .13 2 .3 2

Transcaucasus 10 .52 8 .21 12 .68 0 .98 0 .47 1 .4 8

Urals 11 .45 6 .72 15 .57 0 .94 0 .16 1 .7 0

West Siberia 10 .91 6 .61 14 .71 1 .00 0 .22 1 .7 6

East Siberia 8 .32 5 .52 11 .00 0 .63 0 .15 1 .1 6

Far East 6 .47 4 .10 8 .92 0 .25 -0 .05 0 .6 7

Kazakh 9 .13 6 .52 11 .57 0 .89 0 .41 1 .3 5

Central Asia 9 .21 7 .69 10 .70 0 .80 0 .49 1 .15

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permission

Table 6

PERCENT OF THE TOTAL POPULATION COMPRISED BY WORKING AGE COHOR TBY ECONOMIC REGION :

Percent Comprised by

1970-197 9

Percentage Point Chang e20-59 Cohort : 1979 1970-1979

Femal eFemale Total Mal eTotal

Mal e

Northwest 58 .41 60 .54 56 .59 2 .60 4 .37 1 .0 8

West 55 .74 57 .74 54 .00 3 .39 5 .50 1 .5 6

Central 58 .34 60 .51 56 .60 3 .20 5 .11 1 .6 8

Volga-Vyatsk 51 .83 52 .95 50 .90 1 .75 3 .46 0 .3 5

Central Chernozem 54 .14 56 .15 52 .54 3 .92 6 .14 2 .1 4

Volga 53 .36 54 .96 52 .02 2 .31 3 .89 0 .9 9

Belorussia 52 .03 52 .79 51 .37 2 .70 4 .55 1 .1 2

Moldavia 51 .37 51 .19 51 .53 2 .93 4 .33 1 .7 1

Southwest 55 .11 56 .01 54 .35 3 .70 5 .56 2 .1 5

South 56 .35 57 .25 55 .56 1 .98 3 .46 0 .7 0

Donetsk-Dnepr 56 .70 58 .27 55 .39 2 .46 4 .55 0 .7 2

North Caucasus 53 .66 55 .31 52 .24 3 .97 5 .93 2 .2 8

Transcaucasus 46 .60 46 .57 46 .62 3 .22 4 .45 2 .0 8

Urals 52 .17 53 .43 51 .10 2 .06 3 .58 0 .7 6

West Siberia 53 .67 54 .80 52 .68 2 .56 4 .01 1 .2 9

East Siberia 55 .21 56 .60 53 .88 4 .25 5 .29 3 .2 4

Far East 59 .29 61 .20 57 .32 2 .80 3 .88 1 .6 5

Kazakh 47 .59 48 .00 47 .21 3 .09 4 .05 2 .2 0

Central Asia 40 .91 40 .92 40 .90 3 .39 4 .29 2 .53

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permission

Table 7

PERCENT OF THE URBAN POPULATION COMPRISED BY YOUNG DEPENDENT SBY ECONOMIC REGION :

Percent Comprised by

1970-197 9

Percentage Point Chang e0-19 Cohort : 1979 1970-1979

Femal eTotal

Male Female Total Mal e

Northwest 29 .41 32 .22 26 .99 -1 .64 -2 .39 -1 .0 7

West 29 .38 29 .93 25 .48 -1 .31 -3 .97 -2 .4 4

Central 27 .08 30 .47 24 .34 -2 .86 -3 .75 -2 .1 7

Volga-Vyatsk 34 .73 38 .22 31 .76 0 .25 -0 .23 0 .5 6

Central Chernozem 30 .95 34 .17 28 .32 -2 .29 -2 .90 -1 .6 8

Volga 32 .48 35 .86 29 .68 -1 .37 -1 .69 -1 .0 6

Belorussia 31 .50 33 .74 29 .50 -5 .17 -5 .83 -4 .6 0

Moldavia 36 .96 38 .84 35 .26 -0 .06 -0 .54 0 .3 2

Southwest 30 .94 33 .71 28 .50 -1 .88 -2 .44 -1 .4 1

South 30 .00 32 .73 27 .61 -0 .86 -1 .31 -0 .5 0

Donetsk-Dnepr 30 .35 32 .82 28 .23 -2 .28 -3 .01 -1 .6 8

North Caucasus 30 .27 33 .05 27 .89 -2 .81 -3 .27 -2 .4 1

Transcaucasus 40 .20 42 .72 37 .85 -2 .06 -2 .76 -1 .4 2

Urals 35 .66 38 .62 33 .07 -0 .93 -1 .51 -2 .4 9

West Siberia 34 .47 36 .98 32 .24 -1 .85 -2 .33 -1 .4 9

East Siberia 35 .36 36 .77 34 .02 -2 .66 -3 .22 -2 .1 9

Far East 33 .86 34 .46 33 .25 -2 .15 -3 .02 -1 .3 5

Kazakh 38 .97 41 .42 36 .74 -2 .89 -2 .78 -2 .9 5

Central Asia 44 .37 46 .31 42 .51 -2 .35 -3 .04 -1 .74

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permissio n

Table 8

PERCENT OF THE URBAN POPULATION COMPRISED BY OLD DEPENDENT SBY ECONOMIC REGION : 1970-197 9

Percent Comprised by Percentage Point Chang e60-PLUS Cohort :

1979 1970-197 9Total Male Female Total

Male

Femal e

Northwest 10 .91 6 .07 15 .07 0 .37 -0 .28 1 .0 0

West 14 .41 9 .02 17 .43 1 .99 0 .22 1 .8 8

Central 13 .40 8 .07 17 .72 0 .78 0 .01 1 .4 2

Volga-Vyatsk 10 .94 6 .30 14 .88 0 .57 -0 .40 1 .1 7

Central Chernozem 12 .58 8 .33 16 .03 0 .94 0 .31 1 .3 3

Volga 11 .85 6 .84 16 .01 0 .83 0 .02 1 .4 7

Belorussia 9 .88 6 .75 12 .66 1 .60 0 .91 2 .2 2

Moldavia 8 .92 6 .73 10 .89 0 .21 -0 .20 0 .6 0

Southwest 11 .73 8 .15 14 .88 0 .58 0 .01 1 .1 0

South 12 .33 8 .63 15 .56 0 .49 -0 .20 1 .1 3

Donetsk-Dnepr 12 .20 8 .18 15 .65 0 .73 -0 .19 1 .5 5

North Caucasus 13 .44 9 .04 17 .21 0 .54 -0 .60 1 .5 1

Transcaucasus 9 .32 7 .02 11 .44 0 .40 -0 .03 0 .7 9

Urals 10 .11 5 .70 13 .95 0 .55 -0 .11 1 .2 1

West Siberia 9 .83 6 .40 12 .89 0 .66 -0 .03 1 .3 3

East Siberia 7 .41 4 .50 10 .16 0 .33 -0 .02 0 .7 1

Far East 6 .24 3 .70 8 .83 0 .16 -0 .09 0 .5 1

Kazakh 8 .29 5 .36 10 .97 0 .66 0 .08 1 .1 5

Central Asia 8 .25 6 .23 10 .17 0 .36 0 .06 0 .66

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permissio n

Table 9

PERCENT OF THE URBAN POPULATION COMPRISED BY WORKING AGE COHOR TBY ECONOMIC REGION :

Percent Comprised by

1970-197 9

Percentage Point Chang e20-59 Cohort : 1979 1970-1979

Femal eTotal Mal eFemal eTotal

Mal e

Northwest 59 .68 61 .71 57 .94 1 .27 2 .66 0 .0 7

West 56 .21 61 .05 57 .09 -0 .68 3 .75 0 .5 6

Central 59 .52 61 .46 57 .94 2 .08 3 .74 0 .7 5

Volga-Vyatsk 54 .34 55 .49 53 .36 -0 .81 0 .28 -1 .7 4

Central Chernozem 56 .48 57 .49 55 .65 1 .36 2 .59 0 .3 4

Volga 55 .67 57 .30 54 .31 0 .54 1 .67 -0 .4 0

Belorussia 58 .63 59 .51 57 .84 3 .58 4 .92 2 .3 8

Moldavia 54 .12 54 .43 53 .84 -0 .15 0 .74 -0 .9 3

Southwest 57 .33 58 .14 56 .62 1 .30 2 .43 0 .3 1

South 57 .68 58 .64 56 .83 0 .38 1 .52 -0 .6 3

Donetsk-Dnepr 57 .45 59 .00 56 .12 1 .55 3 .21 0 .1 3

North Caucasus 56 .29 57 .91 54 .90 2 .27 3 .87 0 .8 9

Transcaucasus 50 .48 50 .26 50 .71 1 .66 2 .79 0 .6 3

Urals 54 .24 55 .68 52 .97 0 .38 1 .63 -0 .7 3

West Siberia 55 .70 56 .63 54 .87 1 .20 2 .37 0 .1 5

East Siberia 57 .23 58 .73 55 .81 2 .33 3 .23 1 .4 7

Far East 59 .90 61 .84 57 .93 2 .00 3 .09 0 .8 5

Kazakh 52 .74 53 .22 52 .29 2 .23 2 .70 1 .8 0

Central Asia 47 .38 47 .46 47 .32 1 .99 2 .98 1 .08

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permissio n

Table 1 0

PERCENT OF THE RURAL POPULATION COMPRISED BY YOUNG DEPENDENT SBY ECONOMIC REGION :

Percent Comprised by

1970-197 9

Percentage Point Chang e0-19

Cohort : 1979 1970-1979Femal eTotal

Male Female Total Mal e

Northwest 29 .51 34 .13 25 .70 -7 .39 -8 .78 -6 .3 6

West 25 .56 27 .94 23 .48 -7 .08 -8 .17 -6 .1 8

Central 25 .97 31 .04 22 .03 -7 .61 -9 .16 -6 .5 2

Volga-Vyatsk 34 .39 41 .08 29 .17 -6 .42 -7 .20 -5 .9 2

Central Chernozem 27 .55 32 .91 23 .35 -8 .26 -9 .62 -7 .3 1

Volga 34 .03 39 .10 29 .81 -6 .29 -7 .06 -5 .7 4

Belorussia 35 .61 40 .16 31 .76 -2 .59 -3 .37 -2 .0 5

Moldavia 38 .82 41 .55 36 .39 -5 .24 -6 .09 -4 .5 6

Southwest 27 .26 31 .36 23 .94 -7 .30 -8 .66 -6 .3 2

South 30 .81 34 .52 27 .63 -5 .47 -6 .40 -4 .8 0

Donetsk-Dne pr 23 .95 28 .70 20 .29 -7 .09 -8 .69 -5 .9 8

North Caucasus 34 .21 38 .04 30 .89 -7 .03 -7 .79 -6 .4 3

Transcaucasus 46 .17 48 .33 44 .19 -5 .95 -6 .71 -5 .2 6

Urals 38 .07 42 .77 33 .99 -6 .19 -6 .86 -5 .7 1

West Siberia 37 .52 42 .18 33 .45 -5 .98 -6 .66 -5 .4 8

East Siberia 38 .82 40 .22 37 .46 -7 .83 -8 .34 -7 .3 7

Far East 35 .46 35 .44 35 .47 -5 .39 -5 .84 -4 .9 3

Kazakh 48 .31 50 .10 46 .59 -4 .40 -5 .66 -3 .2 9

Central Asia 55 .61 54 .85 52 .45 -2 .97 -5 .46 -4 .48

Preliminary, Not to be CitedWithout Permissio n

Table 1 1

PERCENT OF THE RURAL POPULATION COMPRISED BY OLD DEPENDENT SBY ECONOMIC REGION : 1970-197 9

Percent Comprised by Percentage Point Chang e60-PLUS Cohort :

1979 1970-197 9Total Male Female Total

Male

Femal e

Northwest 16 .96 9 .89 22 .78 2 .53 0 .86 4 .0 0

West 24 .66 20 .48 28 .31 3 .53 2 .01 4 .9 0

Central 20 .13 12 .15 26 .34 2 .85 1 .49 4 .0 3

Volga-Vyatsk 17 .93 10 .36 23 .83 3 .14 1 .43 4 .5 4

Central Chernozem 20 .88 12 .45 27 .48 3 .64 1 .53 5 .4 1

Volga 17 .60 10 .99 23 .11 2 .87 1 .32 4 .2 6

Belorussia 20 .43 15 .51 24 .60 3 .56 2 .20 4 .8 0

Moldavia 11 .59 9 .37 13 .57 1 .38 0 .67 2 .0 5

Southwest 19 .64 14 .65 23 .67 2 .69 1 .61 3 .6 6

South 15 .10 10 .62 18 .93 1 .84 0 .80 2 .8 1

Donetsk-Dnepr 21 .85 15 .64 26 .64 2 .84 1 .01 4 .3 4

North Caucasus 15 .28 9 .76 20 .09 1 .97 0 .40 3 .4 1

Transcaucasus 12 .03 9 .67 14 .20 1 .83 1 .20 2 .4 1

Urals 14 .59 9 .10 19 .35 2 .42 1 .25 3 .5 1

West Siberia 13 .28 7 .08 18 .68 2 .12 0 .76 3 .3 9

East Siberia 10 .27 7 .67 12 .80 1 .62 0 .96 2 .3 2

Far East 7 .21 5 .35 9 .24 0 .64 0 .18 1 .1 8

Kazakh 10 .11 7 .84 12 .31 1 .24 0 .88 1 .6 7

Central Asia 9 .89 8 .68 11 .06 1 .16 0 .85 1 .48

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permissio n

Table 1 2

PERCENT OF THE RURAL POPULATION COMPRISED BY WORKING AGE COHOR TBY ECONOMIC REGION : 1970-197 9

Percent Comprised by

Percentage Point Chang e20-59 Cohort : 1979 1970-1979

Femal eTotal Mal eFemal eTotal

Mal e

Northwest 53 .53 55 .98 51 .52 4 .86 7 .92 2 .3 6

West 49 .78 51 .58 48 .21 3 .55 6 .16 1 .2 8

Central 53 .90 56 .81 51 .63 4 .76 7 .67 2 .4 8

Volga-Vyatsk 47 .69 48 .57 47 .00 3 .29 5 .78 1 .3 7

Central Chernozem 51 .57 54 .64 49 .17 4 .62 8 .09 1 .9 1

Volga 48 .37 49 .91 47 .09 3 .42 5 .74 1 .5 0

Belorussia 43 .96 44 .33 43 .64 -0 .97 1 .17 -2 .7 5

Moldavia 49 .59 49 .07 50 .04 3 .85 5 .41 2 .5 1

Southwest 53 .11 53 .99 52 .39 4 .62 7 .06 2 .6 7

South 54 .10 54 .87 53 .44 3 .64 5 .62 1 .9 8

Donetsk-Dnepr 54 .20 55 .67 53 .07 4 .25 7 .69 1 .6 5

North Caucasus 50 .50 52 .20 49 .02 5 .05 7 .39 3 .0 2

Transcaucasus 41 .80 42 .00 41 .61 4 .13 5 .51 2 .8 5

Urals 47 .34 48 .13 46 .66 3 .77 5 .61 2 .1 9

West Siberia 49 .21 50 .73 47 .88 5 .86 5 .89 2 .1 0

East Siberia 50 .90 52 .11 49 .73 6 .20 7 .39 5 .0 4

Far East 57 .34 59 .21 55 .28 4 .76 5 .66 3 .7 4

Kazakh 41 .57 42 .06 41 .10 3 .15 4 .78 1 .6 2

Central Asia 34 .50 36 .47 36 .49 1 .81 4 .61 3 .00

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permission

Table 1 3

Percentage Point Change in Select Age Cohorts : 1970-197 9

Percentage Point Chang e

Working-Age 10-19 10-19 50-59 20-29 20-39Female s20-4 4

Population 50-59 20-59 20-59 50-59 40-59 Tota lFemale s

TOTAL POPULATION

Northern European USSR 3 .65 -57 .5 -6 .1 3 .5 10 .3 -14 .8 -0 .7 0

European Steppe 3 .62 -57 .0 -6 .3 3 .4 10 .0 -14 .9 -0 .5 1

Russian East 4 .09 -71 .7 -5 .5 3 .1 9 .5 -16 .6 -0 .1 1

Non-Slavic South 3 .33 -82 .0 -4 .6 2 .4 9 .5 -16 .2 0 .7 2

USSR Total 3 .43 -60 .5 -5 .4 3 .2 10 .9 -14 .8 -0 .4 1

URBAN POPULATION

Northern European USSR 2 .50 -57 .2 -5 .0 3 .2 4 .1 -16 .5 -1 .8 0

European Steppe 2 .93 -56 .0 -5 .3 3 .4 6 .4 -16 .0 -1 .2 0

Russian East 3 .22 -65 .2 -4 .0 3 .0 5 .3 -15 .7 -0 .9 5

Non-Slavic South 2 .13 -72 .7 -4 .4 2 .4 7 .0 -15 .6 -0 .1 8

USSR Total 2 .60 -59 .6 -4 .7 3 .1 5 .4 -16 .4 -1 .3 3

RURAL POPULATION

Northern European USSR 3 .15 -59 .9 -6 .8 5 .1 6 .8 -19 .3 -1 .6 0

European Steppe 3 .74 -58 .8 -7 .5 3 .9 10 .2 -16 .2 -0 .3 5

Russian East 4 .18 -85 .0 -7 .9 4 .1 8 .8 -19 .0 0 .1 1

Non-Slavic South 2 .67 -88 .6 -4 .1 2 .5 11 .6 -17 .0 0 .9 9

USSR total 2 .68 -60 .2 -5 .5 3 .8 11 .5 -15 .9 -0 .51

Preliminary, Not to be Cite dWithout Permissio n

Table 1 4

Components of the Working Age Population : 197 9

Cohort Ratio s

10-19 10-19 50-59 20-29 20-39Female s20-4 4

50-59 20-29 20-59 50-59 40-59 Total Female sTOTAL POPULATIO N

Northern European USSR 1 .295 0 .285 0 .220 1 .425 1 .063 0 .34 4

European Steppe 1 .270 0 .282 0 .222 1 .391 1 .071 0 .34 4

Russian East 1 .897 0 .363 0 .191 1 .780 1 .278 0 .35 8

Non-Slavic South 2 .931 0 .490 0 .167 2 .094 1 .469 0 .31 6

USSR Total 1 .623 0 .334 0 .206 1 .573 1 .163 0 .34 1

URBAN POPULATIO N

Northern European USSR 1 .349 0 .266 0 .197 1 .708 1 .220 0 .37 9

European Steppe 1 .292 0 .269 0 .208 1 .563 1 .161 0 .36 8

Russian East 1 .898 0 .340 0 .179 2 .011 1 .396 0 .38 2

Non-Slavic South 2 .429 0 .403 0 .166 2 .190 1 .507 0 .35 8

USSR Total 1 .575 0 .301 0 .191 1 .796 1 .279 0 .37 4

RURAL POPULATIO N

Northern European USSR 1 .211 0 .325 0 .268 0 .982 0 .792 0 .27 8

European Steppe 1 .235 0 .309 0 .250 1 .112 0 .915 0 .30 2

Russian East 1 .895 0 .424 0 .224 1 .289 1 .014 0 .30 1

Non-Slavic South 3 .517 0 .594 0 .169 1 .982 1 .425 0 .22 7

USSR total 1 .699 0 .399 0 .235 1 .219 0 .968 0 .286

Map 1 Percent of Total Population Aged 0-19 : 1979

Map 2 Percent of Total Population Aged 60 and Over : 1979

Map 3 Percent of Total Population Aged 20-59 : 1979

Map 4 Percent of Urban Population Aged 0-19 : 1979

Map 5 Percent of Urban Population Aged 60 and Over : 1979

Map 6 Percent of Urban Population Aged 20-59 : 1979

Map 7 Percent of Rural Population Aged 0-19 : 1979

Map 8 Percent of Rural Population Aged 60 and Over : 1979

Map 9 Percent of Rural Population Aged 20-59 : 1979