Russian politics. That is, in fact, this is an inevitable process
The problem of the extinction of the Russian village is one of the acute socio-economic problems of modern Russia. The Center for Economic and Political Reforms has studied this issue, relying on statistical data, the results of sociological research, as well as the work of demographers. We tried to answer the question: how and why are Russian villages dying out?
Over the past 15-20 years, the rural population has been constantly decreasing - both due to natural population decline (mortality exceeds birth rate) and due to migration outflow. The process of depopulation of rural areas is so active that the number of abandoned villages is constantly increasing, as well as the number of rural settlements with a small number of inhabitants. In some regions of the Russian Federation, the share of depopulated villages exceeded 20% - mainly in the regions of Central Russia and the North. Between the 2002 and 2010 censuses alone, the number of depopulated villages increased by more than 6 thousand. More than half of all rural settlements are home to between 1 and 100 people.
At the same time, the process of depopulation in the territorial context is uneven. There is a concentration of the rural population around individual “foci” while simultaneously expanding areas of depressed rural areas, which are characterized by constant depopulation.
The main reasons for the decline in the rural population lie purely in the socio-economic plane. First of all, rural settlements are characterized by a lower standard of living and a relatively high level of unemployment, including stagnant unemployment. An active part of the working-age population leaves for cities, which in turn contributes to further socio-economic stagnation, degradation and depopulation of rural areas. Another problem, which is one of the reasons for the outflow of the rural population from the country, is the lower quality of life of the rural population due to the low availability of social infrastructure (educational, medical, leisure, transport) and basic services (primarily state and municipal services), as well as housing conditions and insufficient provision of housing and communal services.
In particular, it was revealed that over the past 20 years, rural settlements not only have not increased, but have also largely lost their social infrastructure due to the processes of “optimization,” which particularly affected rural areas. Over the past 15-20 years, the number of rural schools has decreased by approximately 1.7 times, hospital organizations - by 4 times, outpatient clinics - by 2.7 times.
The process of depopulation of rural areas is not a unique Russian phenomenon; it is in many ways similar to similar processes in other countries. At the same time, the processes of depopulation and desertion of rural areas are proceeding in Russia according to a relatively negative scenario, associated with the hyperconcentration of the population in the capital and large cities and more typical for the countries of Asia and Latin America.
Today, certain measures to curb the depopulation of rural areas in Russia are provided at the level of state programs. However, it should be recognized that the general direction of government policy leads to the concentration of finance, jobs and, as a result, population, in the capital and other large cities. Attempts to maintain the rural population and stimulate population migration to rural areas do not work, since targeted measures fail due to the virtual absence of conditions for the development of rural areas.
The detailed results of the study can be found.
How and why are Russian villages dying out? Especially with systematic reports from those in power about the revival of the village and agriculture.
But over the past 15-20 years, the rural population has been constantly decreasing - both due to natural population decline (mortality exceeds birth rate) and due to migration outflow. The process of depopulation of rural areas is so active that the number of abandoned villages is constantly increasing, as well as the number of rural settlements with a small number of inhabitants. In some regions of the Russian Federation, the share of depopulated villages exceeded 20% - mainly in the regions of Central Russia and the North. Between the 2002 and 2010 censuses alone, the number of depopulated villages increased by more than 6 thousand. More than half of all rural settlements are home to between 1 and 100 people.
At the same time, the process of depopulation in the territorial context is uneven. There is a concentration of the rural population around individual “foci” while simultaneously expanding areas of depressed rural areas, which are characterized by constant depopulation.
A resonant report by the Center for Economic and Political Reforms, published in 2016, is devoted to a comprehensive study of these issues.
We present first part of the CEPR report, which will highlight the issues of depopulation of villages, the problems of natural decline and migration outflow of the rural population, spatial contrasts of contrasts of population concentration.
The problem of the extinction of the Russian village is one of the acute socio-economic problems of modern Russia. Many researchers analyze in detail the genesis of this process, describing how socio-demographic and institutional mechanisms developed that led to the gradual desertion of Russian villages. In particular, it is noted that this process began in the late 1940s - early 1950s, when a course was taken to consolidate collective farms. The trend continued with the introduction of a policy of assessing the "prospects" of villages in the 1960s. Until the 1990s, the trend of villages dying out continued, and after that it was only strengthened by the neoliberal policy of “optimization” .
The Center for Economic and Political Reforms has studied this issue, relying on statistical data, the results of sociological research, as well as the work of demographers. We tried to answer the question: how and why are Russian villages dying out?
VILLAGES “ON PAPER”
The total number of rural settlements in the country exceeds 150 thousand. However, as a result of the 2010 All-Russian Population Census, it was revealed that 12.7% of rural settlements at that time were not inhabited, that is almost 19.5 thousand Russian villages existed on the map, but in fact they were already abandoned.
A significant proportion of all rural settlements are small villages: in more than half of all rural settlements (54% or about 82.8 thousand settlements) live from 1 to 100 people. Only in 5% of rural settlements (about 7.8 thousand rural settlements) the population exceeds 1000 people.
The largest number of uninhabited rural settlements as a result of the 2010 census was found in the Northwestern Federal District and Central Federal District- so, in the Northwestern Federal District, a fifth of all villages turned out to be abandoned:
In the Kostroma region - 34.1% (1189 rural settlements);
In the Ivanovo region - 21% (634 rural settlements);
In the Smolensk region - 20.2% (978 rural settlements);
In the Tver region - 23.4% (2230 rural settlements);
In the Yaroslavl region - 25.7% (1,550 rural settlements);
In the Arkhangelsk region - 21.4% (848 rural settlements);
In the Vologda region - 26.6% (2131 rural settlements);
In the Pskov region - 23% (1919 rural settlements);
In the Kirov region - 24.8% (1073 rural settlements).
A significant relative proportion of uninhabited rural settlements was identified in the Republic of Ingushetia - 62.7% (74 rural settlements out of 118).
The dynamics of the process of depopulation of villages is also noteworthy. According to the results of the 2002 All-Russian Population Census, about 13 thousand villages without population were identified, which at that time amounted to 8.4% of all rural settlements. That is over 8 years from 2002 to 2010, the number of depopulated villages increased by 6330 and by more than 4%.
RURAL POPULATION: NATURAL DECREASE AND MIGRATION OUTFLOW
According to Rosstat, as of January 1, 2016, in Russia as a whole, the share of the urban population in the total population is 74.1%, share of rural population - 25.9%, respectively. The number of rural residents per 1000 urban residents is 349 people.
In general, when describing the process of urbanization in Russia in the 20th century, researchers point to its “explosive nature”, characteristic of developing countries. Russia is characterized by an overconcentration of population in the capital, combined “with a sparse network of cities and depopulation of the vast periphery.” Researchers also note that the processes of suburbanization and counter-urbanization, characteristic of Western societies, are weakly expressed in Russia. At the same time, the share of the country’s rural population in recent decades has been quite stable, the rapid process of urbanization is a thing of the past - since the beginning of the 1990s, the ratio of the urban and rural population has fluctuated at the level of 73-74% to 26-27%. Thus, according to population censuses, the proportion of the rural population in 1989 was 26. 6%, in 2002 - 26.7%, in 2010 - 26.3%.
It should be understood that one of the important factors formally slowing down the decline in the rural population was administrative-territorial transformations, when some urban settlements were given the status of rural settlements. For example, in the period 2000-2009, solely due to administrative-territorial transformations (without taking into account natural decline and migration outflow of the population), the rural population increased in all years, with the exception of 2007, when these transformations, on the contrary, led to a slight decrease in the number of villagers.
However, even despite this, the 2000-2010s are characterized by constant decrease in the rural population. Moreover, if during the period between the population censuses in 2002 and 2010, a significant decrease in the number of both rural and urban populations was recorded in the country (although the rural population was to a greater extent), then in 2011-2015 the urban population grew, while the rural population was constantly declining, if we do not take into account changes due to the annexation of Crimea and the population of the KFO:
Rice. Growth (decrease) of urban and rural population as of January 1 of the corresponding years (thousand people, excluding KFD)
It should be understood that the population changes not only under the influence of natural movement, that is, the ratio of births and deaths, but also under the influence of mechanical movement - that is, as a result of migration. Let's look at each component separately.
According to the Rosstat statistical collection “Healthcare in Russia” 2015, demographic indicators for the urban and rural population are characterized by a number of differences. Thus, in the period from 2000 to 2014, the following observations were recorded regarding fertility, mortality and natural population growth. In general, in Russia in the period from 2000 to 2012 there was a typical population decline, and in 2013-2014 a natural increase was recorded. However, this happened at the expense of the urban population, The rural population was characterized by a constant decline in these years as well., including in 2013-2014. If we look at Rosstat data, we can see that in 2015, natural population growth was again recorded due to the urban population, while for the rural population, on the contrary, a decline was recorded, the highest in the last 5 years.
In general, comparing Rosstat data characterizing the birth rate and mortality rate for the urban and rural population, it is clear that in the 2000-2010s the situation in rural areas was more unfavorable from a demographic point of view:
As for the mechanical movement of the population, in the 2000-2010s it was recorded constant migration outflow of the population from rural settlements, while the cities showed a constant increase in population during the same period:
The table reflects the general results of population migration, including taking into account the migration exchange of population with foreign countries. It must be taken into account that the migration growth of the urban population is largely due to those arriving from foreign countries. For example, in 2015, a 59% increase was achieved precisely due to migration exchanges with foreign countries and only 41% due to population movements within Russia. In the indicator of migration outflow of the rural population, migration exchange of population with foreign countries, of course, is also taken into account. Without taking it into account, the decline in the rural population would be even higher.
At the same time, the dynamics of the rural population is characterized by significant regional features.
For example, in the period between the population censuses of 2002 and 2010, there was a significant decrease in the rural population in the Central Federal District, Northwestern Federal District, Volga Federal District, Siberian Federal District and Far Eastern Federal District, while in the Ural Federal District, Southern Federal District and North Caucasian Federal District, there was an increase in population, especially noticeable in regions of the North Caucasus Federal District.
In 2011-2015, in all federal districts there was an almost constant decrease in the rural population (including in the Ural Federal District), and the exception was the North Caucasian Federal District, where a constant increase in the rural population was recorded. In the Southern Federal District, the increase was recorded in 2014-2015:
In this regard, many researchers point to trends in the “shift of the center of gravity” of the rural population to South of Russia. Historically, the relatively densely populated rural areas of Central Russia and the Volga region are becoming empty, and the villages of the North and North-West of the country are becoming deserted, while the southern rural areas, on the contrary, have been quite actively developing in recent decades.
As of January 1, 2016, the highest share of the rural population was recorded in the North Caucasus Federal District (50.9%), the lowest in the Northwestern Federal District (15.8%):
The trend of a gradual “shift” of the rural population to the South of Russia can be seen if we compare the shares of the rural population in different federal districts of the total rural population of the country in different years:
The table shows that the share of the rural population of the Central Federal District, Northwestern Federal District, Volga Federal District, Siberian Federal District is gradually decreasing, at the same time in the North Caucasus Federal District there is a constant increase in the share of the rural population of the district in the total rural population of the country. The drop in this share as of January 1, 2015 is explained by the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
For a clearer picture and to eliminate the distortion associated with the annexation of Crimea, let’s look at what the shares of the rural population of federal districts would be in the total rural population of the country as of January 1, 2015 and 2016 excluding the rural population of the regions of the former KFO:
Thus, the ratio of the rural population in different federal districts since the 2002 census has changed by 2016 as follows (excluding the rural population of Crimea): the share of the North Caucasian Federal District has increased (by 1.63%), Southern Federal District (by 0.74%; t That is, in total, the share of the regions of the Southern Federal District and North Caucasian Federal District is by 2.35%), and the share of the Ural Federal District has also increased slightly (by 0.16%; but in general, the Ural Federal District has been characterized by a decrease in this share in recent years).
The share of other federal districts decreased: Siberian Federal District - by 0.74%, Volga Federal District - by 0.67%(although the rural population of this federal district still accounts for the largest share of the country's total rural population), Central Federal District - by 0.61%, Northwestern Federal District - by 0.43%, Far Eastern Federal District - by 0.06%.
POPULATION STRUCTURE: WORKABLE PEOPLE LEAVE TO CITIES
As of January 1, 2016, the rural population was about 37.89 million people. As for age distributions, the share of people of working age among rural residents is comparatively lower- 55% (among city residents - 58.3%), and, accordingly, higher than the proportion of people younger and older than working age - 20% and 25% (among city residents - 17.3% and 24.4%).
For every 1,000 rural residents of working age, there are 819 people of disabled age(per 1,000 city residents of working age - 715 people of disabled age), of which 365 are children under 15 years of age and 454 are people over working age.
The youngest rural population is in the North Caucasus Federal District, the largest proportion of the population over working age is in the Central Federal District and Northwestern Federal District:
It is noteworthy that despite the fact that the proportion of the population below working age is comparatively higher in rural areas compared to the urban population, the situation with young people in rural areas is far from favorable. As can be seen in the graph below, the share of representatives of the most economically active age groups (from 20 to 44 years old) in the structure of the urban population is higher than in the structure of the rural population:
Rice. Age structure of the urban and rural population (as a percentage of the total population of the corresponding group)
It can be assumed that when growing up, young people often prefer to leave rural areas for cities to work and get an education.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that the Rosstat statistics that we present are based on official information about a person’s location, registration of citizens at their place of residence, and cannot always take into account all population movements. This may distort the real picture of the number of young people in rural areas. For example, after a young man leaves a rural area for the city to work or study, he often remains registered in his locality for a long time, and only after resolving the issue of housing in the city does he officially become a city resident. During the transition period, he formally belongs to the rural population, but in fact already permanently resides in the city. Unemployment in rural areas is one of the main incentives to move to the city. The unemployment rate in rural areas is higher than in urban areas.
For example, according to the latest Rosstat data for October 2016, the unemployment rate among rural residents (7.6%) exceeded the unemployment rate among urban residents (4.6%) by 1.7 times. In August and September 2016, the unemployment rate among rural residents exceeded the unemployment rate among urban residents by 1.6 times. Approximately the same ratio was recorded throughout 2016:
Rice. Unemployment rate among urban and rural residents
The same situation is typical for previous years: for example, in 2011, the unemployment rate among urban residents was 5.5%, among rural residents - 10.6%, in 2012 - the unemployment rate in cities and rural areas was 4.5% and 9.6%, respectively, in 2013 - 4.6% and 8.5%, in 2014 - 4.3% and 8.3%.
Unemployment is also significantly higher among rural youth: Thus, in 2014, the unemployment rate in rural areas in the age group from 20 to 24 years old was 15.8% (for the urban population - 11.3%), from 25 to 29 years old - 8.9% (for the urban population - 4.7%).
Rural areas are also more likely to long-term (or long-term) unemployment. Of the 1.4 million unemployed rural residents, 35.5% during this period were in a situation of stagnant unemployment (they were looking for work for 12 months or more). For unemployed urban residents, the share of such unemployed people was 25.4%.
We also note that those who work in enterprises and organizations in rural areas often depend on the state. Thus, according to the 24th wave of the “Russian Monitoring of the Economic Situation and Health of the Population of the National Research University Higher School of Economics”, 58.9% of village residents report that the state is the owner or co-owner of the enterprise or organization in which they work. In urban-type settlements this share was 55.2%, in cities that are not regional centers - 40.9%, in regional centers - 40.7%. Thus, it is rural residents who suffer most in the event of a reduction in government spending and insufficient attention to the problem of the labor market.
Separately, researchers, in particular T.G. Nefedova, highlight a phenomenon that is extremely characteristic of modern Russia - the so-called. “otkhodnichestvo”, i.e. return labor migrations, when “people, on their own initiative, temporarily leave their homes and families on a weekly, monthly, semi-annual basis in order to earn money in large centers and agglomerations.” In this case, we are dealing with “prolonged, step-by-step urbanization,” since many otkhodniks often end up settling in cities, moving to the city with their families.
In addition, this process actually involves the most active working-age rural population, which in turn contributes to further socio-economic stagnation and depopulation of rural areas.
As stated above, the processes of suburbanization and counter-urbanization in the form in which they exist in the West are not widespread in Russia, however, researchers note the prevalence of another characteristic phenomenon in our country - seasonal life “in two houses - in the city and in the country.” Moreover, since people work mainly in cities, houses in rural areas are often preserved by former rural residents gradually migrating to cities only as a summer house and personal plot, after in fact they finally move to the city.
RURAL POPULATION CONCENTRATION: SPATIAL CONTRASTS
The All-Russian Agricultural Census was carried out in 2016, and some preliminary data have already been published. In particular, it was revealed that over the past 10 years - since 2006 - the number of main categories of farms has decreased:
At the same time, the average land area per enterprise has increased (with the exception of micro-enterprises that are agricultural organizations, as well as non-profit associations of citizens):
Thus, we can conclude that processes of concentration of agricultural activities over the past 10 years, concentrated within larger economic units. It can be assumed that the economic crisis, with insufficient support from the state, stimulates this process even more: small enterprises and farms go bankrupt, and monopolization in the industry increases.
The consolidation of agricultural enterprises with a decrease in their number, firstly, can lead to a reduction in jobs in the industry, and secondly, the concentration of enterprises leads to the concentration of jobs in certain territories, which can make an additional contribution to the migration processes of the rural population and further reduction in the number of small rural settlements.
The problem of focal concentration of the rural population has long been noted by researchers. For example, T.G. Nefedova analyzes in detail the spatial contrasts in the settlement of Russians in rural areas, saying that the population has been migrating for decades not only to cities, but also to their rural suburbs, which formed pockets of relatively more densely populated rural areas around cities: “Suburban-peripheral differences for a vast country with a relatively sparse population serve as a key parameter for the organization of its socio-economic space.” Nefedova provides statistics proving that the density of the rural population within the regions of the European part of Russia is very decreases with distance from the centers.
Thus, in addition to the above-mentioned trend of shifting the rural population to the south of the country, researchers also highlight the “suburb-periphery” axis. In reality, part of the formally rural population living in the suburbs of cities, in fact, has very close socio-economic ties with cities, but since the institution of agglomerations has not been developed in Russia, statistically they are still classified as rural residents.
Preliminary results of the 2016 All-Russian Agricultural Census indirectly indicate the continuation of this process - the concentration of agricultural enterprises and, as a consequence, the further concentration of the rural population around individual pockets while simultaneously expanding depressed rural areas, which are characterized by constant depopulation.
NOTES
See G.A. Nikitina. Extinct villages as a stable phenomenon of modernity (using the example of Udmurtia) // Historical ethnography: Collection of scientific articles: Issue 5, St. Petersburg, 2014. - pp. 102-106.
The decrease in the number of uninhabited villages is most likely explained by administrative and territorial transformations (for example, the liquidation of rural settlements), and not by their settlement. In the period between the 2002 and 2010 censuses, the rural population of the Far Eastern Federal District decreased by 24.1 thousand people.
See T.G. Nefedova, N.G. Pokrovsky, A.I. Treyvish. Urbanization, deurbanization and rural-urban communities in the context of growing horizontal mobility // Sociological Research, 2015. - pp. 60-69.
See, for example, the article by A.G. Vishnevsky, E.A. Kvashi, T.L. Kharkova, E.M. Shcherbakova “Russian village in demographic dimensions” (World of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology, 2007), which states that only as a result of the transformations of 2004, 693.9 thousand city residents became villagers.
See, for example, A.A. Khagurov. On the state and problems of the Russian village // Sociological studies, 2012.
For the regions of the North Caucasian Federal District, separated from the Southern Federal District in 2010, this indicator was separately calculated for 2002.
See T.G. Nefedova. Otkhodnichestvo in the migration system in post-Soviet Russia. Prerequisites // Demoscope Weekly, 2015.
Right there.
See T.G. Nefedova, N.G. Pokrovsky, A.I. Treyvish. Urbanization, deurbanization and rural-urban communities in the context of growing horizontal mobility // Sociological Research, 2015; T.G. Nefedova. Otkhodnichestvo in the migration system in post-Soviet Russia. Prerequisites // Demoscope Weekly, 2015.
Regrouping - taking into account the current legislation on classifying business entities as small and medium-sized businesses in 2006 and 2016.
TO BE CONTINUED
In 100 years, Russia may find itself without villages. This forecast was published in the report “Russia - a country of dying villages” by the Center for Economic and Political Reforms (CEPR).
It is the liquidation of schools, hospitals, and clinics that becomes one of the most important reasons for the further, even faster outflow of able-bodied citizens to cities and the cessation of the existence of villages. The gradual extinction of the Russian village is fraught with geostrategic risks for the country of losing vast spaces. This is one of the key points of the report, comments Nikolai Mironov, head of CEPR.
Today, more than half of Russian villages have between 1 and 100 inhabitants.
“The village today is needed not so much to feed the people, as it was before, but to retain the developed territories,” agrees Vasily Uzun, Doctor of Economic Sciences, chief researcher at the Institute of Applied Research of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
In Russia, he said, it will be much more difficult to restore lost, depopulated territories than to develop them taking into account new realities. By the way, the preservation of villages abroad is under the special supervision of the authorities. In Italy, for example, 6 thousand abandoned villages, another 15 thousand lost up to 90 percent of the population. The municipal authorities of several of these villages sold houses for one euro with an obligation to rebuild and restore them. In some cases, local authorities allow displaced people to live in abandoned houses.
Sociologist and vice-rector of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Alexey Zubets is sure that this path is not for Russia, and there will be no need to restore Russian villages. In his opinion, the classic village, where people must engage in agricultural work, will be replaced in 20-40 years by agricultural towns or dozens of small urban-type settlements with all the benefits of civilization and developed social infrastructure. Large and medium-sized industrial agricultural enterprises will operate there. And the territories themselves are called agglomerations. Actually, this process of population concentration is already underway today, and government programs for resettlement from endangered villages will only push it further, explains the RG expert. So our villages have a future, but it is not at all similar to their current existence.
The main thing is that people stay in them, so that there is someone to move to the agglomeration. We could teach our children today and stay healthy. As for the latter, the Ministry of Health refers to clear standards that were developed last year. They linked the structure of medical institutions with “geography” and “demography.”
In villages where more than 2 thousand people live, it is mandatory to operate medical outpatient clinics - the existing ones will have to be developed and equipped, and where they have closed, they will be restored.
For small settlements with a population of 1 to 2 thousand inhabitants, the presence of either a paramedic-midwife station or a general medical practice center is provided. This depends on the distance to the nearest hospital, which, as a rule, is “tied” to the regional center.
In remote villages with several households (less than 100 inhabitants), “keeping” a permanent physician, the Ministry of Health considered, is ineffective. Therefore, so-called “specialized households” are provided for such situations. One of the houses is equipped with a primary care center with a first aid kit and primitive medical equipment. For example, a tonometer to measure blood pressure. The main thing is that in such houses there must be a communication point - there is no landline telephone line and mobile communications, which means a satellite telephone is provided. So residents of such “bear corners” can receive remote consultation from doctors and call a medical team if it is problematic to manage on their own. The goal is to help victims stay away from medical care until the ambulance arrives. In addition, for the “outback”, an on-site form of work is provided. “The work is structured in such a way that a multidisciplinary team of doctors equipped with diagnostic equipment comes to each village twice a year,” explains Minister of Health Veronika Skvortsova. The number of mobile diagnostic complexes in the country has already exceeded 3,000, and more than 8 thousand mobile teams of specialists are involved, the Ministry of Health specified.
It was with this title that the Center for Economic and Political Reforms published its report. In their work, the Center's specialists tried to answer the question: how and why do villages die out? The conclusions drawn in the report were based on statistical data, the work of demographers and the results of sociological research.
The main reasons for the decline in the rural population in the report were: a lower standard of living and a relatively high level of unemployment, often stagnant. It is no secret that more or less active villagers leave to work in the cities, which further aggravates the situation. No matter how much is said on TV about the development of agriculture, it is apparently not the time yet.
The next huge reason for the outflow of rural residents is the inaccessibility of social infrastructure. Schools, hospitals 30-70 km from the village, destroyed clubs and libraries, lack of transport. Well, the living conditions themselves, insufficient provision of housing and communal services.
It is worth noting that this process of outflow of rural residents is typical not only for Russia, but also for the countries of Asia and Latin America. This is due to the hyperconcentration of the population in the capital and large cities. At the state level, some programs have already been adopted that provide measures to curb the depopulation of rural areas. But these measures do not work due to the fact that the conditions for the development of rural areas are virtually absent. But the general direction of state policy still leads to the concentration of finances, jobs and, accordingly, the population in the capital and other large cities.
This study will certainly not surprise anyone. It has long been clear that villages are dying out along with their elders. But still, my personal opinion, as a direct rural resident, is that this is probably due to the proximity of the villages to certain cities. Most likely to megacities. Because there really is something to compare with and where to run. But in villages that are located near small provincial towns, everything is not so bad. There are schools, clinics, and leisure centers. Our village choir even goes to some competitions all the time. I wouldn’t say that the village is thriving, but there’s no talk of extinction either. It’s just that the standard of living in the village is not much different from the nearest city. But if we take villages near Yekaterinburg for comparison, then cottage communities have long been built there instead of villages and hamlets, which is probably not bad either.