Life quality in the Center and Periphery of the Urals and the Volga regions

Abstract

The quality of life plays a crucial role in ensuring sustainable development and improving human interaction with the environment, solving environmental problems. On the other hand, there is a tendency for the outflow of both people and their capital from peripheral regions to the centers, worsening the quality of life throughout the country. The article assesses the quality of life in the Urals and Volga regions using the center-periphery framework. The data of the regional statistics of Rosstat and the data of the RA RIA rating were used. The article uses the methods of statistical analysis, generalization, and abstraction. The stable types of regions (Center, Periphery 1, Periphery 2) were identified, the type of each region was identified. The assessment of trends in the level of monetary incomes, meat consumption, the number of tourists traveling abroad, and other life quality indicators by groups of regions. It is concluded that the division of regions according to the quality of life is stable, and the differences only increase.

Full text

Life quality in the Center and Periphery of the
Urals and the Volga regions
Dmitri Pletnev1,* and Victor Barkhatov1
1Chelyabinsk State University, 129, Br.Kashirinykh str., 454001, Chelyabinsk, Russia
Abstract. The quality of life plays a crucial role in ensuring sustainable
development and improving human interaction with the environment,
solving environmental problems. On the other hand, there is a tendency for
the outflow of both people and their capital from peripheral regions to the
centers, worsening the quality of life throughout the country. The article
assesses the quality of life in the Urals and Volga regions using the center-
periphery framework. The data of the regional statistics of Rosstat and the
data of the RA RIA rating were used. The article uses the methods of
statistical analysis, generalization, and abstraction. The stable types of
regions (Center, Periphery 1, Periphery 2) were identified, the type of each
region was identified. The assessment of trends in the level of monetary
incomes, meat consumption, the number of tourists traveling abroad, and
other life quality indicators by groups of regions. It is concluded that the
division of regions according to the quality of life is stable, and the
differences only increase.
1 Introduction
In the 21st century, the issue of improving the quality of human habitat comes to the
fore. Along with the objectively impending global warming on the planet, anthropogenic
factors, including income, food, and infrastructure, are becoming increasingly important for
humans when choosing a place to live and work [1]. It is no coincidence that today there
are two oppositely directed trends. The first one is the ongoing urbanization and
development of megacities [2, 3, 4]. The second is the aspiration of residents of large cities
to the suburbs and the countryside, which have become especially popular in 2020 [5].
At the same time, another trend is developing - the tendency of increasing inequality at
various levels: at the level of individual firms and cities [6], and the national level
(inequality between regions [7, 8]), and the level of the entire world economy (inequality of
countries [9]). Inequality is a serious obstacle to sustainable development, to improving the
quality of human life. A convenient concept for dealing with inequality is the center-
periphery framework outlined in [10-12]. The classification and subsequent analysis of
entities in line with this framework will allow us to assess the degree and trends of
inequality in any socio-economic system. At the level of the regional economy, this
approach also works [13, 14]. An essential consequence of improving the quality of life
will be the sustainable development of territories [15], which is manifested in the formation
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
*Corresponding author: pletnev@csu.ru
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

of regional intellectual boilers [16], the development of a shared, associated economy [17],
and the building of trust [18].
An important macro-region for Russia is its industrial center - the Urals and the Volga
region. In these regions, a significant part of the gross domestic product is created. It is here
that a significant part of the population lives. The article aims to assess the quality of life in
the Urals and Volga regions using the center-periphery framework. The classification of the
regions of the Russian Urals and the Volga was carried out to achieve this goal. The center
and periphery were highlighted in their structure. Further, the study assessed the trends in
the leading indicators characterizing the quality of life by groups of regions.
2 Data and Methodology
The study consists of two stages, each of which applied its methodological approaches and
data.
Stage 1. Selecting regions using the center-periphery framework. Regions-centers are
regions that act as attraction points for neighboring regions, for capital, for residents, for
tourists. For this reason, the quality of life in these regions is traditionally higher, which
increases their attractiveness for new migrants and investments. The high quality of life
becomes self-increasing. Peripheral regions are regions where there is either stagnation or a
decline in the leading indicators of economic development, which negatively affects life
quality. Earlier in [14] it was proposed to distinguish two groups in the structure of
peripheral regions - Peripheral 1 (semi-periphery) and Peripheral 2 (depressing periphery).
Thus, this approach can be called the CPP (Center - Periphery 1 - Periphery 2) framework.
In practice, it is proposed to use three indicators to classify regions: (1) data on GDP per
capita, (2) data on migration growth (decline) of the population of Russia, and (3) the
results of assessing the quality of life in Russian regions, carried out by RIA Novosti. The
Tyumen region, Khanty-Mansi, and Yamalo-Nenets autonomous okrugs are excluded from
the analysis - the logic of their development does not fit into the general Russian trends and
should be investigated separately.
Stage 2. Analysis of trends in indicators characterizing the quality of life for regions of
different groups. Based on the data of the regional statistics of Rosstat
(https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204), the trends of the following indicators
are highlighted:
1. Average per capita monetary income of the population (per month, RUR)
2. Median salary (per month, RUR)
3. Consumption of meat and meat products (per year, kilogram)
4. The number of fatalities in road accidents (per year, people per 100,000 inhabitants)
5. The number of tourists leaving for foreign trips (per 1000 inhabitants)
The first two indicators characterize the disposable income that residents of the region
can enjoy, while the median wage, compared with the average income, can provide an idea
of the degree of inequality. The consumption of meat and meat products indirectly
characterizes the standard of living, since in the Urals and the Volga region's tradition, with
the growth of material opportunities, primarily the consumption of meat products increases.
The death toll in road accidents shows the culture of driving, the state of the road
infrastructure, and the quality and efficiency of medical care. All this is important for the
quality of life of the population. The number of tourists who went on foreign tours shows
the freedom of movement, which is also an indicator of life quality. To visually identify the
current trends, we used data from 2005, for odd years.
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
2

3 Results
3.1 Identification of Center, Periphery 1, and Periphery 2:
By the data of 2018-2019, the Republic of Tatarstan and the Sverdlovsk region are center
regions (CR) of the Urals and the Volga, according to the aggregate analysis of the three
selected indicators. These regions are the only ones in which the values of all three
indicators were among the best. In addition to the fact that these regions act as the capital
for the corresponding Federal Districts, they combine high economic activity results and
their positive perception by society. Regions of the Periphery-2 (PR-2) can be characterized
as "depressed" - with a low value of GDP per capita, significant migration loss of
population, and low quality of life. There were eight such regions - the Republic of Mari El,
the Republic of Mordovia, the Chuvash Republic, the Kirov region, the Penza region, and
the Saratov Ulyanovsk region, the Kurgan region. The rest of the regions, which do not
reach the CR indicators values, but do not have serious failures, are recognized as semi-
peripheral regions and are designated as Periphery 1 (PR-1) (see Table 1).
Table 1. Typology of the Urals and Volga regions according to 2018-19 data.
Region Group of
regions
GRP per
capita,
2018, mln
RUR
Migration growth /
decline rate, per
10,000 inhabitants,
2019
Quality of life
rating (RIA
RA, 2019*,
x10)
Republic of
Bashkortostan PR-1 412,530 -14 33.2
Mari El Republic PR-2 260,845 8 5.6
The Republic of
Mordovia PR-2 284,010 -10 14.7
Republic of Tatarstan CR 633,708 11 46.0
Udmurt republic PR-1 417,899 -21 27.1
Chuvash Republic PR-2 242,634 -16 30.1
Perm region PR-1 503,818 -14 33.3
Kirov region PR-2 260,282 -22 28.3
Nizhny Novgorod
Region PR-1 424,085 20 46.5
Orenburg region PR-1 507,847 -1 25.0
Penza region PR-2 302,304 -34 33.3
Samara Region PR-1 473,772 28 42.1
Saratov region PR-2 290,611 -23 32.1
Ulyanovsk region PR-2 279,959 -19 32.9
Kurgan region PR-2 253,573 -30 7.7
Sverdlovsk region CR 527,158 15 46.1
Chelyabinsk region PR-1 422,950 5 29.0
* The best regions to live in. RBC rating 2019.
https://www.rbc.ru/society/21/07/2020/5f159b3b9a79472f207e8324 [Accessed 05 Feb 2021].
It should be noted that this typology is stable: for example, according to data from
2016-18, the same regions form all three groups (CR, PR-1, and PR-2), see Table 2. Since
the methodology for assessing the RA RIA's quality of life has changed in 2019 compared
to 2018, the ratings cannot be compared.
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
3

Table 2. Typology of the Urals and Volga regions according to 2016-18 data.
Region Group of
regions
GRP per
capita, 2016,
mln RUR
Migration growth
/ decline rate, per
10,000
inhabitants, 2018
Quality of
life rating
(RIA RA,
2018*)
Republic of Bashkortostan PR-1 343,509 -22 50.201
Mari El Republic PR-2 247,953 -10 39.548
The Republic of Mordovia PR-2 264,363 -68 46.280
Republic of Tatarstan CR 543,522 766.147
Udmurt republic PR-1 367,138 -26 46.506
Chuvash Republic PR-2 219,405 -43 45.925
Perm region PR-1 453,302 -25 46.650
Kirov region PR-2 238,691 -37 40.183
Nizhny Novgorod Region PR-1 388,808 -12 55.077
Orenburg region PR-1 414,936 -52 47.763
Penza region PR-2 273,212 -44 48.511
Samara Region PR-1 422,024 -1 54.214
Saratov region PR-2 270,766 -42 47.222
Ulyanovsk region PR-2 272,565 -21 48.779
Kurgan region PR-2 236,364 -77 28.890
Sverdlovsk region CR 495,115 -3 56.672
Chelyabinsk region PR-1 385,559 -26 52.435
* Quality of life in Russian regions - 2018 rating. [online] Available at:
https://riarating.ru/infografika/20190219/630117422.html [Accessed 05 Feb 2021].
At the same time, it should be noted that most of the periphery regions showed positive
dynamics of the indicator of migration growth. If in 2018, in many regions of PR-2 it was
tenths of a percent, and in Mordovia and the Kurgan region it was approaching 1%, then in
2019 it became several times less, and in 6 regions it showed positive values. Of course,
this is a positive trend for the evenness of regional development.
3.2 Analysis of trends in quality of life indicators in the regions of the center
and periphery
The income level of the population in the regions of the center, periphery 1 and periphery 2
differs significantly, the regions of the center have a level of average per capita incomes
higher than the national ones, the regions of PR-1 are slightly lower, and the regions of PR-
2 are significantly lagging. By 2019, the difference between CR and PR-1 reached 9000
RUR (30% of RP-1 level). Between CR and PR-2 difference is almost 16000 RUR (more
than 80% of the PR-2 level). This differentiation is high. At the same time, until 2015, all
three trends showed almost symmetric growth, and then the regions PR-1 and PR-2
switched to a horizontal section when the value of income did not change over time, and the
regions of CR slowed down their growth. This is partly due to the decline in inflation but is
not compensated by it. Residents of the PR-1 and PR-2 regions found themselves in a
situation of decreasing their real income. This contributes to the migration outflow of the
population to CR, as well as to Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities and regions more
attractive for life and work (fig. 1).
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
4

Fig. 1. Average monetary income in CR, PR-1 and PR-2 (RUR per month).
It is interesting to trace the differences between average monetary income dynamics and
another indicator that characterizes the income received: median employees' wage. This
indicator is not influenced by extremely high or shallow values and shows the general trend
of changes in the income received. Median employees wage is growing evenly in all
groups, while its trend does not change after 2015, as is the case with average monetary
income. At the same time, the differences between values for different groups are
significantly less than for the first indicator: in 2019, the difference between CR and PR-1
reached 3000 RUR (10% of the RP-1 level), and CR and PR-2 - more than 8000 RUR (35
% of PR-2 level). Differences in the comparative dynamics of the two indicators are
explained by the fact that in the new normal [15] conditions in Russia, employers strive to
retain core employees and are ready to increase their wages, including firing other
employees and reducing the remuneration of top management. Besides, the government's
efforts to increase wages in the budgetary sectors of the economy play an important role.
Fig. 2. Median employees wage in CR, PR-1 and PR-2 (RUR per month).
The next indicator characterizing the standard of living of the population CR, PR-1 and
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Russia average
CR average
PR-1 average
PR-2 average
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Russia average
CR average
PR-1 average
PR-2 average
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
5

PR-2 is Meat consumption. In the Russian dietary tradition, meat is a significant product,
and the volume of its consumption depends mostly on households' capabilities. This
indicator's growth indicates an increase in the quality of life, the ability to satisfy their
everyday nutritional needs. By 2013, this indicator for all groups of regions reached a
"plateau." For CR it is 80 kg per year, for PR-1 and PR-2 - 70 kg per year (Fig. 3). Such a
significant difference in meat consumption is also an indicator of a difference in the quality
of life in the centers and peripheral regions of the Urals and the Volga region, even despite
the difference in price levels (prices are usually lower in the periphery, which increases the
purchasing power of the national currency, but this does not compensate for the
fundamental difference in cash income).
Fig. 3. Meat consumption in CR, PR-1 and PR-2 (kg per year).
The fourth indicator characterizing the quality of life in the region is deaths in road
accidents. The lower this indicator, the higher the quality of life since its values depend on
essential components of the standard of living: the quality of road infrastructure, the
efficiency, and level of medical care, the general culture of driving. There is a rapid
decrease in this indicator's value (in comparison with 2005 - on average from 2 times). CR
are the undisputed leaders in this indicator, in 2005-2019, it was possible to decrease the
indicator by 2.5 times to 9 people per 100,000 inhabitants. PR-1 is steadily lagging, the
value in 2019 is 11.3 people per 100,000 inhabitants, and in general, this value is close to
the all-Russian one. PR-2 demonstrates values that are one and a half times worse than that
of CR, and the central part of the deterioration of the situation occurred in the period 2015-
19, primarily because the decline in the values of this indicator in CR was significant.
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Russia average
CR average
PR-1 average
PR-2 average
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
6

Fig. 4. Deaths in road accidents in CR, PR-1 and PR-2 (persons per 100000 residents).
The fifth indicator characterizing the differentiation of life quality by groups of regions
is tourists traveling abroad. This indicator allows one to judge both the level of income and
the choice of recreation options, which is associated with the convenience of transport
routes. The difference in this indicator's values for CR and PR-1 reached 2 times by 2019
(while in 2015, it reached 3 times). The values for PR-2 are even lower. This indicates the
presence of stable differences in the values of indicators for regions of different groups.
Fig. 5. Tourists traveling abroad (persons per 1000 residents).
4 Conclusion
The considered indicators allow us to conclude that there are stable differences in residents'
living standards of the regions of the Center, Periphery 1 and Periphery 2. This is
manifested in the following trends.
Average monetary income is sustainably higher in CR than in PR-1, and in PR-1 than in
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Russia average
CR average
PR-1 average
PR-2 average
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Russia average
CR average
PR-1 average
PR-2 average
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
7

and PR-2. After 2015, this indicator is going stable in PR-1 and PR-2, but we can see
continuous growth in CR. Median employees' wages have positive dynamics in the same
consequence: CR - PR-1 - PR-2. The general conclusion for both indicators of income is
that despite the differences in their values by groups, thanks to the state and business (as
well as the ongoing crisis), the difference does not increase exponentially but remains
approximately on the same scale since 2013. Meat consumption has increased in all
regions. Since 2005, by about 25 (for CR) and even 40 (for PR-2) percent. However, the
difference between the groups remains significant and has hardly changed since 2013.
Deaths in road accidents consistently show negative dynamics in all regions. However, the
difference between the groups remains, and in 2019 it is 1.5 times. Tourists traveling
abroad in CR is sustainable higher than in PR-1 and PR-2. At the same time, from 2015 to
2019, the difference between the regions is somewhat narrowing. Thus, in the Urals and the
Volga region, the standard of living in Center Regions is sustainable differs from Periphery
Regions. This is an essential characteristic of the Russian economy's spatial organization,
which determines its long-term trends and sustainable development.
References
1. F. F. Murgaš, Folia Geographica 62(1), 77-94 (2020)
2. G.M. Arif, S. Hamid, European Journal of Social Sciences 10(2), 196-215 (2009)
3. P. Nowak, Oeconomia Copernicana 9(3), 381-401 (2018) DOI: 10.24136/oc.2018.019
4. L. Ma, S. Liu, F. Fang, X. Che, M. Chen, Sustainable Cities and Society 54 (2020)
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101877
5. E. Melnikova, Etnograficeskoe Obozrenie 2020(6), 88-105 (2020) DOI:
10.31857/S086954150013123-5
6. B. Chen, D. Liu, M. Lu, China Economic Review 51, 42-58 (2018) DOI:
10.1016/j.chieco.2018.05.001
7. B. Atems, Journal of Economic Asymmetries 17, 41-47 (2018) DOI:
10.1016/j.jeca.2018.03.001
8. R.S. Timerkhanov, N.M. Sabitova, C.M. Shavaleyeva, Proceedings of the 6th
International Congress on Interdisciplinary Behavior and Social Sciences, ICIBSoS
2017, 125-130 (2018)
9. M. Wang, N. Park, C.H. Choi, Journal of Korea Trade 24(4), 18-33 (2020) DOI:
10.35611/jkt.2020.24.4.18
10. A. Milner, J.R. Burgmann, Journal of World-Systems Research 26(2), 350-371 (2020)
DOI: 10.5195/jwsr.2020.988
11. C. Chase-Dunn, T.D. Hall, Core/Periphery relations in precapitalist worlds, 1-300
(2019) DOI: 10.4324/9780429044663
12. A.A. Obukhov, N.V. Golovko, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin 8(2),
173-187 (2018) DOI: 10.15293/2226-3365.1802.10
13. A. Dmitriev, V. Voronov, Mir Rossii 26(4), 169-181 (2017) DOI: 10.17323/1811-
038X-2017-26-4-169-181
14. V.I. Barkhatov, D.A. Pletnev, Yu.Sh. Kapkaev, Socium i vlast' 5(79), 65—83 (2019)
DOI: 10.22394/1996-0522-2019-5-65-83
15. V. Barkhatov, E3S Web of Conferences 15002, 210 (2020) DOI:
10.1051/e3sconf/202021015002
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
8

16. V.D. Pham, E3S Web of Conferences 03019, 157 (2020) DOI:
10.1051/e3sconf/202015703019
17. D. Pletnev, E. Nikolaeva, E. Silova, E3S Web of Conferences 210, 13014 (2020) DOI:
10.1051/e3sconf/202021013014
18. V. Barkhatov, D. Benz, D. Pletnev, E3S Web of Conferences 13013, 210 (2020) DOI:
10.1051/e3sconf/202021013013
E3S Web of Conferences 258, 07044 (2021)
UESF-2021
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807044
9