Feanor

At 112 million in 2050. Maybe.

Is it a diversification of the industrial sector? Or simply growth of the service sector on trickle-down effect income from gas and oil?

wkllaw

Well, its both, the Russians seem to be trying to diversify, they've weathered the Dutch Disease like a developed country and they've put some of the revenues from oil and gas to finance nonenergy acquisitions.

__________________
Those who can't change become extinct.

gunnut

This division looks heavy on religion while a bit light on national identity. Some people don't regard religion as central to their cultural identity. Japan is closer to the US than it is accepted by its Asian neighbors. Taiwan might share a Sinic root with China, but it seeks independence. South Korea definitely do not want to be grouped with either China or Japan.

Mongolia and Tibet should be seperate entities. Mongolia might have more in common with some former USSR republics rather than southeast Asia.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

JohnFlint1985

They do try to change a direction of their industry, but it is not a substantial enough. Also - how much out of this is getting sold outside the country? I don't think it is too much. The number I heard is 65% of gas and oil which is exported outside and brings back money. the rest 35% is all the rest of industries combined - which is very little.

Question - where did you get the number 12 million - I am just curious. I heard 85 mullioning 2050.

__________________
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill

Parihaka

Either/or. I see a convergence in attitudes and economies between western Europe and Russia.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

JohnFlint1985

So do you think it is a good thing or a bad one? I think this whole so left wing socialistic attitude is bad. Just my opinion

JohnFlint1985

This data is 1996 from Huntington book and should not be taken as a perfect scenario. He divided the whole world into 10 groups - we can do more since the situation have changed so much. Ukraine for example is not orthodox 100% meaning it is not leaning to-wards Russia, but toward west. Also please understand the names Orthodox, Muslim, Sinic is just a generalization names he uses to make it simpler to understand - is is not so much a religion but more a culture, politics trend.

Feanor

Like central asia yes?

My point exactly.

UN Paints a Dire Picture of Russian Demographics - Kommersant Moscow

Though actually, here something else I found recently. I'm not sure I agree with it (wait scratch that, I'm sure I don't) but it was an interesting read.

Feanor

Subject: Myths and Realities of Russia's Population Crisis
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006

While at odds with each other on almost everything else, Russia watchers and Russian officialdom seem to agree on the problem of Russia’s demographic decline. That there is a problem is out of the question. Unfortunately, much of the debate about Russia’s demography is rubbish. Though I will not claim to have solutions for the real problems, I would like to do debunk some obvious myths that seem to permeate a significant part of the public debate on the issue, whether by experts or laypeople.

Myth 1) If Russia’s population continues to decline, Russia will cease to exist.

That’s patent nonsense. Population density has nothing to do with whether a country can exist or not. But, even if there was a lower population density limit at which countries magically disappear, Russia really has not much to worry about. Even the worst case scenario of only 80 million people on Russia’s territory by 2075 would still leave Russia with a greater population density than contemporary Canada. Russia’s current population density is about 8.5 people per square kilometer, more than three times that of Australia, and twice that of Canada. And last time I checked, Canada’s still on the map. It’s actually hard to miss there. So, Russia’s population has a lot of shrinking to do before Russia is going to disappear, and we can stop worrying about this for the moment.

Myth 2) If Russia’s population declines, other will take over its territory.

That’s really just a correlate of Myth 1, and equally nonsensical. Yes, much of Russia’s territory is pretty empty. But so is that of Canada and Australia, and quite a number of other countries, including the USA. The reason for this is that nobody wants to live there. There is an explanation why much of Siberia was settled by fugitives and convicts – given the choice, people much rather settle where the weather is reasonably warm and the soil fertile. So, folks are not exactly lining up to move into the empty vastness of Russia’s East.

Of course, some people seem to believe that if the Russian East is not settled systematically by Russians, China might just forget the place belongs to Russia. Tired of paying for Russian, oil, gas, and other resources, it will instead move in and cut out the middleman. This line of reasoning is so absurd in so many ways I will limit myself to a very obvious rebuttal: the Chinese government is highly unlikely to start annexing Russian territory, even if it wanted to, for the very simple reason that Russia has a lot more relative firepower there. Russian nukes are a lot closer to Beijing than Chinese nukes are to Moscow. I leave the rest of this morbid scenario to those with a greater tolerance for absurd apocalyptic visions than I have.

Myth 3) If Russia’s population continues to decline, there will be an invasion of immigrants.

That’s just stupid. Whether Russia’s population is shrinking, expanding, or staying the same makes no difference to people who want to come and live here. Population size, density, and dynamics have no bearing on immigration; just ask the Dutch, Germans, or Pakistanis.

That being said, there is something absurd about this argument: on the one hand, everybody seems to complain that not enough people live in Russia, but when people try to actually come, live, and work here, it’s no good either.

Immigration has traditionally been a major factor in the economic success of nations, just witness the US, Canada, Australia for contemporary examples. Historic examples would be Prussia, whose rise to economic fortune, political power, and cultural prowess had much to do with Frederick II enlightened immigration policy. Russia, too, has fared quite well in the past when it adopted generous immigration policies. There is no reason in principle to assume it won’t do so now.

Does this mean I am in favor of uncontrolled and unlimited immigration? Of course not. I’m not in favor of uncontrolled and unlimited anything. A modern society needs rules, and that includes rules for immigration. What a modern society does not need is tribalism, which brings us to the next point:

Myth 4) If there is an invasion of immigrants, Russia will cease being Russian

This is outright xenophobic, racist, and stupid: if Russia gave citizenship to all those Chinese, Azeris, and what have you, would Russia cease to be Russian? Only if being a Russian citizen is conditional on being Slavic. But, since when did being a Slav have anything to do with having Russian citizenship? The answer to that is obvious: it never did. Any assertion to the contrary simply displays a complete ignorance of Russia’s history, culture, and ethnography.

And even IF being Slavic was once a prerequisite for being a Russian citizen, would it not be time to stop living with a tribal mindset? All successful civilizations of the past and present have been and are multi-cultural. This is no argument against Russian language and institutions being the unifying element of Russian society – far from it – but it’s an argument against tribalism.

Myth 5) Russia needs a large population to have a good economy

Balderdash. Countries like Luxemburg and Switzerland have very small populations, but nobody would argue their economies are anything but stellar. Nigeria has a huge population, its economy, however, isn’t doing so well. The USA has a population about ten times that of Canada, but both are doing just fine economically. There is no relationship whatsoever between population size, population density, and economic performance. Any assertion to the contrary is just ignorant.

Myth 6) Russia’s shrinking population is bad for the economy.

Nonsense. Changes in the number of people in a country have nothing to do with its economic performance. Let’s assume we are having an annual population growth of 10%, and the productivity of every member of the population is equal and does not change, then the economic growth should be 10% as well. 10% economic growth seems like a good thing, but in reality, if it is caused by a 10% population growth, this economic growth really means nothing. Nobody in such a country is better off. All you are having is more people who live no better or worse than before.

Of course, the inverse is equally true. If the population declines by x%, while each member of society remains equally productive, overall GDP shrinks by x%, while per capita GDP remains unaffected. In other words, changes in total population are neutral in respect to GDP per capita.

Myth 7) Russia needs to increase its birth rate.

That’s actually a really, really dumb idea. Russia needs an increased birth rate as much as it needs more snow. Children may be a biological necessity, but since infants and children are not economically productive members of society, they are bad news for the economy. If a lot of children are born, a lot of economic resources will go into feeding, clothing, housing, and educating them – these expenses are, at least in the short run, an economic net-loss. So, obviously, children do not contribute to the growth of GDP.

In fact, children decrease the productivity of a society. After all, somebody has to look after them – and time spent looking after children is time not spent engaging in economically productive activities. Logically, the more children somebody has, the less economically productive this person will be. Thus, high birth rates also mean decreased general economic productivity, negatively impacting GDP growth.

At the risk of offending mothers and romantics everywhere, I’ll state it bluntly: children make us poorer. In order to maintain any given level of GDP per capita, productivity of the working population has to increase at the same rate as the birth rate just to maintain current levels of GDP per capita. Anything less would lead to a decrease in GDP per capita and consequently to a pauperization of the general population.

Birth rates around the replacement level (2.1 children per woman, on average) seem to be economically harmless. Anything much above that, however, leads to trouble. If you don’t believe this, just look at the facts: no country with a birth rate significantly above replacement rate is doing well on any scale, whether economically or politically.

Myth 8) Russia needs to grow its GDP

Wrong. Russia needs to grow its GDP per capita. Economic growth by itself does not mean increased average economic welfare. Economic growth only leads to an increase in overall economic welfare if it is the result of an increased GDP per capita. GDP per capita matters. GDP doesn’t. Write that down. Any economic policy not targeted at increasing GDP per capita, preferably through increased productivity, is meaningless.

These aren’t exactly new insights, but considering the debates currently taking place about Russia’s economy in and outside Russia, the obvious does seem to need repeating.

Myth 9) Russia’s low life expectancy is a bad thing.

Not necessarily true. Those of you with no stomach for a little cynicism may want to skip this section, the rest, please bear with me.

This point is not about economics per se, but about some larger sociological factors, which also impact on economics. There is no adult in Russia today who was not born under the previous regime. In other words, the vast majority of the population has been brought up to think along lines of official Marxist-Leninist ideology about a wide range of things, including public policy in generale, and conomics in particular. As time passes, these generations seem to forget all the bad things about the previous regime, and increasingly become rather nostalgic about Soviet economic policies. Since these generations also tend to vote more than younger people who are not overly affected by such ideas, government policies in Russia must by necessity take into considerations the sentiments of the older generations. But since Marxist-Leninist ideas are not exactly a good basis for sound public policy, accommodating ideas based on Marxist-Leninist thinking cannot be good public policy. If Russia’s current low life expectancy means that the generations whose ideas about public life are largely informed by Marxism-Leninism is dying off quickly, this means that demand for public policies based on Marxist-Leninist ideas is decreasing. Politically, this can only be a good thing, with definite benefits for the economy.

There, I’ve said it. Breath in, breath out, breath in. Calm down. This is a ‘there’s a good side to almost everything’ kind of situation, not a Soylent Green scenario.

Myth 10) Russia needs a big population because it needs a big army.

This one is so inane, it hurts. If population size was the main factor determining military capacity, China would have taken over Korea, the USA would have beaten the Vietcong, Afghanistan would be part of Russia, Taiwan part of Red China, Canada part of the USA… you get the idea. Throughout history, size did not matter much in military affairs. The Greeks were hopelessly outnumbered by the Persians, the dreaded Mongol hordes, contrary to common belief, were actually much fewer in number than most of the armies they defeated, and Frederick II of Prussia was significantly outnumbered in almost all the wars he fought. What matters in military affairs are first and foremost training, equipment, and morale. Numbers do make a difference, but are far less important than most civilians believe.

Russia’s armed forces face a lot of problems, no question. Military reforms should focus on training, equipment, and morale – worrying about its size really isn’t an issue, at least not from a purely military security point of view.

Myth Busting Summary:

Much of the current debate on Russia’s demographic situation is nonsense. Russia is not going to disappear from the map because of its shrinking population. It’s not going to lose territory to the Chinese, it’s not going to be overrun by hostile armies, and it’s not going to be taken over by those swarthy immigrants from the South. Neither Russia nor the Russian narod are going the way of the Dodo any time soon.

Now that we have dealt with the nonsense, let’s take a brief look at the real issue:

The Real Issue: Quality, not Quantity

Not Russia’s overall population is too small or shrinking too much: the share of economically productive people in Russia is too small, and arguably shrinking. Russians smoke more, drink more hard liquor, have more abortions, have more preventable diseases, drive more dangerously, and eat less healthy than most people in other industrialized nations. Sick people are not productive workers. As a result, for each unit of GDP per capita, each Russian worker has to work harder and longer than each Canadian worker, and each Russian unit of money has to be more productive than each Canadian unit of money.

Consequently, it does not matter whether Russia has 100 or 500 million inhabitants: if the proportion and productivity of economically active population does not increase, GDP per capita will not increase, and nobody will be better off. The most important task for Russia’s government is to increase the proportion and productivity of its economically active population.

If Russians drank as little as the Swiss, ate as well as the Japanese, drove as carefully as the Dutch, and continued to work as hard as, well, Russians, doubling Russia’s GDP per capita in ten years would be a very modest goal.

The Real Solution: Decreased Mortality

Too many Russian men drink, smoke, drive, and infect themselves to premature death. Too many Russian women suffer from the health effects of too many abortions, or have too many babies who die too early. Demographically, it does not matter whether people aren’t born at all, or whether they die prematurely. Economically, the difference is significant, since bearing and raising children only to have them die early is a waste of resources. A single healthy person with a good education employed in a good job when he reaches maturity is better than two sickly people who line up for government handouts.

Historically, this is how the rich countries became rich: they improved labor productivity by simultaneously reducing birth and mortality rates. Incidentally, these factors also contributed to a significant population growth. But, since this population growth went hand in hand with an even greater increase of the size and productivity of the economically active population, today’s rich nations were able to combine rapid population growth with rapid economic development.

What Russia needs is not more babies, but more healthy people who are able to work. For this, it has to find both short- and long-term solutions, including, but not limited to, a significant increase of excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, smart immigration policies, public education campaigns on general and reproductive health, more stringent enforcement of traffic and workplace safety rules, and improved medical care. Some of these policies will cost little, while others may prove expensive in the short term.

Clearly, none of this should come as news to any literate person. But, considering the tendency of the current demographic debate in Russia to focus on non-issues such as population size, birth-rates, territorial integrity, or military security, it seems necessary to point out the trivial. There have been serious voices suggesting natalist policies – it should be clear to anyone that this would be a serious blow against the future of Russia. Any fear mongering regarding the security of Russia’s territory or identity due to a decreased overall population should be nipped in the bud, and natalist m ideology should be exposed as the idiocy it really is.

Dietwald Claus Kirov, Russia.

Russia, Demographics, Population Crisis, Looming Disaster - JRL 3-22-06

Parihaka

I don't see it so much as a socialist/political issue as a new rise in nationalism, but on a European level rather than an individual country. The perceived external threat of Islamic immigration being a case in point, trade protection being another. The whole economic union thing is based on exclusivity and protection. Russia I include because of it's oil and gas.

JohnFlint1985

Well I can agree on that. But I also see it as a sign of weakness. European Union is trying to distance itself from USA is also another factor. In all I think that in general Europe is becoming more a liability than an asset in any future Geo political problems. The only exception maybe UK which has tensions with the rest of Europe. Historically it was a "triangular" politics which characterize European affairs. "Three corners" being: France, Germany (Spain before that) and UK. Once you have 2 of the three on one side the other one is having problems. As of now I see a close French- German association. It is coming as a contrast and a clear competition to NATO. UK is so far on the other side of it, but is having problems with EU. Also Election of Merkel in Germany and Sarkozy in France may slow this process I doubt it will be reversed. Because it is a long 40 years process of education, propaganda and media campaign. It will take much more than just one president with different views. So in so many words Pandora box is open now and it is almost impossible to change that.

JohnFlint1985

I do agree with you as well. Also please understand it is not an open war that is threatens Russia. Internal strife can be equally deadly. Russian Muslims can try to create a sovereign country of their own. Or pan Turkic ambitions and history may play a role. Finally China always put in all it's text books that it's territory used to look like a maple leaf. The missing part is Mongolia and Siberia and part of India which is called Bengal. Even from this notion you can see the direction of their foreign policy if the opportunity will present itself.

Parihaka

Yes it is a weakness, and yes I differentiate Britain from Europe. Geopolitically their island status hasn't been this pronounced since WWII.

Feanor

Turkic, unlikely. Though I would argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union and conflict between it's former republics qualifies as internal strife. About an independent Muslim state, Chechnya? Tatarstan anyone? It's all so close to becoming a reality.

However there is another interesting view. Russian demographics have show marked improvement recently. If the trend of improvement continues we may see population stabilize at around 130 million in 2025, and possibly back up to 150 million by 2050 with further growth a reality. That of course would be a best case scenario. I'm not sure how likely it is

JohnFlint1985

It is interesting that the only regions that show fertility rate above 2.1 (replacement rate) in Russia are - Muslim regions. The rest are falling sharply. Also another scenario that Russia may become DE facto Muslim country in 30 years - just simply by numbers.

Nationalism which I see in continental Europe and in Russia is very real. It is built on few factors. 1. Anti-Americanism - De Gaulle creation 50 years ago only for France, now adopted for whole Europe 2. No backbone policy whatsoever with Arab and Muslim countries in order to get oil and gas which support European economies without interruption. 3. Complete lack of support for joint (USA-Europe) military cooperation among European elites 4. Euro as currency is created to directly challenge and possibly beat American dollar 5. Protectionism on the whole European level against any challenge. 6. Certain ideas from Russia are adopted for whole Europe as a policy today, due to dependency on Russian natural gas supply. For example Germany takes 65% of Russian gas. Thus more and more hostile rhetoric from Western Europe to-wards USA based on Russian point of view - for instance future anti ballistic missile radar and interceptors in Eastern Europe against Iran, but which arose huge Russian outcry.