Age-specific Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia* Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan Abstract: Ravenstein, writing in 19th century papers, observed that migration varied with the life course. However, he did not investigate this variation in detail, as the necessary data were not then available. Age-specifi c migration has been a focus for researchers of migration in the 20th and 21st centuries. Building on this research, the current paper explores age-specifi c migration in Russia focussing on its spatial di- versity. We compare age-specifi c migration patterns found in Russia and those ob- served in other developed countries. For this investigation, we mainly use Russian administrative data on residence registration for 2012-2016, together with informa- tion on populations by age in the latest census in 2010. The data are analysed using a classifi cation of local administrative units classifi ed by degree of remoteness from Russia’s principal cities (regional centres). The main results are as follows: In Russia, young people participate strongly in migration fl ows between peripheral territories and regional centres. The net migra- tion surplus in regional centres is mostly produced by the migration of 15-19 year- olds starting further and higher education courses. Peak migration occurs in this age group. This type of migration represents upward mobility in the spatial hierar- chy because institutions of higher education are located in the large cities. People aged 20-29 and 30-39 migrate in much smaller numbers, but they also replenish the population of regional centres. The infl ow of middle-aged migrants and families with children was directed to the areas located closest to the regional centres, the suburbs. This type of migration is observed in regions with a well-developed mid- dle class with high purchasing power, for example, in the city of Moscow and in the Moscow Region. Peripheral territories have similar profi les of age-specifi c migration, but of loss rather than gain. The farther they are from regional centres, the more signifi cant the outfl ow of young people and the stronger the impact of migration on popula- tion ageing. The rural periphery and small cities attract only elderly migrants, but this infl ow is far smaller than the outfl ow of young people. The directions and age Comparative Population Studies Vol. 44 (2019): 413-446 (Date of release: 27.05.2020) Federal Institute for Population Research 2020 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2020-12en URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2020-12en4 * This article belongs to a special issue on “Internal Migration as a Driver of Regional Population Change in Europe: Updating Ravenstein”. • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan414 selectivity of migration observed in other countries are thus also found in Russia, although there are important differences associated with the nature of housing in Russian cities and regions. Keywords: Internal migration · Russia · Net migration · Regional centres and periphery · A ge 1 Introduction Migration greatly contributes to the transformation of demographics at the regional and municipal level. Young people are traditionally the most mobile group. Raven- stein (1876) argued that in England and Wales, teenagers and single young adults accounted for the major share of migrants. In Russia, the results of the fi rst popula- tion census conducted in 1897 similarly showed that single young peasants com- prised the most numerous migrant group (Tihonov 1978). The migration behaviour of young people has a major impact on many territo- ries of arrival and departure in terms of their demographic characteristics. How- ever, there are territories where the population structure is more dependent on the mobility patterns of working-age groups and elderly people. Such territories may specialise in certain manufacturing activities, have specifi c market functions, stand out as unique natural and climatic zones or have other important characteristics. We suggest that age-specifi c migration patterns should be analysed at lower levels of spatial hierarchy. The consequences of the diverse factors infl uencing migration are more explicit at these levels rather than at the level of large regions, where the infl uence of one group of factors can be compensated or neutralised by other factors. For example, at the regional level, population growth compensates for the population decline as a result of migration exchange between centres and peripheries, between urban and rural areas, and between more developed and less developed municipalities. Migration statistics on municipalities in Russia have been published open ac- cess since 2012.1 Analysing these data, we can understand a) how the age profi le of net migration varies depending on the remoteness of a territory from the regional centre; and b) how the age profi les of migration of various types of regional centres and peripheral areas differ. As in other countries, migration in Russia has been selective in terms of age and, most likely, in terms of destination. However, due to specifi c historical circumstanc- es, as well as to the lack of open statistical data, these aspects of migration have been little studied. Only a few papers have addressed these issues (Rahmanova 1994; Moiseenko 2004). Therefore, it was hardly possible to speculate about pos- 1 Database on the municipal formation indicators http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/bd_ munst/munst.htm Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 415 sible differences or similarities between Russia and other countries. With this paper we aim to fi ll this knowledge gap. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. We begin with an analysis of the academic discourse on age-specifi c migration patterns in different types of territories. We then describe our approach to the analysis of migration in regional centres and regional peripheries. We present the results of the analysis of the exist- ing age structure of the population, age-specifi c patterns of net migration in centres and various types of peripheral areas. As a separate case, we analyse the Moscow agglomeration. Finally, we conclude the paper with a discussion of results and sug- gestions regarding further research. 2 Previous research The migration relationship between centres and peripheries is a complex multi- lateral process no longer described as one-way movement and not considered as “effets de vases communicants“ (Dasre et al. 2009). Depending on countries and regions, this process has various forms and scale. In the USSR, the difference be- tween centres and peripheries was signifi cant. However, at that time, the authorities took measures to constrain the growth of the largest cities. Therefore, population distribution between rural and urban areas was not motivated by the size of the cities. The stage of mature urbanisation took a long time because of the numerous turbulences of the 20th century (Nefedova/Treivish 2003). After the dissolution of the USSR, the socio-economic discrepancies between the regions and within the ter- ritories increased, while the major administrative barrier of propiska2 was removed. These factors could have led to the intensifi cation of population redistribution be- tween centres, suburbs and peripheries. Moreover, this process could have been more intensive than in the countries where urbanisation and the centre-periphery relationship between territories underwent an evolutionary development. Nowadays, the patchy distribution of the population in Russia is mostly the result of migration (Karachurina/Mkrtchyan 2015). The most noticeable elements are the regional centres. Usually, these are cities with a population of over 200,000 which attract migrants from the same region. The largest and more economically devel- oped centres are also attractive for migrants coming from neighbouring regions (Karachurina/Mkrtchyan 2016; Zubarevich 2010). Moscow and St. Petersburg lead not only in terms of size but also in terms of economic prosperity, and serve as migration destinations for migrants from all over the country. Migration to these 2 Propiska is a residence registration system which required the offi cial permission of authorities to register one’s residence in the USSR, thus constraining the movement of people. In 1993, the rules changed, requiring people to simply notify the local authorities about the change of residence instead of obtaining special permission to do so. While major barriers to migration were removed, some restrictions remained: for example, if a person was not registered at the place of residence, she/he had limited access to social protection. • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan416 destinations confi rms that “migrants who move longer distances tend to choose major sources of economic activity“ (Ravenstein 1885). Most peripheral territories in Russia experience migration outfl ows. Very few of them have cities that serve as destinations for people coming from neighbouring areas, following the logic of the prevalence of short distance migration, as noted by Ravenstein (1885, 1889). This stage of centre-periphery relationship development, when migration fl ows are directed to the centres, occurred in most developed countries decades ago (Berry 1980; Champion 1987; Geyer/Kontuly 1993). Unlike in Russia, the concentra- tion of the population which resulted from migration can be found in urban centres in those countries but not necessarily in regional centres. For example, in Great Brit- ain, young and vibrant cities stand out as areas with net migration surplus, against the general tendency of counter urbanisation (Dennett/Stillwell 2010). In the countries of eastern Europe, the concentration of the population in large cities occurred later than in western Europe (Kupiszewski et al. 1998; Raagmaa 2003; Vobecka 2010). Currently, some eastern European countries are undergoing re-urbanisation as experienced in a number of urban districts in the countries of western Europe (Sander 2014; Haase et al. 2017). In contemporary Russia, migration to the centres still remains the key migration trend: the larger the centres, the more migrants move there (Nefedova/Treivish 2017; Zubarevich 2010). Therefore, we can conclude that internal migration patterns are associated with the stages of urban development. At the initial stages of urbanisation, internal mi- gration fl ows are directed only one way, resulting in the concentration of people in large city centres (Ravenstein 1885; Vining/Pallone 1982; Geyer/Kontuly 1993). At the later stages of urban development, alongside stronger economic diversifi cation and the growing popularity of alternative places of residence (Berry 1980), and due to the greater variety of consumer preferences (Long/Deare 1988), migration fl ows start taking other directions. People move from cities to suburbs and to rural areas, as well as between cities of different size and type (Champion et al. 2014); not only up but also down the escalator (Fielding 1989, 1992), and up and down the urban hierarchy (de Jong et al. 2016). Migration trends in more densely populated territo- ries differ from those in less populated areas (Stillwell et al. 1990; Rees et al. 1996). Migration patterns become more complicated and diverse in terms of the distribu- tion of population across the territory of the country. On the other hand, Bell et al. (2015), Bernard et al. (2014), Kalogirou (2005), Den- nett/Stillwell (2010), Millington (2000) traced the link between migration patterns and life course events. They revealed that, across countries, the life course events driving migration may occur at different points in time and may vary in terms of duration. However, migration events are always linked to some stages of the life course. Meanwhile, the research project conducted by the Council of Europe for several years reveals that the only common feature of age-specifi c migration profi les of the countries is the infl ow of young people to large urban agglomerations (Rees/ Kupiszewski 1999). The migration of the young can be treated as an ordinary life course event. Fielding (1989, 1992; Savage/Fielding 1989) describes so-called esca- Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 417 lator regions, where young ambitious people come to make use of the existing op- portunities and then leave. Hansen and Niedomysl (2009) show that the difference in the “people climate“ between the place of birth/youth and prospective migration destinations is important to consider when analysing the migration of the young. Quite logically, such comparatively “better“ cities become even more successful thanks to young immigrants (Berry/Glaeser 2005; Findlay et al. 2009; Fratesi 2014; Gordon et al. 2015; Winters 2011). Smaller cities, rural territories with fewer op- portunities for a good education, fewer employment prospects, and little potential for social and economic growth are unable to retain their young population. That is why the outfl ow of young people from rural areas always exceeds the outfl ow from cities. Research conducted in Scotland demonstrates that the youth outfl ow from periphery areas can be signifi cant (Gillies 2014). Argent and Walmsley (2008) showed that in Australia, migration distance and migration frequency depend on the remoteness of the rural peripheral areas from the centres. This is an indicative case for our research because in Australia we fi nd a specifi c system of population distribution, like in Russia. Other age groups do not demonstrate similarities in terms of migration destina- tions. The age groups are heterogeneous in terms of the reasons for and the objec- tives of migration: there is no common dominating motivation driving the migration of the middle-aged and the elderly. For example, de Jong et al. (2016) fi nd that in the Netherlands, migrants aged 18-44 move between different levels of urban hierarchy in both directions: upwards when migrating to large cities, and downwards when going to smaller cities, and 70 percent of migrants aged 35-44 choose smaller cit- ies as migration destinations. In France, the 23-33 age-group is the key contributor to suburbanisation, while in general, migration to the suburbs and rural areas in- creases with age (Détang-Dessendre et al. 2008). In the United States, and in many European countries, middle-aged married couples usually consider moving to the suburbs, especially after the birth of children (Plane/Jurjevich 2009). In case of Great Britain, people move from the suburbs to more rural areas, including seaside ter- ritories (Dennett/Stillwell 2010). Fuguitt and Heaton (1995) argue that fast developing areas are attractive destina- tions for migrants of all ages. Martel et al. (2013) fi nd that escalator regions can draw not only young and highly qualifi ed migrants but also people of pre-retirement age who are driven by the desire to ensure a decent standard of living after retirement. Ultimately, there is no single factor explaining why a family considers one place or another more comfortable to live in; the decision is based on complex interactions between family members and can be motivated by a change of job and housing (Clark/Withers 2007; Mulder 2006). Numerous migration studies devoted to the “young elderly“ are focused on their desire to leave large cities and move to areas with better environmental conditions and lower housing prices (Millington 2000; Raymer et al. 2007), while the “old el- derly“ want to return to a previous place of residence or move closer to their rela- tives (Litwak/Longino 1987; Rogerson et al. 1997). Détang-Dessendre et al. (2008) demonstrate that in France, the old elderly are more inclined to leave large cities, but widowhood makes them return to cities. Rerat et al. (2008) conclude that in the • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan418 case of Switzerland, there is no evidence confi rming that the old elderly return to cities in great numbers. In Denmark, the old elderly would prefer to move to the suburbs of Copenhagen where they fi nd a better environment and good access to services (Kupiszewski et al. 2001). In general, the periphery has a quieter lifestyle which is attractive for people of certain ages, habits and social capital (Blowers/Leroy 1994; Polèse/Shearmur 2006; Kauppila 2011; Pileček et al. 2013). Therefore, it is quite logical to suggest that a net migration surplus in the rural periphery – if any – is more likely to result from the migration of the elderly (Fuguitt/Heaton 1995; Philip et al. 2013); even for these people, a migration decision is the result of an interplay between life course events, economic factors and chance (Stockdale 2014). These examples show that the choice of migration destination – be it a centre, suburb or peripheral area – varies for migrants of different age and at different life stages. Plane and Heins (2003) analysed the directions of migration across districts in the United States and identifi ed clusters of territories based on the migration preferences of people from different age groups. Qualitative research fi ndings more often indicate that such a standardised interpretation of migration (associated with life course events) simplifi es reality (Kalogirou 2005; Plane et al. 2005; Stockdale 2014), and that the age-specifi c migration profi le of the territories belonging to dif- ferent levels of urban hierarchy is more complicated. In the case of Russia, we observe even more complicated age-specifi c migra- tion profi les. Most of Russia’s territory is sparsely populated, even in the European part where most of the population is concentrated (Glezer/Vainberg 2014). The vast peripheral areas of Russian regions are still different in terms of the historically es- tablished structure of settlement networks (for example, small settlement pattern in the west of the country, large settlement pattern in the south, and fragmented set- tlement system in the north and north-east). Other differences concern the acces- sibility of the peripheral territories, the presence or lack of peripheral cities acting as local sub-centres, their size and economic potential. Finally, these territories are not equally attractive for young people, middle-aged and elderly people. Age-specifi c migration in Russia has been studied at the country level (Moiseen- ko 2004) and at the level of large regions (Rahmanova 1994). Studies focusing on age-specifi c migration at the level of regions (Kashnitsky et al. 2016) and municipali- ties are quite recent (Karachurina/Mkrtchyan 2018). The objective of this paper is to investigate how the age-specifi c migration patterns observed in Europe and the United States are manifested in Russia considering its peculiar socio-historical de- velopment, and compares the age profi les of net migration in central and peripheral municipalities. Such comparative analysis yields more meaningful insights than a comparison of large administrative areas of the country. Age profi les of net migration in the cen- tres of various parts of the country have more similarities than those in centres and nearest peripheral territories. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and these equally deserve attention. We analyse net migration in different types of territories (regional centres, vari- ous types of peripheral territories, differing in remoteness from regional centres) Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 419 within the same level of urban hierarchy (to some extent, corresponding to NUTS-3 level).3 We aim to fi nd differences in age-specifi c migration profi les of MFs4 of the regional centres and MFs of the periphery areas. Finally, we answer the question of whether the Russian migration model corresponds to the migration trends ob- served in developed countries, and we describe its peculiarities. Unlike Plane and Heins (2003) and de Jong et al. (2016), we cannot use the data on migration fl ows between urban hierarchy levels. Our data compare the results of population redistribution using the net migration data for various age groups and types of territories – centres and peripheral areas. 3 Methods and data Our research on age-specifi c net migration in Russia’s MFs relies on the following: • data on the age composition of the population in Russia’s MFs derived from Russia’s 2010 census; • administrative data from the Russian Federal State Statistics Service con- cerning net migration by 5-year age groups for intraregional, interregional and international migration fl ows for Russia’s MFs for the period 2012-2016; • administrative data from the Russian Federal State Statistics Service on the age composition (by 5-year age groups) of the population in Russia’s MFs for the period 2012-2016. We use migration data from administrative sources. These data are similar to the migration data derived from population registers for migration research in Eu- ropean countries (Bell et al. 2015). The number of migration events does not always coincide with the number of people who migrate, as of the end of the year. In our analysis we use the data on migrants’ age for the year when migration occurred. The data on migration infl ows and outfl ows is available for almost all MFs of the regions of Russia starting in 2012 or 2013. However, the interpretation of the data at this level is a separate task which we envisage to complete in another research. As of 1 January 2012, there were 83 regions in Russia (Appendix 1) divided into 2,334 MFs. This level of administrative-territorial units covered 517 urban okrugs and 1,817 municipal districts5 (Fig. 1). In Russia, urban okrugs mainly refer to cities, 3 NUTS system is not directly compatible the Russian administrative division system. With a considerable degree of conditionality, we can compare Russian regions and territories of the NUTS-2 level, as well as municipal formations (MFs) and territories of the NUTS-3 level by popu- lation size (Kashnitsky 2018). 4 Municipal formations in Russia are administrative territorial divisions with local self-govern- ment. 5 The list of the regions of Russia can be found in Appendix 1. MFs (city districts and municipal districts) which belong to a particular region are indicated in the Russian Federation Population by Municipal Districts as of 1 January 2012. Statistical Bulletin. Moscow. Rosstat 2013 [https:// gks.ru/compendium/document/13282]. • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan420 although these areas sometimes include adjacent rural populations. Municipal dis- tricts are administrative divisions inhabited by both urban and rural populations, or by rural populations only. Data on 2,208 MFs – 94.6 percent of all MFs in the country (96.3 percent of the population) – were available for analysis. Information was not available on MFs in Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Tyva, Chukotsky Autonomous Okrug and closed administrative-territorial units (CATUs). The total population size of the MFs not covered in our research is 5.4 million people (the population of the CATUs is 1.2 million). The federal cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and other large cities were ana- lysed without further division into intra-urban municipal territories because, in Rus- sia, the change of place of residence within a city is not considered a migration event. For the purposes of our analysis, we divide all municipal formations into “Cen- tres“ and “Periphery MFs“. “Centres“ include capital cities of regions and the sub- urban MFs surrounding these centres. If a regional centre borders more than one MF (and the centre is located at the intersection of MFs), these MFs are considered as belonging to the centre (Fig. 2). The remaining MFs in each region are treated as peripheral (See: Mkrtchyan 2019). Fig. 1: Method of categorisation of the centres and periphery in Russia at the two small administrative levels Note: Figures in brackets denote the number of units at the given administrative level Source: Compiled by authors using “Rosstat 2013: The population of the Russian Federa- tion by municipal formations as of January 1, 2012. Statistical Bulletin. Moscow" Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 421 For our analysis, we divided peripheral areas into categories based on the crite- ria of physical and conventional remoteness from the centre. Physical remoteness is the distance between an MF and the regional centre, measured in kilometres using existing transport routes. Conventional remoteness is denoted by ranks of remote- ness from a regional centre. Centres and adjacent suburbs are MFs of the zero rank (Fig. 3). Those MFs that are adjacent to the central MFs are considered fi rst-rank MFs, while those adjacent to fi rst-rank MFs are MFs of second rank, and so on to MFs of the fi fth and higher ranks. Such ranking allows us to compare areas of Rus- sian regions of different size. For example, fi fth rank of remoteness – regardless of the level of development – is a remote periphery, although it may be located 100 km or 250 km away from a regional centre. A time criterion could be used to measure the distance of migration. However, we do not have the relevant data for all regions and MFs in Russia. In addition, in the case of Russia, physical distance closely correlates with temporal accessibility, except for the suburbs of Moscow and St. Petersburg: these areas benefi t from a well-developed public transport network and a dense motorway network. For ex- ample, a two-hour temporal accessibility to a regional centre would correspond to the same measure of spatial accessibility in most Russian regions because the road infrastructure in the regions provides similar time options for distance coverage (Neretin 2018; Neretin et al. 2019). Fig. 2: Method of categorisation of the centres composed of a regional centre and adjacent suburbs Source: own design • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan422 The main variable used in the analysis is net migration by 5-year age groups6 per 1,000 people of the corresponding age calculated for all MFs as an average for the period 2012-2016. Analysis of the MF-specifi c net migration by 5-year age groups allows us to de- termine which migration fl ows (intraregional, interregional or international fl ows) contribute to the net migration surplus or defi cit in each MF. Tabulation of migration fl ows by age and scale of migration enables us to determine how important intrare- gional, interregional and international migration fl ows are at each life course stage. Thus, we combine the age-specifi c dimension of migration with a specifi c clas- sifi cation of territorial units, which allows us to differentiate between MFs by migra- tion indicators. We also use Russia’s population census data of 2010 to compare the age composition of populations in centres and peripheral areas. Fig. 3: Method of categorisation of the periphery areas by rank of remoteness from the centre Source: own design 6 The age groups are 0-4 years (including children aged under 1 who were born in the year of migration), 5-9 years. 10-14 years, 15-19 years and so on. Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 423 4 Results 4.1 Age composition of the population in the centres and peripheral areas The age compositions of the population in central and peripheral MFs are not simi- lar. Central MFs have a larger share of young people and working-age population (in Russia, working age is defi ned in legislation as 15-54 years for women and 15-59 years for men7). Peripheral areas have a larger share of children, but the share of elderly people is almost the same (Table 1). These differences result from different birth rates in large cities (most of them are regional centres) and rural areas (which make up the major part of the peripheral areas). In rural areas, the birth rate is still higher (Vishnevskij 2014); therefore, in peripheral MFs, the number of children is greater, although the number of people of reproductive age (20-49 years) is lower than in the regional centres. 7 This retirement age was set in Russia in 1932 (based on the low life expectancy rates) and re- mained as such until 2018. Tab. 1: Age structure of the population in centres and peripheral MFs in Russia, 2010, % Age Total Centres Periphery Proximity of periphery areas to the group population MFs regional centre 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th rank rank rank rank rank and beyond 0-4 5.6 5.1 6.0 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.1 5-9 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.5 10-14 4.6 4.1 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.4 15-19 5.9 6.0 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 20-24 8.5 9.2 7.9 8.2 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.5 25-29 8.4 9.0 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.7 30-34 7.7 8.1 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 35-39 7.1 7.3 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 7.0 40-44 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.5 45-49 7.5 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8 50-54 8.0 7.7 8.3 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 55-59 7.0 6.8 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 60-64 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 65-69 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 70-74 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.4 75-79 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 80-84 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 85+ 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Authors’ computations using Russia’s 2010 Census [https://www.gks.ru/free_doc/ new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi1612.htm] • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan424 The birth rate in large cities is lower than in the peripheral areas, but due to the infl ow of young people, the age structure becomes younger. The shares of middle- aged people and the elderly in the centres and peripheral areas are almost equal. On the one hand, Rees et al. (2017) point out to the “high migration effective- ness“ in Russia which could lead to signifi cant differences in age composition of the population in centres and periphery MFs. On the other hand, the consequence of the “high migration effectiveness“ could be the convergence between centres and periphery areas, due to the higher birth rate and younger age structure of the periphery. In any case, the centres benefi t from the migration infl ow of the young. 4.2 Age profi les of migration fl ows in the centres and peripheral areas Regional centres and peripheral areas have different age-specifi c net migration pro- fi les for all types of migration fl ows (Table 2). Only international migrants contribute to the net migration surplus both in centres and peripheral MFs. However, the inten- sity of international migration infl ow in centres is higher than in peripheral MFs. For intraregional and interregional migration, centres and peripheries differ substan- tially. In other words, a net migration surplus is observed only in the centres, while peripheral areas suffer from a net migration defi cit. The redistribution of the population between the centres and peripheral MFs is mainly driven by the movement of young and middle-aged people (Fig. 4). The high- est migration peak in the 15-19 age group is observed in intraregional migration. This peak is driven by educational migration,8 with the main infl ow being directed toward regional centres from other cities of the same region and from rural areas. Tab. 2: Net migration in the regional centres and peripheral MFs, by various types of migration fl ows, average for the period 2012-2016, per 1,000 people Including Total Intraregional Interregional International migration migration migration migration Regional centres 9.4 3.9 2.9 2.7 Peripheral MFs*: -2.9 -2.8 -1.9 1.8 1st rank 1.2 -1.3 0.4 2.1 2nd rank -3.3 -3.1 -2.2 2.0 3rd rank -5.0 -3.6 -2.8 1.4 4th rank -5.3 -3.5 -3.0 1.2 5th rank and higher -7.2 -4.2 -4.4 1.3 * by rank of proximity to the regional centre Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) [https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] 8 It is very common in Russia that 80 percent of school graduates (after 11th grade) choose to continue studying after school (Bessudnov et al. 2017). Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 425 Fig. 4: Net migration (surplus or defi cit) in the centres and in periphery MFs, by types of migration fl ows and age groups, average for the period 2012- 2016, per 1,000 people of the corresponding age -5,0 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 0- 4 5- 9 10 -1 4 15 -1 9 20 -2 4 25 -2 9 30 -3 4 35 -3 9 40 -4 4 45 -4 9 50 -5 4 55 -5 9 60 -6 4 65 -6 9 70 + age groups intraregional interregional international migration per 1,000 The centre -20,0 -15,0 -10,0 -5,0 0,0 5,0 0- 4 5- 9 10 -1 4 15 -1 9 20 -2 4 25 -2 9 30 -3 4 35 -3 9 40 -4 4 45 -4 9 50 -5 4 55 -5 9 60 -6 4 65 -6 9 70 + age groups intraregional interregional international migration per 1,000 Periphery Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) [https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan426 Young people migrate from remote rural settlements and small cities to the regional centre to gain higher educational or technical qualifi cations and as a way to escape their native settlements (Karachurina/Florinskaya 2019; Endryushko 2018). This is a very popular strategy. The age profi le of interregional migration is smoother be- cause the fl ow is composed of both educational migrants and young people who relocate after graduation in search of jobs (20-29 age group). International migration has the smoothest age profi le: a migration peak is observed in the 25-29 age group and this infl ow is not associated with education. In Russia, life course events such as graduation from school, enrolment in uni- versity and graduation from university have clear connections to specifi c ages; therefore, the migration to centres which provide higher university or technical education that happens at a certain age produces a noticeable impact on migration fl ows. Here, the peaks of migration are higher than in many developed countries where the life trajectories of people are more diverse and life-course events have a less strict connection to age (Billari/Liefbroer 2010; Bernard et al. 2014, 2016). All peripheral MFs experience an out-migration of student-age populations who move to regional centres (Fig. 5). In Russia, large universities that are attractive to students can only be found in regional centres, with rare exceptions (the cities of Surgut, Novokuznetsk, Sochi and a small number of other large cities which are not capitals of the regions). Young people tend not to return to their origin MFs but instead fi nd jobs and partners in the destination centres or equivalent centres (Kashnitsky 2018; Zamjatina/Jashunskij 2012). 4.3 Age-specifi c migration processes in the Moscow agglomeration The differentiation between centres and peripheries is important because it helps explain the direction and composition of migration fl ows. Other factors should not be ignored either. For example, migration in MFs within the largest Russian ag- glomeration does not exactly correspond to the scheme describing the relationship between the centre and periphery of regions. For instance, all MFs within Moscow Oblast (region), regardless of how remote they are from the city centre, are popular destinations for migrants from other regions of the country. This is a manifestation of the centre-periphery relationship at the country level rather than at the region- al level. A similar pattern is observed in the Leningrad Oblast (the St. Petersburg agglomeration). Immigration fl ows to Moscow, St. Petersburg and to the Moscow Oblast and the Leningrad Oblast from other regions of the country were also quite signifi cant during the Soviet era. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this mi- gration infl ow intensifi ed due to the disappearance of previous administrative barri- ers (Zajonchkovskaya/Mkrtchyan 2009). When compared by the net migration rate, MFs adjacent to the centre of the larg- est agglomeration in Russia (Moscow) surpass the capital (Table 3). This phenom- enon is the result of two independent processes: 1) The capital of Russia, just like other large cities of the country, is prone to “urban sprawl“. Blocks of multi-storey buildings in districts close to Moscow make these areas look exactly like Moscow-city districts or the Moscow sub- Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 427 Fig. 5: Net migration (surplus or defi cit) in the periphery MFs of varying remoteness from the centres, by age groups, average for the period 2012-2016, per 1,000 people of the corresponding age -25,0 -20,0 -15,0 -10,0 -5,0 0,0 5,0 0- 4 5- 9 10 -1 4 15 -1 9 20 -2 4 25 -2 9 30 -3 4 35 -3 9 40 -4 4 45 -4 9 50 -5 4 55 -5 9 60 -6 4 65 -6 9 70 + age groups 1st-rank from the centre 2 3 4 5st-rank and lower per 1,000 Intraregional migration -25,0 -20,0 -15,0 -10,0 -5,0 0,0 5,0 0- 4 5- 9 10 -1 4 15 -1 9 20 -2 4 25 -2 9 30 -3 4 35 -3 9 40 -4 4 45 -4 9 50 -5 4 55 -5 9 60 -6 4 65 -6 9 70 + age groups 1st-rank from the centre 2 3 4 5st-rank and lower per 1,000 Interregional migration Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) [https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan428 urbs. This process, however, hardly resembles the development of low-sto- rey suburbs observed in other countries. The case of Moscow qualifi es as another stage of the classic process of urbanisation. The new multi-storey buildings attract interregional migrants and those residents of Moscow who wish to have an additional apartment or to move to a larger apartment (Ku- richev/Kuricheva 2018; Kuricheva/Popov 2015). Housing in the cities adjacent to Moscow is less costly than in the centre of Moscow. 2) As in the suburbs of cities in developed countries (Miller 1995; Kupiszewski et al. 1998; Champion/Hugo 2004; Kladivo et al. 2015), in Russian agglomera- tions, we observe a growing number of more comfortable and eco-friendly villages of two- and three-storey houses and townhouses owned by affl u- ent people. However, Russian suburbanisation has its peculiarities in that the owners of suburban housing do not relocate from the capital to the suburbs; they prefer to live in both places, which is not refl ected in the migration sta- tistics of the Moscow Oblast. What makes the net migration pattern in the suburban MFs of the Moscow Oblast peculiar is the absence of student-age migrant infl ows (Fig. 6). Very few higher edu- cation institutions can be found in the Moscow Region, and student dormitories, as a rule, are also located in Moscow. Similarly, signifi cantly fewer migrants of early retirement age – in comparison with Moscow – contribute to the net migration sur- plus in the Moscow Oblast. The capital is more attractive for this category of the population because of the substantial additional payments to pensioners from the city budget. This factor prevents pensioners from moving out of the capital to other regions of Russia, even to the Moscow Oblast. In the event that such migration does Tab. 3: Net migration (surplus or defi cit) in Moscow and in MFs of Moscow Region, by types of migration fl ows, average for the period 2012-2016, per 1,000 people Including Migration, Intraregional Interregional** International total migration migration migration Moscow 7.1 0.0 6.1 1.0 MFs of the Moscow region, by remoteness from the centre of Moscow* <30 27.0 1.7 22.2 3.1 30-50 24.9 3.1 17.7 4.0 50-75 8.5 -1.9 7.7 2.7 75-100 3.5 -1.4 2.9 2.0 >100 1.3 -3.1 2.4 1.9 * remoteness from Moscow is calculated using the administrative borders of Moscow before its expansion in 2012 ** Migration between Moscow and the Moscow region is considered an interregional type of migration Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) [https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 429 take place, it is not refl ected in the statistical data since people do not cancel their Moscow registration so as not to lose pension-associated payments and healthcare services in Moscow (Karachurina/Ivanova 2019). Resettlement to the Moscow Oblast seems appealing to families with children. Our data show a signifi cant net migration surplus observed in the 0-4 and 5-9 age groups (Fig. 3). This phenomenon is relatively new to Russia and is explained by the increased effective demand for new housing in the 2000s and by a greater choice of such housing in the Moscow Oblast than in the city of Moscow. Thus, the 25-39 age group of the population in Russia demonstrates migration patterns similar to those of the same age group in the United States or European countries (when young families with children move from the city to the suburbs) (Morrill 1995; Smetkowski 2011; Kley 2011), although the reasons for this migration are not associated with more attractive ecology or the prestige of these territories (Makhrova/Kirillov 2015; Mkrtchyan 2015). 4.4 The age composition of migration in peripheral cities of various sizes and in rural areas Peripheral areas of Russian regions differ both in terms of their remoteness from the centres and in terms of having or lacking MFs that serve as local migration destina- tions. Such local destinations include, for example, large cities (with a population Fig. 6: Net migration (surplus or defi cit) in Moscow and territories of the Moscow region, by age-groups, average for the period of 2012-2016, per 1,000 people of the corresponding age 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 0- 4 5- 9 10 -1 4 15 -1 9 20 -2 4 25 -2 9 30 -3 4 35 -3 9 40 -4 4 45 -4 9 50 -5 4 55 -5 9 60 -6 4 65 -6 9 70 -7 5 75 -7 9 80 + age groups Moscow Moscow oblast per 1,000 Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) [https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan430 size of 100,000 or more) and mid-sized cities (50,000-100,000 people). In addition to urban settlements of different sizes, such MFs also include rural populations.9 To determine peripheral MFs with and without urban centres of different population sizes, we chose an indicator of the urban population share in the total population. Class 1 (see Table 4, Fig. 7) includes cities with a population that almost equals the population size of the corresponding MF. In other classes, the urban population ac- Note: Classes of the peripheral areas correspond to those in table 4. * The data on migration in MFs in four regions of Russia (the Dagestan Republic, the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, the Tuva Republic and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug), as well as migration data on towns and settlements belonging to the category of the closed administrative-territorial formations were not included into the MFD and were not available for the analysis. ** Closed administrative-territorial formations have functions associated with national security and defense. The statistical data on migration in these formations are not published in open access. *** We use Asia North Equal Area Conic (ESPG: 102025) projection Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) ]https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] 9 Unfortunately, existing statistical data do not allow us to distinguish cities within urban dis- tricts. Fig. 7: Centres and peripheral areas by classes Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 431 T a b . 4: N e t m ig ra ti o n ( su rp lu s o r d e fi ci t) in p e ri p h e ra l M F s, b y p o p u la ti o n s iz e a n d t h e s h a re o f u rb an p o p u la ti o n , av e ra g e f o r th e p e ri o d o f 2 01 2 -2 01 6 , p e r 1, 0 0 0 p e o p le C la ss M F p o p u la ti o n In cl u d in g M ig ra ti o n , to ta l In cl u d in g si ze a s o f th e p o p u la ti o n s iz e In tr a re g io n a l In te rr e g io n a l In te rn a ti o n a l b e g in n in g o f o f th e m a in c it y, 2 01 2 , th o u sa n d s th o u sa n d s C e n tr e s 9 .4 3 .9 2 .9 2 .7 P e ri p h e ra l M F s -2 .9 -2 .8 -1 .9 1. 8 U rb a n p o p u la ti o n s h a re a b o v e 7 5 p e rc e n t 1A A b o v e 1 0 0 A b o v e 1 0 0 0 .6 -0 .1 -1 .2 1. 9 1B 5 0 -1 0 0 5 0 -1 0 0 -2 .2 -0 .4 -3 .4 1. 7 1C B e lo w 5 0 B e lo w 5 0 -5 .0 -2 .8 -3 .7 1. 4 U rb a n p o p u la ti o n s h a re 5 0 -7 5 p e rc e n t 2 A A b o v e 1 0 0 5 0 -1 0 0 6 .9 -0 .5 4 .6 2 .8 2 B 5 0 -1 0 0 A b o u t 5 0 -0 .6 -2 .2 -0 .5 2 .1 2 C B e lo w 5 0 B e lo w 5 0 -7 .2 -5 .0 -3 .9 1. 7 U rb a n p o p u la ti o n s h a re b e lo w 5 0 p e rc e n t 3 A A b o v e 1 0 0 A b o u t 5 0 6 .9 -1 .1 6 .0 2 .1 3 B 5 0 -1 0 0 B e lo w 5 0 -1 .3 -2 .9 -0 .6 2 .2 3 C B e lo w 5 0 B e lo w 5 0 -6 .7 -5 .5 -3 .0 1. 8 W it h o u t u rb a n p o p u la ti o n ( o n ly r u ra l p o p u la ti o n ) 4 -6 .3 -5 .2 -2 .4 1. 3 S o u rc e : A u th o rs ’ co m p u ta ti o n s u si n g R u ss ia n S ta ti st ic al O ffi c e , M u n ic ip al F o rm at io n s D at ab as e ( M F D ) [h tt p s: // w w w .g ks .r u /s to ra g e / m e d ia b an k/ m u n st .h tm ] • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan432 counts for either a major (Class 2) or minor (Class 3) share of the total population. Class 4 is composed of municipal districts with an entirely rural population. Letters A, B and C serve to denote the population size of a given MF. In Russia, peripheral cities with larger population sizes experience less signifi - cant outfl ows of people. In total, net migration to the cities with a population above 100,000 people and located very far from regional capitals is almost zero (Class 1A). Such cities become centres and attract some migrants from adjacent MFs. These cities also tend to lose population because of out-migration to the regional centre (intraregional migration) or to a large neighbouring centre (interregional migration). Such cities, even large ones, are less attractive destinations for educational migra- tion compared to regional centres due to their limited educational infrastructure. Hence, young people in the 15-19 age group usually move out. Unlike regional cen- tres, these centres have a less diversifi ed labour market, with economies dominated by single companies and manufacturing. Thus, these cities strongly depend on the fi nancial and economic wellbeing of city-forming enterprises and industries, and they do not possess a permanent attractiveness as migration destinations (for ex- ample, the city of Toliatti is dependent on the automobile plant, and Novokuznetsk and Nizhniy Tagil depend on steelmaking plants). Apart from industrial cities, the category of mid-sized cities (Class 1B, Class 2A in Table 4) also includes the cities of Moscow and Leningrad regions. These act as “pe- ripheries“ within their regions but as “centres“ for interregional migration infl ows, which helps ensure a net interregional migration surplus. Further, other attractive migration destinations among mid-sized cities are resort cities located on the coast of the Black Sea and in the region of the Caucasian Mineral Waters. Some large (Class 1A) and medium-sized cities (Class 1B, Class 2A) with lucrative employment opportunities attract young professionals (20-29 years old). Such cities can be found in the oil- and gas-producing regions of the Urals, which are attractive for interregional migrants. People of pre-retirement and retirement ages move out of these cities. The infl ow of young people and the outfl ow of the elderly produce positive demographic changes (“rotation“) in these cities. Peripheral MFs with a purely rural population and small cities with a popula- tion under 50,000 inhabitants (categorised under Classes 1C, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4 in Table 4) experience the highest population outfl ow. Rural peripheries and small peripheral cities are primary migration donors for regional centres in intraregional migration. These peripheral areas are unable to lure either educational migrants (there are no higher education institutions, and the capabilities of technical colleg- es can only satisfy local demand) or middle-aged people because of the limited employment opportunities and low wages. Many rural peripheral areas have poor transport links to regional centres and provide insuffi cient social services for their population (e.g. schools and healthcare), even in comparison with other peripheral MFs. Migration infl ows to these cities can be explained by the return of people of pre-retirement and retirement ages, the low cost of housing, and a desire to escape from a large city. For these rural and semi-rural areas, the relationship between net migration and the degree of remoteness from the regional centre is evident: the further the Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 433 distance from the regional centre, the greater the migration outfl ow. Negative net migration is increasing both for intraregional and interregional migration (Table 5). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that the intensity of net migration in rural and semi-rural areas statistically differs at a 1-percent level of signifi cance for areas similarly remote from the centre. Additionally, 9.5 percent of intraregional variance and 4 percent of interregional migration is explained by the scatter of the selected categories depending on their remoteness from a regional centre. International immigration in Russia is mostly represented by the infl ow of mi- grants from countries which were formally members of the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine or Kazakhstan. These immigrants fi nd periphery areas are also attractive destination options: in the farthest periphery, one can purchase housing cheaply and obtain residential registration without actually living in the acquired property. In rural settlements with few inhabitants, the price of such housing is much lower Rank of remoteness of Total Including a peripheral MF from a migration Intraregional Interregional International regional centre migration migration migration Share of urban population 50-75 percent 1st rank -2.3 -2.9 -1.5 2.0 2nd rank -4.2 -3.6 -2.8 2.2 3rd rank -6.5 -3.8 -4.0 1.3 4th rank -6.4 -4.1 -3.6 1.3 5th rank and higher -7.0 -4.1 -4.2 1.3 Share of urban population below 50 percent 1st rank -5.4 -5.0 -2.1 1.6 2nd rank -3.6 -5.1 -0.4 2.0 3rd rank -6.0 -5.4 -2.4 1.8 4th rank -8.0 -6.4 -3.5 1.9 5th rank and higher -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 1.5 Only rural population 1st rank -0.8 -1.1 -1.3 1.5 2nd rank -7.2 -6.1 -2.4 1.3 3rd rank -8.3 -6.7 -2.7 1.2 4th rank -7.9 -6.3 -2.8 1.2 5th rank and higher -10.1 -7.6 -3.4 1.0 Tab. 5: Net migration (surplus or defi cit) in rural MFs and small peripheral cities* by rank of remoteness from regional centres, average for the period of 2012-2016, per 1,000 people * Classes 1C, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4 in Table 4. Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) [https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan434 Fig. 8: Net migration (surplus or defi cit) in various classes of MFs, by age groups, average for the period of 2012-2016, per 1,000 people of the corresponding age -35,0 -30,0 -25,0 -20,0 -15,0 -10,0 -5,0 0,0 5,0 0- 4 5- 9 10 -1 4 15 -1 9 20 -2 4 25 -2 9 30 -3 4 35 -3 9 40 -4 4 45 -4 9 50 -5 4 55 -5 9 60 -6 4 65 -6 9 70 + age groups 1A 1B, 2A 1C, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C 4 per 1,000 Intraregional migration -35,0 -30,0 -25,0 -20,0 -15,0 -10,0 -5,0 0,0 5,0 0- 4 5- 9 10 -1 4 15 -1 9 20 -2 4 25 -2 9 30 -3 4 35 -3 9 40 -4 4 45 -4 9 50 -5 4 55 -5 9 60 -6 4 65 -6 9 70 + age groups 1A 1B, 2A 1C, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C 4 per 1,000 Interregional migration Source: Authors’ computations using Russian Statistical Offi ce, Municipal Formations Da- tabase (MFD) [https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/munst.htm] Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 435 (Bogdanova/Schukina 2013; Tkachenko 2017). Another possible reason is the ac- cess to benefi ts and preferential treatment that some Russian regions offer those migrants who resettle to rural areas under the State program to assist the voluntary resettlement of compatriots living abroad. Rural areas and small peripheral cities experience the largest losses of young population due to intraregional migration (starting from the 15-19 age group). Many young people move to the regional centres to continue studies (Fig. 8). We estimate that for each student from a village or a small city going to study in the centre of another region (interregional migration), there are three migrants moving to the cen- tre of their region for the same reason (intraregional migration). People more often choose the capital of their region for educational migration for a number of reasons. Education in the leading universities of the country is available only to a limited number of young people; additionally here is the high cost of education and the cost of living away from home (Katrovskij 1999; Gibbons/Vignoles 2012). After graduation, the population of 20-29 year-olds in rural areas or small pe- ripheral cities (the rank of remoteness does not matter) more often become inter- regional migrants than younger people aged 15-19. Thus, the peripheral areas are not similar; MFs with large and mid-sized cities can keep young people from moving out, while small peripheral cities and rural areas experience intensive outfl ows of youth and insignifi cant infl ows of elderly people. 5 Conclusions Russia’s population tends to concentrate in regional centres, which follows from the data on the dynamics of population size in the two latest intercensal periods. Periph- eral MFs in all parts of the country suffer from a population decline; in more remote MFs, the population is decreasing faster (Karachurina/Mkrtchyan 2015). However, apart from its impact on population size, the redistribution of the population be- tween centres and intraregional peripheral areas also results in a transformation of the age structure of the population. In regional centres, due to migration, the share of the young working-age popu- lation is growing, which brings a positive effect in terms of economic development and creates an additional “demographic dividend“. Intraregional migration most signifi cantly contributes to making the population of the regional centres younger. However, in line with the logic of escalator mobility (Fielding 1992) we observe the following processes: after graduation, young people move out of regional centres but not back to peripheral MFs—they migrate to the centres of other regions, primarily to Russia’s largest cities, which are supra-regional centres. These cities attract migrants both from the same region and beyond. Apart from Moscow and St. Petersburg, supraregional centres include Novosibirsk, Yeka- terinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Samara and Krasnoyarsk (Zubarevich 2013). In regional centres, we observe the replacement of those who left with another infl ow of migrants from peripheral MFs as a result of intraregional migration. The • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan436 age structure of the population in the regional centres would not remain stable with- out permanent migration infl ows. Many centres attract migrants of all ages, but primarily young people. In the periphery, the outfl ow of young people negatively impacts the reproduc- tive capabilities of the population and speeds up its ageing. As in other countries (Dennett/Stillwell 2010; Conway/Houtenville 2003; Raymer et al. 2007), migration infl ow to peripheral MFs is composed of pre-pensioners and pensioners. However, its infl uence on population aging is incomparable with the impact of youth outfl ows from these territories. The scale of this infl ow is still too insignifi cant and in general, pensioners in Russia rarely migrate, which is in contrast with other countries where elderly people have long been on the move. The results of our analysis show that age-specifi c migration patterns in Russia are similar to those observed in other countries with regard to the mobility associ- ated with different stages of life. On the other hand, Russia has its peculiarities. For example, as in other countries, the infl ow of young people to regional centres is highest when they leave school and enrol in universities. However, in Russia, these life course events happen at the age of 18-19, while abroad, the same event can oc- cur at an older age and last longer (Bernard et al. 2014). We also found that in Russia, as in other developed countries (Morrill 1995; Kulu 2008; Vobecka 2010; Johnson/Winkler 2015), families with children tend to move to the suburbs of regional centres. This type of migration can be clearly observed in the Moscow suburbs, and emerges in other parts of the country (Mkrtchyan 2019). But migration from large city centres is still low, in contrast to the countries of west- ern Europe. A wide range of factors can explain why the suburbanisation process in Russia is slow and has its own peculiarities and affects only selected territories: 1) The existence of a permanent residence registration system and the com- plicated process of obtaining residence registration documents during the Soviet era and in the early years after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Later, some categories of the population (e.g. pensioners) became benefi ciaries of social assistance programs run by the Moscow and St. Petersburg govern- ments, so they refrained from resettling to the suburbs so as not to lose these benefi ts. As long as the infl ow of pre-retirement age people and elderly peo- ple to peripheral areas is negligible, it may be statistically underestimated. Many of these migrants do not change their permanent residence registra- tion documents; therefore, they do not fall under the statistical category of migrants. Similar problems with administrative data on migrants have been identifi ed by researchers in other eastern European countries (Gnatiuk 2017; Ouředníček 2007). 2) The middle class is slowly forming in large cities. As a result, the demand for expensive housing in suburbs remains low. Instead of moving to suburbs, many children from large cities live with their parents, with suffi cient space often lacking for all family members. In the largest urban agglomerations of Russia, however, we observe a different situation. Here, the process of sub- urbanisation is driven by middle-class households who move from the centre of the agglomeration to its periphery and by working-age people migrating from other regions of the country. The fi ndings of recent research (Kurichev/ Kuricheva 2018) show that both Muscovites and migrants from other regions Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 437 account for a signifi cant share of those who buy property in Moscow’s near- est periphery. 3) During the Soviet era, housing in the suburbs was mainly for summer accom- modation and had no social infrastructure (e.g. schools, hospitals, etc.). Mi- gration to the suburbs for permanent living was substituted by temporary mi- gration to the countryside for the summer season or for weekends (Makhrova et al. 2016). The peculiarity of the Russian case lies in the large size and diversity of the pe- ripheral areas. The rank of remoteness from the regional centre has no impact on the age-specifi c composition of migration fl ows in peripheral areas, but affects the intensity of the net migration decline. The age-specifi c migration patterns vary lit- tle across the periphery, with the key common feature being the outfl ow of young people. Russia inherited a centralised higher education system from the USSR; therefore, universities remain located mostly in regional centres and sometimes in other large cities. Institutions of secondary professional education are more evenly distributed across the country and can often be found in medium-sized cities or even small cities on the periphery. These educational institutions attract young mi- grants and help partially compensate for the outfl ow of the local young people to the regional centres. The degree of the urbanisation of peripheral areas (used in this paper as a sec- ond criterion for distinguishing between different types of peripheral areas) also determines the results of migration exchange between some MFs. The infl ow of young and middle-aged migrants is not observed in the peripheral areas located far from the regional centres (which makes daily commuting inconvenient) and in those peripheral areas not functioning as sub-centres (because these areas have a city with a population of 50,000-100,000 people or more). There are peripheral areas where the degree of urbanisation and the degree of re- moteness from regional centres produce no effect on migration intensity. These are 1) territories focussing on extractive activities (chiefl y oil and gas) and successfully functioning manufacturing cities that specialise in steel or machinery production, with higher income levels compared with other MFs; and 2) resort areas, primarily along the Black Sea coast. The remaining periphery can only attract pensioners if it has developed infrastructure and a mild climate , but the infl ow of pensioners to this periphery is still insignifi cant. In our opinion, this outcome can be explained by a lack of fi nancial resources for relocation (Guriev/Vakulenko 2015) and the diffi cult living conditions (in rural periphery) in the winter season. In general, centre-periphery migration patterns in Russia correspond to those observed in the United States and Europe, especially with regard to youth migra- tion. However, some noteworthy differences exist: 1) the outfl ow of population from large urban centres is still rather weak; 2) migration to the suburbs is not that widespread, and is associated with urban sprawl rather than suburbanisation; 3) migration of the elderly is a rare phenomenon, but elderly migrants, although not numerous, also choose rural areas and small cities as their destinations. To date, the migration statistics available in Russia allow us only to partially ana- lyse the age-migration links noted by Ravenstein (1876, 1885) and to argue that • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan438 some of them are found in Russia as well. At the same time, we cannot undertake a more detailed investigation of internal migration processes. For example, unlike Ra- venstein (Grigg 1977), we cannot analyse migration “step-by-step“ due to the incon- sistency of the data or the shortness of the time series, although such an analysis could make a relevant contribution to the studies of internal migration. Acknowledgements This article is an output of a research project implemented as part of the Basic Re- search Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. We would like to thank the Editors of the Special Issue for the opportunity to be among the authors of this issue and personally we would like to thank Philip Rees for his sincere and constructive questions and comments, as well as the reviewers of the article. References Argent, Neil; Walmsley, Jim 2008: Rural Youth Migration Trends in Australia: An Over- view of Recent Trends and Two Inland Case Studies. In: Geographical Research 46,2: 139-152 [doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2008.00505.x]. Bell, Martinet al. 2015: Internal Migration and Development: Comparing Migration In- tensities Around the World. In: Population and Development Review 41,1: 33-58 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00025.x]. Bernard, Aude; Bell, Martin; Charles-Edwards, Elin 2014: Life-Course Transitions and the Age Profi le of Internal Migration. In: Population and development review 40,2: 213-239 [doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2014.00671.x]. Bernard, Aude; Bell, Martin; Charles-Edwards, Elin 2016: Internal migration age patterns and the transition to adulthood: Australia and Great Britain compared. In: Journal of Population Research 33: 123-146 [doi: 10.1007/s12546-016-9157-0]. Berry, Brian 1980: Urbanisation and Counterurbanisation in the United States. In: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 451,1: 13-20 [doi: 10.1177/000271628045100103]. Berry, Christopher; Glaeser, Edward 2005: The divergence of human capital lev- els across cities. In: Papers in Regional Science 84,3: 407-444 [doi: 10.1111/j.1435- 5957.2005.00047.x]. Bessudnov, Alexey; Kurakin, Dmitry; Malik, Valeriya 2017: The Myth about Universal Higher Education: Russia in the International Context. In: Voprosy obrazovanija (Edu- cational Studies Moscow) 3: 83-109 [doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2017-3-83-109]. Billari, Francesco; Liefbroer, Aaart 2010: Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? In: Advances in Life Course Research 15,2-3: 59-75 [doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2010.10.003]. Blowers, Andrew; Leroy, Pieter 1994: Power, Politics and Environmental Inequality: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Process of ‘Peripheralisation’. In: Environ- mental Politics 3,2: 197-228 [doi: 10.1080/09644019408414139]. Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 439 Bogdanova, Lidiya; Schukina, Anna 2013: Large-scale social and demographic research- es of rural areas of Tver oblast. In: Problems of Geography 135: Geography of Popula- tion and Social Geography /Editors-in-Chief A.I. Alekseev, A.A. Tkachenko. Moscow: «Kodeks» Publishing House: 397-406. Champion, Anthony 1987: Recent changes in the pace of population deconcentration in Britain. In: Geoforum 18,4: 379-401 [doi: 10.1016/0016-7185(87)90029-7]. Champion, Tony; Hugo, Graeme, 2004: Introduction: Moving beyond the urban-ru- ral dichotomy. In: Champion, Tony; Graeme, Hugo (Eds.): New forms of Urbanisa- tion: Beyond the Urban-rural dichotomy. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing: 3-24 [doi: 10.4324/9781315248073]. Champion, Tony; Coombes, Mike; Gordon, Ian 2014: How far do England’s second-order cities emulate London as human-capital ‘escalators’? In: Population, space and place 20,5: 421-433 [doi: 10.1002/psp.1806]. Clark, William A.V.; Withers, Suzanne 2007: Family migration and mobility sequences in the United States: Spatial mobility in the context of the life course. In: Demographic Research 17,20: 591-622 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.20]. Conway, Karen; Houtenville, Andrew 2003: Out with the old, in with the old: A closer look at younger versus older elderly migration. In: Social Science Quarterly 84,2: 309- 328 [doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402006]. Dasre, Aurelien et al. 2009: Age selection by migrations and sociospatial concentra- tions. In: Espace-Populations-Societes 1: 67-84 [doi: 10.4000/eps.3567]. de Jong, Petra; Brouwer, Aleid; McCann, Philip 2016: Moving up and down the urban hierarchy: age-articulated interregional migration fl ows in the Netherlands. In: Annals of Regional Science 57: 145-164 [doi: 10.1007/s00168-016-0772-7]. Dennett, Adam; Stillwell, John C.H. 2010: Internal Migration in Britain, 2000-01, Exam- ined Through an Area Classifi cation Framework. In: Population, Space and Place 16,6: 517-538 [doi: 10.1002/psp.554]. Détang-Dessendre, Cecile; Goffette-Nagot, Florence; Piguet, Virginie 2008: Life cy- cle and migration to urban and rural areas: Estimation of a mixed logit model on French data. In: Journal of Regional Science 48,4: 789-824 [doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9787.2008.00571.x]. Endryushko, Anna 2018: Masshtaby i napravlenija migracii molodezhi Irkutskoj oblasti (1989-2015 gg.) (Scope and Directions of youth migration of the Irkutsk region (1989- 2015)). In: Regional’nye issledovanija (Regional research) 2: 32-43. Fielding, Anthony 1989: Inter-regional migration and social change: a study of south east England based upon data from the longitudinal study. In: Transactions – Institute of British Geographers 14,1: 24-36 [doi: 10.2307/622340]. Fielding, Anthony 1992: Migration and Social Mobility: South East England as an Escala- tor Region. In: Regional Studies 26,1: 1-15 [doi: 10.1080/00343409212331346741]. Findlay, Allan et al. 2009: Escalators, elevators and travelators: The occupational mo- bility of migrants to South-East England. In: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35,6: 861-879 [doi: 10.1080/13691830902957676]. Fratesi, Ugo 2014: Editorial: The Mobility of High-Skilled Workers – Causes and Conse- quences. In: Regional Studies 48,10: 1587-1591 [doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.955689]. Fuguitt, Glenn; Heaton, Tim 1995: The impact of migration on the nonmetropolitan pop- ulation age structure, 1960-1990. In: Population Research and Policy Review 14: 215- 232 [doi: 10.1007/BF01074459]. • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan440 Geyer, Hermanus; Kontuly, Thomas 1993: A theoretical foundation of the concept of differential urbanisation. In: International Regional Science Review 15,2: 157-177 [doi: 10.1177/016001769301500202]. Gibbons, Stephen; Vignoles, Anna 2012: Geography, choice and participation in high- er education in England. In: Regional Science and Urban Economics 42: 98-113 [doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.07.004]. Gillies, Donald 2014: Learning and leaving: education and depopulation in an island community. In: Cambridge Journal of Education 44,1: 19-34 [doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2013.837865]. Glezer, Olga; Vainberg, Emma 2014: Prostranstvo zhiznedejatel’’nosti naselenija i ras- selenie kak faktory i uslovija modernizacii Rossii (The Space of Life Activities of the Population and Settlement Pattern as the Factors and Conditions of the Modernization of Russia). In: Regional Research of Russia 4,3: 136-142. Gnatiuk, Oleksiy 2017: Demographic dimension of suburbanisation in Ukraine in the light of urban development theories. In: Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica 52: 151- 163 [doi: 10.14712/23361980.2017.12]. Gordon, Ian; Champion, Tony; Coombes, Mike 2015: Urban escalators and interregional elevators: The difference that location, mobility, and sectoral specialisation make to occupational progression. In: Environment and Planning A 47,3: 588-606 [doi: 10.1068/ a130125p]. Grigg, David 1977: E. G. Ravenstein and the “laws of migration“. In: Journal of Histori- cal Geography 3,1: 41-54 [doi: 10.1016/0305-7488(77)90143-8]. Guriev, Sergey; Vakulenko, Elena 2015: Breaking out of poverty traps: Internal migra- tion and interregional convergence in Russia. In: Journal of Comparative Econom- ics 43: 633-649 [doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2015.02.002]. Haase, Annegret et al. 2017: Reurbanisation in postsocialist Europe – A comparative view of eastern Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic. In: Comparative Population Studies 42: 353-390 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2018-02en]. Hansen, Hogni; Niedomysl, Thomas 2009: Migration of the creative class: evidence from Sweden. In: Journal of Economic Geography 9: 191-206 [doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbn046]. Johnson, Kenneth; Winkler, Richelle 2015: Migration signatures across the decades: Net migration by age in U.S. Counties, 1950-2010. In: Demographic Research 32,1: 1065- 1080 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.38]. Kalogirou, Stamatis 2005: Examining and Presenting Trends of Internal Migration Flows within England and Wales. In: Population, Space and Place 11: 283-297 [doi: 10.1002/ psp.376]. Karachurina, Liliya; Ivanova, Kseniya 2019: Migration of the Elderly Population in Russia (According to the 2010 Population Census). In: Regional Research of Russia 9,2: 164- 172 [doi: 10.1134/S2079970519020059]. Karachurina, Liliya; Florinskaya, Yliya 2019: Migration intentions of school graduates in small and midsize towns of Russia. In: Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5, Geografi ya (Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 5. Geography) 6: 82-89. Karachurina, Liliya; Mkrtchyan, Nikita 2015: Population change in the regional centres and internal periphery of the regions in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus over the period of 1990-2000s. In: Bulletin of Geography 28: 91-111 [doi: 10.1515/bog-2015-0018]. Karachurina, Liliya; Mkrtchyan, Nikita 2016: The Role of Migration in Enhancing Settle- ment Pattern Contrasts at the Municipal Level in Russia. In: Regional Research of Rus- sia 6,4: 332-343 [doi: 10.1134/S2079970516040080]. Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 441 Karachurina, Liliya; Mkrtchyan, Nikita 2018: Age-specifi c net migration patterns in the municipal formations of Russia. In: Geo Journal 83,1: 119-136 [doi: 10.1007/s10708- 016-9757-4]. Kashnitsky, Ilya 2020: Russian periphery is dying in movement: a cohort assessment of internal youth migration in Central Russia. In: GeoJournal 85: 173-185 [doi: 10.1007/ s10708-018-9953-5]. Kashnitsky, Ilya; Mkrtchyan, Nikita; Leshukov, Oleg 2016: Interregional migration of youths in Russia: A comprehensive analysis of demographic statistics. In: Voprosy obrazovanija (Educational Studies Moscow) 3: 169-203 [doi: 10.17323/1814-9545- 2016-3-169-203]. Katrovskij, Aleksandr 1999: Uchebnaja migracija v vuzy Rossii: faktory i motivacija (Edu- cational migration in higher education institutions of Russia: factors and motivation). In: Zajonchkovskaja, Zhanna (Ed.): Migracija i urbanizacija v SNG i Baltii v 90-e gody (Migration and urbanisation in the CIS and the Baltic States in the 90th years. Moscow: 269-276. Kauppila, Pekka 2011: Cores and peripheries in a northern periphery: A case study in Finland. In: Fennia 189,1: 20-31. Kladivo, Petr et al. 2015: Suburbanisation and local governance – Positive and negative forms: Olomouc case study. In: Bulletin of Geography 27: 95-107 [doi: 10.1515/bog- 2015-0007]. Kley, Stefanie 2011: Explaining the Stages of Migration within a Life-course Framework. In: European Sociological Review 27,4: 469-486 [doi: 10.1093/esr/jcq020]. Kulu, Hill 2008: Fertility and spatial mobility in the life course: Evidence from Austria. In: Environment and Planning A 40,3: 632-652 [doi: 10.1068/a3914]. Kupiszewski, Marek; Durham, Helen; Rees, Philip 1998: Internal Migration and Ur- ban Change in Poland. In: European Journal of Population 14: 265-290 [doi: 10.1023/A:1006058712865]. Kupiszewski, Marek et al. 2001: Internal migration and regional population dynamics in Europe: Denmark case study Working Paper 01/02. University of Leeds: Leeds. Kurichev, Nikolai; Kuricheva, Ekaterina 2018: Relationship of Housing Construction in the Moscow Urban Agglomeration and Migration to the Metropolitan Area. In: Regional Research of Russia 8,1: 1-15 [doi: 10.1134/S2079970518010069]. Kuricheva, Ekaterina; Popov, Alexey 2015: Razvitie zhilishhnogo stroitel’stva v 2010-e gg. kak faktor transformacii Moskovskoj aglomeracii (Residencial Construction in 2010-s as a Factor of the Transformation of the Moscow Metropolitan Area). In: Regional’nye issledovanija (Regional research) 1: 104-116. Litwak, Eugene; Longino, Charles 1987: Migration patterns among the elderly: A de- velopmental perspective. In: The Gerontologist 27,3: 266-272 [doi: 10.1093/ger- ont/27.3.266]. Long, Larry; Deare, Diana 1988: US Population Redistrubution: A Perspective on the Nonmetropolitan Turnaround. In: Population and Development Review 14,3: 433-450 [doi: 10.2307/1972197]. Makhrova, Alla; Kirillov, Pavel 2015: Rossijskaja urbanizacija i zhil’e gorozhan. (Urbani- sation in Russia and housing of the city residents). In: Demoscope Weekly: 645-646 [http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2015/0645/tema01.php, 12.05.2019]. Makhrova, Alla; Nefedova, Tatyana; Pallot, Judith 2016: The Specifi cs and Spatial Struc- ture of Circular Migration in Russia. In: Eurasian Geography and Economics 57,6: 802- 818 [doi: 10.1080/15387216.2016.1274663]. • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan442 Martel, Catherine; Taylor, Andrew; Carson, Dean 2013: Changing patterns of migration to Australia’s northern territory: Evidence of new forms of escalator migration to fron- tier regions? In: Migration Letters 10,1: 101-113 [doi: 10.33182/ml.v10i1.115]. Miller, Laura 1995: Family togetherness and the suburban ideal. In: Sociological Forum 10: 393-418 [doi: 10.1007/BF02095828]. Millington, Jim 2000: Migration and age: the effect of age on sensitivity to migration stimuli. In: Regional Studies 34,6: 521-533 [doi: 10.1080/00343400050085648]. Mkrtchyan, Nikita 2015: Migracija v Moskve i Moskovskoj oblasti: regional’nye i struk- turnye osobennosti (Migration in Moscow and Moscow region: regional and structural characteristics). In: Regional’nye issledovanija (Regional research) 3: 107-116. Mkrtchyan, Nikita 2019: Regional Capitals of Russia and Their Suburbs: Specifi cs of the Migration Balance. In: Regional Research of Russia 9,1: 12-22 [doi: 10.1134/ S2079970519010076]. Moiseenko, Valentina 2004: Snizhenie masshtabov vnutrennej migracii naselenija Rossii: opyt ocenki dinamiki po dannym tekushhego ucheta (Internal migration de- cline in Russia: assessment of migration dynamics using administrative data). In: Vo- prosy statistiki (Statistical Affairs) 7: 47-56. Morrill, Richard 1995: Aging in place, age specifi c migration and natural decrease. In: The Annals of Regional Science 29: 41-66 [doi: 10.1007/BF01580362]. Mulder, Clara 2006: Population and housing: A two-sided relationship. In: Demographic Research 15,13: 401-412 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2006.15.13]. Nefedova, Tatyana; Treivish, Andrei 2003: Differential urbanisation in Russia. In: Ti- jdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografi e 94,1: 75-88 [doi: 10.1111/1467- 9663.00238]. Nefedova, Tatyana; Treivish, Andrei 2017: The transformation of settlement in modern Russia: urbanisation or de-urbanisation? In: Regional’nye issledovanija (Regional re- search) 2: 12-23. Neretin, Aleksandr 2018: Transportnoe polozhenie i dostupnost’ territorij Evropejskoj Rossii (Transport situation and accessibility of the territories of European Russia). PhD Thesis. Moscow: Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences. Neretin, Aleksandr; Zotova, Mariya; Lomakina, Anastasiya; Tarkhov, Sergey 2019: Trans- port Connection and Development of the Eastern Regions of Russia. In: Izvestiya Rossi- iskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geografi cheskaya (Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Geographical Series) 6: 35-52 [doi: 10.31857/S2587-55662019635-52]. Ouředníček, Martin 2007: Differential suburban development in the Prague urban region. In: Geografi ska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89,2: 111-126 [doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 0467.2007.00243.x]. Pileček, Jan; Chromy, Pavel; Jančak, Vit 2013: Social Capital and Local Socio-economic Development: The Case of Czech Peripheries. In: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografi e 104,5: 604-620 [doi: 10.1111/tesg.12053]. Philip, Lorna; Macleod, Marsaili; Stockdale, Aileen 2013: Retirement Transition, Migra- tion and Remote Rural Communities: Evidence from the Isle of Bute. In: Scottish Geo- graphical Journal 129,2: 122-136 [doi: 10.1080/14702541.2013.783616]. Plane, David; Heins, Frank 2003: Age articulation of U.S. inter-metropolitan migration fl ows. In: Annals of Regional Science 37: 107-130 [doi: 10.1007/s001680200114]. Plane, David; Henrie, Christopher; Perry, Marc 2005: Migration up and down the urban hierarchy and across the life course. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 102: 15313-15318 [doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507312102]. Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 443 Plane, David; Jurjevich, Jason 2009: Ties That No Longer Bind? The Patterns and Re- percussions of Age Articulated Migration. In: The Professional Geographer 61,1: 4-20 [doi: 10.1080/00330120802577558]. Polèse, Mario; Shearmur, Richard 2006: Why some regions will decline: A Canadian case study with thoughts on local development strategies. In: Papers in Regional Sci- ence 85,1: 23-46 [doi: 10.1111/j.1435- 5957.2006.00024.x]. Raagmaa, Garry 2003: Centre-Periphery model explaining the regional development of the informational and transitional society. In: 43rd Congress of the European region- al science association (ERSA) Jyvaskyla, Finland, August 27-30 [https://www.jyu.fi / ersa2003/cdrom/papers/503.pdf, 18.05.2020]. Rahmanova, Galina 1994: Vozrastnye profi li migracii v Rossii i ee regionah: 80-e i nach- alo 90-h gg. (The age profi les of migration in Russia and its regions: the 80th and the beginning of the 90th). In: Zajonchkovskaja, Zhanna (Ed.): Migracionnye processy posle raspada SSSR (Migratory processes after the collapse of the USSR. V). Mos- cow: 82-113. Raymer, James; Abel, Guy; Smith, Peter 2007: Combining census and registration data to estimate detailed elderly migration fl ows in England and Wales. In: Royal Statistical Society 170,4: 891-908 [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00490.x]. Ravenstein, Ernst 1876: The Birthplaces of the People and the Laws of Migration. In: The Geographical Magazine 3: 173-177, 201-206, 229-233. Ravenstein, Ernst 1885: The Laws of Migration. In: Journal of the Statistical Society of London 48,2: 167-235 [doi: 10.2307/2979181]. Ravenstein, Ernst 1889: The laws of migration: Second Paper. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 52,2: 241-305 [doi: 10.2307/2979333]. Rees, Philip; Durham, Helen; Kupiszewski, Marek 1996: Internal Migration and Regional Population Dynamics in Europe: United Kingdom Case. Working Paper 96/20. Rees, Philip; Kupiszewski, Marek 1999: Internal Migration and Regional Population Dy- namics in Europe: A Synthesis. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Rees, Philip et al. 2017: The Impact of Internal Migration on Population Redistribution: an International Comparison. In: Population, Space and Place 23,6: e2036 [doi: 10.1002/ psp.2036]. Rerat, Patrick et al. 2008: Age structure of Swiss cities: Residential mobility, life course and attractiveness. In: Geographica Helvetica 63,4: 261-271 [doi: 10.5194/gh-63-261- 2008]. Rogerson, Peter; Burr, Jeffrey; Ge, Lin 1997: Changes in geographic proximity between parents and their adult children. In: International Journal of Population Geography 3,2: 121-136 [doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1220(199706)3:2<121::AID-IJPG60>3.0.CO;2-I]. Rosstat 2013: The population of the Russian Federation by municipal formations as of January 1, 2012. Statistical Bulletin. Moscow. Sander, Nikola, 2014: Internal migration in Germany, 1995-2010: New insights into East- West migration and re-urbanisation. In: Comparative Population Studies 39,2: 217-246 [doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2014-04en]. Savage, Mike; Fielding, Tony 1989: Class formation and regional development: the ‘service class’ in South East England. In: Geoforum 20,2: 203-218. [doi: 10.1016/0016- 7185(89)90040-7]. Smetkowski, Maciej 2011: Socio-spatial differentiation in Warsaw: Inertia or metamor- phosis of the city structure? In: Geographia Polonica 84,2: 115-133 [doi: 10.7163/ GPol.2011.2.8]. • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan444 Stillwell, John; Boden, Peter; Rees, Philip 1990: Trends in internal net migration in the UK: 1975 to 1986. In: Area 22,1: 57-65. Stockdale, Aileen 2014: Unravelling the migration decision-making process: English early retirees moving to rural mid-Wales. In: Journal of Rural Studies 34: 161-171 [doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.01.010]. Tihonov, Boris 1978: Pereselenija v Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XIX veka. Po materialam perepisi 1897 goda i pasportnoj statistiki (Resettlement in Russia in the second half of the twentieth century. Based on materials from the 1897 census and passport statis- tics). Moskow: Nauka. Tkachenko, Alexandr 2017: O kolichestve sel’skih naselennyh punktov v Tverskoj oblasti (Discussing the number of rural settlements in the Tver region). In: Vestnik Tverskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Serija: Geografi ja i geojekologija (Bulletin of Tver State University. Series Geography and Geoecology) 3: 6-16. Winters, John 2011: Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who stays. In: Jour- nal of Regional Science 51,2: 253-270 [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00693.x]. Vining, Daniel; Pallone, Robert 1982. Migration between Core and Peripheral Regions: a Description and Tentative Explanation of the Patterns in 22 Countries. In: Geoforum 13,4: 339-410 [doi: 10.1016/0016-7185(82)90031-8]. Vishnevskij, Anatoliy (Ed.) 2014: Naselenie Rossii 2012: dvadcatyj ezhegodnyj demo- grafi cheskij doklad (The population of Russia 2012: Twentieth annual demographic report). Moscow: Izdatelskij dom Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki. Vobecka, Jana 2010: Spatial dynamics of the population in the Czech Republic, 1989- 2007. Ph.D. Thesis. Charles University in Prague; Universite de Bourgogne in Digon. Zajonchkovskaya, Zhanna; Mkrtchyan, Nikita 2009: Rol’ migracii v dinamike chislennosti i sostava naselenija Moskvy (The role of migration in the dynamics of the number and composition of the population of Moscow). In: Zajonchkovskaya, Zhanna (Ed.): Immi- granty v Moskve (Immigrants in Moscow). Moscow: 18-44. Zamjatina, Nadezhda; Jashunskij, Aleksej 2012: Mezhregional’nye centry obrazovanija (Interregional Education Centres). In: Otechestvennye zapiski (Domestic notes) 5: 227- 239. Zubarevich, Natalia 2010: Goroda kak centry modernizacii jekonomiki i chelovecheskogo kapitala (Cities have centres for the modernization of the economy and human capital). In: Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ (Social sciences) 5: 5-19. Zubarevich, Natalia 2013: Krupnye goroda Rossii: lidery i autsajdery (Major Cities: Lead- ers and Outsiders). In: Demoskope Weekly 551-552 [http://www.demoscope.ru/week- ly/2013/0551/demoscope551.pdf, 18.05.2020]. Date of submission: 31.08.2019 Date of acceptance: 17.02.2020 Prof. Dr. Liliya Karachurina (), Prof. Dr. Nikita Mkrtchyan. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Department of Demography. Moscow, Russia. E-mail: lkarachurina@hse.ru, nmkrtchyan@hse.ru URL: https://www.hse.ru/en/org/persons/65552 https://www.hse.ru/en/org/persons/203471 Age-specifi c Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia • 445 Appendix 1 Administrative-territorial units (regions) in Russia Num Region Num Region Num Region 1 Altai Krai 30 Moscow 58 Republic of Tatarstan 2 Amur Oblast 31 Moscow Oblast 59 Tuva Republic 3 Arkhangelsk Oblast 32 Murmansk Oblast 60 Republic of Khakassia 4 Astrakhan Oblast 33 Nenets Autonomous 61 Rostov Oblast Okrug 5 Belgorod Oblast 34 Nizhny Novgorod Oblast 62 Ryazan Oblast 6 Bryansk Oblast 35 Novgorod Oblast 63 Samara Oblast 7 Vladimir Oblast 36 Novosibirsk Oblast 64 Saint Petersburg 8 Volgograd Oblast 37 Omsk Oblast 65 Saratov Oblast 9 Vologda Oblast 38 Orenburg Oblast 66 Sakhalin Oblast 10 Voronezh Oblast 39 Oryol Oblast 67 Sverdlovsk Oblast 11 Jewish Autonomous 40 Penza Oblast 68* Sevastopol Oblast 12 Zabaykalsky Krai 41 Perm Krai 69 Smolensk Oblast 13 Ivanovo Oblast 42 Primorsky Krai 70 Stavropol Krai 14 Irkutsk Oblast 43 Pskov Oblast 71 Tambov Oblast • Liliya Karachurina, Nikita Mkrtchyan446 Num Region Num Region Num Region 15 Kabardino-Balkar 44 Republic of Adygea 72 Tver Oblast Republic 16 Kaliningrad Oblast 45 Altai Republic 73 Tomsk Oblast 17 Kaluga Oblast 46 Republic of 74 Tula Oblast Bashkortostan 18 Kamchatka Krai 47 Republic of Buryatia 75 Tyumen Oblast 19 Karachay-Cherkess 48 Republic of Dagestan 76 Udmurt Republic Republic 20 Kemerovo Oblast 49 Republic of Ingushetia 77 Ulyanovsk Oblast 21 Kirov Oblast 50 Republic of Kalmykia 78 Khabarovsk Krai 22 Kostroma Oblast 51 Republic of Karelia 79 Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra 23 Krasnodar Krai 52 Komi Republic 80 Chelyabinsk Oblast 24 Krasnoyarsk Krai 53* Republic of Crimea 81 Chechen Republic 25 Kurgan Oblast 54 Mari El Republic 82 Chuvash Republic 26 Kursk Oblast 55 Republic of Mordovia 83 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 27 Leningrad Oblast 56 Republic of Sakha 84 Yamalo-Nenets (Yakutia) Autonomous Okrug 28 Lipetsk Oblast 57 Republic of North 85 Yaroslavl Oblast Ossetia – Alania 29 Magadan Oblast Continuation * Note: As of 1 January 2012 there were 83 regions in Russia Source: Compiled by authors using “Rosstat 2013: The population of the Russian Federa- tion by municipal formations as of January 1, 2012. Statistical Bulletin. Moscow“ Published by Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider Federal Institute for Population Research D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany 2019 Managing Editor Prof. Philip Rees Dr. Katrin Schiefer Copy Editor Julia Luther Editorial Assistant Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs Wiebke Hamann Layout Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientifi c Advisory Board Karsten Hank (Cologne) Michaela Kreyenfeld (Berlin) Marc Luy (Vienna) Natalie Nitsche (Vienna) Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz) Zsolt Spéder (Budapest) Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers Martin Abraham (Erlangen) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn) Claudia Diehl (Konstanz) Andreas Diekmann (Zurich) Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock) Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna) Beat Fux (Salzburg) Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley) Sonja Haug (Regensburg) Hill Kulu (Liverpool) Aart C. Liefbroer (The Hague) Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz) Emma Lundholm (Umeå) Nadja Milewski (Rostock) Dimiter Philipov (Vienna) Roland Rau (Rostock) Tomáš Sobotka (Vienna) Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona) Olivier Thévenon (Paris) Helga de Valk (Brussels) Heike Trappe (Rostock) Michael Wagner (Cologne)