







































Georgian Geographical Journal 

 

Differences in Socio-economic 

Transformations of Rural Communities in 

Russian Multi-ethnic Regions  
Linar Imangulov1,*  
1
Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Lomonosov Moscow 

State University, Moscow, Russian Federation 
* Corresponding author: е-mail: linar.imangulov.1999@mail.ru 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

In the post-Soviet period, rural areas of Russia have undergone large-scale transformations associated 

with the destruction of the collective-state farm system and large-scale depopulation of the rural 

population due to its migration outflow to the cities. Post-Soviet transformation processes in rural areas 

of Russian regions have different speeds and spatial coverage (Alekseev & Safronov, 2017; Nefedova, 

2012b).  

Georgian Geographical Journal, 2024, 4(2) 54-65 

© The Author(s) 2024 

 
This article is an open access article distributed under 

the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 

DOI: 

https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GGJ 

Abstract 

The article analyzes the differences in the rural communities’ transformation 

in some national republics of Russia. To verify the hypothesis put forward on 

the basis of a review of sources and field observations, demographic statistics, 

rural settlement and other indicators characterizing the rural population are 

analyzed. Among rural communities with different ethnic identities, there is 

a significant differentiation in the share of the rural population, birth rate and 

settlement structure. Differentiation is due to the different involvement of 

ethnic rural communities in urbanization processes and processes of social 

modernization. Analysis and classification of differences made it possible to 

identify options (inertial and modernization) and stages ("expansion", "from 

expansion to compression", "compression" and "disappearance in the 

previous format") of the post-Soviet rural communities transformation. Most 

of the Russian rural communities are undergoing active modernization. At the 

same time, in rural areas of Russia, there are still rural communities at the 

stage of "expansion" (largely Dagestani and Ingush rural communities). The 

discussion section presents a classification of ethnic rural communities in 

Russia according to their predominant variant and stage of transformation in 

the post-Soviet period. Based on the results of field studies, examples are 

given that confirm the presence of deviations from the predominant variant 

and stage of transformation of rural communities. For example, the leading 

factor in the differences in the variants and stages of socio-economic 

transformation of the surveyed Tatar and Chuvash rural communities of the 

Batyrevsky and Fyodorovsky districts is the development of the economic 

base of the region. Due to the more active Soviet industrialization of the 

economy of Bashkortostan, many communities in the Fyodorovsky district 

are at the stage of "compression" and "disappearance", while in the 

Batyrevsky district only in recent decades has the outflow of population to 

the cities accelerated. In addition, a comparative analysis of the rural 

settlement transformation of ethnic groups made it possible to confirm the 

universality of the stages of rural communities’ transformation. In the 

Batyrevsky district this is expressed, for example, in the temporary lag of 

depopulation of Tatar and Chuvash rural communities. 

Keywords: ethnic groups, migration, social modernization, local 

rural-urban systems, socio-economic transformation, rural areas 

Citation: Imangulov L. Differences in Socio-
economic Transformations of Rural 

Communities in Russian Multi-ethnic 
Regions. Georgian Geographical Journal 
2024, 4(2). 54-65 
https://doi.org/10.52340/ggj.2024.04.02.07 

mailto:linar.imangulov.1999@mail.ru


Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

55 
 

The socio-economic transformation of rural areas in the national republics of Russia has its own 

specifics (Nefedova, 2012ab). In 1992-2020, the share of the rural population living in the national 

republics of Russia increased by 4 percentage points or 0.8 million people, reaching 26% (9.6 million 

people), despite an overall decrease in the rural population in the country by 5% or 1.9 million people. 

This illustrates the completely different functioning of rural areas in the national republics of Russia 

in comparison with the regions with predominantly Russian population shares. However, the dynamics 

of the demographic development of rural areas in the national republics is uneven: an increase in the 

rural population is recorded only in the republics of the North Caucasus and some national republics of 

Siberia.  

The focus of research by Russian geographers has traditionally been on zonal features of rural 

settlement and zonal types of rural areas. Works describing the characteristics and problems of rural 

development in individual regions have become widespread. The rural areas of the Central Non-Black 

Earth Region with a historically high share of the Russian population have been studied most thoroughly 

(Averkieva, 2021). Particular attention is paid to its features of demographic and economic contraction, 

and then the revitalization of rural areas through the development of dacha recreation (Averkieva et al., 

2021; Fomkina, 2017).  

Ethnocultural differences in rural areas are most often considered as one of the factors of spatial 

differentiation of rural areas through the prism of demography, economics and lifestyle of the 

population (Nefedova, 2012b). There are also several works describing the ethnically expressed rural 

areas of Russian regions using the example of individual national republics: Buryatia - (Breslavsky, 

2013), Tuva - (Gusakov, 2019) and Chuvashia - (Imangulov, 2021). 

A comparative analysis of the results of post-Soviet regional studies of rural areas in Russia suggests 

the existence of prevailing variants of transformation of rural communities with different ethnic 

population structures. This hypothesis was also voiced by the leading researcher of rural Russia, T.G. 

Nefedova: “…a comparison of modern rural communities of some non-Russian peoples on the territory 

of Russia with Russian demographically full-fledged communities of the beginning of the 20th century 

does not exclude the hypothesis of identical, but chronologically different phases of the life cycle of 

rural communities…” (Nefedova, 2012b). 

However, this scientific idea in Russian geographical science, despite the presence of studies in the 

field of ethnic differentiation of the rural population (for example, - (Alekseev&Imangulov, 2022; 

Imangulov, 2023; Cherkasov, 2018)), did not receive further development, which emphasizes the 

relevance of this study. 

Abroad, there are often works describing ethnically expressed rural areas. However, it is extremely 

rare to find works directly linking the options and stages of development of rural communities and rural 

settlement. Among such works, one can highlight the study (Collins-Kreiner, 2013), in which the 

dynamics of the development of a network of villages in the central part of Israel is considered using 

the “Product Life Cycle” model. 

In the actively industrializing and urbanizing PRC, the development of rural communities is 

considered in interaction with the external (mainly urban) environment, which can lead to the growth, 

decline, or even disappearance of rural communities (Yuheng et al., 2019; Hualou et al., 2021). For 

example, in the northern Chinese province of Shanxi, researchers identified 5 types of development of 

rural settlements and, accordingly, rural communities in the context of the active spread of urbanization 

processes: "growth", "maturity", "flourishing transformation", "stepwise regression" and "decline" 

(Yajing et al., 2022). 

A review of Russian and foreign works did not find studies in which, when studying the development 

of rural communities, the ethnic structure of the population is considered in relation to the 

transformation of rural settlement of the population. Although the ethnic structure of the population 

based on the experience of studying local rural areas of Russia, is able to classify, for example, different 

trends in the population dynamics of villages (Imangulov et al., 2021) or the dynamics of agricultural 

production (Nefedova, 2012b; Fadeeva, 2015). 

In this regard, the purpose of this study is to verify, based on open statistical data, the hypothesis about 

the existence of differences in the prevailing variants and stages of transformation of rural communities 

with different ethnic population structures. The result of this study should be a classification of ethnic 

rural communities in Russia in accordance with their prevailing variants and stages of transformation. 

 

 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

56 
 

Methods and Materials 

The titular population of the national republics has a number of aggregate differences from the Russian 

majority in the country. In Russia, this is due to the different involvement of ethnic groups in the socio-

economic development trends that are common for the country and the world (Demographic, 2006; 

Zubarevich, 2003).  

In this regard, the transformation of rural communities in national republics is determined not only 

by, for example, the universal processes of urbanization throughout the world but also by the economic, 

social, and cultural modernization of the non-Russian population, which either partially underwent 

modernization during the Soviet period or is just being drawn into it. 

The object of this study is ethnic rural communities, by which the author means an ethnic community 

of people with a certain geographical localization (in a settlement/settlements) and the presence of close 

social ties between its members. The author in the study distinguishes between the concepts of ethnos 

and ethnic groups: rural communities of a region as a whole or an ethnos (for example, Russian rural 

communities of the Ivanovo region) and a specific rural community of a settlement (for example, the 

Russian rural community of the village of Vladimirovka in the Ivanovo region). 

To verify the above hypothesis, the study first (1) analyzes the differentiation of rural communities of 

the titular peoples of the national republics according to their involvement (a) in urbanization processes 

and (b) in the processes of social (demographic) modernization of the population. For this purpose, the 

study uses the following basic indicators of the characteristics of the rural population, which serve as 

indicators of processes (Table 1). 

Table 1: Indicators of options for transformation of rural communities and settlement communities 

Characteristics 

rural communities 

Indicators Data sources 

Demographics 

Dynamics of rural population Population censuses of the Russian Federation in 2002, 

2010 and 2021 Structure of rural settlement 

Birth rate of rural population BDPMO RF 

Migration 

Average size of rural household BDPMO RF 

Rural population share Population censuses of the Russian Federation in 2002, 

2010 and 2021 

Economic 

Labor migration of rural population Expert assessments 

Structure of employment of rural 

population 

Expert assessments 

 

 Further (2) the post-Soviet transformation of rural settlement of the ethnic group in rural areas1 is 

analyzed because changes in the distribution of the rural population across different classes of rural 

settlements by population may indicate trends in the compression, stabilization or expansion of the 

settlement of ethnic groups. 

The study is based on two groups of materials. The first group includes open statistical data, in 

particular the All-Union and All-Russian population censuses of 1989, 2002, 2010 and 2020. The 

second group of materials is represented by the results of expeditions, in particular visual observations, 

and the results of expert and in-depth interviews with the rural population. 

In the period from 2021-2024, within the framework of various projects, the author visited and 

surveyed 24 peripheral/semi-peripheral areas2 with a predominantly rural population in 8 national 

republics of the Russian Federation. The surveyed republics: Bashkortostan, Buryatia, Dagestan, 

Ingushetia, Mordovia, North Ossetia-Alania, Tatarstan and Chuvashia. This sample of national 

republics almost completely covers the ethnocultural diversity of the main zone of settlement and 

economic development of Russia.  

The verification of the research hypothesis is carried out on the example of rural communities of the 

titular ethnic groups of the visited and surveyed republics: Bashkir, Buryat, Dagestan (Avar, Dargin, 

 
1In the study, the rural settlement of an ethnic group in rural areas refers to the totality of rural 

settlements in which the share of the corresponding ethnic group in the ethnic structure of the population 

exceeds 60%. 
2The choice of areas with peripheral and semi-peripheral locations for the survey is due to the fact that 

in areas with a suburban location, completely different socio-economic processes are recorded due to 

the agglomeration influence of cities. 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

57 
 

Kumyk, Lak, Lezgin, Rutul and Tabasaran), Ingush, Mordvin, Ossetian, Tatar, and Chuvash rural 

communities.  

Results 

The spread of urbanization processes determines the transformation of rural communities of any ethnic 

identity in the post-Soviet space. With a systematic increase in the share of the urban population of an 

ethnic group, there is a "washing out of the population" from rural areas, which ultimately is reflected 

either in a decrease in the number of rural communities or their disappearance. 

There is a certain differentiation of the analyzed ethnic groups of Russia according to the share of 

urban and rural population (Table 2). A high share of the rural population (above 50%) is found among 

the Dagestani peoples, except for the Laks and Lezgins, as well as the Buryats, Bashkirs, and Chuvashes 

(2020). Average and low values of the share of the rural population (less than 50%) are found among 

the Mordvins, Lezgins, Ossetians, Tatars, Laks, Russians and, Ukrainians. 

The urbanization indicator of an ethnic group is primarily influenced by the time of the beginning of 

large-scale migrations of the rural population "village-city". Russians and Ukrainians initially have a 

richer experience of population mobility, especially in the pre-revolutionary period (resettlement to 

newly developed territories, seasonal migration of peasants to cities, etc.). 

For other ethnic groups, the key barrier to migration from the village to the city was the lack of 

knowledge of the Russian language. For this reason, non-Russian ethnic groups began to migrate to the 

city with a certain time lag. In the 1980s, more than 50% of the Tatar, Ossetian, and Lak population 

already lived in urban areas. Later, in 1989, more than 50% of the Mordvins lived in cities, and in 2020, 

Lezgins. Other ethnic groups (Chuvash, Bashkirs, Buryats and other Dagestani peoples) never crossed 

the threshold of 50% of the urban population. 

In 1989-2020 decrease in the rural population was recorded among Ukrainians, Mordvins, Chuvashes, 

Tatars, and Russians; stabilization—among the Buryats; growth—among the Bashkirs, Ossetians, 

Ingush, and Dagestani peoples (Table 1).  

In addition to the scale of rural-urban migration, the dynamics of the rural population of ethnic groups 

is affected by the birth rate, which can, for example, in the Republic of Dagestan affect the growth of 

the rural population even in rural areas with migration-related population loss. 

The maximum value of the total fertility rate of the rural population in 2019 (over 14 per mille) was 

among the Dagestani peoples, with the exception of the Lezgins and Nogais, as well as the Ossetians, 

Bashkirs, and Buryats, which indicates that the demographic transition of the rural population is not yet 

complete. The minimum value of the indicator (less than 10 per mille) is among Russians, Ukrainians, 

Mordvins, Chuvashes, and Tatars.  

The average private rural household indicator gives an almost identical distribution of ethnic groups: 

the tradition of a large family has been noticeably preserved among the rural population of the peoples 

of Dagestan and Ossetia, while among Russians, Mordvins, Chuvashes, and even Tatars, the average 

size of a rural household is less than 3 people. 

Table 2. Some indicators of transformation of rural communities with different ethnic population structures 

Indicator 
Rural population 

share, % 

Dynamics of rural 

population, % 

Total fertility rate, per 

mille* 

Average household 

size, people* 

Year / period 2020 1989-2020 2019 2010 

Laks 28.5 27.0 14.9 3.8 

Tatars 32.7 -18.5 9.8 2.9 

Ossetians 37.5 34.1 15.7 3.7 

Lezgins 44.8 52.1 11.6 4.2 

Mordva 48.7 -54.0 6.5 2.8 

Chuvash 51.0 -38.9 8.4 2.7 

Bashkirs 51.4 18.4 14.9 3.2 

Buryats 52.5 -0.2 15.4 No data 

Kumyks 52.8 97.3 20.6 4.6 

Tabasarans 52.9 31.8 16.0 4.4 

Rutuls 57.4 43.0 16.0 4.4 

Avars 62.0 70.4 18.7 3.7 

Dargins 63.5 59.0 17.8 3.5 

Nogais 66.3 19.6 11.8 4.5 

*Note: the table presents average values of indicators for several peripheral mono-ethnic rural areas within the republics in 

which the ethnic group is the titular one 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

58 
 

In accordance with the characteristics of the rural population of different ethnic groups, the following 

groups of ethnic rural communities with similar indicator values are distinguished: 

Group 1: Russian, Ukrainian, Tatar, Mordvin, Chuvash; 

Rural communities of the first group as a whole have experienced or are still experiencing a significant 

migration outflow of part of the population to cities. Urbanization processes have undermined the 

demographic potential of most communities. Ethnic assimilation has an additional negative impact on 

the population dynamics of Mordvin and Chuvash rural communities. 

Group 2: Bashkir, Buryat; 

Rural communities of the second group have only in recent decades begun to experience a significant 

migration outflow of the population to cities. Rural communities have significant demographic potential 

for development, as a result of which either an increase in the rural population in the post-Soviet period 

(Bashkir) or its stabilization against the background of migration to cities (Buryat) is noted. 

Group 3: Ossetian, Lezgin, Lak; 

Rural communities of the third group as a whole experienced a migration outflow of part of the 

population back in the 20th century. This is illustrated by the indicator of the low share of the rural 

population of the corresponding ethnic groups in comparison with other ethnic groups of the North 

Caucasus. At the same time, Ossetian, Lezgin, and Lak rural communities demonstrate similar rates of 

natural growth as other Caucasian rural communities, which is reflected in the increase in their 

population in the post-Soviet period. 

Group 4: Avar, Dargin, Nogai, Kumyk, Tabasaran and Rutul. 

Rural communities of the fourth group in recent decades have generally demonstrated an explosive 

growth in population: from 20-30% to 100%. It is associated primarily with high birth rates, which are 

capable at this stage of compensating for the migration outflow of the rural population to the cities.  

Differences in some indicators characterizing the demographic development of different ethnic rural 

communities are due to the different degree of involvement of ethnic groups in the processes of 

demographic modernization. Most ethnic rural communities are currently actively modernizing. At the 

same time, some rural communities are going through socio-cultural modernization of the Eastern type, 

expressed in the preservation of traditional elements (for example, rural communities of Dagestan, 

Ingush, etc.). Another part of rural communities is apparently going through modernization of the 

Western type, expressed in the active displacement of traditional elements by modern ones (for 

example, Bashkir, Buryat, Tatar, Chuvash and Mordvin communities). 

At the same time, part of the ethnic rural communities, in connection with their more active social 

and, in particular, demographic modernization during the Soviet period, 

At the same time, some ethnic rural communities, due to their more active social and in particular 

demographic modernization during the Soviet period (Demographic, 2006), are characterized by an 

inertial version of transformation, expressed, for example, in the preservation of established 

demographic trends in earlier periods (for example, Russian and Ukrainian rural communities). 

Ethnic rural communities, in addition to differences in the variants of socio-economic transformation 

("inertial - modernization"), differ in the prevailing stage of transformation of rural communities. This 

is most clearly confirmed by the structure of rural population settlement3 in terms of ethnic identity and 

its post-Soviet dynamics. 

The distribution of the number of settlements by different population classes between ethnic 

communities confirms the thesis about the more vibrant ethnic rural communities of Dagestan from a 

demographic point of view (Table 3). The number of rural settlements with a population in the 501-

1000 and 1001-2000 classes, on the contrary, is minimal in the ethnic rural communities of the Ural-

Volga region. 

Table 3. Distribution of the total number of rural settlements of the corresponding ethnic group by population class, 2002, % 

  

Less than 

50 
51-200 201-500 501-1000 1001-2000 2001-5000 

More than 

5000 

Settlement in dry steppe and semi-desert zones (500-1000 people) 

Nogais 2.8 16.7 19.4 25.0 25.0 5.6 5.6 

Large dense settlement in the southern regions (1000-3000 people) 

 
3In this paper, the rural settlement of ethnic groups is understood as the entire set of rural settlements 

with a share of the corresponding ethnic group in their ethnic structure above 60%. 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

59 
 

Kumyks 0 6.8 6.8 8.5 23.7 35.6 18.6 

Mountain focal settlement (200-500 people) 

Tabasarans 4.4 13.3 38.9 25.6 13.3 4.4 0,0 

Lezgins 4.5 14.2 20.6 20.6 21.9 15.5 2.6 

Rutuls 6.3 6.3 31.3 31.3 12.5 12.5 0,0 

Dargins 7.2 25.3 26.3 18.1 13.4 7.2 2.5 

Laks 9.6 35.6 35.6 9.6 6.8 2.7 0,0 

Avars 10.9 27.4 22.8 15.5 13.6 7.5 2.4 

Ossetians 33.7 14.0 10.5 8.1 16.3 9.3 8.1 

Medium- and large-scale settlement in the central zone of Russia (200-500 people) 

Chuvash 9.9 44.5 30.3 11.8 2.6 0.8 0.1 

Tatars 12.1 32.3 36.4 15.2 2.9 0.7 0.4 

Bashkirs 15.2 34.1 34.2 13.8 2.0 0.3 0.4 

Mordva 30.2 26.1 26.1 13.3 3.1 1.0 0.2 

Medium-sized focal settlement (200-500 people) 

Buryats 8.7 24.3 29.6 22.8 12.6 1.5 0.5 

 

The analysis of the transformation of rural settlement patterns of ethnic groups in 2002-2020 (Table 

4) allows us to draw two important conclusions. 

Table 4. Change in the number of rural settlements of the corresponding ethnic group by different population classes, 2002-

2020, % 

  

Less than 

50 
51-200 201-500 501-1000 1001-2000 2001-5000 

More than 

5000 

Settlement in dry steppe and semi-desert zones (500-1000 people) 

Nogais 3.9 -10.0 13.9 1.7 -5.0 -2.2 -2.2 

Large dense settlement in the southern regions (1000-3000 people) 

Kumyks 1.5 -5.2 0.9 0.8 -0.7 -7.9 10.6 

Mountain focal settlement (200-500 people) 

Tabasarans 1,1 4.2 -4.8 0.8 -1,2 0,0 0,0 

Lezgins 1.3 3.3 -5.7 1.4 0.1 -0.5 0,0 

Rutuls 16.0 -0.7 7.6 -14.6 -1.4 -6.9 0,0 

Dargins 1,2 -2.7 -1.7 1.0 -0.2 1.6 0.7 

Laks 1,1 -4.9 -0.9 3.7 -2.8 2.6 1.3 

Avars 1.9 -5.1 0.4 2.0 -2.7 3.0 0.4 

Ossetians 4.2 5.3 -5.5 -0.1 -0.8 -0.6 -2.5 

Medium- and large-scale settlement in the central zone of Russia (200-500 people) 

Chuvash 7.7 5.7 -6.5 -5.7 -1,1 -0.1 0,0 

Tatars 4.3 5.8 -5.1 -4.8 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 

Bashkirs 6.1 3.7 -5.4 -5.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 

Mordva 8.8 3.0 -2.8 -7.2 -1.6 0,0 -0.2 

Medium-sized focal settlement (200-500 people) 

Buryats 5.3 3.7 -2.6 0.2 -9.1 1.0 1.5 

Firstly, the simultaneous reduction in the number of medium-sized (201-1000 people) and increase in 

the number of small settlements (less than 50 people) among the peoples of the Ural-Volga region, 

some peoples of Dagestan (Rutuls, Lezgins and Tabasarans), Ossetians, and Buryats is the result of the 

processes of depopulation and compression of the corresponding rural communities. 

Secondly, the simultaneous increase in the number of medium (201-1000 people) and very large 

settlements (more than 2000 people) against the background of a decrease in the number of large 

settlements (1001-2000 people) among the other peoples of Dagestan (Nogais, Kumyks, Avars, Laks) 

is the result of a gradual "erosion" of the middle link of rural settlements. It was observed among the 

peoples of the Ural-Volga region in earlier periods. 

Discussions 

Differentiation of the surveyed ethnic rural communities of Russia in accordance with demographic 

characteristics and features of rural settlement in dynamics confirms the put forward hypothesis, 

formulated on the basis of a bibliographic review of sources and visual observations. 

The diversity of ethnic rural communities in the national republics of Russia in the post-Soviet period 

demonstrates different dynamics and directions of transformation. 

Based on the transformation of the rural settlement of the population, it was found that the 

transformation of rural communities has a certain stage-by-stage nature, which can be reduced to the 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

60 
 

following stages observed in Russian regions: "Expansion", "From expansion to compression", 

"Compression", "Disappearance (community in the previous format)". 

Taking into account the ethnic structure of the population, the rural areas of Russia can be described 

as a set of ethnic rural communities at different stages of transformation. 

The "Expansion" stage, rarely encountered in Russian regions, is quite widespread among the rural 

communities of the North Caucasus. These rural communities are distinguished by a younger age 

structure of the population, high birth rates, and population growth. This is facilitated by the post-Soviet 

strengthening of the position of religion (Islam) among the population, the traditional structure of 

society, and conservatism. However, some of the North Caucasian rural communities do not belong to 

this stage (for example, Ossetian, Lezgin and Lak). In the case of the Lezgins, this is due to the 

historically higher spatial mobility of the population (rural Lezgins actively participated in labor 

migrations to oil fields in the 19th-20th centuries). Lak rural communities were significantly influenced 

by institutional conditions: the implementation of the program of "settling highlanders on the plain" and 

the resettlement of Laks to the lands of Chechens deported during the Soviet period. 

The development of Ossetian rural communities is closely linked to the dynamics of the economic 

base of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. During the periods of Soviet industrialization, the urban 

population among Ossetians grew. As a result of the degradation of the economic base of the republic 

in the transition period (in the 1990s), on the contrary, there is an increase in the rural population (some 

temporary "rollback" to the past), which now, however, has begun to decrease again due to urbanization 

of a non-industrial nature. 

The stage "From expansion to compression" is characteristic of the Bashkir, Buryat, Ossetian, 

Chuvash and Lezgin rural communities. These ethnic rural communities only began to be actively 

involved in urbanization processes at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries, which, for 

example, in Buryatia led to the rapid growth of the suburbs of Ulan-Ude, and in Bashkiria to the 

"indigenization" of the ethnic structure of the population of the regional capital - Ufa. 

At the same time, the demographic potential of most of these ethnic rural communities has already 

been somewhat undermined, which is expressed in a fairly high share of the urban population (from 40 

to 60%). The high migration outflow of the rural population is supported by a decrease in the birth rate 

and the destruction of traditional ways of life of communities. 

The "Compression" stage is typical for Tatar and Lak rural communities. It is these rural communities, 

with the exception of the Russian and Ukrainian population, that have suffered the most from the 

urbanization processes. A high proportion of the elderly population and low birth rates generally 

characterize Tatar rural communities. 

Lak rural communities look slightly better against the background of Tatar rural communities, but the 

demographic potential undermined during the Soviet period significantly limits their development. In 

mountainous rural areas with a Lak majority (Lak and Kulinsky districts), abandoned settlements can 

very often be found. Inhabited settlements are characterized by extremely small size, significant 

seasonal differences in population dynamics, and high values of the share of empty housing stock. 

The "Disappearance" stage of rural communities is less common in the national republics. Most often, 

these are Russian and Ukrainian rural communities, represented by small settlements with a 

predominantly elderly population or medium-sized settlements with a minimum share of families with 

children under 18. It is noteworthy that the abandonment of some settlements is opposed by new city 

dwellers—former rural residents—who, in the status of recreationists, complement the rural 

community. However, this still leads to the disappearance of former rural communities with a traditional 

way of life. 

This is facilitated by the demographic transition that Russians and Ukrainians have gone through and 

the total outflow of population to cities. 

Mordvin rural communities complement the list of these two ethnic groups, despite the fact that in the 

structure of the Mordvins the proportion of the urban population is significantly lower (51.3%). This is 

due to the extremely active spread of ethnic assimilation. It, coupled with the low birth rate, leads to a 

significant reduction in the rural population (-54% in 1989-2020) and the depopulation of rural 

settlements. Often in the intercensal periods, one can observe how Mordvin villages simply disappear 

on the map, turning into Russian ones. 

It should be said that behind such a rapid transformation of ethnic identity, even among rural 

Mordvins, there is, for example, the actual disappearance of traditional economic structures and 

practices (abandonment of traditional gardening for Mordvin peasants), transformation of the way of 

life (disappearance of pagan elements), etc. 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

61 
 

The above stages of transformation illustrate well how much rural communities are alive at the present 

time. From the text above, it is clear that in addition to general characteristics (demography, settlement, 

etc.), a special role is played by whether ethnic rural communities have undergone demographic 

modernization. This is important since it determines their preservation until the appearance of external 

actors of influence. 

Accordingly, the transformation of ethnic rural communities in the post-Soviet period can be "inertial" 

or "modernization". 

The first case is typical for Russian, Ukrainian, and Mordvin rural communities, the Soviet and post-

Soviet development trends of which are identical (the main trend is depopulation and polarization of 

rural settlement). The second case is typical for other ethnic rural communities, which are not 

homogeneous within themselves due to different rates of demographic modernization, which gives rise 

to many variations in the development of rural areas with different ethnic population structures. Thus, 

by correlating the options and stages of transformation of different ethnic rural communities, we can 

obtain their following distribution (Table 5). 

Table 5. Prevailing variants and stages of post-Soviet transformation of ethnic rural communities 

 
Options for post-Soviet transformation of rural communities 

"Inertial" "Modernization" 

S
ta

g
es

 o
f 

tr
an

sf
o

rm
at

io
n
 o

f 
ru

ra
l 

co
m

m
u

n
it

ie
s 

"Expansion" - 

Avar, Dargin, Ingush, Kumyk, 

Nogai, 

Tabasaran, Rutul 

"From expansion to 

compression" 
- 

Bashkir, Buryat, Ossetian, 

Chuvash, Lezgin 

"Compression" - Tatar, Lak 

"Disappearance (of the 

community 

in the previous format)» 

Russian, Ukrainian Mordvins 

 

In one way or another, based on data from other ethnic groups in Russia, a researcher or reader can 

supplement this distribution or test the methodology for their own research purposes using another 

region or country with a different ethnic population structure as an example. 

Above, we discussed the prevailing variants and stages of transformation of ethnically different rural 

communities. However, when turning to local areas, one can even find in places a complete discrepancy 

between the variants and stages of transformation of rural communities with the same ethnic identity 

due to the local context. Let us briefly examine the variants and stages of transformation of rural 

communities that deviate from the general population. 

To do this, let us compare two pairs of rural districts in the Volga region and the North Caucasus with 

a similar ethnic set of rural communities and the same characteristics of the territories. 

1. Fyodorovsky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan—Batryrevsky District of Chuvashia. 

Both the Tatar and Chuvash populations live compactly in rural districts (Table 6). 

Table 6. Some socio-economic characteristics of the surveyed areas of Bashkiria and Chuvashia 

Characteristics Year 
Republic of Bashkortostan Chuvashia Republic 

Fyodorovsky district Batyrevsky district 

Distance to the regional center, km  214 132 

Rural population density, 

people/km2 
2020 

9,6 

(For reference: in the region as a 

whole - 10,6) 

34 

(For reference: in the region as a 

whole – 23,9) 

Zonal features of rural settlement  
Continuous development, medium 

and large population 

Continuous development, small-

medium populated 

Population, thousand people 2020 16,2 32 

Dynamics of rural population, % 1989-2020 -17,6 -28,1 

Time of emergence of a stable rural 

settlement network  
1850 - 1890 XVI-XVII centuries 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

62 
 

Characteristics Year 
Republic of Bashkortostan Chuvashia Republic 

Fyodorovsky district Batyrevsky district 

Ethnic structure of the population, % 2020 

Tatars – 31,8 

Russians – 24,5 

Bashkirs – 21,8 

Chuvash – 10,9 

Mordvins – 9,5 

Chuvashes – 67 

Tatars – 30,9 

Russians – 1,3 

Mordvins - less than 1 

 

Average population of rural 

settlements in the district by ethnic 

group, people 

2020 

Bashkirs - 302 

Tatars - 301 

Chuvash - 156 

Mordovians - 147 

Russians - 48 

In the district as a whole - 237 

Chuvashes - 487 

Tatars - 1016 

In the district as a whole - 572 

 

Tatar rural communities of Fyodorovsky District are at the stage of active "compression", while Tatar 

communities of Batyrevsky District are mostly at the stage of "expansion", or "from expansion to 

compression". Such a situation is largely due to the different time of involvement of the rural population 

in "village-city" migration. 

Tatar communities in Fyodorovsky District are distinguished by an elderly age structure of the 

population: in some villages, young families with children are practically absent or are present in limited 

numbers (up to 5-10 families). For example, in the villages of Akbulatovo and Izhbulyak, out of 100-

200 permanent residents, more than 50% are people over 50 years old. It is noteworthy that despite the 

demographic crisis of these rural communities, the traditional economic structure is preserved thanks 

to representatives of older generations (an indicator of social modernization of the eastern type). 

Tatar communities in Batyrevsky District, on the contrary, have a comparatively young population 

structure: in the villages there are many young families with an average number of children of two or 

more people. The Tatar villages of Chuvashia are extremely populous (the average size of a settlement 

in 2020 was 1,016 people, compared to 301 people in the Fyodorovsky District4) and extremely 

religious. The communities are quite closed, traditional and conservative.  

The same situation is observed in relation to the Chuvash rural communities of the surveyed districts. 

In the Batyrevsky district, they are mainly at the stage of "from expansion to compression". In the 

Fyodorovsky district, there are Chuvash rural communities of two stages - both "from expansion to 

compression" and "compression". It is noteworthy that the dynamics of the average size of Chuvash 

settlements in the two districts revealed that the Chuvash communities of the Batyrevsky district are 

also beginning to depopulate in the post-Soviet period, repeating the dynamics of the Chuvashes of the 

Fyodorovsky district with a time lag of 30-50 years. 

It is interesting that the transformation of Chuvash rural communities of the same stage "from 

expansion to compression" in two remote districts proceeds differently. For example, in the 

Fyodorovsky district, the male population began to participate on a large scale in labor migration to the 

mining regions of Siberia to replace Soviet employment in collective and state farms. In the Batyrevsky 

district in the post-Soviet period, relatively large personal subsidiary farms of the population became a 

solid basis for family budgets of the rural population. The cases considered emphasize the importance 

of considering the dynamics of the economic base of the region in which communities live at the stage 

of active urbanization: in Bashkortostan, rural communities underwent active transformation back in 

the Soviet period, while in Chuvashia it is only observed, but already in different conditions. 

2. Levashinsky-Botlikhsky districts of the Republic of Dagestan. 

Levashinsky and Botlikhsky districts are in the inner mountain part of the Republic of Dagestan. 

Dargins and Avars inhabit the first district, the second only by Avars (Table 7). In these mountainous 

districts, the Soviet state program for resettling the mountain population to the plain was not 

implemented, because of which the districts have an extremely high population and population growth 

in the post-Soviet period. 

For the Avar communities of the Botlikh district, the predominant stage of transformation of rural 

communities is "expansion" (corresponds to the stage of transformation of the Avar rural communities 

of Dagestan as a whole). This is due to both a high birth rate and minimal migration of the population 

 
4In the Fyodorovsky district, the maximum average population of Tatar settlements of 916 people was 

recorded by the population census in 1926, after which there was a consistent decrease. 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

63 
 

(the local population works in private subsidiary farms and participates with families in labor migrations 

outside the republic). 

At the same time, in some Avar rural communities of the Levashinsky district (for example, in the 

village of Kutisha), on the contrary, there is a large-scale migration of young people in the direction of 

"village-city". One of the main reasons is the different degree of competitiveness of the population in 

the urban labor markets due to differences in the education of the population. 

A similar situation is observed between the Dargin rural communities of the Levashinsky district. In 

some Dargin rural communities, due to the extremely high religiosity of the population, it is not 

customary to send children to school at all or to send them until the 9th grade. Parents justify this by 

the low practical significance of education in the conditions of the availability of more profitable 

employment opportunities in rural settlements (growing white cabbage and vegetables, transportation, 

trade, etc.). As a result, some Dargin rural communities are distinguished by simply "explosive growth" 

in population, which outpaces the overall regional growth rates of the rural population. 

 

Table 7. Some socio-economic characteristics of the surveyed areas of Dagestan 

Characteristics Year 
Republic of Dagestan 

Levashinsky district Botlikhsky district 

Distance to the regional center, km  94 145 

Geomorphological region (altitude 

zone) 
 Intramountain region of mountainous Dagestan 

Rural population density, 

people/km2 
2020 98,9 87,2 

Zonal features of rural settlement  Mountain focal livestock and agricultural settlement 

Population, thousand people 2020 80,4 59,9 

Dynamics of rural population, % 1989-2020 Has grown 2 times Increased by 2,2 times 

Time of emergence of a stable rural 

settlement network  
Approximately one chronological period (more than 300 years) 

Ethnic structure of the population, % 2020 

Dargins – 77,2 

Avars – 21,2 

Others – 1,6 

Avars – 96,3 

Others – 3,7 

Average population of rural 

settlements in the district by ethnic 

group, people 

2020 
Dargins – 1128 

Avars – 1918 
Avars – 1619 

 

Deviations in the stages and variants of transformation of ethnic rural communities of Dagestan are 

associated, among other things, with the level of education of the rural population, which somewhere 

has a positive effect on the stability of rural settlement. This is because the higher the level of education 

of representatives of rural communities, the more options they must choose from and, as a rule, the 

higher their migration mobility, which is reflected in the depopulation of, for example, the same Avar 

village of Kutisha. 

Conclusion  

Based on the analysis of the values of demographic indicators and the settlement structure of the rural 

population of different ethnic groups, it was possible to identify differences in the prevailing variants 

of the transformation of rural communities with different ethnic structures of the population. 

In many ways, the recorded post-Soviet differences are determined by the involvement of Russian 

ethnic rural communities simultaneously in the processes of urbanization and, above all, demographic 

modernization. The entire diversity of rural community’s transformations can be described through 

universal variants of the rural community’s transformation ("inertial" and "modernization"), reflecting 

the nature of changes in rural communities, and stages ("expansion", "from expansion to compression", 

"compression" and "disappearance in the previous format"), reflecting their scale of change. 

The transformation of the majority of the surveyed ethnic rural communities has a modernization 

character (communities of the North Caucasus, the Volga region and Siberia), only a small number have 

an inertial character (for example, Russians and Ukrainians). More significant is the differentiation of 

ethnic rural communities in Russia, according to the current stage of transformation of rural settlements 



Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

64 
 

(otherwise rural communities, since the population of each individual settlement is a separate local 

community). Ingush and many Dagestani communities are at the stage of "expansion", Bashkir, Buryat, 

Chuvash, Ossetian and Lezgin communities are at the stage of "from expansion to compression", Tatar 

and Lak communities are at the stage of "compression", and Russian, Ukrainian and Mordvin 

communities are at the stage of "disappearance in the previous format". 

The concept of cycles is not applicable to the analysis of the ethnic rural communities’ transformation, 

since we are talking about a fundamental change in the composition of communities as a result of their 

modernization. The revival/revitalization of settlements by new city dwellers—recreationists—does not 

contribute to the restoration of traditional elements and connections.  

Field surveys of rural communities and data on the average size of a rural settlement have shown that 

there are certain deviations from the prevailing variant and stage of transformation among rural 

communities of one ethnic identity. They are usually associated with the action of local factors in the 

development of rural settlements (for example, the development of the economic base, the historical 

experience of local population mobility, the factor of human personality, etc.).  

Examples of the transformation of Tatar and Chuvash, Avar, and Dargin rural communities located 

within territories with similar zonal characteristics and development conditions confirmed that these 

rural communities went through the same set of stages of rural community transformation with a certain 

time lag. 

Competing interests 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Funding 

The Russian Science Foundation Grant No. 24-17-00107 has provided financial support for this 

research. 

ORCID iD 

Linar Imangulov https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6254-2049 

Reference 

 

Alekseev, A.I., & Imangulov, L.R. (2022). Rural areas of Bashkiria: Prevailing types and features of 

transformation in the post-Soviet period. Peasant Studies, 4. doi: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-4-109-132 

Alekseev, A.I., & Safronov, S.G. (2017). Typology of rural settlements in the European part of Russia under 

recent demographic and socio-economic situation. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5, Geografiya, 

6. 

Averkieva, K.V. (2021). Lateral Rural Migrations and Local Transformation Processes of Rural Areas in the 

Forest Zone of the Old-Developed Non-Black Earth Region. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya 

Geograficheskaya, 85(6). https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587556621060066 

Averkieva, K.V., Nefedova, T.G., & Kondakova, T. Yu. (2021). Polarization of socio-economic space in the 

regions of the old-developed Center of Russia: the example of the Yaroslavl region. World of Russia, 30(1). 

https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2021-30-1-49-66 

Breslavsky, A.S. (2013). Suburbanization in post-Soviet Buryatia and features of internal migration flows. 

Oikumena. Regional studies, 3.  

Cherkasov, A.A. (2018).  Features of the involvement of ethnic groups in urbanization processes in Russia. 

Science, innovation, technology, 4.  

Collins-Kreiner, N. (2013). The Life Cycle Concept & the Evolution of Villages. Journal of Applied Economics 

and Business, 1.  

Demographic modernization of Russia, 1900-2000 (2006). Ed. A. Vishnevsky. New publishing house. 

Fadeeva, O. P. (2015). Rural communities and economic structures: from survival to development. IEOP SB RAS. 

Fomkina, A.A. (2017). Transformation of rural settlement systems in the old-developed non-black earth region 

from the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 21st century. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5, 

Geografiya, 5.  

Gusakov, T.Yu. (2019). The multistructure of the contemporary ethnic region in Russia: Archaization, 

agrarianization and migration (on the example of the Republic of Tyva). Peasant Studies, 4. 

https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587556621060066
https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2021-30-1-49-66


Imangulov 2024 4(2) 

65 
 

Long, H., Zou, J., & Liu, Y. (2009). Differentiation of rural development driven by industrialization and 

urbanization in eastern coastal China. Habitat International. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.03.003. 

Imangulov, L.R. (2021). Typology of settlements in a polyethnic region (on the example of Chuvashia). Russian 

peasant studies, 4. doi: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-4-107-124 

Imangulov, L.R. (2023). Ethnic aspects of rural migration in the Fedorovsky district of the Republic of 

Bashkortostan. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5, Geografiya, 2. 

https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0579-9414.5.78.2.11 

Imangulov, L.R., Maksimenko, M.R., Savoskul, M.S., & Safronov S.G. (2021). Study of the ethnocultural factor 

on the evolution of rural settlement using the example of multiethnic regions of Bashkiria and Mari El. 

Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5, Geografiya, 1. 

Nefedova, T G. (2012). Rural Stavropol through the Eyes of a Moscow Geographer. Diversity of Regions in the 

South of Russia. Publishing House of Saratov State University. 

Nefedova, T.G. (2012). Ten topical issues about Rural Russia: A geographer’s viewpoint. URSS. 

Yajing, L., Jianhua, H., Qiaobing, Y., Xuesong, K., & Miaomiao, Z. (2022). Linking rural settlements 

optimization with village development stages: A life cycle perspective. Habitat International. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102696. 

Yuheng, L., Hans, W., & Yansui, L. (2019). Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An overview 

of rural evolution in the world. Journal of Rural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.003. 

Zubarevich, N.V. (2003). Social development of Russian regions in the transition period. PhD dissertataion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0579-9414.5.78.2.11
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102696
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.003

