FINAL REPORT TONATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H

TITLE : SIBERIAN URBANIZATION SINCESTALI N

AUTHOR : Gary Hauslade n

CONTRACTOR : Board of Regents, University of Nevad aSystem, on behalf of the University o fNeyada, Reno

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Gary Hausladen

COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 804-0 4

DATE :

October, 199 0

The work leading to this report was supported by funds provide dby the National Council for Soviet and East European Research .The analysis and interpretations contained in the report arethose of the author .

I

SIBERIAN URBANIZATIO NSINCE STALI N

Table of Content s

Page

Executive Summary i

Final Repor t

Introduction 1

Siberia's Role as Colony : Global andHistorical Perspective 4

A global perspective

5Historical Context

9Tsarist Legacy

1 0Stalinist Legacy

1 3Kruschev and Brezhnev legacies

1 6

Basic Trends in Siberian Urbanizationin the Post-Stalin Era 2 2

Geographical context

2 2Treasure trove of resources

2 3Access to Pacific Asia

2 8Siberian Urbanization, 1959-1985

3 2Urban agglomerations in Siberia

4 0

Potential Impact of Economic Restructuring . . .

5 0Siberia's role in perestroyka

5 2Potential impact of perestroyka on Siberia

5 7

Conclusion : the Changing Role of Siberian Urbanizatio nin the Soviet Economy 6 4

Literature Cited 6 8Figures 72

Appendix 1 : Soviet Urban Agglomerations 7 3Appendix 2 : Cities of Soviet Siberia 8 2Appendix 3 : Selected Bibliography 89

SIBERIAN URBANIZATIONSINCE STALIN

Gary Hauslade nDepartment of Geography

University of Nevada, Ren o

Executive Summar ySubmitted to the National Counci l

for Soviet and East European Researc hAugust 31, 199 0

During the three decades of the post-Stalin era, investmen t

priorities and development strategies toward Siberia, rhetori c

notwithstanding, reinforced and strengthened Siberia' s

traditional role as a colonial periphery to the European core .

The structure for the controlling and exploiting of this colonia l

relationship continues to be, as it has been for centuries, th e

settlement system, which has come to be dominated by a limite d

number of large urban agglomerations . This study examines the

development of Siberia's settlement system in historical and

global perspective as a basis for analyzing contemporary trends .

It then provides a regionalization scheme, based on concentratio n

of population, kinds of economic activities, and geographi c

orientation . Closely associated with this regionalization schem e

is the identification of 24 urban agglomerations, in which pas t

Siberian development has been concentrated, and in which futur e

growth will most likely be focused . The study concludes with th e

presentation of several possible scenarios for futur e

development, each of which correlates to different levels o f

increased interaction in the world economy, as well as varying

degrees of success for economic restructuring in the USSR . To

one extreme, the study suggests that there could be little impac t

and Siberia, as a whole, will continue simply as a colony of th e

Soviet state . To the other extreme, this study suggests tha t

economic restructuring and greater global interaction, especially

with the Pacific Basin, could lead to greater economic, an d

possible political, independence for parts of Siberia in the 21s t

century .

The first part of the study examines Siberia's role as a

colony of European Russia by arguing for the utility of tw o

methodological perspectives -- one global, the other historical .

A global perspective provides context for examining how local an d

regional factors interact with national and international

processes to produce a human geography that is a blend of commo n

and unique characteristics . A global perspective demands a n

historical perspective as well . Both lay essential groundwor k

for understanding contemporary patterns of development and

interaction . Both perspectives must be utilized to full y

understand Siberia's changing role as a resource frontier to th e

Russian Empire and the Soviet state .

The second part of the study examines Siberian urbanizatio n

in the post-Stalin era . In addition to setting the geographica l

context for the development of Siberia, this part offers tw o

original contributions to the study of Soviet Siberia . First, it

provides a regionalization scheme that delineates ten economi c

ii

regions . And then, closely related to the regionalizatio n

scheme, 24 major urban agglomerations are identified and briefl y

described . Due to a lack of data, this part of the analysis

remains incomplete . Yet, it is still useful because basic trend s

can be identified by using the data that are available, an d

because the framework has now been structured for futur e

analysis .

The geographical context provides the basis for defining ten

economic regions, based on concentration of population, kinds o f

economic activities and geographical orientation . Closely

associated with these regions are 24 urban agglomerations, which

this study identifies . The growth of these urban agglomerations

in the post-Stalin era parallels growth trends, as previousl y

discussed, for urban Siberia as a whole . This is not surprisin g

given that 52 of Siberia's 66 cities with populations of at leas t

50,000, including all cities of 100,000, are within urban

agglomerations . These 52 cities account for 62 percent of th e

total urban population of Siberia's 208 cities and 684 urban-typ e

settlements .

When we divide the urban agglomerations into central citie s

and satellite cities, several interesting trends are revealed i n

this respect . All 25 central cities showed healthy positiv e

growth between 1959 and 1985 . Together they showed an increas e

in population of just over 5 .2 million (5 .5 to 10 .7 million), o r

iii

95 percent, which is substantially higher than the relative urba n

increase for Siberia (78 percent) or the Soviet Union as a whol e

(80 percent) . These 25 central cities alone accounted for 5 4

percent of the total increase in urban population for Siberi a

between 1959 and 1985 .

There was much greater diversity for the 27 satellite citie s

for which we have data for both years . Total growth for thes e

cities was 958 thousand (1,995 to 2,953), an increase of 4 8

percent, which further supports the contention that most of th e

growth was concentrated in the central cities . Of these 27

cities, five actually showed decreases in population . I n

addition, there were 10 satellite cities with populations in the

upper 20s to mid—30s in 1959 that had not reached 50,000 by 1985 .

What we are witnessing is exactly the opposite of th e

phenomenon experienced by US metropolitan areas in the 1970s and

1980s, now referred to as suburbanization . Metropolitan areas

experienced healthy growth at the same time that central citie s

were declining in population . In the Soviet Union in general ,

and Siberia in particular, the growth of the central cities wa s

the prime contributor to the growth of the agglomerations .

Limited supplies of goods and services, better housing and othe r

amenities continue to produce a situation in which large urba n

centers are the most attractive alternatives for a larg e

proportion of the Soviet populace . One of the key challenge s

iv

facing economic restructuring is the difficulties of distributin g

goods and services more equally throughout the settlement syste m

to relieve the pressure on the largest cities and to make th e

satellite cities an attractive alternative to "life in the bi g

city . "

The final part of the study posits alternative scenarios fo r

future development under economic restructuring . Three basi c

alternatives arise . The first scenario suggests no change, o r

even a slowing of growth in Siberia . The second scenari o

suggests some impact as a result of the implementation of som e

aspects of perestroyka, in which Siberia will play a n

increasingly important role . A final scenario predict s

substantial changes as a result of radical reforms more closel y

associated with the recent initiatives of Boris Yeltsin, even t o

the point of economic and political independence from the

European core .

For the remainder of the 20th century, however, Siberia mus t

still wait for its role to change, for the basic nature of it s

development to become comprehensive, designed to benefit regiona l

and local development at the expense of national and

international markets . For now, as it has been for the entir e

Soviet period, Siberia remains dependent on the core for it s

growth, serving as a resource frontier for European Russia and

the world .

v

SIBERIAN URBANIZATIO NSINCE STALI N

Final Repor tSubmitted to the National Counci l

for Soviet and East European Researc hAugust 31, 199 0

Gary HausladenDepartment of Geograph y

University of Nevada, Reno

INTRODUCTION

After four centuries as a colony of the Russian and Sovie t

empires, Siberia still retains its mystery and allure as a lan d

of great challenges, yet even greater potential, a land of vital

importance to the European core . The history of "Russian

Siberia" has witnessed many changes, while the basic nature o f

its relationship with European Russia, a classic core-peripher y

relationship, has remained unchanged . A key component of thi s

relationship has been the settlement-system, which has provide d

the means for control and exploitation . The structure of this

settlement system initially took the form of forts and yillages ,

which later evolved into towns and cities, and which today have

grown into major urban centers and agglomerations .

In recent history, for the 30-plus years since Stalin, th e

basic nature of Siberia's relationship with Moscow has remained

core-periphery, and the importance of the urban settlement syste m

has been enhanced . It is, in fact, through the urban settlemen t

system that we can better understand Siberia's development . To a

great extent, the urban settlement system serves as a reflection

of Siberia's past and as a barometer of its future under th e

conditions of economic and political restructuring that ar e

taking place in the Soviet Union today .

These are the premises that formed the foundation for th e

original research proposal, "Siberian urbanization since Stalin, "

for which this Final Report provides a summary of researc h

findings . As a result, the final report presents the researc h

findings within the framework of three major sections : (1 )

Siberia's role as a colony ; (2) basic trends in Siberia n

urbanization in the post-Stalin era ; and (3) the potential impac t

of economic restructuring on Siberia and Siberian urbanization i n

the future .

The first section addresses Siberia's role as a colony . I t

examines the nature of Siberia's relationship to the Russia n

Empire and Soviet state, which, in turn, provides the background

and context for understanding the importance of the urba n

settlement system . This section greatly expands the role o f

methodology in the study . In this regard, the value o f

historical continuity and a global perspective add to ou r

analysis of urban processes in the region .

2

The second section addresses basic trends in Siberia n

urbanization . It examines the processes of urbanization in th e

region since 1959 . It builds upon the work of Soviet scholar s

Lappo and Pertsik, as well as earlier work by the author . The

major contribution is the identification of 24 urba n

agglomerations in Siberia, and an analysis of growth trends ove r

the past three decades . This is accomplished within the

framework of a regionalization scheme that subdivides Siberi a

into more useful regional components .

The third section addresses the potential impact o f

restructuring . It presents alternative scenarios for Siberia n

urbanization and development in light of recent and continuing

changes under perestroyka . This remains the most nebulous par t

of the research, although possibly the most intriguing . Recent

events, more closely related to Siberia's role in the RSFSR, hav e

added new dimensions to the prognostications .

3

SIBERIA'S ROLE AS COLONY :

GLOBAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES*

In order to understand urbanization and the development o f

the urban settlement system in Siberia, it is essential t o

understand the context within which it evolved . In this regard ,

the first section of this report represents a diversion from the

original goals of the research proposal, albeit an essentia l

diversion . Initially, this project sought to begin with th e

present and eventually work backwards historically . Patterns and

processes in the post-Stalin period, however, were confusing o r

not understandable without an historical context . Especiall y

important was an understanding of the Stalin period, whic h

provided the framework for the post-Stalinist period . Yet, eve n

the Stalinist framework was not without influence from it s

tsarist past .

Thus, in providing the foundation for analyzing Siberian

urbanization since Stalin, this section discusses the value o f

two methodological perspectives for the analysis : (1) a globa l

perspective, and (2) the historical context . A global

perspective provides context for examining how local and regiona l

factors interact with national and international processes to

* This section and parts of the following two section srepresent expanded versions of parts of "Perestroyka and Siberia :frontier resource development," which will be published as achapter in The Soviet Union : A New Regional Geography , edited byMichael Bradshaw (forthcoming : Belhaven Press, 1991) .

4

produce a human geography that is a blend of common and uniqu e

characteristics . A global perspective demands an historica l

perspective as well . Both lay essential groundwork fo r

understanding contemporary patterns of development and

interaction .

A global perspective

One of the major weaknesses of contemporary studies of th e

Soviet Union in general, and Siberia in particular, is a lack o f

a strong theoretical (conceptual) framework for examination an d

analysis . Sovietologists, including geographers, seem immune t o

the recent explosion of articles sensitive to the need fo r

updated paradigms and models in the social sciences and huma n

geography . A plethora of work has been published that support s

the utility of employing a global perspective, also referred t o

as a world—systems approach, to the study of geographica l

problems, urbanization notwithstanding . To the present, ther e

has been little explicit application of a global perspective t o

Siberian development .

Traditionally, the "Siberian experience" has been treated a s

a singular phenomenon, understandable only within its Russian an d

Soviet context . There are, of course, characteristics of th e

Siberian experience that are singularly Siberian . At the same

time, these kinds of analyses have been blind to those aspects o f

Siberian development that have been in response to global

5

processes and the changing role of Russian/Soviet integratio n

into the world economy . Both perspectives must be balanced t o

fully understand Siberia's changing role as a resource frontie r

to the Russian Empire and the Soviet state . Only when one put s

Russian industrialization during the Stalin and post-Stalin year s

in the context of inter-state competition, exacerbated b y

ideological considerations, can one understand continue d

development of resources at all costs in regions of grea t

economic inefficiency . Especially in the context of perestroyka ,

both local and global processes will influence Siberia's changing

role in the Soviet economy .

In many contemporary studies, contacts with the outsid e

world are given some attention, more often than not in terms o f

levels of foreign trade, but primarily in terms of expediting o r

retarding development, not as a causal factor . One of the best

recent treatments of Siberian development, by Jonathan Schiffe r

(1989), maintains that basic motives for Siberian developmen t

were domestic, to the exclusion of global factors . This study

strongly disagrees, and suggests that it is necessary to balance

domestic with global factors . Without a global perspective, the

puzzle cannot be solved .

The key point here is that a global perspective is importan t

not because it replaces local factors, but because it complement s

them . It also suggests that many seemingly local factors ar e

6

influenced by global processes . The two, global and local, must

be balanced to provide a full and complete picture . Th e

importance of a global perspective is explicitly presented i n

each of the following sections on historical and geographica l

context .

Inclusion of a balanced approach also raises questions o f

scale, which is particularly important for any geographica l

study . In balancing global and local factors, it is necessary t o

address the scales of analysis . At least four can be readil y

identified : local, regional, national and international .

Factors at each level contribute to the overall makeup of th e

particular urban environment, providing a balance betwee n

similarities and differences between places . National an d

international factors add to similarities between places, while

regional and local factors add to their uniqueness . Questions o f

scale raise additional questions of perspective with respect t o

differentiating between national and foreign levels o f

integration .

If Siberia serves primarily as a resource colony to th e

European Russian core, then the difference between national an d

foreign may be semantic . In other words, from the point of vie w

of the Siberians, demands from Moscow and Japan are both foreign ,

except for the fact that Siberia is administratively tied t o

Moscow . From the point of view of economic relations ,

7

allocations of capital, and exploitation of resources, th e

differences may not be so clear .

One major problem in constructing such a scenario is the

lack of data and information on flow of Siberian goods, althoug h

some interpolations can be made . The issue concerns the basi c

relationship of Siberia to the European core, wherein, from th e

point of view of Siberia, exports to European Russia are simply

another form of foreign trade . In either case, exports t o

European Russia or exports to foreign countries, the greates t

benefits are accumulated by Moscow, often at the expense of th e

regional and local economies .

At the local and regional levels, this study calls int o

question the use of the term "Siberia" to refer to all region s

east of the Urals (Figs . 1 and 2) . The Soviets themselves ar e

quite specific about the fact that Siberia does not include th e

Soviet Far East . But even that distinction produces macro -

regions that are often too cumbersome to analyze in any usefu l

way. To a great extent, the problems of regionalization and th e

need to balance regional and local scales results from th e

structure of Soviet statistics . Although seldom published i n

this form, we are hungry for any data provided at the economi c

region level . This has clearly been a case whereby the manner i n

which Soviet statistics are published often determines th e

structure of analysis . There is need for more precision .

8

One possibility is a new regionalization scheme, which i s

provided in the following section on geographical context .

Another contribution is the accumulation of urban data into

agglomerations, which is provided in the next section . Becaus e

data are still sorely lacking, each of these attempts i s

preliminary and incomplete . Yet, the era of glasnost' may

provide some of the data to fill in the blanks .

Each of these issues is important in addressing Siberia' s

role and the process of urbanization that has occurred therein .

The study attempts to be sensitive to these issues as it firs t

provides the historical and geographical context and, later, a s

it examines urbanization since 1959 . These issues become eve n

more important as the process of restructuring begins to affec t

Siberian development in the 21st century .

Historical context

A solid historical foundation is essential to understanding

contemporary processes (see, for example Aziatskaya Rossiya ,

1974, Lyashchenko, 1949, Okladnikov and Shunkov, 1968, and

Semyonov, 1963) . In this manner, it is possible to identify

continuity and change in the evolution and development o f

Siberia . Not only is the Siberian experience treated i n

isolation from global processes, contemporary Soviet themes ar e

often treated as totally new and alienated from their tsaris t

past . This study stresses balance between continuity and chang e

9

when examining the evolution of the Siberian settlement system .

Tsarist legacy : foundations for Soviet colonialism . By the

end of the tsarist period, it is possible to characterize the

relationship between the Russian heartland and Siberia as a

classic core-periphery relationship . Although the inclusion o f

Siberia into the Russian state was facilitated by the fact tha t

it was contiguous, the basic nature of the relationship remaine d

colonial . Many of the characteristics of this relationship ha d

changed over three centuries, but the basic dependency between

core and periphery remained firmly entrenched . Primary goods ,

most importantly agricultural products, furs, fish, and, to a

lesser extent, minerals, provided the economic rationale fo r

Russian interest in the region, as did access to the Pacifi c

afforded by the recently-completed Trans-Siberian Railroad . At

the same time, primitive methods of resource extraction an d

industrialization kept the eastern regions heavily dependent upo n

European Russia and foreign countries for manufactured good s

(Lyashchenko, 1949, pp . 584-604) .

For the most part, early 20th century Siberia, specificall y

West Siberia, served as an agricultural colony, which supplie d

grain and dairy products to Europe and East Siberia . Furs fo r

European Russia and Europe still retained importance as a sourc e

of national wealth, as did certain metals, especially gold ,

silver, copper, coal, and others . Yet, lack of technology i n

1 0

extraction and production limited the degree to which thes e

mineral resources stimulated growth and added to the nationa l

wealth . Those enterprises that succeeded were generally finance d

with foreign capital, as in the case of gold production i n

regions around the Lena, Vitim, Zeya and Bureya rivers, or wer e

under the direct control of the tsar, as in the case of the Alta y

and Nerchinsk gold and silver regions (Aziatskaya Rossiya, 1974 ,

vol 1, pp . 388-439, and vol . 2, pp . 182-87) .

Thus, on the eve of revolution, the economic geography o f

Siberia (Fig . 3) already held the seeds of growth for economi c

integration into the national economy . To that time, however ,

the infrastructure had not been provided to take advantage of it s

relatively-untapped wealth .

In addition to its value as a potential source of unlimited

natural resources, Siberia played an important strategic role i n

Russia's growth . In this regard, access to China had always been

a key factor in tsarist designs on the Orient . The constructio n

of the Trans-Siberian Railroad in the late-nineteenth century re -

enforced Russia's control of Siberia and strengthened its link t o

the Far East and the Pacific .

After selling off its claims to Russian America in 1867, th e

Russian Empire spent the latter part of the 19th centur y

consolidating its holdings in the Amur region, taking advantag e

1 1

of a decaying Manchu dynasty (see Seton-Watson, 1967, pp . 438-45 ,

579-97, 682-84) . The extension of the Trans-Siberian acros s

Manchuria gave clear warning of further designs in the region .

These designs, and further Russian expansion, were put to an end

with its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) . Although

this defeat probably hurried along the overthrow of the monarch y

in Russia, it also served to consolidate and legitimize Russian

claims in the Far East . As a result of the Treaty of Portsmouth ,

Russia maintained control of the Amur and Maritime regions and

the northern half of Sakhalin island . Although forced to ced e

control of northern Manchuria, Liaodong peninsula, and southern

Sakhalin, Russia's links to the furthest reaches of its colonia l

empire were now strengthened physically by rail and politically

by treaty .

The Revolution and subsequent establishment of the Soviet

Union did little to change the basic nature of this relationship .

In many respects, the ministerial model of control and decision-

making within the Soviet economy paralleled the tsarist system o f

centralized control . When one adds to the political-economi c

structure the adversities of Civil War, collectivization and

World War, it is not surprising that many of the ideologically -

bound goals for diversified Siberian development did not receiv e

serious attention during the first four decades of Soviet rule .

1 2

Stalinist legacy : eastward and extensive growth strategies.

The economic history of the Soviet Union has been defined by th e

decision of Stalin to pursue rapid industrialization in a n

attempt to modernize and "catch the West ." Stalin made it clea r

that competition with the capitalist countries played no smal l

role in that decision .

We have lagged fifty to a hundred years behind th eleading countries . We must cover this distance in tenyears . Either we do, or they crush us (as quoted inHutchings, 1982, p . 48) .

This approach has led to unequal development for differen t

sectors of the economy ; heavy industry and the military hav e

benefitted at the expense of light and consumer industries . This

strategy had specific implications for Siberian development .

For Siberia, rapid industrialization meant that an

increasing importance was tied to energy and mineral resourc e

extraction, heretofore underutilized . Now, the industria l

resources of Siberia were used to stimulate industria l

development in the European regions of the country . First, they

supplemented European supplies ; later they replaced them . Th e

economic value of West Siberia was noted by Lenin immediatel y

after the Revolution, and incorporated into the first five-yea r

plan (FYP) in 1928-29, wherein the decision was made to develo p

metallurgy based on the supply of iron ore from the Urals an d

1 3

coal from the Kuznetsk basin (Kuzbas) (Ekonomicheskaya, 1989, p .

113) .

Greater emphasis on eastern development was well underway b y

World War II, as witnessed by increased industrial production ,

the establishment of 33 new cities (between 1928 and 1941), an d

increased population . From 1938-40 alone, nearly 600,00 0

migrated to Siberia and the Far East (Alekseyev and Isupov, 1986 ,

p . 50) . The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, however ,

greatly increased the pace of Stalin's shifting of industria l

production capacity eastward .

The Nazi occupation of the western regions of the Sovie t

Union forced a massive migration of factories and labor . From

1941 to 1942, nearly 1600 large-scale factories were completel y

evacuated from the west, as were millions of workers . Of thes e

244 were relocated in West Siberia and 87 were relocated in Eas t

Siberia (Dokuchayev and Kozybayev, 1987, p . 82) . Additionally ,

over 2000 new factories were constructed in Siberia an d

Kazakhstan during the War (de Souza, 1989, p . 71) . As a result ,

from 1940 to 1945, production of heavy industry almost tripled i n

West Siberia and increased by nearly 40 percent in East Siberi a

(Alekseyev and Isupov, 1986, p . 64) .

14

An ancillary result of these policies was the stimulus the y

gave to urbanization in the region . The process of Siberian

migration during the War had several components . First, millions

of Siberians left Siberia to fight in the War . Most of thes e

were men from the countryside . To provide the necessary labo r

for the increased level of industrialization, large numbers o f

rural Siberians as well as large numbers of European urba n

dwellers migrated to Siberian cities . Although the tota l

population of Siberia decreased by 1 .5 million during the War ,

there was actually an increase in urban dwellers of nearly 70 0

thousand (Alekseyev and Isupov, 1986, p . 194) . In fact, th e

migration of labor and industry during World War II played n o

small role in the urbanization of Siberia . This proces s

accelerated trends already underway . In 1929, on the eve o f

rapid industrialization, only 14 percent of the population o f

Siberia lived in cities; this proportion had increased to 3 1

percent in 1939 just prior to the War . By 1945, at the end o f

the War, 43 percent of the population lived in cities (Isupov ,

1987, pp . 35 and 39) .

On the one hand, shifting industrial capacity eastward

resulted in increased investment in Siberian development . Yet ,

the nature of the development reinforced Siberia's dependency o n

European Russia and hampered its ability to produce a

multidimensional economic geography . The overall goal of thes e

policies was not to benefit Siberia, but to replace and augmen t

the nation's productive strength .

1 5

Although Stalin sought to create a self-sufficient Sovie t

economy, isolated from the capitalist world economy, it was, i n

fact, processes in the world economy that greatly influence d

Soviet policies toward Siberia -- competition with the West ,

which stimulated "superindustrialization", and World War II ,

which accelerated the shift in industrial capacity eastward . By

the end of World War II, Siberia's value economically an d

strategically had been clearly demonstrated, and its integratio n

into the national economy a priority item .

The post-War period saw a dramatic, but short lived shift in

priorities as the Soviet Union sought to reconstruct and recove r

from the devastation . This meant, of course, major investment i n

the western regions of the country, which had suffered incredibl e

losses during the War . For the interim, Siberian development wa s

put on hold .

Khrushchev and Brezhnev legacies : the Siberian mega

projects . With few exceptions, the post-Stalin era proved to b e

no different . Although plans talked of regional equity and

improvements in the levels of development in outlying regions ,

the actual character of investment into the region remaine d

highly concentrated and localized, still emphasizing the

importance of resource extraction, transportation links with th e

Pacific, and military security .

16

One aspect of Siberian development that evolved unde r

Khrushchev and Brezhnev was the approval of mega projects - -

gigantic economic ventures that required large allocations o f

capital resources, with questionable levels of return to th e

national economy . The first of these were the huge hydroelectri c

power projects begun the 1950s . Constructions of these project s

lasted 30 years into the 1980s .

Major hydro power stations have been constructed, or ar e

under construction, along the Angara River, at Bratsk, Ust ' -

Ilimsk and Boguchany ; along the Yenisey, at Krasnoyarsk and

Sayan-Shushenskoye ; and, along the Zeya, Bureya, Vilyuy an d

Kolyma rivers in the Far East (USSR, 1985, pp . 50-51) . Each has

been responsible for the establishment of high-energy consumptio n

production, particularly aluminum . Yet the overall economi c

rationale may be questioned :

It may well be that the whole policy of construction o fgigantic Siberian hydroelectric power stations was afantastically costly mistake, undertaken withou tadequate analysis and in ignorance of the energy crisiswhich the European USSR began to face from the mid -1950s onwards (Schiffer, 1989, p . 24) .

Despite controversy within the Soviet Union over th e

advisability of hydroelectric projects in Siberia and the Fa r

East, the decade of the 1970s saw further implementation of meg a

projects, particularly the Baykal-Amur Mainline (BAM) and

Territorial-Production Complexes (TPC's) . Although they marked a

change in Soviet strategies, they were reminiscent of simila r

1 7

tsarist mega projects . In fact, BAM is often referred to as th e

second Trans-Siberian .

The 1970s may be referred to as the decade of the mega

projects . The epitome of these projects was the construction o f

the Baykal-Amur Mainline (BAM ; Fig . 4) (see Shabad and Mote ,

1977) . Initially stretching from Ust'-Kut to Komsomol'sk, i t

stretched over 2000 miles and was planned to account for on e

percent of the total Soviet capital investment for the 1970s ,

over 40 percent of the total expenditures for Soviet railroad s

during the period 1976-80 (Shabad and Mote, 1977, pp . 66-67) . By

the time of its completion, it greatly exceeded planned costs .

Additional lines linked Ust'Kut to the Trans-Siberian at Taishet ,

and in the east it was extended to reach the Pacific Ocean a t

Sovetskaya Gavan' . From Komsomol'sk a line joined it to th e

Trans-Siberian at Khabarovsk, and a feeder line (Little BAM )

linked with Burkakit in southern Yakutiya .

The rationale for BAM was clearly in keeping with Siberia' s

role in the national economy . Economically, BAM was intended t o

open new resource regions for exploitation, for both domestic an d

foreign markets, and to provide better access to Pacific Asia .

Strategically, BAM was intended to provide a more secure rout e

for the movement of troops and equipment vis-a-vis China . Bot h

economic and strategic considerations, thus, played importan t

roles in implementing a mega project, which, like the hydro powe r

1 8

stations, was questionable with respect to economic efficiency .

The 1970s also saw the implementation, at least in theory ,

of Territorial Production Complexes (TPC's) (see : de Souza ,

1989) . Although not as "concrete" as hydro stations and rai l

lines, they represent another kind of approach to Siberian

economic development, at least in commitment . It is not yet

clear the extent to which they are rhetoric and/or reality .

According to Kolosovskiy, the father of the TPC concept, an d

as quoted in de Souza (1989, p . 89) :

. . . a production complex is an economi c(interconnected) combination of enterprises in a give nindustrial center or in an entire region that achieve sa desired economic effect through proper (planned )selection of enterprises in accordance with the natura land economic conditions of the region and its economic -geographic and transport location .

This basic definition still holds true with minor additions .

It is important to point out that "the complexes are formed t o

solve a national economic problem or, ultimately, make possible a

future development of the national growth potential" (de Souza ,

1989, p . 92) . This definition could be applied to almost any

economic region, with two exceptions -- they are comprehensivel y

planned, and they are designed to fulfill national, as opposed t o

regional or local, needs .

1 9

For Siberia and the Far East, five TPC's have been

specifically identified : the West Siberian, Kansk-Achinsk, Sayan -

Shushenskoye, Bratsk-Ust ' -Ilimsk, and South Yakutian (de Souza ,

1989) . An additional eight have been planned for developmen t

along the BAM, all of which have apparently been put on hold .

With the exception of the West Siberian TPC, all of these ar e

based on the production of hydroelectric power for energy -

intensive industry . In the Bratsk-Ust ' -Ilimsk TPC, this power i s

used for the production of aluminum, timber products and iro n

ore; in the KATEP, for aluminum, metallurgy and machine building ;

in the Sayan-Shushenskoye TPC, for aluminum and transportatio n

equipment, primarily for BAM; and in South Yakutiya, for coal ,

primarily for export to Japan . West Siberia, as one would

expect, relies primarily on thermal power for the production o f

oil and gas products, of which it is the Soviet Union's leading

producer .

These mega projects notwithstanding, basic approaches towar d

the exploitation and development of Siberia and the Far Eas t

remain constant . Hydro stations, BAM and TPC's are designe d

primarily to attain greater efficiency in the development o f

natural resources for use by the national economy . The "push "

toward Siberia under Stalin as a result of superindustrializatio n

and World War II, and the implementation of mega project s

throughout the post-Stalin period, resulted from continuin g

competition with the West, the economic growth of various Pacifi c

countries, coupled with depletion of resources in the wester n

2 0

regions of the country, and the need to secure the Sovie t

presence in Asia during the post-War period .

It is important, however, not to confuse these mega project s

with a dramatic shift in national commitment to Siberia n

development . Jonathan Schiffer, in his detailed and insightfu l

analysis of Soviet economic policy toward Siberia for the period ,

warns of the pitfalls of confusing rhetoric for reality .

Statements of top government officials and inclusion in pla n

guidelines do not ensure implementation . In fact, for the post -

Stalin period, he shows that Siberia's share in state cooperativ e

investments remained relatively stable . Its share accounted fo r

a high of 18 percent of total national capital investments during

the War years (1941-45), and dropped to a low of 13 .5 percent in

the immediate post-War FYP (1946-50) . Its share rebounded t o

15 .6 percent in the next FYP (1951-55), and remained at just ove r

16 percent from then until the mid-1970s (Schiffer, 1989, p . 29) .

2 1

BASIC TRENDS IN SIBERIAN URBANIZATION

IN THE POST-STALIN ERA *

Now that the historical groundwork has been laid, it i s

possible to examine the process of urbanization in post-Stali n

Siberia, roughly defined as the period from 1959 to 1985 . Thi s

discussion builds upon preliminary findings, published by th e

author in 1987 . This section is divided into three parts . The

first part examines the geographical context for Siberian

urbanization and presents a new regionalization scheme for th e

region . The second part discusses basic trends for the urba n

settlement system in Siberia from 1959 to 1985 . The third par t

examines the evolution of the urban agglomeration, as both a

reflection of past policies and a foundation for futur e

development strategies .

Geographical context

The geographical context for Siberian development i s

* Use of the term "post-Stalin era" instead of "since Stalin "represents a subtle, but important change of terminology . "Post -Stalin" refers to the period dominated by the structure an dpolicies set by Stalin, which pervaded the Soviet political econom yafter his death . With the introduction of dramatic changes b yGorbachev in the mid-1980s, this period has finally been brought t oa close, and a new period, beginning in 1985, currently referred t oas the era of perestroyka, has replaced it . It is also appropriat eto use 1985 as a date of closure until the results of the 198 9census are published, at which time 1989 will serve as the year o fclosure . A 15-volume census has been promised for the fall o f1990, which promises great things ; but, only time will tell .

2 2

essential to understanding the nature of urbanization in th e

region . Siberia's enduring value to the European core i s

geographical, not surprising for a region that encompasses one -

tenth of the earth . The pattern of development within Siberia i s

closely correlated with relative location . Proximity to natura l

resources, routes of transportation, and the Pacific Basi n

defines areas of concentrated growth in the region . As a result ,

Siberia's primary role continues to be as a resource peripher y

and a source of access to the Pacific Basin .

Treasure trove of resources . In value and importance, the

"soft gold" of the Cossacks has been replaced by the "black gold "

of the Commissars . Yet, the treasures of Siberia are diverse and

dispersed, ranging from oil and gas in northern West Siberia t o

timber and fish in the southern Soviet Far East . For example ,

from the Kuzbas in the mid 1980s, the Soviet Union received 8

percent of its steel and 20 percent of its coal ; from Wes t

Siberia, it received 65 percent of its oil and 57 percent of it s

natural gas ; from Siberia and the Far East, 37 percent of it s

sawn materials ; and, from West Siberia, 9 percent of its grai n

(Molodenkov, 1987, p . 6) .

In this regard, it is useful to identify several (o f

numerous) Siberias, and to characterize briefly their value to

the national economy (Fig . 5) * . In West Siberia, these includ e

2 3

* For Figures see page 73 .

the Ob'-Irtysh and Kuznetsk-Altay regions ; in East Siberia, th e

Noril'sk, Bratsk-Ust'-Ilimsk, Kansk-Achinsk, Pribaykal'ye an d

Zabaykal'ye regions ; and, in the Far East, the northern Far Eas t

and southern Far East regions . It is not by coincidence that

several of these have already been identified as TPC's within th e

context of Soviet planning strategies .

In West Siberia, the Ob ' -Irtysh region includes Tyumen' ,

Omsk and Tomsk oblasts . Key centers in the region include th e

cities of Surgut, Nizhnevartovsk, and Urengoy . For the nationa l

economy, this region is synonymous with the production of oil an d

gas . It also produces additional petroleum products ,

agricultural and fish products, and has some machine building ,

primarily for local use .

In southern West Siberia, the Kuznetsk-Altay region includes

Altay Kray, and Kemerovo and Novosibirsk oblasts . Majo r

industrial cities of the region include Novosibirsk, Barnaul, an d

Kemerovo . For the national economy, this region is a majo r

supplier of coal . It also produces iron-ore, aluminum ,

machinery, foodstuffs and timber products .

In the far northern reaches of East Siberia, the regio n

around Noril'sk provides valuable ferrous and non-ferrous metals .

Of importance are nickel, cobalt, lead, zinc, and copper .

2 4

The Bratsk-Ust'-Ilimsk region includes an area north o f

Irkutsk . Based on hydropower from dams at Bratsk and Ust ' Ilimsk ,

it produces timber products, iron ore, and aluminum for th e

national economy .

The Kansk-Achinsk (KATEP) region includes souther n

Krasnoyarsk Oblast . The key industrial city in the region i s

Krasnoyarsk . For the national economy, this region is a majo r

supplier of coal, iron ore, timber products, and aluminum . I t

also produces machines, primarily for local use .

Pribaykal ' ye is basically Irkutsk Oblast . It includes

hydropower from the Angaro-Usol'ye node . Irkutsk is the dominan t

city of the region . For the national economy, this region

contains important sources of molybdenum, mica, coal, and timber .

It also produces machinery and aluminum .

Zabaykal'ye includes Chita and Buryat ASSR's to th e

southeast of Lake Baykal . Key cities in the region are Chita an d

Ulan-Ude For the national economy, this region produces gold ,

timber products, and non-ferrous metals .

In the Far East, Yakutiya includes region around Yakutsk and

southern Yakutiya, around Neryungri . For the national economy ,

it supplies coal, diamonds, and iron ore . It also produce s

agricultural products for local consumption .

2 5

In the northern Pacific Far East there are three, relativel y

isolated subregions : Magadan, Kamchatka and Sakhalin . Each i s

located near an important port facility : Magadan, Petropavlovsk -

Kamchatskiy and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk . For the national economy ,

Magadan is a major source of gold ; Kamchatka supplies coal ; and

Sakhalin is beginning to develop its deposits of oil and gas . In

addition, each provides access to the Pacific .

The final region includes most of the southern Pacific Fa r

East, to include Khabarovsk and Maritime krays, and Amur Oblast .

The major cities of the region are primarily ports -- Sovetskaya

Gavan', Khabarovsk (inland port), Nakhodka, Vladivostok, as well

as the region's major industrial center, Komsomol'sk-na-Amure .

For the national economy, this region is a major supplier of

fish, timber products, coal, and non-ferrous metals . It also

produces machinery, especially those kinds associated with shi p

building and repair . In addition to the natural resources, thes e

ports and entrepots provide greater access to the Pacific fo r

both economic and military purposes .

Yet, this regionalization scheme does not suggest tha t

Siberia and the Far East are fully integrated economic regions o f

the Soviet state . On the contrary, the Russian Revolution shoul d

not be seen as an absolute break with the past . There has been

as much, if not more, continuity as there has been change . Th e

basic nature of the relationship between the Russian core and th e

2 6

Siberian periphery, despite the ideological rhetoric, ha s

remained the same . What has changed, however, is the degree to

which Siberia can still be referred to as a "frontier . "

Clearly, there are regions within Siberia that can no longe r

be called frontiers ; . yet, the basic nature of the relationshi p

defines Siberia as a colony of European Russia, USSR . In thi s

regard, the term periphery seems more applicable, because i t

denotes a political-economic process, whereby Siberia experiences

relatively "low incomes, primitive technology, and undiversifie d

production ." Thus, if it is misleading to refer to Siberia as a

resource frontier, it may be more appropriate to refer to it as a

resource periphery .

It is in this regard that we must balance local and regional

impacts with national and global impacts on Siberian development .

It is short-sighted to equate global effects solely to th e

proportion of foreign investment in the region, or to th e

proportion of Siberian production destined for foreign markets .

Rather, it is necessary to realize that much of the domestic

demand for Siberian products results from Soviet integration i n

the world economy, ie ., what appears to be domestic demands for

development, in part or whole, may, in fact, be global . This is

why the potential impacts of perestroyka present such a n

interesting set of possible scenarios for the future course o f

Siberian development .

2 7

Access to Pacific Asia : the economic dimension . Fo r

centuries, tsars and commissars have had an appreciation for th e

benefits to be gained from integration into the world economy .

Siberia has always played a key role in this integration . In th e

16th century, Russia supplied furs to the capitals of Europe ;

later, silver and gold were important exports ; these wer e

replaced in importance in the 20th century by energy an d

industrial resources for world markets .

During the 1960s and 1970s, the complementary relationship

between resource-rich, technologically-poor Siberia and resource -

poor, technologically-rich Japan served as an example of th e

potential for direct interaction between the eastern regions o f

the Soviet Union and the developed and developing countries o f

the Pacific Rim . For a variety of reasons, Soviet-Japanes e

relations never lived up to their the potential . Within the

context of new economic programs, this potential may become

unlimited .

Currently, however, the nature of limited Soviet-Japanese

trade provides only glimpses of the possibilities . Soviet

imports from Japan are dominated by manufactured goods and hig h

technology, especially machinery and equipment, rolled steel an d

pipes . Soviet exports to Japan are dominated by natura l

resources, especially timber, coal, petroleum and petroleu m

products . Yet, total Soviet-Japanese trade accounts for les s

2 8

than three percent of the total Soviet trade turnover, and onl y

two percent of the total Japanese trade turnover (Vneshniye ,

1988, pp . 9-14 ; Ogawa, 1987, p . 159) .

This scenario applies to Soviet trade relations with th e

other capitalist countries of Pacific Asia as well . Total trade

with Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippine s

combined represents less than one percent of total Soviet trad e

turnover (Vneshniye, 1988, pp . 9-14) . This does not include

trade with South Korea, which approached $US 280 million in 198 8

(Lho, 1989, p . 1162) and the possibility of trade with Taiwan ,

with whom trade relations, according to Gorbachev's Vladivosto k

speech, will now be possible . When we combine Soviet trade wit h

all capitalist countries of the Pacific Rim, to include Japan ,

Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, the total

still represents less than five percent of Soviet trade turnove r

(Vneshniye, 1988, pp . 9-14) . The bases for increased trade and

economic relations are set .

Access to Pacific Asia : the strategic dimension . The

distinction between the economic and strategic dimensions o f

Soviet access to the Pacific is somewhat artificial . Because one

of the functions of the modern nation-state is to secure and

protect national economic interests throughout the world ,

economic and strategic factors are closely interrelated . In

capitalist countries, this interrelatedness is referred to as th e

2 9

military-industrial complex, implying interaction between th e

government and private companies, most importantly multi -

nationals, in domestic and international affairs . In the Sovie t

case, where the state controls both components of the military -

industrial complex, the distinctions are even more obscure . Th e

primary rationale for a Soviet presence in Siberia and the Fa r

East is economic . The military, as one means of enforcin g

government policy, is there basically to protect its economic

interests -- to defend borders, to secure transport routes into

and out of the region, and to encourage and support friendly, o r

at least neutral, buffer states on its periphery .

The nature of the Soviet military presence in Siberia and

the Far East changed dramatically during the Brezhnev years . Th e

period immediately following the War and through the Khrushche v

years saw Soviet strategic concerns directed primarily toward

Eastern Europe and the West . Several events in the 1960s changed

that . Of importance were the Sino-Soviet conflict and borde r

clashes in the Far East, greater independence and the economi c

resurgence of Japan, and increasing American influence and

involvement in the region . As a result, the strategic importance

of the Soviet gateway to the Pacific received greater attentio n

in Moscow, resulting in substantial increases in the Sovie t

military presence .

3 0

This increased military presence manifested itself in a

buildup of troops, ships and missiles . Soviet troops in the

eastern regions (including Mongolia and Central Asia) increase d

from 10 to 52 divisions (one-fourth of all Soviet divisions) ,

approaching half a million troops (Swearingen, 1987, p . 250) .

Of these, 41 divisions were stationed in Siberia and the Fa r

East. The Pacific Fleet, which was practically non-existent

until the 1960s, was built up to become the largest of the fou r

Soviet fleets, accounting for approximately one-third of al l

Soviet warships . Port facilities along the coast were expanded

to handle the increases . One-fourth of the Soviet Air Force wa s

deployed to the Far East . And, finally, 170 SS-20 missile

launchers were deployed . These complemented the ICBM's and MRBM' s

already in the region (Swearingen, 1987, p . 251) .

The expansion of military preparedness in the regio n

required investments from the military budget to handle th e

increased presence . These investments benefit economic as wel l

as strategic functions . Most notable were the port facilities ,

especially Nakhodka, Vostochnyy, Vladivostok, Sovetskaya-Gavan' ,

Anadyr and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, all of which, in addition

to being naval ports, are also important commercial ports .

Expanded facilities not only enabled the Far East to support a

greatly-increased naval presence, but also to expand it s

commercial capabilities as well .

3 1

Clearly, Soviet policy over the last 30 years has been

intended to secure its claims on these eastern territories, no t

only as part of the Soviet state, but also as a region of acces s

to the Pacific . A message has been sent that the Soviet Unio n

is, in fact, a Pacific power . This is not to suggest that al l

Pacific issues have been settled simply by show of militar y

force . Disputes still persist with China over the Amur region ,

and with Japan over the Kurile islands . It does suggest ,

however, that the Soviet state is willing to protect it s

interests in the region and to secure Siberia and the Far East a s

a periphery of the USSR .

Siberian urbanization, 1959-1985 *

The highly-centralized decision-making process, and th e

national economic policies it has set, has produced a highly -

urbanized, highly-concentrated, resource-oriented pattern o f

human activities . This pattern, as we have seen, is based

primarily on resource extraction and transportation -- river and

ocean ports and along rail lines . Nowhere is this more apparen t

than in the settlement system, which continues to serve as th e

lifeline for Siberian development .

By 1985, Siberia and the Far East were the most highly -

urbanized regions of the country, with over 70 percent of th e

* This analysis a brief synopsis of "Siberia's changin ggeographies : seventy years of Soviet rule,"to be published as achapter in Siberia in the Twentieth Century, edited by Alan Wood(forthcoming : Routledge, 1991) .

3 2

population living in cities or urban-type settlements . * Of th e

208 cities of the Siberian and Far Eastern settlement system ,

Novosibirsk and Omsk had populations in excess of one million ;

seven more -- Barnaul, Kemerovo, Novokuznetsk, Krasnoyarsk ,

Irkutsk, Khabarovsk and Vladivostok -- had populations over hal f

a million ; and, 29 cities had populations between 100,000 and

500,000 .

From 1959 to 1985, relative growth for Siberia parallele d

growth for the country as a whole -- 35 to 32 percent for overal l

population increases, and 78 to 80 percent for urban increases ,

respectively . This healthy relative growth for Siberia accounte d

for an increase in urban population of 7 .9 million . Thi s

compares to an urban increase in European Russia of 32 .5 million .

By 1985, over 70 percent of all Siberians (22 of 30 million )

lived in urban places .

At the interregional level, the growth in Pacific Siberia ,

the term used to describe the eastward-oriented regions of Eas t

Siberia and the Far East, compared favorably with European -

oriented West Siberia . In both cases, the greatest growt h

occurred after 1970 . The larger proportion in Pacific Siberi a

can be related to the emphasis on the BAM zone, Pacific ports ,

and increased interaction with Japan and the Pacific Basin ,

3 3

*

The data for the following analyses is provided i nAppendices 1 and 2, which provide citations of the sources .

conditions which have since diminished in importance . The

increase in West Siberia can be related to resource extraction ,

primarily oil and gas .

Several high growth regions emerged in Siberia . Two region s

added over one million urbanites between 1959 and 1985 : Tyumen '

Oblast in West Siberia and Krasnoyarsk Oblast in East Siberia ,

where Irkutsk Oblast was close with an urban increase of 96 1

thousand . Although no administrative region of the Far Eas t

increased by one million, Primorskiy Kray showed a very healthy

absolute increase of 736 thousand . The Far East had particularl y

high growth in the period 1970-85, especially 1970-75, because o f

increased Japanese relations . East Siberia also showed a very

high relative increase for 1959-70 and during the early 1970 s

because of coal mining and development of the Bratsk industria l

complex .

Tyumen' Oblast also had the largest relative growth as well ,

with an increase of 429 percent . Several other Siberian regions

also showed high relative increases in urban population . Omsk in

West Siberia was the next largest with a relative increase of 90

percent . Five others had relative increases of more than 10 0

percent, ie ., they doubled their populations during the perio d

1959-85 . These were Buryat and Tuva ASSR's in East Siberia, an d

in the Far East, the Yakut ASSR and Magadan and Kamchatk a

oblasts . Only two Siberian regions had urban increases of les s

3 4

than 50 percent . Kemerovo Oblast in West Siberian and Sakhali n

Oblast in the Far East both suffered from the adverse effects o f

a stagnant coal industry .

The above administrative regions led the way in the increas e

in urban growth in Siberia . The urban population showed

impressive gains in its share of the total population . By 1985 ,

Tuva ASSR in East Siberia was the only oblast-level region wit h

less than half its population (45 percent) living in cities . I n

only one other region, Altay Kray (55 percent urban), is th e

population less than 60 percent urban .

Except for the Buryat ASSR and Chita and Tyumen' oblasts ,

all administrative regions of West and East Siberia showed highe r

rates of growth for before 1970 than after . Regions of the Fa r

East were more varied . The trend toward slower growth rates

after 1970 reflects an overall slowdown in population growth fo r

the USSR as a whole after 1970 .

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the basic structure of th e

Siberian settlement system for the years 1959 and 1985 . Fo r

individual cities, between 1959 and 1985, 21 cities increase d

their populations by 100 thousand or more . These 21 citie s

accounted for an increase in urban population of 5 .4 million, o r

56 percent of the total urban increase for Siberia .

3 5

Fifteen multi-functional, administrative centers dominated

the list : Novosibirsk, Omsk, Barnaul, Kemerovo, Tomsk an d

Tyumen' in West Siberia; Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Chita and Ulan-Ud e

in East Siberia ; and Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Petropavlovsk -

Kamchatskiy, Blagoveshchensk and Yakutsk in the Far East, are al l

capitals of their respective ASSR, oblast or kray . Only thre e

Siberian capitals did not increase their populations by 100,000 .

These were Kyzyl (Tuva ASSR), Magadan (Magadan Oblast), an d

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (Sakhalin Oblast) . Both Magadan and Yuzhno -

Sakhalinsk had healthy increases of 80 and 72 thousan d

respectively . Kyzyl, although increasing in population by onl y

41 thousand, had a relative increase of 120 percent . Its low

absolute growth reflects its small initial population rather tha n

urban stagnation .

These fifteen high-growth administrative centers ar e

representative of Siberian growth poles . According to Gokhman ,

their predominant development has led to "monocentrism" in th e

evolution of the Siberian urban settlement system . It is in

these centers that service establishments, higher-educational an d

research institutes, and government and economic institution s

have been concentrated, adding to their attractiveness for futur e

investment and development (Gokhman, p . 262) .

The six

remaining cities that increased by more than 100,000 developed

around mining and industrial enterprises, more characteristic o f

the "company town" approach to development . In West Siberia, the

3 6

oil centers of Tyumen', Surgut and Nizhnevartovsk fit in thi s

category, as does the coal mining center of Novokuznetsk . Th e

two industrial centers of Bratsk and Angarsk in East Siberia owe

their growth to the development of hydroelectric power .

High growth cities in the Far East are closely related t o

the continuing Russian and Soviet objective to find outlets t o

the sea (Dergachev, 1986, pp . 143-57) .

These cities include th e

port cities of Vladivostok and Petrapavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, as wel l

as the inland entrepots of Khabarovsk, Komsomol'sk ,

Blagoveshchensk, and Yakutsk, which is the gateway to th e

resource potential of Yakutiya . The growth of these cities i s

greatly dependent on Soviet interaction with countries of th e

Pacific Basin, although this interaction affects citie s

throughout all Siberia .

Several Siberian cities have benefited from the introductio n

of Japanese technology since 1959 (Mathieson, 1098, pp . 491-500) .

Barnaul, Kemerovo, Tomsk and Tyumen' in West Siberia, received

new industrial complexes from joint Soviet-Japanese ventures .

Krasnoyarsk, Angarsk and Bratsk in East Siberia, and Khabarovs k

and Komsomol'sk in the Far East also benefited from join t

industrial projects . This technology transfer may help explai n

why Kemerovo, with its new petro-chemical industry was one of th e

few traditionally coal-dependent cities that grew rapidly . In

other cases, however, industry seemed to be attracted to place s

3 7

that had already reached a positive agglomeration of economie s

and so were the result of a previous population and industria l

concentration rather than its cause .

The largest Siberian cities followed the same general trend

in average annual growth rate as urban growth in the Soviet Unio n

in general . For both West and East Siberia growth rates wer e

greater before 1970 with the exception of Nizhnevartovsk, a post -

1970 new town . Large cities in the Far East exhibited mor e

variation in their growth rates . Yet, overall rates of growt h

for large Siberian cities dropped after 1970 .

Increasingly, the growth of Siberia has been concentrate d

not just in cities, but in larger cities, a pattern that is in

keeping with urban trends for the USSR as a whole . In Siberia ,

the number of large cities, those with populations of at leas t

100,000, increased from 24 to 37, their population from 5 .8 t o

12 .4 million, and their share of the total urban population o f

Siberia from 47 to 57 percent . These data underscore th e

increasing concentration of Siberian urban dwellers in large

cities . The 66 cities with 1985 populations over 50 thousan d

accounted for an increase of 8 .0 million, or 82 percent of th e

total urban increase . This is from a total of 872 urba n

settlements -- 208 cities and 664 urban-type settlements .

3 8

Thus, the evolution of the urban settlement system in

Siberia is geographically restricted and highly concentrated ,

which is also characteristic for the Soviet Union as a whole ,

although not quite to this extreme . Clearly, the skeleton fo r

further growth and development of the urban network in Siberia i s

concentrated in large urban centers located in potential growt h

areas .

The highly concentrated, localized nature of development ha s

resulted in a lack of government investment in infrastructure ,

which has produced substandard living conditions . This has made

it difficult to retain labor in the region . There have been

various schemes to entice laborers, but they many times entai l

benefits to be obtained back in the western regions of th e

country . Soviet sociologists, themselves, have pointed out tha t

the factor considered most important by Siberians deciding t o

return to the west is inadequate housing (Zaslavskaya et al . ,

1989) .

This is, however, not to say that many are not staying ; many

are . By the time of Gorbachev's ascension to power, there wer e

nearly 28 million people in Siberia, of which over nearly 2 0

million (71 percent) lived in Siberian cities (Nar khoz, 1984 ,

pp . 14-16) . In addition to building an increasingly large urba n

society in Siberia, these trends have also helped to solidif y

Russian control of the region . From the very beginning there wa s

a great deal of cultural assimilation between indigenous people s

3 9

and the Russian overlords . This has continued to the present .

Today, ethnic Russians dominate the population of Siberia ,

especially in the cities . Currently, ethnic Russians alon e

comprise nearly 85 percent of the population (Ekonomicheskaya ,

1989, pp . 115, 127 and 136) .

Yet, the restricted and concentrated nature of urban growth ,

dominated by ethnic Russians, is not singular to the Sovie t

period . One characteristic has been evident throughout th e

conquest and consolidation of Siberia into the Russian and Sovie t

states -- the importance of cities as the key conduits fo r

exploitation and development . From the initial ostrogi founded

by the Cossacks grew the towns and cities of tsarist Siberia an d

the major urban centers of Soviet Siberia . It is striking tha t

of the twenty-one Siberian cities with populations of more tha n

100,000, fourteen, or two-thirds, were founded prior to the

Revolution . Their geographical and historical advantages hav e

endured to the present . In fact, the urban network established

during the early centuries of tsarist rule has provided the bas e

for Siberian development during the Soviet period . And many o f

these pre-Soviet cities serve as centers for agglomerations .

Urban agglomerations in Siberia

It is essential at the outset to clearly define exactly what

is meant by the term "urban agglomeration" in the Siberia n

context . It does not carry with it all of the functiona l

4 0

implications we associate with urban agglomerations in th e

Western context . This is primarily due to a lack of data abou t

political, economic and social interaction . Yet, this stud y

suggests that the urban agglomeration serves as a usefu l

statistical artifact, providing the closest construct ,

theoretically, to a MSA, and carries with it certain connotation s

about development for the region . If, as this study suggests ,

future growth will continue to be highly concentrated an d

restricted, it will be concentrated for the most part in urba n

agglomerations, areas with the most highly—developed

infrastructures in Siberia .

One weakness of most demographic studies of the Soviet Unio n

stems from the use of urban population data as provided by th e

Soviets, ie ., only for the administrative city . There is n o

parallel to a functional city, such as an MSA in the Unite d

States . As a result, analyses of urbanization trends in the

Soviet Union, by Soviet and Western scholars alike, are based o n

individual cities, thus, in some cases, misrepresenting the leve l

of urban concentration that is taking place . Although incomplet e

to the present, the structure for accumulating data for urba n

agglomerations, as provided in this study for Siberia, is a

positive step in the right direction .

4 1

For the purposes of this study, an urban agglomeration i s

simply a demographic entity, based solely on population . There

is some variation by Soviet scholars on the exact parameters, bu t

agreement on the basic components is widespread (see Lappo, 1978 ,

and Pertsik, 1980) . For this study, the population levels ar e

not as important as the fact that they indicate a certain degre e

of concentration . For an entire region, like Siberia, with a

total population of 30 million, and an urban population of jus t

22 million, a city of 100,000 represents a significant level o f

concentration . In all, only 37 Siberian cities had population s

in excess of 100,000 in 1985 .

Thus, this study defines the core of the urban agglomeratio n

as a central city of at least 100,000 . For a threshold, th e

urban agglomeration includes all urban settlements within 12 0

kilometers from the central city . Where two or three cities o f

100,000 are within 120 kilometers of each other, we include al l

urban settlements within 120 kilometers of any of the centra l

cities .

For simplification, the number of multiple-cor e

agglomerations was kept to a minimum . In fact, Novokuznetsk -

Kemerovo remains the only multiple-core agglomeration in th e

study . In all other cases, a single, dominant core emerged an d

other cities of 100,000 were considered as satellite cities

within the agglomeration . For example, the Krasnoyarsk urba n

agglomeration includes two cities, Kansk and Achinsk, wit h

populations in excess of 100,000 . Yet, Krasnoyarsk is clearl y

4 2

the central city with a population of 872,000 . In such cases ,

the threshold extends 120 kilometers from all three of thes e

cities .

Unfortunately for purposes of this project, most of the

cities, not to mention urban-type settlements, have population s

of less than 50,000 and, thus, data are not published for them .

This includes 87 of the 112 cities within the urba n

agglomerations . Yet, this does not diminish the utility of th e

urban agglomeration because the greatest proportion of the urba n

population resides in cities of over 50,000 . Thus, basic trend s

for the larger cities of the region are not only reflective o f

trends for cities as a whole, but are understatements of these

trends .

Based on this definition, this study identifies 24 urba n

agglomerations in Siberia (Fig . 8) : nine in West Siberia, seven

in East Siberia, and seven in the Soviet Far East . For several ,

data are available only for the central city . These includ e

Omsk, Tyumen', Nizhnevartovsk, Chita, Ulan-Ude, Norilsk ,

Khabarovsk, Yakutsk, Magadan, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy an d

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk . Although a number of these are probably onl y

demographic agglomerations, their inclusion is a reflection o f

population concentration, which in turn, is a reflection of thei r

past importance and future potential for the development of th e

region .

43

It should not be surprising that it is possible, and useful ,

to discuss the 24 Siberian urban agglomerations within th e

regionalization scheme previously presented in this section .

Thus, in the Ob'-Irtysh region, we find the Tyumen', Omsk, Tomsk ,

Surgut and Nizhnevartovsk urban agglomerations . In the Kuznetsk -

Altay region, we find the Novosibirsk, Barnaul and Novokuznetsk -

Kemerovo agglomerations . The Noril'sk region includes th e

agglomeration of the same name, while Bratsk-Ust'-Ilimsk include s

Bratsk . The Kansk-Achinsk region is dominated by the Krasnoyars k

agglomeration . The Pribaykal'ye is dominated by the Irkuts k

agglomeration, while Zabaykal'ye includes the Chita and Ulan-Ud e

agglomerations, and Yakutiya is dominated by Yakutsk . Th e

northern Pacific Far East region finds three isolate d

agglomerations : Magadan, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy and Yuzhno -

Sakhalinsk . The southern Pacific Far East region includes four :

Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Komsomol'sk-na-Amure and

Blagoveshchensk . Only the Rubtsovsk and Abakan agglomerations d o

not fit into any of the regions, although a stretch of one' s

geographical imagination allows us to tie both Rubtsovsk an d

Abakan to the Kuznetsk-Altay region .

Because 1985 data are available only for cities of 50,000 ,

the primary analysis includes the 66 Siberian cities for whic h

data are published, as representative of Siberian cities as a

whole . In fact, although they represent only 32 percent o f

Siberia's 208 cities, they account for 66 percent of the urba n

4 4

population . These 66 cities are comprised of 26 from Wes t

Siberia, and 20 each from East Siberia and the Soviet Far East .

Of these, nine are "new cities," ie ., built after 1959 . Thes e

include Nefteyugansk, Nizhnevartovsk, Novyy Urengoy and Noyab'rs k

in West Siberia ; Ust'-Ilimsk and Krasnokamensk in East Siberia ;

and, Neryungri, Amursk and Tynda in the Soviet Far East . Except

for these nine, data are available for the remaining 57 citie s

for both 1959 and 1985 .

The relative paucity of new cities is indicative of trend s

for the Soviet Union as a whole . For the most part, dominan t

cities are pre-Soviet, benefitting from an historical advantage .

Fourteen of the 25 central cities are tsarist in origin . Many o f

the dominant Soviet-period cities were built during the Stali n

period, especially in the 1930s . Of the eleven new Soviet citie s

that are currently central cities of Siberian agglomerations, six

were founded during the 1930s or before .

The growth of the 24 Siberian urban agglomerations in th e

post-Stalin era parallels growth trends, as previously discussed ,

for urban Siberia as a whole . This is not surprising given tha t

52 of Siberia's 66 cities with populations of at least 50,000 ,

including all cities of 100,000, are within urban agglomerations .

These 52 cities account for 62 percent of the total urban

population of Siberia's 208 cities and 684 urban-typ e

settlements .

4 5

In fact, growth rates for the urban agglomerations slightl y

exceeded growth rates for Siberia as a whole and the nationa l

average as well . For the 52 agglomeration cities, there was a

total increase in population of 6 .2 million (83 percent) ,

compared to regional and national increases of 78 and 80 percen t

respectively . Growth rates varied between regions -- the furthe r

west, the higher the absolute growth ; the further east, th e

higher the relative growth . The West Siberian agglomeration s

increased their populations by nearly three million, or 7 2

percent ; while East Siberian agglomerations increased by 1 . 8

million, or 94 percent ; and the Far East agglomerations added 1 . 5

million, which nearly doubled its urban population . Overall, we

detect healthy growth for the agglomerations in both absolute an d

relative terms .

Although specific numbers are not available, it is possibl e

to identify three major sources for this growth . The first

contributor is the inter-regional migration of labor from th e

European regions of the country, either as a result of debts owed

society, for education for example, or as a result of incentives .

These tend to be short-term migrants ; however, a proportion

remain in Siberia permanently (see discussion above, an d

Zaslavskaya, 1989) . A second contributor is rural to urba n

migration, which tends to be attracted by increasing numbers o f

semi-skilled and unskilled jobs as the urban infrastructur e

diversifies . A third contributor is the migration of people fro m

46

smaller urban to larger urban places . Again, data are lacking ;

yet, there are some indications of this trend in the dat a

available for the Siberian agglomerations . When we divide th e

urban agglomerations into central cities and satellite cities ,

several interesting trends are revealed in this respect .

All 25 central cities showed healthy positive growth betwee n

1959 and 1985 . Together they showed an increase in population o f

just over 5 .2 million (5 .5 to 10 .7 million), or 95 percent, which

is substantially higher than the relative urban increase fo r

Siberia (78 percent) or the Soviet Union as a whole (80 percent) .

These 25 central cities alone accounted for 54 percent of th e

total increase in urban population for Siberia between 1959 an d

1985 .

Novosibirsk, Omsk and Krasnoyarsk together accounted for a n

increase of 1 .5 million, or 15 percent of Siberia's urban growth .

Seventeen of the remaining 22 central cities had increases o f

over 100 thousand . The central cities of those agglomeration s

associated most closely with energy resource extraction ,

transportation links and access to the Pacific Basin fared quit e

well during this period .

There was much greater diversity for the 27 satellite citie s

for which we have data for both years . Total growth for thes e

cities was 958 thousand (1,995 to 2,953), an increase of 4 8

4 7

percent, which further supports the contention that most of th e

growth was concentrated in the central cities . Of these 2 7

cities, five actually showed decreases in population . Thes e

included Prokopev'sk, Kiselevsk and Osinniki, Anzhero-Sudzhens k

and Cheremkhovo . In addition, there were 10 satellite citie s

with populations in the upper 20s to mid-30s in 1959 that had no t

reached 50,000 by 1985 .

What we are witnessing is exactly the opposite of th e

phenomenon experienced by US metropolitan areas in the 1970s an d

1980s, now referred to as suburbanization . Metropolitan areas

experienced healthy growth at the same time that central citie s

were declining in population . In the Soviet Union in general ,

and Siberia in particular, the growth of the central cities wa s

the prime contributor to the growth of the agglomerations .

Limited supplies of goods and services, better housing and othe r

amenities continue to produce a situation in which large urba n

centers are the most attractive alternatives for a larg e

proportion of the Soviet populace . One of the key challenges

facing economic restructuring is the difficulties of distributing

goods and services more equally throughout the settlement syste m

to relieve the pressure on the largest cities and to make th e

satellite cities an attractive alternative to "life in the bi g

city . "

4 8

These data suggest that investment priorities from Europea n

Russia and growth trends for Siberia during the past thre e

decades have followed the precedent set in tsarist times, namely ,

highly selective in approach . They also suggest that th e

rationale for this strategy is closely tied to Siberia's role a s

a resource periphery and region of access to the Pacific, an d

that the framework for this strategy continues to be the majo r

urban centers of the settlement system, the central cities of the

urban agglomerations . The basic relationship continues to b e

core-periphery and the growth of the urban agglomeration s

reflects the nature of this relationship as well as promotes it .

These data also highlight where we should look to understan d

future developments in the region . As yet underdeveloped, the

settlement system does provide the structure for futur e

development whatever form it may take . The first indications o f

change, if there are to be any, will come from the urba n

settlement system and these 24 urban agglomerations .

4 9

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF

ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURIN G

Any discussion of the political economy of the Soviet Unio n

today must examine the potential impact of economic restructurin g

-- perestroyka . Although many of the particulars have not ye t

been spelled out, "elements of the reforms can be piece d

together" (see Gill, 1987, pp . 19-37) . Economic restructurin g

ala Gorbachev seeks to do nothing less than radically reform th e

entire Soviet economy . As embodied in the directives of the 12t h

FYP (1986-90) and numerous pieces of legislation (see Schroeder ,

1989), perestroyka might be referred to as the "third grea t

economic reform in all Soviet history," an appellation originall y

given, and subsequently withdrawn from, the Brezhnev reforms o f

1965 (Schroeder, 1989, p . 305) . Only time will tell if this

characterization will hold .

Much has been written about perestroyka, that need not be

repeated here . For the purposes of this project, several of it s

components have implications for the future course of Siberia n

development ("Guidelines") . The key for economic development i n

the immediate future is modernization of existing facilities a s

opposed to construction of new ones . Of greatest importance wil l

be improvements in the machine-building sector of the economy .

Decentralization of decision making and greater local autonomy i s

another change in direction . Imports are identified as a too l

5 0

for stimulating modernization and economic growth . And specia l

emphasis is given the upgrading of the fuel and energy comple x

and agricultural sectors of the economy . This, and much more, i s

all to be accomplished within the framework of a "socialis t

regulated market economy" (Schroeder, 1989, p . 316) .

For Siberia, the impact of perestroyka, which emphasizes

intensification and efficiency, promises to have spatia l

ramifications (see Bond, 1987) . Economic restructuring does no t

necessarily represent a "turning away" from Siberia and the Fa r

East in favor of increased investment in the European regions o f

the country, as some have suggested (see Bond, 1987, and Shabad ,

1989) . Apparently, grandiose schemes for development, in the

tradition of the mega projects of the 1970s, will be missing .

For the time being, further development of TPC's along the BA M

and water diversion schemes, for example, have been put on hold .

It is not clear, however, that perestroyka will change the basic

nature of the Siberia's role in the national economy as th e

Soviet Union approaches the 21st century .

The first question that needs to be answered is whether th e

policies and changes embodied in perestroyka are going to b e

implemented ; and if so, when, and in what form . The entir e

discussion of the impacts of restructuring on resource

development in Siberia is predicated on the assumption tha t

Gorbachev will succeed and that he will be able to dramatically

5 1

reform the entire Soviet economy . More likely, changes in th e

economy will be the result of compromise -- major changes, bu t

not to the extent currently envisioned by Gorbachev and th e

architects of perestroyka . Even the architects themselves ar e

not quite sure where this is leading :

So now we have something new : the perestroyka of 1985 .Why should we think that this one will be irreversible ,that the changes will be long-term, that this refor mwill not share the fate of all the preceding ones ?This is a very serious question : we might even saythat it is the absolute crux of the matter . . . It is th equestion we must answer (Aganbegyan, 1989, p . 110) .

Yet, given the momentum for change produced by Gorbachev' s

first five years in power, some kind of change is inevitable .

The Soviet economy is embarking on a path toward reform -- to

some, change is proceeding too slowly; to others, too rapidly .

Whatever changes occur will affect Siberia and the Far East ,

producing both continuity and change in the basic nature of th e

relationship between the periphery and the European core .

Siberia's role in perestroyk a

Our short and long-term plans are linked, to aconsiderable degree, with the tapping of the natura lwealth of Siberia and the Soviet Far East ("Strategi ccourse," p . 107) .

In a series of speeches in 1986, one to the 27th Part y

Congress ("Strategic course," 1987), and two while on a visit t o

the Far East ("Text," 1987, and "Major overhaul," 1987) ,

Gorbachev made it clear that Siberia's role in the Soviet econom y

5 2

would continue to be primarily the role of a resource peripher y

to the European Russian core . In this respect, its rol e

continues to be three-fold . First, Siberia will be a supplier o f

certain resources to domestic markets to help stimulate th e

economic development of western regions of the country . Second ,

it will be a supplier of resources to foreign markets to ear n

hard currency, gain technology, and promote the integration o f

the Soviet Union into the world economy . Third, and closel y

related to the latter, Siberia and the Far East will continue t o

provide the Soviet state with access to Pacific Asia .

The primary role of Siberia and the Far East is to provid e

the national economy with natural resources . In this role, it i sinteresting to note that the recent Ekonomicheskayageografiya

SSSR provides a regionalization scheme based first and foremos t

on the contribution of the region to the "all-union division o f

labor ." For domestic markets, West Siberia will continue to be a

major supplier of oil and gas, coal and iron ore . Modernizing

the "fuel and energy complex" is a major goal of the 12th FYP ,

and Urengoy oil and gas, and Kuzbas coal are specificall y

mentioned ("Guidelines," pp . 170, 177) . East Siberia wil l

continue to be a major supplier of metals, primarily nickel ,

cobalt, lead, zinc and copper, in addition to aluminum and coal .

The Far East will continue to provide domestic markets with fish ,

timber and precious metals, especially gold, silver and diamonds .

5 3

In addition to supplying domestic markets, Siberia n

resources will help the national economy accrue the hard currenc y

needed to trade in the world economy . In the immediate future ,

integration in the world economy becomes even more importan t

under perestroyka . Foreign Minister Shevardnadze has made i t

clear that integration into the world economy is a necessar y

component of restructuring :

'In reality,' he [Shevardnadze] has said, 'the divisio ninto socialist and capitalist systems of economics ,with all the extremely perceptible limitations for us ,in no way signifies the absence of mutual penetration .We were drawn into the world economic process lon gago . . . We should be part of the world economic syste mand we can and are obliged to become so . . .' (as quotedin Aganbegyan and Timofeyev, 1988) .

This attitude is in keeping with the 12th FYP Guidelines ,

wherein the Soviet " . . . import policy is called upon to actuall y

help accelerate scientific and technological progress "

("Guidelines," p . 192), ie ., to help obtain manufactured goods ,

technology and hard currency . In exchange, the Soviet Union ha s

natural resources to offer hard-currency countries . A larg e

proportion of these resources are produced in Siberia and the Fa r

East . Several of these resources already dominate Soviet export s

abroad . Currently, petroleum and petroleum products account fo r

29 .4 percent of all Soviet exports ; natural gas for 8 .8 percent ;

ferrous metals for 4 .5 percent ; and, timber products for 3 . 6

percent . These four categories alone comprise almost half of al l

exports from the Soviet Union (Vneshniye, 1989, pp . 20-31) .

These are, of course, the very categories of resources Siberi a

5 4

supplies domestic markets . It appears, then, that Siberia wil l

also continue to play a role in Soviet attempts to use foreig n

trade as a stimulus for perestroyka .

Not only is Siberia a region that will provide exports fo r

trade, it also provides direct access to Pacific Asia, a regio n

that may become a major supplier of imports to assist "scientifi c

and technological progress" :

Given the dynamics of the international economy, th eSoviet Union's position in relation to the countries o fthe Asia-Pacific region may be the most promisingsource of stimulus for change (Matuszewski, 1989,p . 6) .

The economic potential of relations between Siberia and th e

countries of the Pacific Rim, which has been an importan t

consideration in Russian and Soviet foreign policy for centuries ,

could take on even greater significance as a result o f

perestroyka . Gorbachev himself has clearly indicated th e

importance of the Asia-Pacific region to his proposals for

economic change . The real significance of his 1986 Vladivostok

speech, some have suggested, concerned :

. . . his expressed fears about maintaining Sovie teconomic competitiveness, his perception of th ecommercial and technological dynamism of the Asia -Pacific region, and his clearly articulated intentio nto expand Soviet trade and access to advancedtechnology in order to stimulate innovation in thesluggish Soviet economy (Matuszewski, 1989, p . 10) .

Yet, increased Soviet involvement carries with it strategi c

as well as economic ramifications . It is important to remembe r

55

that the two are interrelated . The Soviets have identified tha t

world peace is necessary in order to accomplish the goals o f

perestroyka . This is particularly applicable to the Pacific

realm, where " . . . the Soviet Union's identity as an Asian-Pacifi c

power is critical to Gorbachev's twin concerns of security of th e

USSR and the rejuvenation of its economy" (Thakur and Thayer ,

1987, p . 2) .

Soviet policies directed at Pacific Asia are threefol d

(Samoteikin, 1987, p . 12) . First, Gorbachev has called fo r

increased bilateral relations with all countries of the Pacific

Basin . Second, he identifies the need to settle regiona l

disputes to insure peace and security, specifically conflicts in

Afghanistan, Korea, and Kampuchea . And, he proposes to scal e

down Soviet military presence in the Far East . The

implementation of these policies would allow the Sovie t

leadership to secure its eastern frontier, to free up resources

from the military, and to gain access to the capital an d

technology of the region, all of which would greatly facilitat e

economic growth and development .

In this regard, Siberia stands ready to continue in its role

as provider of resources for international trade, particularl y

with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, and as the bridg e

between the Soviet Union and East Asia . Yet, within this context

of continuity we may be able to discern possible changes in th e

5 6

nature of the relationship .

Potential impact of perestroyka on Siberi a

It is not difficult to figure out Siberia's role, a s

perceived and planned from the core, in the Soviet economy int o

the 21st century . It is far more difficult to predict, i n

return, what kinds of effects perestroyka will have on th e

development of Siberia . To a great extent, uncertainty about th e

future course of Siberian development results from the fact tha t

no one knows which policies of the overall program will actually

be implemented . As a result, one can posit a number o f

alternative scenarios .

The most obvious, and most cynical, prediction is tha t

perestroyka will have little effect on the basic nature o f

Siberia's relationship with the core . Certainly, recent polic y

statements and guidelines suggest that the core perceives th e

relationship the same way it has for decades . The actua l

contributions of the region may change, and certain sectors o f

the Siberian economy and particular areas within the region may

benefit . But, these sectors and areas are those that hav e

historically received most attention from Europe . In addition ,

there is widespread belief that the enthusiasm of Pacific Ri m

countries, especially Japan, for developing Siberian resource s

has waned and will not increase in the near future (Dienes ,

Schiffer, and others) . Development will, as a result, continu e

5 7

to be limited, concentrated and highly dependent on the core ,

based primarily on the exploitation of natural resources and

transportation linkages .

If some, or all, of Gorbachev's policies are eventually

implemented, the scenario could be quite different ; not that th e

perception of Siberia's role will change . Rather, several of th e

policies embodied in perestroyka may help to stimulate a mor e

comprehensive development . One can only imagine the effects o f

greatly increasing local autonomy in economic decision making, o r

allowing true competition between enterprises, based on a

relatively free-market system, or individual or cooperative

leasing of land . In addition to their impact on domesti c

affairs, these kinds of innovation in the Soviet economy could

also act as stimuli to increasing the level of joint ventures

with foreign corporations through free economic zones for foreig n

trade . Under some or all of these conditions, Siberia' s

development takes a very different course . We might actuall y

envision a situation wherein the rhetoric stays the same, but th e

reality changes .

Regionally, the future impacts of perestroyka would firs t

effect the Far East and West Siberia, primarily because they hav e

the best-developed infrastructure and the necessary kinds o f

resources, both natural and locational . Here again, these woul d

probably be in the southern reaches of the regions . East Siberi a

5 8

would lag behind, but not to be forgotten .

The kinds of goods exploited would remain the same ; th e

perception of Siberia's role, from the point of view of the core ,

would remain the same . What would change would be the economi c

effects of their exploitation . In other words, under a situatio n

of competition and free-market trading, a much greater proportion

of the surplus value would remain locally . Basic industrie s

would actually be used to build a surplus in the region, whic h

could then be used to invest in infrastructure and other kinds o f

consumer-oriented activities . Three levels of economi c

interaction can be identified (see Gill, 1987, p . 39) .

At the national/international level, several products ar e

attractive to domestic and foreign markets ; these would be th e

basic industries, designed to produce wealth . Of primar y

importance are the fuel and energy resources, especiall y

petroleum and natural gas from West Siberia, and coal from Eas t

Siberia . Furs still play a role, as do precious metals . Ferrou s

and non-ferrous metals could be used to stimulate the economie s

of East Siberia and northern Far East . And, the Soviet Far Eas t

will continue to be major exporter of timber, fish and fis h

products .

5 9

In addition to stimulating the development and modernizatio n

of these industries themselves, income derived from the sale o f

these resources could be used to stimulate the growth of other

sectors of the economy, those which are primarily regional an d

local . These are the kinds of activities that must be upgraded

if Siberia is to develop comprehensively in the 21st century .

They include machine building, the construction industry, light

industry, the consumer industry, and agriculture . To become

self-sufficient in some of these sectors, and less reliant i n

others would truly help stimulate economic development in th e

regions . Siberia would be using its traditional role as treasur e

trove of resources and area of access to the Pacific to financ e

its new role as a comprehensively-developed economic region .

For the urban settlement system, the initial impact of thes e

reforms would benefit the major urban centers along the souther n

tier and the resource centers of West Siberia . Specifically, in

the Far East, the urban agglomerations at Vladivostok, with its

port facilities, and at Komsomol'sk, with its industrial base ,

stand to benefit the most . In West Siberia, all urban

agglomerations in the Ob'-Irtysh and Kuznetsk-Altay regions wil l

benefit as a result of their natural resource bases . Majo r

industrial centers in the region, especially Novosibirsk, Barnau l

and Kemerovo, may benefit the most . In East Siberia, the urba n

agglomerations at Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk, primarily as a result

of resources, industrial infrastructure and transport links ,

would be the immediate beneficiaries of economic reform . In the

long term, not only would these urban agglomerations grow and

6 0

diversify, but increased economic incentives and the accumulatio n

of local surplus would help the remaining agglomerations becom e

increasingly important parts of the regional picture .

Recent events in the Soviet Union have revealed th e

possibility, still remote, of yet another alternative scenari o

for Siberia's future . This scenario will result from what we

might refer to as the "Yeltsin factor ." In fact, the Yeltsin

factor suggests a couple of possible scenarios -- one within th e

framework of a reformed RSFSR, and one outside that framework ,

ie ., as a separate and independent Siberian, or Far Eastern ,

republic .

The Yeltsin factor refers to the proposed 500-day refor m

program of Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Republi c

(RSFSR) . These reforms, voted in by the parliament of the RSFSR ,

call for the introduction of a market economy in the Russia n

Republic, and a greater degree of independence from the Sovie t

government on political and economic matters . Gorbachev ha s

recently agreed to allow the RSFSR to proceed in this direction ,

which many see as simply an extension of Gorbachev's perestroyka .

Although Gorbachev has been blocked by conservatives fro m

implementing the most radical policies of perestroyka, Yeltsi n

and the RSFSR have decided to undertake these policies at th e

republican level . Not only does this represent an exercise i n

radical economic reform, but it also represents an exercise i n

6 1

national independence, in this case for ethnic Russians . Thi s

may, in fact, represent a step on the road to a loos e

confederation of republics, which many see as the only possibl e

solution to the nationalities problem and economic stagnation in

the USSR .

As for Siberia, if implemented, the 500-day reform policie s

of Yeltsin will affect the region much as perestroyka would unde r

scenario two, ie ., if all of the policies were implemented .

Siberia's role would remain the same, only now it would serve as

a periphery to the RSFSR, rather than the USSR .

There is, however, a further extension to this scenario .

The success of Yeltsin in promoting national independence and i n

getting Gorbachev to agree to radical reforms for the RSFSR, ma y

foretell of a possible independence movement by Siberia, or parts

of Siberia, to secede from Russia altogether . Today, such a

scenario may seem far-fetched . In today's Soviet Union, however ,

what seemed far-fetched only months ago, is in the realm o f

possibility today . Also, there is historical precedence for suc h

a scenario .

One must remember that Siberia is a fairly homogeneou s

ethnic region . Over 85 percent of the population is of Russia n

descent, while 95 percent is of European descent . Yet, there ar e

major differences between Siberian-born Russians and European -

6 2

born Russians, Many Siberian Russian families have been i n

Siberia for generations, and they identify themselves as

Siberians first, Russians second . As a result of their socia l

origins, ie ., independent farmers, ostracized religiou s

believers, political dissidents, etc ., the Siberian has

historically been independent in their actions and cynical of th e

policies of their European brothers and sisters, policies whic h

are often to the detriment of Siberia .

The 19th and 20th centuries have seen manifestations of thi s

Siberian psyche . There was a strong independence movement in th e

19th century, fostered by dissidents such as the Decembrists, wh o

argued for a Siberian experience to parallel the America n

independence movement . In the Soviet period, the 1920s saw an

independent Far Eastern Republic, which actually established

diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia . This republic was

short-lived, as the Soviet state sought to regain all forme r

tsarist territories after the Civil War . Yet, the spark o f

independence for at least parts of Siberia has been lit and

reignited . If such a scenario begins to play itself out, it i s

most likely that West Siberia, because of its enormous resourc e

value to European Russia and because historically it has not bee n

involved these independence movements, would remain aligned wit h

Russia, and independence would most likely gain support in part s

of southern East Siberia and the Far East .

6 3

CONCLUSION : THE CHANGING ROLE OF

SIBERIAN URBANIZATION

These are uncertain times in Soviet studies . The real and

proposed changes of Mikhail Gorbachev, and more recently Bori s

Yeltsin, call into question the future course of Siberia n

development and the nature of the relationship between Siberi a

and the European core . For the near future, Siberia's rol e

within the Soviet national economy will remain the same as it ha s

been for this century and for over two centuries before it . The

potential, given the region's natural wealth, relative location ,

and Gorbachev's proposed initiatives for change, is unlimited .

The only question, and one that has been asked and lef t

unanswered for decades, is when . Major barriers remain to b e

confronted before an informed answer can be given .

We have already noted several fundamental barriers t o

comprehensive development . Actual implementation of the "radica l

reforms" so necessary as a precondition for development is th e

first . Traditional barriers to development have also been noted :

resistance of pro-European policy makers to invest in eastern

development, lack of economic and social infrastructure, an d

reluctance of foreign countries toward investment in Siberia . To

these, one must also take into account financing, ecologica l

concerns, and the nationalities question, all of which have bee n

and may be affected by restructuring . Although there is no t

sufficient time to go into detail here, both of these are worth y

6 4

of brief mention .

The program for restructuring the Soviet economy has brought

with it policies of greater openness [glasnost'] and loca l

autonomy [demokratizatsiya], which to date have had only mino r

impacts on Siberian development, but could greatly affect it i n

the future . Currently, the bulk of investment in Siberia come s

from central government ministries, which concentrate o n

investments in industrial production at the expense of social

infrastructure . In return, a great proportion of the profit s

from local enterprises is returned to the central ministries .

Although data on this process are sparse, Schiffer provides a n

example whereby 98 percent of the profits from one East Siberia n

enterprise were returned to the central ministry fo r

redistribution (Schiffer, 1989, pp . 94-95) . Although this i s

only one case, there is no reason to assume that this is unusual .

Changing this system and giving greater autonomy to loca l

enterprises would enable them to keep and allocate a greate r

share of their profits, thus benefitting the local and regiona l

economies to a much greater extent than presently possible .

Glasnost'has also provided a forum for those concerned wit h

the natural environment of Siberia . Although there have bee n

celebrated cases of environmental successes in protecting th e

ecology of the region, e .g ., Lake Baykal and the water diversio n

schemes, Soviet development east of the Urals has an abysma l

6 5

recorded of disregard for the environment . An increasingly

vociferous group concerned with ecological issues promises to

challenge development projects in the delicate ecosystem known as

Siberia and the Far East . Potentially, this concern may slow an d

prevent projects, greatly increasing the cost of development .

A final consideration concerns the growing demand fo r

national autonomy and independence by minority ethnic groups

throughout the Soviet Union . In Siberia, indigenous ethni c

groups comprise only five percent of the total population . Yet ,

national independence may become an important issue becaus e

administrative territories already identified as autonomou s

ethnic regions within the Soviet Union, ie ., Autonomous Sovie t

Socialist Republics (ASSR's) and autonomous oblasts (AO's) ,

account for sixty percent of the territory of Siberia . Not only

do they comprise a large proportion of territory, they als o

encompass large regions of valuable resources .

In West Siberia, these territories include the Gorno-Altay ,

Khanty-Manisiysk and Yamalo-Nenets AO's . In East Siberia, the y

include the Buryat and Tuva ASSR's, and the Khakass, Taymyr ,

Yevenkiy, Ust'-Ordinsk Buryat and Aginsk-Buryat AO's . And in th e

Far East, they include the Yakut ASSR, and the Yevreysk, Korya k

and Chukot AO's .

6 6

After centuries of domination by the Russian and Sovie t

empires, the movement for an independent RSFSR or an independen t

Siberia or Far East would certainly not dampen the demands fro m

these peoples, since they would still subjugated to Russians .

This question could act as a major barrier to the development o f

Siberia under any of the various scenarios proposed in thi s

study .

So, Siberia must still wait for its role to change, for th e

basic nature of its development to become comprehensive, designe d

to benefit regional and local development at the expense o f

national and international markets . For now, as it has been fo r

the entire Soviet period, Siberia remains dependent on the cor e

for its growth, serving as a resource frontier for European

Russia and the world .

6 7

Literature Cited

Aganbegyan, Abel . Inside Perestroyka : the future of the Sovie teconomy . Translated by Helen Szamuely . New York : Harper &Row, 1989 .

Aganbegyan, Abel and Timofeyev, Timor . The New Stage o fPerestroyka . New York : Institute for East-West Securit yStudies, 1988 .

Alekseyev, V .V . and Isupov, V .A . Naseleniye Sibiri vgodyVelikoy Otchestvennoy voyny . Novosibirsk, 1986 .

Aziatskaya Rossiya, vol . 2 (reprint; originally published in St .Petersburg, 1914) . Cambridge : Oriental Research Partners ,1974 .

Bond, Andrew . 'Spatial Dimensions of Gorbachev's Economi cStrategy .' Soviet Geography 28 (September 1987) : 490-523 .

de Souza, Peter . Territorial Production Complexes in the Sovie tUnion, with special focus on Siberia . Sweden : University o fGothenburg, 1989 .

Dergachev, V .A . "Peculiarities in the formation of populate dplaces on the seaboard of the USSR," Soviet Geography 2 7(March 1986) : 143-57 .

Dienes, Leslie . Soviet Asia : economic development and nationa lpolicy choices . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

Dokuchayev, G .A . and Kozybayev, M .R . Osushchestvleniy eleninskikh idey razvitiya proizvoditel'nykh sil . Alma-Ata ,1987 .

Ekonomicheskaya geografiya SSSR, chast' II . Moscow, 1989 .

Forsyth, James . 'The indigenous peoples of Siberia in th etwentieth century,' in The Development of Siberia, pp . 72 -95 . Edited by Alan Wood and R .A . French . New York : St .Martin's, 1989 .

Gill, Graeme . 'Power, authority and Gorbachev's policy agenda, 'in The Soviet Union as an Asian Pacific Power, pp . 19-37 .Edited by Ramesh Thakur and Carlyle Thayer . Boulder :Westview, 1987 .

Gokhman, V .M . ; Il'yin, P .M . ; and Lipets, Yu .G . "The significanc eof growth poles in regional development," Soviet Geography22 (April 1981) : 255-68 .

6 8

"Guidelines for the economic and social development of the USS Rfor 1986-1990 and for the period ending in 2000" report o fPrime Minister Nikolay Ryzhkov to the 27th Congress of th eCPSU, March 3, 1986), in Vinod Mehta, Soviet Economy ,Appendix C, pp . 146-200 . New York : Sterling, 1987 .

Hutchings, Raymond . Soviet Economic Development, 2nd ed .Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1982 .

Isupov, V .A . "Dinamika chislennosti gorodskogo naseleniya Sibir iv period stroitel'stva sotsializma ." In UrbanizatsiyaSovetskoy Sibiri, pp . 28-45 . Edited by V .V . Alekseev .Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Lappo, G .M . Razvitiye gorodskikh aglomeratsii v SSSR . Moscow ,1978 .

Lho, Kyongsoo . "Seoul-Moscow relations : looking to the 1990s . "Asian Survey 29 (December 1989) : 1153-66 .

Lyashchenko, P .I . History of the National Economy of Russia .Translated by L .M . Herman . New York : Macmillan, 1949 .

"Major overhaul a must -- it concerns each and everyone" (text o fspeech delivered by Mikhail Gorbachev in Khabarovsk, Jul y31, 1986), in Vinod Mehta, Soviet Economy, Appendix B, pp .124-45 . New York : Sterling, 1987 .

Mathieson, R .S . "Urban growth in Siberia and the Soviet Fa rEast : multiplier effects of Japanese-supplied plants, "Soviet Geography 21 (October 1980) : 491-500 .

Matuszewski, Daniel . "Soviet reforms and the Asia-Pacifi cchallenge," in The Soviet Union and the Asia-Pacific Region ,pp . 1-12 . Edited by Pushpa Thambipillai and Danie lMatuszewski . New York : Praeger, 1989 .

Molodenkov, L .V . "Problemy osvoeniya novykh khozyaystvennyk hterritoriy v Sibiri i na Dal'nem Vostoke," in Osvoeniy enovykh khozyaystvennykh territoriy v VostochnykhrayonakhRSFSR, pp . 5-10 . Novosibrisk, 1987 .

Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR v 1984q . [Nar khoz] Moscow, 1985 .

Ogawa, Kazuo . "Economic relations with Japan," in Siberia andthe Soviet Far East : strategic dimensions in multinationa lperspective, pp. 158-78 . Edited by Rodger Swearingen .Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 .

OKadnikov, A .P . and Shunkov, V .I ., eds . Istoriya Sibiri ,5 vols . Leningrad, 1968 .

6 9

Pertsik, E .N . Gorod v Sibiri . Moscow, 1980 .

Samoteikin, Evgeni . "The goals of Vladivostok," in The Sovie tUnion as an Asian Pacific Power, pp . 11-18 . Edited b yRamesh Thakur and Carlyle Thayer . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

Schiffer, Jonathan . Soviet Regional Economic Policy: the east-west debate over Pacific Siberian development . London :Macmillan, 1989 .

Schroeder, Gertrude . "Soviet economic reform : from resurgenc eto retrenchment?" The Russian Review 48 (1989) : 305-19 .

Semyonov, Y .N . Siberia : its conquest and development .Translated from the German by J .R . Foster . London : Hollis& Carter, 1963 .

Seton-Watson, Hugh . The Russian Empire, 1801-1917 . Oxford :Clarendon, 1967 .

Shabad, Theodore . "The Gorbachev Economic Policy : is the USSRturning away from Siberian development?", in The Developmen tof Siberia, pp . 256-60 . Edited by Alan Wood and R .A .French . New York : St . Martin's, 1989 .

Shabad, Theodore and Mote, Victor . Gateway to Siberian Resource s(The BAM) . NY : Wiley, 1977 .

"The strategic course : acceleration of the country's socio -economic development" (excerpts from the political report o fthe CPSU CC to the 27th Congress of the CPSU, presented b yMikhail Gorbachev), in Vinod Mehta, Soviet Economy, Appendi xA, pp . 86 - 123 . New York : Sterling, 1987 .

Swearingen, Rodger . "The Soviet Far East, East Asia and th ePacific," in Siberia and the Soviet Far East : strategicdimensions in multinational perspective, pp. 226-72 . Editedby Rodger Swearingen . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 .

"Text of speech by Mikhail Gorbachev in Vladivostok, 28 July1986," in The Soviet Union as an Asian Pacific Power ,Appendix, pp . 201-27 . Edited by Ramesh Thakur and Carlyl eThayer . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

Thakur, Ramesh and Thayer, Carlyle, eds . The Soviet Union as a nAsian Pacific Power : implications of Gorbachev's 198 6Vladivostok initiative . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

USSR Energy Atlas . Washington, DC : CIA, 1985 .

Vneshniye ekonomicheskiye svyazi SSSR v 1988 q . Moscow, 1989 .

7 0

Zaslavskaya, T .I . ; Kalmyk, V .A . ; and Khakhulina, L .A . "Socia ldevelopment of Siberia : problems and possible solutions, "in The Development of Siberia, pp . 177-87 . Edited by AlanWood and R .A . French . New York : St .Martin's, 1989 .

7 1

List of Figures :

1 . Soviet Siberia, administrative unit s2 . Economic Regions of Siberi a3 . Economic Geography of Siberia, 191 14 . Major Rail Lines in Siberi a5 . Economic Regionalization Scheme, Soviet Siberi a6 . Siberian Settlement System, 195 97 . Siberian Settlement System, 198 58 . Siberian Urban Agglomerations, 1985

7 2

Figure 1

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

POPULATION

N one million +

500-one million

100-499 thousand

50 -99

• below 50

Figure 7

Figure 8

APPENDIX 1

Siberian Urban Agglomeration s

Population

(in thousands )------------------------ -

1959 1970 1979 198 5

SIBERIA 22,559 25,353 27,936 30,44 8urban 12,402 16,175 19,454 22,12 1

WEST SIBERIA 11,252 12,109 12,959 14,14 7urban 5,724 7,431 8,768 10,08 7

1 . Novosibirsk 885 1,161 1,312 1,39 3Iskitim 34 45 59 6 7Ob' 15 2 2Cherepanovo 21 2 1

Kolyvan 'KochenevoListvyanokiyMoshkovoOrdynskoyePashino 9 18

2 .

PosevnayaChi k

Omsk 581 821 1,014 1,10 8Kalachinsk 19 21

Beregovo yGor'kovskoyeKormilovk aKrasnyy Ya rKrutaya Gork aLyubinski yMar'yanovk aPavlogradk aSargatskoy eTavricheskoyeChernoluchinski ySherbakul '

Format :

Central cit ySatellite cities w/pops . of 50,000, by sizeSatellite cities below 50,000, alphabeticall y

Urban-type settlements, alphabetically

7 3

3 . Barnaul 303 439 533 57 8Biysk 146 186 212 22 6Novoaltaysk 34 49 50 5 0Gorno-Altaysk 28 3 4BelokurikhaZarinsk(aya)

Akutikh aAltayski yBeloyars kBorovlyank aBystryy IstokZato nNauchnyy Gorodo kNovosilikatnyyPavlovs kSokolovoSorokinoTal'menka

18

2 0Topchikh aTroitskoyeYuzhnyy

7 4

4 . Novokuznetsk- 382 499 541 57 7Kemerovo 289 385 471 50 7

Prokop'evsk 282 274 266 27 4Leninsk -Kuznetskiy 132 128 132 13 8Kiselevsk 128 127 122 12 6Belovo 100 108 112 117Mezhdurechensk 55 82 91 10 1Osinniki 67 62 60 6 3Myski 31 3 6Berezovskiy 22 3 5Topki 26 2 9Kaltan 27 2 8Gur'evsk 30 2 7Salai r

Abagu rBorovoyGramotieno 9 16Ka zKedrovk aKrapivinski yKrasnobrodsk iKrasnogorski yListvyag iMalinovk aMundybashPromyshlennaya 17 15

5 .

PromyshlennovskiyStarobachat yTemirtayTyagu nYagunovski yYashkino

Tomsk 249 338 421 47 5Anzhero-Sudzhensk 116 106 105 11 0Yurga 47 62 78 8 9Asino 25 2 9Tayga 34 27

BarzasIzhmorski yMoryakovskiy Zato nOktyabr'ski yRudnichnyySamus 'Timiryazevski yYashkinoYaya

18

1 5

7 5

6 . Tyumen' 150 269 359 42 5Yalutorovsk 20 2 5

7 .

Vinzil iZavodopetrovskiyMelioratorovLebedevk aNizhnyaya Tavda

Surgut 6 34 107 20 3Nefteyugansk 20 52 7 8

8 .

BarsovoBelyy YarLyantorski yFedorovski y

Nizhnevartovsk 16 109 19 0

9 .

Langepa s

Rubtsovsk 111 145 157 16 5Zmeinogorsk

VolchikhaMalinovoye Ozer oMikhaylovski yPospelikha

7 6

EAST SIBERIA 6,473 7,463 8,158 8,76 9urban 3,413 4,612 5,605 6,27 6

10 . Krasnoyarsk 412 648 796 872Achinsk 50 97 117 12 0Kansk 74 95 101 10 5Nazarovo 30 44 54 6 0Bogotol 31 2 9Zaozerniy 35 2 7Divnogorsk 70 26Ilanski yBorodino

AbanBalakhta

27 2 3

Berezovk aBerezovskoyBol'shaya MurtaEmel'yanovoKozul'k aMazul'ski yNizhniy Ingas hNizhnyaya PoymaNovochernorechenskiy

16

Pamyati 13 Bortso vTaezhnyyTinskoy

7 7

11 . Irkutsk 366 451 550 597Angarsk 135 203 239 25 6Usol'e-Sibirskoye 48 87 103 10 7Cheremkhovo 122 99 77 7 3Shelekhov 13 3 0Slyudyanka 21 2 1SvirskBaykal'sk

21 20

172

241

303

33 6

174

254

300

33 5

Bol'shaya Rechk aBol'shoy Lu gBokhanZabitu yKito yKultu kListvyank aMege tMikhaylovk aMishelevk aTayturk aTelmaUst'-Ordynski y

12 . Chit a

Atamanovk aDarasu nDrovyanayaKarymskoyeNovokruchininski yYablonovo

13 . Ulan-Ude

ZaigraevoZarechnyyIvolginskKamenskOnokho ySoko l

7 8

14 . Brats kUst'-Ilims kVikhorevk aNizhneilimsk

4 3--11

15 52 118

21 469

24 097

Vidi mZheleznodorozhnyyOsinovk aPorozhskiyChekanovski y

15 . Noril'sk 118 135 180 18 0Dudink aKayerkan

16 2 0

16 . Abakan 56 90 128 14 7Chernogorsk 51 60 71 7 8Minusins kSayanogorsk

38 41 56 69

Zelenyy Bo rMayn aUst'-AbakanCheremushk iShushenskoye

7 9

FAR EAS Turban

4,83 43,26 5

29 110 46 455

8

5,78 14,13 2

44 112 810 461

28

6,81 95,08 1

55 014713 369

7,53 25,75 8

60 015 615 07 2

17 . Vladivosto kUssuriis kNakhodk aArtemPartizans k

Artemovski yBol'shoy Kamen 'Vrangel 'ZavodskoyZarubinoLipovts yPogranichiyPopovaPrimorski yRazdol'noyeRettikhovk aRusski ySlavyank aTavrichank aTigrovo yTrudovoyeShkotovoYaroslavski y

18 . Khabarovsk 322 436 528 57 6

19 .

Dormidontovk aKorfovski yMukhenPereyaslavk aKho r

Komsomol'sk-na -Amure 177 218 264 30 0

Amursk 3 24 na 5 1

20 .

GornyyPivan '

Blagoveshchensk 94 128 172 19 5Belogorsk 48 56 63 70

8 0

Srednebelaya

21 . Yakutsk 74 108 152 18 0

22 .

Bestyak hKangalas sKysyl-Syr

Magadan 62 92 121 14 2

23 .

Arman 'OlaPalatk aStekol'nyy

Petropavlovsk -Kamchatskiy 86 154 215 24 5

24 .

Elizovo

Mokhovaya

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk 86 106 140 15 8Kholmsk 32 37 na 5 0AnivaDolins kKorsako vNevel's kChekhov

BykovNovikovoOzerski yPravd aSinegors kSoko lYablochnyyYasnomorski y

Sources : SSSR Administrativno-territorial'noye deleniy esoyuznikh respublik, Moscow, 1983 and 1987 ; Itog iysesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1959, Moscow, 1963 ; Itog ivsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1970 goda, Moscow, 1972 ;Chislennost' i sostav naseleniya SSSR : po dannymVsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya1979 goda, Moscow, 1984 ;Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR v 1984 q ., Moscow, 1985 .

Note : na = data not available

8 1

APPENDIX 2

Cities of Soviet Siberi a

Date FoundedPopulatio n

(in thousands )or Officially ------------- -

a City

1897 1911 1926 1939

1959

1970 1979 198 5

WEST SIBERIA

Altay krayBarnaul

1771

29 52 74 148

303

439 533 57 8Aleysk

1939

-- -- 20

24

32 na naBiysk

1782

17 28 46 80

146

186 212 22 6Zarinsk

1979 naZmeinogorsk

1952 na

na na naKamen'-na-Obi

1925 23 25

30

36 na naNovoaltaysk

1942 -- 10

34

49 50 5 0Rubtsovsk

1927 18 38

111

145 157 16 5Slavgorod

1917 18 21

26

33 na n a

Belokurikha

1982 n aGornyak

1969 14

17 na na(Gorno-Altay AO )

Gorno-altaysk

1928 6 24

28

34 na n a[Ulala ]

Kemerovo oblas tKemerovo

1925 22 133

289

385 471 50 7[Shcheglovsk]

Anzhero-Sudzhen 69

116

106 105 11 0Belovo

1938 43

100

108 112 11 7Berezovskiy

1965 --

22

35 na n aGur'evsk

1938 23

30

27 na n aKiselevsk

1936 44

128

127 122 12 6Leninsk-Kuznetsk 20 83

132

128 132 13 8Mariinsk 1856

8

13 11 22

41

40 na naMezhdurechensk 1955 55

82 91 10 1Myski 1956 31

36 na n aNovokuznetsk 1931 166

382

499 541 57 7Osinniki 1938 25

67

62 60 6 3Prokop'evsk 1931 107

282

274 266 27 4Tayga 1925 11 29

34

27 na n aTashtagol 1963 --

28

25 na n aTopki 1933 23

26

29 na n aYurga 1949 47

62 78 8 9

Kaltan 1959 27

28 na n aSalair 1941 22

17

na na na

8 3

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5

Novosibirsk oblas tNovosibirsk 1903 64 120 404 885 1161 1312 139 3Barabinsk 1917 na 30 40 37 na n aBerdsk 1944 11 29 53 67 7 5Iskitim 1938 14 34 45 59 6 7Kuybyshev [Kainsk] 6 6 8 13 30 40 na n aTatarsk

1925 21 31 30 na n a

Bolotnoye 1943 19 25 22 na n aKarasuk 1954 20 23 na n aKargat 1965 -- na na n aKupino 1944 12 23 21 na n aOb' 1969 -- 15 22 na n aToguchin 1945 12 20 21 na n aCherepanovo 1921 9 17 21 21 na n aChulym 1947 12 18 na na n a

Omsk oblas tOmsk 1782 37 128 162 289 581 821 1014 110 8Isil'kul' 1945 6 14 23 26 na n aKalachinsk 1952 19 21 na n aNazyvayevsk 1956 16 16 na n aTara 1594 7 12 10 15 23 22 na n aTyukalinsk 1878 4 5 4 na na na na n a

Tomsk oblastTomsk 1604 52 111 92 145 249 338 421 47 5Asino 1952 25 29 na n aKolpashevo 1938 15 23 25 na n aStrezhevoy 1978 na n a

Tyumen' oblastTyumen' 1586 29 35 50 79 150 269 359 42 5Ishim 1670 7 12 14 31 48 56 63 6 4Tobol'sk 1587 20 21 19 32 36 49 62 7 5Yalutorovsk 1639 3 4 6 14 20 25 na n a

Zavodoukovsk 1960 9 17 na n a(Khanty-Mansiysk AO)

7 21 25 na n aKhanty-Mansiysk195 0Kogalym 1985 n aLangepas 1985 n aMegion 1980 n aNefteyugansk 1967 20 52 7 8Nizhnevartovsk 1972 16 109 19 0Nyagan' 1985 n aRaduzhnyi 1985 n aSurgut 1965 1 na 6 34 107 20 3Uray 1965 17 na na

8 3

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5

(Yamalo-Nenets AO )Salekhard

1938 13 17 22 na n aLabytnangi

1975 na n aNadym

1972 na n aNovyy Urengoy

1980 6 1Noyabr'sk

1982 6 0

EAST SIBERIA

Buryat ASS RUlan-Ude

1666 6 15 29 126 174 254 300 33 5[Verkneudinsk ]Gusinoozersk

1953 na na naSeverobaykal'sK980 -- n a

Babushk [Mysovsk] 1941 na na na n aZakaznensk

1944 na na na n aKyakhta

1728 9 9 10 na 10 15 na n a[Troitskosavsk]

Tuva ASSRKyzyl

1914 10 34 52 66 7 5Ak-Dovurak

1964 na na naTuran

1945 na na na n aChadan

1945 na na na naShagonar

1945 na na na na

Krasnoyarsk krayKrasnoyarsk

1628 25 74 72 190 412 648 796 87 2Achinsk

1782 7 10 18 32 50 97 117 12 0Bogotol

1911 8 26 31 29 na n aBorodino

1981 -- naDivnogorsk

1963 7 26 na naYeniseysk

1618 12 11 6 13 17 20 na n aZaozernyy

1948 9 35 27 na n aIgarka

1931 na 14 16 na n aKansk

1628 7 15 na 42 74 95 101 10 5Lesosibirsk

1975 -- -- -- -- na naMinusinsk

1822 10 14 21 31 38 41 56 6 9Nazarovo

1961 -- 30 44 54 6 0Noril'sk

1953 14 118 135 180 18 0Sosnovoborsk

1985 naChernenko

1981 na

Artemovsk

1939 na na na n aIlanskiy

1939 25 27 23 na n aKayerkan

1982 n aTalnakh

1982 naUzhur

1953 24 25 na n aUyar

1944 15 22 21 na na

8 4

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5

(Khakass AO )Abakan 1931 37 56 90 128 14 7Sayanogorsk 1975 -- -- na n aChernogorsk 1936 17 51 60 71 7 8

Abaza 1966 12 15 na n aSorsk 1966 na na n a(Taymyr AO )Dudinka 1951 16 20 na n a

Irkutsk oblas tIrkutsk 1686 52 127 99 250 366 451 550 597Angarsk 1951 135 203 239 25 6Bodaybo 1925 4 5 21 na na na n aBratsk 1955 -- 43 155 214 24 0Zima 1917 28 39 42 na n aNizhneudinsk 1783 6 10 10 28 39 40 na n aTayshet 1938 21 33 34 na n aTulun 1927 28 42 49 52 5 4

Usol'ye-Sibirskoye 8 20 49 87 103 10 7Ust'-Ilimsk

1973 -- -- 21 69 9 7Ust'-Kut

1954 3 21 33 50 5 6Cheremkhovo

1917 9 56 122 99 77 7 3Shelekhov

1962 13 30 na n a

Alzamay

1955 na na na n aBaykal'sk

1966 na na n aBiryusinsk

1967 -- na na n aVikhorevka

1966 11 18 na n aZheleznogorsk -

Ilimskiy

1965 2 22 na n aKirensk

1775 2 2 na na na na na n aSvirsk

1949 10 21 20 na n aSlyudyanka

1936 12 21 22 na n a

Chita oblas tChita

1851 12 74 62 121 172 241 303 33 6Baley

1938 31 29 27 na n aBorzya

1950 24 28 na n aKrasnokamensk

1969 14 51 6 5Petrovsk -

Zabaykal'skiy1926 7 21 30 29 na n a

Mogocha

1950 15 18 na n aNerchinsk

1690 7 11 7 na na na na n aSretensk

1783 14 15 na na na n aKhilok

1951 14 15 na na n aShilka

1951 17 17 16 na na

8 5

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5

FAR EAST

Yakut ASSRYakutsk

1632 7 8 11 53 74 108 152 18 0Mirnyy

1959 6 24 na n aNeryungri

1975 na 5 7

Aldan

1939 13 18 na n aVerkhoyansk

1638 1 1 1 na na na na n aVilyuysk

1634 1 1 1 na na na na n aLensk

1963 -- 8 17 na n aOlekminsk

1635 1 1 2 na na na na n aSrednekolymsk

1644 1 1 1 na na na na n aTommot

1923 na na na na na n a

Khabarovsk kr ayKhabarovsk

1858 15 43 50 207 322 436 528 57 6Amursk

1973 -- -- na 5 1Bikin

1938 15 19 17 na n aKomsomol'sk-na-1932 71 177 218 264 30 0Amur eNikolayevsk-na-1850 6 16 7 17 31 30 na n aAmur eSovetskaya Gavan 1941 12 26 28 na n a

Vyazemskiy

1951 18 18 na n a(Yevrey AO )Birobidzhan

1937 30 41 56 69 7 8Obluch'ye

1938 14 15 na na n a

Maritime kravVladivostok

1860 29 85 108 206 291 441 550 60 0Arsen'ev

1952 26 47 60 6 5Artem

1938 35 55 61 69 7 2Dal'nerechensk 1917 na n a

[Iman ]Lesozavodsk

1938 24 32 35 na n aNakhodka

1950 64 104 133 15 0Partizansk

1932 na n a[Suchan ]

Spassk-Dal'niy 1926 11 23 40 45 53 5 8Ussuriysk

1866 na 35 35 72 104 128 147 156

8 6

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5

Amur oblas tBlagoveshchensk1858 64 61 59 94 128 172 19 5Belogorsk

1926 34 49 57 63 7 0[Aleksandrovka]

5 4 na 7 17 na naZeya

190 6Raychikhinsk

1944 -- -- 4 27 25 na naSvobodnyy

1912 1 10 44 56 63 75 7 7[Alekseyevsk ]Tynda

1975 na 56Shimanovsk

1950 18 17 na na

Zavitinsk

1954 16 19 na naSkovorodino

1927 20 na na

Kamchatka oblas tPetropavlovsk- 1740

1 1 2 35 86 154 215 24 5Kamchatski y

Elizovo 1975 na na

Klyuchi 1979 na na

Magadan oblas tMagadan 1939 27 62 92 121 142

Susuman 1964 na na n a(Chukot AO )Anadyr 1965 na na n aPevek 1967 na na na

8 7

1897

1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5

Sakhalin oblastYuzhno-Sakhalinsk 1946 86 106 140 15 8

Aleksandrovsk- 1926 3 25 22 20 na n aSakhalinsk y

Dolinsk 1946 na n aKorsakov 1946 33 38 na n aNevel'sk 1946 20 21 na n aOkha 1938 20 28 31 na n aPoronaysk 1946 22 24 na n aUglegorsk 1946 18 18 na n aKholmsk 1946 32 37 na 5 0

Aniva 1946 na n aGornozavodsk 1947 na n aKrasnogorsk 1947 na n aKuril'sk 1946 na n aLesogorsk 1946 na n aMakarov 1946 na n aSevero-Kuril'sk1946 na n aTomari 1946 na n aChekhov 1947 na n aShakhtersk 1947 na n a

vol .l, pp . 345-54 ; Vsesoyuznaya perepis' naseleniya 1926 goda ,Moscow, 1928 ; Itogi vsesoyuznov perepisi naseleniya 1959 ,Moscow, 1963 ; Itogi vsesoyuznov perepisi naseleniya 1970 goda ,Moscow, 1972 ; Chislennost' i sostav naseleniya SSSR : po dannymvsesovuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1979goda, Moscow, 1984 ;Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR v 1984 q ., Moscow, 1985 .Note: na = data not availabl e

Sources : SSSR Administrativno-territorial'noyedeleniyesoyuznikh respublik, Moscow, 1983 and 1987 ; Aziatskaya Rossiya ,

8 8

APPENDIX 3

Selected Bibliography fo rSiberian Urbanization Since Stali n

I . THE FRONTIER

Billington, Ray . America's Frontier Culture . College Station :Texas A&M Univ, 1977 .

Bowman, Isaiah . The Pioneer Fringe . New York, 1931 .

Forbes, Jack . Frontiers in American History and the Role of th eFrontier Historian . Reno : DRI, 1966 .

Gerhard, Dietrich . "The frontier in comparative view . "Comparative Studies in Society and History 1 (1959) :205-29 .

Hennessy, Alistair . The Frontier in Latin American History .Albuquerque : Univ of New Mexico, 1978 .

Hudson, John . "Theory and methodology in comparative frontie rstudies ." In The Frontier : Comparative Studies , vol . 1 ,pp . 11-31 . Edited by Miller and Steffen . Norman :Univ of OKahoma, 1977 .

Juricek, John . "American usage of the word 'frontier' fro mcolonial times to Frederick Jackson Turner . "Proceedings

of the American Philosophical Society 110 (February 1966) :10-34 .

Lamar, Howard and Thompson, Leonard, eds . The Frontier inHistory . New Haven : Yale Univ, 1981 .

Mattson, Vernon and Tilman, Rick . "Thorstein Veblen, Frederic kJackson Turner, and the American experience ." Journal o fEconomic Issues 20 (December 1986) : 219-35 .

Meining, Donald . "Geographical analysis of imperial expansion . "In Period and Place, pp. 71-78 . Edited by Alan Baker andMark Billinge . Cambridge : Cambridge Univ, 1982 .

Mikesell, Marvin . "Comparative studies in frontier history . "AAG Annals 50 (1960) : 62-74 .

Miller, David and Steffen, Jerome . "Introduction ." In Th eFrontier : Comparative Studies , vol . 1, pp . 3-10 . Norman :Univ of OKahoma, 1977 .

Miller, David and Steffen, Jerome, eds . The Frontier :Comparative Studies, vol 1 . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1977 .

8 9

Noble, David . Historians Against History : the frontier thesi sand the national covenant in American historicalwritingsince 1830 . Minneapolis : Univ of Minnesota, 1965 .

Overton, J .D . "A theory of exploration ." Journal of Historica lGeography 7 (1981) : 57-70 .

Savage, William, Jr . and Thompson, Stephen . "The comparativ estudy of the frontier : an introduction ." In The Frontier :comparative studies, vol . 2, pp . 3-24 . Edited by Savage an dThompson . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1979 .

Savage, William, Jr . and Thompson, Stephen, eds . The Frontier :comparative studies, vol 2 . Norman : Univ of Oklahoma, 1979 .

Steffen, Jerome . Comparative Frontiers . Norman : Univ o fOKahoma, 1980 .

Taylor, George, ed . The Turner Thesis : concerning the role o fthe frontier in American history, 3rd ed . Lexington, Mass . :Heath, 1972 .

Turner, Frederick Jackson . The Frontier in American History .New York : Holt, 1920 .

Walsh, Margaret . The American Frontier Revisited . Atlanti cHighlands, NJ : Humanities Press, 1981 .

Webb, Walter Prescott . The Great Frontier . Austin : Univ o fTexas, 1964 .

Wieczynski, Joseph . The Russian Frontier : the impact o fborderlands upon the course of early Russian history_ .Charlottesville : Univ Press of Virginia, 1976 .

Wolfskill, George and Palmer, Stanley, eds . Essays on Frontier sin World History . Austin : Univ of Texas, 1981 .

Wyckoff, William . "Comparative frontiers research ." InGeography in America, pp .

. Edited by Cort Willmot tand Gary Gaile . Columbus : Merrill, 1989 .

Wyckoff, William and Hausladen, Gary . "Settling the Russia nfrontier : with comparisons to North America ." Sovie tGeography 30 (March 1989) : 179-88 .

Wyman, Walker and Kroeber, Clifton, eds . The Frontier i nPerspective . Madison : Univ of Wisconsin, 1957 .

9 0

II . WORLD ECONOMY

Amin, Samir . Unequal Development . New York : Monthly Review ,1976 .

Amin, Samir ; Arright, Giovanni ; Frank, Andre Gunner ; andWallerstein, Immanuel . Dynamics of Global Crisis . NewYork : Monthly Review, 1982 .

Boswell, Terry . "Colonial empires and the capitalist world -economy : a time series analysis of colonization, 1640 -1960 ." American Sociological Review 54 (April 1989) : 180 -96 .

Brookfield, Harold . Interdependent Development . London :Methuen, 1975 .

Bukharin, Nikolai Ivanovich . Mirovoye khozayaystvo i imperializ m[Imperialism and the world economy] . With an intro . by V .I .Lenin . New York : H . Fertig, 1966 .

Chase-Dunn, Christopher, ed . Socialist States in the WorldEconomy . Beverly Hills : Sage, 1982 .

Chilcote, Ronald . Theories of Development and Underdevelopment .Boulder : Westyiew, 1984 .

Chisholm, Michael . Modern World Development : ageographicalperspective . Totowa, NJ : Barnes and Noble, 1982 .

Corbridge, Stuart . Capitalist World Development . Totowa, NJ :Rowman and Littlefield, 1986 .

Crouch, C . State and Economy in Contemporary Capitalism .London : Croom Helm, 1979 .

Faaland, Just . The Political Economy of Development . New York :St . Martin's, 1986 .

Frank, Andre Gunder . Crisis in the World Economy . New York :Holmes & Meier, 1980 .

Freeman, C ., ed . Long Waves in the World Economy . London :Frances Printer, 1983 .

Henderson, Jeffrey and Castells, Manuel . Global Restructuringand Territorial Development . Newbury Park, CA : Sage, 1987 .

Hirschman, Albert . The Strategy of Economic Development .Boulder : Westview, 1988 .

9 1

Hopkins, Terence ; Wallerstein, Immanuel ; et al . World-SystemsAnalysis : theory and methodology . Beverly Hills : Sage ,1982 .

Johnston, R .J . and Taylor, Peter, eds . A World in Crisis ?Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1986 .

Kahn, Herman . World Economic Development : 1979 and beyond .Boulder, Westview, 1979 .

Kearns, Gerry . "History, geography and world-systems theory . "Journal of Historical Geography 14 (1988) : 281-92 .

King, Anthony . Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World-Economy :cultural and spatial foundations of the world urban system .New York : Routledge, 1990 .

Knox, Paul and Agnew, John . The Geography of the World Economy .New York : Edward Arnold, 1989 .

Kondratieff, Nikolai . The Long Wave Cycle . Trans . by Gu yDaniels . Intro . by Julian Snyder . New York : Richardson &Snyder, 1984 .

Larrain, Jorge . Theories of Development : capitalism ,colonialism and dependency . Cambridge : Polity Press, 1989 .

Limqueco, Peter and McFarlane, Bruce, eds . Neo-Marxist Theorie sof Development . London : Croom Helm, 1983 .

Maddison, Angus . The World Economy in the 20th Century . Paris :Development Centre of the OECD, 1989 .

Mandel, Ernest . Long Waves of Capitalist Development : theMarxist interpretation . London : Cambridge University ,1980 .

Marshall, Michael . Long Waves of Regional Development . NewYork : St . Martin's, 1987 .

Moore, Jr ., Barrington . Social Origins of Dictatorship an dDemocracy . Boston : Beacon, 1966 .

Rostow, Walter . The World Economy : history and prospect .London : Macmillan, 1978 .

Rowstow, Walter . "The world economy since 1945 : a stylizedanalysis ." Economic History Review 38 (May 1985) : 252-75 .

Schumpeter, J .A . Business Cycles : a theoretical, historical andstatistical analysis of the capitalist process . London :McGraw-Hill, 1939 .

9 2

Schumpeter, J .A . Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy . London :Allen & Unwin, 1976 .

Solomou, Solomos . "Innovation clusters and Kondratieff lon gwaves in economic growth ." Cambridge Journal of Economic s10 (1986) : 101-12 .

Solomou, Solomos . Phases of Economic Growth, 1850-1973 :Kondratief waves and Kuznets swings . Cambridge : Cambridg eUniv, 1987 .

Solomou, Solomos . "Non-balanced growth and Kondratieff waves i nthe world economy, 1850-1913 ." Journal of Economic Histor y46 (1986) : 165-69 .

Stohr, Walter . "Regional economic development and the worl deconomic crisis ." International Social Science Journal 112(May 1987) : 187-97 .

Storper, Michael and Walker, Richard . The Capitalist Imperative :territory, technolo gy, and industrial growth . New York :Basil Blackwell, 1989 .

Taylor, Michael and Thrift, Nigel . The Geography o fMultinationals : studies in the spatial development an deconomic consequences of multinational corporations . NY :St . Martin's, 1982 .

Taylor, Peter . Political Geography : world-economy, nation-stat eand locality . London : Longman, 1985 .

Timberlake, Michael . Urbanization in the World-Economy .Orlando : Academic Press, 1985 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Modern World-System . Capitalis tAgriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy i nthe Sixteenth Century . New York : Academic Press, 1974 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Capitalist World Economy : essays .Cambridge : Cambridge Univ, 1979 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Modern World-System II . Mercantilismand the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600 -1750 . New York : Academic Press, 1980 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Politics of the World-Economy : th estates, the movements, and the civilizations : essays . Ne wYork : Cambridge Univ, 1984 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Modern World-System III . The SecondEra of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy ,1730-1840s . New York : Academic Press, 1989 .

9 3

III . SIBERIA, historical, in English :

Armstrong, Terence . "Bering's expeditions ." In Studies i nRussian Historical Geography, vol . 1, pp . 175-95 . London :Academic Press, 1983 .

Armstrong,Terrence . Russian Settlement in the North . Cambridge :Cambridge Univ, 1965 .

Armstrong, Terrence . Yermak's Campaign in Siberia . London :HaKuyt Society, 1975 .

Bassin, Mark . "Expansion and colonialisn on the easter nfrontier : views of Siberia and the Far East in pre-Petrin eRussia ." Journal of Historical Geography14 (1988) :

Bassin, Mark . "The Russian geographical society, the 'Amu repoch,' and the great Siberian expedition, 1855-1863 ." AAGAnnals 73 (1983) : 240-56 .

Braddley, Joseph . Muzhik and Muscovite . Urbanization in Lat eImperial Russia . Berkeley : Univ of California, 1985 .

Chang, Sung-Hwan . "Russian designs on the Far East ." InRussian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution ,pp . 299-321 . Edited by Taras Hunczak . New Brunswick :Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

Dotsenko, Paul . The Struggle for Democracy in Siberia, 1917-1920 . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1983 .

Dmytryshyn, Basil ; Crownhart-Vaughan, E .A .P . ; and Vaughan ,Thomas . Russia's Conquest of Siberia, 1558-1700, a docu-mentary record, vol 1 . Portland : Western Imprints, 1985 .

Fedor, Thomas . Patterns of Urban Growth in the Russian Empir eDuring the Nineteenth Century_ . Chicago : Univ o fChicago, 1975 .

Fisher, Raymond . The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700 .Berkeley : Univ of California, 1943 .

French, R .A . "The development of Siberia : peoples and humanresources ." Keynote address, presented to the Britis hUniversities Siberian studies seminar, London, April 1986 .

French, R .A . "The early and medieval Russian town ." In Studie sin Russian Historical Geography, pp . 249-77 . Edited b yFrench and Bater . London : Academic Press, 1983 .

9 4

French, R .A . and Bater, James . "Approaches to the historica lgeography of Russia ." In Studies in Russian Historica lGeography, vol . 1, pp . 1-10 . Edited by French and Bater .London : Academic Press, 1983 .

French, R .A . and Bater, James, eds . Studies in RussianHistoricalGeography, 2 vols . London : Academic Press ,1983 .

Gibson, James . "Diversification on the frontier : RussianAmerica in the middle of the nineteenth century ." InStudies in Russian Historical Geography, vol . 1, pp . 197 -238 . London : Academic Press, 1983 .

Gibson, James . Feeding the Russian Fur Trade . Madison : Univ o fWisconsin, 1969 .

Gibson, James . Imperial Russia in Frontier America . New York :Oxford Univ, 1976 .

Gibson, James . "Russian expansion in Siberia and America . "Geographical Review 70 (Apr 1980) : 127-36 .

Golder, F .A . Russian Expansion on the Pacific, 1641-1850 .Gloucester, MA : Peter Smith, 196 0

Harrison, John . The Founding of the Russian Empire in Asi aand America . Coral Gables : Univ of Miami, 1971 .

Hausladen, Gary . "Russian Siberia : an integrative approach . "Soviet Geography 30 (March 1989) : 231-246 .

Henderson, Daniel . From the Volga to the Yukon . New York :Hastings House, 1944 .

Hunszak, Taras, ed . Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Grea tto the Revolution . New Brunswick : Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

Huttenbach, Henry. "The origins of Russian imperialism ." InRussian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution ,pp . 18-44 . Edited by Taras Hunczak . New Brunswick :Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

Kennan, George . Siberia and the Exile System . New York :The Century Co, 1981 .

Kerner, Robert . The Urge to the Sea . Berkeley : Univ o fCalifornia, 1946 .

Kohn, Hans . "Introduction ." In Russian Imperialism from Iva nthe Great to the Revolution, pp . 3-17 . Edited by TarasHunczak . New Brunswick : Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

9 5

Kolarz, Walter . The Peoples of the Soviet Far East . New York :Archon, 1969 .

Kristof, Ladis . "The Russian image of Russia ." I nEssays in Political Geography, pp . 345-87 . Edited b yCharles Fisher . London : Methuen, 1968 .

Lantzeff, George . Siberia in the Seventeenth Century .New York : Octagon, 1972 .

Lensen, George. Russia's Eastward Expansion . Englewood Cliffs :Prentice-Hall, 1964 .

Levin, M .G . and Potapov, L .P ., eds . The Peoples of Siberia .Trans . by Stephen Dunn . Chicago : Univ of Chicago, 1964 .

Lyashchenko, P .I . History of the National Economy of Russia .Translated by L .M . Herman . New York : MacMillan, 1949 .

Norton, Henry K . The Far Eastern Republic of Siberia [reprint ;first published in 1923 . Connecticut : Hyperion, 1982 .

OKadnikov, Aleksei P . Ancient Population of Siberia and It sCultures . Cambridge : Peabody Museum, 1959 .

Polansky, Patricia . "Regionalism and Siberian publishing in lat eimperial Russia, 1880-1917 ." Pacifica 1/2 (September 1989) :77-100 .

Remezov, Semyon . The Atlas of Siberia (facsimile edition ; firs tpublished in the 17th century) . The Hague : Mouton, 1958 .

Riasanovsky, Nicholas . A History of Russia, 4th ed . New York :Oxford Univ, 1984 .

Sarkisyanz, Emanuel . "Russian imperialism reconsidered ." I nRussian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution ,pp . 45-81 . Edited by Taras Hunczak . New Brunswick :Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

Semyonov, Y .N . Siberia : its conquest and development .Trans . from the German by J .R .Foster . London : Hollis &Carter, 1963 .

Sibirica II . Papers presented to the British Universitie sSiberian Studies Seminar, Cambridge, September 1984 .

Sibirica III . Papers presented to the British Universitie sSiberian Studies Seminar, London, April 1986 .

Smele, Jon . "Introduction ." In Kolchak i Sibir' : dokumentyi

96

issledovaniia, 1919-1926, vol . 1, pp . ix-xliv . Edited b yDavid Collins and Jon Smele . White Plains : Krau sInternational, 1988 .

Snow, Russell . The Bolsheviks in Siberia, 1917-1918 . London :Associated University Presses, 1977 .

Starr, S . Frederick, ed . Russia's American Colony . Durham :Duke Univ, 1987 .

Stebelsky, Igor . "The frontier in Central Asia ." In Studie sin Russian Historical Geography, vol 1, pp . 143-73 . London :Academic Press, 1983 .

Steffen, Jerome . "American fur-trading frontier : new worldmercantilism ." In Comparative Frontiers, pp . 29-50 . Editedby Jerome Steffen . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1980 .

Stewart, J .M . "Early travelers, explorers, and naturalists i nSiberia ." Asian Affairs 15 (Feb 1984) : 55-64 .

Tobin, Henry . "The Russian frontier ." Comparative Frontie rStudies 1 (1975) .

Treadgold, Donald . The Great Siberian Migration . Princeton :Princeton Univ, 1957 .

Tupper, Harmon . To the Great Ocean : Siberia and the Trans-Siberian railway . Boston : Little, Brown & Co ., 1965 .

Wyckoff, William . "Comment on Russia Siberia : an integrativeapproach ." Soviet Geography 30 (March 1989) : 247-252 .

Zobtzeff, Oleg . "Ruling Siberia : the Imperial Power ,the Orthodox Church and the Native People ." Paper presente dto the British Universities Siberian Studies Seminar ,Cambridge, September 1986 .

9 7

IV . SIBERIA, contemporary, in Englis h

Aganbegyan, A .G ., ed . Regional Studies for Planning an dProjectinq: the Siberian experience . New York : Mouton ,1981 .

Alfred, Max . The Siberian Challenge . Englewood Cliffs :Prentice-Hall, 1977 .

Babbage, Ross, ed . The Soviets in the Pacific in the 1990s .Australia : 1989 .

Bradshaw, Michael . "Trade and high technology ." In Siberia andthe Soviet Far East, pp . 100-34 . Edited by Rodge rSwearingen . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 .

Chan Young Bang . "Seoul-Moscow : economic cooperation an dsecurity ." Far Eastern Affairs 1989, no . 6, pp . 73-85 .

Collins, David N . and Smele, Jan . Kolchak and Siberia :Documents and Studies, 1919-1926, 2 vols . White Plains, NewYork : Kraus International Publishers, 1988 .

Connoly, Violet . Beyond the Urals . London : Oxford Univ, 1967 .

Connoly, Violet . Siberia Today and Tomorrow . New York :Taplinger,1976 .

de Souza, Peter . Territorial Production Complexes in the Sovie tUnion, with special focus on Siberia . Sweden : Universit yof Gothenburg, 1989 .

Dibb, Paul . Siberia and the Pacific . New York : Praeger, 1972 .

Dienes, Leslie . "A comment on the new development program fo rthe Far East economic region ." Soviet Geography 29 (Apri l1988) :

.

Dienes, Leslie . Soviet Asia : Economic Development and Nationa lPolicy Choices . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

"Excerpts from Mikhail Gorbachev's speech in Krasnoyarsk o nSeptember 16, 1988 ." Far Eastern Affairs 1989, no . 1, pp .2-4 .

Fitzhugh, William W . and Crowell, Aran, eds . Crossroads o fContinents : cultures of Siberia and Alaska . SmithsonianInstitution, 1988 .

Granberg, A .G . "Siberia in the national economic complex . "Soviet Review 22 (1981-82) : 44 .

9 8

Granberg, A .G . "Structural changes and intensification i nSiberian industry ." Problems of Economics, 29 (1986) : 39-60 .

Ha, Joseph . "Gorbachev's bold Asian initiatives : Vladivosto kand beyond ." Asian Perspective 12 (Spring-Summer 1988) : 5-33 .

Hausladen, Gary . "Recent trends in Siberian urban growth . "Soviet Geography 18 (February 1987) : 71-89 .

Irkutsk : a guide. Moscow, 1986 .

Kirby, Stuart . The Soviet Far East . New York : St . Martin's ,1971 .

Kovalenko, I .I . "Along the course chartered in Vladivostok an dKrasnoyarsk ." Far Eastern Affairs 5 (1989) : 71-80 .

Kyongsoo Lho . "Seoul-Moscow relations : looking to the 1990s . "Asian Survey 29 (December 1989) : 1153-66 .

Markov, G . Siberia . Moscow : Progress, 1975 .

Mehta, Vinod . Soviet Economy : new economic strategy . India :Sterling Publishers, 1987 .

Mil'ner, G . "Problems of ensuring the supply of labor resource sfor Siberia and the Far Eastern regions ." Soviet Reyiew20 (1979-80) : 95-110 .

Mote, Victor L . "Containerization and the Trans-Siberian lan dbridge ." Geographic Review 74 (July 1984) .

Narodnoe khozyaystvo SSSR, yearly to 1987 .

North, Robert . Transport in Western Siberia : tsarist and Sovie tdevelopment . Vancouver : Univ of British Columbia, 1979 .

Nossov, Mikhail G . The USSR and the Security of the Asia-Pacifi cRegion, from Vladivostok to Krasnoyarsk . The Regents of th eUniversity of California, 1989 .

"Notes on new Siberian towns ." Asian Affairs 14 (Oct 1983) :271-86 .

Ogawa, Kazuo . "Economic relations with Japan ." In Siberia andthe Soviet Far East, pp . 158-78 . Edited by Rodge rSwearingen . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 .

9 9

Ogawa, Kazuo . "The Sea of Japan region : a zone of Soviet -Japanese cooperation ." Far Eastern Affairs 1989, no . 6, pp .86-92 .

Orlov, B .P . Siberia : achievements, problems, solutions .Moscow : Progress, 1977 .

Pinsky, Donne E . Industrial Development of Siberia and th eSoviet Far East . Santa Monica : Rand, 1984 .

Pi Ying-hsien . "Gorbachev's new political thinking and Sovie tpolicy in the Asia-Pacific region ." Issues and Studies 2 5(May 1989) : 102-22 .

Resnick, Abraham . Siberia and the Soviet Far East : endles sfrontiers . Moscow: Novosti, 1983 .

Resnick, Abraham . Siberia and the Soviet Far East : unmaskin gthe myths . GEM McCuen, 1985 .

Rodgers, Allan, ed . The Soviet Far East : geographicperspectives on development . London : 1990 .

Sallnow, John . "The population of Siberia and the Soviet Fa rEast (1965-1976) ." Soviet Geography (November 1977) .

Schiffer, Jonathan . Soviet Regional Economic Policy : the east-west debate over Pacific Siberian development . London :Macmillan, 1989 .

Shabad, Theodore . "Geographic aspects of the New Soviet Five -Year Plan, 1986-90 ." Soviet Geography 27 : January, 1986 )

Shabad, Theodore and Mote, Victor . Gateway to Siberia nResources (The BAM) . New York : Wiley, 1977 .

Shinkarev, L .I . The Land Beyond the Mountains : Siberia and it speople today . New York : Macmillan, 1973 .

Shlyk, N .L . "The Soviet Far East and the international economy . "In Soviet-American Horizons on the Pacific, pp . 115-25 .Edited by John Stephan and V .P . Chichkanov . Honolulu : Univof Hawaii, 1986 .

Soohyun Chon . "South Korea-Soviet trade relations : interest inSiberian development ." Asian Survey 29 (December 1989) :1177-87 .

1 0 0

Soule, Mason H . and Taaffe, Robert N . The Planning, Theoretical ,and Analytical Framework of Soviet Regional Development ,with particular reference to Siberia and the Far East : abibliography of recent literature . Bloomington : Indian aUniversity, 1981 .

"The Soviet Far East and the Asian Pacific region," round tabl ediscussion . Far Eastern Affairs, 1989, no . 4, pp . 11-31 .

Soviet Far East : minerals and resources . Vladivostok, 1989 .

Strauss, Robert . Trans-SiberianRail Guide . UK : Brad tPublications, 1988 .

Sukhanov, Y . From the Urals to the Pacific . Trans . by BryanBean and R .M . Cook . Moscow: Progress, 1970 .

Suslov, S .P . Physical Geography of Asiatic Russia . W .H . Freemanand Company, 1961 .

Thakur, Ramesh and Thayer, Carlyle A ., eds . The Soviet Union asan Asian Pacific Power . Boulder : Westview Press, 1987 .

Thambipillai, Pushpa and Matuszewski, Daniel C ., eds . The Sovie tUnion and the Asia-Pacific Region : views from the region .

New York : Praeger, 1989 .

"The Soviet Far East and the Asia-Pacific Region ." Far EasternAffairs 4 (1989) : 11-31 .

Trofimenko, Henry . Long-term Trends in the Asia-Pacific Region :a Soviet evaluation . The Regents of the University o fCalifornia, 1989 .

USSR Energy Atlas . Washington, DC : CIA, 1985 .

Vorob'yev, V .V . "Problems of protecting the environment i nSiberia ." Geoforum (1984) : 105 .

Whiting, Allen . Siberian Development and East Asia . Stanford :Stanford Univ, 1981 .

Whiting, Allen S . and Mote, Vicote L . PacificBasinTransportation Prospects . Wharton E .F .A . Inc ., Septembe r1984 .

Wood, Alan, ed . Siberia : problems and prospects forregionaldevelopment . London : Croom Helm, 1987 .

Wood, Alan and French, R .A ., eds . The Development of Siberia :people and resources . New York : St . Martin's Press, 1989 .

1 0 1

Ying-hsien, Pi . "Gorbachev's new political thinking and Sovie tpolicy in the Asia-Pacific region ." Issues and Studies 2 5(May 1989) : 102-122 .

Zagoria, Donald . "Soviet policy in East Asia : new beginning? "Foreign Affairs 68 (1988/1989) : 120-38 .

Zaslavskaya, T .J ., et al . "Social problems in the development o fSiberia ." Soviet Review 24 (1983-84) : 66 .

Zhuravlev, V . A Second Trans-Siberian . Moscow : Progress, 1980 .

1 0 2

V . SIBERIA, historical, in Russian

Aranberg, A . and Ibrarimovo, E . "Sibiri na rybezhe vekov . "Moscow, 1984 .

Aziatskaya Rossiya 2 vols (reprint ; originally published in St .Peterburg, 1914) . Cambridge, MA : Oriental Researc hPartners, 1974 .

Bakhrushin, S .V . Nauchnyye trudy . Ocherki po istori ikolonizatsii Sibiri v XVI i XVII vv . Moscow, 1955 .

Balandin, S .N . Novosibirsk : istoriya gradostroitel'stva 1893 -1945 gg. Novosibirsk, 1978 .

Basharin, G .P ., ed . Istoriya Yakutii . Yakutsk, 1966 .

Bor'ba za vlast' Sovetov v Irkutskoy gubernii . Irkutsk, 1957 .

Chechulin, N .D . Goroda Moskovskago gosudarstva vXVIveke .St . Petersburg, 1889 .

Collins, David and Smele, Jon, eds . Kolchak i Sibir' : dokument yi issledovaniia, 1919-1926, 2 vols . White Plains : Krau sInternational, 1988 .

Ekonomicheskaya politika tsarizma v Sibiri v XIX -nachale XXveka . Irkutsk, 1984 .

Goroda Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1978 .

Goryushkin, L .M . Istochniki po Istorii Osvoeniya Sibiri v PeriodKapitalizma . Novosibirsk, 1989 .

Goryushkin, L .M . Khoziaistvennoe osvoenie Sibiri v period aIstoriografya problemi . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Goryushkin, L .M . Politicheskaya Ssilka i Revolyutsionno yDvisheni v Rossii . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Goryushkin, L .M . Promyshlennost' i rabochiye Sibiri v periodkapitalizma .

Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Goryushkin, L .M . Sibirskoye krest'yanstvo na rubezhedvukhvekov . Novosibirsk, 1967 .

Goryushkin, L .M ., et al . Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Sibiri, 1914 -1917 . Khronika i istoriografia . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Istoriografiya gorodov Sibiri .Novosibirsk, 1984 .

Istoriya gorodov Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1977 .

103

KhozyaystvennoyeNovosibirsk, 1988 . Sibiri v period kapitalizma .

Kirilov, I .K . Tsvetushchee sostoyanie vserossiyskogo gosudarstv a[reprint ; first published 1727, revised 1737] . Moscow 1977 .

Koche damov, V .I . Pervye russkiye goroda Sibiri . Moscow, 1978 .

Kopylov, A . Ocherki kul'turnoi zhizni Sibiri XVII-nachala XIX v .Novosibirsk, 1974 .

Krest'yanstvo Sibiri v period uprocheniya i razvitiyasotsializma . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

K voprosu ob industrializatsii Sibiri . Novonikolaevsk, 1925 .

Maksanov, S ., ed . Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe razvitie Buryati iXVII-nachalo v . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Mamsik, T . Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Sibiri : vtoraya chetvertXIXveka . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Mirzoev, V .G . Istoriografiya Sibiri . Moscow, 1970, pp . 3-11 ,388-392 .

Muller, G .F . Istoriya Sibiri . Moscow, 1937 .

Narochnitskii, A ., ed . Istoricheskaia geografiia Rossii . XVII -nachaloXX v . Moscow, 1975 .

Ogly, B .I . Stroyitel'stvo gorodov Sibiri . Leningrad, 1980 .

Okladnikov, A .P . and Shunkov, V .I ., eds . Istoriya Sibiri ,5 vols . Leningrad, 1968 .

Pechenkin, M . Sibir' v leninskom plane postroeniia sotsializm a1917-1924 gody . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Pokrovskii, N . Istochniki po istorii Sibiri dosovetskogo perioda .Sborniktrudov . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Pokrovskii, N . NovyeMaterialy po Istorii SibiriDosovetskogoPerioda . Novosibirsk, 1986 .

Pokshishevskiy, V .V . Yakutiya . Moscow, 1957 .

Rafienko, Lyudmila . "Neizvestnyi istoricheskii atlas Sibiri . "Voprosi Istorii 4 (April 1989), pp . 128-132 .

Rezun, D .Ya . Ocherki istorii izucheniia Sibiriskogogorodakontsa XVI-pervo i ‘Eke . Novosibirsk, 1982 .

. '

1 0 4

a

Rezun, D .Ya . Ocherki istorii Sibirskogo goroda . Novosibirsk ,1982 .

Russkaya kniga v dorevolyutsionnoi Sibiri : fondy redkikh knigirukopisei Sibirskikh bibliotek . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Shdanova, A .A . Sibir i Dekabristi . Irkutsk, ]988 .

Shinkarev, Leonid . Sibir' : otkuda ona poshla i kydu onaidet .Moscow, 1978 .

Sibir' perioda kapitalizma, several vols . Novosibirsk, 1965 .

Sibirskaya Sovetskaya entsiKopediya, 3 vols . Moscow, 1929-32 .

Skrynnikov, R .G . Sibirskaya ekspeditsiya Yermaka . Novosibirsk ,1986 .

Torgovlya gorodov Sibiri kontsa XVI - nachala XX v . Novosibirsk ,1987 .

Tyumen' : vorota Sibiri . Sverdlovsk, 1986 .

Voprosy formirovaniya russkogo naseleniya Sibiri v XVII - nachal eXIX vv . Tomsk, 1978 .

Voprosy istorii i sotsiologii Dal'nego Vostoka . Blagoveshchensk ,1972 .

Voprosy sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiva Sibiri v perio dkapitalizma . Barnaul, 1984 .

1 0 5

VI . SIBERIA, contemporary, in Russian

Aganbegyan, A .G . Sibir na rubezhe vekov . Moscow, 1984 .

Aganbegyan, A .G ., ed . Ekonomicheskiye problemy razvitiya Sibiri .Novosibirsk, 1974 .

Aganbegyan, A .G . and Kin, A .A ., eds . BAM : pervoyedesyatiletiye . Novosibirsk, 1984 .

Aizenberg, E .B . and Sobolev, Yu .A . Kompleksnyeprogramrazvitiya vostochnykh rayonov SSSR . Moscow, 1982 .

Alekseev, V .V . Industrial'noe razvitie Sibiri v god yposlevoennukh piatletok1946-1960 . Novosibirsk ; 1982 .

Alekseev, V .V . Ocherki ekonomiki Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Alekseev, V .V . Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe razviti esovetskoy Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1984 .

Alekseev, V .V . Sotsial'nye aspekty industrial'nogo razvitiiaSibiri . Novosibirsk, 1983 .

Alekseev, V .V . Urbanizatsiia sovetskoi Sibiri . Novosibirsk ,1987 .

Alekseev, V .V . and Isupov, V .A . Naseleniye Sibiri v godyvelikov otchestvennoy voyny . Novosibirsk, 1986 .

Alimov, Yu .P . and Zhokhova, V .P . Analiz effektivnostirazmeshcheniya proizvoditel'nykh sil Sibiri i Dal'negoVostoka . Moscow, 1979 .

Averin, A .H . and Antropav, E .P . Zapadnaya Sibir . Moscow, 1988 .

Ayzenberg, E .R . an Sobolev, Yu.A. Kompleksnye programmy :razvitiya vostochnykh rayonov SSSR . Moscow, 1982 .

Bandman, M .R . Razvitie narodnogo khozyaystva Sibiri .Novosibirsk, 1978 .

Bandman, M .R . et al . Sibir' v edinom narodno-khozyaystvennom komplekse . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Bandman, M .R . and Orlov, B .P . Territorialno-proizvodstvenn ikompleksi . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Bartkova, I .I . "Portovye goroda Dal'nego Vostoka," i nTerritorial'no-khozyaystvennye struktura Da l'nego Vostoka ,pp . 142-51 . Vladivostok, 1982 .

1 0 6

"Chislennost naseleniya stolits soyuzni respublik i gorodov schislom shitelei svishe milliona chelovek na 1 yanvary a1984 g ." Vestnik Statistiki, No . 11, 1984, pp . 64-79 .

Chusovitin, N . Metallurgi Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka v usloviak hrazvitogo sotsializma . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Dokuchaev, G .A . and Kozybaev, M .K . Osushchestvlenie leninskik hidey razvitiya proizvoditel'nykh sil . Alma Ata, 1987 .

Dubnova, A .P . and Orlova, B .P ., eds . Khozyaystvennoye osvoeniyenovykh rayonov i ekonomicheskiy rost Sibiri . Novosibirsk ,1980 .

Dudukalov, V .I . Razvitie sovetskoe torgovli v Sibiri v god ysotsialisticheskogo stroitel'stva 1921-1928 gg. Tomsk ,1978 .

Efimkin, M .M . Sotsialnoe razvitii rabochego klassa Sibiri, 1959 -1980 . Novosibirsk, 1989 .

Ekonomicheskaya geografiya SSSR, chast' II . Moscow, 1989 .

Geograficheskie problemy osvoeniya vostochnykh rayonov SSSR .Irkutsk, 1984 .

Granberg, A .G ., ed . Ekonomika Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

Gukov, V .P . Problemy ekonomiki vostochnoy Sibiri . Novosibirsk ,1981 .

Irkutsk : geograficheskii atlas . Moscow 1986 .

Istoriya promyshlennogo razvitiya Soverskogo Dal'nego Vostok a(period sotsializma) . Vladivostok, 1979 .

Itogi vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1959 goda. Moscow, 1962 .

Itogi vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya1970 goda. Moscow, 1972 .

Kalmik, V .A ., Rivkina, R .V ., Khokhulina, L .A ., et al . Sotsialno-ekonomicheskoy razvitii Sibirskogo sela . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Kashtanov, A .N . Razvitiye sel'skogo khozyaystva Sibiri i Dal'n egoVostoka .Moscow

1980 .

Khorev, B .S . Regionalnaya politika v SSSR . Moscow, 1989 .

1 0 7

Khozyaystvennoe osvoenie novykh rayonov i_ekonomicheskiy ros tSibiri . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Kligman, M .B . BAM . Moscow, 1978 .

Kolesova, L .I ., ed . Problemy razvitii transportnoy sistemSibiri . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Komogortsev, I . Sotsial'no-ekomicheskoe i kul'turnoe razviti eZabaikal'ya . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Kosmachev, R .P . and Mikhaylov, Yu .P . Geografiya osvoeniyaresursov Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1979 .

Krivoborskaya, A .I . Prirodno-ekonomicheskiy potentsial zony BAM .Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Lappo, G .M . and Pivovarov, Yu . L . Geografiya naseleniya SSSRvusloviyah NTR . Moscow, 1988 .

Lappo, G .M . "Gorod v territorial'no-ekonomicheskikh sistemax . "In Voprosy Geografii 115 . Ekonomicheskaya i sotsial'nay ageografiya, pp . 131-41 . Moscow, 1980 .

Lisenko, V .L . Metodologiya i opyt razrabotki regionalniy progra mv Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1989 .

Lukinskii, F . Narodnoe obrazovanie v Sibiri 1928-1941 gg .Novosibirsk, 1982 .

Malinin, E .D . and Ushakov, A .K . Naseleniye Sibiri . Moscow ,197E .

Medvedkova, E .A . Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe rayonirovaniepriangar'ya . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

Misevich, R .N ., ed . Geoqrafiya naseleniya Sibiri . Irkutsk ,1976 .

Misevich, K .N . and Ryashchenko . Geograficheskaya sredaiusloviya zhizni naseleniya Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Molodenkov, L .V ., ed . Osvoenie novykh khozyaystvennyk hterritoriy v Vostochnykh rayonov RSFSR . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Kolesova, TAG . Ekonomicheskaya geografiya Sibiri . Moscow, 1975 .

Kolesova, TAG. and Zakharina, D.M. Novaya geografiya Sibiri .Moscow, 1972 .

Moskovskii, A . and Isupov, V .A . Formirovaniegorodskogonaseleniia Sibiri 1926-1939 gg. Novosibirsk, 1984 .

• -

1 0 8

Mozhin, V .P ., ed . Ekonomicheskoye razvitiye Sibiri iDal'negoVostoka . Moscow, 1980 .

Myakinenkova, B .M ., ed . Problemy rasseleniya v rayonakh Severa .Leningrad, 1977 .

Naymark, N .I . "Sovremennaya set' gorodskikh aglomeratsiy SSSR . "Izvestiya AN SSSR . Seriya Geograficheskaya, no . 6 (Nov-Dec1985) :

82-91 .

"Obshchesoyuznye smotriny Sibiri ." Ekonomika i organizatsiyapromyshlennogo proizvodstva (EKO), no . 2, 1986, pp . 103-35 .

Orlov, B .P ., ed . Razvitie promyshlennosti i khozyaystvenno eosvoenie novykh rayonov Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

Orlov, B .P ., ed . Tendentsii ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Sibir i(1961-1975 gg .) . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Orlov, V .I . Zapadnaya Sibir' . Moscow, 1961 .

Osobennosti khozvaystvennogo razvitiya i zaseleniya rayono vSibiri . Irkutsk, 1979 .

Osvoenie prirodnykh resursov Zabaykal'ya . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

Pechenkin, MD . Sibir v Leninskom plane postroeniya sotsializm a1917-1924 q . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Pertsik, E .N . Gorod v Sibiri . Moscow, 1980 .

Pertsik, E .N . "Problemy urbanizatsii Sibiri ." In Voprosygeografii 115 . Ekonomicheskaya i sotsial'naya geografiya ,pp . 154-63 . Moscow, 1980 .

Pistun, N .D . Ekonomicheskaya geografiya SSSR . Rayonnayachast' . Kiev, 1984 .

Pokshishevskiy, V .V . Yakutiya-priroda-lyudi-khozyaystvo .Naychno-Populyarnaya Seriya : Moscow, 1957

Promyshlennoe razvitie Omskoy oblasti, 1917-1975 . Omsk, 1977 .

Radnaev, B . L . and Sanshieva, S . G . TransportVostochnogoZabaikalya. Novosibirsk, 1989 .

Razvitiya narodnokhozyaystva Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1978 .

Razvitie regional'nykh gorodskikh sistem rasseleniya irazmeshchenie proizvodstva . Novosibirsk, 1984 .

Retrospektivnyy analiz ekonomiki Dal'nego Vostoka . Vladivostok ,109

1982 .

"Rossiiskaya Federatsiyatrtochnaya Sibir ." Sovetskii Soyuz .Moscow, 1969 .

"Rossiiskaya Federatsiya Dalnii Vostok ." Sovetskii Soyuz .Moscow, 1971 .

Rudenko, Yu . N . and Saneev, B .G . "Napravleniya i problem yformirovaniya Vostochno-Sibirskogo neftegazogo kompleksa . "Izvestiya 8/2 (May 1988), pp . 22-30 .

Sergeev, M . Irkutsk : putevoditel . Moscow : Raduga, 1986 .

Shemetov, P .V . Ekonomicheskiye issledovaniya v Sibiri .Novosibirsk, 1983 .

Shniper, R .I ., ed . Tendentsii ekonomicheskogo razvitiya ros tSibiri (1961-75) . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Sibirskiye goroda . Novosibirsk, 1981 .

Sigalov, M .R . and Lamin, V .A . Zheleznodorozhnoe stroitel'stvovpraktike khozyaystvennogo osvoeniya Sibiri . Novosibirsk ,1988 .

Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe razvitie Sovetskoy Sibiri :istoricheskiy and sovremennost' . Novosibirsk, 1984 .

Sotsial'noe aspekty industrial'nogo razvitiya Sibiri .Novosibirsk, 1983 .

SSSR Administrativno-territorial'noe delenie soyuznykh respublik .Moscow, various years to 1987 .

Territorial'no-khozyaystvennye struktury Dal'nego Vostoka .Vladivostok, 1982 .

Trotskovskiy, A .Ya . Razvitie sela v usloviyakh urbanizatsii .Novosibirsk, 1985 .

Ushakov, A .R . Naseleniye Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1976 .

Voprosy geografi Zabaikalskovo Severa . Moscow, 1964 .

Vorob'yev, V .V . Formirovani naseleniya Vostochnoy Sibiri .Novosibirsk, 1975 .

Vorob'yev, V .V . Naseleniye Vostochnoy Sibiri . Novosibirsk ,1977 .

p

1 1 0

Vorob'yev, V .V ., ed . Voprosy ekonomicheskoy geografii VostochnoySibiri . Irkutsk, 1975 .

1 1 1