Moscow is growing quickly and uncontrollably. Is there a limit to this process? What are the parameters of a metropolitan metropolis? What kind of city is it really? What are its prospects? And finally, is it possible to change the situation for the better?
Recently, many socio-economic problems of the Russian capital are becoming worse literally every day. There are many reasons for this. The press is already expressing thoughts that life in Moscow will only get worse in the foreseeable future. Citizens' awareness of this fact leads to the fact that a kind of migration of wealthy Muscovites to suburban areas is already taking place; suburban cottages are becoming increasingly popular. Meanwhile, against the backdrop of such processes, development continues in the same direction - Moscow continues to grow. The number of people living in the capital is increasing, the number of people employed in its economy is increasing, the population density is growing, and further development of the city continues. How justified is such expansion of the main Russian metropolis? How serious is the situation? What are the prospects for current trends? What can be done to “unload” the capital? In this article we will try to answer these and other questions.
1. The Russian capital in the mirror of the world's largest megacities. To date, Moscow is one of the largest cities in the world. The number of its inhabitants has long exceeded 10 million people, and taking into account those temporarily living in it - 15 million people. Such a gigantic human biomass concentrated in a relatively small space leads to a colossal overstrain of all life support systems of the city. The capital's indigenous residents acutely feel that the city's growth limit has already been exceeded. However, we can assume that these are subjective feelings - Moscow is by no means the only metropolis in the world. What is the true state of affairs?
Table 1. Basic parameters of the world's largest megacities.
| City | Year | Territory area, sq. km | Population, million people | Population density, thousand people/sq. km |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY | 2004 | 1214.40 | 8.10 | 6.673 |
| Chicago | 2005 | 606.20 | 2.84 | 4.689 |
| Tokyo | 2006 | 2187.08 | 12.53 | 5.728 |
| London | 2005 | 1579.00 | 7.50 | 4.750 |
| Paris | 1999 | 2723.00 | 9.64 | 3.542 |
| Moscow | 2005 | 1081.00 | 10.43 | 9.644 |
| Saint Petersburg | 2002 | 1400.00 | 4.66 | 3.329 |
| Hong Kong | 2005 | 1103.00 | 7.04 | 6.383 |
| Singapore | 2005 | 699.00 | 4.33 | 6.189 |
| Bangkok | 2000 | 1568.70 | 6.36 | 4.051 |
| Shanghai | 2004 | 6340.50 | 17.42 | 2.747 |
To answer the question posed, let us compare for the largest megacities in the world such a parameter as population density (Table 1). The result is truly discouraging: Moscow, which is the capital of the largest country in the world by area, is the undisputed leader in terms of “crowding.” For comparison: in Shanghai the population density is 3.6 times less than in Moscow, in Bangkok - 2.4 times, in Paris - 2.8 times, in London - 2.0 times, in Tokyo - 1 .7 times, in New York - almost 1.5 times. This fact alone speaks to the lack of rationality of such a concentration of population within one capital city in the presence of huge areas of free territory. It is quite obvious that these figures indicate a crisis in the old socio-economic model of development of the Russian capital, focused on the extensive expansion of the city’s economic potential.
Of course, the figures given are not perfect. When assessing the population density of megacities, it is advisable to make an adjustment for the area of their reservoirs. For example, according to our calculations, in New York, water bodies occupy 35.3% of the city's territory, while in Chicago - only 2.9%. However, in any case, the essence of the matter does not change and the main conclusion about the overpopulation of Moscow remains valid.
Overaccumulation of the population within the Moscow region is accompanied by irrational industrial policy. Thus, industrial zones in Moscow still occupy 24% of its territory, which is comparable to the area of green spaces. An important consequence of overcrowding in the capital is the increased incidence of infectious diseases among Muscovites. Thus, over the past 15 years, the incidence of influenza and ARVI in the capital is 1.5-1.8 times higher than the Russian average. Overcrowding of residents and active migration processes contribute to maintaining this pattern.
Another consequence of Moscow's overpopulation is the crisis of its transport system. Most Muscovites are discouraged by this problem: neither ground transport, nor the metro, nor a private car solves transport problems. Crowds in public transport and traffic jams on roads, gas pollution in the city and high risks of transport accidents interfere with the normal life of the capital's residents. To what extent are these problems supported by objective information?
The main transport artery of many megacities is the metro. A comparison of the main characteristics of this type of transport for the main megacities of the world shows that here, too, Russia is on the margins of social progress (Table 2).
Table 2. Characteristics of the metro in the world's largest cities.
| City | Year | Length of metro tracks, km | Annual volume of metro passenger traffic, billion trips | Volume of metro traffic/city population, million people/km | Volume of metro traffic/length of metro tracks, million people/km |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY | 2004 | 368.00 | 1.43 | 175.96 | 3.88 |
| Chicago | 2003 | 173.00 | 0.15 | 52.77 | 0.87 |
| Tokyo | 2004 | 292.30 | 2.82 | 224.71 | 9.63 |
| London | 2005 | 408.00 | 0.98 | 130.13 | 2.39 |
| Paris | 2004 | 212.50 | 1.34 | 138.52 | 6.29 |
| Moscow | 2005 | 278.30 | 2.60 | 249.69 | 9.35 |
| Saint Petersburg | 2004 | 112.00 | 0.82 | 176.13 | 7.33 |
| Hong Kong | 2005 | 91.00 | 0.86 | 121.86 | 9.43 |
| Singapore | 2004 | 109.40 | 0.47 | 109.69 | 4.34 |
| Bangkok | 2004 | 44.00 | 0.07 | 11.49 | 1.66 |
| Shanghai | 2005 | 107.80 | 0.53 | 30.54 | 4.94 |
The calculations show that according to such an indicator as the ratio “volume of metro traffic/city population,” which characterizes the load on underground urban transport, Moscow is the undisputed leader among the leading megacities of the world. According to our calculations, on average, a resident of the Russian capital enters the metro 250 times during the year (and this includes children and the elderly!). For comparison: this is 1.1 times more than in Tokyo, 1.4 times more than in New York, 1.9 times more than in London, 1.8 times more than in Paris, 4.7 times more than in in Chicago. Thus, the Moscow metro is clearly overloaded and any additional increase in its traffic will sharply worsen its ergonomic characteristics.
An additional indicator characterizing the level of load on the city subway is the ratio “volume of metro traffic/length of metro tracks,” the value of which is again the maximum for Moscow. According to our calculations, the most intense underground traffic, approaching 10 million people/km, is typical for Moscow, Tokyo and Hong Kong (Table 2). Combining the indicators “volume of metro traffic/city population” and “volume of metro traffic/length of metro tracks,” which have extremely high values for Moscow, allows us to draw at least two conclusions. Firstly, the city’s underground transport clearly no longer meets the needs of the metropolis, and secondly, the existing transport deficit does not affect individual small areas of the city, but covers it quite evenly, i.e. The shortage of Moscow metro services itself is total. A typical example of a different mode of operation of the metro is New York, whose traffic in relation to the city's population (the indicator "volume of metro traffic / population of the city") is 1.4 times less intense than in Moscow, and the actual congestion of its tracks (the indicator "volume" metro transportation/metro track length") - 2.4 times less. To the above, we can add that the estimated capacity of the Moscow metro has already been exceeded by a third.
Thus, the extremely high concentration of population in the Russian capital is accompanied by obvious congestion of the capital’s metro, which is still the main type of public transport in Moscow.
Ground transport in Russian megacities is also not yet ready for the current population density. Thus, the last General Plan of the city, approved in 1971 and determining the development of the Russian capital at the beginning of the 21st century, was based on the fact that at the end of the 1990s there would be 300 thousand cars in Moscow. By 2005, there were already about 10 times more cars in the capital. Since Soviet city planners relied on public ground transport, they used slightly different standards. If in the main megacities of the world roads occupy approximately 20% of the territory, then in Moscow - on average 10%. There are also particularly sad examples, such as the Mitino region, where in the 1990s only 5-7% of the territory was earmarked for road construction. All this leads to the formation of chronic traffic jams on the capital’s roads. According to experts, Moscow now needs at least an additional 350 kilometers of roads, and in order to reach the level of the most developed megacities in the world, approximately 1.5 thousand kilometers. Meanwhile, the seven-year program for the construction of capital roads, which was approved by the Mayor of Moscow in 2006, speaks of the construction of only 50 kilometers. Thus, the shortage of roads in Moscow has no tendency to resolve; rather, on the contrary, it gets worse over time.
The situation is aggravated by the unsatisfactory state of the market for bus passenger transportation in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Here there are problems of traffic safety, ecology, ergonomics, and problems of low provision of buses to the population and insufficient funding for the city bus fleet. For example, let us point out that in Hamburg, whose population is 2.5 times smaller than in St. Petersburg, an amount of subsidies was allocated for public transport in 2001 that was 3.3 times higher than the similar costs of the administration of the northern capital of Russia. These figures allow us to determine that the financial security of the St. Petersburg bus fleet is 8.3 times lower than in Hamburg. And this despite the fact that in St. Petersburg the budget finances only 35% of the costs of passenger enterprises, while, for example, in Helsinki this figure is 50%. It is quite obvious that with such meager funding for St. Petersburg ground transport, it is difficult to achieve a comfortable life in the metropolis. There is a similar situation in Moscow.
City rules for the functioning of Russian megacities also do not comply with international standards. For example, in Madrid the left lane is allocated for buses; cars are not allowed to drive along it, even when turning; violation of this rule will result in a fine of 100 euros. This allows you to strictly adhere to the bus schedule, which uses only modern vehicles. In addition, the Madrid Transport Consortium monitors the technical condition of buses, tariffs, number of seats, availability of air conditioning and environmental safety of buses.
Failure to comply with transport standards in Russian megacities leads to increased social tension and large economic losses. Currently existing building codes and regulations establish requirements for the time spent on moving people to the place of work. In accordance with them, city residents should not spend more than 45 minutes on the road from their place of residence to the place of work (one way). According to the TsNIIP of Urban Planning, only 70-80% of the Russian population fits into these standards, and about 10% spend more than one hour on a trip. Of course, in huge metropolitan cities the situation is much worse than the national average. Experts estimate that every 10 minutes of additional time spent traveling to work reduces productivity by 3-4%. Considering that in Moscow urban transport carries about 14.5 million passengers daily, a significant part of which does not fit into current standards, the overall decrease in labor productivity in the city’s economy will amount to a serious figure. This “invisible” factor in reducing the productivity of the economy of megacities causes significant damage to their economic potential.
Currently, Moscow, unable to develop in breadth, continues to rapidly become denser. This happens in two directions: through infill development by “squeezing” new high-rise buildings onto small plots of land in well-developed areas of the city, and through the replacement of dilapidated low-rise buildings with new high-rise ones. An extreme form of expression of these strategies is the construction of skyscrapers. Currently, it is planned to build 200 skyscrapers in Moscow, the height of which will exceed 35 floors. In addition to the fact that such a strategy aggravates all the socio-economic problems of Moscow, it also poses a serious danger from the point of view of the geophysical well-being of the city. Thus, previously in the capital buildings higher than 35 floors were not built due to poor soil, while now high-rise buildings of 60 and 90 floors are being built in Moscow. Meanwhile, such a construction policy is fraught with catastrophic events. The fact is that compared, for example, with New York, which has solid granite rock at its base, in Moscow there are quite a few hard soils, soft rocks dominate, and there are many underground voids and floating rocks. Back in the mid-1960s, it was established that Moscow stands at the intersection of two transcontinental faults, surrounded by smaller faults. Most experts in geology, tectonics and seismology agree that it is impossible to build skyscrapers in Moscow. However, the vicious policy continues to be implemented.
The consequence of the growing densification of Moscow is a colossal “overheating” of the capital’s labor market, including due to legal and illegal migrants. It is generally accepted that the easiest way for illegal migrants is to “dissolve” among the population of Russian megacities. At the same time, a special burden falls on Moscow and the Moscow region, where half of the total migration flow is sent. Thus, inspections of Moscow enterprises to determine how they comply with the procedure for attracting and using foreign labor showed that for one legal labor migrant there are from 15 to 25 illegal ones. Surveys of migrants in Moscow and the Moscow region conducted by the Center for Social Forecasting in 2005 showed that more than 70% of fines for lack of registration were paid unofficially, being essentially bribes; 74% receive their salaries in “black cash”, thereby evading taxes and forming the shadow sector of the economy. Chaos in the labor market and government corruption lead to the spread of the most exotic forms of exploitation of people. Moreover, as research shows, the most severe forms of exploitation and forced labor are especially widespread in Moscow: sexual exploitation (31% of migrant women); restriction of freedom in the form of movement control and confinement (33%); physical violence (16%). Such phenomena lead to the marginalization of capital migrants, the emergence of ghetto areas in the city, etc. It seems that at present the problem of labor migration in the Russian capital is increasingly getting out of control.
2. Psychological anomalies in megacities. It is well known that megacities generate their own psychological mood of their residents. As a rule, overpopulation of megacities leads to the deformation of many value systems and the formation of rather strange behavioral stereotypes of people's behavior. Let's look at just a few of these anomalies in the Russian capital.
One of the typical anomalous changes in the psychology of residents of the Moscow metropolis is the low birth rate. The city's stable population growth is achieved mainly due to the influx of migrants. Experts believe that the basis for the low birth rate of Moscow residents is a mechanism of subconscious suppression of the instinct to procreate, which is activated in conditions of high population density and is directly caused by the constant observation of a large number of people around them. Thus, the overpopulation of the Russian capital leads to a disruption of the natural process of population reproduction. It is quite difficult to change such sentiments within the framework of the old model of city development, aimed at its extensive expansion. In the future, the implementation of this trend will lead to the fact that there will be fewer and fewer indigenous residents remaining in the city, which will further increase the general instability of the social situation.
Another interesting psychological effect that occurs in megacities is the so-called metropolis paradox, which consists in the fact that life satisfaction in them decreases compared to other territorial settlements. Thus, from the data in Table 3, based on VTsIOM research, it follows that with the growth of the population of a territorial entity, the level of life satisfaction increases. However, this process has its natural limit: when a populated area grows to the size of a metropolis, a reverse trend begins to form and satisfaction with many aspects of life begins to decrease.
Table 3. Proportion of the population who are completely satisfied with the relevant factor of life activity (December 2005)
| Vital factor | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | More than 0.5 million people | 100-500 thousand people. | Less than 100 thousand people. | Village | |
| 1. Personal and family safety | 10,4 | 26,7 | 17,3 | 23,0 | 19,8 |
| 2. Financial situation of the family | 7,4 | 13,4 | 9,0 | 7,6 | 4,9 |
| 3. Family relationships | 44,2 | 54,2 | 47,1 | 44,8 | 43,7 |
| 4. Opportunity to achieve your goals | 8,6 | 16,9 | 16,9 | 9,5 | 9,2 |
| 5. Availability of leisure and the possibility of its effective implementation | 13,5 | 17,3 | 17,9 | 10,7 | 11,6 |
| 6. Creative self-realization at work and outside of work | 11,7 | 15,5 | 16,3 | 9,2 | 10,6 |
| 7. Comfortable climate and good weather | 17,8 | 32,5 | 17,7 | 33,4 | 28,6 |
| 8. Social status | 15,9 | 19,1 | 17,7 | 22,1 | 19,6 |
| 9. Friendship, communication | 44,8 | 50,9 | 34,3 | 34,1 | 32,5 |
| 10. Economic and political situation in the country | 1,2 | 7,9 | 3,8 | 8,2 | 3,3 |
| 11. Ecology | 7,9 | 14,8 | 6,2 | 15,8 | 14,1 |
| 12. Social infrastructure | 14,7 | 24,6 | 7,6 | 13,3 | 9,4 |
| 13. State of health of the person and his family members | 16,6 | 22,0 | 14,2 | 14,2 | 14,9 |
Although the “paradox of megacities” is not total in nature and is corrected over time, there is no doubt about its existence. Moreover, it is possible to identify factors of life satisfaction for which the “paradox of megacities” is stable. These include: personal and family safety; family relationships; the ability to achieve set goals; availability of leisure and the possibility of its effective implementation; creative self-realization (at work and outside of work). It is noteworthy that the “paradox of megacities” mainly affects “internal” factors of life satisfaction, that is, those aspects of life that are associated not with the public (public), but with the intimate (individual) life of a person.
A typical example of human vulnerability in a megacity, revealing the genesis of the “paradox of megacities,” can be the following case, based on interviews with migrant workers. One Russian woman, due to her occupation, lived in Poland for about 10 years, running her own business there. Leading an extremely active life between the ages of 30 and 40, she felt great and felt young. As a result of changed circumstances, she was forced to return to Moscow. The change in the social climate turned out to be very dramatic for her: in the Moscow environment, she fully felt her 40-year-old age and felt almost like an old woman. In this example, there is a sharp decrease in the level of life satisfaction and, in particular, satisfaction with one’s own health when a comfortable European life is replaced by the harsh social atmosphere of the Russian capital. Apparently, such psychological effects are the basis for the formation of underestimated subjective assessments of satisfaction with various aspects of life of residents of Russian megacities.
The immediate consequence of the “paradox of megacities” is a very specific worldview of residents of Russian capitals. For example, sociological surveys conducted by VTsIOM showed that the proportion of people with an altruistic worldview is minimal in megacities compared to other territorial settlements (Table 4). Thus, in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the proportion of altruists is 57.9% less than in rural areas. Meanwhile, the degree of comfort of living in a particular area depends on the size of this particular population group. People’s lack of a favorable disposition towards their neighbors and a sense of isolationism lead to the formation of an extremely “difficult” psychological climate in society. And in this sense, Russian megacities are the most vulnerable territorial niches of the country. In fact, Muscovites and residents of St. Petersburg perceive the residents of their cities as potential enemies who compete with them for vital benefits and resources.
Table 4. Imagine that the economic situation of the country is improving, the majority of people live better and better, but your well-being does not change in any way. How would you perceive this situation? (June 2006)
| Possible answer | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | More than 0.5 million people | 100-500 thousand people. | Less than 100 thousand people. | Village | |
| 1. It will make me happy (altruism) | 11,04 | 15,28 | 13,18 | 17,75 | 19,08 |
| 2. This will upset me (envy) | 65,64 | 71,18 | 61,74 | 61,09 | 57,25 |
| 3. I won’t care (selfishness) | 14,11 | 11,46 | 17,04 | 17,06 | 18,17 |
| 4. I find it difficult to answer | 9,20 | 2,09 | 8,04 | 4,09 | 5,50 |
The situation is aggravated by the fact that in Russian megacities the random factor is extremely pronounced; it is here that people most acutely feel the role of spontaneous social circumstances. This is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that the proportion of people who consider chance the main factor of success in life is significantly higher in megacities than in other territorial settlements of the country (Table 5). It is not surprising that with such a high chaotic life in megacities, their residents perceive the success of others as a challenge and as the beginning of their own failures in life.
Table 5. What determines a person’s success in Russia to a certain extent? (June 2006)
| Possible answer | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | More than 0.5 million people | 100-500 thousand people. | Less than 100 thousand people. | Village | |
| 1. From the person’s ability to work, qualifications and talents | 39,26 | 37,15 | 36,98 | 32,76 | 35,05 |
| 2. From personal connections | 26,99 | 40,97 | 36,01 | 38,91 | 35,78 |
| 3. From the ability to circumvent the law | 14,11 | 10,42 | 15,11 | 12,63 | 16,70 |
| 4. From random circumstances | 15,34 | 10,07 | 9,97 | 11,60 | 9,91 |
| 5. I find it difficult to answer | 4,29 | 1,39 | 1,93 | 4,09 | 2,57 |
In all the above cases, we see that residents of megacities have a rather bad attitude towards their social environment. However, this mood is also supported by feedback: the population of megacities believes that the social environment is also unfriendly towards them. For example, the poor control that residents of megacities have over their own life program, together with other factors, leads to another rather interesting psychological consequence: the population of Moscow and St. Petersburg lives in a state of constant alertness and distrust of the world around them. This is evidenced, in particular, by the results of VTsIOM surveys, according to which the proportion of people who are wary of meeting a stranger in the dark in a sparsely populated place is highest among residents of Russian megacities (Table 6). Moreover, an ordinary passer-by and a representative of law enforcement agencies evoke the same feeling of mistrust among the capital’s residents. However, in fairness, it should be noted that a metropolitan police officer evokes a feeling of outright fear in fewer people than an ordinary anonymous passerby. In general, the population of the metropolis is under the yoke of permanent distrust of the world around them, and (and this is important!) to a somewhat greater extent than residents of other settlements in the country.
Table 6. Imagine that on a deserted street at dusk you met a random passerby - a man. What will you experience if it is difficult to see him, but you see that he is a) in civilian clothes, b) in a police uniform? (June 2006)
| Possible answer | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | More than 0.5 million people | 100-500 thousand people. | Less than 100 thousand people. | Village | |
| Case a) a person in civilian clothes | |||||
| 1. Curiosity | 4,29 | 4,51 | 4,18 | 2,73 | 4,04 |
| 2. Wariness | 41,72 | 36,46 | 37,30 | 33,11 | 33,03 |
| 3. Fear | 22,70 | 20,49 | 22,51 | 22,53 | 22,02 |
| 4. Joy | 0,00 | 1,04 | 1,29 | 1,71 | 1,65 |
| 5. I won’t experience anything. | 31,29 | 36,11 | 33,44 | 37,88 | 37,98 |
| 6. I find it difficult to answer | 0,00 | 1,39 | 1,29 | 2,05 | 1,28 |
| Case b) a man in a police uniform | |||||
| 1. Curiosity | 1,84 | 4,17 | 5,47 | 4,10 | 5,87 |
| 2. Wariness | 39,26 | 27,08 | 32,15 | 28,33 | 26,42 |
| 3. Fear | 7,36 | 13,54 | 10,93 | 9,90 | 8,99 |
| 4. Joy | 7,36 | 9,03 | 8,36 | 3,41 | 8,81 |
| 5. I won’t experience anything. | 41,10 | 44,79 | 41,48 | 51,19 | 48,07 |
| 6. I find it difficult to answer | 3,07 | 1,39 | 1,61 | 3,07 | 1,83 |
Additional evidence of the tense psychological climate in megacities is the fact that they have the highest proportion of people who do not believe in any help from strangers (Table 7). Residents of the capital assume a hostile or at least extremely indifferent attitude towards them from the world around them and, on this basis, build a life strategy that involves relying only on their own strengths. Although such a life position in general can be considered positive, in its refined form it gives rise to a feeling of uncertainty about the future and undermines the nervous system of city residents.
Table 7. Imagine that during the day on a crowded street you slipped and broke your leg. What do you think will be the reaction of passers-by? (June 2006)
| Possible answer | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | More than 0.5 million people | 100-500 thousand people. | Less than 100 thousand people. | Village | |
| 1. Almost immediately someone will come up and offer help. | 45,40 | 43,75 | 58,20 | 49,49 | 58,90 |
| 2. You can lie on the street for an hour or two until at least someone pays attention to you | 51,53 | 50,69 | 36,01 | 43,34 | 35,41 |
| 3. I find it difficult to answer | 3,07 | 5,56 | 5,79 | 7,17 | 5,68 |
Thus, the overpopulation of Russian megacities has a powerful and predominantly negative impact on the moral and psychological climate in society. The burden of low life satisfaction and distrust in the world around us largely negates the positive economic and job creation achievements of megacities. Meanwhile, as further analysis will show, not all is well in this area in the Russian capital.
3. Economic and technological patterns of growth of megacities. One of the universal tools for economic analysis of territorial settlements is the apparatus of production functions. The formal features of these functions make it possible to establish the specifics of the regions being studied. To better understand the problems of Moscow, let us compare its development with such a Russian metropolis as St. Petersburg and with such an adjacent satellite region as the Moscow region. What are the economic and technological patterns of development established in these three territorial settlements?
To answer the question posed, we introduce three economic variables into consideration: output (resulting) variable Y - gross regional product (GRP); input variable L is the number of people employed in the regional economy; input variable μ is the modified coefficient of renewal of fixed capital of the region, which represents the share of investments in fixed capital I in the accumulated volume of fixed assets F, μ=I/F. In accordance with this logic, the GRP of a region depends on two factors - the mass of living labor L used and the relative investment activity μ: Y=Y(L,μ). Accordingly, our task is to establish a specific type of econometric relationship between these variables.
The computational experiments carried out show that it is not possible to construct simple econometric dependencies. In this regard, in further calculations, production functions are a mixture of power and exponential functions. Thus, for the Russian capital the following specification was used:
where a, α, β and γ are model parameters to be estimated based on historical time series.
All applied calculations were carried out on the time interval 1994-2004, which allows us to provide the necessary minimum to obtain reliable calculations.
In the course of modeling for the Moscow economy, we obtained the following econometric relationship:
N=11; R 2 =0.90; DW=1.99.
In parentheses below the regression coefficients (2) their standard error is indicated; N - number of observations; R 2 - coefficient of determination; DW - Durbin-Watson autocorrelation coefficient; a similar notation system is used below. Here and below, all constructed models correspond to basic statistical tests and can be considered fully operational and suitable for practical use.
The main feature of dependence (2) is that Moscow’s GRP nonlinearly depends on the number of employees. Moreover, this nonlinearity has the form of a parabola with a maximum point L*=- β/2γ. Calculations show that this critical point during the study period was 5.05 million people. This means that if the actual employment of Moscow becomes greater than the identified maximum point (L>L*), then further growth of city workers will not increase the volume of production and income of the city, but will reduce it. This paradox has a purely systemic explanation: if employment is too high, its further growth leads to an avalanche-like increase in costs, which absorb and neutralize the additional increase in income. In other words, the economic problems and difficulties arising from employing a number of people exceeding the value of L* are significantly greater than the benefits that urban production receives from their use. We can say it more figuratively: excess employment “eats” more than it produces. In addition, an increase in employment above the designated critical level L* leads to a drop in labor productivity, which will provoke the unproductive absorption of excess labor and thereby serve as a direct mechanism for the implementation of this paradox.
Thus, we can say that Moscow has a very definite growth limit, beyond which the irrational functioning of the metropolis’ economy begins. The presence of such a limit suggests that the city, generally speaking, cannot endlessly grow and increase its economic potential. Currently, this principle is being violated. So, in accordance with our calculations, the specified limit is 5.05 million people. in 2003 it was exceeded by 620 thousand people, and in 2004 - already by 690 thousand people. Thus, if up to and including the period of 2002, the extensive development of the capital’s economy can be qualified as quite fruitful, then after that Moscow entered a new economic phase for itself, which can be characterized as a regime of self-destruction. This conclusion also receives empirical confirmation. Thus, according to our estimates, labor productivity in Moscow doubled from 1994 to 2002 (from 39.8 to 80.8 thousand rubles per person in 1996 prices), but in the next 2003 when the city entered self-destruction mode, it fell by 8.4% and amounted to 67.8 thousand rubles per person.
The constructed model (2) includes another factor of economic growth - investment activity, recorded by the indicator μ. As it turns out, there is an extremely interesting economic effect here: the higher this parameter, the lower the GRP of the capital region. Model calculations indicate that the elasticity of GRP for investment activity is negative and amounts to α=-0.41, i.e. an increase in the city's investment activity by 1% leads to a drop in Moscow's GRP by 0.4%. The interpretation of this fact is in itself an interesting task. The fact is that the negative elasticity of Moscow’s GRP in terms of investment activity means that the Russian capital is literally “choking” with new investments, the further growth of which will only lead to their unproductive use. Figuratively speaking, over the past decade, Moscow has turned into a kind of bottomless barrel for investment: the more money is invested in the capital’s economy, the more it is needed. It seems that the accumulated fixed capital of the city is already so large that its further increase could undermine the very economic basis of its normal life. In fact, the city needs not so much to expand existing production facilities as to dismantle and put them out of service. Despite the paradoxical nature of this empirical conclusion, it corresponds well to intuitive ideas about the specifics of the Moscow economy. Apparently, the economic basis of this strange situation is the dominance over the past 50 years of the trend of new construction over the trend of renewal and replacement of the city's old assets.
Thus, in accordance with our general conclusion, further growth in investment activity, population and labor force in Moscow will be associated with a fall in GRP. Of course, in practice, various scenarios are possible to mitigate the coming recession. Thus, if there is a simultaneous increase in the number of employees against the backdrop of a decline in investment activity, then the positive effect of the second will compensate for the negative effect of the first and, perhaps, will even “win.” Moreover, calculations show that the phase of unproductive use of labor resources correlates with the phase of decline in investment activity. Thus, starting from 2003, the μ indicator began to decrease noticeably: in 2003 its value was 8.2%, and in 2004 - 8.1% compared to 9.8% in 2002.
Summarizing the above, it can be argued that at present the Russian capital, paradoxically, is in a state of latent economic crisis caused by the phenomenon of overaccumulation of human and investment resources. The futility of further expansion of the metropolitan metropolis is quite obvious, which should initiate the search for a new economic model for the development of Moscow.
Another Russian metropolis - St. Petersburg - is subject to slightly different laws. The following production function is valid for it:
Where all the designations are the same.
Identification of dependence (3) allowed us to obtain the following econometric dependence:
N=11; R 2 =0.81; DW=1.47.
Comparison of dependencies (2) and (4) allows us to establish their fundamental difference, which lies in the fact that for Moscow there is a natural limit to the growth of the number of employed, while for St. Petersburg there is no such limit. In other words, at present, St. Petersburg, compared to Moscow, is a city with significant reserves for expansion. The growth of the population and labor force of the northern capital of Russia will contribute to the growth of its GRP without any restrictions.
Consideration of dependence (3) allows us to determine the critical point for the investment activity variable μ*, which in our case represents the minimum point. Calculations show that its value during the study period was in the range of 4.3-5.3%. If the actual value of this parameter is below the point μ*, then this indicates the presence of an investment crisis; if μ FACT >μ *, then the growth of investment activity and renewal of fixed assets contributes to the growth of urban GRP. Calculations show that the period of economic stagnation and investment crisis occurred in 1995-1998, when the inequality μ FACT was satisfied<μ*.
Based on the results obtained, it can be stated that St. Petersburg is a more promising metropolis in the country, which is still able to accommodate a fairly significant mass of workers and accordingly increase its economic potential. This conclusion is fundamental when discussing the topic of moving the Russian capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg. We will return to this issue and discuss it in more detail.
In order to systematically assess the capabilities of the capital’s metropolis, let’s consider its immediate surroundings, namely the adjacent Moscow region. In this case, we need to understand what the reserves of a given territorial entity are in terms of the ability to take on part of the administrative and commercial functions of the capital.
As it turned out, the Moscow region is characterized by the following production function:
where all notations are the same.
Identification of relationship (5) yielded the following econometric model:
N=11; R 2 =0.81; DW=1.66.
The peculiarity of dependence (6) is that both the variable L and the variable μ have critical points, and both are maximum points (L* and μ*). It is curious that the range of fluctuations in the values of critical points is quite significant. Thus, the optimal number of employed people is within the range of 2.3-17.0 million people, and the optimal investment activity is within the range of 3.4-11.7%. This scatter is due to the dependence of the critical points on alternative variables. To illustrate such cross-relationships, we present the econometric relationship obtained as a result of model experiments between the maximum value of employment in the Moscow region and the level of investment activity:
N=11; R 2 =0.98; DW=1.07.
Linear dependence (7) shows that the potential capabilities of the Moscow region in terms of labor absorption depend on the current level of investment activity in the region. The calculations show that the point L* was exceeded in 1996-1997. At the same time, in 1996, excess employment amounted to 0.54 million people, and in 1997 - 0.66 million people. During these years, there was a clear underinvestment in the economy of the Moscow region, which provoked its transition into self-eating mode.
Currently, the Moscow region's possibilities for further expansion are practically unlimited. Thus, in 2004, the actual employment of the region amounted to 3.5 million people. against a potential maximum of 11.0 million people. Consequently, the Moscow region could “swallow” 3.1 times more labor than it actually had. These quantitative results suggest the advisability of moving excess employment in Moscow to the territory of the Moscow region.
4. Passive and active scenarios: forecast estimates. Considering the economic foundations of the unification of Moscow and the Moscow region, we temporarily abstract from the administrative and psychological problems of such a unification. For now, let's focus our attention on possible economic effects. To do this, we will study two different development scenarios - passive and active. Let's look at them in more detail.
The passive scenario assumes a more or less independent development of existing trends with some minor adjustments. So, for Moscow, this means an annual increase in the number of employed by 3%, which corresponds to the average annual growth rate of employees in 1999-2004. (excluding a surge in 2003). The investment activity indicator μ is recalculated in such a way that the city’s GRP does not decrease, remaining approximately the same. This strategy corresponds to a smooth decrease in μ throughout the entire forecast period. This scenario is due to the fact that if the parameter μ remains at the same level and employment increases, Moscow’s GRP begins to fall quite quickly. In our opinion, such development is unlikely to be allowed by business and the city authorities. Most likely, investment adjustments will be made to the economic strategy, which will lead to a more active withdrawal of old funds from circulation, due to which the parameter μ will decrease. Consequently, in accordance with the passive scenario, monotonous growth in employment will continue in Moscow against the backdrop of a stabilizing decrease in investment activity. This whole scenario is aimed at preventing a fall in the GRP of the Russian capital.
Table 8. Volume of GRP of Moscow and the Moscow region in comparable prices in 1996, billion rubles. (passive forecast).
| Year | Moscow | Moscow region | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 412,5 | 129,7 | 542,2 |
| 2006 | 412,5 | 146,6 | 559,1 |
| 2007 | 412,5 | 165,2 | 577,8 |
| 2008 | 412,5 | 185,7 | 598,3 |
| 2009 | 412,5 | 208,2 | 620,7 |
| 2010 | 412,5 | 232,6 | 645,2 |
| 2011 | 412,5 | 259,2 | 671,7 |
| 2012 | 412,5 | 287,8 | 700,3 |
| 2013 | 412,5 | 318,5 | 731,0 |
| 2014 | 412,5 | 351,3 | 763,8 |
| 2015 | 412,5 | 386,1 | 798,6 |
| 2016 | 412,5 | 422,8 | 835,4 |
| 2017 | 412,5 | 461,4 | 873,9 |
| 2018 | 412,5 | 501,5 | 914,0 |
| 2019 | 412,5 | 542,9 | 955,4 |
| 2020 | 412,5 | 585,4 | 997,9 |
| Sum | 6600,6 | 5185,5 | 11786,2 |
For the Moscow region, as well as for Moscow, the passive scenario assumes an annual increase in the number of employees by 3%, which corresponds to the average annual regional growth rate of employees in 1999-2004. At the same time, the investment activity parameter is fixed at the level of μ=8%. This is exactly the average value of this parameter observed in the region in 1999-2004. Consequently, for the Moscow region, the passive scenario provides for a simple extrapolation of existing trends in the use of labor and capital.
Based on these initial points, we carried out forecast calculations for a passive scenario using an econometric model (2); the modeling period is 16 years (2005-2200) and allows us to trace long-term trends in the restructuring of the study area; The calculation results are given in Table 8.
The active scenario assumes a controlled development of events with elements of system optimization. This scenario models the unification of Moscow and the Moscow region into a single economic conglomerate with a single resource base. For Moscow, this means the following personnel strategy: the ongoing annual increase in the number of employees in the city by 3% is redistributed by the government of the united region to the Moscow region. In addition, the capital's overcrowded labor market is gradually unloading through the annual movement of an additional contingent of workers of 43 thousand people from it to the region. This policy will allow Moscow to optimize its labor market and reach the maximum permissible employment level of 5.05 million people by 2020. At the same time, the investment activity parameter μ is taken at the level of 5%. This policy corresponds to the accelerated withdrawal of obsolete city funds with a partial reorientation of investment flows to the Moscow region to create the necessary jobs there.
Accordingly, for the Moscow region, the active scenario assumes an “internal” annual increase in the number of employees by 3% plus an influx of labor from Moscow. Thus, the total volume of labor resources of the Moscow-Moscow Region system in both forecast scenarios is the same. In this case, the parameter of investment activity of the region is fixed at the level of μ=8%, which coincides with the corresponding condition in the passive scenario.
Based on the indicated conditions, we carried out forecast calculations for the active scenario using an econometric model (6); The calculation results are given in Table 9.
Table 9. The volume of GRP of Moscow and the Moscow region in comparable prices in 1996, billion rubles. (active forecast).
| Year | Moscow | Moscow region | Total GRP (Moscow + Moscow region) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 407,6 | 164,0 | 571,6 |
| 2006 | 428,2 | 225,3 | 653,6 |
| 2007 | 448,9 | 297,8 | 746,7 |
| 2008 | 469,4 | 380,1 | 849,5 |
| 2009 | 489,8 | 469,9 | 959,7 |
| 2010 | 509,8 | 564,0 | 1073,8 |
| 2011 | 529,3 | 658,7 | 1188,1 |
| 2012 | 548,4 | 749,8 | 1298,3 |
| 2013 | 566,9 | 832,9 | 1399,9 |
| 2014 | 584,7 | 904,1 | 1488,9 |
| 2015 | 601,7 | 960,0 | 1561,7 |
| 2016 | 617,8 | 997,7 | 1615,6 |
| 2017 | 633,0 | 1015,9 | 1649,0 |
| 2018 | 647,2 | 1013,8 | 1661,1 |
| 2019 | 660,4 | 992,2 | 1652,6 |
| 2020 | 672,5 | 952,6 | 1625,1 |
| Sum | 8816,5 | 11179,5 | 19996,0 |
Now let's look at the results obtained in more detail. The fact is that the main idea of the forecast scenarios was to clarify the synergistic (systemic) effect of the territorial conglomerate “Moscow-Moscow Region”. So, if both regions develop autonomously, the result will be much worse than if they function as a single whole. To assess the benefits of combining the capital and the region, we will use the following integral synergy coefficient:
where and is the cumulative (accumulated over the period 2005-2020) GRP of Moscow and the Moscow region, respectively, when the active forecast scenario is implemented; and - cumulative (accumulated over the period 2005-2020) GRP of Moscow and the Moscow region, respectively, when implementing the passive forecast scenario.
The coefficient 100/Ψ, automatically obtained on the basis of formula (8), can be considered as a kind of efficiency coefficient of the territorial conglomerate “Moscow-Moscow Region” when operating in autonomous mode.
Calculations show that the unification of Moscow and the Moscow region will have a fairly significant effect both for each region separately and for both together. Thus, Moscow’s GRP in this case will increase by 33.6% over 16 years. Such an increase of one third is very significant, especially considering that in this case a decrease in the population and employment of Moscow is expected relative to the current level. Consequently, the country’s per capita GRP will increase even more. For comparison, we point out that if the passive scenario is implemented, Moscow’s GRP will not change over 16 years, but if the active scenario is implemented, it will increase by almost 65%, which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 3.2%. This means that in the absence of unification, Moscow will use only 60.6% of its economic potential.
An even more impressive effect if the active scenario is implemented will be in the Moscow region. Thus, its GRP over 16 years will increase by 5.8 times compared to 4.5 times in the passive scenario. When recalculated into average annual growth rates, the gain will be 11.6% versus 9.8%. In general, GRP during the transition to a controlled development scenario will increase by 2.2 times, which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 5.0%. The efficiency factor for the Moscow region when implementing the passive scenario is 45.5%.
If we consider the total GRP of a territorial conglomerate, then when two regions are combined, the synergy coefficient will be 69.7%, which corresponds to an average annual growth rate of 6.6%. At the same time, GRP will increase by 2.8 times over 16 years, and the efficiency of the territory under the passive scenario will reach 58.9%.
Thus, the quantitative results obtained clearly speak in favor of the unification of Moscow and the Moscow region. A possible additional increase in the total GRP of the united regions over 16 years by 70% compared to the growth in the autonomous regions is an effect for which it makes sense to carry out complex and expensive administrative reforms to modernize the territory. Meanwhile, it should be noted that with the implementation of the active forecast scenario in the development of the Moscow region, a certain limit is also beginning to be visible. Thus, in 2018, the GRP of the Moscow region begins to decrease (Table 9). Apparently, by this time this territorial entity will exhaust its extensive growth opportunities, as is now happening with Moscow. In our opinion, by this time the problem of revising the development policy of the Moscow region will arise, which will require adjustments to both the personnel and investment strategies of the authorities.
We have clarified the economic component of the possible unification of Moscow and the Moscow region. However, another important question remains open: how prepared is the country for such radical structural innovations?
Let's try to answer the question posed.
5. Administrative and psychological barriers to the transformation of the capital. Many authors have already repeatedly noted the strange fact that beyond the Moscow Ring Road (MKAD), the ultra-dense development of Moscow residential areas ends abruptly and is replaced by uncultivated territory with rare interspersed dense urban developments. Thus, Moscow does not have low-rise suburbs, and this goes against another global trend - suburbanization, which began about half a century ago. Many experts believe that the Moscow Ring Road acts as a constraint on the development of the Russian capital. There is an opinion that if the Moscow Ring Road did not exist, then the natural expansion of the city would have begun long ago, as is happening in many megacities of the world, which are turning into ministerial cities: expanding, stretching, forming a gigantic urban environment.
Currently, the Moscow region is developing as a large residential area for Moscow, i.e. Multi-storey areas without jobs are appearing in the region. Accordingly, residents of the Moscow region in the foreseeable future will be forced to commute to work in Moscow, which is an obvious dead-end strategy for the development of the territorial conglomerate. In many megacities of the world, the city and its surrounding areas form one entity or develop as a single agglomeration according to a single master plan. Meanwhile, Moscow and the Moscow region do not have a single general plan, and their own development plans are not coordinated in any way.
However, the legal and economic independence of Moscow and the Moscow region still acts as a powerful administrative barrier to the realization of the above advantages. It must be said that the authorities are aware of this problem and are taking certain steps towards solving it. For example, in connection with the idea of uniting Moscow and the Moscow region, the governor of the Moscow region B. Gromov proposed moving the capital of Russia from Moscow to another city. However, as it turns out, such administrative innovations are met with complete rejection by the population of the country. Thus, polls conducted by VTsIOM showed that only 11.2% of the country’s population is in favor of B. Gromov’s proposal, while 77.5% are against it (Table 10). Thus, the negative balance is 66.3%, which indicates that Russians absolutely reject the idea of a new capital. It is noteworthy that among residents of Russian megacities the negative potential is even slightly higher than the Russian average and amounts to 80.3%. Consequently, the denial of this idea among those directly affected by it is even stronger than among residents of other regions.
Table 10. Governor of the Moscow region Boris Gromov proposed moving the capital of Russia from Moscow to another city. How do you feel about this idea? (June 2006)
| Possible answer | Country average | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | more than 500 thousand people | 100-500 thousand people. | less than 100 thousand people | village | ||
| Definitely positive | 3.4 | 3.7 | 4.9 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 2.0 |
| Rather positive | 7.8 | 8.6 | 9.4 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 6.6 |
| Rather negative | 35.4 | 29.4 | 32.8 | 37.9 | 35.9 | 37.1 |
| Definitely negative | 42.1 | 50.9 | 43.9 | 35.2 | 43.5 | 41.3 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 11.2 | 7.4 | 9.1 | 13.1 | 10.5 | 13.0 |
The very idea of uniting Moscow and the Moscow region does not find obvious support among the population. Thus, according to polls, 37.2% of Russians are in favor of such a union, and 29.0% are against it (Table 11). Thus, the advantage is on the side of the “unifiers,” but at the same time, a third of the population has no position on this issue at all. At the same time, it should be noted that in megacities this balance is “overturned”: 27.0% of citizens are in favor of unification, and 47.8% are against it. In this case, we see that almost half of the residents of the country’s two megacities do not want the reunification of Moscow and the Moscow region. This fact seems extremely important, because Without the capital's population understanding the actions of the authorities, the unification itself, even if it is implemented, will most likely be ineffective.
Table 11. The topic of uniting Moscow and the Moscow region into a single subject of the Federation is currently being discussed. Would you support such an association? (June 2006)
| Possible answer | Country average | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | more than 500 thousand people | 100-500 thousand people. | less than 100 thousand people | village | ||
| Definitely yes | 12.8 | 9.8 | 13.2 | 10.7 | 15.2 | 13.2 |
| Most likely yes | 24.4 | 17.2 | 19.9 | 28.3 | 26.3 | 25.7 |
| Probably not | 20.4 | 24.5 | 23.3 | 18.3 | 17.5 | 20.6 |
| Definitely not | 8.6 | 23.3 | 9.8 | 9.0 | 4.1 | 6.1 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 33.8 | 25.2 | 33.8 | 33.8 | 36.9 | 34.5 |
Table 12. Who do you think will benefit more as a result of the unification of Moscow and the Moscow region? (June 2006)
| Possible answer | Country average | Type of settlement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moscow and St. Petersburg | more than 500 thousand people | 100-500 thousand people. | less than 100 thousand people | village | ||
| Residents of Moscow | 13.4 | 5.5 | 12.2 | 21.0 | 9.8 | 14.3 |
| Residents of the Moscow region | 28.6 | 31.3 | 26.1 | 30.7 | 32.7 | 25.7 |
| Both will win | 20.4 | 20.9 | 19.9 | 16.9 | 21.3 | 21.8 |
| Both will lose | 13.1 | 31.3 | 15.7 | 10.7 | 8.9 | 10.1 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 24.5 | 11.0 | 26.1 | 20.6 | 27.3 | 28.1 |
To the question of who will benefit from the unification of Moscow and the Moscow region, Russians gave rather varied answers, which indicates a high degree of disorientation of the population on this issue. However, the following curious fact can be noted: pessimistic sentiments, according to which everyone will lose, are significantly higher among residents of megacities than the national average and than in any other territorial settlements (Table 12). In addition, among residents of megacities there is the largest gap in opinion about who exactly will win. Thus, the advantage in favor of the Moscow region is 25.8% against the Russian average of 15.2%. Thus, Moscow residents are clearly afraid that their interests will be infringed upon by the unification of the two regions. Taking into account the results of the previous sections of the article, where the socio-economic advantages of the unification of Moscow and the Moscow region were considered, it can be argued that such fears of capital residents are completely unfounded and are based mainly on a misunderstanding of the real situation. In such a situation, the authorities should in every possible way strengthen information and propaganda work to explain to the residents of Moscow and the Moscow region the advantages inherent in their association.
Illustration copyright Thinkstock
Does the Earth have enough resources to support its rapidly growing human population? Now it is more than 7 billion. What is the maximum number of inhabitants, beyond which the sustainable development of our planet will no longer be possible? The correspondent set out to find out what researchers think about this.
Overpopulation. Modern politicians wince at this word; It is often referred to as the "elephant in the room" in discussions about the future of planet Earth.
The growing population is often spoken of as the greatest threat to the existence of the Earth. But is it correct to consider this problem in isolation from other modern global challenges? And is there really such an alarming number of people living on our planet now?
- What ails giant cities
- Seva Novgorodtsev about the overpopulation of the Earth
- Obesity is more dangerous than overpopulation
It is clear that the Earth is not increasing in size. Its space is limited, and the resources necessary to support life are finite. There may simply not be enough food, water and energy for everyone.
It turns out that demographic growth poses a real threat to the well-being of our planet? Not at all necessary.
Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption The earth is not rubbery!"The problem is not the number of people on the planet, but the number of consumers and the scale and pattern of consumption," says David Satterthwaite, senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London.
In support of his thesis, he cites the consonant statement of the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, who believed that “there are enough [resources] in the world to satisfy the needs of every person, but not everyone’s greed.”
The global effect of increasing the urban population by several billion may be much smaller than we think
Until recently, the number of representatives of the modern human species (Homo sapiens) living on Earth was relatively small. Just 10 thousand years ago, no more than several million people lived on our planet.
It wasn't until the early 1800s that the human population reached a billion. And two billion - only in the 20s of the twentieth century.
Currently, the world's population is over 7.3 billion people. According to UN forecasts, by 2050 it could reach 9.7 billion, and by 2100 it is expected to exceed 11 billion.
Population has only begun to grow rapidly in the last few decades, so we do not yet have historical examples on which to make predictions about the possible consequences of this growth in the future.
In other words, if it is true that by the end of the century there will be more than 11 billion people living on our planet, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to say whether sustainable development is possible with such a population - simply because there are no precedents in history.
However, we can get a better picture of the future if we analyze where the largest population growth is expected in the coming years.
The problem is not the number of people living on Earth, but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption of non-renewable resources
David Satterthwaite says that most of the demographic growth in the next two decades will occur in the megacities of those countries where the level of income of the population is currently assessed as low or average.
At first glance, an increase in the number of inhabitants of such cities, even by several billion, should not have serious consequences on a global scale. This is due to historically low levels of consumption among urban residents in low- and middle-income countries.
Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are a good indicator of how high consumption may be in a given city. “What we know about cities in low-income countries is that they emit less than a tonne of carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalents per person per year,” says David Satterthwaite. “In high-income countries, the levels fluctuate. ranging from 6 to 30 tons."
Residents of more economically prosperous countries pollute the environment to a much greater extent than people living in poor countries.
Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Copenhagen: high standard of living, but low greenhouse gas emissionsHowever, there are exceptions. Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark, a high-income country, while Porto Allegre is in upper-middle-income Brazil. Both cities have a high standard of living, but emissions (per capita) are relatively low in volume.
According to the scientist, if we look at the lifestyle of one individual person, the difference between rich and poor categories of the population turns out to be even more significant.
There are many low-income urban residents whose consumption levels are so low that they have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
Once the Earth's population reaches 11 billion, the additional burden on its resources may be relatively small.
However, the world is changing. And it's possible that carbon dioxide emissions will soon begin to rise in low-income metropolitan areas.
Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption People living in high-income countries must do their part to keep the Earth sustainable as populations growThere is also concern about the desire of people in poor countries to live and consume at a level that is now considered normal for high-income countries (many would say that this would be in some way a restoration of social justice).
But in this case, the growth of the urban population will bring with it a more serious burden on the environment.
Will Steffen, emeritus professor at ASU's Fenner School of Environment and Society, says this is in line with a general trend over the last century.
According to him, the problem is not population growth, but the growth - even more rapid - of global consumption (which, of course, is unevenly distributed around the world).
If so, then humanity may find itself in an even more difficult situation.
People living in high-income countries must do their part to keep the Earth sustainable as populations grow.
Only if wealthier communities are willing to reduce their consumption levels and allow their governments to support unpopular policies will the world as a whole be able to reduce the negative human impact on the global climate and more effectively address challenges such as resource conservation and waste recycling.
In a 2015 study, the Journal of Industrial Ecology tried to look at environmental issues from a household perspective, with consumption as the focus.
If we adopt smarter consumer habits, the environment can improve significantly
The study found that private consumers account for more than 60% of greenhouse gas emissions, and their share in the use of land, water and other raw materials is up to 80%.
Moreover, scientists have concluded that environmental pressures differ from region to region and that, on a per-household basis, they are highest in economically prosperous countries.
Diana Ivanova from Trondheim University of Science and Technology, Norway, who developed the concept for the study, explains that it changed the traditional view of who should be held responsible for industrial emissions associated with the production of consumer goods.
“We all want to shift the blame to someone else, to the government or to businesses,” she says.
In the West, for example, consumers often argue that China and other countries that produce consumer goods in industrial quantities should also be held accountable for the emissions associated with their production.
Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Modern society depends on industrial productionBut Diana and her colleagues believe that an equal share of responsibility lies with consumers themselves: “If we adopt smarter consumer habits, the environment can significantly improve.” According to this logic, radical changes are needed in the basic values of developed countries: the emphasis must move from material wealth to a model where what is most important is personal and social well-being.
But even if favorable changes occur in mass consumer behavior, it is unlikely that our planet will be able to support a population of 11 billion people for long.
So Will Steffen proposes stabilizing the population somewhere around nine billion, and then starting to gradually reduce it by reducing the birth rate.
Stabilizing the Earth's population involves both reducing resource consumption and expanding women's rights
In fact, there are signs that some stabilization is already taking place, even if statistically the population continues to grow.
Population growth has been slowing since the 1960s, and fertility studies conducted by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs show that the global fertility rate per woman has fallen from 4.7 children in 1970-75. years to 2.6 in 2005-10.
However, for any truly significant changes to occur in this area, it will take centuries, says Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide in Australia.
The trend towards increasing birth rates is so deeply rooted that even a major catastrophe will not be able to radically change the situation, the scientist believes.
Based on the results of a study conducted in 2014, Corey concluded that even if the world's population were reduced by two billion tomorrow due to increased mortality, or if the governments of all countries, following the example of China, adopted unpopular laws limiting the number of children, by 2100 The number of people on our planet would, at best, remain at its current level.
Therefore, it is necessary to look for alternative ways to reduce the birth rate, and to look for them without delay.
If some or all of us increase our consumption, the upper limit on the sustainable (sustainable) population of the world will fall
One relatively simple way is to raise the status of women, especially in terms of their educational and employment opportunities, says Will Steffen.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that 350 million women in the poorest countries did not intend to have their last child, but had no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
If the basic needs of these women in terms of personal development were met, the problem of overpopulation of the Earth due to excessively high birth rates would not be so acute.
Following this logic, stabilizing the population of our planet involves both reducing resource consumption and expanding women's rights.
But if a population of 11 billion is unsustainable, how many people – theoretically – can our Earth support?
Corey Bradshaw believes it is almost impossible to put a specific number on the table because it will depend on technology in areas such as agriculture, energy and transport, as well as how many people we are willing to condemn to a life of deprivation and restrictions, including and in food.
Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Slums in the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay)It is a fairly common belief that humanity has already exceeded the acceptable limit, given the wasteful lifestyle that many of its representatives lead and which they are unlikely to want to give up.
Environmental trends such as global warming, reduction in biodiversity and pollution of the world's oceans are cited as arguments in favor of this point of view.
Social statistics also come to the rescue, according to which currently one billion people in the world are actually starving, and another billion suffer from chronic malnutrition.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the population problem was associated equally with female fertility and soil fertility
The most common option is 8 billion, i.e. slightly more than the current level. The lowest figure is 2 billion. The highest is 1024 billion.
And since assumptions regarding the permissible demographic maximum depend on a number of assumptions, it is difficult to say which of the given calculations is closest to reality.
But ultimately the determining factor will be how society organizes its consumption.
If some of us - or all of us - increase our consumption, the upper limit on the sustainable (sustainable) population size of the Earth will fall.
If we find opportunities to consume less, ideally without giving up the benefits of civilization, then our planet will be able to support more people.
The acceptable population limit will also depend on the development of technology, an area in which it is difficult to predict anything.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the problem of population was associated equally with both female fertility and the fertility of agricultural land.
In his book The Shadow of the Future World, published in 1928, George Knibbs suggested that if the world's population reached 7.8 billion, humanity would be required to be much more efficient in cultivating and using land.
Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Rapid population growth began with the invention of chemical fertilizersAnd three years later, Carl Bosch received the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the development of chemical fertilizers, the production of which became, presumably, the most important factor in the demographic boom that occurred in the twentieth century.
In the distant future, scientific and technological progress may significantly raise the upper limit of the permissible population of the Earth.
Since people first visited space, humanity is no longer content with observing the stars from Earth, but is seriously talking about the possibility of moving to other planets.
Many prominent scientific thinkers, including physicist Stephen Hawking, have even stated that the colonization of other worlds will be critical to the survival of humans and other species present on Earth.
Although NASA's exoplanet program, launched in 2009, has discovered a large number of Earth-like planets, they are all too distant from us and poorly studied. (As part of this program, the American space agency created the Kepler satellite, equipped with an ultra-sensitive photometer, to search for Earth-like planets outside the solar system, the so-called exoplanets.)
Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption The earth is our only home, and we need to learn to live in it eco-friendlySo relocating people to another planet is not a solution yet. For the foreseeable future, the Earth will be our only home, and we must learn to live in it environmentally.
This implies, of course, an overall reduction in consumption, in particular a shift to a low-CO2 lifestyle, as well as an improvement in the status of women around the world.
Only by taking some steps in this direction will we be able to roughly calculate how many people planet Earth can support.
- You can read it in English on the website.
1. No, orientation is determined partly by genetics, partly by environment, but at a very early age - up to two or three years. And even if you tell your child every day “be a real man, love only women,” then this, of course, will be deposited in his subconscious, but it is very unlikely to affect his orientation.
2. “..have they experienced same-sex attraction, the percentage is very high” - just because a person has thought about it at least once does not mean that he can become gay. After all, sometimes in a fit of anger the thought comes to you about killing a hated person, but you do not become a murderer. It's adrenaline, it just so happens. It’s the same here, “what will happen if” cannot be confused with latent homosexuality.
3. “there are latent gays and such open propaganda can push them to become openly gay.” No. Firstly, if you have studied Freud, then you know how psychologists and psychiatrists view him. He is, of course, the father of science, but most of his works are not taken seriously. Secondly, even if so, then a latent gay is already a priori gay. This way and that way. They just didn’t tell him that this was normal and he doesn’t understand what’s happening to him, and as a result, a defensive reaction kicks in. If you have a child growing up with hypertension, and you tell him, “Oh, all your blood pressure is bullshit, nothing is going up, you just made it up, go and play football with everyone,” then he will suffer from this and think that He's the sissy. But it’s not his fault. As a result, you yourself understand what is happening (this, by the way, is not a fictional story, but my personal one).
This is why gays are shown so often in Hollywood films - this is not some kind of evil propaganda or an attempt to please everyone, this is a sign to gays that homosexuality is normal. So that they don’t suffer, don’t consider themselves the scum of society and worse than others, so that they don’t get cut out in the end. That's why it's needed. No film with a gay man in the lead role will encourage a straight man to experience same-sex attraction; completely different mechanisms are responsible for this. But if you have a chauvinistic attitude towards straight men and say that heterosexual attraction is abnormal, then the straight man, trying to make himself a full-fledged part of society, will begin to convince himself that he loves men, while acting against his nature and destroying himself. What is happening now is the same, but in the opposite way - gays are silenced and forced to think that this is abnormal, as a result of which a homosexual can even create a heterosexual marriage, have a family, children... but will suffer. All that time. There are known cases not only of suicide due to a life that a person does not need, but also of mental disorders.
Humanity has crossed the six billion mark: in 2001 there were already 6.1 billion people on the planet. According to UN experts, by 2050 there will be from 7.9 to 10.9 billion people on the planet, although the most likely figure is 8.9 billion.
Valery STEPANOV, Candidate of Historical Sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, spoke about the problems of humanity and the planet to Izvestia correspondent Olga Timofeeva. —Is there any limit that the Earth can withstand? — The population limit at each stage of civilization development is different. But talking about a limit on the scale of the Earth in the long term is pointless. After all, no one will say how the development of science will go and whether there will be environmental and military disasters. -How long will our water supplies last? — In the 60s, the so-called Club of Rome arose, where scientists and researchers united just to find out the answer to this and other global questions. Then, for the first time, it became possible to summarize information about the world as a whole. Already in the 60s, the prospects for the development of science suggested many options for providing people with food and water. There are desalination plants and there is ocean water. Literally tomorrow it will be possible to consume products grown artificially or accelerated. Therefore, the question is more about energy resources. — How reliable are the data on the Earth’s population? - Why do we even ask the question whether it is reliable or not? Apparently, we want to take some effective measures on a planetary scale? Solve the problems of providing food and water, migration and environmental problems, poverty problems that stimulate the population to move to highly developed countries? The census itself is a procedure of questionable accuracy. Even in European countries where censuses are conducted regularly. The technical side of obtaining census results in different countries calls the accuracy of the summary estimate into question. Especially in an age when a person can quickly move from one point of the world to another. — What can you say about forecasts? — If we have difficulty counting the population, then the forecast even for a short period on a planetary scale will be speculative. The UN issues population projections every two years, and every two years the numbers are different. Calculations have a large error even at the regional level. In the early 90s, the UN gave a forecast of 8 billion earthlings by 2050, but less than ten years have passed - and the forecast figure has increased by almost 900 million! In different years, forecasts for the same date vary. These projections are heavily influenced by non-demographic things. An important factor is morbidity; it always throws up new surprises. Take SARS, for example. The spread was very large, and they were about to take it into account in the forecasts, but the pneumonia “went away.” But AIDS remains, and this factor has been included in the UN forecast for the last few years. It is estimated that due to AIDS there will be a population undercount of 200 million at mid-century and about 70 million in 10 years. Estimates of population growth cannot be calculated without taking into account population growth in individual countries. And the features vary by region. Some countries are frozen in growth, and some are already experiencing population decline. The “demographic engine” is located in Asian countries - these countries are responsible for the rapid growth of humankind. But if the calculations regarding them are at all correct, then by the middle of the century many will be at the level of insufficient natural reproduction. And then the second half of the century will become a period of stabilization of the Earth's population. —Can you name three main problems that are very important for humanity? — The problem of population in itself. The problem of resources is certainly related to it. True, many myths have already been invented when discussing these problems. If you remember, in school textbooks they wrote that there was only 30 years of oil left. But the magic number “30 years” has been repeated for several decades. Humanity is not yet able to manage planetary processes. We really need to learn how to solve regional problems. This is the main difficulty of modern civilization. Another problem is poverty. The issue of poverty in most countries of the world is a planetary problem and is related to the problem of migration. This conflict may lead to serious conflicts in the future. — How many peoples are there on Earth? - Nobody knows this. The difference in the opinions of researchers is very great, primarily because different scientific schools understand the term “people” differently. According to some estimates - two thousand, according to others - three and even three and a half. In some countries, the concept of “people” is confused with the concept of language, and there are eight to nine thousand languages (by the way, the issue of languages is also controversial). In Russia, the number of ethnic groups also varied from census to census. The current Russian one gives 50-60 percent more than the last Soviet one. Of course, no ethnic groups could have appeared during this time - the criteria change, and therefore the numbers. In addition, even from a technical point of view, the census has many problems that do not allow people’s opinions to be taken into account. Today I will call myself an Uzbek - from my father, and tomorrow I will call myself a Ukrainian - from my mother.
The census will not record this in any way. In Russia, 25% of the population lives in ethnically mixed families. Therefore, there is a double self-consciousness. It can be both triple and situational. But the scribe demands an unambiguous answer. Therefore, according to the 2002 census, there are probably fewer Ukrainians and Belarusians in Russia. This is generally a property of statistics called “statistical noise”. But researchers, for lack of anything better, use this data anyway. And demographic paradoxes arise.
As previously reported website, since the beginning of the year, the population of the city of Baku has increased by 7.1 thousand people, and as of July 1 reached 2269.7 thousand people. 49.8% of the population are men, 50.2% are women.
The population density per square kilometer was 1060 people.
Is there a maximum limit to the city's permissible population? Experts find it difficult to answer this question. Moreover, throughout the world, as the online encyclopedia testifies, in 1950 there were only 5 cities in the world with a population of over 5 million people. in each, then in 1980 there were already 26 such cities, and in 2000 there were about 50. The emergence of giant cities with a population of 25-30 million people is observed.
Is there a maximum limit for the permissible population of the capital of our Motherland?
As reminded website expert in urban planning Fuad Jafarov, sometimes official statistics differ from the results of unofficial studies, and this difference is at least 100 thousand people. The growth of the urban population is observed due to people arriving from regions of the country, or citizens migrating to a given region.
“The results of our research indicate that the population of the city of Baku in 2012 was close to 2.9-3 million people. We took into account the number of utility service subscribers, people who own vehicles, and so on,” he noted.
The expert recalled that if in the past the territory located in the area of the village of Sulu-Tepe, between the Binagadi region and Balajary, was considered less suitable for living, now they are considered densely populated.
According to F. Jafarov, Baku can easily accommodate from 7 to 10 million people. The expert recalled that cities around the world continue to expand. And this process is irreversible.
“For example, previously no one could have imagined that a third suspension bridge across the Bosphorus would be opened in the city of Istanbul. And the length of the high-speed central ring road will be 500 kilometers,” the expert noted.
In turn, an expert in the field of migration Azer Allahveranov also believes that the population of the city of Baku, published earlier, refers to citizens registered in the capital. And this list does not include citizens temporarily registered in our city.
Despite the fact that our legislation provides for temporary registration, the problem is that there are very few citizens who comply with these rules.
Typically, individuals are registered temporarily if required by government agencies for employment. Or to conclude any transactions. Or the newcomer rented an apartment, and the owner of the property entered into an agreement with him to rent out the apartment.
The expert found it difficult to name how many citizens who arrived from the regions live without temporary registration in Baku.
As for the number of registered citizens living in Baku, according to the expert, some sources mention that 2.5 million people live in the capital, others from 3 million or even more.
“None of this paints an accurate picture. Because even if we assume that several million people live in Baku, it turns out that our regions are empty. But in fact, we don’t see this,” he added in an interview. website.
How long will the capital's resources last? Everything depends on the implementation of various kinds of projects, A. Allakhveranov believes. Definitely, the city is expanding, new villages are being built. It comes to the point that on some outskirts of Baku our districts of the capital almost merge with villages that are not included in the geography of the city.
Given this balance of power, all this indicates that the purely geographical possibility of expanding the area of residence of persons arriving in Baku has high potential.
“But people have to have jobs. And this all depends on how economic programs will be implemented. Today, many different production facilities are being opened in Baku.
That is, various sectors of the economy are expanding. And all this creates favorable conditions for, if necessary, to involve new labor resources; there is potential for this. But in the regions there is a need for labor resources. The city of Baku has potential, and it is sufficient.
However, it is difficult to name any numbers, 3 or 5 million people. Since the city’s infrastructure must be calculated, starting from the public utilities sector and ending with transport. However, 3 million or a little more inhabitants is perhaps the figure that is the most, if not ideal, but optimal,” noted A. Allakhveranov.
Bakhtiyar Safarov
