Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Viable and Nonviable Rural Settlements in the Non-Chernozem Zone of Russia: Plans and Reality

  • RURAL GEOGRAPHY
  • Published:
Regional Research of Russia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract—

For the first time in the geographical literature, an attempt is made to review the results of the rural settlement pattern reconstruction policy carried out in the 1960s–1970s. This policy involved the division of rural settlements (RSs) into viable and nonviable. It included the resettlement of people from small villages to large settlements. The article presents data on the plans and results of resettlement of residents of nonviable villages to central farmsteads of collective (kolkhozes) and state (sovkhozes) farms of Kalinin (currently, Tver) oblast. The official list of viable RSs approved in 1977 is analyzed. The structure of this list, distribution of viable settlements in the oblast, and population dynamics of each RS from 1976 to 2010 are considered. It is shown that viable RSs have been selected illogically: many small settlements were included in the list while many large ones were not. Most of the large viable RSs are concentrated in the central part of the oblast. This is its most developed part, the “Tver triangle” (“apexes” coincide with cities Rzhev, Vyshnii Volochek, and Kimry). Analysis of the population dynamics of viable RSs made it possible to identify several variants of population change from 1976 to 2010: from a significant increase to a decrease in the resident population. In general, the dynamics were negative. The population of more than half of the RSs decreased. Most of the viable RSs were successfully developing and gradually increasing their population as long as there were large kolkhozes. Currently, such RSs account for a significant part of the rural development centers. However, the majority of settlements once classified as nonviable still exist. It is concluded that the policy of resettlement and transformation of rural settlement pattern has failed. It is shown that there is an inadequate understanding of the results of this policy in Russian society and the scientific community. The article is intended as a reminder of the uselessness of volitional decisions aimed at radical changes in settlement pattern.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The phrases “viable RSs” and “nonviable RSs” are used by us not as evaluation categories but only as indicators that settlements belong to one of the two officially designated RS classes.

  2. On Measures on the Further Development of Agriculture in the Non-Chernozem Zone of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the USSR Council of Ministers, Moscow, 1974.

  3. The 2010 All-Russian Population Census. https://www.gks.ru/ free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi1612-tom10.html. Accessed December 30, 2019.

  4. In 1970, there were 102 000 small RSs in the Non-Chernozem zone with a population of 3.7 mln people, while in 2010 there were 65 000 such RSs with a population of 1.3 mln people (according to the 2010 All-Russian Population Census). https://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_ itogi1612-tom10.htm. Accessed December 30, 2019.

  5. Methodology for Selecting Viable Villages of Kolkhozes and Sovkhozes, Moscow: TSNIIPI po gradostroitel’stvu, 1966, p. 56.

  6. Kalinin oblast’s project office.

  7. For example, in 1963, the project for Kashin district provided for the establishment of 8 large farms instead of 47 small kolkhozes and 32 RSs instead of 470 [14, p. 196]. However, in 1977 these plans included 33 kolkhozes and 37 RSs.

  8. Developed by the Leningrad State Institute of Urban Design (Lengiprogor, founded in 1929) and approved by the decision of the Regional Executive Committee in June 1978.

  9. On Measures for Further Development of Agriculture in the Non-Chernozem Zone of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialistic Republic, Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the USSR Council of Ministers, Moscow, 1974.

  10. Kalinin Oblast during the Tenth Five-Year Plan (1976–1980) in Figures: Statistical Digest, Moscow, 1982, p. 29.

REFERENCES

  1. Alekseev, A.I., Rural settlement pattern: concepts and reality, in Voprosy geografii. Vyp. 132. Sovremennoe selo: puti razvitiya (Problems of Geography, No. 132: Modern Village: Development Trends), Moscow, 1988, pp. 144–182.

  2. Alekseev, A.I., Zubarevich, N.V., and Regent, T.M., Study of efficiency of the resettling of residents of rural settlements in the Non-Chernozem Zone of the RSFSR, Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., 1980, no. 1, pp. 97–100.

  3. Belen’kii, V.R., Improvement of rural settlement pattern in Non-Chernozem Zone, in Nechernozem’e: demograficheskie protsessy (Non-Chernozem Zone: Demographic Processes), Moscow: Statistika, 1977, no. 17, pp. 20–36.

  4. Bogdanova, L.P. and Shchukina, A.S., Large-scale social-demographic studies of rural areas in Tver oblast, in Voprosy geografii. Vyp. 135. Geografiya naseleniya i sotsial’naya geografiya (Problems of Geography, No. 135: Population Geography and Social Geography), Moscow: Kodeks, 2013, pp. 397–406.

  5. Vladimirov, V.V. and Naimark, N.I., Problemy razvitiya teorii rasseleniya v Rossii (Development of the Theory of Settlement Pattern in Russia), Moscow, 2002.

  6. Denisova, L.N., Ischezayushchaya derevnya Rossii: Nechernozem’e v 1960–1980-e gg. (Disappearing Village in Russia: Non-Chernozem Zone in the 1960–1980’s), Moscow, 1996.

  7. Kovalev, S.A., Sel’skoe rasselenie (Geograficheskoe issledovnaie) (Rural Settlement Pattern: Geographical Study), Moscow, 1963.

  8. Kovalev, S.A., Study of rural settlement pattern problems in areas of different types, in Regional’noe rasselenie v SSSR (Regional Settlement Pattern in USSR), Moscow, 1984, pp. 118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kuznetsova, S.N., Transport conditions of rural settlement pattern in Tver oblast, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation, Moscow, 2011.

  10. Mazur, L.N., Reconstruction policy of the Russian village (in the end of 1950’s – the 1980’s), Otechestvennaya Istor., 2005, no. 3, pp. 25–37.

  11. Nikitaeva, E.B., The policy of liquidation of “nonviable” villages in 1960–1970 and its consequences for Central Russia, Vestn. Mosk. Gos. Obl. Univ., Ser.: Istor. Polit. Nauki, 2012, no. 5, pp. 115–117.

  12. Nikulin, A.M., Scientific heritage T. I. Zaslavskaya and Soviet ideological and political conflicts, Sotsiol. Zh., 2014, no. 3, pp. 116–139.

  13. Rumyantsev, I.N., Smirnova, A.A., and Tkachenko, A.A., Rural settlements without residents as a geographical and statistical phenomenon, Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., 2019, no. 1, pp. 29–37.

  14. Sel’skokhozyaistvennaya raionnaya planirovka (Rural District Spatial Planning), Kuznetsov, G.A., Ed., Moscow, 1981, 3rd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smironov, I.P., Srednie goroda Tsentral’noi Rossii (Medium-size Cities of Central Russia), Tver, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Strongina, M.L., Development of settlement pattern in rural area of Non-Chernozem Zone of RSFSR, in Regional’noe rasselenie v SSSR (Regional Settlement Patternin USSR), Moscow, 1984, pp. 148–159.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tkachenko, A.A., Reduction of the number of rural settlements, in Sel’skaya Rossiya: proshloe i nastoyashchee (Rural Russia: Past and Present), Moscow, 1999, pp. 84–86.

  18. Khorev, B.S., Reconstruction of rural settlement pattern: a new stage in scientific and technological policy, in Voprosy geografii. Vyp. 132. Sovremennoe selo: puti razvitiya (Problems of Geography, No. 132: Modern Village: Development Trends), Moscow, 1988, pp. 34–52.

  19. Shevel’kov, A.I., The policy of liquidation of “nonviable” settlements in Russia and its results, Vestn. Balt. Fed. Univ., Ser. Gumanit. Obshch. Nauki, 2007, no. 12, pp. 39–43.

  20. Cloke, P., An Introduction to Rural Settlement Planning (Routledge Revivals), London: Routledge, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Daniels, T.L. and Lapping, M.B., Small town triage: a rural settlement policy for the American Midwest, J. Rural Stud., 1987, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanrahan, P. and Cloke, P., Towards a critical appraisal of rural settlement planning in England and Wales, Sociol. Ruralis, 1984, no. 23, pp. 109–129.

  23. Pallot, J., Rural settlement planning in the USSR, Sov. Stud., 1979, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 214–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Phillips, D.R. and Williams, A.M., Rural settlement policies and local authority housing: observations from a case-study of South Hams, Devon, Environ. Plann., 1983, vol. 15, pp. 501–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Policies and Plans for Rural People (Routledge Revivals), Cloke, P., Ed., London: Routledge, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tian, G., Qiao, Z., and Gao, X., Rural settlement land dynamic modes and policy implications in Beijing metropolitan region, China, Habitat Int., 2014, vol. 44, pp. 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 18-05-00394.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tver State University, 170100, Tver, Russia

    I. P. Smirnov, A. A. Smirnova & A. A. Tkachenko

Authors
  1. I. P. Smirnov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. A. Smirnova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. A. Tkachenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to I. P. Smirnov, A. A. Smirnova or A. A. Tkachenko.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Translated by O. Pismenov

This is an extended version of the article published in the Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 5: Geografiya, 2020, no. 4, pp. 105–115.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smirnov, I.P., Smirnova, A.A. & Tkachenko, A.A. Viable and Nonviable Rural Settlements in the Non-Chernozem Zone of Russia: Plans and Reality. Reg. Res. Russ. 10, 401–411 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970520030132

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970520030132

Keywords:

Search

Navigation