Drunken Nation: Russia’s Depopulation Bomb(worldaffairsjournal.org)
worldaffairsjournal.org
Drunken Nation: Russia’s Depopulation Bomb
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Spring/full-Eberstadt.html
8 comments
Much of this growth came from spiking commodity prices, particularly oil and natural gas. That's not long-term sustainable. High energy prices masked the structural problems Russia faces. Now that's over.
Does anyone bother to even look up the most basic facts before making proclamations any more? Oil prices were prety much flat through 2003. The rise of oil certainly helped, but you can't explain eight years of growth starting in 1999 with four years of oil price rises starting in 2003.
Two things. Developing economies generally have higher rates of growth than more advanced ones, so the fact that Russia had higher rates of growth than the seven most advanced economies in the world is fairly meaningless. In fact, there was debate at the time about whether the G7 should expand to include Russia, since Russia's profile didn't match the others'.
And second, how much of the cumulative growth from 1999-2007 was due to astronomical energy prices? I don't think it's absurd to point out that for half of the period you mention, energy prices made Russia's economy appear much stronger than it was in reality. The same happened in the late 1970s and the early 1980s with the USSR. Many attribute the USSR's implosion in large part to the collapse in energy prices in the late 1980s/early 1990s, since the failings of their centrally planned economy couldn't be concealed any longer.
And second, how much of the cumulative growth from 1999-2007 was due to astronomical energy prices? I don't think it's absurd to point out that for half of the period you mention, energy prices made Russia's economy appear much stronger than it was in reality. The same happened in the late 1970s and the early 1980s with the USSR. Many attribute the USSR's implosion in large part to the collapse in energy prices in the late 1980s/early 1990s, since the failings of their centrally planned economy couldn't be concealed any longer.
> Developing economies generally have higher rates of growth than more advanced ones, so the fact that Russia had higher rates of growth than the seven most advanced economies in the world is fairly meaningless.
Not when the thesis on the table is that "relentless, unremitting, and perhaps unstoppable depopulation" is "a bomb" that "amounts to an ethnic self-cleansing" and "carries with it grim and potentially disastrous implications." Since depopulation began in 1992 Russia has enjoyed eight years of extraordinary economic growth, not all of which can be accounted for by rising oil prices. That is a salient fact, which the article completely ignores. At best it's shoddy journalism.
Not when the thesis on the table is that "relentless, unremitting, and perhaps unstoppable depopulation" is "a bomb" that "amounts to an ethnic self-cleansing" and "carries with it grim and potentially disastrous implications." Since depopulation began in 1992 Russia has enjoyed eight years of extraordinary economic growth, not all of which can be accounted for by rising oil prices. That is a salient fact, which the article completely ignores. At best it's shoddy journalism.
an interesting discussion from both sides. i just wanted to thank mattobrien for remaining politce and on-topic.
The growth in 1999 started after GKO default in 2nd half of 1998. There was only way up from that point.
Crap article, intended to put down Russia. It plays on stereotypes and parrots "popular opinion" of Russia.
It is opinion article. It does not cite any sources for its data, for example birthrate grows since 2005 (according to CIA factbook). And please stop the vodka/drunken nation thing, the rest of the world does not write articles that British have problem with gin anymore.
It is opinion article. It does not cite any sources for its data, for example birthrate grows since 2005 (according to CIA factbook). And please stop the vodka/drunken nation thing, the rest of the world does not write articles that British have problem with gin anymore.
> for example birthrate grows since 2005 (according to CIA factbook)
Since 1999, in fact, as the article acknowledges: "Russia’s post-Communist TFR hit its low—perhaps we should say its low to date—in 1999, when it was 1.17. By 2005, the total fertility rate in the Russian Federation was up to about 1.3".
Some of its conclusions require more evidence (the contention that Russian standard of living will decline, the attribution of increased accidental mortality to alcohol problems instead of more people driving, etc.) But I'm not sure why you doubt the actual statistics.
Since 1999, in fact, as the article acknowledges: "Russia’s post-Communist TFR hit its low—perhaps we should say its low to date—in 1999, when it was 1.17. By 2005, the total fertility rate in the Russian Federation was up to about 1.3".
Some of its conclusions require more evidence (the contention that Russian standard of living will decline, the attribution of increased accidental mortality to alcohol problems instead of more people driving, etc.) But I'm not sure why you doubt the actual statistics.
> British have problem with gin anymore.
The British don't have a problem? I thought it was the consensus that British cities are descending into alcoholic loutish hell holes.
http://ajanlo.kapu.hu/pics.php?d=cardiff
The British don't have a problem? I thought it was the consensus that British cities are descending into alcoholic loutish hell holes.
http://ajanlo.kapu.hu/pics.php?d=cardiff
Depopulation isn't a bad thing and I think it's much better than overpopulation in an already overpopulated world.
Your comparison of depopulation to "overpopulation in an already overpopulated world" is hardly just. Really you are comparing population decline with population growth, but with the latter in a very particular context in which it is known to be harmful. In contrast, nobody is concerned about population growth among polar bears (but many seem concerned about their potential depopulation).
Regardless, the concern of the article isn't even whether or not depopulation is bad; in fact it states: "In the modern era, population decline itself need not be a cause for acute economic alarm." Rather the concern is that Russia's depopulation is fueled by increases in illness and mortality. Just my personal opinion, but death and disease are bad things. The article claims that, furthermore, they are bad things for economic growth over the long term.
Regardless, the concern of the article isn't even whether or not depopulation is bad; in fact it states: "In the modern era, population decline itself need not be a cause for acute economic alarm." Rather the concern is that Russia's depopulation is fueled by increases in illness and mortality. Just my personal opinion, but death and disease are bad things. The article claims that, furthermore, they are bad things for economic growth over the long term.
The world is overpopulated? News to me. The way I see it, it's under-producing food, largely because of irrational resistance to modern techniques.
>The way I see it, it's under-producing food, largely because of irrational resistance to modern techniques.
While I do agree that the planet can sustain a much higher population, modern farming practices are causing problems and not necessarily sustainable in the long term. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming#Disadvantages)
Properly thought out food production that utilizes under-used resources (vast swaths in Russia for instance!) is the key.
While I do agree that the planet can sustain a much higher population, modern farming practices are causing problems and not necessarily sustainable in the long term. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming#Disadvantages)
Properly thought out food production that utilizes under-used resources (vast swaths in Russia for instance!) is the key.
GM is a modern farming practice that is horrendously underused, and GM can wipe out most of the disadvantages of intensive farming - GM crops can fix their own nitrogen and repel pests without pesticide. They can also be designed to grow well in 3rd world climates and contain extra nutrients.
Yes, we need more "techniques" such as those that lead to an infection of spinach with some bacteria that is later traced to a gut of a wild boar used as a fertilizer.
I don't think you are remembering that case correctly. The animals are not being used as fertilizer. Instead, they are breaking through fences and contaminating the fields through defecation: http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSe...
"thus it is impossible to predict when, or whether, it [the shrinkage of Russia's population] will finally come to an end"
That's some loopy hyperbole, right there. Babies are still being born in Russia. Even a shockingly huge drop in population due to low replacement will eventually end in a stable population size.
That's some loopy hyperbole, right there. Babies are still being born in Russia. Even a shockingly huge drop in population due to low replacement will eventually end in a stable population size.
I don't understand your math. If the birth rate stays lower than replacement, and the average life span does not increase, at what point would the population stabilize?
At the point in which the number of births constitutes replacement. We're not talking 5 babies born annually in the Rodina, we're talking a small number of babies born compared to Russia's population.
Births aren't evenly-distributed. The population segments that are having more births now are the segments likely to have more births down the road. Death, on the other hand, is much more evenly distributed, and the number of deaths per year is directly related to population. As the population shrinks, you have a smaller number of deaths, but births don't decrease as quickly. Eventually, you hit a new equilibrium.
Births aren't evenly-distributed. The population segments that are having more births now are the segments likely to have more births down the road. Death, on the other hand, is much more evenly distributed, and the number of deaths per year is directly related to population. As the population shrinks, you have a smaller number of deaths, but births don't decrease as quickly. Eventually, you hit a new equilibrium.
Eh. The people with a natural desire to have children will breed and pass on their natural desire to have children. In the past, the desire for sex alone was sufficient. Those people will die out everywhere over the next decades...
> To make matters worse, almost half of Russia’s treated tubercular cases over the past decade have been the variant known as extreme drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB).
This can not be right. XDR (Extreme Drug Resistant TB) is fairly rare (definitely not 75,000 a year). Multiple Drug Resistant TB (MDR TB) is a lot more common.
Most people with XDR TB die in a month.
>Russia’s patterns of death from injury and violence (by whatever provenance) are so extreme and brutal that they invite comparison only with the most tormented spots on the face of the planet today. The five places estimated to be roughly in the same league as Russia as of 2002 were Angola, Burundi, Congo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
Congo? Which one?
Russia's murder rate (while appalling) is below Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica and Venezuela:.
>Russia’s patterns of death from injury and violence (by whatever provenance) are so extreme and brutal that they invite comparison only with the most tormented spots on the face of the planet today. The five places estimated to be roughly in the same league as Russia as of 2002 were Angola, Burundi, Congo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
Congo? Which one?
Russia's murder rate (while appalling) is below Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica and Venezuela:.
In context, I think they were including slips and falls, traffic accidents, etc.
That is merely soft and polite description. In fact there is literally humanitarian catastrophe. This article is focused mostly on physical heath of society and death rates, while there is a second side of the coin - a unprecedented rate of alcohol, drugs and stress related mental deceases which no one can count.
And precision statistics is not required anymore - just step down into any station of Moscow's or Saint-Petersburg's subway at friday's night and take a look at the faces. Everything is visible with naked eyes.
And precision statistics is not required anymore - just step down into any station of Moscow's or Saint-Petersburg's subway at friday's night and take a look at the faces. Everything is visible with naked eyes.
So yeah, we're all going to die.
So what?
"history offers no examples of a society that has demonstrated sustained material advance in the face of long-term population decline"
Of course it does: Russia, from 1999-2007. For most of the last decade, Russia was the fastest growing economy in the G8. And it may have been growing even longer than that if you discount the contribution of the sudden drop in weapons production after the fall of the Soviet Union.