FINAL REPORT TO NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H

TITLE : SIBERIAN URBANIZATION SINC E STALI N

AUTHOR : Gary Hauslade n

CONTRACTOR : Board of Regents, University of Nevad a System, on behalf of the University o f Neyada, Ren o PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Gary Hauslade n COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 804-0 4 DATE : October, 199 0

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

SIBERIAN URBANIZATIO N SINCE STALI N

Table of Content s

Page Executive Summary i Final Repor t Introduction 1 's Role as Colony : Global and Historical Perspective 4 A global perspective 5 Historical Context 9 Tsarist Legacy 1 0 Stalinist Legacy 1 3 Kruschev and Brezhnev legacies 1 6 Basic Trends in Siberian Urbanizatio n in the Post-Stalin Era 2 2 Geographical context 2 2 Treasure trove of resources 2 3 Access to Pacific Asia 2 8 Siberian Urbanization, 1959-1985 3 2 Urban agglomerations in Siberia 4 0 Potential Impact of Economic Restructuring ... 5 0 Siberia's role in perestroyka 5 2 Potential impact of perestroyka on Siberia 5 7 Conclusion : the Changing Role of Siberian Urbanizatio n in the Soviet Economy 6 4 Literature Cited 6 8 Figures 72 Appendix 1 : Soviet Urban Agglomerations 7 3 Appendix 2 : Cities of Soviet Siberia 8 2 Appendix 3 : Selected Bibliography 89

SIBERIAN URBANIZATIO N SINCE STALIN Gary Hauslade n Department of Geograph y University of Nevada, Ren o Executive Summar y Submitted to the National Counci l for Soviet and East European Researc h August 31, 199 0

During the three decades of the post-Stalin era, investmen t priorities and development strategies toward Siberia, rhetori c notwithstanding, reinforced and strengthened Siberia' s traditional role as a colonial periphery to the European core .

The structure for the controlling and exploiting of this colonia l relationship continues to be, as it has been for centuries, th e settlement system, which has come to be dominated by a limite d number of large urban agglomerations . This study examines th e development of Siberia's settlement system in historical and global perspective as a basis for analyzing contemporary trends . It then provides a regionalization scheme, based on concentratio n of population, kinds of economic activities, and geographi c orientation . Closely associated with this regionalization schem e is the identification of 24 urban agglomerations, in which pas t Siberian development has been concentrated, and in which futur e growth will most likely be focused . The study concludes with th e presentation of several possible scenarios for futur e development, each of which correlates to different levels o f increased interaction in the world economy, as well as varyin g degrees of success for economic restructuring in the USSR . To one extreme, the study suggests that there could be little impac t and Siberia, as a whole, will continue simply as a colony of th e

Soviet state . To the other extreme, this study suggests tha t economic restructuring and greater global interaction, especiall y with the Pacific Basin, could lead to greater economic, an d possible political, independence for parts of Siberia in the 21s t century .

The first part of the study examines Siberia's role as a colony of European by arguing for the utility of tw o

methodological perspectives -- one global, the other historical . A global perspective provides context for examining how local an d regional factors interact with national and internationa l processes to produce a human geography that is a blend of commo n and unique characteristics . A global perspective demands a n

historical perspective as well . Both lay essential groundwor k for understanding contemporary patterns of development an d interaction . Both perspectives must be utilized to full y understand Siberia's changing role as a resource frontier to th e and the Soviet state .

The second part of the study examines Siberian urbanizatio n in the post-Stalin era . In addition to setting the geographica l context for the development of Siberia, this part offers tw o original contributions to the study of Soviet Siberia . First, i t provides a regionalization scheme that delineates ten economi c

ii regions . And then, closely related to the regionalizatio n scheme, 24 major urban agglomerations are identified and briefl y described . Due to a lack of data, this part of the analysi s

remains incomplete . Yet, it is still useful because basic trend s can be identified by using the data that are available, an d

because the framework has now been structured for futur e analysis .

The geographical context provides the basis for defining ten economic regions, based on concentration of population, kinds o f

economic activities and geographical orientation . Closely associated with these regions are 24 urban agglomerations, whic h this study identifies . The growth of these urban agglomeration s in the post-Stalin era parallels growth trends, as previousl y discussed, for urban Siberia as a whole . This is not surprisin g given that 52 of Siberia's 66 cities with populations of at leas t 50,000, including all cities of 100,000, are within urba n agglomerations . These 52 cities account for 62 percent of th e total urban population of Siberia's 208 cities and 684 urban-typ e settlements .

When we divide the urban agglomerations into central citie s and satellite cities, several interesting trends are revealed i n this respect . All 25 central cities showed healthy positiv e growth between 1959 and 1985 . Together they showed an increas e in population of just over 5 .2 million (5 .5 to 10 .7 million), o r

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

increase for Siberia (78 percent) or the as a whol e (80 percent) . These 25 central cities alone accounted for 5 4 percent of the total increase in urban population for Siberi a between 1959 and 1985 .

There was much greater diversity for the 27 satellite citie s for which we have data for both years . Total growth for thes e

cities was 958 thousand (1,995 to 2,953), an increase of 4 8 percent, which further supports the contention that most of th e growth was concentrated in the central cities . Of these 27 cities, five actually showed decreases in population . I n

addition, there were 10 satellite cities with populations in th e upper 20s to mid—30s in 1959 that had not reached 50,000 by 1985 .

What we are witnessing is exactly the opposite of th e

phenomenon experienced by US metropolitan areas in the 1970s an d 1980s, now referred to as suburbanization . Metropolitan areas experienced healthy growth at the same time that central citie s

were declining in population . In the Soviet Union in general , and Siberia in particular, the growth of the central cities wa s the prime contributor to the growth of the agglomerations . Limited supplies of goods and services, better housing and othe r amenities continue to produce a situation in which large urba n centers are the most attractive alternatives for a larg e proportion of the Soviet populace . One of the key challenge s

iv facing economic restructuring is the difficulties of distributin g goods and services more equally throughout the settlement syste m to relieve the pressure on the largest cities and to make th e

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

The final part of the study posits alternative scenarios fo r future development under economic restructuring . Three basi c alternatives arise . The first scenario suggests no change, o r

even a slowing of growth in Siberia . The second scenari o suggests some impact as a result of the implementation of som e aspects of perestroyka, in which Siberia will play a n increasingly important role . A final scenario predict s substantial changes as a result of radical reforms more closel y associated with the recent initiatives of Boris Yeltsin, even t o the point of economic and political independence from th e European core .

For the remainder of the 20th century, however, Siberia mus t still wait for its role to change, for the basic nature of it s development to become comprehensive, designed to benefit regiona l and local development at the expense of national and international markets . For now, as it has been for the entir e Soviet period, Siberia remains dependent on the core for it s growth, serving as a resource frontier for an d the world .

v

SIBERIAN URBANIZATIO N SINCE STALI N

Final Repor t Submitted to the National Counci l for Soviet and East European Researc h August 31, 199 0

Gary Hausladen Department of Geograph y University of Nevada, Ren o

INTRODUCTIO N

After four centuries as a colony of the Russian and Sovie t empires, Siberia still retains its mystery and allure as a lan d of great challenges, yet even greater potential, a land of vita l importance to the European core . The history of "Russian Siberia" has witnessed many changes, while the basic nature o f its relationship with European Russia, a classic core-peripher y relationship, has remained unchanged . A key component of thi s relationship has been the settlement-system, which has provide d the means for control and exploitation . The structure of thi s settlement system initially took the form of forts and yillages , which later evolved into towns and cities, and which today hav e grown into major urban centers and agglomerations .

In recent history, for the 30-plus years since Stalin, th e basic nature of Siberia's relationship with has remained core-periphery, and the importance of the urban settlement syste m has been enhanced . It is, in fact, through the urban settlemen t system that we can better understand Siberia's development . To a great extent, the urban settlement system serves as a reflectio n of Siberia's past and as a barometer of its future under th e conditions of economic and political restructuring that ar e taking place in the Soviet Union today .

These are the premises that formed the foundation for th e original research proposal, "Siberian urbanization since Stalin, " for which this Final Report provides a summary of researc h findings . As a result, the final report presents the researc h findings within the framework of three major sections : (1 ) Siberia's role as a colony ; (2) basic trends in Siberia n urbanization in the post-Stalin era ; and (3) the potential impac t of economic restructuring on Siberia and Siberian urbanization i n the future .

The first section addresses Siberia's role as a colony . I t examines the nature of Siberia's relationship to the Russia n Empire and Soviet state, which, in turn, provides the backgroun d and context for understanding the importance of the urba n settlement system . This section greatly expands the role o f methodology in the study . In this regard, the value o f historical continuity and a global perspective add to ou r analysis of urban processes in the region .

2 The second section addresses basic trends in Siberia n urbanization . It examines the processes of urbanization in th e region since 1959 . It builds upon the work of Soviet scholar s Lappo and Pertsik, as well as earlier work by the author . The major contribution is the identification of 24 urba n agglomerations in Siberia, and an analysis of growth trends ove r the past three decades . This is accomplished within th e framework of a regionalization scheme that subdivides Siberi a into more useful regional components .

The third section addresses the potential impact o f restructuring . It presents alternative scenarios for Siberia n urbanization and development in light of recent and continuin g changes under perestroyka . This remains the most nebulous par t of the research, although possibly the most intriguing . Recen t events, more closely related to Siberia's role in the RSFSR, hav e added new dimensions to the prognostications .

3 SIBERIA'S ROLE AS COLONY : GLOBAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES *

In order to understand urbanization and the development o f the urban settlement system in Siberia, it is essential t o understand the context within which it evolved . In this regard , the first section of this report represents a diversion from th e original goals of the research proposal, albeit an essentia l diversion . Initially, this project sought to begin with th e present and eventually work backwards historically . Patterns an d processes in the post-Stalin period, however, were confusing o r not understandable without an historical context . Especiall y important was an understanding of the Stalin period, whic h provided the framework for the post-Stalinist period . Yet, eve n the Stalinist framework was not without influence from it s tsarist past .

Thus, in providing the foundation for analyzing Siberia n urbanization since Stalin, this section discusses the value o f two methodological perspectives for the analysis : (1) a globa l perspective, and (2) the historical context . A globa l perspective provides context for examining how local and regiona l factors interact with national and international processes t o

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

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

characteristics . A global perspective demands an historica l

perspective as well . Both lay essential groundwork fo r

understanding contemporary patterns of development and

interaction .

A global perspectiv e

One of the major weaknesses of contemporary studies of th e

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

a strong theoretical (conceptual) framework for examination an d

analysis . Sovietologists, including geographers, seem immune t o

the recent explosion of articles sensitive to the need fo r updated paradigms and models in the social sciences and huma n geography . A plethora of work has been published that support s the utility of employing a global perspective, also referred t o as a world—systems approach, to the study of geographica l problems, urbanization notwithstanding . To the present, ther e has been little explicit application of a global perspective t o

Siberian development .

Traditionally, the "Siberian experience" has been treated a s a singular phenomenon, understandable only within its Russian an d

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

Siberian experience that are singularly Siberian . At the sam e time, these kinds of analyses have been blind to those aspects o f

Siberian development that have been in response to global

5 processes and the changing role of Russian/Soviet integratio n into the world economy . Both perspectives must be balanced t o fully understand Siberia's changing role as a resource frontie r to the Russian Empire and the Soviet state . Only when one put s Russian industrialization during the Stalin and post-Stalin year s in the context of inter-state competition, exacerbated b y ideological considerations, can one understand continue d development of resources at all costs in regions of grea t economic inefficiency . Especially in the context of perestroyka , both local and global processes will influence Siberia's changin g role in the Soviet economy .

In many contemporary studies, contacts with the outsid e world are given some attention, more often than not in terms o f levels of foreign trade, but primarily in terms of expediting o r retarding development, not as a causal factor . One of the bes t recent treatments of Siberian development, by Jonathan Schiffe r (1989), maintains that basic motives for Siberian developmen t were domestic, to the exclusion of global factors . This stud y strongly disagrees, and suggests that it is necessary to balanc e domestic with global factors . Without a global perspective, th e puzzle cannot be solved .

The key point here is that a global perspective is importan t not because it replaces local factors, but because it complement s them . It also suggests that many seemingly local factors ar e

6 influenced by global processes . The two, global and local, mus t be balanced to provide a full and complete picture . Th e importance of a global perspective is explicitly presented i n each of the following sections on historical and geographica l context .

Inclusion of a balanced approach also raises questions o f scale, which is particularly important for any geographica l study . In balancing global and local factors, it is necessary t o address the scales of analysis . At least four can be readil y

identified : local, regional, national and international . Factors at each level contribute to the overall makeup of th e particular urban environment, providing a balance betwee n similarities and differences between places . National an d international factors add to similarities between places, whil e regional and local factors add to their uniqueness . Questions o f scale raise additional questions of perspective with respect t o differentiating between national and foreign levels o f integration .

If Siberia serves primarily as a resource colony to th e European Russian core, then the difference between national an d

foreign may be semantic . In other words, from the point of vie w of the Siberians, demands from Moscow and are both foreign ,

except for the fact that Siberia is administratively tied t o Moscow . From the point of view of economic relations ,

7 allocations of capital, and exploitation of resources, th e differences may not be so clear .

One major problem in constructing such a scenario is th e

lack of data and information on flow of Siberian goods, althoug h some interpolations can be made . The issue concerns the basi c relationship of Siberia to the European core, wherein, from th e point of view of Siberia, exports to European Russia are simpl y another form of foreign trade . In either case, exports t o European Russia or exports to foreign countries, the greates t benefits are accumulated by Moscow, often at the expense of th e regional and local economies .

At the local and regional levels, this study calls int o question the use of the term "Siberia" to refer to all region s east of the Urals (Figs . 1 and 2) . The Soviets themselves ar e quite specific about the fact that Siberia does not include th e Soviet Far East . But even that distinction produces macro - regions that are often too cumbersome to analyze in any usefu l way . To a great extent, the problems of regionalization and th e need to balance regional and local scales results from th e structure of Soviet statistics . Although seldom published i n this form, we are hungry for any data provided at the economi c region level . This has clearly been a case whereby the manner i n which Soviet statistics are published often determines th e structure of analysis . There is need for more precision .

8 One possibility is a new regionalization scheme, which i s provided in the following section on geographical context . Another contribution is the accumulation of urban data int o

agglomerations, which is provided in the next section . Becaus e data are still sorely lacking, each of these attempts i s preliminary and incomplete . Yet, the era of glasnost' may provide some of the data to fill in the blanks .

Each of these issues is important in addressing Siberia' s role and the process of urbanization that has occurred therein . The study attempts to be sensitive to these issues as it t

provides the historical and geographical context and, later, a s it examines urbanization since 1959 . These issues become eve n more important as the process of restructuring begins to affec t Siberian development in the 21st century .

Historical contex t A solid historical foundation is essential to understanding contemporary processes (see, for example Aziatskaya Rossiya , 1974, Lyashchenko, 1949, Okladnikov and Shunkov, 1968, an d Semyonov, 1963) . In this manner, it is possible to identify continuity and change in the evolution and development o f Siberia . Not only is the Siberian experience treated i n

isolation from global processes, contemporary Soviet themes ar e often treated as totally new and alienated from their tsaris t past . This study stresses balance between continuity and chang e

9 when examining the evolution of the Siberian settlement system .

Tsarist legacy : foundations for Soviet colonialism . By the end of the tsarist period, it is possible to characterize th e relationship between the Russian heartland and Siberia as a classic core-periphery relationship . Although the inclusion o f Siberia into the Russian state was facilitated by the fact tha t it was contiguous, the basic nature of the relationship remaine d colonial . Many of the characteristics of this relationship ha d changed over three centuries, but the basic dependency between core and periphery remained firmly entrenched . Primary goods , most importantly agricultural products, furs, fish, and, to a lesser extent, minerals, provided the economic rationale fo r Russian interest in the region, as did access to the Pacifi c afforded by the recently-completed Trans-Siberian Railroad . At the same time, primitive methods of resource extraction an d industrialization kept the eastern regions heavily dependent upo n European Russia and foreign countries for manufactured good s (Lyashchenko, 1949, pp . 584-604) .

For the most part, early 20th century Siberia, specificall y West Siberia, served as an agricultural colony, which supplie d grain and dairy products to Europe and East Siberia . Furs fo r European Russia and Europe still retained importance as a sourc e of national wealth, as did certain metals, especially gold , silver, copper, coal, and others . Yet, lack of technology i n

1 0 extraction and production limited the degree to which thes e mineral resources stimulated growth and added to the nationa l wealth . Those enterprises that succeeded were generally finance d with foreign capital, as in the case of gold production i n regions around the , Vitim, and rivers, or wer e under the direct control of the tsar, as in the case of the Alta y and gold and silver regions (Aziatskaya Rossiya, 1974 , vol 1, pp . 388-439, and vol . 2, pp . 182-87) .

Thus, on the eve of revolution, the economic geography o f Siberia (Fig . 3) already held the seeds of growth for economi c integration into the national economy . To that time, however , the infrastructure had not been provided to take advantage of it s relatively-untapped wealth .

In addition to its value as a potential source of unlimite d natural resources, Siberia played an important strategic role i n Russia's growth . In this regard, access to had always bee n a key factor in tsarist designs on the Orient . The constructio n of the Trans-Siberian Railroad in the late-nineteenth century re - enforced Russia's control of Siberia and strengthened its link t o the Far East and the Pacific .

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

Russian Empire spent the latter part of the 19th centur y consolidating its holdings in the region, taking advantag e

1 1 of a decaying Manchu dynasty (see Seton-Watson, 1967, pp . 438-45 , 579-97, 682-84) . The extension of the Trans-Siberian acros s gave clear warning of further designs in the region . These designs, and further Russian expansion, were put to an en d with its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) . Althoug h this defeat probably hurried along the overthrow of the monarch y in Russia, it also served to consolidate and legitimize Russian claims in the Far East . As a result of the Treaty of Portsmouth ,

Russia maintained control of the Amur and Maritime regions and the northern half of island . Although forced to ced e control of northern Manchuria, Liaodong peninsula, and southern Sakhalin, Russia's links to the furthest reaches of its colonia l empire were now strengthened physically by rail and politically by treaty .

The Revolution and subsequent establishment of the Sovie t Union did little to change the basic nature of this relationship . In many respects, the ministerial model of control and decision - making within the Soviet economy paralleled the tsarist system o f centralized control . When one adds to the political-economi c structure the adversities of Civil War, collectivization an d World War, it is not surprising that many of the ideologically - bound goals for diversified Siberian development did not receiv e serious attention during the first four decades of Soviet rule .

1 2 Stalinist legacy : eastward and extensive growth strategies. The economic history of the Soviet Union has been defined by th e decision of Stalin to pursue rapid industrialization in a n attempt to modernize and "catch the West ." Stalin made it clea r that competition with the capitalist countries played no smal l role in that decision .

We have lagged fifty to a hundred years behind th e leading countries . We must cover this distance in te n years . Either we do, or they crush us (as quoted i n Hutchings, 1982, p . 48) .

This approach has led to unequal development for differen t sectors of the economy ; heavy industry and the military hav e benefitted at the expense of light and consumer industries . This strategy had specific implications for Siberian development .

For Siberia, rapid industrialization meant that an increasing importance was tied to energy and mineral resourc e extraction, heretofore underutilized . Now, the industria l resources of Siberia were used to stimulate industria l development in the European regions of the country . First, they supplemented European supplies ; later they replaced them . Th e economic value of West Siberia was noted by Lenin immediatel y after the Revolution, and incorporated into the first five-yea r plan (FYP) in 1928-29, wherein the decision was made to develo p metallurgy based on the supply of iron ore from the Urals an d 1 3 coal from the Kuznetsk basin (Kuzbas) (Ekonomicheskaya, 1989, p . 113) .

Greater emphasis on eastern development was well underway b y World War II, as witnessed by increased industrial production , the establishment of 33 new cities (between 1928 and 1941), an d increased population . From 1938-40 alone, nearly 600,00 0 migrated to Siberia and the Far East (Alekseyev and Isupov, 1986 , p . 50) . The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, however , greatly increased the pace of Stalin's shifting of industria l production capacity eastward .

The Nazi occupation of the western regions of the Sovie t Union forced a massive migration of factories and labor . Fro m 1941 to 1942, nearly 1600 large-scale factories were completel y evacuated from the west, as were millions of workers . Of thes e 244 were relocated in West Siberia and 87 were relocated in Eas t Siberia (Dokuchayev and Kozybayev, 1987, p . 82) . Additionally , over 2000 new factories were constructed in Siberia an d during the War (de Souza, 1989, p . 71) . As a result , from 1940 to 1945, production of heavy industry almost tripled i n West Siberia and increased by nearly 40 percent in East Siberi a (Alekseyev and Isupov, 1986, p . 64) .

An ancillary result of these policies was the stimulus the y gave to urbanization in the region . The process of Siberia n

14 migration during the War had several components . First, million s of Siberians left Siberia to fight in the War . Most of thes e were men from the countryside . To provide the necessary labo r for the increased level of industrialization, large numbers o f rural Siberians as well as large numbers of European urba n dwellers migrated to Siberian cities . Although the tota l population of Siberia decreased by 1 .5 million during the War , there was actually an increase in urban dwellers of nearly 70 0 thousand (Alekseyev and Isupov, 1986, p . 194) . In fact, th e migration of labor and industry during World War II played n o small role in the urbanization of Siberia . This proces s accelerated trends already underway . In 1929, on the eve o f rapid industrialization, only 14 percent of the population o f Siberia lived in cities ; this proportion had increased to 3 1 percent in 1939 just prior to the War . By 1945, at the end o f the War, 43 percent of the population lived in cities (Isupov , 1987, pp . 35 and 39) .

On the one hand, shifting industrial capacity eastward resulted in increased investment in Siberian development . Yet , the nature of the development reinforced Siberia's dependency o n European Russia and hampered its ability to produce a multidimensional economic geography . The overall goal of thes e policies was not to benefit Siberia, but to replace and augmen t the nation's productive strength .

1 5 Although Stalin sought to create a self-sufficient Sovie t economy, isolated from the capitalist world economy, it was, i n fact, processes in the world economy that greatly influence d Soviet policies toward Siberia -- competition with the West , which stimulated "superindustrialization", and World War II , which accelerated the shift in industrial capacity eastward . By the end of World War II, Siberia's value economically an d strategically had been clearly demonstrated, and its integratio n into the national economy a priority item .

The post-War period saw a dramatic, but short lived shift i n priorities as the Soviet Union sought to reconstruct and recove r from the devastation . This meant, of course, major investment i n the western regions of the country, which had suffered incredibl e losses during the War . For the interim, Siberian development wa s put on hold .

Khrushchev and Brezhnev legacies : the Siberian mega projects . With few exceptions, the post-Stalin era proved to b e no different . Although plans talked of regional equity and improvements in the levels of development in outlying regions , the actual character of investment into the region remaine d highly concentrated and localized, still emphasizing th e importance of resource extraction, transportation links with th e Pacific, and military security .

16 One aspect of Siberian development that evolved unde r Khrushchev and Brezhnev was the approval of mega projects - - gigantic economic ventures that required large allocations o f capital resources, with questionable levels of return to th e national economy . The first of these were the huge hydroelectri c power projects begun the 1950s . Constructions of these project s lasted 30 years into the 1980s .

Major hydro power stations have been constructed, or ar e under construction, along the River, at , Ust ' - Ilimsk and Boguchany ; along the , at and Sayan- ; and, along the Zeya, Bureya, an d Kolyma rivers in the Far East (USSR, 1985, pp . 50-51) . Each ha s been responsible for the establishment of high-energy consumptio n

production, particularly aluminum . Yet the overall economi c rationale may be questioned : It may well be that the whole policy of construction o f gigantic Siberian hydroelectric power stations was a fantastically costly mistake, undertaken withou t adequate analysis and in ignorance of the energy crisis which the European USSR began to face from the mid - 1950s onwards (Schiffer, 1989, p . 24) .

Despite controversy within the Soviet Union over th e advisability of hydroelectric projects in Siberia and the Fa r

East, the decade of the 1970s saw further implementation of meg a projects, particularly the Baykal-Amur Mainline (BAM) an d Territorial-Production Complexes (TPC's) . Although they marked a change in Soviet strategies, they were reminiscent of simila r 1 7 tsarist mega projects . In fact, BAM is often referred to as th e second Trans-Siberian .

The 1970s may be referred to as the decade of the mega projects . The epitome of these projects was the construction o f the Baykal-Amur Mainline (BAM ; Fig . 4) (see Shabad and Mote , 1977) . Initially stretching from Ust'-Kut to Komsomol'sk, i t stretched over 2000 miles and was planned to account for on e percent of the total Soviet capital investment for the 1970s , over 40 percent of the total expenditures for Soviet railroad s during the period 1976-80 (Shabad and Mote, 1977, pp . 66-67) . By the time of its completion, it greatly exceeded planned costs . Additional lines linked Ust'Kut to the Trans-Siberian at Taishet , and in the east it was extended to reach the Pacific Ocean a t ' . From Komsomol'sk a line joined it to th e Trans-Siberian at , and a feeder line (Little BAM ) linked with Burkakit in southern Yakutiya .

The rationale for BAM was clearly in keeping with Siberia' s role in the national economy . Economically, BAM was intended t o open new resource regions for exploitation, for both domestic an d foreign markets, and to provide better access to Pacific Asia . Strategically, BAM was intended to provide a more secure rout e for the movement of troops and equipment vis-a-vis China . Bot h economic and strategic considerations, thus, played importan t roles in implementing a mega project, which, like the hydro powe r

1 8 stations, was questionable with respect to economic efficiency .

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

of Territorial Production Complexes (TPC's) (see : de Souza , 1989) . Although not as "concrete" as hydro stations and rai l lines, they represent another kind of approach to Siberia n economic development, at least in commitment . It is not yet clear the extent to which they are rhetoric and/or reality .

According to Kolosovskiy, the father of the TPC concept, an d as quoted in de Souza (1989, p . 89) :

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

This basic definition still holds true with minor additions . It is important to point out that "the complexes are formed t o solve a national economic problem or, ultimately, make possible a future development of the national growth potential" (de Souza , 1989, p . 92) . This definition could be applied to almost any economic region, with two exceptions -- they are comprehensivel y planned, and they are designed to fulfill national, as opposed t o regional or local, needs .

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

1 9 specifically identified : the West Siberian, -, Sayan - Shushenskoye, Bratsk-Ust ' -Ilimsk, and South Yakutian (de Souza , 1989) . An additional eight have been planned for developmen t along the BAM, all of which have apparently been put on hold . With the exception of the West Siberian TPC, all of these ar e based on the production of hydroelectric power for energy - intensive industry . In the Bratsk-Ust ' -Ilimsk TPC, this power i s used for the production of aluminum, timber products and iro n ore ; in the KATEP, for aluminum, metallurgy and machine building ; in the Sayan-Shushenskoye TPC, for aluminum and transportatio n equipment, primarily for BAM; and in South Yakutiya, for coal , primarily for export to Japan . West Siberia, as one woul d expect, relies primarily on thermal power for the production o f oil and gas products, of which it is the Soviet Union's leading producer .

These mega projects notwithstanding, basic approaches towar d the exploitation and development of Siberia and the Far Eas t remain constant . Hydro stations, BAM and TPC's are designe d primarily to attain greater efficiency in the development o f natural resources for use by the national economy . The "push " toward Siberia under Stalin as a result of superindustrializatio n and World War II, and the implementation of mega project s throughout the post-Stalin period, resulted from continuin g competition with the West, the economic growth of various Pacifi c countries, coupled with depletion of resources in the wester n

2 0 regions of the country, and the need to secure the Sovie t presence in Asia during the post-War period .

It is important, however, not to confuse these mega project s with a dramatic shift in national commitment to Siberia n development . Jonathan Schiffer, in his detailed and insightfu l analysis of Soviet economic policy toward Siberia for the period , warns of the pitfalls of confusing rhetoric for reality . Statements of top government officials and inclusion in pla n guidelines do not ensure implementation . In fact, for the post - Stalin period, he shows that Siberia's share in state cooperativ e investments remained relatively stable . Its share accounted fo r a high of 18 percent of total national capital investments during the War years (1941-45), and dropped to a low of 13 .5 percent in the immediate post-War FYP (1946-50) . Its share rebounded t o 15 .6 percent in the next FYP (1951-55), and remained at just ove r 16 percent from then until the mid-1970s (Schiffer, 1989, p . 29) .

2 1 BASIC TRENDS IN SIBERIAN URBANIZATION

IN THE POST-STALIN ERA *

Now that the historical groundwork has been laid, it i s possible to examine the process of urbanization in post-Stali n Siberia, roughly defined as the period from 1959 to 1985 . Thi s discussion builds upon preliminary findings, published by th e author in 1987 . This section is divided into three parts . The first part examines the geographical context for Siberia n urbanization and presents a new regionalization scheme for th e region . The second part discusses basic trends for the urba n settlement system in Siberia from 1959 to 1985 . The third par t examines the evolution of the urban agglomeration, as both a reflection of past policies and a foundation for futur e development strategies .

Geographical contex t

The geographical context for Siberian development i s

* Use of the term "post-Stalin era" instead of "since Stalin " represents a subtle, but important change of terminology . "Post - Stalin" refers to the period dominated by the structure an d policies set by Stalin, which pervaded the Soviet political econom y after his death . With the introduction of dramatic changes b y Gorbachev in the mid-1980s, this period has finally been brought t o a close, and a new period, beginning in 1985, currently referred t o as the era of perestroyka, has replaced it . It is also appropriat e to use 1985 as a date of closure until the results of the 198 9 census are published, at which time 1989 will serve as the year o f closure . A 15-volume census has been promised for the fall o f 1990, which promises great things ; but, only time will tell . 2 2 essential to understanding the nature of urbanization in th e region . Siberia's enduring value to the European core i s geographical, not surprising for a region that encompasses one - tenth of the earth . The pattern of development within Siberia i s

closely correlated with relative location . Proximity to natura l resources, routes of transportation, and the Pacific Basi n defines areas of concentrated growth in the region . As a result , Siberia's primary role continues to be as a resource peripher y and a source of access to the Pacific Basin .

Treasure trove of resources . In value and importance, th e "soft gold" of the has been replaced by the "black gold " of the Commissars . Yet, the treasures of Siberia are diverse an d dispersed, ranging from oil and gas in northern West Siberia t o timber and fish in the southern Soviet Far East . For example , from the Kuzbas in the mid 1980s, the Soviet Union received 8 percent of its steel and 20 percent of its coal ; from Wes t Siberia, it received 65 percent of its oil and 57 percent of it s natural gas ; from Siberia and the Far East, 37 percent of it s sawn materials ; and, from West Siberia, 9 percent of its grai n (Molodenkov, 1987, p . 6) .

In this regard, it is useful to identify several (o f numerous) Siberias, and to characterize briefly their value t o the national economy (Fig . 5) * . In West Siberia, these includ e

* For Figures see page 73 .

2 3 the '- and Kuznetsk-Altay regions ; in East Siberia, th e Noril'sk, Bratsk-Ust'-Ilimsk, Kansk-Achinsk, Pribaykal'ye an d Zabaykal'ye regions ; and, in the Far East, the northern Far Eas t and southern Far East regions . It is not by coincidence tha t several of these have already been identified as TPC's within th e context of Soviet planning strategies .

In West Siberia, the Ob ' -Irtysh region includes ' , and . Key centers in the region include th e cities of , Nizhnevartovsk, and . For the nationa l economy, this region is synonymous with the production of oil an d gas . It also produces additional petroleum products , agricultural and fish products, and has some machine building , primarily for local use .

In southern West Siberia, the Kuznetsk-Altay region include s Altay Kray, and and oblasts . Majo r industrial cities of the region include Novosibirsk, , an d Kemerovo . For the national economy, this region is a majo r supplier of coal . It also produces iron-ore, aluminum , machinery, foodstuffs and timber products .

In the far northern reaches of East Siberia, the regio n around Noril'sk provides valuable ferrous and non-ferrous metals .

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

2 4 The Bratsk-Ust'-Ilimsk region includes an area north o f . Based on hydropower from dams at Bratsk and Ust ' Ilimsk , it produces timber products, iron ore, and aluminum for th e national economy .

The Kansk-Achinsk (KATEP) region includes souther n

Krasnoyarsk . The key industrial city in the region i s Krasnoyarsk . For the national economy, this region is a majo r supplier of coal, iron ore, timber products, and aluminum . I t also produces machines, primarily for local use .

Pribaykal ' ye is basically . It include s hydropower from the Angaro-Usol'ye node . Irkutsk is the dominan t city of the region . For the national economy, this regio n contains important sources of molybdenum, mica, coal, and timber . It also produces machinery and aluminum .

Zabaykal'ye includes Chita and Buryat ASSR's to th e southeast of Lake Baykal . Key cities in the region are Chita an d Ulan-Ude For the national economy, this region produces gold , timber products, and non-ferrous metals .

In the Far East, Yakutiya includes region around and southern Yakutiya, around . For the national economy , it supplies coal, diamonds, and iron ore . It also produce s agricultural products for local consumption .

2 5 In the northern Pacific Far East there are three, relativel y isolated subregions : , Kamchatka and Sakhalin . Each i s

located near an important port facility : Magadan, Petropavlovsk - Kamchatskiy and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk . For the national economy , Magadan is a major source of gold ; Kamchatka supplies coal ; and Sakhalin is beginning to develop its deposits of oil and gas . In addition, each provides access to the Pacific .

The final region includes most of the southern Pacific Fa r

East, to include Khabarovsk and Maritime krays, and . The major cities of the region are primarily ports -- Sovetskay a Gavan', Khabarovsk (inland port), , , as wel l as the region's major industrial center, Komsomol'sk-na-Amure . For the national economy, this region is a major supplier o f fish, timber products, coal, and non-ferrous metals . It als o produces machinery, especially those kinds associated with shi p building and repair . In addition to the natural resources, thes e ports and entrepots provide greater access to the Pacific fo r both economic and military purposes .

Yet, this regionalization scheme does not suggest tha t Siberia and the Far East are fully integrated economic regions o f the Soviet state . On the contrary, the shoul d not be seen as an absolute break with the past . There has bee n as much, if not more, continuity as there has been change . Th e basic nature of the relationship between the Russian core and th e

2 6 Siberian periphery, despite the ideological rhetoric, ha s remained the same . What has changed, however, is the degree to which Siberia can still be referred to as a "frontier . "

Clearly, there are regions within Siberia that can no longe r be called frontiers ; . yet, the basic nature of the relationshi p defines Siberia as a colony of European Russia, USSR . In thi s regard, the term periphery seems more applicable, because i t denotes a political-economic process, whereby Siberia experiences relatively "low incomes, primitive technology, and undiversifie d production ." Thus, if it is misleading to refer to Siberia as a resource frontier, it may be more appropriate to refer to it as a resource periphery .

It is in this regard that we must balance local and regiona l impacts with national and global impacts on Siberian development . It is short-sighted to equate global effects solely to th e proportion of foreign investment in the region, or to th e proportion of Siberian production destined for foreign markets . Rather, it is necessary to realize that much of the domestic demand for Siberian products results from Soviet integration i n the world economy, ie ., what appears to be domestic demands fo r development, in part or whole, may, in fact, be global . This i s why the potential impacts of perestroyka present such a n interesting set of possible scenarios for the future course o f Siberian development .

2 7 Access to Pacific Asia : the economic dimension . Fo r centuries, tsars and commissars have had an appreciation for th e benefits to be gained from integration into the world economy . Siberia has always played a key role in this integration . In th e 16th century, Russia supplied furs to the capitals of Europe ; later, silver and gold were important exports ; these wer e replaced in importance in the 20th century by energy an d industrial resources for world markets .

During the 1960s and 1970s, the complementary relationshi p between resource-rich, technologically-poor Siberia and resource - poor, technologically-rich Japan served as an example of th e potential for direct interaction between the eastern regions o f the Soviet Union and the developed and developing countries o f the Pacific Rim . For a variety of reasons, Soviet-Japanes e relations never lived up to their the potential . Within th e context of new economic programs, this potential may becom e unlimited .

Currently, however, the nature of limited Soviet-Japanes e trade provides only glimpses of the possibilities . Soviet imports from Japan are dominated by manufactured goods and hig h technology, especially machinery and equipment, rolled steel an d pipes . Soviet exports to Japan are dominated by natura l resources, especially timber, coal, petroleum and petroleu m products . Yet, total Soviet-Japanese trade accounts for les s

2 8 than three percent of the total Soviet trade turnover, and onl y two percent of the total Japanese trade turnover (Vneshniye , 1988, pp . 9-14 ; Ogawa, 1987, p . 159) .

This scenario applies to Soviet trade relations with th e other capitalist countries of Pacific Asia as well . Total trade with Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippine s combined represents less than one percent of total Soviet trad e turnover (Vneshniye, 1988, pp . 9-14) . This does not includ e trade with South , which approached $US 280 million in 198 8 (Lho, 1989, p . 1162) and the possibility of trade with Taiwan , with whom trade relations, according to Gorbachev's Vladivosto k speech, will now be possible . When we combine Soviet trade wit h all capitalist countries of the Pacific Rim, to include Japan , Canada, the , Australia and New Zealand, the tota l still represents less than five percent of Soviet trade turnove r (Vneshniye, 1988, pp . 9-14) . The bases for increased trade an d economic relations are set .

Access to Pacific Asia : the strategic dimension . The distinction between the economic and strategic dimensions o f

Soviet access to the Pacific is somewhat artificial . Because one of the functions of the modern nation-state is to secure and protect national economic interests throughout the world , economic and strategic factors are closely interrelated . In capitalist countries, this interrelatedness is referred to as th e

2 9 military-industrial complex, implying interaction between th e government and private companies, most importantly multi - nationals, in domestic and international affairs . In the Sovie t case, where the state controls both components of the military - industrial complex, the distinctions are even more obscure . Th e primary rationale for a Soviet presence in Siberia and the Fa r East is economic . The military, as one means of enforcin g government policy, is there basically to protect its economi c interests -- to defend borders, to secure transport routes into and out of the region, and to encourage and support friendly, o r at least neutral, buffer states on its periphery .

The nature of the Soviet military presence in Siberia an d the Far East changed dramatically during the Brezhnev years . Th e period immediately following the War and through the Khrushche v years saw Soviet strategic concerns directed primarily towar d Eastern Europe and the West . Several events in the 1960s changed that . Of importance were the Sino-Soviet conflict and borde r clashes in the Far East, greater independence and the economi c resurgence of Japan, and increasing American influence and involvement in the region . As a result, the strategic importanc e of the Soviet gateway to the Pacific received greater attentio n in Moscow, resulting in substantial increases in the Sovie t military presence .

This increased military presence manifested itself in a

3 0 buildup of troops, ships and missiles . Soviet troops in the eastern regions (including and ) increase d from 10 to 52 divisions (one-fourth of all Soviet divisions) , approaching half a million troops (Swearingen, 1987, p . 250) . Of these, 41 divisions were stationed in Siberia and the Fa r

East . The , which was practically non-existen t until the 1960s, was built up to become the largest of the fou r Soviet fleets, accounting for approximately one-third of al l Soviet warships . Port facilities along the coast were expande d

to handle the increases . One-fourth of the Soviet Air Force wa s deployed to the Far East . And, finally, 170 SS-20 missil e

launchers were deployed . These complemented the ICBM's and MRBM' s already in the region (Swearingen, 1987, p . 251) .

The expansion of military preparedness in the regio n required investments from the military budget to handle th e increased presence . These investments benefit economic as wel l as strategic functions . Most notable were the port facilities , especially Nakhodka, Vostochnyy, Vladivostok, Sovetskaya-Gavan' , and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, all of which, in addition to being naval ports, are also important commercial ports .

Expanded facilities not only enabled the Far East to support a greatly-increased naval presence, but also to expand it s commercial capabilities as well .

Clearly, Soviet policy over the last 30 years has been

3 1 intended to secure its claims on these eastern territories, no t only as part of the Soviet state, but also as a region of acces s to the Pacific . A message has been sent that the Soviet Unio n is, in fact, a Pacific power . This is not to suggest that al l Pacific issues have been settled simply by show of militar y force . Disputes still persist with China over the Amur region , and with Japan over the Kurile islands . It does suggest , however, that the Soviet state is willing to protect it s interests in the region and to secure Siberia and the Far East a s a periphery of the USSR .

Siberian urbanization, 1959-1985 *

The highly-centralized decision-making process, and th e national economic policies it has set, has produced a highly - urbanized, highly-concentrated, resource-oriented pattern o f human activities . This pattern, as we have seen, is based primarily on resource extraction and transportation -- river an d ocean ports and along rail lines . Nowhere is this more apparen t than in the settlement system, which continues to serve as th e lifeline for Siberian development .

By 1985, Siberia and the Far East were the most highly - urbanized regions of the country, with over 70 percent of th e

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

3 2

population living in cities or urban-type settlements . * Of th e 208 cities of the Siberian and Far Eastern settlement system , Novosibirsk and Omsk had populations in excess of one million ;

seven more -- Barnaul, Kemerovo, , Krasnoyarsk , Irkutsk, Khabarovsk and Vladivostok -- had populations over hal f

a million ; and, 29 cities had populations between 100,000 and 500,000 .

From 1959 to 1985, relative growth for Siberia parallele d growth for the country as a whole -- 35 to 32 percent for overal l population increases, and 78 to 80 percent for urban increases ,

respectively . This healthy relative growth for Siberia accounte d for an increase in urban population of 7 .9 million . Thi s compares to an urban increase in European Russia of 32 .5 million . By 1985, over 70 percent of all Siberians (22 of 30 million ) lived in urban places .

At the interregional level, the growth in Pacific Siberia , the term used to describe the eastward-oriented regions of Eas t Siberia and the Far East, compared favorably with European - oriented West Siberia . In both cases, the greatest growt h

occurred after 1970 . The larger proportion in Pacific Siberi a can be related to the emphasis on the BAM zone, Pacific ports ,

and increased interaction with Japan and the Pacific Basin ,

* The data for the following analyses is provided i n Appendices 1 and 2, which provide citations of the sources . 3 3 conditions which have since diminished in importance . Th e increase in West Siberia can be related to resource extraction , primarily oil and gas .

Several high growth regions emerged in Siberia . Two region s added over one million urbanites between 1959 and 1985 : Tyumen '

Oblast in West Siberia and Krasnoyarsk Oblast in East Siberia , where Irkutsk Oblast was close with an urban increase of 96 1 thousand . Although no administrative region of the Far Eas t increased by one million, Primorskiy Kray showed a very healthy absolute increase of 736 thousand . The Far East had particularl y high growth in the period 1970-85, especially 1970-75, because o f increased Japanese relations . East Siberia also showed a very high relative increase for 1959-70 and during the early 1970 s because of coal mining and development of the Bratsk industria l complex .

Tyumen' Oblast also had the largest relative growth as well , with an increase of 429 percent . Several other Siberian region s also showed high relative increases in urban population . Omsk i n West Siberia was the next largest with a relative increase of 90 percent . Five others had relative increases of more than 10 0 percent, ie ., they doubled their populations during the perio d 1959-85 . These were Buryat and ASSR's in East Siberia, an d

in the Far East, the Yakut ASSR and Magadan and Kamchatk a oblasts . Only two Siberian regions had urban increases of les s

3 4 than 50 percent . in West Siberian and Sakhali n Oblast in the Far East both suffered from the adverse effects o f a stagnant coal industry .

The above administrative regions led the way in the increas e in urban growth in Siberia . The urba n population showed

impressive gains in its share of the total population . By 1985 , Tuva ASSR in East Siberia was the only oblast-level region wit h less than half its population (45 percent) living in cities . I n only one other region, Altay Kray (55 percent urban), is th e population less than 60 percent urban .

Except for the Buryat ASSR and Chita and Tyumen' oblasts , all administrative regions of West and East Siberia showed highe r rates of growth for before 1970 than after . Regions of the Fa r East were more varied . The trend toward slower growth rate s after 1970 reflects an overall slowdown in population growth fo r the USSR as a whole after 1970 .

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the basic structure of th e

Siberian settlement system for the years 1959 and 1985 . Fo r individual cities, between 1959 and 1985, 21 cities increase d their populations by 100 thousand or more . These 21 citie s accounted for an increase in urban population of 5 .4 million, o r 56 percent of the total urban increase for Siberia .

3 5

Fifteen multi-functional, administrative centers dominate d the list : Novosibirsk, Omsk, Barnaul, Kemerovo, Tomsk an d Tyumen' in West Siberia ; Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Chita and Ulan-Ud e in East Siberia ; and Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Petropavlovsk - Kamchatskiy, and Yakutsk in the Far East, are al l capitals of their respective ASSR, oblast or kray . Only thre e Siberian capitals did not increase their populations by 100,000 . These were (Tuva ASSR), Magadan (), an d Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk () . Both Magadan and Yuzhno - Sakhalinsk had healthy increases of 80 and 72 thousan d respectively . Kyzyl, although increasing in population by onl y 41 thousand, had a relative increase of 120 percent . Its lo w absolute growth reflects its small initial population rather tha n urban stagnation .

These fifteen high-growth administrative centers ar e representative of Siberian growth . According to Gokhman , their predominant development has led to "monocentrism" in th e evolution of the Siberian urban settlement system . It is i n these centers that service establishments, higher-educational an d research institutes, and government and economic institution s have been concentrated, adding to their attractiveness for futur e investment and development (Gokhman, p . 262) . The si x

remaining cities that increased by more than 100,000 develope d around mining and industrial enterprises, more characteristic o f the "company town" approach to development . In West Siberia, th e

3 6

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

category, as does the coal mining center of Novokuznetsk . Th e two industrial centers of Bratsk and in East Siberia ow e

their growth to the development of hydroelectric power .

High growth cities in the Far East are closely related t o the continuing Russian and Soviet objective to find outlets t o the sea (Dergachev, 1986, pp . 143-57) . These cities include th e

port cities of Vladivostok and Petrapavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, as wel l as the inland entrepots of Khabarovsk, Komsomol'sk , Blagoveshchensk, and Yakutsk, which is the gateway to th e resource potential of Yakutiya . The growth of these cities i s greatly dependent on Soviet interaction with countries of th e

Pacific Basin, although this interaction affects citie s throughout all Siberia .

Several Siberian cities have benefited from the introductio n

of Japanese technology since 1959 (Mathieson, 1098, pp . 491-500) . Barnaul, Kemerovo, Tomsk and Tyumen' in West Siberia, receive d

new industrial complexes from joint Soviet-Japanese ventures . Krasnoyarsk, Angarsk and Bratsk in East Siberia, and Khabarovs k and Komsomol'sk in the Far East also benefited from join t industrial projects . This technology transfer may help explai n

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

few traditionally coal-dependent cities that grew rapidly . I n other cases, however, industry seemed to be attracted to place s

3 7 that had already reached a positive agglomeration of economie s and so were the result of a previous population and industria l concentration rather than its cause .

The largest Siberian cities followed the same general trend in average annual growth rate as urban growth in the Soviet Unio n in general . For both West and East Siberia growth rates wer e greater before 1970 with the exception of Nizhnevartovsk, a post - 1970 new town . Large cities in the Far East exhibited mor e variation in their growth rates . Yet, overall rates of growt h for large Siberian cities dropped after 1970 .

Increasingly, the growth of Siberia has been concentrate d not just in cities, but in larger cities, a pattern that is in keeping with urban trends for the USSR as a whole . In Siberia , the number of large cities, those with populations of at leas t 100,000, increased from 24 to 37, their population from 5 .8 t o 12 .4 million, and their share of the total urban population o f Siberia from 47 to 57 percent . These data underscore th e increasing concentration of Siberian urban dwellers in larg e cities . The 66 cities with 1985 populations over 50 thousan d accounted for an increase of 8 .0 million, or 82 percent of th e total urban increase . This is from a total of 872 urba n settlements -- 208 cities and 664 urban-type settlements .

Thus, the evolution of the urban settlement system i n

3 8 Siberia is geographically restricted and highly concentrated , which is also characteristic for the Soviet Union as a whole , although not quite to this extreme . Clearly, the skeleton fo r further growth and development of the urban network in Siberia i s concentrated in large urban centers located in potential growt h areas .

The highly concentrated, localized nature of development ha s resulted in a lack of government investment in infrastructure , which has produced substandard living conditions . This has made it difficult to retain labor in the region . There have been various schemes to entice laborers, but they many times entai l benefits to be obtained back in the western regions of th e country . Soviet sociologists, themselves, have pointed out tha t the factor considered most important by Siberians deciding t o return to the west is inadequate housing (Zaslavskaya et al . , 1989) .

This is, however, not to say that many are not staying ; many are . By the time of Gorbachev's ascension to power, there wer e nearly 28 million people in Siberia, of which over nearly 2 0 million (71 percent) lived in Siberian cities (Nar khoz, 1984 , pp . 14-16) . In addition to building an increasingly large urba n society in Siberia, these trends have also helped to solidif y

Russian control of the region . From the very beginning there wa s a great deal of cultural assimilation between indigenous people s

3 9 and the Russian overlords . This has continued to the present . Today, ethnic dominate the population of Siberia , especially in the cities . Currently, ethnic Russians alon e comprise nearly 85 percent of the population (Ekonomicheskaya , 1989, pp . 115, 127 and 136) .

Yet, the restricted and concentrated nature of urban growth , dominated by ethnic Russians, is not singular to the Sovie t period . One characteristic has been evident throughout th e conquest and consolidation of Siberia into the Russian and Sovie t states -- the importance of cities as the key conduits fo r exploitation and development . From the initial ostrogi founde d by the Cossacks grew the towns and cities of tsarist Siberia an d the major urban centers of Soviet Siberia . It is striking tha t of the twenty-one Siberian cities with populations of more tha n 100,000, fourteen, or two-thirds, were founded prior to th e Revolution . Their geographical and historical advantages hav e endured to the present . In fact, the urban network established during the early centuries of tsarist rule has provided the bas e for Siberian development during the Soviet period . And many o f these pre-Soviet cities serve as centers for agglomerations .

Urban agglomerations in Siberia It is essential at the outset to clearly define exactly wha t is meant by the term "urban agglomeration" in the Siberia n context . It does not carry with it all of the functiona l

4 0 implications we associate with urban agglomerations in th e Western context . This is primarily due to a lack of data abou t political, economic and social interaction . Yet, this stud y

suggests that the urban agglomeration serves as a usefu l statistical artifact, providing the closest construct , theoretically, to a MSA, and carries with it certain connotation s about development for the region . If, as this study suggests , future growth will continue to be highly concentrated an d restricted, it will be concentrated for the most part in urba n agglomerations, areas with the most highly—developed infrastructures in Siberia .

One weakness of most demographic studies of the Soviet Unio n stems from the use of urban population data as provided by th e Soviets, ie ., only for the administrative city . There is n o parallel to a functional city, such as an MSA in the Unite d States . As a result, analyses of urbanization trends in th e Soviet Union, by Soviet and Western scholars alike, are based o n individual cities, thus, in some cases, misrepresenting the leve l of urban concentration that is taking place . Although incomplet e to the present, the structure for accumulating data for urba n agglomerations, as provided in this study for Siberia, is a positive step in the right direction .

For the purposes of this study, an urban agglomeration i s simply a demographic entity, based solely on population . Ther e

4 1 is some variation by Soviet scholars on the exact parameters, bu t agreement on the basic components is widespread (see Lappo, 1978 , and Pertsik, 1980) . For this study, the population levels ar e not as important as the fact that they indicate a certain degre e of concentration . For an entire region, like Siberia, with a total population of 30 million, and an urban population of jus t 22 million, a city of 100,000 represents a significant level o f concentration . In all, only 37 Siberian cities had population s in excess of 100,000 in 1985 .

Thus, this study defines the core of the urban agglomeratio n as a central city of at least 100,000 . For a threshold, th e urban agglomeration includes all urban settlements within 12 0 kilometers from the central city . Where two or three cities o f 100,000 are within 120 kilometers of each other, we include al l urban settlements within 120 kilometers of any of the centra l cities .

For simplification, the number of multiple-cor e agglomerations was kept to a minimum . In fact, Novokuznetsk - Kemerovo remains the only multiple-core agglomeration in th e study . In all other cases, a single, dominant core emerged an d other cities of 100,000 were considered as satellite citie s within the agglomeration . For example, the Krasnoyarsk urba n agglomeration includes two cities, Kansk and Achinsk, wit h populations in excess of 100,000 . Yet, Krasnoyarsk is clearl y

4 2 the central city with a population of 872,000 . In such cases , the threshold extends 120 kilometers from all three of thes e cities .

Unfortunately for purposes of this project, most of the cities, not to mention urban-type settlements, have population s of less than 50,000 and, thus, data are not published for them . This includes 87 of the 112 cities within the urba n

agglomerations . Yet, this does not diminish the utility of th e urban agglomeration because the greatest proportion of the urba n population resides in cities of over 50,000 . Thus, basic trend s for the larger cities of the region are not only reflective o f trends for cities as a whole, but are understatements of thes e trends .

Based on this definition, this study identifies 24 urba n agglomerations in Siberia (Fig . 8) : nine in West Siberia, seven

in East Siberia, and seven in the Soviet Far East . For several , data are available only for the central city . These includ e Omsk, Tyumen', Nizhnevartovsk, Chita, Ulan-Ude, , Khabarovsk, Yakutsk, Magadan, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy an d

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk . Although a number of these are probably onl y demographic agglomerations, their inclusion is a reflection o f population concentration, which in turn, is a reflection of thei r past importance and future potential for the development of th e region .

43 It should not be surprising that it is possible, and useful , to discuss the 24 Siberian urban agglomerations within th e regionalization scheme previously presented in this section . Thus, in the Ob'-Irtysh region, we find the Tyumen', Omsk, Tomsk , Surgut and Nizhnevartovsk urban agglomerations . In the Kuznetsk - Altay region, we find the Novosibirsk, Barnaul and Novokuznetsk - Kemerovo agglomerations . The Noril'sk region includes th e agglomeration of the same name, while Bratsk-Ust'-Ilimsk include s Bratsk . The Kansk-Achinsk region is dominated by the Krasnoyars k agglomeration . The Pribaykal'ye is dominated by the Irkuts k agglomeration, while Zabaykal'ye includes the Chita and Ulan-Ud e agglomerations, and Yakutiya is dominated by Yakutsk . Th e northern Pacific Far East region finds three isolate d agglomerations : Magadan, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy and Yuzhno -

Sakhalinsk . The southern Pacific Far East region includes four : Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Komsomol'sk-na-Amure and Blagoveshchensk . Only the and agglomerations d o not fit into any of the regions, although a stretch of one' s geographical imagination allows us to tie both Rubtsovsk an d Abakan to the Kuznetsk-Altay region .

Because 1985 data are available only for cities of 50,000 , the primary analysis includes the 66 Siberian cities for whic h data are published, as representative of Siberian cities as a whole . In fact, although they represent only 32 percent o f Siberia's 208 cities, they account for 66 percent of the urba n

4 4 population . These 66 cities are comprised of 26 from Wes t

Siberia, and 20 each from East Siberia and the Soviet Far East . Of these, nine are "new cities," ie ., built after 1959 . Thes e include Nefteyugansk, Nizhnevartovsk, Novyy Urengoy and Noyab'rs k in West Siberia ; Ust'-Ilimsk and Krasnokamensk in East Siberia ; and, Neryungri, and in the Soviet Far East . Except for these nine, data are available for the remaining 57 citie s for both 1959 and 1985 .

The relative paucity of new cities is indicative of trend s for the Soviet Union as a whole . For the most part, dominan t cities are pre-Soviet, benefitting from an historical advantage . Fourteen of the 25 central cities are tsarist in origin . Many o f the dominant Soviet-period cities were built during the Stali n period, especially in the 1930s . Of the eleven new Soviet citie s that are currently central cities of Siberian agglomerations, six were founded during the 1930s or before .

The growth of the 24 Siberian urban agglomerations in th e post-Stalin era parallels growth trends, as previously discussed , for urban Siberia as a whole . This is not surprising given tha t

52 of Siberia's 66 cities with populations of at least 50,000 , including all cities of 100,000, are within urban agglomerations . These 52 cities account for 62 percent of the total urba n population of Siberia's 208 cities and 684 urban-typ e settlements .

4 5 In fact, growth rates for the urban agglomerations slightl y exceeded growth rates for Siberia as a whole and the nationa l average as well . For the 52 agglomeration cities, there was a

total increase in population of 6 .2 million (83 percent) , compared to regional and national increases of 78 and 80 percen t respectively . Growth rates varied between regions -- the furthe r west, the higher the absolute growth ; the further east, th e higher the relative growth . The West Siberian agglomeration s

increased their populations by nearly three million, or 7 2 percent ; while East Siberian agglomerations increased by 1 . 8 million, or 94 percent ; and the Far East agglomerations added 1 . 5 million, which nearly doubled its urban population . Overall, w e detect healthy growth for the agglomerations in both absolute an d relative terms .

Although specific numbers are not available, it is possibl e to identify three major sources for this growth . The first contributor is the inter-regional migration of labor from th e European regions of the country, either as a result of debts owe d society, for education for example, or as a result of incentives . These tend to be short-term migrants ; however, a proportio n

remain in Siberia permanently (see discussion above, an d Zaslavskaya, 1989) . A second contributor is rural to urba n migration, which tends to be attracted by increasing numbers o f semi-skilled and unskilled jobs as the urban infrastructur e diversifies . A third contributor is the migration of people fro m

46 smaller urban to larger urban places . Again, data are lacking ; yet, there are some indications of this trend in the dat a

available for the Siberian agglomerations . When we divide th e urban agglomerations into central cities and satellite cities , several interesting trends are revealed in this respect .

All 25 central cities showed healthy positive growth betwee n 1959 and 1985 . Together they showed an increase in population o f just over 5 .2 million (5 .5 to 10 .7 million), or 95 percent, whic h

is substantially higher than the relative urban increase fo r Siberia (78 percent) or the Soviet Union as a whole (80 percent) .

These 25 central cities alone accounted for 54 percent of th e total increase in urban population for Siberia between 1959 an d 1985 .

Novosibirsk, Omsk and Krasnoyarsk together accounted for a n increase of 1 .5 million, or 15 percent of Siberia's urban growth . Seventeen of the remaining 22 central cities had increases o f over 100 thousand . The central cities of those agglomeration s associated most closely with energy resource extraction , transportation links and access to the Pacific Basin fared quit e well during this period .

There was much greater diversity for the 27 satellite citie s for which we have data for both years . Total growth for thes e cities was 958 thousand (1,995 to 2,953), an increase of 4 8

4 7 percent, which further supports the contention that most of th e

growth was concentrated in the central cities . Of these 2 7 cities, five actually showed decreases in population . Thes e

included Prokopev'sk, Kiselevsk and , Anzhero-Sudzhens k and . In addition, there were 10 satellite citie s with populations in the upper 20s to mid-30s in 1959 that had no t reached 50,000 by 1985 .

What we are witnessing is exactly the opposite of th e phenomenon experienced by US metropolitan areas in the 1970s an d 1980s, now referred to as suburbanization . Metropolitan areas experienced healthy growth at the same time that central citie s were declining in population . In the Soviet Union in general , and Siberia in particular, the growth of the central cities wa s the prime contributor to the growth of the agglomerations . Limited supplies of goods and services, better housing and othe r amenities continue to produce a situation in which large urba n centers are the most attractive alternatives for a larg e proportion of the Soviet populace . One of the key challenges facing economic restructuring is the difficulties of distributin g goods and services more equally throughout the settlement syste m to relieve the pressure on the largest cities and to make th e satellite cities an attractive alternative to "life in the bi g city . "

These data suggest that investment priorities from Europea n

4 8 Russia and growth trends for Siberia during the past thre e decades have followed the precedent set in tsarist times, namely , highly selective in approach . They also suggest that th e rationale for this strategy is closely tied to Siberia's role a s a resource periphery and region of access to the Pacific, an d

that the framework for this strategy continues to be the majo r urban centers of the settlement system, the central cities of the urban agglomerations . The basic relationship continues to b e

core-periphery and the growth of the urban agglomeration s reflects the nature of this relationship as well as promotes it . These data also highlight where we should look to understan d future developments in the region . As yet underdeveloped, th e settlement system does provide the structure for futur e development whatever form it may take . The first indications o f change, if there are to be any, will come from the urba n settlement system and these 24 urban agglomerations .

4 9 POTENTIAL IMPACT OF

ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURIN G

Any discussion of the political economy of the Soviet Unio n today must examine the potential impact of economic restructurin g

-- perestroyka . Although many of the particulars have not ye t been spelled out, "elements of the reforms can be piece d together" (see Gill, 1987, pp . 19-37) . Economic restructurin g ala Gorbachev seeks to do nothing less than radically reform th e entire Soviet economy . As embodied in the directives of the 12t h FYP (1986-90) and numerous pieces of legislation (see Schroeder , 1989), perestroyka might be referred to as the "third grea t economic reform in all Soviet history," an appellation originall y given, and subsequently withdrawn from, the Brezhnev reforms o f 1965 (Schroeder, 1989, p . 305) . Only time will tell if thi s characterization will hold .

Much has been written about perestroyka, that need not be repeated here . For the purposes of this project, several of it s components have implications for the future course of Siberia n development ("Guidelines") . The key for economic development i n the immediate future is modernization of existing facilities a s opposed to construction of new ones . Of greatest importance wil l be improvements in the machine-building sector of the economy .

Decentralization of decision making and greater local autonomy i s another change in direction . Imports are identified as a too l

5 0 for stimulating modernization and economic growth . And specia l emphasis is given the upgrading of the fuel and energy comple x and agricultural sectors of the economy . This, and much more, i s all to be accomplished within the framework of a "socialis t

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

For Siberia, the impact of perestroyka, which emphasizes intensification and efficiency, promises to have spatia l ramifications (see Bond, 1987) . Economic restructuring does no t necessarily represent a "turning away" from Siberia and the Fa r

East in favor of increased investment in the European regions o f the country, as some have suggested (see Bond, 1987, and Shabad , 1989) . Apparently, grandiose schemes for development, in th e tradition of the mega projects of the 1970s, will be missing . For the time being, further development of TPC's along the BA M and water diversion schemes, for example, have been put on hold . It is not clear, however, that perestroyka will change the basi c nature of the Siberia's role in the national economy as th e Soviet Union approaches the 21st century .

The first question that needs to be answered is whether th e policies and changes embodied in perestroyka are going to b e implemented ; and if so, when, and in what form . The entir e discussion of the impacts of restructuring on resourc e development in Siberia is predicated on the assumption tha t Gorbachev will succeed and that he will be to dramaticall y

5 1 reform the entire Soviet economy . More likely, changes in th e economy will be the result of compromise -- major changes, bu t not to the extent currently envisioned by Gorbachev and th e architects of perestroyka . Even the architects themselves ar e not quite sure where this is leading : So now we have something new : the perestroyka of 1985 . Why should we think that this one will be irreversible , that the changes will be long-term, that this refor m will not share the fate of all the preceding ones ? This is a very serious question : we might even sa y that it is the absolute crux of the matter .. . It is th e question we must answer (Aganbegyan, 1989, p . 110) .

Yet, given the momentum for change produced by Gorbachev' s first five years in power, some kind of change is inevitable .

The Soviet economy is embarking on a path toward reform -- t o some, change is proceeding too slowly; to others, too rapidly . Whatever changes occur will affect Siberia and the Far East , producing both continuity and change in the basic nature of th e relationship between the periphery and the European core .

Siberia's role in perestroyk a Our short and long-term plans are linked, to a considerable degree, with the tapping of the natura l wealth of Siberia and the Soviet Far East ("Strategi c course," p . 107) .

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

Congress ("Strategic course," 1987), and two while on a visit t o the Far East ("Text," 1987, and "Major overhaul," 1987) , Gorbachev made it clear that Siberia's role in the Soviet econom y 5 2 would continue to be primarily the role of a resource peripher y to the European Russian core . In this respect, its rol e continues to be three-fold . First, Siberia will be a supplier o f

certain resources to domestic markets to help stimulate th e economic development of western regions of the country . Second , it will be a supplier of resources to foreign markets to ear n hard currency, gain technology, and promote the integration o f

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

related to the latter, Siberia and the Far East will continue t o provide the Soviet state with access to Pacific Asia .

The primary role of Siberia and the Far East is to provid e the national economy with natural resources . In this role, it i s geografiyainteresting to note that the recent Ekonomicheskaya SSSR provides a regionalization scheme based first and foremos t on the contribution of the region to the "all-union o f labor ." For domestic markets, West Siberia will continue to be a major supplier of oil and gas, coal and iron ore . Modernizin g the "fuel and energy complex" is a major goal of the 12th FYP , and Urengoy oil and gas, and Kuzbas coal are specificall y mentioned ("Guidelines," pp . 170, 177) . East Siberia wil l continue to be a major supplier of metals, primarily nickel , cobalt, lead, zinc and copper, in addition to aluminum and coal .

The Far East will continue to provide domestic markets with fish , timber and precious metals, especially gold, silver and diamonds .

5 3 In addition to supplying domestic markets, Siberia n resources will help the national economy accrue the hard currenc y needed to trade in the world economy . In the immediate future , integration in the world economy becomes even more importan t under perestroyka . Foreign Minister Shevardnadze has made i t clear that integration into the world economy is a necessar y component of restructuring : 'In reality,' he [Shevardnadze] has said, 'the divisio n into socialist and capitalist systems of economics , with all the extremely perceptible limitations for us , in no way signifies the absence of mutual penetration . We were drawn into the world economic process lon g ago . . . We should be part of the world economic syste m and we can and are obliged to become so .. .' (as quoted in Aganbegyan and Timofeyev, 1988) .

This attitude is in keeping with the 12th FYP Guidelines , wherein the Soviet " .. . import policy is called upon to actuall y help accelerate scientific and technological progress " ("Guidelines," p . 192), ie ., to help obtain manufactured goods , technology and hard currency . In exchange, the Soviet Union ha s natural resources to offer hard-currency countries . A larg e proportion of these resources are produced in Siberia and the Fa r East . Several of these resources already dominate Soviet export s abroad . Currently, petroleum and petroleum products account fo r 29 .4 percent of all Soviet exports ; natural gas for 8 .8 percent ; ferrous metals for 4 .5 percent ; and, timber products for 3 . 6 percent . These four categories alone comprise almost half of al l exports from the Soviet Union (Vneshniye, 1989, pp . 20-31) . These are, of course, the very categories of resources Siberi a 5 4 supplies domestic markets . It appears, then, that Siberia wil l also continue to play a role in Soviet attempts to use foreig n trade as a stimulus for perestroyka .

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

trade, it also provides direct access to Pacific Asia, a regio n that may become a major supplier of imports to assist "scientifi c and technological progress" : Given the dynamics of the international economy, th e Soviet Union's position in relation to the countries o f the Asia-Pacific region may be the most promisin g source of stimulus for change (Matuszewski, 1989,p . 6) .

The economic potential of relations between Siberia and th e

countries of the Pacific Rim, which has been an importan t consideration in Russian and Soviet foreign policy for centuries , could take on even greater significance as a result o f perestroyka . Gorbachev himself has clearly indicated th e importance of the Asia-Pacific region to his proposals fo r economic change . The real significance of his 1986 Vladivostok

speech, some have suggested, concerned : . . . his expressed fears about maintaining Sovie t economic competitiveness, his perception of th e commercial and technological dynamism of the Asia - Pacific region, and his clearly articulated intentio n to expand Soviet trade and access to advance d technology in order to stimulate innovation in th e sluggish Soviet economy (Matuszewski, 1989, p . 10) .

Yet, increased Soviet involvement carries with it strategi c as well as economic ramifications . It is important to remembe r 55 that the two are interrelated . The Soviets have identified tha t

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

perestroyka . This is particularly applicable to the Pacific

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

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

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

1987, p . 2) .

Soviet policies directed at Pacific Asia are threefol d

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

increased bilateral relations with all countries of the Pacific

Basin . Second, he identifies the need to settle regiona l disputes to insure peace and security, specifically conflicts i n

Afghanistan, Korea, and Kampuchea . And, he proposes to scal e down Soviet military presence in the Far East . Th e

implementation of these policies would allow the Sovie t

leadership to secure its eastern frontier, to free up resources from the military, and to gain access to the capital an d technology of the region, all of which would greatly facilitat e economic growth and development .

In this regard, Siberia stands ready to continue in its rol e as provider of resources for international trade, particularl y with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, and as the bridg e between the Soviet Union and East Asia . Yet, within this contex t of continuity we may be able to discern possible changes in th e

5 6 nature of the relationship .

Potential impact of perestroyka on Siberi a It is not difficult to figure out Siberia's role, a s perceived and planned from the core, in the Soviet economy int o the 21st century . It is far more difficult to predict, i n return, what kinds of effects perestroyka will have on th e development of Siberia . To a great extent, uncertainty about th e future course of Siberian development results from the fact tha t no one knows which policies of the overall program will actuall y be implemented . As a result, one can posit a number o f alternative scenarios .

The most obvious, and most cynical, prediction is tha t perestroyka will have little effect on the basic nature o f Siberia's relationship with the core . Certainly, recent polic y statements and guidelines suggest that the core perceives th e relationship the same way it has for decades . The actua l contributions of the region may change, and certain sectors o f the Siberian economy and particular areas within the region ma y benefit . But, these sectors and areas are those that hav e historically received most attention from Europe . In addition , there is widespread belief that the enthusiasm of Pacific Ri m countries, especially Japan, for developing Siberian resource s has waned and will not increase in the near future (Dienes ,

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

5 7 to be limited, concentrated and highly dependent on the core , based primarily on the exploitation of natural resources an d transportation linkages .

If some, or all, of Gorbachev's policies are eventually implemented, the scenario could be quite different ; not that th e perception of Siberia's role will change . Rather, several of th e policies embodied in perestroyka may help to stimulate a mor e comprehensive development . One can only imagine the effects o f greatly increasing local autonomy in economic decision making, o r allowing true competition between enterprises, based on a relatively free-market system, or individual or cooperativ e leasing of land . In addition to their impact on domesti c affairs, these kinds of innovation in the Soviet economy could also act as stimuli to increasing the level of joint venture s with foreign corporations through free economic zones for foreig n trade . Under some or all of these conditions, Siberia' s development takes a very different course . We might actuall y envision a situation wherein the rhetoric stays the same, but th e reality changes .

Regionally, the future impacts of perestroyka would firs t effect the Far East and West Siberia, primarily because they hav e the best-developed infrastructure and the necessary kinds o f resources, both natural and locational . Here again, these woul d probably be in the southern reaches of the regions . East Siberi a

5 8 would lag behind, but not to be forgotten .

The kinds of goods exploited would remain the same ; th e perception of Siberia's role, from the point of view of the core , would remain the same . What would change would be the economi c effects of their exploitation . In other words, under a situatio n of competition and free-market trading, a much greater proportio n of the surplus value would remain locally . Basic industrie s would actually be used to build a surplus in the region, whic h could then be used to invest in infrastructure and other kinds o f consumer-oriented activities . Three levels of economi c interaction can be identified (see Gill, 1987, p . 39) .

At the national/international level, several products ar e attractive to domestic and foreign markets ; these would be th e basic industries, designed to produce wealth . Of primar y importance are the fuel and energy resources, especiall y petroleum and natural gas from West Siberia, and coal from Eas t Siberia . Furs still play a role, as do precious metals . Ferrou s and non-ferrous metals could be used to stimulate the economie s of East Siberia and northern Far East . And, the Soviet Far Eas t will continue to be major exporter of timber, fish and fis h products .

In addition to stimulating the development and modernizatio n of these industries themselves, income derived from the sale o f

5 9 these resources could be used to stimulate the growth of othe r

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

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

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

They include machine building, the construction industry, light

industry, the consumer industry, and agriculture . To becom e

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

others would truly help stimulate economic development in th e

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

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

its new role as a comprehensively-developed economic region .

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

reforms would benefit the major urban centers along the souther n

tier and the resource centers of West Siberia . Specifically, i n

the Far East, the urban agglomerations at Vladivostok, with its port facilities, and at Komsomol'sk, with its industrial base ,

stand to benefit the most . In West Siberia, all urba n

agglomerations in the Ob'-Irtysh and Kuznetsk-Altay regions wil l benefit as a result of their natural resource bases . Majo r

industrial centers in the region, especially Novosibirsk, Barnau l and Kemerovo, may benefit the most . In East Siberia, the urba n agglomerations at Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk, primarily as a resul t of resources, industrial infrastructure and transport links , would be the immediate beneficiaries of economic reform . In th e long term, not only would these urban agglomerations grow an d

6 0 diversify, but increased economic incentives and the accumulatio n

of local surplus would help the remaining agglomerations becom e

increasingly important parts of the regional picture .

Recent events in the Soviet Union have revealed th e possibility, still remote, of yet another alternative scenari o

for Siberia's future . This scenario will result from what w e might refer to as the "Yeltsin factor ." In fact, the Yeltsi n factor suggests a couple of possible scenarios -- one within th e framework of a reformed RSFSR, and one outside that framework ,

ie ., as a separate and independent Siberian, or Far Eastern , republic .

The Yeltsin factor refers to the proposed 500-day refor m program of Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Republi c

(RSFSR) . These reforms, voted in by the parliament of the RSFSR , call for the introduction of a market economy in the Russia n

Republic, and a greater degree of independence from the Sovie t government on political and economic matters . Gorbachev ha s recently agreed to allow the RSFSR to proceed in this direction , which many see as simply an extension of Gorbachev's perestroyka .

Although Gorbachev has been blocked by conservatives fro m implementing the most radical policies of perestroyka, Yeltsi n and the RSFSR have decided to undertake these policies at th e republican level . Not only does this represent an exercise i n radical economic reform, but it also represents an exercise i n

6 1 national independence, in this case for ethnic Russians . Thi s may, in fact, represent a step on the road to a loos e confederation of republics, which many see as the only possibl e solution to the nationalities problem and economic stagnation i n the USSR .

As for Siberia, if implemented, the 500-day reform policie s of Yeltsin will affect the region much as perestroyka would unde r scenario two, ie ., if all of the policies were implemented . Siberia's role would remain the same, only now it would serve a s a periphery to the RSFSR, rather than the USSR .

There is, however, a further extension to this scenario .

The success of Yeltsin in promoting national independence and i n getting Gorbachev to agree to radical reforms for the RSFSR, ma y foretell of a possible independence movement by Siberia, or part s of Siberia, to secede from Russia altogether . Today, such a scenario may seem far-fetched . In today's Soviet Union, however , what seemed far-fetched only months ago, is in the realm o f possibility today . Also, there is historical precedence for suc h a scenario .

One must remember that Siberia is a fairly homogeneou s ethnic region . Over 85 percent of the population is of Russia n descent, while 95 percent is of European descent . Yet, there ar e major differences between Siberian-born Russians and European -

6 2 born Russians, Many Siberian Russian families have been i n

Siberia for generations, and they identify themselves a s Siberians first, Russians second . As a result of their socia l origins, ie ., independent farmers, ostracized religiou s believers, political dissidents, etc ., the Siberian ha s historically been independent in their actions and cynical of th e policies of their European brothers and sisters, policies whic h are often to the detriment of Siberia .

The 19th and 20th centuries have seen manifestations of thi s Siberian psyche . There was a strong independence movement in th e 19th century, fostered by dissidents such as the Decembrists, wh o argued for a Siberian experience to parallel the America n independence movement . In the Soviet period, the 1920s saw a n independent , which actually establishe d diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia . This republic wa s short-lived, as the Soviet state sought to regain all forme r tsarist territories after the Civil War . Yet, the o f independence for at least parts of Siberia has been lit an d reignited . If such a scenario begins to play itself out, it i s most likely that West Siberia, because of its enormous resourc e value to European Russia and because historically it has not bee n involved these independence movements, would remain aligned wit h Russia, and independence would most likely gain support in part s of southern East Siberia and the Far East .

6 3 CONCLUSION : THE CHANGING ROLE O F SIBERIAN URBANIZATIO N

These are uncertain times in Soviet studies . The real an d proposed changes of Mikhail Gorbachev, and more recently Bori s Yeltsin, call into question the future course of Siberia n development and the nature of the relationship between Siberi a and the European core . For the near future, Siberia's rol e within the Soviet national economy will remain the same as it ha s been for this century and for over two centuries before it . The potential, given the region's natural wealth, relative location , and Gorbachev's proposed initiatives for change, is unlimited . The only question, and one that has been asked and lef t unanswered for decades, is when . Major barriers remain to b e confronted before an informed answer can be given . We have already noted several fundamental barriers t o comprehensive development . Actual implementation of the "radica l reforms" so necessary as a precondition for development is th e first . Traditional barriers to development have also been noted : resistance of pro-European policy makers to invest in easter n development, lack of economic and social infrastructure, an d reluctance of foreign countries toward investment in Siberia . T o these, one must also take into account financing, ecologica l concerns, and the nationalities question, all of which have bee n and may be affected by restructuring . Although there is no t sufficient time to go into detail here, both of these are worth y

6 4 of brief mention .

The program for restructuring the Soviet economy has brough t with it policies of greater openness [glasnost'] and loca l autonomy [demokratizatsiya], which to date have had only mino r impacts on Siberian development, but could greatly affect it i n the future . Currently, the bulk of investment in Siberia come s from central government ministries, which concentrate o n investments in industrial production at the expense of socia l infrastructure . In return, a great proportion of the profit s from local enterprises is returned to the central ministries .

Although data on this process are sparse, Schiffer provides a n example whereby 98 percent of the profits from one East Siberia n enterprise were returned to the central ministry fo r redistribution (Schiffer, 1989, pp . 94-95) . Although this i s only one case, there is no reason to assume that this is unusual .

Changing this system and giving greater autonomy to loca l enterprises would enable them to keep and allocate a greate r share of their profits, thus benefitting the local and regiona l economies to a much greater extent than presently possible .

Glasnost'has also provided a forum for those concerned wit h the natural environment of Siberia . Although there have bee n celebrated cases of environmental successes in protecting th e ecology of the region, e .g ., Lake Baykal and the water diversio n schemes, Soviet development east of the Urals has an abysma l

6 5 recorded of disregard for the environment . An increasingl y vociferous group concerned with ecological issues promises t o challenge development projects in the delicate ecosystem known a s

Siberia and the Far East . Potentially, this concern may slow an d prevent projects, greatly increasing the cost of development .

A final consideration concerns the growing demand fo r national autonomy and independence by minority ethnic group s throughout the Soviet Union . In Siberia, indigenous ethni c groups comprise only five percent of the total population . Yet , national independence may become an important issue becaus e administrative territories already identified as autonomou s ethnic regions within the Soviet Union, ie ., Autonomous Sovie t

Socialist Republics (ASSR's) and autonomous oblasts (AO's) , account for sixty percent of the territory of Siberia . Not only do they comprise a large proportion of territory, they als o encompass large regions of valuable resources .

In West Siberia, these territories include the Gorno-Altay ,

Khanty-Manisiysk and Yamalo-Nenets AO's . In East Siberia, the y include the Buryat and Tuva ASSR's, and the Khakass, Taymyr ,

Yevenkiy, Ust'-Ordinsk Buryat and Aginsk-Buryat AO's . And in th e

Far East, they include the Yakut ASSR, and the Yevreysk, Korya k and Chukot AO's .

After centuries of domination by the Russian and Sovie t

6 6 empires, the movement for an independent RSFSR or an independen t

Siberia or Far East would certainly not dampen the demands fro m these peoples, since they would still subjugated to Russians .

This question could act as a major barrier to the development o f

Siberia under any of the various scenarios proposed in thi s study .

So, Siberia must still wait for its role to change, for th e basic nature of its development to become comprehensive, designe d to benefit regional and local development at the expense o f national and international markets . For now, as it has been fo r the entire Soviet period, Siberia remains dependent on the cor e for its growth, serving as a resource frontier for Europea n

Russia and the world .

6 7 Literature Cited

Aganbegyan, Abel . Inside Perestroyka : the future of the Sovie t economy . Translated by Helen Szamuely . New York : Harper & Row, 1989 . Aganbegyan, Abel and Timofeyev, Timor . The New Stage o f Perestroyka . New York : Institute for East-West Securit y Studies, 1988 . godyAlekseyev, V .V . and Isupov, V .A . Naseleniye Sibiri v Velikoy Otchestvennoy voyny . Novosibirsk, 1986 . Aziatskaya Rossiya, vol . 2 (reprint ; originally published in St . Petersburg, 1914) . Cambridge : Oriental Research Partners , 1974 . Bond, Andrew . 'Spatial Dimensions of Gorbachev's Economi c Strategy .' Soviet Geography 28 (September 1987) : 490-523 . de Souza, Peter . Territorial Production Complexes in the Sovie t Union, with special focus on Siberia . Sweden : University o f Gothenburg, 1989 . Dergachev, V .A . "Peculiarities in the formation of populate d places on the seaboard of the USSR," Soviet Geography 2 7 (March 1986) : 143-57 . Dienes, Leslie . Soviet Asia : economic development and nationa l policy choices . Boulder : Westview, 1987 . Dokuchayev, G .A . and Kozybayev, M .R . Osushchestvleniy e leninskikh idey razvitiya proizvoditel'nykh sil . Alma-Ata , 1987 . Ekonomicheskaya geografiya SSSR, chast' II . Moscow, 1989 . Forsyth, James . 'The indigenous peoples of Siberia in th e twentieth century,' in The Development of Siberia, pp . 72 - 95 . Edited by Alan Wood and R .A . French . New York : St . Martin's, 1989 . Gill, Graeme . 'Power, authority and Gorbachev's policy agenda, ' in The Soviet Union as an Asian Pacific Power, pp . 19-37 . Edited by Ramesh Thakur and Carlyle Thayer . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

Gokhman, V .M . ; Il'yin, P .M . ; and Lipets, Yu .G . "The significanc e of growth poles in regional development," Soviet Geography 22 (April 1981) : 255-68 .

6 8 "Guidelines for the economic and social development of the USS R for 1986-1990 and for the period ending in 2000" report o f Prime Minister Nikolay Ryzhkov to the 27th Congress of th e CPSU, March 3, 1986), in Vinod Mehta, Soviet Economy , Appendix C, pp . 146-200 . New York : Sterling, 1987 . Hutchings, Raymond . Soviet Economic Development, 2nd ed . Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1982 . Isupov, V .A . "Dinamika chislennosti gorodskogo naseleniya Sibir i v period stroitel'stva sotsializma ." In Urbanizatsiya Sovetskoy Sibiri, pp . 28-45 . Edited by V .V . Alekseev . Novosibirsk, 1987 . Lappo, G .M . Razvitiye gorodskikh aglomeratsii v SSSR . Moscow , 1978 . Lho, Kyongsoo . "Seoul-Moscow relations : looking to the 1990s . " Asian Survey 29 (December 1989) : 1153-66 . Lyashchenko, P .I . History of the National Economy of Russia . Translated by L .M . Herman . New York : Macmillan, 1949 .

"Major overhaul a must -- it concerns each and everyone" (text o f speech delivered by Mikhail Gorbachev in Khabarovsk, Jul y 31, 1986), in Vinod Mehta, Soviet Economy, Appendix B, pp . 124-45 . New York : Sterling, 1987 . Mathieson, R .S . "Urban growth in Siberia and the Soviet Fa r East : multiplier effects of Japanese-supplied plants, " Soviet Geography 21 (October 1980) : 491-500 . Matuszewski, Daniel . "Soviet reforms and the Asia-Pacifi c challenge," in The Soviet Union and the Asia-Pacific Region , pp . 1-12 . Edited by Pushpa Thambipillai and Danie l Matuszewski . New York : Praeger, 1989 . Molodenkov, L .V . "Problemy osvoeniya novykh khozyaystvennyk h territoriy v Sibiri i na Dal'nem Vostoke," in Osvoeniy e rayonakhnovykh khozyaystvennykh territoriy v Vostochnykh RSFSR, pp . 5-10 . Novosibrisk, 1987 . Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR v 1984q . [Nar khoz] Moscow, 1985 . Ogawa, Kazuo . "Economic relations with Japan," in Siberia and the Soviet Far East : strategic dimensions in multinationa l perspective, pp . 158-78 . Edited by Rodger Swearingen . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 . OKadnikov, A .P . and Shunkov, V .I ., eds . Istoriya Sibiri , 5 vols . Leningrad, 1968 .

6 9 Pertsik, E .N . Gorod v Sibiri . Moscow, 1980 . Samoteikin, Evgeni . "The goals of Vladivostok," in The Sovie t Union as an Asian Pacific Power, pp . 11-18 . Edited b y Ramesh Thakur and Carlyle Thayer . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

Schiffer, Jonathan . Soviet Regional Economic Policy : the east - west debate over Pacific Siberian development . London : Macmillan, 1989 . Schroeder, Gertrude . "Soviet economic reform : from resurgenc e to retrenchment?" The Russian Review 48 (1989) : 305-19 . Semyonov, Y .N . Siberia : its conquest and development . Translated from the German by J .R . Foster . London : Hollis & Carter, 1963 . Seton-Watson, Hugh . The Russian Empire, 1801-1917 . Oxford : Clarendon, 1967 . Shabad, Theodore . "The Gorbachev Economic Policy : is the USSR turning away from Siberian development?", in The Developmen t of Siberia, pp . 256-60 . Edited by Alan Wood and R .A . French . New York : St . Martin's, 1989 . Shabad, Theodore and Mote, Victor . Gateway to Siberian Resource s (The BAM) . NY : Wiley, 1977 . "The strategic course : acceleration of the country's socio - economic development" (excerpts from the political report o f the CPSU CC to the 27th Congress of the CPSU, presented b y Mikhail Gorbachev), in Vinod Mehta, Soviet Economy, Appendi x A, pp . 86 - 123 . New York : Sterling, 1987 .

Swearingen, Rodger . "The Soviet Far East, East Asia and th e Pacific," in Siberia and the Soviet Far East : strategic dimensions in multinational perspective, pp . 226-72 . Edited by Rodger Swearingen . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 . "Text of speech by Mikhail Gorbachev in Vladivostok, 28 Jul y 1986," in The Soviet Union as an Asian Pacific Power , Appendix, pp . 201-27 . Edited by Ramesh Thakur and Carlyl e Thayer . Boulder : Westview, 1987 . Thakur, Ramesh and Thayer, Carlyle, eds . The Soviet Union as a n Asian Pacific Power : implications of Gorbachev's 198 6 Vladivostok initiative . Boulder : Westview, 1987 .

USSR Energy . , DC : CIA, 1985 . Vneshniye ekonomicheskiye svyazi SSSR v 1988 q . Moscow, 1989 .

7 0 Zaslavskaya, T .I . ; Kalmyk, V .A . ; and Khakhulina, L .A . "Socia l development of Siberia : problems and possible solutions, " in The Development of Siberia, pp . 177-87 . Edited by Ala n Wood and R .A . French . New York : St .Martin's, 1989 .

7 1 List of Figures : 1 . Soviet Siberia, administrative unit s 2 . Economic Regions of Siberi a 3 . Economic Geography of Siberia, 191 1 4 . Major Rail Lines in Siberi a 5 . Economic Regionalization Scheme, Soviet Siberi a 6 . Siberian Settlement System, 195 9 7 . Siberian Settlement System, 198 5 8 . Siberian Urban Agglomerations, 1985

7 2 Figure 1

Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 POPULATION N one million + 500-one millio n 100-49 9 thousand 50 -99 • below 50

Figure 7 Figure 8

APPENDIX 1

Siberian Urban Agglomeration s Population (in thousands ) ------1959 1970 1979 198 5

SIBERIA 22,559 25,353 27,936 30,44 8 urban 12,402 16,175 19,454 22,12 1 WEST SIBERIA 11,252 12,109 12,959 14,14 7 urban 5,724 7,431 8,768 10,08 7 1 . Novosibirsk 885 1,161 1,312 1,39 3 34 45 59 6 7 Ob' 15 2 2 Cherepanovo 21 2 1 Kolyvan ' Kochenev o Listvyanokiy Moshkovo Ordynskoy e Pashino 9 18 Posevnay a Chi k 2 . Omsk 581 821 1,014 1,10 8 19 21 Beregovo y Gor'kovskoye Kormilovk a Krasnyy Ya r Krutaya Gork a Lyubinski y Mar'yanovk a Pavlogradk a Sargatskoy e Tavricheskoy e Chernoluchinski y Sherbakul '

Format : Central cit y Satellite cities w/pops . of 50,000, by siz e Satellite cities below 50,000, alphabeticall y Urban-type settlements, alphabetically 7 3

3 . Barnaul 303 439 533 57 8 146 186 212 22 6 34 49 50 5 0 Gorno-Altaysk 28 3 4 (aya) Akutikh a Altayski y Beloyars k Borovlyank a Bystryy Isto k Zato n Nauchnyy Gorodo k Novosilikatnyy Pavlovs k Sokolov o Sorokino Tal'menka 18 2 0 Topchikh a Troitskoy e Yuzhnyy

7 4

4 . Novokuznetsk- 382 499 541 57 7 Kemerovo 289 385 471 50 7 Prokop'evsk 282 274 266 27 4 Leninsk - Kuznetskiy 132 128 132 13 8 Kiselevsk 128 127 122 12 6 Belovo 100 108 112 117 Mezhdurechensk 55 82 91 10 1 Osinniki 67 62 60 6 3 31 3 6 Berezovskiy 22 3 5 Topki 26 2 9 27 2 8 Gur'evsk 30 2 7 Salai r Abagu r Borovoy Gramotieno 9 16 Ka z Kedrovk a Krapivinski y Krasnobrodsk i Krasnogorski y Listvyag i Malinovk a Mundybash 17 15 Promyshlennovskiy Starobachat y Temirtay Tyagu n Yagunovski y Yashkino

5 . Tomsk 249 338 421 47 5 Anzhero- Sudzhensk 116 106 105 11 0 47 62 78 8 9 25 2 9 34 27

Barza s Izhmorski y Moryakovskiy Zato n Oktyabr'ski y Rudnichny y Samus ' Timiryazevski y Yashkino 18 1 5 7 5 6 . Tyumen' 150 269 359 42 5 20 2 5

Vinzil i Zavodopetrovski y Melioratorov Lebedevk a Nizhnyaya Tavd a

7 . Surgut 6 34 107 20 3 Nefteyugansk 20 52 7 8

Barsovo Belyy Ya r Lyantorski y Fedorovski y

8 . Nizhnevartovsk 16 109 19 0 Langepa s

9 . Rubtsovsk 111 145 157 16 5

Volchikh a Malinovoye Ozer o Mikhaylovski y Pospelikha

7 6 EAST SIBERIA 6,473 7,463 8,158 8,76 9 urban 3,413 4,612 5,605 6,27 6 10 . Krasnoyarsk 412 648 796 872 Achinsk 50 97 117 12 0 Kansk 74 95 101 10 5 30 44 54 6 0 31 2 9 Zaozerniy 35 2 7 70 26 Ilanski y 27 2 3 Borodino Aban Balakhta Berezovk a 16 Berezovskoy Bol'shaya Murta Emel'yanovo Kozul'k a Mazul'ski y Nizhniy Ingas h Nizhnyaya Poyma Novochernorechenskiy Pamyati 13 Bortso v Taezhnyy Tinskoy

7 7

11 . Irkutsk 366 451 550 597 Angarsk 135 203 239 25 6 Usol'e-Sibirskoye 48 87 103 10 7 Cheremkhovo 122 99 77 7 3 13 3 0 21 2 1 Svirs k 21 20 Baykal'sk Bol'shaya Rechk a Bol'shoy Lu g Bokhan Zabitu y Kito y Kultu k Listvyank a Mege t Mikhaylovk a Mishelevk a Tayturk a Telma Ust'-Ordynski y 12 . Chit a 172 241 303 33 6

Atamanovk a Darasu n Drovyanay a Karymskoy e Novokruchininski y Yablonovo 13 . Ulan-Ud e 174 254 300 33 5

Zaigraevo Zarechnyy Ivolgins k Kamens k Onokho y Soko l

7 8 14 . Brats k 4 3 15 5 21 4 24 0 Ust'-Ilims k -- 2 1 69 97 Vikhorevk a 11 18 Nizhneilimsk Vidi m Zheleznodorozhnyy Osinovk a Porozhskiy Chekanovski y 15 . Noril'sk 118 135 180 18 0 Dudink a 16 2 0 Kayerkan

16 . Abakan 56 90 128 14 7 51 60 71 7 8 Minusins k 38 41 56 69

Zelenyy Bo r Mayn a Ust'-Abakan Cheremushk i Shushenskoye

7 9 FAR EAS T 4,83 4 5,78 1 6,81 9 7,53 2 urban 3,26 5 4,13 2 5,08 1 5,75 8 17 . Vladivosto k 29 1 44 1 55 0 60 0 Ussuriis k 10 4 12 8 147 15 6 Nakhodk a 6 4 10 4 13 3 15 0 Artem 55 61 69 7 2 Partizans k Artemovski y Bol'shoy Kamen ' 8 28 Vrangel ' Zavodskoy Zarubino Lipovts y Pogranichiy Popov a Primorski y Razdol'noye Rettikhovk a Russki y Slavyank a Tavrichank a Tigrovo y Trudovoy e Yaroslavski y

18 . Khabarovsk 322 436 528 57 6

Dormidontovk a Korfovski y Pereyaslavk a Kho r 19 . Komsomol'sk-na - Amure 177 218 264 30 0 Amursk 3 24 na 5 1 Gornyy Pivan '

20 . Blagoveshchensk 94 128 172 19 5 Belogorsk 48 56 63 70 Srednebelaya

8 0 21 . Yakutsk 74 108 152 18 0

Bestyak h Kangalas s Kysyl-Sy r

22 . Magadan 62 92 121 14 2 Arman ' Ola Palatk a Stekol'nyy

23 . Petropavlovsk - Kamchatskiy 86 154 215 24 5 Elizovo Mokhovay a

24 . Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk 86 106 140 15 8 32 37 na 5 0 Aniv a Dolins k Korsako v Nevel's k Chekhov

Bykov Novikovo Ozerski y Pravd a Sinegors k Soko l Yablochnyy Yasnomorski y

Sources : SSSR Administrativno-territorial'noye deleniy e soyuznikh respublik, Moscow, 1983 and 1987 ; Itog i ysesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1959, Moscow, 1963 ; Itog i vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1970 goda, Moscow, 1972 ; Chislennost' i sostav naseleniya SSSR : po dannym Vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya1979 goda, Moscow, 1984 ; Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR v 1984 q ., Moscow, 1985 . Note : na = data not available

8 1

APPENDIX 2 Cities of Soviet Siberi a

Populatio n Date Founded (in thousands ) or Officially ------a City 1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5 WEST SIBERIA Altay kray Barnaul 1771 29 52 74 148 303 439 533 57 8 1939 -- -- 20 24 32 na na Biysk 1782 17 28 46 80 146 186 212 22 6 Zarinsk 1979 na Zmeinogorsk 1952 na na na na Kamen'-na-Obi 1925 23 25 30 36 na na Novoaltaysk 1942 -- 10 34 49 50 5 0 Rubtsovsk 1927 18 38 111 145 157 16 5 1917 18 21 26 33 na n a Belokurikha 1982 n a Gornyak 1969 14 17 na na (Gorno-Altay AO ) Gorno-altaysk 1928 6 24 28 34 na n a [Ulala ] Kemerovo oblas t Kemerovo 1925 22 133 289 385 471 50 7 [Shcheglovsk] Anzhero-Sudzhen 69 116 106 105 11 0 Belovo 1938 43 100 108 112 11 7 Berezovskiy 1965 -- 22 35 na n a Gur'evsk 1938 23 30 27 na n a Kiselevsk 1936 44 128 127 122 12 6 Leninsk-Kuznetsk 20 83 132 128 132 13 8 1856 8 13 11 22 41 40 na na Mezhdurechensk 1955 55 82 91 10 1 Myski 1956 31 36 na n a Novokuznetsk 1931 166 382 499 541 57 7 Osinniki 1938 25 67 62 60 6 3 Prokop'evsk 1931 107 282 274 266 27 4 Tayga 1925 11 29 34 27 na n a 1963 -- 28 25 na n a Topki 1933 23 26 29 na n a Yurga 1949 47 62 78 8 9 Kaltan 1959 27 28 na n a 1941 22 17 na na na 8 3

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5 Novosibirsk oblas t Novosibirsk 1903 64 120 404 885 1161 1312 139 3 1917 na 30 40 37 na n a 1944 11 29 53 67 7 5 Iskitim 1938 14 34 45 59 6 7 Kuybyshev [Kainsk] 6 6 8 13 30 40 na n a Tatarsk 1925 21 31 30 na n a Bolotnoye 1943 19 25 22 na n a Karasuk 1954 20 23 na n a 1965 -- na na n a Kupino 1944 12 23 21 na n a Ob' 1969 -- 15 22 na n a 1945 12 20 21 na n a Cherepanovo 1921 9 17 21 21 na n a 1947 12 18 na na n a Omsk oblas t Omsk 1782 37 128 162 289 581 821 1014 110 8 Isil'kul' 1945 6 14 23 26 na n a Kalachinsk 1952 19 21 na n a Nazyvayevsk 1956 16 16 na n a 1594 7 12 10 15 23 22 na n a 1878 4 5 4 na na na na n a

Tomsk oblas t Tomsk 1604 52 111 92 145 249 338 421 47 5 Asino 1952 25 29 na n a 1938 15 23 25 na n a 1978 na n a Tyumen' oblast Tyumen' 1586 29 35 50 79 150 269 359 42 5 1670 7 12 14 31 48 56 63 6 4 'sk 1587 20 21 19 32 36 49 62 7 5 Yalutorovsk 1639 3 4 6 14 20 25 na n a Zavodoukovsk 1960 9 17 na n a (Khanty-Mansiysk AO) Khanty-Mansiysk195 0 7 21 25 na n a Kogalym 1985 n a Langepas 1985 n a Megion 1980 n a Nefteyugansk 1967 20 52 7 8 Nizhnevartovsk 1972 16 109 19 0 Nyagan' 1985 n a Raduzhnyi 1985 n a Surgut 1965 1 na 6 34 107 20 3 Uray 1965 17 na na

8 3

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5 (Yamalo-Nenets AO ) 1938 13 17 22 na n a 1975 na n a Nadym 1972 na n a Novyy Urengoy 1980 6 1 Noyabr'sk 1982 6 0 EAST SIBERIA

Buryat ASS R Ulan-Ude 1666 6 15 29 126 174 254 300 33 5 [Verkneudinsk ] Gusinoozersk 1953 na na na Severobaykal'sK980 -- n a Babushk [Mysovsk] 1941 na na na n a Zakaznensk 1944 na na na n a 1728 9 9 10 na 10 15 na n a [Troitskosavsk] Tuva ASSR Kyzyl 1914 10 34 52 66 7 5 Ak-Dovurak 1964 na na na Turan 1945 na na na n a 1945 na na na na Shagonar 1945 na na na na Krasnoyarsk kray Krasnoyarsk 1628 25 74 72 190 412 648 796 87 2 Achinsk 1782 7 10 18 32 50 97 117 12 0 Bogotol 1911 8 26 31 29 na n a Borodino 1981 -- na Divnogorsk 1963 7 26 na na 1618 12 11 6 13 17 20 na n a Zaozernyy 1948 9 35 27 na n a 1931 na 14 16 na n a Kansk 1628 7 15 na 42 74 95 101 10 5 1975 ------na na 1822 10 14 21 31 38 41 56 6 9 Nazarovo 1961 -- 30 44 54 6 0 Noril'sk 1953 14 118 135 180 18 0 Sosnovoborsk 1985 na Chernenko 1981 na

Artemovsk 1939 na na na n a Ilanskiy 1939 25 27 23 na n a Kayerkan 1982 n a Talnakh 1982 na 1953 24 25 na n a Uyar 1944 15 22 21 na na 8 4

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5 (Khakass AO ) Abakan 1931 37 56 90 128 14 7 Sayanogorsk 1975 -- -- na n a Chernogorsk 1936 17 51 60 71 7 8 1966 12 15 na n a 1966 na na n a (Taymyr AO ) 1951 16 20 na n a Irkutsk oblas t Irkutsk 1686 52 127 99 250 366 451 550 597 Angarsk 1951 135 203 239 25 6 1925 4 5 21 na na na n a Bratsk 1955 -- 43 155 214 24 0 1917 28 39 42 na n a 1783 6 10 10 28 39 40 na n a 1938 21 33 34 na n a 1927 28 42 49 52 5 4 Usol'ye-Sibirskoye 8 20 49 87 103 10 7 Ust'-Ilimsk 1973 -- -- 21 69 9 7 Ust'-Kut 1954 3 21 33 50 5 6 Cheremkhovo 1917 9 56 122 99 77 7 3 Shelekhov 1962 13 30 na n a Alzamay 1955 na na na n a Baykal'sk 1966 na na n a Biryusinsk 1967 -- na na n a Vikhorevka 1966 11 18 na n a Zheleznogorsk - Ilimskiy 1965 2 22 na n a 1775 2 2 na na na na na n a 1949 10 21 20 na n a Slyudyanka 1936 12 21 22 na n a Chita oblas t Chita 1851 12 74 62 121 172 241 303 33 6 Baley 1938 31 29 27 na n a 1950 24 28 na n a Krasnokamensk 1969 14 51 6 5 Petrovsk - Zabaykal'skiy1926 7 21 30 29 na n a

Mogocha 1950 15 18 na n a Nerchinsk 1690 7 11 7 na na na na n a 1783 14 15 na na na n a Khilok 1951 14 15 na na n a 1951 17 17 16 na na 8 5

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5

FAR EAST

Yakut ASSR Yakutsk 1632 7 8 11 53 74 108 152 18 0 Mirnyy 1959 6 24 na n a Neryungri 1975 na 5 7 1939 13 18 na n a 1638 1 1 1 na na na na n a 1634 1 1 1 na na na na n a 1963 -- 8 17 na n a Olekminsk 1635 1 1 2 na na na na n a 1644 1 1 1 na na na na n a 1923 na na na na na n a Khabarovsk kr ay Khabarovsk 1858 15 43 50 207 322 436 528 57 6 Amursk 1973 -- -- na 5 1 Bikin 1938 15 19 17 na n a Komsomol'sk-na-1932 71 177 218 264 30 0 Amur e Nikolayevsk-na-1850 6 16 7 17 31 30 na n a Amur e Sovetskaya Gavan 1941 12 26 28 na n a Vyazemskiy 1951 18 18 na n a (Yevrey AO ) 1937 30 41 56 69 7 8 Obluch'ye 1938 14 15 na na n a

Maritime kra v Vladivostok 1860 29 85 108 206 291 441 550 60 0 Arsen'ev 1952 26 47 60 6 5 Artem 1938 35 55 61 69 7 2 Dal'nerechensk 1917 na n a [Iman ] 1938 24 32 35 na n a Nakhodka 1950 64 104 133 15 0 1932 na n a [Suchan ] -Dal'niy 1926 11 23 40 45 53 5 8 1866 na 35 35 72 104 128 147 156

8 6

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5 Amur oblas t Blagoveshchensk1858 64 61 59 94 128 172 19 5 Belogorsk 1926 34 49 57 63 7 0 [Aleksandrovka] Zeya 190 6 5 4 na 7 17 na na Raychikhinsk 1944 -- -- 4 27 25 na na Svobodnyy 1912 1 10 44 56 63 75 7 7 [Alekseyevsk ] Tynda 1975 na 56 1950 18 17 na na 1954 16 19 na na Skovorodino 1927 20 na na Kamchatka oblas t Petropavlovsk- 1740 1 1 2 35 86 154 215 24 5 Kamchatski y Elizovo 1975 na na Klyuchi 1979 na na Magadan oblas t Magadan 1939 27 62 92 121 142 Susuman 1964 na na n a (Chukot AO ) Anadyr 1965 na na n a 1967 na na na

8 7

1897 1911 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 198 5 Sakhalin oblast Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk 1946 86 106 140 15 8 Aleksandrovsk- 1926 3 25 22 20 na n a Sakhalinsk y Dolinsk 1946 na n a 1946 33 38 na n a Nevel'sk 1946 20 21 na n a Okha 1938 20 28 31 na n a 1946 22 24 na n a Uglegorsk 1946 18 18 na n a Kholmsk 1946 32 37 na 5 0 1946 na n a Gornozavodsk 1947 na n a Krasnogorsk 1947 na n a Kuril'sk 1946 na n a Lesogorsk 1946 na n a Makarov 1946 na n a Severo-Kuril'sk1946 na n a Tomari 1946 na n a Chekhov 1947 na n a Shakhtersk 1947 na n a

deleniyeSources : SSSR Administrativno-territorial'noye soyuznikh respublik, Moscow, 1983 and 1987 ; Aziatskaya Rossiya , vol .l, pp . 345-54 ; Vsesoyuznaya perepis' naseleniya 1926 goda , Moscow, 1928 ; Itogi vsesoyuznov perepisi naseleniya 1959 , Moscow, 1963 ; Itogi vsesoyuznov perepisi naseleniya 1970 goda , Moscow, 1972 ; Chislennost' i sostav naseleniya SSSR : po dannym vsesovuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1979goda, Moscow, 1984 ; Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR v 1984 q ., Moscow, 1985 . Note : na = data not availabl e

8 8 APPENDIX 3 Selected Bibliography fo r Siberian Urbanization Since Stali n I . THE FRONTIER

Billington, Ray . America's Frontier Culture . College Station : Texas A&M Univ, 1977 . Bowman, Isaiah . The Pioneer Fringe . New York, 1931 . Forbes, Jack . Frontiers in American History and the Role of th e Frontier Historian . Reno : DRI, 1966 .

Gerhard, Dietrich . "The frontier in comparative view . " Comparative Studies in Society and History 1 (1959) : 205-29 . Hennessy, Alistair . The Frontier in Latin American History . Albuquerque : Univ of New Mexico, 1978 .

Hudson, John . "Theory and methodology in comparative frontie r studies ." In The Frontier : Comparative Studies , vol . 1 , pp . 11-31 . Edited by Miller and Steffen . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1977 . Juricek, John . "American usage of the word 'frontier' fro m colonialProceedings times to Frederick Jackson Turner . " of the American Philosophical Society 110 (February 1966) : 10-34 . Lamar, Howard and Thompson, Leonard, eds . The Frontier in History . New Haven : Yale Univ, 1981 . Mattson, Vernon and Tilman, Rick . "Thorstein Veblen, Frederic k Jackson Turner, and the American experience ." Journal o f Economic Issues 20 (December 1986) : 219-35 . Meining, Donald . "Geographical analysis of imperial expansion . " In Period and Place, pp . 71-78 . Edited by Alan Baker an d Mark Billinge . Cambridge : Cambridge Univ, 1982 . Mikesell, Marvin . "Comparative studies in frontier history . " AAG Annals 50 (1960) : 62-74 .

Miller, David and Steffen, Jerome . "Introduction ." In Th e Frontier : Comparative Studies , vol . 1, pp . 3-10 . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1977 . Miller, David and Steffen, Jerome, eds . The Frontier : Comparative Studies, vol 1 . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1977 . 8 9

Noble, David . Historians Against History : the frontier thesi s writingand the national covenant in American historical since 1830 . : Univ of Minnesota, 1965 . Overton, J .D . "A theory of exploration ." Journal of Historica l Geography 7 (1981) : 57-70 . Savage, William, Jr . and Thompson, Stephen . "The comparativ e study of the frontier : an introduction ." In The Frontier : comparative studies, vol . 2, pp . 3-24 . Edited by Savage an d Thompson . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1979 . Savage, William, Jr . and Thompson, Stephen, eds . The Frontier : comparative studies, vol 2 . Norman : Univ of Oklahoma, 1979 . Steffen, Jerome . Comparative Frontiers . Norman : Univ o f OKahoma, 1980 . Taylor, George, ed . The Turner Thesis : concerning the role o f the frontier in American history, 3rd ed . Lexington, Mass .: Heath, 1972 . Turner, Frederick Jackson . The Frontier in American History . New York : Holt, 1920 . Walsh, Margaret . The American Frontier Revisited . Atlanti c Highlands, NJ : Humanities Press, 1981 . Webb, Walter Prescott . The Great Frontier . Austin : Univ o f Texas, 1964 . Wieczynski, Joseph . The Russian Frontier : the impact o f borderlands upon the course of early Russian history_ . Charlottesville : Univ Press of Virginia, 1976 . Wolfskill, George and Palmer, Stanley, eds . Essays on Frontier s in World History . Austin : Univ of Texas, 1981 . Wyckoff, William . "Comparative frontiers research ." I n Geography in America, pp . . Edited by Cort Willmot t and Gary Gaile . Columbus : Merrill, 1989 . Wyckoff, William and Hausladen, Gary . "Settling the Russia n frontier : with comparisons to North America ." Sovie t Geography 30 (March 1989) : 179-88 .

Wyman, Walker and Kroeber, Clifton, eds . The Frontier i n Perspective . Madison : Univ of Wisconsin, 1957 .

9 0 II . WORLD ECONOMY Amin, Samir . Unequal Development . New York : Monthly Review , 1976 . Amin, Samir ; Arright, Giovanni ; Frank, Andre Gunner ; and Wallerstein, Immanuel . Dynamics of Global Crisis . New York : Monthly Review, 1982 .

Boswell, Terry . "Colonial empires and the capitalist world - economy : a time series analysis of colonization, 1640 - 1960 ." American Sociological Review 54 (April 1989) : 180 - 96 . Brookfield, Harold . Interdependent Development . London : Methuen, 1975 . Bukharin, Nikolai Ivanovich . Mirovoye khozayaystvo i imperializ m [Imperialism and the world economy] . With an intro . by V .I . Lenin . New York : H . Fertig, 1966 . Chase-Dunn, Christopher, ed . Socialist States in the Worl d Economy . Beverly Hills : Sage, 1982 . Chilcote, Ronald . Theories of Development and Underdevelopment . Boulder : Westyiew, 1984 . geographicalChisholm, Michael . Modern World Development : a perspective . Totowa, NJ : Barnes and Noble, 1982 . Corbridge, Stuart . Capitalist World Development . Totowa, NJ : Rowman and Littlefield, 1986 . Crouch, C . State and Economy in Contemporary Capitalism . London : Croom Helm, 1979 .

Faaland, Just . The Political Economy of Development . New York : St . Martin's, 1986 . Frank, Andre Gunder . Crisis in the World Economy . New York : Holmes & Meier, 1980 .

Freeman, C ., ed . Long Waves in the World Economy . London : Frances Printer, 1983 .

Henderson, Jeffrey and Castells, Manuel . Global Restructurin g and Territorial Development . Newbury Park, CA : Sage, 1987 . Hirschman, Albert . The Strategy of Economic Development . Boulder : Westview, 1988 . 9 1 Hopkins, Terence ; Wallerstein, Immanuel ; et al . World-System s Analysis : theory and methodology . Beverly Hills : Sage , 1982 .

Johnston, R .J . and Taylor, Peter, eds . A World in Crisis ? Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1986 . Kahn, Herman . World Economic Development : 1979 and beyond . Boulder, Westview, 1979 . Kearns, Gerry . "History, geography and world-systems theory . " Journal of Historical Geography 14 (1988) : 281-92 .

King, Anthony . Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World-Economy : cultural and spatial foundations of the world urban system . New York : Routledge, 1990 . Knox, Paul and Agnew, John . The Geography of the World Economy . New York : Edward Arnold, 1989 . Kondratieff, Nikolai . The Long Wave Cycle . Trans . by Gu y Daniels . Intro . by Julian Snyder . New York : Richardson & Snyder, 1984 . Larrain, Jorge . Theories of Development : capitalism , colonialism and dependency . Cambridge : Polity Press, 1989 . Limqueco, Peter and McFarlane, Bruce, eds . Neo-Marxist Theorie s of Development . London : Croom Helm, 1983 .

Maddison, Angus . The World Economy in the 20th Century . : Development Centre of the OECD, 1989 . Mandel, Ernest . Long Waves of Capitalist Development : the Marxist interpretation . London : Cambridge University , 1980 . Marshall, Michael . Long Waves of Regional Development . New York : St . Martin's, 1987 . Moore, Jr ., Barrington . Social Origins of Dictatorship an d Democracy . Boston : Beacon, 1966 . Rostow, Walter . The World Economy : history and prospect . London : Macmillan, 1978 .

Rowstow, Walter . "The world economy since 1945 : a stylize d analysis ." Economic History Review 38 (May 1985) : 252-75 . Schumpeter, J .A . Business Cycles : a theoretical, historical an d statistical analysis of the capitalist process . London : McGraw-Hill, 1939 . 9 2 Schumpeter, J .A . Capitalism, and Democracy . London : Allen & Unwin, 1976 . Solomou, Solomos . "Innovation clusters and Kondratieff lon g waves in economic growth ." Cambridge Journal of Economic s 10 (1986) : 101-12 .

Solomou, Solomos . Phases of Economic Growth, 1850-1973 : Kondratief waves and Kuznets swings . Cambridge : Cambridg e Univ, 1987 .

Solomou, Solomos . "Non-balanced growth and Kondratieff waves i n the world economy, 1850-1913 ." Journal of Economic Histor y 46 (1986) : 165-69 . Stohr, Walter . "Regional economic development and the worl d economic crisis ." International Social Science Journal 112 (May 1987) : 187-97 .

Storper, Michael and Walker, Richard . The Capitalist Imperative : territory, technolo g y, and industrial growth . New York : Basil Blackwell, 1989 . Taylor, Michael and Thrift, Nigel . The Geography o f Multinationals : studies in the spatial development an d economic consequences of multinational corporations . NY : St . Martin's, 1982 .

Taylor, Peter . Political Geography : world-economy, nation-stat e and locality . London : Longman, 1985 . Timberlake, Michael . Urbanization in the World-Economy . Orlando : Academic Press, 1985 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Modern World-System . Capitalis t Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy i n the Sixteenth Century . New York : Academic Press, 1974 . Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Capitalist World Economy : essays . Cambridge : Cambridge Univ, 1979 . Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Modern World-System II . Mercantilis m and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600 - 1750 . New York : Academic Press, 1980 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Politics of the World-Economy : th e states, the movements, and the civilizations : essays . Ne w York : Cambridge Univ, 1984 .

Wallerstein, Immanuel . The Modern World-System III . The Secon d Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy , 1730-1840s . New York : Academic Press, 1989 . 9 3 III . SIBERIA, historical, in English :

Armstrong, Terence . "Bering's expeditions ." In Studies i n Russian Historical Geography, vol . 1, pp . 175-95 . London : Academic Press, 1983 . Armstrong,Terrence . Russian Settlement in the North . Cambridge : Cambridge Univ, 1965 . Armstrong, Terrence . Yermak's Campaign in Siberia . London : HaKuyt Society, 1975 . Bassin, Mark . "Expansion and colonialisn on the easter n frontier : views of Siberia and the Far East in pre-Petrin e Russia ." Journal of Historical Geography14 (1988) : Bassin, Mark . "The Russian geographical society, the 'Amu r epoch,' and the great Siberian expedition, 1855-1863 ." AAG Annals 73 (1983) : 240-56 . Braddley, Joseph . Muzhik and Muscovite . Urbanization in Lat e Imperial Russia . Berkeley : Univ of California, 1985 . Chang, Sung-Hwan . "Russian designs on the Far East ." In Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution , pp . 299-321 . Edited by Taras Hunczak . New Brunswick : Rutgers Univ, 1974 . Dotsenko, Paul . The Struggle for Democracy in Siberia, 1917 - 1920 . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1983 . Dmytryshyn, Basil ; Crownhart-Vaughan, E .A .P . ; and Vaughan , Thomas . Russia's Conquest of Siberia, 1558-1700, a docu- mentary record, vol 1 . Portland : Western Imprints, 1985 . Fedor, Thomas . Patterns of Urban Growth in the Russian Empir e During the Nineteenth Century_ . : Univ o f Chicago, 1975 . Fisher, Raymond . The Russian , 1550-1700 . Berkeley : Univ of California, 1943 . French, R .A . "The development of Siberia : peoples and huma n resources ." Keynote address, presented to the Britis h Universities Siberian studies seminar, London, April 1986 . French, R .A . "The early and medieval Russian town ." In Studie s in Russian Historical Geography, pp . 249-77 . Edited b y French and Bater . London : Academic Press, 1983 . 9 4 French, R .A . and Bater, James . "Approaches to the historica l ." In Studies in Russian Historica l Geography, vol . 1, pp . 1-10 . Edited by French and Bater . London : Academic Press, 1983 .

French, R .A . and Bater, James, eds . Studies in Russia n HistoricalGeography, 2 vols . London : Academic Press , 1983 .

Gibson, James . "Diversification on the frontier : Russian America in the middle of the nineteenth century ." I n Studies in Russian Historical Geography, vol . 1, pp . 197 - 238 . London : Academic Press, 1983 .

Gibson, James . Feeding the Russian Fur Trade . Madison : Univ o f Wisconsin, 1969 .

Gibson, James . Imperial Russia in Frontier America . New York : Oxford Univ, 1976 .

Gibson, James . "Russian expansion in Siberia and America . " Geographical Review 70 (Apr 1980) : 127-36 .

Golder, F .A . Russian Expansion on the Pacific, 1641-1850 . Gloucester, MA : Peter Smith, 196 0

Harrison, John . The Founding of the Russian Empire in Asi a and America . Coral Gables : Univ of Miami, 1971 .

Hausladen, Gary . "Russian Siberia : an integrative approach . " Soviet Geography 30 (March 1989) : 231-246 .

Henderson, Daniel . From the Volga to the Yukon . New York : Hastings House, 1944 .

Hunszak, Taras, ed . Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Grea t to the Revolution . New Brunswick : Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

Huttenbach, Henry . "The origins of Russian imperialism ." In Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution , pp . 18-44 . Edited by Taras Hunczak . New Brunswick : Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

Kennan, George . Siberia and the Exile System . New York : The Century Co, 1981 .

Kerner, Robert . The Urge to the Sea . Berkeley : Univ o f California, 1946 .

Kohn, Hans . "Introduction ." In Russian Imperialism from Iva n the Great to the Revolution, pp . 3-17 . Edited by Tara s Hunczak . New Brunswick : Rutgers Univ, 1974 . 9 5 Kolarz, Walter . The Peoples of the Soviet Far East . New York : Archon, 1969 . Kristof, Ladis . "The Russian image of Russia ." I n Essays in Political Geography, pp . 345-87 . Edited b y Charles Fisher . London : Methuen, 1968 .

Lantzeff, George . Siberia in the Seventeenth Century . New York : Octagon, 1972 .

Lensen, George. Russia's Eastward Expansion . Englewood Cliffs : Prentice-Hall, 1964 .

Levin, M .G . and Potapov, L .P ., eds . The Peoples of Siberia . Trans . by Stephen Dunn . Chicago : Univ of Chicago, 1964 . Lyashchenko, P .I . History of the National Economy of Russia . Translated by L .M . Herman . New York : MacMillan, 1949 . Norton, Henry K . The Far Eastern Republic of Siberia [reprint ; first published in 1923 . Connecticut : Hyperion, 1982 . OKadnikov, Aleksei P . Ancient Population of Siberia and It s Cultures . Cambridge : Peabody Museum, 1959 . Polansky, Patricia . "Regionalism and Siberian publishing in lat e imperial Russia, 1880-1917 ." Pacifica 1/2 (September 1989) : 77-100 .

Remezov, Semyon . The Atlas of Siberia (facsimile edition ; firs t published in the 17th century) . The Hague : Mouton, 1958 .

Riasanovsky, Nicholas . A , 4th ed . New York : Oxford Univ, 1984 .

Sarkisyanz, Emanuel . "Russian imperialism reconsidered ." I n Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution , pp . 45-81 . Edited by Taras Hunczak . New Brunswick : Rutgers Univ, 1974 .

Semyonov, Y .N . Siberia : its conquest and development . Trans . from the German by J .R .Foster . London : Hollis & Carter, 1963 .

Sibirica II . Papers presented to the British Universitie s Siberian Studies Seminar, Cambridge, September 1984 . Sibirica III . Papers presented to the British Universitie s Siberian Studies Seminar, London, April 1986 .

Smele, Jon . "Introduction ." In Kolchak i Sibir' : dokumentyi 96 issledovaniia, 1919-1926, vol . 1, pp . ix-xliv . Edited b y David Collins and Jon Smele . White Plains : Krau s International, 1988 . Snow, Russell . The Bolsheviks in Siberia, 1917-1918 . London : Associated University Presses, 1977 .

Starr, S . Frederick, ed . Russia's American Colony . Durham : Duke Univ, 1987 . Stebelsky, Igor . "The frontier in Central Asia ." In Studie s in Russian Historical Geography, vol 1, pp . 143-73 . London : Academic Press, 1983 . Steffen, Jerome . "American fur-trading frontier : new worl d mercantilism ." In Comparative Frontiers, pp . 29-50 . Edited by Jerome Steffen . Norman : Univ of OKahoma, 1980 . Stewart, J .M . "Early travelers, explorers, and naturalists i n Siberia ." Asian Affairs 15 (Feb 1984) : 55-64 . Tobin, Henry . "The Russian frontier ." Comparative Frontie r Studies 1 (1975) . Treadgold, Donald . The Great Siberian Migration . Princeton : Princeton Univ, 1957 . Tupper, Harmon . To the Great Ocean : Siberia and the Trans - Siberian railway . Boston : Little, Brown & Co ., 1965 . Wyckoff, William . "Comment on Russia Siberia : an integrativ e approach ." Soviet Geography 30 (March 1989) : 247-252 .

Zobtzeff, Oleg . "Ruling Siberia : the Imperial Power , the Orthodox Church and the Native People ." Paper presente d to the British Universities Siberian Studies Seminar , Cambridge, September 1986 .

9 7

IV . SIBERIA, contemporary, in Englis h Aganbegyan, A .G ., ed . Regional Studies for Planning an d Projectinq : the Siberian experience . New York : Mouton , 1981 . Alfred, Max . The Siberian Challenge . Englewood Cliffs : Prentice-Hall, 1977 . Babbage, Ross, ed . The Soviets in the Pacific in the 1990s . Australia : 1989 . Bradshaw, Michael . "Trade and high technology ." In Siberia and the Soviet Far East, pp . 100-34 . Edited by Rodge r Swearingen . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 . Chan Young Bang . "Seoul-Moscow : economic cooperation an d security ." Far Eastern Affairs 1989, no . 6, pp . 73-85 . Collins, David N . and Smele, Jan . Kolchak and Siberia : Documents and Studies, 1919-1926, 2 vols . White Plains, Ne w York : Kraus International Publishers, 1988 . Connoly, Violet . Beyond the Urals . London : Oxford Univ, 1967 . Connoly, Violet . Siberia Today and Tomorrow . New York : Taplinger,1976 . de Souza, Peter . Territorial Production Complexes in the Sovie t Union, with special focus on Siberia . Sweden : Universit y of Gothenburg, 1989 . Dibb, Paul . Siberia and the Pacific . New York : Praeger, 1972 . Dienes, Leslie . "A comment on the new development program fo r the Far East economic region ." Soviet Geography 29 (Apri l 1988) : . Dienes, Leslie . Soviet Asia : Economic Development and Nationa l Policy Choices . Boulder : Westview, 1987 . "Excerpts from Mikhail Gorbachev's speech in Krasnoyarsk o n September 16, 1988 ." Far Eastern Affairs 1989, no . 1, pp . 2-4 .

Fitzhugh, William W . and Crowell, Aran, eds . Crossroads o f Continents : cultures of Siberia and Alaska . Smithsonian Institution, 1988 . Granberg, A .G . "Siberia in the national economic complex . " Soviet Review 22 (1981-82) : 44 . 9 8 Granberg, A .G . "Structural changes and intensification i n Siberian industry ." Problems of Economics, 29 (1986) : 39- 60 .

Ha, Joseph . "Gorbachev's bold Asian initiatives : Vladivosto k and beyond ." Asian Perspective 12 (Spring-Summer 1988) : 5- 33 . Hausladen, Gary . "Recent trends in Siberian urban growth . " Soviet Geography 18 (February 1987) : 71-89 . Irkutsk : a guide. Moscow, 1986 . Kirby, Stuart . The Soviet Far East . New York : St . Martin's , 1971 . Kovalenko, I .I . "Along the course chartered in Vladivostok an d Krasnoyarsk ." Far Eastern Affairs 5 (1989) : 71-80 . Kyongsoo Lho . "Seoul-Moscow relations : looking to the 1990s . " Asian Survey 29 (December 1989) : 1153-66 . Markov, G . Siberia . Moscow : Progress, 1975 . Mehta, Vinod . Soviet Economy : new economic strategy . India : Sterling Publishers, 1987 . Mil'ner, G . "Problems of ensuring the supply of labor resource s for Siberia and the Far Eastern regions ." Soviet Reyiew 20 (1979-80) : 95-110 . Mote, Victor L . "Containerization and the Trans-Siberian lan d bridge ." Geographic Review 74 (July 1984) . Narodnoe khozyaystvo SSSR, yearly to 1987 . North, Robert . Transport in : tsarist and Sovie t development . Vancouver : Univ of British Columbia, 1979 . Nossov, Mikhail G . The USSR and the Security of the Asia-Pacifi c Region, from Vladivostok to Krasnoyarsk . The Regents of th e University of California, 1989 . "Notes on new Siberian towns ." Asian Affairs 14 (Oct 1983) : 271-86 .

Ogawa, Kazuo . "Economic relations with Japan ." In Siberia and the Soviet Far East, pp . 158-78 . Edited by Rodge r Swearingen . Stanford : Hoover Institution, 1987 .

9 9 Ogawa, Kazuo . "The region : a zone of Soviet - Japanese cooperation ." Far Eastern Affairs 1989, no . 6, pp . 86-92 .

Orlov, B .P . Siberia : achievements, problems, solutions . Moscow : Progress, 1977 . Pinsky, Donne E . Industrial Development of Siberia and th e Soviet Far East . Santa Monica : Rand, 1984 .

Pi Ying-hsien . "Gorbachev's new political thinking and Sovie t policy in the Asia-Pacific region ." Issues and Studies 2 5 (May 1989) : 102-22 .

Resnick, Abraham . Siberia and the Soviet Far East : endles s frontiers . Moscow : Novosti, 1983 .

Resnick, Abraham . Siberia and the Soviet Far East : unmaskin g the myths . GEM McCuen, 1985 .

Rodgers, Allan, ed . The Soviet Far East : geographic perspectives on development . London : 1990 .

Sallnow, John . "The population of Siberia and the Soviet Fa r East (1965-1976) ." Soviet Geography (November 1977) . Schiffer, Jonathan . Soviet Regional Economic Policy : the east - west debate over Pacific Siberian development . London : Macmillan, 1989 .

Shabad, Theodore . "Geographic aspects of the New Soviet Five - Year Plan, 1986-90 ." Soviet Geography 27 : January, 1986 ) Shabad, Theodore and Mote, Victor . Gateway to Siberia n Resources (The BAM) . New York : Wiley, 1977 . Shinkarev, L .I . The Land Beyond the Mountains : Siberia and it s people today . New York : Macmillan, 1973 .

Shlyk, N .L . "The Soviet Far East and the international economy . " In Soviet-American Horizons on the Pacific, pp . 115-25 . Edited by John Stephan and V .P . Chichkanov . Honolulu : Uni v of Hawaii, 1986 .

Soohyun Chon . "-Soviet trade relations : interest in Siberian development ." Asian Survey 29 (December 1989) : 1177-87 .

1 0 0 Soule, Mason H . and Taaffe, Robert N . The Planning, Theoretical , and Analytical Framework of Soviet Regional Development , with particular reference to Siberia and the Far East : a bibliography of recent literature . Bloomington : Indian a University, 1981 .

"The Soviet Far East and the Asian Pacific region," round tabl e discussion . Far Eastern Affairs, 1989, no . 4, pp . 11-31 .

Soviet Far East : minerals and resources . Vladivostok, 1989 .

Strauss, Robert . Trans-SiberianRail Guide . UK : Brad t Publications, 1988 .

Sukhanov, Y . From the Urals to the Pacific . Trans . by Brya n Bean and R .M . Cook . Moscow : Progress, 1970 .

Suslov, S .P . Physical Geography of Asiatic Russia . W .H . Freeman and Company, 1961 .

Thakur, Ramesh and Thayer, Carlyle A ., eds . The Soviet Union a s an Asian Pacific Power . Boulder : Westview Press, 1987 .

Thambipillai, Pushpa and Matuszewski, Daniel C ., eds . The Sovie t Union and the Asia-Pacific Region : views from the region . New York : Praeger, 1989 .

"The Soviet Far East and the Asia-Pacific Region ." Far Eastern Affairs 4 (1989) : 11-31 .

Trofimenko, Henry . Long-term Trends in the Asia-Pacific Region : a Soviet evaluation . The Regents of the University o f California, 1989 .

USSR Energy Atlas . Washington, DC : CIA, 1985 .

Vorob'yev, V .V . "Problems of protecting the environment i n Siberia ." Geoforum (1984) : 105 .

Whiting, Allen . Siberian Development and East Asia . Stanford : Stanford Univ, 1981 .

Whiting, Allen S . and Mote, Vicote L . PacificBasin Transportation Prospects . Wharton E .F .A . Inc ., Septembe r 1984 .

Wood,regional Alan, ed . Siberia : problems and prospects for development . London : Croom Helm, 1987 .

Wood, Alan and French, R .A ., eds . The Development of Siberia : people and resources . New York : St . Martin's Press, 1989 .

1 0 1 Ying-hsien, Pi . "Gorbachev's new political thinking and Sovie t policy in the Asia-Pacific region ." Issues and Studies 2 5 (May 1989) : 102-122 .

Zagoria, Donald . "Soviet policy in East Asia : new beginning? " Foreign Affairs 68 (1988/1989) : 120-38 . Zaslavskaya, T .J ., et al . "Social problems in the development o f Siberia ." Soviet Review 24 (1983-84) : 66 . Zhuravlev, V . A Second Trans-Siberian . Moscow : Prog ress, 1980 .

1 0 2

V . SIBERIA, historical, in Russia n Aranberg, A . and Ibrarimovo, E . "Sibiri na rybezhe vekov . " Moscow, 1984 .

Aziatskaya Rossiya 2 vols (reprint ; originally published in St . Peterburg, 1914) . Cambridge, MA : Oriental Researc h Partners, 1974 . Bakhrushin, S .V . Nauchnyye trudy . Ocherki po istori i kolonizatsii Sibiri v XVI i XVII vv . Moscow, 1955 . Balandin, S .N . Novosibirsk : istoriya gradostroitel'stva 1893 - 1945 gg . Novosibirsk, 1978 .

Basharin, G .P ., ed . Istoriya Yakutii . Yakutsk, 1966 . Bor'ba za vlast' Sovetov v Irkutskoy gubernii . Irkutsk, 1957 . Chechulin, N .D . Goroda Moskovskago gosudarstva vXVIveke . St . Petersburg, 1889 . Collins, David and Smele, Jon, eds . Kolchak i Sibir' : dokument y i issledovaniia, 1919-1926, 2 vols . White Plains : Krau s International, 1988 . Ekonomicheskaya politika tsarizma v Sibiri v XIX -nachale X X veka . Irkutsk, 1984 . Goroda Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1978 . Goryushkin, L .M . Istochniki po Istorii Osvoeniya Sibiri v Period Kapitalizma . Novosibirsk, 1989 . Goryushkin, L .M . Khoziaistvennoe osvoenie Sibiri v period a Istoriografya problemi . Novosibirsk, 1988 . Goryushkin, L .M . Politicheskaya Ssilka i Revolyutsionno y Dvisheni v Rossii . Novosibirsk, 1988 . Goryushkin, L .M . Promyshlennost' i rabochiye Sibiri v perio d kapitalizma . Novosibirsk, 1980 . Goryushkin,dvukh L .M . Sibirskoye krest'yanstvo na rubezhe vekov . Novosibirsk, 1967 .

Goryushkin, L .M ., et al . Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Sibiri, 1914 - 1917 . Khronika i istoriografia . Novosibirsk, 1987 . Istoriografiya gorodov Sibiri .Novosibirsk, 1984 . Istoriya gorodov Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1977 . 103 Khozyaystvennoye Sibiri v period kapitalizma . Novosibirsk, 1988 . Kirilov, I .K . Tsvetushchee sostoyanie vserossiyskogo gosudarstv a [reprint ; first published 1727, revised 1737] . Moscow 1977 . Koche damov, V .I . Pervye russkiye goroda Sibiri . Moscow, 1978 . Kopylov, A . Ocherki kul'turnoi zhizni Sibiri XVII-nachala XIX v . Novosibirsk, 1974 .

Krest'yanstvo Sibiri v period uprocheniya i razvitiy a sotsializma . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

K voprosu ob industrializatsii Sibiri . Novonikolaevsk, 1925 . Maksanov, S ., ed . Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe razvitie Buryati i XVII-nachalo v . Novosibirsk, 1987 . Mamsik, T . Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Sibiri : vtoraya chetvert XIXveka . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Mirzoev, V .G . Istoriografiya Sibiri . Moscow, 1970, pp . 3-11 , 388-392 . Muller, G .F . Istoriya Sibiri . Moscow, 1937 .

Narochnitskii, A ., ed . Istoricheskaia geografiia Rossii . XVII - nachaloXX v . Moscow, 1975 .

Ogly, B .I . Stroyitel'stvo gorodov Sibiri . Leningrad, 1980 . Okladnikov, A .P . and Shunkov, V .I ., eds . Istoriya Sibiri , 5 vols . Leningrad, 1968 .

Pechenkin, M . Sibir' v leninskom plane postroeniia sotsializm a 1917-1924 gody . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Pokrovskii, N . Istochniki po istorii Sibiri dosovetskogo perioda . Sborniktrudov . Novosibirsk, 1988 .

Pokrovskii,Dosovetskog N . Novyeo Materialy po Istorii Sibiri Perioda . Novosibirsk, 1986 .

Pokshishevskiy, V .V . Yakutiya . Moscow, 1957 .

Rafienko, Lyudmila . "Neizvestnyi istoricheskii atlas Sibiri . " .' Voprosi Istorii 4 (April 1989), pp . 128-132 . Rezun,gorod D .Yaa . Ocherki istorii izucheniia Sibiriskogo kontsa XVI-pervo i ‘Eke . Novosibirsk, 1982 . 1 0 4 Rezun, D .Ya . Ocherki istorii Sibirskogo goroda . Novosibirsk , 1982 .

Russkaya kniga v dorevolyutsionnoi Sibiri : fondy redkikh knigi rukopisei Sibirskikh bibliotek . Novosibirsk, 1988 . Shdanova, A .A . Sibir i Dekabristi . Irkutsk, ]988 .

Shinkarev, Leonid . Sibir' : otkuda ona poshla i kydu onaidet . Moscow, 1978 .

Sibir' perioda kapitalizma, several vols . Novosibirsk, 1965 . Sibirskaya Sovetskaya entsiKopediya, 3 vols . Moscow, 1929-32 . Skrynnikov, R .G . Sibirskaya ekspeditsiya Yermaka . Novosibirsk , 1986 .

Torgovlya gorodov Sibiri kontsa XVI - nachala XX v . Novosibirsk , 1987 . Tyumen' : vorota Sibiri . Sverdlovsk, 1986 . a Voprosy formirovaniya russkogo naseleniya Sibiri v XVII - nachal e XIX vv . Tomsk, 1978 . Voprosy istorii i sotsiologii Dal'nego Vostoka . Blagoveshchensk , 1972 . Voprosy sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiva Sibiri v perio d kapitalizma . Barnaul, 1984 .

1 0 5 VI . SIBERIA, contemporary, in Russia n

Aganbegyan, A .G . Sibir na rubezhe vekov . Moscow, 1984 . Aganbegyan, A .G ., ed . Ekonomicheskiye problemy razvitiya Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1974 . Aganbegyan, A .G . and Kin, A .A ., eds . BAM : pervoye desyatiletiye . Novosibirsk, 1984 . Aizenberg, E .B . and Sobolev, Yu .A . Kompleksnyeprogram razvitiya vostochnykh rayonov SSSR . Moscow, 1982 . Alekseev, V .V . Industrial'noe razvitie Sibiri v god y poslevoennukh piatletok1946-1960 . Novosibirsk ; 1982 .

Alekseev, V .V . Ocherki ekonomiki Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1980 . Alekseev, V .V . Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe razviti e sovetskoy Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1984 . Alekseev, V .V . Sotsial'nye aspekty industrial'nogo razvitii a Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1983 . Alekseev, V .V . Urbanizatsiia sovetskoi Sibiri . Novosibirsk , 1987 .

Alekseev, V .V . and Isupov, V .A . Naseleniye Sibiri v gody velikov otchestvennoy voyny . Novosibirsk, 1986 . Alimov, Yu .P . and Zhokhova, V .P . Analiz effektivnost i razmeshcheniya proizvoditel'nykh sil Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka . Moscow, 1979 .

Averin, A .H . and Antropav, E .P . Zapadnaya Sibir . Moscow, 1988 .

Ayzenberg, E .R . an Sobolev, Yu.A. Kompleksnye programmy : razvitiya vostochnykh rayonov SSSR . Moscow, 1982 . Bandman, M .R . Razvitie narodnogo khozyaystva Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1978 . Bandman, M .R . et al . Sibir' v edinom narodno- khozyaystvennom komplekse . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Bandman, M .R . and Orlov, B .P . Territorialno-proizvodstvenn i kompleksi . Novosibirsk, 1988 . Bartkova, I .I . "Portovye goroda Dal'nego Vostoka," i n Territorial'no-khozyaystvennye struktura Da l'nego Vostoka , pp . 142-51 . Vladivostok, 1982 .

1 0 6 "Chislennost naseleniya stolits soyuzni respublik i gorodov s chislom shitelei svishe milliona chelovek na 1 yanvary a 1984 g ." Vestnik Statistiki, No . 11, 1984, pp . 64-79 . Chusovitin, N . Metallurgi Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka v usloviak h razvitogo sotsializma . Novosibirsk, 1987 . Dokuchaev, G .A . and Kozybaev, M .K . Osushchestvlenie leninskik h idey razvitiya proizvoditel'nykh sil . Alma Ata, 1987 .

Dubnova, A .P . and Orlova, B .P ., eds . Khozyaystvennoye osvoeniy e novykh rayonov i ekonomicheskiy rost Sibiri . Novosibirsk , 1980 .

Dudukalov, V .I . Razvitie sovetskoe torgovli v Sibiri v god y sotsialisticheskogo stroitel'stva 19 21-1928 gg. Tomsk , 1978 .

Efimkin, M .M . Sotsialnoe razvitii rabochego klassa Sibiri, 1959 - 1980 . Novosibirsk, 1989 .

Ekonomicheskaya geografiya SSSR, chast' II . Moscow, 1989 . Geograficheskie problemy osvoeniya vostochnykh rayonov SSSR . Irkutsk, 1984 .

Granberg, A .G ., ed . Ekonomika Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

Gukov, V .P . Problemy ekonomiki vostochnoy Sibiri . Novosibirsk , 1981 .

Irkutsk : geograficheskii atlas . Moscow 1986 . Istoriya promyshlennogo razvitiya Soverskogo Dal'nego a (period sotsializma) . Vladivostok, 1979 .

Itogi vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1959 goda. Moscow, 1962 .

Itogi vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1970 goda . Moscow, 1972 . Kalmik, V .A ., Rivkina, R .V ., Khokhulina, L .A ., et al . Sotsialno- ekonomicheskoy razvitii Sibirskogo sela . Novosibirsk, 1987 . Kashtanov, A .N . Razvitiye sel'skogo khozyaystva Sibiri i Dal'n e go Vosto k a . Mosco w

1980 . Khorev, B .S . Regionalnaya politika v SSSR . Moscow, 1989 . 1 0 7 Khozyaystvennoe osvoenie novykh rayonov i_ekonomicheskiy ros t Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1980 . Kligman, M .B . BAM . Moscow, 1978 . Kolesova, L .I ., ed . Problemy razvitii transportnoy sistem Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1980 . Komogortsev, I . Sotsial'no-ekomicheskoe i kul'turnoe razviti e Zabaikal'ya . Novosibirsk, 1980 .

Kosmachev, R .P . and Mikhaylov, Yu .P . Geografiya osvoeniy a resursov Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1979 . Krivoborskaya, A .I . Prirodno-ekonomicheskiy potentsial zony BAM . Novosibirsk, 1987 . Lappo, G .M . and Pivovarov, Yu . L . Geografiya naseleniya SSSRv usloviyah NTR . Moscow, 1988 . Lappo, G .M . "Gorod v territorial'no-ekonomicheskikh sistemax . " In Voprosy Geografii 115 . Ekonomicheskaya i sotsial'nay a geografiya, pp . 131-41 . Moscow, 1980 . • - Lisenko, V .L . Metodologiya i opyt razrabotki regionalniy progra m v Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1989 . Lukinskii, F . Narodnoe obrazovanie v Sibiri 1928-1941 gg . Novosibirsk, 1982 .

Malinin, E .D . and Ushakov, A .K . Naseleniye Sibiri . Moscow , 197E . Medvedkova, E .A . Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe rayonirovanie priangar'ya . Novosibirsk, 1985 . Misevich, R .N ., ed . Geoqrafiya naseleniya Sibiri . Irkutsk , 1976 . Misevich, K .N . and Ryashchenko . Geograficheskaya sredai usloviya zhizni naseleniya Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1988 . Molodenkov, L .V ., ed . Osvoenie novykh khozyaystvennyk h territoriy v Vostochnykh rayonov RSFSR . Novosibirsk, 1987 .

Kolesova, TAG . Ekonomicheskaya geografiya Sibiri . Moscow, 1975 . Kolesova, TAG. and Zakharina, D.M. Novaya geografiya Sibiri . Moscow, 1972 . Moskovskii,gorodskogo A . and Isupov, V .A . Formirovanie naseleniia Sibiri 1926-1939 gg . Novosibirsk, 1984 . 1 0 8

Mozhin,Dal'nego V .P ., ed . Ekonomicheskoye razvitiye Sibiri i Vostoka . Moscow, 1980 . Myakinenkova, B .M ., ed . Problemy rasseleniya v rayonakh Severa . Leningrad, 1977 .

Naymark, N .I . "Sovremennaya set' gorodskikh aglomeratsiy SSSR . " Izvestiya AN SSSR . Seriya Geograficheskaya, no . 6 (Nov-De c 1985) : 82-91 .

"Obshchesoyuznye smotriny Sibiri ." Ekonomika i organizatsiya promyshlennogo proizvodstva (EKO), no . 2, 1986, pp . 103-35 . Orlov, B .P ., ed . Razvitie promyshlennosti i khozyaystvenno e osvoenie novykh rayonov Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1985 . Orlov, B .P ., ed . Tendentsii ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Sibir i (1961-1975 gg .) . Novosibirsk, 1980 . Orlov, V .I . Zapadnaya Sibir' . Moscow, 1961 . Osobennosti khozvaystvennogo razvitiya i zaseleniya rayono v Sibiri . Irkutsk, 1979 .

Osvoenie prirodnykh resursov Zabaykal'ya . Novosibirsk, 1985 . Pechenkin, MD . Sibir v Leninskom plane postroeniya sotsializm a 1917-1924 q . Novosibirsk, 1988 . Pertsik, E .N . Gorod v Sibiri . Moscow, 1980 . Pertsik, E .N . "Problemy urbanizatsii Sibiri ." In Voprosy geografii 115 . Ekonomicheskaya i sotsial'naya geografiya , pp . 154-63 . Moscow, 1980 .

Pistun, N .D . Ekonomicheskaya geografiya SSSR . Rayonnay a chast' . Kiev, 1984 . Pokshishevskiy, V .V . Yakutiya-priroda-lyudi-khozyaystvo . Naychno-Populyarnaya Seriya : Moscow, 1957

Promyshlennoe razvitie Omskoy oblasti, 1917-1975 . Omsk, 1977 . Radnaev,Vostochnogo B . L . and Sanshieva, S . G . Transport Zabaikalya. Novosibirsk, 1989 .

Razvitiya narodnokhozyaystva Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1978 . Razvitie regional'nykh gorodskikh sistem rasseleniya i razmeshchenie proizvodstva . Novosibirsk, 1984 .

Retrospektivnyy analiz ekonomiki Dal'nego Vostoka . Vladivostok , 109 1982 .

"Rossiiskaya Federatsiyatrtochnaya Sibir ." Sovetskii . Moscow, 1969 .

"Rossiiskaya Federatsiya Dalnii Vostok ." Sovetskii Soyuz . Moscow, 1971 .

Rudenko, Yu . N . and Saneev, B .G . "Napravleniya i problem y formirovaniya Vostochno-Sibirskogo neftegazogo kompleksa . " Izvestiya 8/2 (May 1988), pp . 22-30 .

Sergeev, M . Irkutsk : putevoditel . Moscow : Raduga, 1986 . Shemetov, P .V . Ekonomicheskiye issledovaniya v Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1983 .

Shniper, R .I ., ed . Tendentsii ekonomicheskogo razvitiya ros t Sibiri (1961-75) . Novosibirsk, 1980 . Sibirskiye goroda . Novosibirsk, 1981 . p Sigalov, M .R . and Lamin, V .A . Zheleznodorozhnoe stroitel'stvov praktike khozyaystvennogo osvoeniya Sibiri . Novosibirsk , 1988 .

Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe razvitie Sovetskoy Sibiri : istoricheskiy and sovremennost' . Novosibirsk, 1984 . Sotsial'noe aspekty industrial'nogo razvitiya Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1983 .

SSSR Administrativno-territorial'noe delenie soyuznykh respublik . Moscow, various years to 1987 . Territorial'no-khozyaystvennye struktury Dal'nego Vostoka . Vladivostok, 1982 .

Trotskovskiy, A .Ya . Razvitie sela v usloviyakh urbanizatsii . Novosibirsk, 1985 .

Ushakov, A .R . Naseleniye Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1976 . Voprosy geografi Zabaikalskovo Severa . Moscow, 1964 .

Vorob'yev, V .V . Formirovani naseleniya Vostochnoy Sibiri . Novosibirsk, 1975 .

Vorob'yev, V .V . Naseleniye Vostochnoy Sibiri . Novosibirsk , 1977 .

1 1 0 Vorob'yev, V .V ., ed . Voprosy ekonomicheskoy geografii Vostochno y Sibiri . Irkutsk, 1975 .

1 1 1