Paul
Goble
Staunton, June 4 – Rosstat, the
Russian government’s statistics agency, reports that during the first four
months of 2017, Russians gave birth to almost 70,000 fewer children than they
did in the comparable period a year earlier, a decline that wiped out all gains
from declines in mortality rates and put Russia on course to lose more than
280,000 people in 2017.
And that happened even though
marriages increased in number relative to population while divorces declined
slightly (gks.ru/free_doc/2017/demo/edn04-17.htm
and
newsland.com/community/5325/content/vymiranie-russkikh-uskorilos/5853964),
and means that Russia’s demographic decline is accelerating again.
Especially
hard hit are predominantly ethnic Russian regions where the declines in the
first three months were greatest, amounting to some 114,000. That was partially
compensated for by increases in predominantly Muslim regions, and as a result,
the total decline for this period was only 93,000. But the ethnic mix of the country
continues to change against the Russians.
All
of this was predicted by demographers. What Russia is going through now, they
say, is “the second wave of the demographic collapse of 1992-2000.” Low birthrates then mean that there is simply
no new group of women in the prime child-bearing cohort to give birth. And that
pattern will feed on itself, reducing each new generation in turn.
As
a result, many regions and especially predominantly Russian ones will suffer
from depopulation or from an increase in the number of pensioners to the extent
life expectancies increase. But there
will be no one to replace them as workers or to support them after they take
retirement.
What
makes this situation especially difficult is that Vladimir Putin and his regime
are almost in complete denial, especially after the three years in which there
was a slight uptick in the number of births and in which births did exceed
deaths. But that period is now ending as all serious demographers predicted it
would.
And
what is worse is that Putin’s “optimization” programs – a euphemism for
cutbacks in medical care and social services – almost certainly means that
there will be ever fewer live births, higher infant mortality, and a much
slower growth in life expectancies than
would have been the case otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment