Paul Goble
Staunton, July 8 – Unless
Moscow addresses and overcomes “super-high mortality rates” among young people
and working-age Russians, the country will face population decline even if the
Russian government is able to boost fertility rates, according to Abel
Aganbegyan, a member of the Academy of Sciences and a Kremlin advisor.
Indeed, the noted
economist says, if Russia were able to reduce mortality rates in the coming
years as much as those rates have fallen over the last seven, then anticipated
declines in the number of births in the next two decades would not lead to the
depopulation of Russia (expert.ru/expert/2014/28/umene-ne-upast-chislom/).
But for that happy
outcome to occur, Aganbegyan says, Russians must recognize the seriousness of
the problem before them, devote far more resources to the solution of
demographic challenges, and recognize the real costs of not doing so by putting
a price on human life.
In
the current issue of “Ekspert,” the academician says that last year was a good
one demographically for the Russian Federation in that the population grew by
24,000 people, the result of a 30 percent increase in the birthrate over the
preceding seven years and a 20 percent decline in the deathrate over the same
period.
But this one good
year must not obscure the seriousness of Russia’s demographic problems. Already in 2014, “the number of the dying
again has begun to exceed the number being born, and if this tendency
continues, then depopulation will be renewed.”
Unfortunately, that is a real risk. The
reduction in the number of births is connected in the first instance with
declines in the number of women in prime child-bearing ages and secondarily
with the decline in preferred family size among Russians. Changing this will require far larger
investments than the Russian government has yet made, he says.
This
challenge, Aganbegyan continues, should direct the attention of Russian policy makers
to the possibility of reducing mortality rates and thus extending life
expectancies. At present, he notes, “the level of mortality in Russia in
comparison with other countries is catastrophically high, and life expectancy
is extremely low.”
When
age structures are standardized, mortality rates in Russia are 40 percent
higher than they are in European countries.
And Russian life expectancy is almost ten years younger and little
different than it was in 1964-1965 in the Soviet Union. But “behind those
unfortunate numbers are even worse ones, Aganbegyan says.
The worst is that in the Russian Federation,
mortality rates are higher than in other countries among children and among
those of working-age, especially men. Infant mortality is 2.3 times higher in
Russia than in Europe, and working-age mortality is 3.5 times higher, with 80
percent of those being men.
Both of these depress overall life expectancy
figures, Aganbegyan points out, and at present, Russia lags behind “all
post-socialist countries except Albania” as well as behind
many countries in the developing world.
There are many things
that could be done to change that, the Moscow scholar continues: reducing
alcohol consumption, improving medical services including putting doctors in
ambulances, and promoting a healthier way of life generally through medical and
other public institutions.
That will require not
just a commitment and more money but a resolution of “one of the most
principled issues in this sphere, the question of the value of a human life,”
something Russia has not yet faced up to.
Aganbegyan says his calculations show the death of a working-age Russian
costs the economy six to eight million rubles (200,000 to 300,000 US dollars).
When such losses are
recognized, he says, the far more modest costs of improved medical care and a
better way of life are put in context.
Consequently, Aganbegyan argues that setting an official figure for the
economic value of a human life is essential if Russia is to do what it has to
reduce mortality rates and avoid depopulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment