Saturday, May 26, 2012


Features

Postcommunist, European, And 'Short Of People'

"This is a village of pensioners and after we all die, nothing will remain except for a ghost town," says Iamze Saparashvili, a 70-year-old retired nurse living in the village of Grdzelchala in eastern Georgia.
TEXT SIZE - +
By Charles Recknagel
Media around the globe have splashed headlines marking the birth of the world's 7 billionth citizen.

It is a sobering birthday. That's 1 billion people more than the world had just 12 years ago.

But while the population of most areas of the world keeps inexorably growing, that is not the case in Ukraine.

Halyna Marchenko, the head of the obstetrics department of one of Kyiv's maternity hospitals, spends her day delivering babies. But the country has not had enough babies to offset its falling population for decades.

"There was a large decline after Chornobyl, after 1986. For three to four years after it, people were afraid to give birth," says Marchenko. "Now in Kyiv the birthrate has grown, but that is not the normal situation in Ukraine. In Ukrainian villages, fertility has fallen significantly, compared to the regional centers."

One Thing In Common

Ukraine is one of just a dozen countries in the world today that has a negative population growth. And by no accident, it shares one key characteristic in common with almost all the others: It is a formerly communist European state.

The dozen countries include five in the former Soviet Union: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, and Lithuania. Three others are former Soviet satellites: Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. And two more are from the former Yugoslavia: Serbia and Croatia. The final two are Germany and Portugal -- Western European states that promote low birthrates.

The fact that so many of the states in this group share a communist past intrigues demographers because it suggests they were mismanaged into their negative population growth. All of them began losing population after they experienced the collapse of communism two decades ago.

Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, for example, together have only 94 percent of the population they had in 1990. Collectively, that represents a loss of some 12 million people. Only Russia, today, is beginning to show recent signs of reversing this trend enough to move from negative growth to zero growth.

High Death Rate

One of the reasons for population decline is a high death rate, which in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine is among the world's highest outside of Africa.

"The death rate [in Russia], which was always terrible underneath communism ever since the 1960s, it got worse, even worse -- temporarily -- in the early 1990s," says David Coleman, professor in demography at Oxford University in Britain.

"It's now recovered a bit to the same sort of level it was under communism, but further progress there is really very weak," he continues. "And this is manifested in a gap of at least 12 years between expectation of life of males, which is in the mid-60s, and that of women, which is in the 70s, which is a much bigger gap than is normal in developed countries, or anywhere else for that matter."

VIDEO: See what's become of the world's "Six Billionth Baby" in Bosnia

According to the UN's just-released State of the World Population 2011, the life expectancy for Russian men is 63 years and for women 75 years.

Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus average 14.3 deaths per thousand people each year. All three countries share high alcohol-abuse rates -- especially for men -- and poor dietary habits that help make their death rate not only far higher than in Western Europe but also far higher than in the former Soviet Central Asian republics.

The average death rate for the five Central Asian republics today, at 6.6 deaths per thousand, is just half what it is in Russia. The lower figure is variously attributed to a healthier diet, greater support for individuals from extended families, and less alcoholism.

Low Birthrate

If the death rate in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus is high, the birthrate is low -- too low to keep the population stable. The average Ukrainian woman gives birth to 1.2 children and the average Russian woman to 1.5 children. To keep a population stable, a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is usually considered necessary.

Why is the birthrate so low in post-Soviet European countries? Many demographers say part of the explanation is socioeconomic.

"Speaking of fertility, there are a number of factors. It is mainly influenced with economic factors, and sometimes psychological, including the fact that women in European countries are mainly well-educated. They don’t agree to be limited only with internal family interests," says Ella Libanova, director of the Institute for Demography and Social Studies at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv.

Under the Soviet system, of course, women were equally well-educated and most worked full-time. But career paths were limited. More importantly, the dismantling of the subsidized child-care system and of other features of the social safety net has meant that many women in the post-Soviet European states -- like their Western European counterparts -- now delay their childbearing years until their late 20s and early 30s.

That is a marked difference from the Soviet years, when the great majority of women got married and had children earlier.

The postponement of children allows women to be more independent and helps families cope with difficult economic circumstances. But it also means that societies that practice it have negative or low population growth rates.

Out-Migration

Countries that maintain a more traditional culture of early marriage have higher birthrates. In the five Central Asian states, the average birthrate is 2.5 children per woman, twice the rate in Russia or Ukraine.

But there are still other factors, too, that have helped to weaken the growth rate in many former communist European countries.

One of the most important of these is out-migration. As economies continue to stagnate in the former communist countries that have not successfully moved to free-market systems, both skilled and unskilled workers leave home in search of jobs.

The effects of out-migration are particularly noticeable in countries like Georgia, Armenia, and Moldova. These countries -- unlike Russia, Ukraine and Belarus -- have a modest growth rate, but it is kept much lower than normal by the departure of people across their borders.

"The transition period brought to the fore such demographic problems as the aging population, a growing emigration rate and, of course, an abrupt birthrate decline," says Garik Hayrapetyan, executive representative of the UN Population Fund in Armenia.

"In the case of Armenia, the birthrate has nearly halved compared to what it was in 1990," he continues. "There are several factors. The first is, naturally, changes in the social and economic situation, a transition to market relations in which not all people managed to find their place or maintain their living standards at a necessary level. Under such circumstances some of them sought to go abroad to find a way for having proper living conditions there."

Empty Houses, Elderly People

In Armenia, one person out of every thousand emigrates each year. In Georgia, the number is twice that. In Moldova, experts say at least 20 percent of the country's active population -- or about 300,000 people -- work abroad, although the real figure could be as high as 1 million.

The depopulation is particularly visible in villages. Combined with the general aging of the population that accompanies a low birthrate, the result is once-thriving hamlets now filled with empty houses and elderly people.

"Not a single child has been born here since 2001. That's the end. This is a village of pensioners and after we all die, nothing will remain except for a ghost town," says Iamze Saparashvili, a 70-year-old retired nurse living in the village of Grdzelchala in eastern Georgia.

High death rates, low birthrates, out-migration, and low-to-negative population growth have become so familiar in many former communist European countries that over the past 20 years it has become the new way of life. It would be easy to imagine things could never be different.

But that would be an overly pessimistic picture. In European states that have made the transition successfully from communism to democracy and to a free-market system, population growth has resumed.

"Birthrates are still low in the countries of Central Europe, but at least in those where there has been political and economic reform, particularly in a democratic direction, death rates have gone down substantially," says Coleman of Oxford University.

"The progress of expectation of life in places like Hungary, Poland, and Czech Republic has resumed the upward trajectory which they were enjoying before the Second World War, and they are kind of rejoining Western Europe."

The transition to democracy spurred popularly demanded reforms such as a strengthening of the health-care system and at the same time bolstered market economies. Both effects have helped to raise the birthrate, lower the death rate, and reduce out-migration.

Twenty years of transition from communism has proved too short a time for many European countries to regain their balance. But the success of those that have done so at least helps point the way forward.

RFE/RL Ukrainian Service correspondents Mykola Zakaluzhnyi and Irena Shtogrin; Armenian Service correspondent Karlen Aslanyan; and Georgian Service correspondents Eka Kevanishvili and Nino Kharadze contributed to this report
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Jack from: US
October 31, 2011 13:13
completely misleading and ideologically charged article, well in line with RFERL propaganda line. As a matter of fact, _all_ european countries have negative population trend. Most of them, like Sweden or Britain, mask this trend with immigration from Pakistan and other Muslim countries. This stupid article did not claim Sweden was "mismanaged into negative population growth". This article is rather cheap propaganda intended to prove how bad communists were, that even 20 years after communism people do not want to bear children. Even in US the strong population growth is entirely in Latino and black communities.
In Response

by: Johann from: USA
October 31, 2011 21:04
Jack is comeplately right. I am born in Iceland, that has relatively high population growth. But that population growth is fueled by imegration from Vietnam and Thailand, beatween 1980 and 1990 and imegration from Poland ( 11.000 ), and Luthania (4.500) after 2000. That is out of population of 300.000. So the "Blond " Vikings of Iceland, are slowly disapering, because of a low birthrate among them !!!
In Response

by: Brandon from: USA
November 01, 2011 01:47
Jack, the original article is not nearly as "ideologically charged" as your ... rant. No, not ALL European countries have "negative population trend." It must be nice to make up whatever facts you want to make your point. If you want to maintain that all European countries have negative population trends, prove it. Provide a link. Some countries in Western Europe have declining populations, it is true. The article states in pretty clear terms a big difference between those countries and the post-Soviet countries. While in those Western European countries the decline has entirely been due to declining birth rates, in the post-Soviet countries it is low birthrates and extraordinarily high death rates. How could you possibly overlook that? And how could you possibly find this article ideologically questionable? How is it an ideological statement to point out that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have death rates that are high and male life expectancies that are low by world standards? The article contains lots of useful information, but instead of responding to the arguments it makes, you fixate on one little statement about the countries being "mismanaged into negative population growth." Maybe you decide to focus on this sentence and ignore the rest of the article because you have nothing useful, intelligent, or insightful to contribute. As far as your last line, of what relevance is the fact that in the U.S. population growth is "strong" only in Latino and Black communities? Who cares? How does it detract from the points made in this article? And that's not even mentioning the fact that, yes, while population growth is lower among whites than it is among blacks and Latinos in the U.S., population growth among American whites is STILL much higher than population growth rates in the countries this article looks at. But whatever, man, keep looking for your anti-communist conspiracies everywhere you look. Much easier to cry about bias and throw around weak anecdotal evidence (or just make facts up!!) than it is to say something substantive.
In Response

by: Jack from: US
November 01, 2011 18:50
I see you were taught well to believe government propaganda, but not basic math. The child mortality rate is second-order correction to population trend. Child mortality is almost of no consequence for population growth. If a women in a country only bear 1.5 children in average, it does not matter for population trend if 0.01% or 0.1% of children die. RFERL is just tryng to push its usual dull propaganda, instead of publishing truly thoughtful analysis
In Response

by: First Advisor from: Everywhere
November 02, 2011 16:37
This accusation is completely and totally false. The highest population growth in the USA is among the ethnic group of white, right-wing Christians, and that has been true for at least the past 20 years. The region of highest population growth in the USA is the northern Midwest, the so-called Bible Belt. These very simple facts are well-known to Grade 8 students. How anyone could be ignorant of such basic facts is incredible.
In Response

by: Jack from: US
November 02, 2011 22:18
and university professors reproduce at an alarming rate, especially in north dakota

by: Eugenio from: Vienna
October 31, 2011 19:42
Interestingly enough, in the last issue of The Economist there was a long article that described in detail how the population of Detroit has deminished by 25 % (!) in the last 10 years. One could even draw some paralels here maybe :-).
In Response

by: Jack from: US
November 01, 2011 02:46
I have been in Detroit and 25% decline in 10 years sounds like huge underestimate. I saw 70% decline estimate. The place is a total devastation - blocks after blocks of abandoned buildings. If someone wants to film a movie "Life after people", all they have to do is to go to downtown Detroit.. Or a movie "Planet after nuclear war" ..
In Response

by: David S. Levine from: Hobe Sound, FL
November 02, 2011 04:41
No long ago someone sent me a photographic comparison of Hiroshima and Detriot 50 years after the Atom Bomb. Detriot was as described by youy and Hiroshima was a booming industrial city. It's nothing short of disgusting!

by: Anne Bennett from: Canada
October 31, 2011 23:58
The birth rate has also dropped below replacement in the prosperous Asian countries such as Japan.
In Response

by: Brandon from: USA
November 01, 2011 12:46
Yes, but Japan has one of the highest life expectancies in the world, while Russia has one of the lowest male expectancies outside of Africa. Seriously, did people not even read the article? It pretty clear states that the problem is not only one of low birth, but extremely high death rates (and for some countries, emigration).

by: Eucitizen from: eu
November 01, 2011 01:59
sometimes
somebody
should remind to these fundamentalists of western/capitalist world
that these countries
are not only post-communist
but also neo capitalist !

somebody
should remind to these fundamentalists
that damage in these countries in the past 20 years
are mainly damages of the NEO CAPITALISM .

Or we realy must think that capitalism has no responsabilty for hall this !?!?!

by: Jack from: US
November 01, 2011 02:40
Ironically the countries which author wanted to portray as "declining" , for example Belarus, Hungary, Russia, are in fact, in much better shape demographically than most West European countries. In Belarus you won't see Muslim or black ghettos like in Britain or US or France or Germany. 25% of population of major urban centers in Britain is Muslim. Britain is going down the drain pretty fast, probably in 40 years the place will turn into huge Gaza strip. Turks formed parallel society in Germany reproducing at many times the rate Germans do.
In Response

by: Johann from: USA
November 01, 2011 16:14
I would rather like to live in Belarus, than in Muslim, London. London is a fun city to visit, but not to live in. I work as a shuttle-bus driver for a Hotel in Minneapolis, and people from other parts of USA are always praising Minneapolis for its cleanlinness and safety on the streets. People are safe downtown, Minneapolis wisiting the Pubs and Resturants. The only Country in Western Europe that haven't had immigration, is Finland and Faroe Islands, a island beatween Scotland and Iceland !!!
In Response

by: Patricia from: USA
November 01, 2011 16:36
Belorus is called Belorus for a reason-- it's White Russia. Ukraine, Russia and Belorus are some of the most hostile countries towards other nationalities and ethnic groups. They hate the Jews, the blacks, anything brown, and make damn sure that they are not welcomed-- from arresting them for walking down the street to more violent matters. They do have a certain special relationship with some Muslim populations, but that's neither much to praise nor free of hostility-- Russia has a lot more space to isolate their Muslim populations, by the way. And, I don't know how you can claim them to be more demographically sound regarding age distribution with the 10 year gap in life span between men and women-- that's really what distinguishes these countries from the West.
In Response

by: Johann from: USA
November 02, 2011 02:07
Patricia !!! About hatred. I don't belive in Santa, like Christians do. I celebrate Halloween, like Catholicks do. I eat pork, even if I am a Jew, and I have Muslim friends. I have lived in USA for 15 years, and I have found out that her is a lot of loving people, but also some hatred against : Immigrants, Jews ( some Christians hate Jews), Blacks and Latinos. I love USA, and My no 1 destination when on vacation, is to go Up North, to Duluth and Lake Superior, go fishing, or walk around. I have a lovely Swedish-American born wife. How can you condem Russians, or Belarussians, if you have never visited this countries !!!
In Response

by: Patricia from: USA
November 08, 2011 17:11
OK. I have been to ALL of those countries, and I lived in Ukraine. I am not condemning all Russians, Belarussians, etc. I am simply saying that it is a very hostile environment towards minorities and are more likely to act on their hatred.

by: solo from: home
November 01, 2011 04:55
Many people are not aware of the silent Genicide. The widows of the Millions upon millions of WWII casualties Are leaving us. children who want a better life and fear the past and its reponsibilities.

by: Catherine A. Fitzpatrick from: New York
November 01, 2011 07:05
It's terribly politically incorrect, of course, since you're "supposed" to attribute the post-communist depletions in population as "caused by capitalism," but I would invite you to open your mind and consider that in fact it is a continued effect of mass terror and crimes against humanity in the Soviet era. It is a continued demographic bounce, caused by the massive depletions in people -- deliberately, killed by the state. You can't remove 6 million people in Ukraine by dekulakification and the forced Holodomor -- to cite one of the many mass atrocities in the former Soviet space -- and expect to see the population recover in a generation or two. It doesn't. It is a peculiar manmade phenomenon not sufficiently studied. Alcoholism is a byproduct of communism and mass terror, not merely some isolated health problem.

In Response

by: Daniel
November 01, 2011 12:57
It is widely documented now that a massive drop in living standards and corresponding higher death rates in many countries of the former Soviet Union in the early 90s occured not as a result of Soviet policies, but due to economic shock therapy, collapse in social security and heath care, as well as a general economic depression as a result of the disintegration of the USSR. Neither is alcoholism a typical Soviet problem, but a typical Russian problem, that predates even the Soviet Union. Just read Gogol or Dostoyevsky and you will understand.
In Response

by: Patricia from: USA
November 01, 2011 16:47
These are both good expansions on the analyses of the situation. There is a fearsome and fatalistic mentality in the Russian sphere that has spanned centuries, which has been exacerbated at certain periods of time-- such as the purges of the Soviet era and the economic turmoil of the fall of the Soviet Union. Alcohol is certainly the persistent "green snake" in the culture of these countries. With regards to the article, I don't think the numbers do enough justice to the situation, especially in Ukraine. They were hard hit by many of the historical factors, and in recent years they have suffered disappointing governance after the Orange Revolution that didn't leave many people with a whole lot of confidence that they would be taken care of. And, the current government looks like a mob takeover-- who wants to bring kids into that? Also, if we look at personality factors, I don't think the higher level of education of women has as much of an impact on Ukrainian women as it does for Western counterparts-- but getting into their romantic dealings is a whole other case study in itself.

by: blaine from: somewhere on planet earth
November 02, 2011 05:22
there is a massive discrepancy between this article and the CIA when it comes to the russian demographic situation: the CIA says that the russ. pop is dropping by about .047 percent each year while this article and the russian government insists that russia is experiencing negative pop growth and has arrested its population decline. Well, who is right and who is wrong here? My guess is that russia's population is still dropping because abortion remains widespread, the birthrate still appears to be below replacement level and you can't go from losing three-quarters a million a year to zero in the span of a few years - especially when alcoholism and high mortality amongst the male population remains pervasive. Somebody is lying to us.

by: First Advisor from: Everywhere
November 02, 2011 16:59
The bias of the report is in the assumption that negative population growth is wrong, and bad. There is no evidence in the 10,000-year history of humanity to support this bizarre belief. Obviously, sudden, stark falls in population, such as the effects of war, plague, and famine, are bad, because so many people die in a short period of time, causing a financial shock to a regional economy. Yet those events are completely different, and irrelevant, to a low birth rate, even combined with a low life expectancy and thus a high death rate in normal circumstances.

A declining population simply means that there are more resources available for the living. That is right, and a good situation. A low life expectancy and high death rate after 50 plainly results in few resources being wasted on the elderly, who don't contribute to society anymore. That is a good thing, and the way things should be, in any culture. Too many elderly living for a long time off other people's money is bad, and bad for any economy, as developed nations are discovering to their sorrow, frustration, and grief today.

A declining population can focus on productivity, and advancements in science and engineering, such as more and better robotics, more and better genetics, more and better agricultural advances, and so on. A constantly growing or stable labor force is self-defeating, when 50 percent of the people have an IQ below the global average, and are thus unemployable, for all practical and useful purposes. The extreme prejudice and bigotry of the report against declining populations, and pro-growing populations, is inexplicable and senseless. The attitude is like some wallowing in self-destruction, clearly not a sane response to reality.
In Response

by: Brandon from: USA
November 03, 2011 02:15
"A low life expectancy and high death rate after 50 plainly results in few resources being wasted on the elderly, who don't contribute to society anymore. That is a good thing, and the way things should be, in any culture."

Wow, I had to read that several times to make sure that you really, truly wrote those words. I mean, I kind of understand what you're saying, but you know, not everything boils down to coldly rational cost-benefit analysis. When you do your little calculations of "contributions to society," do you include things like children being able to spend time with and learn from their grandparents? Or children being able to spend more years with their parents? Or do such silly things not enter into your analysis because they don't have any economic value?

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Chechen Leader Names New Premier

Latest Comment (5 total)

M: Ingush human rights defender Magomed Khazbiev: "Kremlin needs slaves in the Caucasus":
http://pik.tv/ru/shows/vasha-pravda/video/86/4437 More

Kingsley As Karzai?

Latest Comment (1 total)

M: they put the dictators in power and they make fun of them More

Moldova Sentences 3 On Uranium Charge

Latest Comment (1 total)

Ionas Aurelian Rus:
One should not only salute the capture of these officials by the Moldovan ... More