Recent Focused Series »

Indo-European Origins
Northern California
The Caucasus
Imaginary Geography
Home » Economic Geography, Environmental Geography, Population Geography, Siberia

The Siberian Curse: Whither Siberia?—part 3

Submitted by on May 18, 2012 – 4:50 pm 17 Comments |  
As discussed in the previous GeoCurrents posts, Siberia is often considered too big, too cold, and too polluted to be of much value. In order to remedy the impact of these factors on Siberia’s—and more generally, Russia’s—development, Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, the authors of The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia Out in the Cold, recommend that Russia shrinks its economic geography by encouraging massive migration from Siberia to European Russia and manning extractive operations east of the Ural Mountains on the “tour of duty” basis. But as noted in the preceding GeoCurrents post, the overall trajectory of Russia’s development continues to deviate markedly from Hill and Gaddy’s suggestions. As noted there, part of the problem lies with Russia’s policymakers, many of whom subscribe to the Eurasinist ideology. Also, as Hill and Gaddy point out, many Russian business leaders and would-be politicians, such as Roman Abramovich, use remote and resource-rich areas of Siberia as their personal treasure chests and “frontier of opportunity” (p. 172). The remainder of this article focuses on the issues that have been unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or misrepresented by Hill and Gaddy, thus helping to explain why Russians in general continue to view Siberia as a blessing rather than a curse.

Hill and Gaddy repeatedly emphasize the difference in economic geography between Russia and Canada: one section in chapter 3 is titled “What if Russians Had Behaved like Canadians?” and a section in chapter 10 “Turning Russians into Canadians”. Unlike that of Russia, the population of Canada—which too is vast and cold—is distributed mostly in the warmer areas along the southern border. However, the contrast between Russia and Canada in this respect is greatly exaggerated in The Siberian Curse. It is indeed true that more Russians than Canadians live in areas of harsh climate, but the Russian population remains concentrated in the European part of the country, and within Siberia it is focused in the warmer southwestern and coastal southeastern regions (see map).

Since most Siberians live in cities, their locations are crucial for Hill and Gaddy’s argument. However, Siberian cities constitute just over a quarter of Russia’s mid-level urban centers. The ten largest Siberian cities—Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Omsk, Chelyabinsk, Krasnoyarsk, Barnaul, Vladivostok, Irkutsk, Tyumen, and Khabarovsk—are all located in the relatively milder (by Siberian standards!) climatic belt, with a mean January temperature between -12°C (10°F) and -20°C (‑4°F). The only two sizeable cities located in the very harsh climatic zone are Norilsk and Yakutsk, with the mean January temperature of -38°C (‑36°F). As discussed in an earlier GeoCurrents post, Norilsk was built in conjunction with a neighboring Gulag camp, and both cities grew to their present size as major natural resource mining, processing, and shipping centers. Moreover, contrary to what Hill and Gaddy advocate, in the recent years both cities have experienced significant growth: from 2002 to 2010, Yakutsk has grown by 28% and Norilsk by 30%. Overall, this means that the distribution of Siberia’s population, the growth of Yakutsk and Norilsk aside, is not as irrational as Hill and Gaddy argue.

While Siberia is subject to extremely cold winters, most of the region also features warm summers, with temerarure rising up 30° C (86° F) and in some areas even 40° C (104° F), enabling gardeners to grow roses, melons, watermelons, grapes, and apricots. In fact, agriculture is well developed in southern Siberia and yields remain high. Siberia has very favorable conditions in some other respects as well. Fresh water is abundant and the earthquake danger is minimal; Mr. Kazantsev, the chief editor of a Russian journal Economics and Organization, tongue-in-cheek proposed an urgent relocation to Siberia of the population of seismic risk zones in California. Many Siberian residents value the beauty of the landscape and the relatively free frontier atmosphere. To them, Siberia is the homeland that their ancestors settled voluntarily; even if was not always the case, the myth is perpetuated regardless. But those who do remember the scale of forcible migration to Siberia often view Hill and Gaddy’s proposed westward migration as no less coercive.

Many Siberians feel pride in their region as “patriots of the North”, delighting in the natural beauty and rich resources of the area. Commonly held beliefs about the social conditions in Siberia, which—whether true or not—remain strong motivators to stay. Many locals believe that Siberians are kinder and more courteous than people of other regions. This belief has some basis, as the residents of Siberia—more than other Russians—relying on their family, friends, and neighbors for help in difficult circumstances. It is not uncommon for poor Siberians to share their winter stock of potato or cabbage with neighbors who have run out of food or had it stolen. In a survey of Magadan residents, when asked “On which authorities can you count in the largest degree when you need assistance?”, 67.5% of respondents answered “none”, and quite a few remarked that the most helpful are not authorities but parents or friends.

Among other perceived benefits of living in Siberia are higher wages, cheap and plentiful housing, and secure employment. Yet in actuality, wages are often delayed; housing is cheap in both senses of the word; and in smaller mining towns the only source of employment in the community can be, and often is, shut down with no notice after the mineral deposits have been exhausted. On the other hand, many Siberian residents do enjoy access to private garden plots, where produce can be grown for family consumption. That this factor is high on many people’s priority list indicates the difficulties with the centralized system of providing reasonably priced, good quality foodstuffs, especially in more remote areas. Many Siberians also believe that the cold climate is good for the health and slows the development of disease. The most adamant believers are known for their enjoyment of ice swimming, called morzhevanie in Russian, from the word for ‘walrus’. Events such as the one reported in a March 2012 GeoCurrents post, where hundreds of people took a plunge in near-freezing Lake Baikal with air temperatures dropping down to -25° C (-13° F), are not uncommon. In actuality, there is no scientific support for this belief, and the levels of pollution in many parts of Siberia are severe enough to negate whatever positive effects the climate might have.

But while environmental issues associated with permanent settlement and extractive industries are serious, the ecological costs of abandoning or downsizing large cities, as proposed by Hill and Gaddy, could be even more catastrophic. Under such a scenario, much toxic waste would be left with minimal monitoring and remediation at best, especially at abandoned industrial sites. Substances such as asbestos and lead would be leaking from both industrial and residential structures. Fires, which often break out in vacant buildings and structures as a result of arson or because of poor maintenance, faulty wiring, or debris, may spread from the abandoned cities to the countryside and thus pose a serious threat to the wildlife. Fighting such fires proves a difficult and dangerous task, as vacant buildings often contain open shafts, pits, and holes that can be an invisible threat to firefighters,. To the extent that massive westward migration will result in downsizing rather than abandoning cities, the vacant structures or districts would also pose environmental problems, such as buildup of trash, illegal dumping, and rodent infestations, for the remaining districts.

Social costs, in the sense of disrupting communities, would also result in significant harm for those who stay behind. Studies conducted in the U.S. have shown that living in a neighborhood with many vacant and abandoned properties exacts many costs on the remaining residents. While American studies focus mostly on financial damage, such as a decrease in property value and property taxes, other consequences, such as higher rates of criminal activity, have been noted as well. For example, a study conducted by the City of Richmond, VA, which analyzed citywide crime data from the mid-90s, found that of all the economic and demographic variables tested, vacant/abandoned properties had the highest correlation with crime. Less easily measured, psychological costs of urban abandonment involve social fragmentation: individuals who live in communities with a critical mass of vacant buildings begin to feel isolated, weakening the community as a whole. The aesthetic impact of abandoned sites, while not easily quantified in dollars, is another cost; pictures such as the one on the left, speak for themselves.

For me, the issue of urban abandonment hits close to home, literally. On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric exploded in flames just 800 feet from our home in San Bruno, CA (at the top middle of the picture), sending a fireball over 1,000 feet into the darkening sky. The resulting fire, which lasted until the wee hours of the morning, killed eight people and injured dozens more. Thirty-eight homes were destroyed and over a hundred more were badly damaged. Understandably, not all residents have decided to return to the neighborhood. Subsequently, PG&E and the city of San Bruno purchased several of the empty lots and damaged properties.

While the reconstruction of the neighborhood has started, the fate of over a dozen lots remains in limbo. In the meantime, waist-high grass and weeds reclaim the lots behind chain-link fences, trash builds up, rodents have become more common, break-ins are reported with increasing frequency, and mature trees that once lined the streets are gone.


Nearly two years after the explosion and fire, this once beautiful neighborhood remains an eyesore.






While it is not easy (or perhaps not even possible) to extrapolate from studies and incidents from the United States, such U.S.-derived data is the best we have because—as noted in an earlier GeoCurrents post—no permanent urban downsizing on the scale proposed by Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy has ever happened in any modern cities. Even Japanese, European, and Russian cities largely destroyed during World War II essentially recovered in a very short period of time.  But no such recovery is planned for the Siberian cities; instead, Hill and Gaddy suggest that extractive industries in Siberia should be manned on the “tour of duty” basis, which they claim to be “more cost effective” (p. 205). But what would be the economic and social costs of such an arrangement? The issue is much more controversial than what Hill and Gaddy would have one believe. As reported in a February 2012 GeoCurrents post, the “fly in; fly out” model of employment has been adopted in the Pilbara district of northwestern Australia. This region, noted for its gargantuan reserves of iron-ore and other minerals, is not unlike a mini-Siberia, although its climate is brutally hot rather than brutally cold. Most of the employees in the booming mining sector are transient workers, typically residing in the metropolitan Perth area and flying up to the mining country for working stints of a week or two. However, the government of Western Australia recently decided that the “tour of duty” model of employment is inefficient, and that more workers should reside permanently in the region. Whether anything will come out of this decision remains to be seen, but the lessons of the existing “fly in; fly out” model must be learned.

As one of our readers pointed out in his comments on the Pilbara story, “fly-in fly-out takes a toll on families”. If all or most Siberia extractive industries switch to this model, it would create a large population living in such “separated families”. The toll of such “part-time single parenthood” on mothers and children “on the mainland” is not easy to estimate, but it cannot be positive. As the experience of Soviet-era geological expeditions and other “tour of duty” arrangements shows, such employment models often wreak havoc not only on the families of the workers left behind but also on the Siberian indigenous communities, which have already been profoundly and negatively affected by extractive industries. For example, mixed marriages, typically between Russian men and indigenous women, which James Forsyth describes in terms of “temporary wives” or “provisional concubinage”, become common. Since mining is an overwhelmingly male-dominated industry, massive westward migration would effectively mean resettling more women than men into areas that already have very low sex ratios (that is, many more females than males), thus exacerbating an already existing problem in European Russia.

All in all, these issues show that Siberia is not a dead-weight on Russia’s economy but rather its anchor. The proposed “downsizing” of Siberian cities on a massive scale would more likely generate an apocalyptic dystopia rather than provide a magical solution to all that ills Russia today.

Previous Post
Next Post

Subscribe For Updates

It would be a pleasure to have you back on GeoCurrents in the future. You can sign up for email updates or follow our RSS Feed, Facebook, or Twitter for notifications of each new post:

Commenting Guidelines: GeoCurrents is a forum for the respectful exchange of ideas, and loaded political commentary can detract from that. We ask that you as a reader keep this in mind when sharing your thoughts in the comments below.

  • Magdalena Fas

    Thank you for revisiting this book, and in such a well balanced manner, too. I had the opportunity to read The Siberian Curse several years ago, and my (lasting, as it turns out) impression was that it lacked the subtle understanding of what is sometimes quite romantically described as the Russian soul. In fact, the authors seem to have adapted a very crude free market approach, which resulted in some truly bizarre conclusions. All this completely irrespective of the very fact that as such, US researchers recommending Russia’s withdrawal from its strategically vital dominium fall short of being ridiculous. It always made me ponder what proportion of the research for the book was desk based, as opposed to first hand insights/experiences of the authors, since the outcome seems so removed from reality and historical implications. 
    However, I appreciate the book for being such a great discussion starter, which you masterly showed in the series. 

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you so much, Magdalena!

      I am glad that I was able to capture some of “remove from reality and historical implications”. While the concept of “the Russian soul” is indeed too romantic, I tried to show how some of the more tangible concerns and more specific beliefs, held by Siberian locals (and Russians in general), affect the role of Siberia in Russia’s perception of itself.

  • Norbert

    You could look at the coal mining towns of Hokaido.  They experienced disappearance. But Japan is special.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Yes, Japan is special…

      There are quite a few mining towns (as well as some “company towns”) around the world that disappear or downsize when the resources run out or the company closes, but none of them are on the scale of Siberian cities that, Hill & Gaddy propose, should downsize…

  • Fred Zimmerman

    I don’t understand why anyone should care about what two americans recommend for Siberian policy.  Why did they even write the book and why even bother to respond to it? What you do say about Siberia is far more interesting than watching you knock down their strawman arguments.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you for the praise, Fred!

      The reason that I wanted to frame the discussion with the book is because it has made a strong impact not only among analysts in U.S. think-tanks but among Russian economists, politicians, etc.

  • James T. Wilson

    I think there would be a great deal of difference between downsizing cities and abandoning them.  Chernobyl, for instance, was abandoned entirely and I don’t think there are any people there to worry about.  Rapidly declining cities, however, like Detroit and Gary, are slow-motion urban tragedies.  The downsizing suggested here, however, sounds like something on a scale I have to struggle to find a comparison for.  The shrinking of Rome within its walls after the third century is the only thing that comes immediately to mind.

    As for not listening to a couple of Americans, if they were from Moscow, one might say why should Siberians listen to a couple of Muscovites, if they were from Irkutsk, one might say why should those who live in the Arctic listen to a couple of southerners.  Insider status is not only entirely relative, it is also a very poor grounding for authority on an issue.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you, James!
      Indeed, downsizing cities on such scale is new and unheard of, though Detroit and ancient Rome are good examples.
      As for “insider status”, it does give on a better understanding of what makes a place tick, but one can also argue that the beauty of Hill & Gaddy’s book is that they take a completely objective “outsider” approach, looking at “dry” facts. What I tried to show in my posts is that even such facts are controversial and more complex than they would have us believe.

  • Peter Rosa

    Google Street View offers quite a perspective on the San Bruno incident.  Start on Glenview just south of Claremont and scroll north.   There’s an October 2007 photo date and everything looks fine and peaceful.  But then, just as you get to the intersection with Claremont, the view switches to a March 2011 photo date, and things change just about as completely as they possibly could.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you, Peter! The neighborhood has indeed changed a great deal, both in the way it looks and in the way people feel here.

      • Peter Rosa

         Has the pipeline been removed?

        • Asya Pereltsvaig

          Yes, their different departments are not always in agreement with each other. Google Maps had satellite views of San Bruno destruction pretty much the next day, whereas for over year they refused to change the directions which continued to show blocked off explosion site as passable.

        • Asya Pereltsvaig

          And no, the pipe has not been removed. The part that blew out has been capped and covered with dirt, rendering this pipeline unoperational. The rest of it will either be filled with cement or dug up. I hope it’s the former, as the latter option is extremely disrupting and we’ve already had our lives massively disrupted!

          • Peter Rosa

            If it’s not too disturbing to relate, what was it like when the explosion happened?  Was your house damaged, did you fear that it would be destroyed completely?  800 feet sounds way too close for comfort. 
            True story: about 20 years ago an aunt of mine was lying on the sofa in her house in Connecticut one afternoon when a huge explosion made her house shake and literally bounced her off the sofa onto the floor.  Her immediate thought was that a car had exploded in the street.  She ran outside, as did many of her similarly startled neighbors, but saw nothing.  It turned out that a gas explosion had leveled a house almost a half-mile away.
            If the explosion of just one house can cause such a massive blast and shockwave, I can’t begin to imagine what the explosion of a huge pipeline would have felt like :o

          • Asya Pereltsvaig

            The explosion itself seemed like an earthquake, which–being on San Andreas fault–I didn’t even pay much attention to.

            The fire was much more scary. I had to leave the house with a moment’s notice, just grab my purse and go. The wall of fire was just three houses down the street and I couldn’t tell how far/deep it was. The firefighters later described the fire to us as “like napalm in Vietnam”. The fire raged for so long that the next morning they still couldn’t bring cadaver dogs in.

            The whole neighborhood was evaculated. By the time my husband got here, we couldn’t go back to the house–for four days!–so we didn’t know if the house was still standing and how bad the damage was.

            At the end, it wasn’t as bad as we thought, as our house suffered only minor damage, and of course not as bad as for our neighbors who lost their houses and all their possessions, and some even lost loved ones! That’s why there are flowers on the fence (see pic).

  • Dima-true

    I grew up in a mining city, studied in Siberia, lived there for a better part of my life. On the other hand, I covered a lot of Russian territories and foreign countries on business. With the exception of some polar regions, Siberia is a place to live and thrive. My advice to “westerners” – through away everything you “know” about Russia. You just don’t. All you know and feed on is your rather incorrect stereotypes. The book in discussion is really half a laughable piece of stats manipulation, half a disgusting attempt to tell Russians what to do with their country. Why do “westerners” ever so arrogant to think they can “teach” others “how to do things”? It is a puzzle to me. Truly. I would really like the clowns who wrote this book come to Novosibirsk, for instance, and try to convince people to “move out”. I would not guarantee their physical security. Being slightly beaten and deeply despised would be their fate for sure. LOL.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Perhaps because they see the differences in lifestyle (уровень жизни), life expectancy etc. and are generous enough to share the tips? Because having travelled to Siberia the authors saw how miserable-looking its cities are, by western standards? What they didn’t take into account, as I pointed out in my article, is that people who live there are proud of living like that…