The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast and its Rural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences

RESEARCH ARTICLE Copyright Nefedova TG, Nikolaeva UG, Kondakova TY, Lyzhina EA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast anditsRural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences Tatyana G. Nefedova 1, Uliana G. Nikolaeva 1,2, Tatiana Y. Kondakova 1,3, ElenaA.Lyzhina 1 1 Institute of Geography Russian Academy of Sciences, Chief Researcher, Moscow, 119017, Russia 2 Institute of Sociology of the Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 109544, Russia; Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991, Russia 3 Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushinsky, Yaroslavl, 150000, Russia Received 13 January 2025 ♦ Accepted 17 March 2025 ♦ Published 3 October 2025 Citation: Nefedova TG, Nikolaeva UG, Kondakova TY, Lyzhina EA (2025) The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast and its Rural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences. Population and Economics 9(3):111-128. https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.9.e146526 Abstract The paper presents the results ofthe research into the current state ofagriculture and rural areas ofYaroslavl Oblast, considering specific natural, production, economic and socio-demographic factors. Itshows the characteristics and intra-regional differentiation ofagricultural production depending onthe distance from the region’s large cities. The paper shows specific features ofrural development inthe context ofeconomic contraction, ageing and shrinking ofthe population, concentration ofproduction and the increasingly significant role ofagricultural holdings, aswell asthe influence ofnon-productive factors onintra-regional differentiation. The paper presents statistical calculations bymunicipal districts and individual enterprises along with the results ofsocio-geographical expeditions tothe rural areas ofYaroslavl Oblast, which included expert interviews with heads ofenterprises and local administrations, specialists ofvarious levels, and the population. The mechanisms ofdevelopment ofthe agro-industrial complex ofthe region, the specifics ofits current organisation, its challenges, and its impact not only onthe food supply for the population, but also onthe socio-geographical space and the living conditions ofthe local population are considered. Relative proximity totowns orcities, the patterns ofuse oflocal resources, participation ingovernment support programmes, the degree ofmodernisation ofproduction, availability ofexclusive products, the staffing and the personnel policies, and personal qualities ofthe managers were identified askey success factors for agricultural enterprises regardless of their size. Both general and specific current challenges tothe development ofdifferent types ofenterprises inthe Non-Black Population and Economics 9(3): 111–128 DOI 10.3897/popecon.9.e146526 T.G. Nefedova et al.: The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast anditsRural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences 112 Soil Zone were identified, including the shrinking ofcrop acreage and the dependence oflivestock farming onfodder grain purchased from southern Russia. Equally important isthe acute shortage oflabour, the difficulties inrecruiting migrant workers, and wage growth without increases inskills and productivity inthe face oflabour shortages. The consequences ofthe sanctions include difficulties inpurchasing genetic material and vaccines from abroad, and inthe renewal and maintenance ofimported equipment. Keywords Yaroslavl Oblast, rural areas, agriculture, agricultural holdings, concentration ofproduction, labour resources, depopulation, local governance JEL codes: D10, D21, J11, J21, O18, Q13 Introduction Incomplete urbanisation isone ofthe key features ofthe spatial development ofmodern Russia, which ispartly caused bygrowing economic centralisation and increasing spatial contrasts, including inliving standards, between large cities and the rest ofthe territory. Despite the weakening and reversal ofcentripetal population shifts inmany foreign countries (Geyer and Kontuly 1993; Fielding 1989), aswell asin Russia atthe turn ofthe 21st century (Nefedova and Treyvish 2019), inrecent years the role and appeal oflarge cities [in Russia] have increased, inparticular that ofMoscow (Druzhinin 2022), which continues tostimulate the depopulation ofrural areas (Denisenko and Nikolaeva 2015). This isespecially true for the old-cultivated non-black soil regions ofthe European part ofRussia (Old-developed regions 2021). The outflow ofthe rural population toregional centres and large cities highlights the critical issue oflabour resources available inrural areas. At the same time, the current shift ofRussian agricultural production tomore southern regions that have favourable natural conditions for agriculture (Nefedova 2019) and the abandonment ofland inRussia’s Non-Black Soil Zone led toa spatial ‘compression’ ofagriculture (Nefedova 2024) and settlement (Mkrtchyan 2018, 2019) towards the main regional centres, thus strengthening the socio-economic heterogeneity ofthis territory. The concentration ofagricultural production inagricultural holdings (Uzun etal. 2022), the emergence ofnew technologies inthe surviving agricultural enterprises increased the requirements tolabour resources inrural areas while significantly reducing employment, which intensified the outflow ofthe local population. For such areas, ageographical approach toresearch isparticularly important, which makes itpossible toidentify the intra-regional heterogeneity ofsocio-economic challenges, including those linked tothe transformation ofagricultural production. Yaroslavl Oblast, which borders the Moscow Metropolitan Region from the north, faces many ofthe socio-economic challenges characteristic ofmodern Russia, especially its non-black soil regions (Nefedova 2024). This includes problems related tothe development ofagricultural production, although Yaroslavl Oblast isby nomeans apredominantly agricultural region. Itranks 50th inRussia interms ofgross agricultural output, ahead only ofthe Ivanovo, Kostroma, and Smolensk oblasts ofthe Central Federal District, and reaching just aquarter ofthat ofMoscow Oblast. Even the more northern oblasts, Leningrad and Vologda, have the outputs 2.5and 1.5times larger, respectively (Regiony Rossii 2023). Nevertheless, Population and Economics 9(3): 111–128 113 the region has shown arelatively steady growth inagricultural output inrecent years. This was largely due tothe advantages ofits geographical proximity toMoscow, and itwas accompanied bya further concentration ofproduction inlarge agricultural enterprises, while the share ofmedium-sized enterprises, individual farmers and household farms declined. Atthe same time, the regional financial results ofboth crop and livestock production are significantly inferior tothose ofthe more southern regions and even those ofthe Moscow and Leningrad Oblasts (Regiony Rossii 2023: 659). Although agriculture does not play aleading role inthe development ofthe region (7.7% ofits gross regional product) (Regiony Rossii 2023: 19), itis important for the food supply ofMoscow and other non-black soil regions ofRussia, aswell as1.2million ofits own population. Therefore, itis important tounderstand the mechanisms ofdevelopment ofthe agro-industrial complex and its modern specifics, toidentify its problems and their impact onfood supply and living conditions ofthe local population. The problems ofrural development and agriculture inYaroslavl Oblast have been the subject ofresearch both atthe end ofthe Soviet period and during the radical disintegration ofSoviet economic mechanisms (Yaroslavl Oblast 1993), aswell asin recent years (Averkieva etal. 2021; Voronova etal. 2016; Zholudeva 2019), including bythe authors ofthis paper (Nefedova 2021; Lyzhina 2024; Kondakova and Bragin 2021). The role ofYaroslavl Oblast inthe old-cultivated areas was analysed (Old-developed regions 2021), with special attention paid tothe shrinking ofthe developed space inCentral Russia and the abandonment ofagricultural land, which ischaracteristic ofmany regions surrounding Moscow Oblast (Nefedova and Medvedev 2020). The paper compares municipal districts and individual enterprises todescribe the organisation ofthe Oblast’s agro-industrial complex, the losses incurred and the benefits gained asa result ofthe all-Russian agricultural transformation, and the relationship between its operation and the dynamics and employment ofthe population. Its main challenges, dependence ongeographical location, natural conditions and specialisation ofindividual districts, its labour potential and other factors are identified. Materials and methods ofresearch This research is based on municipal statistics from the early 1990s to 2022-2023, data onagricultural enterprises, and the results ofthe economic and socio-geographical fieldwork conducted bythe authors ina number ofdistricts ofYaroslavl Oblast in2024, including interviews with heads ofdistrict and village administrations, managers ofcompanies, including those which are part oflarge agricultural holdings, and the population. Natural and social differences inthe rural areas ofYaroslavl Oblast Due toits relatively small size, significant differences innatural conditions are not characteristic ofthe region, except for aslight increase inthe sum ofactive temperatures above 10degrees Celsius inthe south ofthe region (Pereslavl Urban Okrug and Rostov District). Social contrasts within the Oblast are more pronounced. They are mainly caused bythe influence ofthe regional central city, Yaroslavl, one ofthe largest cities north ofMoscow, with apopulation of608.000asof early 2025, which forms apronounced suburban zone T.G. Nefedova et al.: The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast anditsRural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences 114 inYaroslavl District with anincreased density ofthe rural population at35persons per square kilometre (Nefedova 2024). During the Soviet period ofactive urbanisation, even the suburban area lost aquarter ofits population between 1959and 1989, but inthe post-Soviet period its population increased by40% between 1989and 2024. Rybinsk, the Oblast’s second largest city with its 177.000inhabitants, does not form anurban area with ahigh rural population density (having 8.4persons per square kilometre), and its population isdeclining (in 2024itwas 68% ofthe 1989level). The relatively short distance between the Oblast’s two largest cities (about 80km) also contributes tothis. Ingeneral, there isan area ofincreased rural population density along the M-8motorway from the borders ofMoscow Oblast tothe city ofYaroslavl. The contrasts between Yaroslavl District and the more remote northern districts near Rybinsk Reservoir are particularly stark: Poshekhonsky, Nekouzsky and Breitovsky districts each have rural population densities of1.2-2.5persons per square kilometre and show the strongest rural population outflows (Table 1). Table 1. Size and trends ofthe rural population and its components inYaroslavl Oblast according todistance from the regional central city Order ofNeighbourhoods Relative toOblast Central City Rural Population Trends, 2023/1990 Migration Balance for 2018-2022 Natural Population Decline for 2018-2022 Migration and Natural Decline per 1.000Population, for 20182022 Intraregional Between regions International migration % persons persons persons persons persons 1 143.0 6604 2341 131 -1385 112 2 80.5 -891 247 290 -5009 -45 3 72.1 -1428 256 313 -10923 -65 4 65.7 -671 -374 82 -2533 -125 Source: Rosstat data bymunicipalities. Notes: 1– suburban Yaroslavl District, 2– municipal districts adjacent tothe regional central city, second-order neighbourhoods, 3and 4– districts that are thirdand fourth-order neighbourhoods Apart from the differences between suburban and peripheral areas, the neighbourhood with Moscow Oblast has asignificant impact onthe regional population trends. Pereslavl Urban Okrug and Uglich District, which border onMoscow Oblast, are attractive for migrants from various regions ofRussia and countries ofthe Near Abroad, partly because ofthe opportunity tofind ajob inMoscow orMoscow Oblast. Onthe other hand, this isalso anincentive for the working-age local population tomove tothe capital orits vicinity. The northern districts ofthe Oblast, furthest from the regional central city, face the most challenging situation, having lost more than 12% oftheir population inthe last five years alone asa result ofout-migration and natural population decline. Atsuch arate ofdecline, they are atrisk ofsignificant depopulation inthe next 10-20years. The contrasts inthe density ofthe rural population ofthe Oblast, especially inits southern part, are somewhat blurred insummer when summer residents come tothe countryside not only from Yaroslavl orRybinsk, but also from Moscow and the cities Population and Economics 9(3): 111–128 115 ofthe Moscow region (Starikova and Sheludkov 2021). The suburban Yaroslavl District, aswell asthe southern Pereslavl District, which has effectively become Moscow’s suburban dacha zone, have aparticularly large number ofsummer residents, both inallotment associations and invillages. The 2016agricultural census data and the analysis ofthe latest space imagery show that the summer residents ofallotment associations and the city residents who have bought orinherited country homes invillages are responsible for anaverage 50% increase inthe population ofthe Yaroslavl and Pereslavl districts during the summer, while insome villages ofthese districts the increase is2-4times, and the Borisoglebsky, Gavrilovsky, and Tutayevsky districts see a40% increase (Nefedova and Medvedev 2020). Agriculture inYaroslavl Oblast In Yaroslavl Oblast, about two-thirds ofthe crop acreage has been abandoned over the past 30years, and the region has lost 78% ofits livestock compared with the 1990level, especially inthe northern districts that are further from the centre (Table 2). Nevertheless, the region has managed tosignificantly renew its agro-industrial complex and remains animportant producer ofanimal products, including for the Moscow metropolitan area. Incontrast toSoviet times, the concentration oflivestock production has increased due tothe creation oflarge agro-industrial complexes: 74% ofthe region’s livestock and poultry meat and 60% ofits eggs are produced inRybinsk District. Milk production ismore dispersed, but 28% ofmilk isproduced byfarms inthe suburbs ofYaroslavl, and afurther 19% and 17% bylarge livestock complexes inthe Borisoglebsky and Rostovsky districts, respectively. Itis the agricultural holdings that have become the main drivers ofagricultural development inthe Oblast. Table 2. Distribution and trends ofagricultural production inYaroslavl Oblast according todistance from the regional central city Order ofNeighbourhoods Relative toOblast Central City Proportion ofCrop Acreage inthe Oblast in2022 Crop Acreage Trends, 2022 in% of1990 Total Livestock in2022 Including inagricultural organisations, 2022 Livestock Trends, 2022 in% of1990 Output in2022, % Cattle and Poultry Meat Milk Eggs % % Thousand head % % Total Oblast 3.0 36.0 106.1 87.8 21.6 100 100 100 1 7.3 67.5 29.3 96.5 55.7 4.8 27.9 4.6 2 3.4 30.2 29.6 78.7 24.7 7.2 31.1 11.7 3 3.3 37.3 41.9 79.8 13.2 85.4 38.4 75.1 4 1.2 26.3 5.3 70.0 7.1 2.6 2.6 8.6 Source: Rosstat data bymunicipalities. Notes: 1– suburban Yaroslavl District, 2– municipal districts adjacent tothe regional central city, second-order neighbourhoods, 3and 4– districts that are thirdand fourth-order neighbourhoods. T.G. Nefedova et al.: The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast anditsRural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences 116 By 2023, there were more than a hundred agricultural enterprises of various forms ofownership inYaroslavl Oblast, including agricultural production co-operatives (APCs), joint-stock companies (JSCs), farm households, etc. In2022, half ofthe 40largest farms with revenues between 100million roubles and 10billion roubles were concentrated injust afew districts: apart from the suburbs ofYaroslavl, these were mainly Rybinsk District, Rostov District, and their neighbouring districts (Fig. 1). Yaroslavskiy Broiler JSC isone ofthe strongest agricultural holdings, whose main facility islocated inRybinsk District (Table 3). The revenues ofthe nearby Volzhanin PJSC, the largest egg producer, are only slightly lower. Among milk producers, Krasnyi Mayak Ltd. stands out; itis located inRostov District, where several other large and quite successful enterprises are also based. Figure 1. Firms and their sites inYaroslavl Oblast. Source: www.testfirm.ru. Population and Economics 9(3): 111–128 117 Table 3. Twenty largest agribusinesses and their revenues in2023inthe suburban Yaroslavl District, Rostov District, and Rybinsk District # Name (Group) District ofoperation Line ofbusiness Revenue. RUB mln 1 Yaroslavskiy Broiler, JSC Rybinsk, Tutayev, etc. Poultry farming, meat production 10257.1 2 Volzhanin PJSC Rybinsk Poultry farming, egg production 9020.5 3 Krasnyi Mayak Ltd. Rostov, Borisoglebsk Dairy cattle farming, milk production 2923.0 4 Agromir Ltd. Yaroslavl Dairy cattle farming, milk production 1135.3 5 Rodina, Plemzavod Ltd. Danilov, Yaroslavl Dairy cattle farming, milk production 908.5 6 Sever, Ptitsefabrika Ltd. Yaroslavl Poultry farming 763.2 7 Plemzavod Yaroslavka JSC Yaroslavl, Tutayev Mixed farming 606.2 8 Pakhma, Agrofirma CJSC Yaroslavl, Gavrilov-Yam Dairy cattle farming, milk production 602.8 9AGRONERO, Belaya Dacha Ltd. Rostov Vegetable farming 366.7 10 Melenkovskiy, Yarmolprod Ltd. Yaroslavl Dairy cattle farming, milk production 257.6 11 Dzerzhinsky Plemzavod Yaroslavl Dairy cattle farming, milk production 225.4 12 Tatishevskoye JSC Rostov Dairy cattle farming, milk production 213.7 13 Novyy Put’ JSC Rostov Mixed farming 188.6 14 Arefinskoye, Ramoz Ltd. Rybinsk Dairy cattle farming, milk production 181.0 15 Iskra Ltd. Yaroslavl Dairy cattle farming, milk production 156.3 16 SPK Revolutsiya Ltd. Yaroslavl Dairy cattle farming, milk production 141.3 17 Niva Ltd. Rostov Mixed farming 126.8 18 Druzhba, production agricultural co-operative Yaroslavl Cereal farming 102.5 19 Agrotsekh Ltd. Yaroslavl Dairy cattle farming, milk production 97.3 20 Mologa, Agri Volga Ltd. Rybinsk Mixed farming 95.3 Source: www.testfirm.ru. T.G. Nefedova et al.: The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast anditsRural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences 118 The significant concentration ofagricultural production near the central cities ofthe oblasts isa typical picture for the regions ofthe Non-Black Soil Zone (Old-developed regions 2021: 93-101). The authors ofthis paper focused onthe modern features offirms and household farms outside the suburbs ofregional central cities. This explains our choice ofRybinsk District and Rostov District asthe main objects ofa large-scale study oftrends, successes and current problems ofthe agro-industrial complex ofYaroslavl Oblast. Inorder tocontrast and better understand the problems ofother producers, wechose Nekrasovsky District tothe north-east ofYaroslavl District, situated ina hollow between Yaroslavl and the city ofKostroma, and Nekouzsky District inthe north-west ofYaroslavl Oblast, beyond the Volga River, characterised bya significant population decline and abandonment ofagricultural land. Figure 2. Rural population and agro-production trends (crop acreage and livestock) inselected key types ofdistricts ofYaroslavl Oblast according toRosstat data for 1990and 2022. Rostov A – Total decline of rural population, 2018–2022, persons/1000 population Rybinsk Nekrasovsk y Nekouzsky 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 Rostov Rybinsk Nekrasovsky Nekouzsky Rostov Rybinsk Nekrasovsky Nekouzsky Rostov Rybinsk Nekrasovsky Nekouzsky 40 30 20 10 0 45 35 25 15 5 -5 100 80 60 40 20 0 B – Crop area trends, 2022 in % of 1990 C – Livestock trends, 2022 in % of 1990 D – Proportion of cattle owned by individual farmers and household farms, % Population and Economics 9(3): 111–128 119 Rostov District: historical context and contemporary developments Rostov Municipal District has anumber ofnatural advantages over other regions ofthe Oblast, due not only toits southern location, but also tothe features ofLake Nero. Asa result ofthe shrinking water surface ofthe lake, awide strip offertile soils onthe lake sludge (sapropel) had formed around it, which, even before the 20th century, gave rise toa well-known vegetable growing area, with adense network ofsettlements and aspecial type ofpeasant farms. They not only supplied vegetables toMoscow and St. Petersburg but also went toset upmarket gardens inother provinces ofRussia (Saushkin 1947). Atthe end ofthe 19th century, the density ofthe rural population inthe area exceeded 50persons per square verst [Asquare verst isan old Russian unit, approximately equal to1.14sq. km.– Translator’s note], and near Lake Nero itreached 200persons per square verst. The villages there looked more like small towns with occasional stone houses. In2023, the rural population density inthe district was 7.6persons per square kilometre. Even inthe more vibrant, old-developed Rostov District located onthe M-8federal motorway 200kilometres from Moscow, 50settlements have nopopulation left, and 76settlements have fewer than 5people left. Such heavy losses also affect the quality ofhuman capital; most ofthose who had any ambition atall have long since left. Retirees dominate inmost settlements ofthe district, while some ofthe remaining working-age population earn their living inMoscow orMoscow Oblast orYaroslavl. Villages with fewer than 50inhabitants have become what are known asdachas, with convenient road connections toboth Moscow and Yaroslavl, anearby lake, and the city ofRostov. Nevertheless, the traditional vegetable growing skills and, ingeneral, the increased agricultural activity ofthe population have been preserved, which isevident from the numerous stalls selling Rostov onions, vegetables, berries, jams and fish along the motorway that passes through the villages near Lake Nero. Rostov (official name Rostov Veliky, i.e. Rostov the Great), asmall but historically important city of27.000inhabitants, issubordinate tothe Oblast, although itis the district’s central city. Moreover, the Rostov Kremlin, which attracts hundreds oftourists, occupies asignificant part ofthe city and has been actively repaired and restored inrecent years, isunder the jurisdiction ofthe federal authorities inMoscow. All this has anegative impact onthe budgets ofboth the city and Rostov District, including their ability toprovide the area and settlements outside the main tourist routes with roads, pipeline gas, etc. The tourism industry iscomposed ofprivately owned, mostly small hotels, which isin part due totourists favouring accommodations inYaroslavl, located just 57kilometres away. However, historical traditions and natural conditions have contributed tothe development ofthe modern large agricultural complex inthe district, which has distinctive features. Rostov District ischaracterised byopposite types ofbusiness activity. Onthe one hand, the role ofsmall entrepreneurs has been higher compared toother regions, including inagriculture; their main income comes from their own produce, often sold along the highway from stalls orin small shops. Onthe other hand, there are large agricultural holdings that have taken the place offormer Soviet facilities. In Soviet times, Rostov District had 25collective orstate farms onits fertile lands. Most ofthem went bankrupt inthe 1990s and 2000s. New people and alot ofmoney came into agriculture. For example, one ofthe largest milk producers inthe whole ofYaroslavl Oblast, Krasnyi Mayak Ltd. with 3.600cattle in2022, was established onthe basis oftwo facilities, including aformer large Soviet state farm. Itsupplies its products toWimm-Bill-Dann, Ecomilk and other companies, aswell asretail chains inand outside central Russia (Lyzhina T.G. Nefedova et al.: The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast anditsRural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences 126 ing former Soviet collective orstate farms with aview tomodernising them toproduce and supply food tothe nearest large consumer markets incentral and northwestern Russia. The most attractive factors for large agribusinesses are proximity tomajor highways and relatively short distances tomajor cities, the key consumers offood. And the main constraint isnot somuch the natural conditions ofthe Non-Black Soil Zone asthe availability ofhuman capital. Reliability ofthe staff and their willingness towork inagriculture are the crucial factors. With increasing labour shortages and the concentration oflarge agricultural enterprises, the launching ofnew industrial giants orthe establishment ofspecial economic zones with preferential conditions greatly increases competition for local labour and reduces the profitability and sustainability ofexisting firms. Modern technologies require qualified and self-disciplined staff. There isa particular shortage ofmechanics, veterinarians, zootechnicians and engineers who are competent tooperate sophisticated imported equipment. Such specialists would beeven sought inother regions and poached from other companies. Almost every manager interviewed said that they were short of‘workers’. Asa result, workers from other regions ofRussia orfrom Central Asia are recruited for unskilled jobs, which requires addressing additional problems such asobtaining permits and registering foreign citizens, building housing, most often company dormitories, and building the necessary infrastructure. Given the abundance ofabandoned agricultural land, the lack oflegal subdivision into former collective farm workers’ individual ownership units often makes itimpossible touse the land for other purposes. Onthe other hand, the government has actively encouraged and even partially financed the reclamation ofpreviously abandoned land, which isnow covered with secondary forests and bushes1. Inremote areas, however, this process istechnically challenging, time-consuming, costly, and largely unprofitable due tothe diminished fertility ofpreviously forested soils and the necessity for substantial fertiliser application. Finally, all the interviewed managers oflarge, medium orsmall enterprises inboth relatively successful and depressed districts pointed toexcessive centralisation (and bureaucracy), which restricts opportunities and bottom-up initiatives, combined with incompetence and, not infrequently, corruption ofofficials, asthe main factors hindering the development ofagricultural production. References Averkieva KV(2017) Symbiosis ofagriculture and forestry onthe early-developed periphery ofthe Non-Black Earth Region: The case ofthe Tarnogsky district ofthe Vologda Region. Russian peasant studies 2(4): 86-106(in Russian). Averkieva KV, Nefedova TG, Kondakova TY (2021) Spatial Socio-economic Polarization in the Central Developed Regions ofRussia: The Case ofYaroslavl Oblast. Universe ofRussia 30(1): 4966(in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2021-30-1-49-66. Denisenko MB, Nikolaeva UG (2015) What happens tothe rural population inthe Russian Near North? (the case ofKostroma region). Sociological Studies 12: 70-81(in Russian). 1 Resolution No. 731, dated 14May 2021, ofthe Government ofthe Russian Federation ‘On the State programme ofeffective reclamation ofagricultural land and development ofthe land reclamation complex ofthe Russian Federation”. Population and Economics 9(3): 111–128 127 Druzhinin PV(2022) The Resource Concentration inMoscow: Impact onthe Economy ofthe Central Federal District. Spatial Economics 18(3): 115-140(in Russian). Fielding A (1989) Migration and urbanization in Western Europe since 1950. The Geographical Journal 155(1): 60-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/635381. Geyer HS, Kontuly T(1993) ATheoretical Foundation ofthe Concept ofDifferential Urbanization. International Regional Science Review 15(2): 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769301500202. Kondakova TY, Bragin PN (2021) The main existing and possible prospects for the development ofrural territories ofmunicipalities ofthe Yaroslavl region. Astrakhan Bulletin for Environmental Education 3(63): 113-121(in Russian). Lyzhina EA(2024) Regional food supply inCentral Non-Chernozem zone. Regional Research 2(84): 52-62(in Russian). https://doi.org/10.5922/1994-5280-2024-2-5. Mkrtchyan NV (2018) Regional Capitals and Their Suburbs in Russia: Net Migration Patterns. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya (6): 26-38(in Russian). https://doi. org/10.1134/S2587556618060110. Mkrtchyan NV (2019) Migration in rural areas of Russia: territorial differences. Population and Economics 3(1): 39–51(in Russian). https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.3.e34780. Nefedova TG(2019) Development ofthe Post-Soviet Agricultural Sector and Rural Spatial Polarization inEuropean Russia. Spatial Economics 15(4): 36-56(in Russian). Nefedova TG(2021) Polarization ofthe social-economic space and prospects ofrural areas inthe olddeveloped regions ofCentral Russia. Russian Peasant Studies 6(1): 126-153(in Russian). https:// doi.org/10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-1-126-153. Nefedova TG(2024) Trajectories and problems оfthe current spatial development оfRussia’s European near north regions. Baltic Region 16(3): 42-61. https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2024-3-3. Nefedova TG, Medvedev AA(2020) Shrinkage ofActive Space inCentral Russia: Population Dynamics and Land Use inCountryside. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya 84(5): 645-659(in Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S258755662005012X. Nefedova TG, Treivish AI (2019) Urbanization and Seasonal Deurbanization in Modern Russia. Regional Research ofRussia 9(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970519010088. Old-developed regions inthe sociogeographic space ofRussia: history and contemporaneity (2021) Nefedova TG, Starikova AV(Eds). Association ofScientific Publications ofthe KMK, Moscow (in Russian). Regiony Rossii. Social’no-ehkonomicheskie pokazateli. Statisticheskij sbornik [Regions of Russia. Social and economic indicators. Statistical digest] (2023) Rosstat, Moscow (in Russian). Saushkin YuG (1947) Geograficheskie ocherki prirody isel’skokhozyajstvennoj deyatel’nosti naseleniya vrazlichnykh rajonakh Sovetskogo Soyuza [Geographical essays onthe nature and agricultural activities of the population in various regions of the Soviet Union]. Geografgiz, Moscow (in Russian). Starikova AV, Sheludkov AV (2021) Population mobility in time and space: time geography and study of nighttime lights. In: Nefedova TG, Starikova AV (Eds) Old-developed regions in the sociogeographic space ofRussia: history and contemporaneity. Association ofScientific Publications ofthe KMK, Moscow, 216-224(in Russian). Uzun VYa, Shagaida NI, Gataulina EA, Shishkina EA(2022) Holdingizaciya agrobiznesa Rossii [The holdingization ofagribusiness inRussia]. Publishing House DELO, Moscow (in Russian). Voronova LV, Golubeva AI, Sukhovskaya AM, Dorokhova VI, Dugin AN (2016) Formirovanie mekhanizma ustojchivogo razvitiya sel’skikh territorij iagrarnoj sfery vregione [Formation ofa mechanism for sustainable development ofrural areas and the agricultural sector inthe region]. Yaroslavl: FGBOU VOYaroslavl State Agricultural Academy, 162pp. (in Russian) T.G. Nefedova et al.: The Agricultural Complex of Yaroslavl Oblast anditsRural Areas: Development Trends and Intra-Regional Differences 128 Yaroslavl Oblast (1993) Your Choice. The Journal for Decision Makers. Special issue onYaroslavl’ Oblast: 1993(1). (in Russian) Zholudeva VV(2019) Statistical assessment ofthe impact ofclimate change onsocial and demographic processes (on the example of the Yaroslavl region). Statistics and Economics 16(6): 57-66 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.21686/2500-3925-2019-6-57-66. Acknowledgements The paper was written byT.G. Nefedova, U.G. Nikolaeva, and E.A. Lyzhina under Russian Science Foundation’s Project No. 24-17-00129‘Prospects for socio-economic and environmentally efficient development ofthe Near North ofRussia’ atthe Institute ofGeography ofthe Russian Academy ofSciences. The research expedition was prepared byT.Yu. Kondakova, who also participated init and authored the section ‘Nekrasovsky District’. Information about the authors Tatyana Grigorievna Nefedova – Doctor of Geography (D.Sc.), Chief Researcher. Department of Social and Economical Geography, Institute of Geography Ryssian Academy of Siences. Moscow, 119017, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Uliana Gennadyevna Nikolaeva – Doctor of Economics, Chief Researcher. Institute of Sociology of the Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow, 109544, Russia; Senior Researcher. Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow, 119017, Russia; Senior Researcher at the Department of Population. Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University. Moscow, 119991, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Tatiana Yurievna Kondakova – Candidate of Geographical Sciences, Associate Professor; Senior Researcher at the Department of Socio-Economic Geography, Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow, 119017, Russia; Head of the Department of Socio-Economic Geography and Tourism Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushinsky. Yaroslavl, 150000, Russia. E-mail: tanijakond7@ mail.ru. Elena Aleksandrovna Lyzhina – Researcher, Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow, 119017, Russia. E-mail: helen.lyzhin[email protected]m