Large-scale coal mining as a transformation factor of rural areas in the Altai district of the Republic of Khakassia

Impact of the implementation of large coal mining projects on socio-economic changes in rural areas is investigated using the example of the Altai district of the Republic of Khakassia, where new coal mines developed in the 2010s. The study was carried out on the basis of materials collected during an expedition to the Altai region in August 2021, supplemented by open statistical data of regional and republican departments and the Russian Federal State Statistics Service. It is shown that direct economic effects of the activities of coal mining companies, such as the growth of employment, wages and tax revenues, concentrate in the settlements located in the immediate vicinity (within 20–30 km) of the coal mines. At the same time, greater effects of developing new coal enterprises in the Altai district are pronounced outside its territory. Development of the coal industry is a factor curbing the population decline in rural settlements of the district, however the bulk of the employed and contractors, as well as educational centers that train personnel for coal industry, are located in nearby cities, i. e. Abakan and Chernogorsk, thus negating the stimulating effect on the dynamics of economic development of the studied municipal area. Employment, income increase and financing of social projects are concentrated mainly in the district center, as well as in the settlements closest to coal mines or having coal mining specialization. They also experience a principal transformation in the population lifestyle, i. e. the reduction of livestock at personal subsidiary farms. The only type of effects from coal mining that is distributed relatively evenly across the territory of the district are social budgetary effects, namely financial assistance from coal companies for the implementation of local social projects in the municipality, which is distributed by the district administration, in particular to its peripheral territories. At the same time, there is no significant negative impact on agriculture of the district. During the 2010s its main indicators are growing, but a kind of territorial transformation took place when the main enterprise of Arshanovo settlement “moves” to another one farther from coal mines.

1. Auty R.M. Industrial policy reform in six large newly industrializing countries: The resource curse thesis, World development, 1994, no. 1, p. 11–26, DOI: 10.1016/0305-750x(94)90165-1.

2. Baburin V.L., Goryachko M.D. Transformatsiya i modernizatsiya gorodskoi ekonomiki pod vliyaniem krupnogo investitsionnogo proekta (na primere proekta “Sochi-2014”) [Transformation of urban structures under the implementation of large investment project: a case study of Sochi-2014], Voprosy geografii, 2016, no. 141, p. 433–452. (In Russian)

3. Finken R.D., Arbatov A.A., Moukhin A.V. et al. Regional Impact of Project Spending, Oil & Gas Executive, 1998, no. 1, p. 38–44, DOI: 10.2118/50955-oger.

4. Ganton T. Megaproekty i regional’noe razvitie: patologii v proektnom planirovanii [Megaprojects and regional development: pathologies in project planning], Prostranstvennaya ekonomika, 2007, no. 3, p. 77–108. (In Russian)

5. Geograficheskie problemy intensifikacii hozyajstva v staropromyshlennyh rajonah [Geographical problems of intensification of agriculture in old industrial areas], S.A. Tarkhov (еd.), Moscow, Institute of Geography of the USSR Academy of Sciences Рubl., 1988, 146 p. (In Russian)

6. Guseva E.S. Transformaciya sel’skoj mestnosti prigorodnoj zony krupnogo goroda (na primere Moskovskoj oblasti) [Transformation of rural areas of the suburban area of a large city (on the example of the Moscow region)], Extended Abstract of Ph.D. Thesis in Geography, Moscow, 2012, 23 p. (In Russian)

7. Ioffe G.V. Izuchenie geografii sel’skogo hozyajstva v zone vliyaniya krupnejshego goroda (opyt metodicheskoj razrabotki na primere Podmoskov’ya) [Investigation of geography of agricultural sector in the influence zone of the largest city (experience of methodological development using the example of the Moscow region)], Izvestiya AN SSSR, Ser. geograf., 1984, no. 1, p. 63–72. (In Russian)

8. Karl T.L. The paradox of plenty, University of California Press, 1997, 360 p., DOI: 10.1525/9780520918696.

9. Konoplyanik A.A. Analiz effekta ot realizatsii neftegazovykh proektov SRP v Rossii dlya byudzhetov raznykh urovnei [Analysis of the effect of oil and gas PSA projects implementation in Russia for budgets of different levels], Neftyanoe khozyaistvo, 2000, no. 10, p. 24–30. (In Russian)

10. Nefedova T.G., Mkrtchyan N.V. Migraciya sel’skogo naseleniya i dinamika sel’skohozyajstvennoj zanyatosti v regionah Rossii [Migration of rural population and dynamics of agricultural employment in the regions of Russia], Vestn. Mosk. un-ta, Ser. 5, Geogr., 2017, no. 5, p. 58–67. (In Russian)

11. Pyatt G., Round J.I. Accounting and fixed price multipliers in a social accounting matrix framework, The Economic Journal, 1979, no. 356, p. 850–873, DOI: 10.2307/2231503.

12. Ross M.L. The political economy of the resource curse, World politics, 1999, no. 2, p. 297–322, DOI: 10.1017/s0043887100008200.

13. Round J. Constructing SAMs for development policy analysis: lessons learned and challenges ahead, Economic Systems Research, 2003, no. 2, p. 161–183, DOI: 10.1080/0953531032000091153.

14. Semykina I.O. Otsenka regional’nykh sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh effektov pri realizatsii neftegazovykh proektov Vostochnoi Sibiri [Assessment of regional socio-economic effects in the implementation of oil and gas projects in Eastern Siberia], Extended Abstract of Ph.D. Thesis in Economics, Novosibirsk, 2013, 23 p. (In Russian)