Population: CF: City of Moscow data was reported at 13,258,262.000 Person in 2024. This records an increase from the previous number of 13,149,803.000 Person for 2023. Population: CF: City of Moscow data is updated yearly, averaging 11,139,139.500 Person from Dec 1989 (Median) to 2024, with 36 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13,258,262.000 Person in 2024 and a record low of 8,880,124.000 Person in 1989. Population: CF: City of Moscow data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Russian Federation – Table RU.GA002: Population: by Region.

As of January 1, 2023, over 13.1 million persons resided in Moscow, the largest city in Russia and Europe. The population of the Russian capital increased slightly from the previous year. The number of Moscow residents crossed the 13-million mark in 2021. Starting from 2012, the city’s population grew by roughly 1.5 million. Moscow is one of the world’s megacities with the largest land area, which exceeds 6,600 square kilometers. Cost of living in Moscow While prices in Moscow are higher than in most other cities of Russia, they are lower than in many other megacities around the world, such as Singapore, New York, and Paris. In 2023, Moscow recorded the largest drop in the rank in the list of the most expensive cities worldwide, at 105 positions. Moscow residents earned an average net salary of 128,300 Russian rubles per month in 2022. Immigration to Moscow Due to the presence of various companies, job opportunities, higher salaries than in most other regions of the country, acclaimed universities, and highly developed infrastructure, Moscow is an attractive destination for both internal and international immigrants. In 2022, more than 940,000 Russian residents migrated to the Central Federal District of the country, where Moscow is located. From the international immigrants, the largest share comes from Central Asian countries.

As of January 1, 2025, more than 146 million people were estimated to be residing on the Russian territory, down approximately 30,000 from the previous year. From the second half of the 20th century, the population steadily grew until 1995. Furthermore, the population size saw an increase from 2009, getting closer to the 1995 figures. In which regions do most Russians live? With some parts of Russia known for their harsh climate, most people choose regions which offer more comfortable conditions. The largest share of the Russian population, or 40 million, reside in the Central Federal District. Moscow, the capital, is particularly populated, counting nearly 13 million residents. Russia’s population projections Despite having the largest country area worldwide, Russia’s population was predicted to follow a negative trend under both low and medium expectation forecasts. Under the low expectation forecast, the country’s population was expected to drop from 146 million in 2022 to 134 million in 2036. The medium expectation scenario projected a milder drop to 143 million in 2036. The issues of low birth rates and high death rates in Russia are aggravated by the increasing desire to emigrate among young people. In 2023, more than 20 percent of the residents aged 18 to 24 years expressed their willingness to leave Russia.

Historical dataset of population level and growth rate for the Moscow, Russia metro area from 1950 to 2025.

Population: Female: CF: Moscow Region data was reported at 4,541,353.000 Person in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 4,506,033.000 Person for 2022. Population: Female: CF: Moscow Region data is updated yearly, averaging 3,717,618.000 Person from Dec 1989 (Median) to 2023, with 35 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4,541,353.000 Person in 2023 and a record low of 3,569,207.000 Person in 2000. Population: Female: CF: Moscow Region data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Demographic and Labour Market – Table RU.GA010: Population: Female: by Region.

Population: Male: CF: City of Moscow data was reported at 6,104,898.000 Person in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 6,084,700.000 Person for 2022. Population: Male: CF: City of Moscow data is updated yearly, averaging 5,156,822.000 Person from Dec 1989 (Median) to 2023, with 35 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 6,104,898.000 Person in 2023 and a record low of 3,982,077.000 Person in 1989. Population: Male: CF: City of Moscow data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Demographic and Labour Market – Table RU.GA009: Population: Male: by Region.

In 2024, the total population of Russia was around 146.1 million people. Only a fraction of them live in the major Russian cities. With almost 12.5 million inhabitants, Moscow is the largest of them. In the upcoming years until 2030, the population was forecast to decline.Russia's economy Russia is one of the major economies in the world and is one of the wealthiest nations. Following the 1998 Russian financial crisis, Russia introduced several structural reforms that allowed for a fast economic recovery. Following these reforms, Russia experienced significant economic growth from the early 2000s and improved living standards in general for the country. A reason for the momentous economical boost was the rise in commodity prices as well as a boom in the total amount of consumer credit. Additionally, Russia is highly dependent on the mining and production of natural resources, primarily in the energy department, in order to promote economic growth in the country. Due to large energy reserves throughout the country, Russia has developed a stable economy capable of sustaining itself for many years into the future. The majority of Russian oil and energy reserves are located in the Western Siberian areas. These natural gas liquids, along with oil reserves that consist of crude oil, shale oil and oil sands are constantly used for the production of consumable oil, which is an annually growing industry in Russia. Oil products are one of Russia’s primary exports and the country is able to profit entirely off of sales due to high prices as well as high demand for such goods.

In all age groups until 29 years old, there were more men than women in Russia as of January 1, 2024. After that age, the female population outnumbered the male population in each category. The most represented age group in the country was from 35 to 39 years old, with approximately *** million women and *** million men. Male-to-female ratio in Russia The number of men in Russia was historically lower than the number of women, which was a result of population losses during World War I and World War II. In 1950, in the age category from 25 to 29 years, ** men were recorded per 100 women in the Soviet Union. In today’s Russia, the female-to-male ratio in the same age group reached *** women per 1,000 men. Russia has the highest life expectancy gender gap The World Health Organization estimated the average life expectancy of women across the world at over five years longer than men. In Russia, this gap between genders exceeded 10 years. According to the study “Burden of disease in Russia, 1980-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016,” Russia had the highest gender difference in life expectancy worldwide.

Population: Working Age: CF: City of Moscow data was reported at 7,539,518.000 Person in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 7,404,404.000 Person for 2021. Population: Working Age: CF: City of Moscow data is updated yearly, averaging 7,157,180.000 Person from Dec 1989 (Median) to 2022, with 34 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 7,539,518.000 Person in 2022 and a record low of 5,177,349.000 Person in 1989. Population: Working Age: CF: City of Moscow data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Russian Federation – Table RU.GA013: Population: Working Age: by Region.

Russia's capital, Moscow, was the largest city in the country with over **** million residents as of January 1, 2024. Less than a half of Moscow's population resided in Saint Petersburg, the second-most populous city in the country. The third-largest city, Novosibirsk, was located in the Siberian Federal District, being the highest-populated city in the Asian part of Russia. Why is Moscow so populated? The Russian capital is the center of political, industrial, business, and cultural life in Russia. Despite being one of the most expensive cities worldwide, it continues to attract people from Russia and abroad, with its resident population following a generally upward trend over the past decade. Wages in Moscow are higher than in Russia on average, and more opportunities for employment and investment are available in the capital. Furthermore, the number of people living in Moscow was forecast to continue rising, exceeding **** million by 2035. Urbanization in Russia In 2024, around *** million Russian residents lived in cities. That was approximately three-quarters of the country’s population. The urbanization rate increased steadily over the 20th century, leading to a decline in the rural population. Among the country’s regions, the Northwestern Federal District had the highest share of residents in urban areas, measured at ** percent. In the Central Federal District, the tendency was that more people moved to Moscow and cities in the Moscow Oblast.

Population: Female: CF: City of Moscow data was reported at 7,044,905.000 Person in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 7,019,477.000 Person for 2022. Population: Female: CF: City of Moscow data is updated yearly, averaging 5,934,606.000 Person from Dec 1989 (Median) to 2023, with 35 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 7,044,905.000 Person in 2023 and a record low of 4,898,047.000 Person in 1989. Population: Female: CF: City of Moscow data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Demographic and Labour Market – Table RU.GA010: Population: Female: by Region.

Population: CF: Moscow Region data was reported at 8,766,594.000 Person in 2024. This records an increase from the previous number of 8,651,260.000 Person for 2023. Population: CF: Moscow Region data is updated yearly, averaging 6,858,686.500 Person from Dec 1989 (Median) to 2024, with 36 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 8,766,594.000 Person in 2024 and a record low of 6,609,152.000 Person in 2001. Population: CF: Moscow Region data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Russian Federation – Table RU.GA002: Population: by Region.

Abstract

The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) is a household-based survey designed to measure the effects of Russian reforms on the economic well-being of households and individuals. In particular, determining the impact of reforms on household consumption and individual health is essential, as most of the subsidies provided to protect food production and health care have been or will be reduced, eliminated, or at least dramatically changed. These effects are measured by a variety of means: detailed monitoring of individuals' health status and dietary intake, precise measurement of household-level expenditures and service utilization, and collection of relevant community-level data, including region-specific prices and community infrastructure data. Data have been collected since 1992.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households and individuals.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In Phase II (Rounds V- XX) of the RLMS, a multi-stage probability sample was employed. Please refer to the March 1997 review of the Phase II sample. First, a list of 2,029 consolidated regions was created to serve as PSUs. These were allocated into 38 strata based largely on geographical factors and level of urbanization but also based on ethnicity where there was salient variability. As in many national surveys involving face-to-face interviews, some remote areas were eliminated to contain costs; also, Chechnya was eliminated because of armed conflict. From among the remaining 1,850 regions (containing 95.6 percent of the population), three very large population units were selected with certainty: Moscow city, Moscow Oblast, and St. Petersburg city constituted self-representing (SR) strata. The remaining non-self-representing regions (NSR) were allocated to 35 equal-sized strata. One region was then selected from each NSR stratum using the method "probability proportional to size" (PPS). That is, the probability that a region in a given NSR stratum was selected was directly proportional to its measure of population size.

The NSR strata were designed to have approximately equal sizes to improve the efficiency of estimates. The target population (omitting the deliberate exclusions described above) totaled over 140 million inhabitants. Ideally, one would use the population of eligible households, not the population of individuals. As is often the case, we were obliged to use figures on the population of individuals as a surrogate because of the unavailability of household figures in various regions.

Although the target sample size was set at 4,000, the number of households drawn into the sample was inflated to 4,718 to allow for a nonresponse rate of approximately 15 percent. The number of households drawn from each of the NSR strata was approximately equal (averaging 108), since the strata were of approximately equal size and PPS was employed to draw the PSUs in each one. However, because response rates were expected to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas, the extent of over-sampling varied. This variation accounted for the differences in households drawn across the NSR PSUs. It also accounted for the fact that 940 households were drawn in the three SR strata--more than the 14.6 percent (i.e. 689) that would have been allotted based on strict proportionality.

Since there was no consolidated list of households or dwellings in any of the 38 selected PSUs, an intermediate stage of selection was then introduced, as usual. Professional samplers will recognize that this is actually the first stage of selection in the three SR strata, since those units were selected with certainty. That is, technically, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Moscow oblast, the census enumeration districts were the PSUs. However, it was cumbersome to keep making this distinction throughout the description, and researchers followed the normal practice of using the terms "PSU" and "SSU" loosely. Needless to say, in the calculation of design effects, where the distinction is critical, the proper distinction was maintained. The selection of second-stage units (SSUs) differed depending on whether the population was urban (located in cities and "villages of the city type," known as "PGTs") or rural (located in villages). That is, within each selected PSU the population was stratified into urban and rural substrata, and the target sample size was allocated proportionately to the two substrata. For example, if 40 percent of the population in a given region was rural, 40 of the 100 households allotted to the stratum were drawn from villages.

In rural areas of the selected PSUs, a list of all villages was compiled to serve as SSUs. The list was ordered by size and (where salient) by ethnic composition. PPS was employed to select one village for each 10 households allocated to the rural substratum. Again, under the standard principles of PPS, once the required number of villages was selected, an equal number of households in the sample (10) were allocated to each village. Since villages maintain very reliable lists of households, in each selected village the 10 households were selected systematically from the household list. In a few cases, villages were judged to be too small to sustain independent interviews with 10 households; in such cases, three or four tiny villages were treated as a single SSU for sampling purposes.

In urban areas, SSUs were defined by the boundaries of 1989 census enumeration districts, if possible. If the necessary information was not available, 1994 microcensus enumeration districts, voting districts, or residential postal zones were employed--in decreasing order of preference. Since census enumeration districts were originally designed to be roughly equal in population size, one district was selected systematically without using PPS for each 10 households required in the sample. In the few cases where postal zones were used, one zone was likewise selected systematically for each 10 households. However, where voting districts were used, to compensate for the marked variation in population size, PPS was employed to select one voting district for each 10 households required in the urban sub-stratum.

In both urban and rural substrata, interviewers were required to visit each selected dwelling up to three times to secure the interviews. They were not allowed to make substitutions of any sort. The interviewers' first task was to identify households at the designated dwellings. "Household" was defined as a group of people who live together in a given domicile, and who share common income and expenditures. Households were also defined to include unmarried children, 18 years of age or younger, who were temporarily residing outside the domicile at the time of the survey. If perchance the interviewer identified more than one household in the dwelling, he or she was obliged to select one using a procedure outlined in the technical report. The interviewer then administered a household questionnaire to the most knowledgeable and willing member of the household.

The interviewer then conducted interviews with as many adults as possible, acquiring data about their individual activities and health. Data for the children's questionnaires were obtained from adults in the household. By virtue of the fact that an attempt was made to obtain individual questionnaires for all members of households, the sample constitutes a proper probability sample of individuals as well as of households, without any special weighting. Actually, the fact that we did not interview unmarried minors living temporarily outside the domicile slightly diminished the representativeness of the sample of individuals in that age group.

The multivariate distribution of the sample by sex, age, and urban-rural location compared quite well with the corresponding multivariate distribution of the 1989 census. Of course, because of random sampling error and changes in the distribution since the 1989 census, we did not expect perfect correspondence. Nevertheless, there was usually a difference of only one percentage point or less between the two distributions.

Another way to evaluate the adequacy (or efficiency) of the sample was to examine design effects. An important factor in determining the precision of estimates in multi-stage samples was the mean ultimate cluster (PSU) size. All else being equal, the larger the size the less precise the measure is. In Rounds I through IV of the RLMS, the average cluster size approached 360--a large number dictated by constraints imposed by our collaborators. Thus, although the sample size covered around 6,000 households, precision was less than we would have liked for a sample of that size. In Rounds I and III of the RLMS, the 95 percent confidence interval for household income was about ?±13 percent.

In the Phase II (Rounds V - XX) sample, the situation was considerably better. Although there were only 4,000 households, the mean size of clusters was much smaller than in Phase I. There were 35 PSUs with about 100 households each; even this result was an improvement over the average of 360 in the design of the RLMS Rounds I through IV. However, in the three self-representing areas, the respondents were drawn from 61 PSUs. Recall that Moscow city and oblast, as well as St. Petersburg city, were not sampled but were chosen with certainty. Therefore, the first stage of selection in them was the selection of census enumeration districts. Thus the mean cluster size in the entire sample was about 42, i.e., 4,000/(35+61). Given these much smaller cluster sizes, researchers had reason to expect that precision in this survey would be as good as it was in Rounds I through IV despite the smaller sample size, and this expectation, in fact, turned out

In 2024, Russia had the largest population among European countries at ***** million people. The next largest countries in terms of their population size were Turkey at **** million, Germany at **** million, the United Kingdom at **** million, and France at **** million. Europe is also home to some of the world’s smallest countries, such as the microstates of Liechtenstein and San Marino, with populations of ****** and ****** respectively. Europe’s largest economies Germany was Europe’s largest economy in 2023, with a Gross Domestic Product of around *** trillion Euros, while the UK and France are the second and third largest economies, at *** trillion and *** trillion euros respectively. Prior to the mid-2000s, Europe’s fourth-largest economy, Italy, had an economy that was of a similar sized to France and the UK, before diverging growth patterns saw the UK and France become far larger economies than Italy. Moscow and Istanbul the megacities of Europe Two cities on the eastern borders of Europe were Europe’s largest in 2023. The Turkish city of Istanbul, with a population of 15.8 million, and the Russian capital, Moscow, with a population of 12.7 million. Istanbul is arguably the world’s most famous transcontinental city with territory in both Europe and Asia and has been an important center for commerce and culture for over 2,000 years. Paris was the third largest European city with a population of ** million, with London being the fourth largest at *** million.

Abstract

The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) is a household-based survey designed to measure the effects of Russian reforms on the economic well-being of households and individuals. In particular, determining the impact of reforms on household consumption and individual health is essential, as most of the subsidies provided to protect food production and health care have been or will be reduced, eliminated, or at least dramatically changed. These effects are measured by a variety of means: detailed monitoring of individuals' health status and dietary intake, precise measurement of household-level expenditures and service utilization, and collection of relevant community-level data, including region-specific prices and community infrastructure data. Data have been collected since 1992.

The repeated cross-section design is far and away the simplest alternative for the RLMS. The sampling is cost efficient, easy to maintain, and easy to update when needed. The design supports both efficient cross-sectional and aggregate longitudinal analyses of change in the Russian household population. Updates to the sample, including a full replenishment of the probability sample of dwelling units, will not seriously disrupt the longitudinal data series.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households and individuals.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In Phase II (Rounds V - XX) of the RLMS, a multi-stage probability sample was employed. Please refer to the March 1997 review of the Phase II sample. First, a list of 2,029 consolidated regions was created to serve as PSUs. These were allocated into 38 strata based largely on geographical factors and level of urbanization but also based on ethnicity where there was salient variability. As in many national surveys involving face-to-face interviews, some remote areas were eliminated to contain costs; also, Chechnya was eliminated because of armed conflict. From among the remaining 1,850 regions (containing 95.6 percent of the population), three very large population units were selected with certainty: Moscow city, Moscow Oblast, and St. Petersburg city constituted self-representing (SR) strata. The remaining non-self-representing regions (NSR) were allocated to 35 equal-sized strata. One region was then selected from each NSR stratum using the method "probability proportional to size" (PPS). That is, the probability that a region in a given NSR stratum was selected was directly proportional to its measure of population size.

The NSR strata were designed to have approximately equal sizes to improve the efficiency of estimates. The target population (omitting the deliberate exclusions described above) totaled over 140 million inhabitants. Ideally, one would use the population of eligible households, not the population of individuals. As is often the case, we were obliged to use figures on the population of individuals as a surrogate because of the unavailability of household figures in various regions.

Although the target sample size was set at 4,000, the number of households drawn into the sample was inflated to 4,718 to allow for a nonresponse rate of approximately 15 percent. The number of households drawn from each of the NSR strata was approximately equal (averaging 108), since the strata were of approximately equal size and PPS was employed to draw the PSUs in each one. However, because response rates were expected to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas, the extent of over-sampling varied. This variation accounted for the differences in households drawn across the NSR PSUs. It also accounted for the fact that 940 households were drawn in the three SR strata--more than the 14.6 percent (i.e. 689) that would have been allotted based on strict proportionality.

Since there was no consolidated list of households or dwellings in any of the 38 selected PSUs, an intermediate stage of selection was then introduced, as usual. Professional samplers will recognize that this is actually the first stage of selection in the three SR strata, since those units were selected with certainty. That is, technically, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Moscow oblast, the census enumeration districts were the PSUs. However, it was cumbersome to keep making this distinction throughout the description, and researchers followed the normal practice of using the terms "PSU" and "SSU" loosely. Needless to say, in the calculation of design effects, where the distinction is critical, the proper distinction was maintained. The selection of second-stage units (SSUs) differed depending on whether the population was urban (located in cities and "villages of the city type," known as "PGTs") or rural (located in villages). That is, within each selected PSU the population was stratified into urban and rural substrata, and the target sample size was allocated proportionately to the two substrata. For example, if 40 percent of the population in a given region was rural, 40 of the 100 households allotted to the stratum were drawn from villages.

In rural areas of the selected PSUs, a list of all villages was compiled to serve as SSUs. The list was ordered by size and (where salient) by ethnic composition. PPS was employed to select one village for each 10 households allocated to the rural substratum. Again, under the standard principles of PPS, once the required number of villages was selected, an equal number of households in the sample (10) were allocated to each village. Since villages maintain very reliable lists of households, in each selected village the 10 households were selected systematically from the household list. In a few cases, villages were judged to be too small to sustain independent interviews with 10 households; in such cases, three or four tiny villages were treated as a single SSU for sampling purposes.

In urban areas, SSUs were defined by the boundaries of 1989 census enumeration districts, if possible. If the necessary information was not available, 1994 microcensus enumeration districts, voting districts, or residential postal zones were employed--in decreasing order of preference. Since census enumeration districts were originally designed to be roughly equal in population size, one district was selected systematically without using PPS for each 10 households required in the sample. In the few cases where postal zones were used, one zone was likewise selected systematically for each 10 households. However, where voting districts were used, to compensate for the marked variation in population size, PPS was employed to select one voting district for each 10 households required in the urban sub-stratum.

In both urban and rural substrata, interviewers were required to visit each selected dwelling up to three times to secure the interviews. They were not allowed to make substitutions of any sort. The interviewers' first task was to identify households at the designated dwellings. "Household" was defined as a group of people who live together in a given domicile, and who share common income and expenditures. Households were also defined to include unmarried children, 18 years of age or younger, who were temporarily residing outside the domicile at the time of the survey. If perchance the interviewer identified more than one household in the dwelling, he or she was obliged to select one using a procedure outlined in the technical report. The interviewer then administered a household questionnaire to the most knowledgeable and willing member of the household.

The interviewer then conducted interviews with as many adults as possible, acquiring data about their individual activities and health. Data for the children's questionnaires were obtained from adults in the household. By virtue of the fact that an attempt was made to obtain individual questionnaires for all members of households, the sample constitutes a proper probability sample of individuals as well as of households, without any special weighting. Actually, the fact that we did not interview unmarried minors living temporarily outside the domicile slightly diminished the representativeness of the sample of individuals in that age group.

The multivariate distribution of the sample by sex, age, and urban-rural location compared quite well with the corresponding multivariate distribution of the 1989 census. Of course, because of random sampling error and changes in the distribution since the 1989 census, we did not expect perfect correspondence. Nevertheless, there was usually a difference of only one percentage point or less between the two distributions.

Another way to evaluate the adequacy (or efficiency) of the sample was to examine design effects. An important factor in determining the precision of estimates in multi-stage samples was the mean ultimate cluster (PSU) size. All else being equal, the larger the size the less precise the measure is. In Rounds I through IV of the RLMS, the average cluster size approached 360--a large number dictated by constraints imposed by our collaborators. Thus, although the sample size covered around 6,000 households, precision was less than we would have liked for a sample of that size. In Rounds I and III of the RLMS, the 95 percent confidence interval for household income was about ?±13 percent.

In the Phase II (Rounds V - XX) sample, the situation was considerably better. Although there were only 4,000 households, the mean size of clusters was much smaller than in Phase I. There were 35 PSUs with about 100 households each; even this result was an improvement over the average of 360 in the design of the RLMS Rounds I through IV. However, in the three self-representing areas, the respondents were drawn from 61 PSUs. Recall that Moscow city and oblast, as well as St. Petersburg

Abstract

The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) is a household-based survey designed to measure the effects of Russian reforms on the economic well-being of households and individuals. In particular, determining the impact of reforms on household consumption and individual health is essential, as most of the subsidies provided to protect food production and health care have been or will be reduced, eliminated, or at least dramatically changed. These effects are measured by a variety of means: detailed monitoring of individuals' health status and dietary intake, precise measurement of household-level expenditures and service utilization, and collection of relevant community-level data, including region-specific prices and community infrastructure data. Data have been collected since 1992.

The repeated cross-section design is far and away the simplest alternative for the RLMS. The sampling is cost efficient, easy to maintain, and easy to update when needed. The design supports both efficient cross-sectional and aggregate longitudinal analyses of change in the Russian household population. Updates to the sample, including a full replenishment of the probability sample of dwelling units, will not seriously disrupt the longitudinal data series.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households and individuals.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In Phase II (Rounds V - XX) of the RLMS, a multi-stage probability sample was employed. Please refer to the March 1997 review of the Phase II sample. First, a list of 2,029 consolidated regions was created to serve as PSUs. These were allocated into 38 strata based largely on geographical factors and level of urbanization but also based on ethnicity where there was salient variability. As in many national surveys involving face-to-face interviews, some remote areas were eliminated to contain costs; also, Chechnya was eliminated because of armed conflict. From among the remaining 1,850 regions (containing 95.6 percent of the population), three very large population units were selected with certainty: Moscow city, Moscow Oblast, and St. Petersburg city constituted self-representing (SR) strata. The remaining non-self-representing regions (NSR) were allocated to 35 equal-sized strata. One region was then selected from each NSR stratum using the method "probability proportional to size" (PPS). That is, the probability that a region in a given NSR stratum was selected was directly proportional to its measure of population size.

The NSR strata were designed to have approximately equal sizes to improve the efficiency of estimates. The target population (omitting the deliberate exclusions described above) totaled over 140 million inhabitants. Ideally, one would use the population of eligible households, not the population of individuals. As is often the case, we were obliged to use figures on the population of individuals as a surrogate because of the unavailability of household figures in various regions.

Although the target sample size was set at 4,000, the number of households drawn into the sample was inflated to 4,718 to allow for a nonresponse rate of approximately 15 percent. The number of households drawn from each of the NSR strata was approximately equal (averaging 108), since the strata were of approximately equal size and PPS was employed to draw the PSUs in each one. However, because response rates were expected to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas, the extent of over-sampling varied. This variation accounted for the differences in households drawn across the NSR PSUs. It also accounted for the fact that 940 households were drawn in the three SR strata--more than the 14.6 percent (i.e. 689) that would have been allotted based on strict proportionality.

Since there was no consolidated list of households or dwellings in any of the 38 selected PSUs, an intermediate stage of selection was then introduced, as usual. Professional samplers will recognize that this is actually the first stage of selection in the three SR strata, since those units were selected with certainty. That is, technically, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Moscow oblast, the census enumeration districts were the PSUs. However, it was cumbersome to keep making this distinction throughout the description, and researchers followed the normal practice of using the terms "PSU" and "SSU" loosely. Needless to say, in the calculation of design effects, where the distinction is critical, the proper distinction was maintained. The selection of second-stage units (SSUs) differed depending on whether the population was urban (located in cities and "villages of the city type," known as "PGTs") or rural (located in villages). That is, within each selected PSU the population was stratified into urban and rural substrata, and the target sample size was allocated proportionately to the two substrata. For example, if 40 percent of the population in a given region was rural, 40 of the 100 households allotted to the stratum were drawn from villages.

In rural areas of the selected PSUs, a list of all villages was compiled to serve as SSUs. The list was ordered by size and (where salient) by ethnic composition. PPS was employed to select one village for each 10 households allocated to the rural substratum. Again, under the standard principles of PPS, once the required number of villages was selected, an equal number of households in the sample (10) were allocated to each village. Since villages maintain very reliable lists of households, in each selected village the 10 households were selected systematically from the household list. In a few cases, villages were judged to be too small to sustain independent interviews with 10 households; in such cases, three or four tiny villages were treated as a single SSU for sampling purposes.

In urban areas, SSUs were defined by the boundaries of 1989 census enumeration districts, if possible. If the necessary information was not available, 1994 microcensus enumeration districts, voting districts, or residential postal zones were employed--in decreasing order of preference. Since census enumeration districts were originally designed to be roughly equal in population size, one district was selected systematically without using PPS for each 10 households required in the sample. In the few cases where postal zones were used, one zone was likewise selected systematically for each 10 households. However, where voting districts were used, to compensate for the marked variation in population size, PPS was employed to select one voting district for each 10 households required in the urban sub-stratum.

In both urban and rural substrata, interviewers were required to visit each selected dwelling up to three times to secure the interviews. They were not allowed to make substitutions of any sort. The interviewers' first task was to identify households at the designated dwellings. "Household" was defined as a group of people who live together in a given domicile, and who share common income and expenditures. Households were also defined to include unmarried children, 18 years of age or younger, who were temporarily residing outside the domicile at the time of the survey. If perchance the interviewer identified more than one household in the dwelling, he or she was obliged to select one using a procedure outlined in the technical report. The interviewer then administered a household questionnaire to the most knowledgeable and willing member of the household.

The interviewer then conducted interviews with as many adults as possible, acquiring data about their individual activities and health. Data for the children's questionnaires were obtained from adults in the household. By virtue of the fact that an attempt was made to obtain individual questionnaires for all members of households, the sample constitutes a proper probability sample of individuals as well as of households, without any special weighting. Actually, the fact that we did not interview unmarried minors living temporarily outside the domicile slightly diminished the representativeness of the sample of individuals in that age group.

The multivariate distribution of the sample by sex, age, and urban-rural location compared quite well with the corresponding multivariate distribution of the 1989 census. Of course, because of random sampling error and changes in the distribution since the 1989 census, we did not expect perfect correspondence. Nevertheless, there was usually a difference of only one percentage point or less between the two distributions.

Another way to evaluate the adequacy (or efficiency) of the sample was to examine design effects. An important factor in determining the precision of estimates in multi-stage samples was the mean ultimate cluster (PSU) size. All else being equal, the larger the size the less precise the measure is. In Rounds I through IV of the RLMS, the average cluster size approached 360--a large number dictated by constraints imposed by our collaborators. Thus, although the sample size covered around 6,000 households, precision was less than we would have liked for a sample of that size. In Rounds I and III of the RLMS, the 95 percent confidence interval for household income was about ?±13 percent.

In the Phase II (Rounds V - XX) sample, the situation was considerably better. Although there were only 4,000 households, the mean size of clusters was much smaller than in Phase I. There were 35 PSUs with about 100 households each; even this result was an improvement over the average of 360 in the design of the RLMS Rounds I through IV. However, in the three self-representing areas, the respondents were drawn from 61 PSUs. Recall that Moscow city and oblast, as well as St. Petersburg

Population: Rural: CF: City of Moscow data was reported at 0.000 Person in 2024. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.000 Person for 2023. Population: Rural: CF: City of Moscow data is updated yearly, averaging 147,167.500 Person from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2024, with 14 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 220,771.000 Person in 2021 and a record low of 0.000 Person in 2024. Population: Rural: CF: City of Moscow data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Russian Federation – Table RU.GA012: Population: Rural: by Region.

Abstract

The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) is a household-based survey designed to measure the effects of Russian reforms on the economic well-being of households and individuals. In particular, determining the impact of reforms on household consumption and individual health is essential, as most of the subsidies provided to protect food production and health care have been or will be reduced, eliminated, or at least dramatically changed. These effects are measured by a variety of means: detailed monitoring of individuals' health status and dietary intake, precise measurement of household-level expenditures and service utilization, and collection of relevant community-level data, including region-specific prices and community infrastructure data. Data have been collected since 1992.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households and individuals.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In Phase II (Rounds V- XX) of the RLMS, a multi-stage probability sample was employed. Please refer to the March 1997 review of the Phase II sample. First, a list of 2,029 consolidated regions was created to serve as PSUs. These were allocated into 38 strata based largely on geographical factors and level of urbanization but also based on ethnicity where there was salient variability. As in many national surveys involving face-to-face interviews, some remote areas were eliminated to contain costs; also, Chechnya was eliminated because of armed conflict. From among the remaining 1,850 regions (containing 95.6 percent of the population), three very large population units were selected with certainty: Moscow city, Moscow Oblast, and St. Petersburg city constituted self-representing (SR) strata. The remaining non-self-representing regions (NSR) were allocated to 35 equal-sized strata. One region was then selected from each NSR stratum using the method "probability proportional to size" (PPS). That is, the probability that a region in a given NSR stratum was selected was directly proportional to its measure of population size.

The NSR strata were designed to have approximately equal sizes to improve the efficiency of estimates. The target population (omitting the deliberate exclusions described above) totaled over 140 million inhabitants. Ideally, one would use the population of eligible households, not the population of individuals. As is often the case, we were obliged to use figures on the population of individuals as a surrogate because of the unavailability of household figures in various regions.

Although the target sample size was set at 4,000, the number of households drawn into the sample was inflated to 4,718 to allow for a nonresponse rate of approximately 15 percent. The number of households drawn from each of the NSR strata was approximately equal (averaging 108), since the strata were of approximately equal size and PPS was employed to draw the PSUs in each one. However, because response rates were expected to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas, the extent of over-sampling varied. This variation accounted for the differences in households drawn across the NSR PSUs. It also accounted for the fact that 940 households were drawn in the three SR strata--more than the 14.6 percent (i.e. 689) that would have been allotted based on strict proportionality.

Since there was no consolidated list of households or dwellings in any of the 38 selected PSUs, an intermediate stage of selection was then introduced, as usual. Professional samplers will recognize that this is actually the first stage of selection in the three SR strata, since those units were selected with certainty. That is, technically, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Moscow oblast, the census enumeration districts were the PSUs. However, it was cumbersome to keep making this distinction throughout the description, and researchers followed the normal practice of using the terms "PSU" and "SSU" loosely. Needless to say, in the calculation of design effects, where the distinction is critical, the proper distinction was maintained. The selection of second-stage units (SSUs) differed depending on whether the population was urban (located in cities and "villages of the city type," known as "PGTs") or rural (located in villages). That is, within each selected PSU the population was stratified into urban and rural substrata, and the target sample size was allocated proportionately to the two substrata. For example, if 40 percent of the population in a given region was rural, 40 of the 100 households allotted to the stratum were drawn from villages.

In rural areas of the selected PSUs, a list of all villages was compiled to serve as SSUs. The list was ordered by size and (where salient) by ethnic composition. PPS was employed to select one village for each 10 households allocated to the rural substratum. Again, under the standard principles of PPS, once the required number of villages was selected, an equal number of households in the sample (10) were allocated to each village. Since villages maintain very reliable lists of households, in each selected village the 10 households were selected systematically from the household list. In a few cases, villages were judged to be too small to sustain independent interviews with 10 households; in such cases, three or four tiny villages were treated as a single SSU for sampling purposes.

In urban areas, SSUs were defined by the boundaries of 1989 census enumeration districts, if possible. If the necessary information was not available, 1994 microcensus enumeration districts, voting districts, or residential postal zones were employed--in decreasing order of preference. Since census enumeration districts were originally designed to be roughly equal in population size, one district was selected systematically without using PPS for each 10 households required in the sample. In the few cases where postal zones were used, one zone was likewise selected systematically for each 10 households. However, where voting districts were used, to compensate for the marked variation in population size, PPS was employed to select one voting district for each 10 households required in the urban sub-stratum.

In both urban and rural substrata, interviewers were required to visit each selected dwelling up to three times to secure the interviews. They were not allowed to make substitutions of any sort. The interviewers' first task was to identify households at the designated dwellings. "Household" was defined as a group of people who live together in a given domicile, and who share common income and expenditures. Households were also defined to include unmarried children, 18 years of age or younger, who were temporarily residing outside the domicile at the time of the survey. If perchance the interviewer identified more than one household in the dwelling, he or she was obliged to select one using a procedure outlined in the technical report. The interviewer then administered a household questionnaire to the most knowledgeable and willing member of the household.

The interviewer then conducted interviews with as many adults as possible, acquiring data about their individual activities and health. Data for the children's questionnaires were obtained from adults in the household. By virtue of the fact that an attempt was made to obtain individual questionnaires for all members of households, the sample constitutes a proper probability sample of individuals as well as of households, without any special weighting. Actually, the fact that we did not interview unmarried minors living temporarily outside the domicile slightly diminished the representativeness of the sample of individuals in that age group.

The multivariate distribution of the sample by sex, age, and urban-rural location compared quite well with the corresponding multivariate distribution of the 1989 census. Of course, because of random sampling error and changes in the distribution since the 1989 census, we did not expect perfect correspondence. Nevertheless, there was usually a difference of only one percentage point or less between the two distributions.

Another way to evaluate the adequacy (or efficiency) of the sample was to examine design effects. An important factor in determining the precision of estimates in multi-stage samples was the mean ultimate cluster (PSU) size. All else being equal, the larger the size the less precise the measure is. In Rounds I through IV of the RLMS, the average cluster size approached 360--a large number dictated by constraints imposed by our collaborators. Thus, although the sample size covered around 6,000 households, precision was less than we would have liked for a sample of that size. In Rounds I and III of the RLMS, the 95 percent confidence interval for household income was about ?±13 percent.

In the Phase II (Rounds V - XX) sample, the situation was considerably better. Although there were only 4,000 households, the mean size of clusters was much smaller than in Phase I. There were 35 PSUs with about 100 households each; even this result was an improvement over the average of 360 in the design of the RLMS Rounds I through IV. However, in the three self-representing areas, the respondents were drawn from 61 PSUs. Recall that Moscow city and oblast, as well as St. Petersburg city, were not sampled but were chosen with certainty. Therefore, the first stage of selection in them was the selection of census enumeration districts. Thus the mean cluster size in the entire sample was about 42, i.e., 4,000/(35+61). Given these much smaller cluster sizes, researchers had reason to expect that precision in this survey would be as good as it was in Rounds I through IV despite the smaller sample size, and this expectation, in fact, turned out

Population with Income per Capita below Living Cost: % of Total: CF: City of Moscow data was reported at 4.100 % in 2024. This records a decrease from the previous number of 4.500 % for 2023. Population with Income per Capita below Living Cost: % of Total: CF: City of Moscow data is updated yearly, averaging 10.150 % from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2024, with 30 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 23.600 % in 2000 and a record low of 4.100 % in 2024. Population with Income per Capita below Living Cost: % of Total: CF: City of Moscow data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Demographic and Labour Market – Table RU.GA015: Population with Income per Capita below Living Cost.

Population: CF: Moscow Region: Odintsovo data was reported at 135.500 Person th in 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 137.500 Person th for 2018. Population: CF: Moscow Region: Odintsovo data is updated yearly, averaging 134.800 Person th from Dec 1999 (Median) to 2019, with 21 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 141.500 Person th in 2016 and a record low of 109.600 Person th in 2009. Population: CF: Moscow Region: Odintsovo data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Demographic and Labour Market – Table RU.GA016: Population: by City: Central Federal District.