Change and Transition in the

Former Soviet Union

Michael Scullin

Background

The Soviet Union was a diverse collection of cultures and regions. It spanned half the

globe, absorbing and ruling an area from Estonia to Uzbekistan. Each country and region had its

own unique history and problems that were magnified, or in some cases held down, by the

USSR. As is typical in a colonial situation, the Soviet Union exploited these areas for its own

gain, and at its collapse in 1991, the newly formed nations had a very difficult entry into the free

world after 70+ years of outside rule. This study, using both quantitative and causal analysis,

attempts analyze the time of transition--1990-2000—to determine which country came out of the

disintegration of the USSR the best.

The classic image of the Soviet Union is one giant bloc of Commusnism, one giant

border on a map (Kapuscinski, 1994). Everything is gray, Russian, and cold. This not the case,

as the USSR traversed the Eurasian continent, encompassed a wide area with a variety of

cultures, religions and people. To understand the Soviet Union is to understand its political

framework and Stalin’s atrocities and its rigid bureaucracy, but also the satellite regions it

brought under its power, and their role in the Soviet system. This section will provide a history

of the USSR, as well as the distinct regions that made it up.

The Soviet Union/Russia

The Soviet Union was an extension and product of the Russian consciousness. Russia

has historically been an imperial power, although its imperialism was mainly internal, and

reflected in the USSR, in the areas directly surrounding it (Suny, 1997). The Soviet Union was

born out the Russian Revolution in 1917, carried out by the Bolshevik Communists lead by

Vladimir Lenin. After Lenin’s death in 1924, Joseph Stalin came into power.

1

The Soviet Union’s objective (as with every communist country) was to create a uniform,

classless society. Everyone would work in unison for the good of the community, and there

would be no strife, argument, or war. Paradoxically, this ideal has universally taken large

amounts of violence to implement.

One of the main polices of the USSR was that of mass relocations/deportations. They

moved large amounts of people, as well as officials, from their homeland to other parts of the

Union as to break up any localized nation sentiment that might develop (Kapuscinski, 1994).

One of the favored tactics was deporting “political dissidents” to Siberian work camps.

The agricultural and environmental strategies followed a similar route. Farmland was

seized from peasants-- enemies of the state—and consolidated into kolkholz, or communal

farms( Hunter, 1988). These were staffed by both peasants and people relocated from across the

USSR, and had the goal of feeding the entire empire. The system existed across the entire

USSR, and while the production of food stayed relatively level, the population of the USSR

grew.

A third policy was the abolition of religion. Religion was viewed as roadblock/frivolity

in the eyes of the USSR. Stalin undertook massive campaigns to close or demolish churches and

icons, installing himself as the head of the communist “religion.” A number of churches were

used to store military or general surplus, and the ancient artifacts they housed were often melted

down or used as firewood. As with national relocation, these policies were designed to stop

perceived anti-communist opposition.

The policies enacted by the Soviet Union were uniformly brutal and violent. Millions of

lives were lost either through forced relocation, starvation or murder by the authorities. The

2

conservative estimate that 100 million people lost their lives (including WWII) as a result of the

Soviet Union’s policies.

The Baltics- Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

The Baltics occupy a corner of the world not often recognized in the global discourse.

That being said, the region has had a very interesting history. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia

have existed between historic empires (Russia, Germany, Poland) but have remained somewhat

autonomous past. This is the most true for Lithuania, who for a time had an empire of its own,

and most opposite of Estonia, who has been ruled by other countries for most of its existence (I.

Bremmer & R. Taras, 1997)

The Baltics were part of the Tsarist Russian Empire until its overthrow in 1917. The

region was independent until 1940, when it was occupied and annexed as a part of the USSR’s

campaigns during WW II. In 1941, the three nations were invaded by Nazi Germany, viewed as

liberators from the Soviets, but who enacted similarly brutal acts of violence of the region

(World Factbook, 2013).

The region’s 20 years of independence (~1920-1940) gives it a markedly different outlook than

the rest of the region. The Baltics viewed any independence or nationalistic movements over the

duration of the USSR as progressing towards a restoration of independence (I. Bremmer & R.

Taras, 1997). Opposed to other republics, this was the overarching consensus when the Soviet

Union collapsed. The Baltics were the first nations to declare independence from the USSR,

Lithuania doing so in 1998, and the others following soon after. The three republics are also

markedly different in their move away from Russia after the USSR fell, opting instead to attain

membership in NATO and the EU.

3

The Caucasus- Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia

The Caucasus sit at a very important point in the world. They are between three historic

empires—Russia, Turkey and Iran—and are also known as the border/transitional zonal between

the Christian and Muslim worlds (Goldberg, 1994). As a result, the region has had a very

unstable history, constantly being invaded and annexed by different empires and outside forces.

For most of their past, the Caucasus haven’t ruled themselves autonomously.

Internally too, the region has been historically unstable. The religious, economic and

national characteristics are varied across the region, and there has especially been conflict

between Armenia and Azerbaijan (World Factbook, 2013). The two have been historically at

odds, dating back to least a very complex inter-ethnic conflict in 1905, in which riots in both

countries left members of the opposite ethnic group dead. To compound matters, Armenia and

Georgia are Christian, while Azerbaijan is a Muslim nation. This lends more credence to the

notion that area is an essential mesh point in the world.

In history, the Caucasus is a very important part of the world. Armenia was the first

country to adopt Christianity, while Azerbaijan was the first oil producing country .

Unfortunately, these accomplishments have been overrun by the aforementioned instability, and

post Soviet Union, the countries experienced a great deal of war and outside pressure. In the

early 1990s, Georgia suffered from three concurrent wars, while Armenia and Azerbaijan were

embattled in a bloody conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (Kapuscinski, 1994). During the rule of

the Soviets and after its collapse, the region’s history has been consistent.

Central Asia- Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan.

4

Unlike the other regions in the study, Central has been largely autonomous throughout its

history. It has functioned largely on its own, in some form of isolation for most of its existence.

The territory of Mongol Hoards and nomads, the area has largely been portrayed as a mystical

realm, completely alien to western thought (Rashid, 1994).

Central Asia is a very important region in world history, as a great number of the tribes

that have gone on to populate the world originated there (Rashid, 1994). More so than the other

regions in the study, it is defined by its geography. Filled with deserts and surrounded by

mountains, its topography allowed large nomadic empires to flourish within its bounds. It also

occupies a very important transcontinental position in terms of trade routes. The most fabled

parts of the Silk Road passed through Central Asia.

As far as Soviet influence, it is most straightforward. The USSR took largely nomadic

cultures, and settled them, drawing arbitrary boundaries (although the process of settling isn’t

exclusive to the USSR). Historically, Central Asia has been a productive agricultural region, as it

is transversed by the Amuand Syr Darya rivers which gave the region abundant agricultural

resources . These were exploited by the Soviets, at great environmental harm (Motyl, 1997).

The largest example is that of the Aral Sea. A saltwater oasis in the middle of a very

large desert, the sea and rivers that feed it provided life for Central Asia. In the 1960s, the USSR

determined that the region would be used to grow cotton, and dredged these rivers to flood the

area between them. As a result, the Aral Sea and rivers that feed it are drying up, creating a

massive water shortage in Central Asia.

Eastern Europe- Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine

5

As with the other regions in the study area, large portions of Eastern Europe have been

under the rule of outside empires for a good part of their history. Belarus and Ukraine, have

close linguistic ties to Russia, but have historically tried to avoid it. Moldova was for centuries a

nominal part of Romania, but was intensely russified during the span of the USSR (I. Bremmer

& R. Taras, 1997).

Belarus exists between Russia and Poland, two powers who have fought over it for

centuries. Large portions of Belarus’s history operate under Russian, Polish and sometimes

Lithuanian rule. Belarus is short for Belorussian, meaning white Russian, and Belarus’s status as

a distinct nationality and linguistic group has been called into question (Plokhy, 2011). As a

result, the nation’s struggle for independence has always been uphill, and this is compounded by

the fact that until recently most Belorussians were peasants living in the countryside.

Ukraine was the first imperial power in Eastern Europe, and created many imports works

of history and culture (Imperium). It was taken over by the Russian Empire in the 1700s, and

remained under its control until 1917 (World Factbook). Ukraine has been very important to

Russia, as it provided it with both a warm water port and a large agricultural area (Kapuscinski,

1994). It has been observed that “without the Ukraine, Moscow would be a cold, northern

wilderness.”

The state was victim to some of the worst atrocities during Stalin’s reign, most notably

the famine in the early 1930s, which led to the death of 10 million Ukrainian peasants. In the

post-Soviet Period, Ukraine has been torn between nationalist movements and a pragmatic urge

to stick close to Russia, for economic and security reasons (I. Bremmer & R. Taras, 1997).

6

Moldova has a different history than the other Eastern European countries. It existed as a

part of Romania for centuries, and was taken over by Ukraine in the 1800s. When it was

incorporated into the USSR, it was grated status as an autonomous region, and enjoyed a

relatively liberal regime. The country enjoyed a great deal of development under the Soviet

Union, and had a great deal of its population urbanize. Moldova was somewhat left alone by

Stalin, and in the Post-Soviet period, it has been plagued with underdevelopment problems

similar to those of its past (Plokhy, 2011).

Overall, the Eastern European region has had a history tied to Russia, but has attempted

to distance itself from Moscow in key areas post Soviet Union. While the countries have entered

into agreements with Russia on the economic front, they have remained culturally dissimilar.

Eastern Europe is also extremely useful as a barometer for decolonization taking place in the

FSU during the 1990s, as erosion of its ties with Russia is indicative of a larger thaw.

The FSU as a whole was not uniformly affected by Soviet policies. Historical and

geographic circumstances limited the influence and spread of Soviet ideas in satellite regions.

Although the collapse of the USSR brought about the same set of very difficult problems, some

countries were much better equipped to handle them than others.

7

Methods

Description of Study Area

This study is focused on the Former Soviet Union (FSU), an area that spans the northern

extent of the Eurasian continent (Figure 1.) It is comprised of 15 countries, and makes up a large

portion of the globe. Officially, the study area stretches from Russia in the north, the Ukraine in

the West, the Caucasus and Tajikistan to the south, and Russia again to the East.

Description of Data

The data collected for this project was all sourced for the World Bank. The objective of

the data selected was to paint a coherent and concise of the national health/progress of the

Former Soviet Union. Eleven indicators were chosen.

The indicators selected were GDP, GDP per capita, GDP change (year to year variation),

Child mortality under 5 per 1000 births, Percent urban population, life expectancy, birth rate per

1000 population, death rate per 1000 population, population growth rate and population. The

three GDP related indicators were chosen because GDP is the most effective, if somewhat crude,

measure of economic prosperity.

GDP per capita is a good indicator of overall standard of living, and GDP change is used

as a proxy for national stability in this study. Child mortality is a good way to measure a

nations’ health system, as more prosperous nation have lower child mortality. The life

expectancy is a measure of this in the long term. Birth and death rates are core pats of the

demographic transition model, and also excellent proxies for national health. Population growth

encompasses all life and death related indicators, although it is Population isn’t an evaluation

9

metric, it is a baseline comparison for all areas and although it is exceptionally important, on its

own doesn’t offer utility as an indicator.

Analysis

Data was downloaded from the World Bank (WB) in Microsoft Excel Format. The

spreadsheets provided by the WB listed the desired indicator for every country in the world,

1960-2012. First, the data was selected for the 1990-200 time period, the temporal scale of the

study, and pasted into a new sheet in Excel. Then, from this subset, the countries of the FSU

were selected and pasted into a new sheet, where rounding and other relevant operations were

performed. Finally the Excel workbooks were titled after the indicator they contained, and had

three sheets—World, 1990-2000 and USSR. After the data on the FSU was compiled, the USSR

sheet in each workbook was saved as a .csv, to be imported into ArcGIS.

Each .csv was imported to a geodatabase individually, as a majority of the metrics had a

different amount of decimal places. Besides the 11 indicators, the geodatabase includes a feature

class of the FSU, in the Lambert Conformal Conic projection and a table that handles the

symbology, to be discussed later.

Next, a cartography template was created. Eight 4x2 in. data frames were arranged on an

8.5x11 document, tiled 4x2 (one for each year 1993-2000). An additional data frame was

created for symbology, but is not present on the final document. The USSR feature class was

imported into the upper left data frame (representing 1993) and symbology data frames, and then

the document was duplicated 10 times, one for each indicator.

Each copy was renamed after one of the indicators used, and then the corresponding

indicator’s table was imported into the 1993 data frame, and joined to the USSR feature class.

10

This was then exported as a layer, and brought into the other seven data frames. A table was

imported to the symbology layer with the high, low, and class break values for each indicator.

The symbology layer was created because the symbolization was originally drawn from

one data set (i.e. child mortality for 1992) and often did not represent the whole range of data.

As a result, countries would not be symbolized when their values were out of 1992’s range. The

symbology table allowed the whole range of data to be represented. The symbology table was

joined to the USSR feature class in the symbology layer, and the metric represented in the

document was symbolized in that layer. The symbolized layer was exported, and its symbology

definitions were imported into the 1993-2000 layers.

To evaluate the development the FSU, and the high/low values in this regard, a simple

system of sorting was used. The country with the superlative value in each metric was selected,

and was declared the least effected by the fall of the USSR. This methodology did not produce a

clear “winner,” but results were clear enough to make general inferences about the region.

11

Results

* This section will deal with year and indicator specific trends in the data, it will include a brief

overview of general trends, but all results will not be discussed. For complete tabular data see

appendix.

**It is advised to see Figure 2 in Appendix before reading analysis

***In terms of describing trends, Belarus/Russia/Ukraine will be referred to as the Slavic states

when pertinent.

****Abbreviations: FSU- Former Soviet Union, BR- birth rate, CM- child mortality, DR- death

rate, DRa- dependency ratio, LE- life expectancy, GDP- Gross Domestic Product, GR-

population growth rate, PUP- percent urban population

The data presented in this study does not present a clear picture of developmental

circumstances in all surveyed countries. It does provide a very good picture of regional

development in the FSU, and large scale inferences will be made in this regard.

Generally, the core demographic stats (life expectancy, birth rate, etc.) fall below the

world average in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The exception to this death rate (Table 5),

which is at or below world average in these two regions, and higher in the Baltic/Slavic states.

All the demographic stats, with the exception of death rate, show a decline in the study’s

temporal period.

Economically, the Baltics are the only region to see a net increase in GDP (Table 6), and

have the highest GDP per capita (Table 8). Urbanized population (Table 11) (a proxy metric for

economic health) shows Russia as the most urbanized region at 70% of its population living in

cities, with Central Asia being the lowest at ~40% urbanized. Central Asia also has the lowest

GDP per capita of any region (Table 7).

12

The most startling and indicator whose ramifications are most worth investigation is

Change in Gross Domestic Product (Table 6). GDP is very focused and narrow as an overall

indicator, but sharp variations can be symptomatic of larger problems in an area. Such an

observation can be made for the metric in 1992, and extrapolated across all indicators. 1992

saw all but three countries lose 10+% of their GDP, and two lose 40+%. 1992 was the first full

year of independence for the nations of the FSU, and the data bears this out.

The most extreme GDP falls are: Armenia (-41.8%), Georgia (-45%), Latvia (-32.1%)

and Moldova (-29.1), these will be more closely examined to determine if this metric is an

indicator of overall national health. In the case of Armenia, there is a slight drop in BR (Table 3)

and CM (Table 4), in accordance with the rest of the region. There is a drop in GR (Table 2) and

gain in DRa (Table 6), the indicator that is most likely to be affected, because a drop in GDP

would make for less employment and a higher ration of dependents.

These general trends are echoed by the other cases, which have different degrees of

variation in their categories. If the different regions are examined for uniform trends during

1992, there is nothing as extreme, but lightly follow the trends described above. There is issue of

lag time to consider, but even with that taken into account, no direct causal link can be

established.

Another interesting trend is the increase in DR (Table 4) for the Slavic states over the

study period (Brainerd, 2005). Belarus and Ukraine see a 3% increase, while Russia jumps by

4%; compared a World 0% increase and rest-of-the-FSU 1% increase. This is a well-

documented trend that on its own warrants further investigation (in 2013, these counties have the

world’s 13th

, 2nd

and 10th

highest death rates), and there are several corroborating pieces of data

13

in the study. First, these countries saw a 5% drop in birth rate 1990-2000, slightly above the

world average. Also with the deaths and the births, there was a drop in DRa (Table 6) of 5.5, .5

above the world average. In accordance, the Slavic states saw a negative growth rate, a bit more

in Belarus and Ukraine. The Russian GDP is larger, more stable and falls at a lower rate that

than the other two countries, and loses $236 as opposed to $306 from 1990-2000.

Moldova is a statistical oddity. It is in line with the Eastern European region in all

indicators, except PUP, where it is similar to the likes of Turkmenistan (Table 11). With its low

number of people living in urban areas, it would be expected that the core health stats ( BR, CM,

DR) would be at least above the Eastern European average, and although this is the case with

birth rate, the dichotomy does not manifest itself elsewhere.

A curiosity worth noting is the amount of interregional variation present in Central Asia.

For example, the 1996 birth rate (Table 3) in Central Asia varies from 15 in Kazakhstan to 34 in

Tajikistan. This is true of the other indicators. In 1994, Kyrgyzstan has a DRa (Table 6) of 76,

while Tajikistan’s is 91. This could be called a theme of the data, as Tajikistan lags behind

Central Asia, and the former USSR in all indicators. The best example is in child mortality

(Table 4) over the study duration, the Tajik state has 20 more child deaths than the next highest

nation. A strong case can be made that Tajikistan is the least developed country in the FSU.

The most developed country, and objective of the study, is a bit more difficult to parse

out. Based solely on GDP per capita (Table 10) data, the country can be narrowed down to one

in the Baltic region, specifically Estonia, which has ~2x the GDP per capita (Table 10) of the

next closest nation. Expanded to other indicators, Estonia has the lowest CM in 2000, largest

gain in GDP (although no data for 1990-94), a roughly average LE (Table 10), and the second

14

most urbanized population behind Russia. The country falters in death rate (4 above world

average), but is middle of the road compared to its peers. The other Baltic states are similar, and

demographically difficult of differentiate. Without regard to the political situation and based on

an elevated Gross Domestic Product per Captia, Estonia can be said to have had the least arduous

transition away from the USSR.

15

Discussion

1. Geopolitical Situation

To understand the Post-Soviet transition, it is very important to understand the legacy and

parts of the system that were left over after its disintegration. These were different for different

regions and manifested themselves in a variety of ways. The whole situation is very complex,

and what follows as a distillation of the problem to its main points.

15 new countries entered the world, with borders defined by the USSR: Typical

of a colonial situation, the borders were defined by the colonizer for their own

benefit, ignoring traditional boundaries (World Factbook, 2013). This means the

groups who are historically at odds with each other, or breaking historic communities

(Heleniak, 2004). Compounded with the Soviet policy of forced relocation to quell

and feeling of nationalism or unity, this left many people in a strange land, to which

they had no historic ties (Kapuscinski, 1994). A final effect was that not every

nationality was recognized with a nation, and combined with historic disputes/power

struggles, led to a number of armed conflicts in the region (Figure 3).

Many of the nations hadn’t been independent in 70 years: This meant that they

had little modern political knowledge, or knowledge about how to run a country

(Goldberg, 1994). Many of the nations were originally run by the old communist

party bosses, who were de facto in command after the collapse (Rashid, 1994). This

led to very little change or reform at first, because these leaders wanted to keep the

policies in place that put them in power.

16

The Soviet economic system was still in place: The USSR designed its economic

policy as to make the outlying republics reliant on trade within the union, specifically

with Russia. On the same token, each republic’s economy was highly specialized,

both to serve a targeted purpose in the USSR’s greater plan, and to facilitate the

subservient colony-colonizer relationship (Goldberg, 1994). When the Soviet Union

collapsed, these structures stayed in place, and the countries had no knowledge of

market principles or diversification, and their economies collapsed. This was

compounded by two factors: 1) most of the independent economic activity was with

Russia, who made it difficult for the countries to move their goods onto the world

market; 2) The wars and conflicts in the region sometimes accounted for 60% a

country’s expenditures (Motyl, 1997).

In addition, the nations were reliant on Soviet infrastructure, which was often old

and out of repair. An example is that the rail lines in Turkey and Armenia as

different gauges, making the movement of goods between the two nations very

difficult. Finally, many of the new republics were initially tied to the old Soviet

currency (ruble), which had tanked when the USSR fell.

There was a great deal of jostling by outside powers for influence in the region:

At the collapse of the USSR, countries which had been historically influential moved

to gain traction in the newly formed republics (Figure 3). Turkey was a major

player in this regard, as most of the countries in the southern FSU are Turkic in

origin (Rashid, 1994). With many FSU countries, Turkey formed the Black Sea

cooperation, dedicated to trade in and around the Black Sea. It also briefly pushed

17

for a “Pan-Turkic Empire,” which would have included itself, Azerbaijan, and most

of Central Asia, but this fell through (Cornell, 1998). Iran was important in the Post-

Soviet world, and it sought out alliances with the Caucasus and Muslim Central Asia,

as well as developed the Caspian Sea Alliance. In this period, the Baltic States chose

to remain clean of the FSU, and are currently in the processes for entry into the EU.

Belarus and Ukraine on the other hand, have kept close ties with Russia (I. Bremmer

& R. Taras, 1997).

Finally, the FSU was the aftermath of the last colonial empire on earth, and its

diverse set of problems had a number of geopolitical ramifications: The largest

of these was the question of Russia, as it was unclear whether the nation would

remain a superpower, or collapse under its own weight. There was the question of

the USSR’s large weapon stocks and industrial complex, and what would come of

those (Rashid, 1994). There was a great fear that Central Asia would become

fundamentalist Islam states, and that this would lead to a tipping in the balance of

world power. And last, there was a fear the USSR would be reborn, through Russian

power, in a new and unpredictable form.

2. Methods

The methods used in this study are useful and repeatable in similar analyses for

other regions of the world. That being said, there could be significant improvements to

the process.

Recommended improvements mainly pertain to the automation of cartography.

Specifically, a model can be developed to join each table to the USSR (or any) shapefile,

18

and output a separate feature class for each join. An attempt was made to make such a

model, but was unsuccessful.

Improvement could also be made in mathematical process used to satisfy the

objectives. A simple visual comparison and sorting system was used to find the most

developed country in the FSU, but a move complex model could be used. A weighting

system, giving indicators more or less importance, as well as more advanced probabilistic

models of inference should be investigated for future endeavors.

3. Recommended Research

A comparison to the decolonization of the USSR to other such events in the 20th

century

is essential to understanding the process as it occurs across space. Such a comparison could give

more insight to the FSU, and similar patterns/structures may very well exist in other regions of

the world. It is also pertinent to compare the fall of the USSR to older empires (pre 1900), as it

may have more in common with those due to its relative geographic density. Data similar to that

used in this study may be difficult to obtain, and the study may have to rely more on

interpretation of humanistic materials.

4. Conclusions

It can be concluded that as a whole, the FSU is not very well-off, and that the period of

transition viewed in this study was a direct, predictable result of the Soviet system. Even the

most well-off countries (the Baltics) have significant political problems stemming from the

USSR. Very few of these nations stabilized (with the possible exception of the Baltics) during

19

the study period, and while this was expected, the severity of the conditions following the

collapse of the USSR was not.

It is worth noting the de-colonization of the USSR is very different from most modern

situations of the same nature. In Africa and Latin America, the imperial nations were thousands

of miles away from their colonies, and when they achieved independence, these colonizers left

overnight. This left many of them with a power vacuum, and more violent conflict, but their

colonizers were not in the immediate geographic vicinity.

The USSR is akin to an older system, where a king or nation would invade and conquer

its neighbors, and most importantly, be in a very close proximity to those neighbors when they

would achieve freedom. This is important and analogous to the situation in the FSU because

with the Soviet systems still in place, the countries were reliant on Russia for basic economic and

political guidance (Motyl, 1997). Some have observed that has to an informal reorganization of

the USSR, at least in an economic sense.

According to the 2012 United Nations Human Development Report, the hierarchy in the

FSU has change very little, but there has been significant improvement since its collapse. The

Human Development Index ranks the Baltics as having very high human development, the

Caucasus and Slavic states as high human development and Central Asia/Moldova as medium

human development. This is a beacon of hope for the region, as things have gotten better, but

the Soviet legacy will always play a dark role in its diverse history.

20

References

(1997). I. Bremmer & R. Taras (Eds.), New Sataes, New Politics New York: Cambridge.

Brainerd, E., & Cutler, D. M. (2005). Autopsy on an Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia

and the Former Soviet Union. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 107-130.

Cornell, S. E. (1998). Turkey and the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh: A delicate balance. Middle

Eastern Studies, 34(1), 51.

Goldberg, S. (1994). Pride of small nations: The caucasus and post-soviet disorder. London:

Oxford University Press.

Heleniak, T. (2004). Migration of the Russian Diaspora After the Breakup of the Soviet Union.

Journal Of International Affairs, 57(2), 99-117.

Hunter, H. (1988). SOVIET AGRICULTURE WITH AND WITHOUT COLLECTIVIZATION,

1928-1940. Slavic Review, 47(2), 203-216.

Kapuscinski, R. (1994). Imperium. New York: Vintage International.

Motyl, A. J. (1997). Soviet legacies, post-Soviet transformations. Freedom Review, 28(1), 50.

Plokhy, S. (2011). The “New Eastern Europe”: What to Do with the Histories of Ukraine,

Belarus, and Moldova?. East European Politics & Societies, 25(4), 763-769.

doi:10.1177/0888325411398914

Rashid, A. (1994). The resurgence of central asia: Islam or nationalism?. London: Oxford

University Press.

Suny, R. (1997, 6). The Empire Strikes out: Imperial Russia, “National” Identity, And Theories

of Empire. Empire and Nations : the Soviet Union and the Non-Russian peoples, Chicago.

Retrieved from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~crn/crn_papers/Suny4.pdf

The World Factbook 2013-14. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2013.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

Appendix

Contents

Figure 1……………………………………………………………….Political Map of FSU

Figure 2……………………………………………………………….Regions of FSU

Figure 3……………………………………………………………….Post Soviet Conflicts, 1990-200

Figure 4……………………………………………………………….Post Soviet Organizations

Figure 5……………………………………………………………….Development in the FSU

Section 2, providing tabular and mapped information on the following demographic and

economic indicators:

Population

Population Growth Rate

Birth Rate per 1000 Population

Child Mortality per 1000 Births

Death Rate per 1000 Population

Dependency Ratio

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Year to Year GDP variation

GDP Per Capita

Life Expectancy

Percent of Population Living in Urban Areas

Figure 1, Countries of the Former USSR

Figure 2, Regions of the Fomer USSR

Figure 3, Post-Soviet Conflicts, 1990-2000

Figure 4, Post Soviet Organizations

Figure 5,Transition/Development Tiers in the FSU

Section 2

Table 1, Population in the FSU, with World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country P1990 P1991 P1992 P1993 P1994 P1995 P1996 P1997 P1998 P1999 P2000 Overall Change (people)Armenia 3,544,695 3,512,051 3,449,940 3,370,373 3,290,540 3,223,173 3,172,185 3,134,836 3,109,101 3,090,624 3,076,098 -468,597Azerbaijan 7,159,000 7,271,000 7,382,000 7,495,000 7,597,000 7,685,000 7,763,000 7,838,250 7,913,000 7,982,750 8,048,600 889,600Belarus 10,189,000 10,194,000 10,216,000 10,239,000 10,227,000 10,194,000 10,160,000 10,117,000 10,069,000 10,035,000 10,005,000 -184,000Estonia 1,569,174 1,561,314 1,533,091 1,494,128 1,462,514 1,436,634 1,415,594 1,399,535 1,386,156 1,375,654 1,369,515 -199,659Georgia 4,802,000 4,835,900 4,873,500 4,911,100 4,861,600 4,734,000 4,616,100 4,531,600 4,487,300 4,452,500 4,418,300 -383,700Kazakhstan 16,348,000 16,450,500 16,439,095 16,330,419 16,095,199 15,815,626 15,577,894 15,333,703 15,071,300 14,928,426 14,883,626 -1,464,374Kyrgyz 4,391,200 4,463,600 4,515,400 4,516,700 4,515,100 4,560,400 4,628,400 4,696,400 4,769,000 4,840,400 4,898,400 507,200Latvia 2,663,151 2,650,581 2,614,338 2,563,290 2,520,742 2,485,056 2,457,222 2,432,851 2,410,019 2,390,482 2,372,985 -290,166Lithuania 3,697,838 3,704,134 3,700,114 3,682,613 3,657,144 3,629,102 3,601,613 3,575,137 3,549,331 3,524,238 3,499,536 -198,302Moldova 3,696,000 3,706,000 3,709,000 3,705,000 3,694,000 3,675,099 3,667,748 3,659,655 3,652,771 3,646,999 3,639,588 -56,412Russia 148,292,000 148,624,000 148,689,000 148,520,000 148,336,000 148,141,000 147,739,000 147,304,000 146,899,000 146,309,000 146,303,000 -1,989,000Tajikistan 5,303,152 5,418,785 5,519,021 5,607,922 5,691,845 5,775,404 5,860,334 5,945,181 6,027,676 6,104,268 6,172,807 869,655Turkmenistan 3,668,000 3,772,350 3,881,973 3,991,917 4,095,512 4,188,010 4,267,690 4,335,991 4,395,293 4,449,427 4,501,419 833,419Ukraine 51,892,000 52,000,470 52,150,266 52,179,210 51,921,041 51,512,299 51,057,189 50,594,105 50,143,939 49,673,350 49,175,848 -2,716,152Uzbekistan 20,510,000 20,952,000 21,449,000 21,942,000 22,377,000 22,785,000 23,225,000 23,667,000 24,051,000 24,311,700 24,650,400 4,140,400

World 2,046,717,619 2,075,336,741 2,101,607,299 2,126,751,478 2,151,652,168 2,176,200,480 2,200,460,934 2,224,683,755 2,248,341,538 2,270,862,141 2,293,034,372 246,316,753

RegionBaltics 7,930,163 7,916,029 7,847,543 7,740,031 7,640,400 7,550,792 7,474,429 7,407,523 7,345,506 7,290,374 7,242,036 -229,376Caucasus 15,505,695 15,618,951 15,705,440 15,776,473 15,749,140 15,642,173 15,551,285 15,504,686 15,509,401 15,525,874 15,542,998 12,434Central Asia 50,220,352 51,057,235 51,804,489 52,388,958 52,774,656 53,124,440 53,559,318 53,978,275 54,314,269 54,634,221 55,106,652 977,260Eastern Europe 65,777,000 65,900,470 66,075,266 66,123,210 65,842,041 65,381,398 64,884,937 64,370,760 63,865,710 63,355,349 62,820,436 -985,521Russia 148,292,000 148,624,000 148,689,000 148,520,000 148,336,000 148,141,000 147,739,000 147,304,000 146,899,000 146,309,000 146,303,000 -1,989,000

Table 2, Population Growth Rate FSU

Country 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Armenia 0.06 -0.93 -1.78 -2.33 -2.4 -2.07 -1.59 -1.18 -0.82 -0.6 -0.47Azerbaijan 1.04 1.55 1.52 1.52 1.35 1.15 1.01 0.96 0.95 0.88 0.82Belarus 0.19 0.05 0.22 0.22 -0.12 -0.32 -0.33 -0.42 -0.48 -0.34 -0.3Estonia 0.07 -0.5 -1.82 -2.57 -2.14 -1.79 -1.48 -1.14 -0.96 -0.76 -0.45Georgia -0.03 0.7 0.77 0.77 -1.01 -2.66 -2.52 -1.85 -0.98 -0.78 -0.77Kazakhstan 0.6 0.63 -0.07 -0.66 -1.45 -1.75 -1.51 -1.58 -1.73 -0.95 -0.3Kyrgyz 1.92 1.64 1.15 0.03 -0.04 1 1.48 1.46 1.53 1.49 1.19Latvia -0.14 -0.47 -1.38 -1.97 -1.67 -1.43 -1.13 -1 -0.94 -0.81 -0.73Lithuania 0.37 0.17 -0.11 -0.47 -0.69 -0.77 -0.76 -0.74 -0.72 -0.71 -0.7Moldova 0.43 0.26 0.08 -0.1 -0.3 -0.51 -0.2 -0.22 -0.19 -0.16 -0.2Russia 0.39 0.22 0.04 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13 -0.27 -0.29 -0.28 -0.4 0Tajikistan 2.54 2.16 1.83 1.6 1.49 1.46 1.46 1.44 1.38 1.26 1.12Turkmenistan 2.69 2.81 2.86 2.79 2.56 2.23 1.88 1.59 1.36 1.22 1.16Ukraine 0.23 0.21 0.29 0.06 -0.5 -0.79 -0.89 -0.91 -0.89 -0.94 -1.01Uzbekistan 2.35 2.13 2.34 2.27 1.96 1.81 1.91 1.89 1.61 1.08 1.38

World 1.72 1.64 1.54 1.52 1.48 1.49 1.43 1.41 1.38 1.34 1.32

RegionBaltics 0.1 -0.27 -1.1 -1.67 -1.5 -1.33 -1.12 -0.96 -0.87 -0.76 -0.63Caucasus 0.36 0.44 0.17 -0.01 -0.69 -1.19 -1.03 -0.69 -0.28 -0.17 -0.14Central Asia 1.94 1.81 1.44 0.94 0.64 0.74 0.83 0.73 0.64 0.76 0.79Eastern Europe 0.28 0.17 0.2 0.06 -0.31 -0.54 -0.47 -0.52 -0.52 -0.48 -0.5Russia 0.39 0.22 0.04 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13 -0.27 -0.29 -0.28 -0.4 0

Growth Rate (percent of population)

< -2 -2 - -1 -1-0 0-1 1-2 >2

0 5,000 Miles

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

Table 3, Birth Rate per 1,000 Population in the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country BR1990 BR1991 BR1992 BR1993 BR1994 BR1995 BR1996 BR1997 BR1998 BR1999 BR2000 Overall ChangeArmenia 21 20 19 18 17 15 14 14 13 13 13 -8Azerbaijan 25 26 25 23 21 18 16 17 15 14 14 -9Belarus 13 12 12 11 10 9 9 8 9 9 9 -4Estonia 14 12 11 10 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 -5Georgia 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 -4Kazakhstan 21 21 19 18 18 16 15 14 14 14 14 -7Kyrgyz 29 29 28 26 24 26 23 22 21 21 19 7Latvia 14 13 12 10 9 8 8 7 7 8 8 -6Lithuania 15 15 14 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 -6Moldova 18 17 16 15 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 -7Russia 13 12 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 -5Tajikistan 39 38 37 36 35 34 34 33 32 31 30 -9Turkmenistan 34 33 32 31 29 28 26 25 24 23 23 -11Ukraine 12 12 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 -5Uzbekistan 33 34 33 31 29 29 27 25 23 22 21 -12

World 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 22 21 21 -4

RegionBaltics 14 13 12 11 10 9 9 9 8 9 9 -5Caucasus 21 21 20 19 17 16 14 15 13 13 13 -8Central Asia 31 31 30 28 27 27 25 24 23 22 21 -10Eastern Europe 14 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 10 9 9 -5Russia 13 12 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 -5

Birth Rate per 1000 Population<10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 >30

0 5,000 Miles

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

Table 4, Child Mortality per 1,000 Births in the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country CM1990 CM1991 CM1992 CM1993 CM1994 CM1995 CM1996 CM1997 CM1998 CM1999 CM2000 Overall ChangeArmenia 47 45 43 42 40 38 36 34 33 31 30 -17%Azerbaijan 95 94 93 92 88 84 81 78 75 72 69 -27%Belarus 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 15 15 14 -3%Estonia 20 19 19 18 16 15 15 14 13 12 11 -9%Georgia 47 46 44 43 41 40 39 37 36 34 33 -14%Kazakhstan 57 56 55 53 52 51 49 47 46 44 42 -15%Kyrgyz 70 67 65 62 60 58 55 53 51 49 47 -23%Latvia 21 21 22 23 23 23 22 21 20 19 17 -4%Lithuania 17 18 18 17 17 16 15 14 13 12 12 -5%Moldova 35 34 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 -11%Russia 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 23 22 21 -6%Tajikistan 114 112 111 111 111 111 109 105 102 98 95 -19%Turkmenistan 94 92 89 87 84 82 80 78 76 73 71 -23%Ukraine 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 19 19 0%Uzbekistan 75 73 72 70 69 67 66 65 64 62 61 -14%

World 87 86 86 85 84 82 81 79 77 75 73 -14%

RegionBaltics 19 19 20 19 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 -6%Caucses 63 62 60 59 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 -19%Central Asia 82 80 78 77 75 74 72 70 68 65 63 -19%Eastern Europe 24 23 23 22 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 -5%Russia 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 23 22 21 -6%

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

Child Mortality per 1000 Births10 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 64 65 - 80 81 - 100 101 - 115

0 5,000 Miles

Table 5, Death Rate per 1,000 Population in the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country DR1990 DR1991 DR1992 DR1993 DR1994 DR1995 DR1996 DR1997 DR1998 DR1999 DR2000 Overall ChangeArmenia 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 0Azerbaijan 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 0Belarus 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 3Estonia 12 13 13 14 15 15 13 13 14 13 13 1Georgia 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1Kazakhstan 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2Kyrgyz 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 0Latvia 13 13 14 15 17 16 14 14 14 14 14 1Lithuania 11 11 11 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 0Moldova 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 2Russia 11 11 12 15 16 15 14 14 14 15 15 4Tajikistan 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 0Turkmenistan 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0Ukraine 12 13 13 14 15 15 15 15 14 15 15 3Uzbekistan 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 6 0

World 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0

RegionBaltics 12 12 13 14 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 1Caucasus 8 8 8 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 0Central Asia 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1Eastern Europe 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 3Russia 11 11 12 15 16 15 14 14 14 15 15 4

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

Death Rate per 1000 Population5 - 6 7 - 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15 16 - 17

0 5,000 Miles

Table 6, Dependancy Ratio in the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Overall ChangeArmenia 56 57 58 59 60 61 61 60 58 57 56 0Azerbaijan 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 61 60 58 -5Belarus 51 51 52 52 52 52 51 51 50 49 47 -4Estonia 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 51 50 50 -1Georgia 51 52 53 54 54 55 55 55 54 53 52 1Kazakhstan 60 59 59 59 59 59 58 57 55 54 53 -7Kyrgyz 74 75 75 76 76 75 75 73 72 70 68 -6Latvia 50 50 51 51 52 52 52 52 51 51 50 0Lithuania 50 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 51 1Moldova 57 57 57 56 56 55 55 54 53 52 51 -6Russia 50 50 50 51 51 50 49 48 47 45 44 -6Tajikistan 89 89 90 90 91 90 90 89 88 86 85 -4Turkmenistan 79 79 79 79 79 78 76 74 72 70 68 -11Ukraine 51 51 52 52 52 52 51 50 48 47 46 -5Uzbekistan 82 82 82 82 81 81 79 78 76 74 71 -11

World 65 65 65 64 64 64 63 62 62 61 60 -5

RegionBaltics 50 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 51 51 50 0Caucasus 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 59 58 57 55 -2Central Asia 77 77 77 77 77 77 76 74 73 71 69 -8Eastern Europe 53 53 54 53 53 53 52 52 50 49 48 -5Russia 50 50 50 51 51 50 49 48 47 45 44 -6

Dependancy Ratio< 50 51 - 55 56 - 60 61 - 70 71 - 80 > 80

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

0 5,000 Miles

Table 7, Gross Domestic Product (currenty USD) in thousands for the FSU, with World Total and Broken Down by Region

Country GDP1990 GDP1991 GDP1992 GDP1993 GDP1994 GDP1995 GDP1996 GDP1997 GDP1998 GDP1999 GDP2000 Overall ChangeArmenia 2,256,839 2,068,527 1,272,578 1,201,313 1,315,159 1,468,317 1,596,969 1,639,492 1,893,726 1,845,482 1,911,564 -345,275Azerbaijan 8,858,006 8,792,366 4,991,351 3,973,027 3,313,740 3,052,468 3,176,750 3,962,710 4,446,396 4,581,222 5,272,617 -3,585,389Belarus 17,369,599 17,813,390 17,022,180 16,280,373 14,931,599 13,972,638 14,756,862 14,128,412 15,222,015 12,138,485 12,736,857 -4,632,743Estonia - - - - - 3,776,935 4,727,879 5,052,080 5,593,920 5,709,013 5,675,170 5,675,170Georgia 7,737,995 6,337,315 3,691,111 2,701,181 2,513,871 2,693,732 3,094,916 3,510,541 3,613,500 2,800,024 3,057,454 -4,680,541Kazakhstan 26,932,729 24,881,136 24,906,940 23,409,028 21,250,839 20,374,307 21,035,358 22,165,932 22,135,245 16,870,817 18,291,991 -8,640,738Kyrgyz 2,674,000 2,570,833 2,316,562 2,028,296 1,681,007 1,661,019 1,827,571 1,767,864 1,645,964 1,249,062 1,369,692 -1,304,308Latvia 7,447,003 6,756,418 4,848,057 4,467,987 5,060,855 5,235,720 5,585,293 6,133,234 6,616,958 7,288,525 7,833,068 386,066Lithuania 10,506,695 10,287,023 8,562,311 7,424,598 6,958,637 7,904,896 8,426,600 10,128,700 11,254,050 10,971,375 11,434,200 927,505Moldova 3,592,856 3,094,567 2,319,243 2,371,813 1,702,314 1,752,995 1,695,131 1,930,071 1,639,497 1,170,785 1,288,420 -2,304,436Russia 516,814,259 509,381,639 460,205,415 435,060,124 395,086,556 395,528,489 391,721,392 404,926,534 270,953,117 195,905,768 259,708,496 -257,105,762Tajikistan 2,629,395 2,535,545 1,909,247 1,646,694 1,346,075 1,231,523 1,043,893 921,843 1,320,127 1,086,567 860,550 -1,768,845Turkmenistan 3,232,067 3,197,224 3,200,540 3,179,226 2,561,119 2,482,228 2,379,282 2,450,085 2,605,688 2,450,687 2,904,663 -327,404Ukraine 81,456,431 77,464,044 73,942,294 65,648,559 52,549,555 48,213,868 44,558,078 50,150,400 41,883,242 31,580,639 31,261,527 -50,194,904Uzbekistan 13,360,608 13,800,158 12,953,801 13,099,929 12,899,074 13,350,462 13,948,892 14,744,604 14,988,971 17,078,466 13,760,375 399,767

World 21,985,174,659 23,064,641,883 24,659,391,830 24,999,759,680 26,916,205,562 29,787,130,956 30,394,728,835 30,319,717,107 30,203,274,377 31,324,000,864 32,334,240,092 10,349,065,433

RegionBaltics 5,984,566 5,681,147 4,470,123 3,964,195 4,006,497 5,639,183 6,246,591 7,104,672 7,821,642 7,989,638 8,314,146 2,329,580Caucasus 6,284,280 5,732,736 3,318,346 2,625,174 2,380,923 2,404,839 2,622,878 3,037,581 3,317,874 3,075,576 3,413,878 -2,870,402Central Asia 9,765,760 9,396,979 9,057,418 8,672,634 7,947,623 7,819,908 8,046,999 8,410,066 8,539,199 7,747,120 7,437,454 -2,328,306Eastern Europe 34,139,629 32,790,667 31,094,573 28,100,248 23,061,156 21,313,167 20,336,690 22,069,628 19,581,585 14,963,303 15,095,601 -19,044,027Russia 516,814,259 509,381,639 460,205,415 435,060,124 395,086,556 395,528,489 391,721,392 404,926,534 270,953,117 195,905,768 259,708,496 -257,105,762

Gross Domestic Product in 1,000s<11,000,000 11,000,000 - 22,000,000 22,000,000 - 40,000,00040,000,000 - 44,500,000 44,500,000 - 65,600,000 >65,600,000

0 5,000 Miles

GDP Change (year to year) as a Percent in the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country GC1990 GC1991 GC1992 GC1993 GC1994 GC1995 GC1996 GC1997 GC1998 GC1999 GC2000 Average Variation (absolute value)Armenia 0 -11.7 -41.8 -8.8 5.4 6.9 5.9 3.3 7.3 3.3 5.9 9.10%Azerbaijan 0 -0.7 -22.6 -23.1 -19.7 -11.8 1.3 5.8 10 7.4 11.1 10.30%Belarus 0 -1.2 -9.6 -7.6 -11.7 -10.4 2.8 11.4 8.4 3.4 5.8 6.60%Estonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 11.7 6.8 -0.3 9.7 6.90%Georgia -14.8 -21.1 -44.9 -29.3 -10.4 2.6 11.2 10.5 3.1 2.9 1.8 13.90%Kazakhstan 0 -11 -5.3 -9.2 -12.6 -8.2 0.5 1.7 -1.9 2.7 9.8 5.70%Kyrgyz 5.7 -7.9 -13.9 -15.5 -20.1 -5.4 7.1 9.9 2.1 3.7 5.4 8.80%Latvia -7.9 -12.6 -32.1 -5 2.2 -0.9 3.8 8.3 4.7 4.7 6.9 8.10%Lithuania 0 -5.7 -21.3 -16.2 -9.8 3.3 5.2 7.5 7.6 -1.1 3.3 7.40%Moldova -2.4 -16 -29.1 -1.2 -30.9 -1.4 -5.2 1.6 -6.5 -3.4 2.1 9.10%Russia -3 -5 -14.5 -8.7 -12.6 -4.1 -3.6 1.4 -5.3 6.4 10 6.80%Tajikistan -0.6 -7.1 -29 -16.4 -21.3 -12.4 -16.7 1.7 5.3 3.7 8.3 11.10%Turkmenistan 35.4 -4.6 -15 1.5 -17.3 -7.2 6.7 -11.4 7.1 16.5 5.5 11.70%Ukraine -6.3 -8.4 -9.7 -14.2 -22.9 -12.2 -10 -3 -1.9 -0.2 5.9 8.60%Uzbekistan 1.6 -0.5 -11.2 -2.3 -5.2 -0.9 1.7 5.2 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.70%

World 3 1.6 2.1 1.8 3.3 2.9 3.4 3.7 2.3 3.3 4.2 2.90%

RegionsBaltics -2.6 -6.1 -17.8 -7.1 -2.5 0.8 5 9.2 6.4 1.1 6.6 7.47%Caucasus -4.9 -11.2 -36.4 -20.4 -8.2 -0.8 6.1 6.5 6.8 4.5 6.3 11.10%Central Asia 8.4 -6.2 -14.9 -8.4 -15.3 -6.8 -0.1 1.4 3.4 6.2 6.6 8.20%Eastern Europe -2.9 -8.5 -16.1 -7.7 -21.8 -8 -4.1 3.3 0 -0.1 4.6 8.10%Russia -3 -5 -14.5 -8.7 -12.6 -4.1 -3.6 1.4 -5.3 6.4 10 6.80%

1993 1994

1995 1996

1999 2000

1997 1998

GDP Change (percent)-45 - -35 -34 - -20 -19 - -10 -9 - 0 1 - 10 11 - 17

0 5,000 Miles

Table 7, GDP per Capita (current USD) in the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country GPC1990 GCP1991 GPC1992 GPC1993 GPC1994 GPC1995 GPC1996 GPC1997 GPC1998 GPC1999 GPC2000 Overall ChangeArmenia $637 $589 $369 $356 $400 $456 $503 $523 $609 $597 $621 -$16Azerbaijan $1,237 $1,209 $676 $530 $436 $397 $409 $506 $562 $574 $655 -$582Belarus $1,705 $1,747 $1,666 $1,590 $1,460 $1,371 $1,452 $1,397 $1,512 $1,210 $1,273 -$432Estonia $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,629 $3,340 $3,610 $4,036 $4,150 $4,144 $4,144Georgia $1,611 $1,310 $757 $550 $517 $569 $670 $775 $805 $629 $692 -$919Kazakhstan $1,647 $1,512 $1,515 $1,433 $1,320 $1,288 $1,350 $1,446 $1,469 $1,130 $1,229 -$418Kyrgyz $609 $576 $513 $449 $372 $364 $395 $376 $345 $258 $280 -$329Latvia $2,796 $2,549 $1,854 $1,743 $2,008 $2,107 $2,273 $2,521 $2,746 $3,049 $3,301 -$618Lithuania $2,841 $2,777 $2,314 $2,016 $1,903 $2,178 $2,340 $2,833 $3,171 $3,113 $3,267 -$1,710Moldova $972 $835 $625 $640 $461 $477 $462 $527 $449 $321 $354 -$357Russia $3,485 $3,427 $3,095 $2,929 $2,663 $2,670 $2,651 $2,749 $1,844 $1,339 $1,775 -$236Tajikistan $496 $468 $346 $294 $236 $213 $178 $155 $219 $178 $139 -$934Turkmenistan $881 $848 $824 $796 $625 $593 $558 $565 $593 $551 $645 -$93Ukraine $1,570 $1,490 $1,418 $1,258 $1,012 $936 $873 $991 $835 $636 $636 -$934Uzbekistan $651 $659 $604 $597 $576 $586 $601 $623 $623 $702 $558 $1,134

World $4,151 $4,285 $4,512 $4,505 $4,780 $5,212 $5,244 $5,158 $5,069 $5,187 $5,285 $1,134

RegionBaltics $1,879 $1,775 $1,389 $1,253 $1,304 $2,305 $2,651 $2,988 $3,318 $3,437 $3,571 $1,692Caucses $1,162 $1,036 $601 $479 $451 $474 $527 $601 $659 $600 $656 -$506Central Asia $857 $813 $760 $714 $626 $609 $616 $633 $650 $564 $570 -$287Eastern Europe $1,416 $1,357 $1,236 $1,163 $978 $928 $929 $972 $932 $722 $754 -$662Russia $3,485 $3,427 $3,095 $2,929 $2,663 $2,670 $2,651 $2,749 $1,844 $1,339 $1,775 -$236

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

GDP per Capita (Current USD)> 200 200 - 500 500 - 700 700 - 1000 1000 - 2000 >2000

0 5,000 Miles

*Estonia has no data for 1993 or 94

Table 10, Life Expectancy in the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country LE1990 LE1991 LE1992 LE1993 LE1994 LE1995 LE1996 LE1997 LE1998 LE1999 LE2000 Overall ChangeArmenia 68 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 70 70 71 2yrsAzerbaijan 65 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 67 2yrsBelarus 71 70 70 69 69 68 69 68 68 68 69 -2yrsEstonia 69 69 69 68 67 68 70 70 69 70 70 2yrsGeorgia 70 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 72 2yrsKazakhstan 68 68 68 67 66 65 64 64 65 66 66 -2yrsKyrgyz 68 69 68 67 66 66 67 67 67 67 69 1yrLatvia 69 69 68 67 66 66 69 69 69 70 70 1yrLithuania 71 70 70 69 69 69 70 71 71 72 72 1yrMoldova 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 0Russia 69 68 67 65 64 65 66 67 67 66 65 -4yrsTajikistan 63 63 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 64 1yrTurkmenistan 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 1yrUkraine 70 69 69 68 68 67 67 67 68 68 68 -2yrsUzbekistan 67 67 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 0

World 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 2yrs

RegionsBaltics 70 69 69 68 67 68 70 70 70 71 71 1yrCaucasus 68 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 69 69 70 2yrsCentral Asia 66 66 65 65 65 64 65 65 65 65 66 0Eastern Europe 69 69 69 68 68 67 68 67 68 68 68 -1yrRussia 69 68 67 65 64 65 66 67 67 66 65 -4yrs

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

Life Expectancy (Years)62 - 63 64 - 65 66 - 67 68 - 69 70 - 72

0 5,000 Miles

Table 11, Percent of Population in Urban Areas for the FSU, Compared to World Average and Broken Down by Region

Country UP1990 UP1991 UP1992 UP1993 UP1994 UP1995 UP1996 UP1997 UP1998 UP1999 UP2000 Overall ChangeArmenia 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 -2%Azerbaijan 54 53 53 53 53 52 52 52 52 52 51 -3%Belarus 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 69 69 70 70 4%Estonia 71 71 71 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 -2%Georgia 55 55 55 54 54 54 54 53 53 53 53 -2%Kazakhstan 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 0%Kyrgyz 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 35 -3%Latvia 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 68 68 -1%Lithuania 68 68 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 -1%Moldova 47 47 47 46 46 46 46 46 45 45 45 -2%Russia 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 0%Tajikistan 32 31 31 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 -6%Turkmenistan 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 46 1%Ukraine 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 0%Uzbekistan 40 40 39 39 39 38 38 38 38 38 37 -3%

World 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 4%

RegionBaltics 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 68 68 -1%Caucses 59 58 58 58 58 57 57 57 57 57 56 -3%Central Asia 42 42 42 41 41 41 41 41 40 41 40 -2%Eastern Europe 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 60 61 61 1%Russia 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 0%

1993 1994

1995 1996

1997 1998

1999 2000

Percent of Population Living in Urban Areas26 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 70 71 - 73

0 5,000 Miles