Hubbry Logo
Urban-type settlementUrban-type settlementMain
Open search
Urban-type settlement
Community hub
Urban-type settlement
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Urban-type settlement
Urban-type settlement
Urban-type settlement
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Urban housing in Mezhdurechensky, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Russia, an example of urban-type settlement

Urban-type settlement[note 1] is an official designation for lesser urbanized settlements, used in several Central and Eastern European countries. The term was primarily used in the Soviet Union and later also for a short time in socialist Bulgaria and socialist Poland. It remains in use today in nine of the post-Soviet states.

The designation was used in all 15 member republics of the Soviet Union from 1922. It was introduced later in Poland (1954) and Bulgaria (1964). All the urban-type settlements in Poland were transformed into other types of settlement (town or village) in 1972. In Bulgaria and five of the post-Soviet republics (Armenia, Moldova, and the three Baltic states), they were changed in the early 1990s, while Ukraine followed suit in 2023.[1][2] Today, this term is still used in the other nine post-Soviet republics – Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. It is also used in Transnistria, an unrecognised breakaway state in Moldova.

What counts as an urban-type settlement differs between time periods and countries and often between different divisions of a single country. However, the criteria generally focus on the presence of urban infrastructure or resort facilities for urban residents.

Soviet Union

[edit]

In the Soviet Union, the criteria of urban-type settlements were set independently by the Soviet republics. Those criteria, however, only differed very slightly from one republic to another.[citation needed]

Russian SFSR

[edit]

In the Russian SFSR, urban-type settlements were subdivided into three types:

  • Work settlements (рабочие посёлки): localities with factories, mining industry, power stations, construction industry, with population of at least 3,000 and with at least 85% of the population being workers, professionals, and the members of their families;[citation needed]
  • Resort settlements (курортные посёлки): localities focusing on resort and health facilities (around beaches, mineral water spas, etc.), with population of at least 2,000, with at least 50% of the average annual population being non-permanent residents;[citation needed]
  • Suburban settlements (dacha settlements, дачные посёлки): settlements with a focus on private summer-time and weekend recreation, with no more than 25% of the permanent population being employed in the agricultural sector.[citation needed]

Ukrainian SSR

[edit]

In 1981, the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR defined an urban-type settlement as follows:[3] "To the category of an urban-type settlement may be included any settlement located near industrial enterprises, buildings, railroad connections, hydro-technical constructions, and enterprises in production and refining of agrarian products as well as settlements that include higher or middle occupation educational establishments, science-researching institutions, sanatoria, and other stationary treatment and recreation establishments that have a state housing provided to no less than 2,000 inhabitants.[4]

The term was introduced in Ukraine in 1920s and became official since the resolution of the Central Executive Committee of Ukraine of October 28, 1925 replacing all towns (mistechko) as urban-type settlement.[5]

Modern usage

[edit]

Azerbaijan

[edit]

As of 2011, there were 256 urban-type settlements in Azerbaijan.[6]

Belarus

[edit]
Main article: List of urban-type settlements in Belarus

According to a 1998 law of Belarus,[7] there are three categories of urban-type settlement in the country:

  • Urban settlements: with population over 2,000, industrial enterprises and developed residential infrastructure.
  • Resort settlements: with population of at least 2,000, sanatoriums, resorts or other health recuperation establishments, and developed residential infrastructure.
  • Worker settlements: with population at least 500, servicing industrial enterprises, construction sites, railroad stations, electric stations, or other industrial objects.

Georgia

[edit]
Main article: Daba (settlement)

As of 2014, there were 47 urban-type settlements in Georgia. Eight of them are located on the territory of the partially recognized states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and are de facto not under the control of the Georgian government.

Kazakhstan

[edit]

As of 2019, there were 48 urban-type settlements in Kazakhstan.[8]

Kyrgyzstan

[edit]

In accordance with the 2008 Law on Administrative and Territorial Subdivision of Kyrgyzstan,[9] urban-type settlements are those that comprise economically significant facilities such as industrial plants, railway stations, construction sites, etc., as well as settlements with a recreational potential with population of at least 2,000. In exceptional cases, administrative, economic and cultural centers with a potential of economical development and population growth can be classified as urban-type settlements.

Russia

[edit]

Inhabited localities

[edit]

In modern Russia, the task of deciding whether an inhabited locality meets the criteria of urban-type settlements is delegated to the federal subjects. In most cases, the federal subject's legislative body is responsible for all administrative and territorial changes, including granting and revoking of the urban-type settlement and town status.[10]

Administrative divisions

[edit]

Apart from being used to refer to a type of inhabited locality, the term "urban-type settlement" and its variations is also used to refer to a division of an administrative district, and sometimes to a division administratively subordinated to a city district of a city of federal subject significance. This kind of administrative division is equal in status to the towns of district significance and selsoviets, and is normally centered on an inhabited locality with urban-type settlement status. As of 2013, the following types of such entities are recognized:

Tajikistan

[edit]

As of January 1, 2018, there were 57 urban-type settlements in Tajikistan.

Turkmenistan

[edit]

As of February 1, 2016, there were 76 urban-type settlements in Turkmenistan.[11]

Uzbekistan

[edit]

As of January 1, 2011, 1,065 settlements have urban-type settlement status in Uzbekistan.[12]

Former usage

[edit]

Armenia

[edit]

Urban-type settlements existed in Armenia until the 1990s. Currently, all of them have been converted into cities or villages.

Baltic states

[edit]

In Estonia, the urban-type settlements were created in 1945 during the Estonian SSR. In the 1990s most of them were transformed into cities.[13]

The urban-type settlements existed in Latvia from 1949 to 1993, when they were converted into cities and rural settlements.

Lithuania formerly used the urban-type settlement (Lithuanian: miesto tipo gyvenvietė, m.t.g.) system until 1995.

Bulgaria

[edit]

In Bulgaria, the first urban-type settlements (Bulgarian: селище от градски тип) were formed in 1964. In the 1990s they were transformed into villages and cities.

Moldova

[edit]

The urban-type settlement system was used on the territory of Moldova since 1924. In the 1990s they were converted either into cities or rural settlements.[14] The disputed and unrecognized Transnistria continues to use this system.

Poland

[edit]

The urban-type settlements (Polish: osiedle typu miejskiego) were used in the Polish People's Republic from 1954 to 1972. Nowadays, Poland has cities, villages and settlements.[15][16]

Ukraine

[edit]
Main article: Urban-type settlements in Ukraine

Grandfathered from the Ukrainian SSR, Ukraine formerly used the urban-type settlement (Ukrainian: селище міського типу, с.м.т.) system until 2023.[17] On 24 October 2023 President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed Law No. 8263 that abolished the concepts of "urban-type settlement" in Ukraine.[2][18] The law came into an effect on January 26, 2024.[19] Since then, settlements that belonged to the category of urban-type settlements have been classified as settlements (Ukrainian: селище).[20] The law also redefined the status of settlement, which along with a village is considered a rural populated place, but unlike a village is more populated and maybe somewhat urbanized. The law was meant to facilitate "de-Sovietization of the procedure for solving certain issues of the administrative and territorial system of Ukraine".

In 1991, there were 921 urban-type settlements in Ukraine.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Urban-type settlement

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An urban-type settlement, known in Russian as посёлок городского типа (posyolok gorodskogo tipa, abbreviated п.г.т.), denotes an administrative category of locality in and select that exhibits urban traits—such as non-agricultural employment dominance, built infrastructure, and amenities—while falling short of designation due to limited scale or administrative thresholds. This classification emerged in the amid 1920s territorial reforms to accommodate burgeoning industrial outposts and worker communities distinct from traditional rural villages or expansive cities. In , where the status persists under regional discretion, urban-type settlements number over 1,000 and often serve as hubs for extractive industries, transport nodes, or recreational facilities, bridging rural peripheries and metropolitan influence. Post-Soviet transitions have prompted reclassifications, with some downgraded to rural amid depopulation and economic contraction, reflecting adaptive pressures on Soviet-era . Defining features include workforce metrics emphasizing industry over farming and infrastructural markers like piped utilities, though exact thresholds vary by to prioritize functional over rigid demographics. These settlements underscore historical state-driven strategies, fostering concentrated labor pools without full municipal autonomy.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition and Purpose

An urban-type settlement, designated in Russian as posyolok gorodskogo tipa, constitutes an intermediate administrative category between rural villages and full-fledged cities, applied to localities with urban-like features such as concentrated non-agricultural employment, higher , and infrastructural development supporting industrial or administrative functions. This classification emerged within the Soviet administrative system in , amid territorial reforms aimed at standardizing over rapidly expanding peri-industrial areas. It encompassed semi-urban communities, including workers' settlements near factories, mines, or hubs, where the majority of residents engaged in non-farming occupations, distinguishing them empirically from agrarian rural locales. The core purpose of this designation lay in enabling precise statistical and planning differentiation during the Soviet Union's forced industrialization drive, which from the onward generated numerous small-scale urban agglomerations without the scale or self-sufficiency for . By 1939, such settlements numbered over 1,800 across the USSR, reflecting their role in channeling resources—such as housing, utilities, and basic services—to support proletarian workforces while avoiding the fiscal and bureaucratic overhead of municipal corporations. This intermediate status facilitated causal linkages in metrics, where settlements meeting thresholds like a minimum of 3,000 residents and at least 75% non-agricultural labor qualified as urban for purposes, aiding centralized allocation of toward extractive industries and without inflating official counts. In practice, the category promoted administrative efficiency in a command economy, granting limited urban privileges like subsidized utilities and via elected soviets, yet subordinating them to or regional oversight to maintain control over dispersed industrial outposts. Post-1991, successor states like retained the term for over 1,000 such entities as of 2023, primarily under 10,000 inhabitants, underscoring its enduring utility in capturing transitional urban forms amid uneven demographic shifts. This framework, rooted in observable traits rather than arbitrary thresholds, avoided over-classification of marginal areas, though it occasionally masked underinvestment in peripheral zones dependent on single enterprises.

Classification Criteria

Classification as an urban-type settlement in the Soviet Union required meeting specific demographic and occupational thresholds, which were defined independently by each Soviet republic but shared core similarities across them. The primary criteria focused on population size and the proportion of residents engaged in non-agricultural pursuits, reflecting an intent to identify settlements with emerging urban characteristics without full city-scale development. Typically, settlements needed at least 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants, with a majority—often specified as over 50%—of the population employed outside agriculture to qualify. These thresholds distinguished urban-type settlements from rural villages, where agricultural employment dominated, while excluding larger or more developed areas classified as cities, which generally required populations exceeding 12,000 and higher shares of industrial or service-sector workers. For instance, in the Russian SFSR, subcategories like workers' settlements emphasized industrial employment, whereas resort or settlements prioritized non-productive urban functions, but all hinged on the non-agricultural ratio exceeding agricultural dependency. Administrative authorities, such as regional soviets, evaluated applications based on data and economic profiles, granting status to promote industrialization in peripheral areas. Variations existed by republic; for example, some allowed lower population minima for resource-extraction outposts in remote regions, prioritizing economic output over strict numerics, but the emphasis remained on shifting from agrarian to proto-urban economies. This classification supported Soviet urbanization policies by statistically elevating semi-urban locales without necessitating full municipal infrastructure investments. Post-Soviet adaptations retained similar benchmarks in states like and until reforms, such as Ukraine's 2024 abolition of the category, reclassifying 881 settlements as villages based on outdated Soviet metrics.

Distinctions from Cities, Towns, and Rural Settlements

Urban-type settlements differ from cities primarily in administrative status, scale, and governance . Cities in , designated as goroda, require approval from federal authorities under Article 11 of the on General Principles of Local Self-Government, often necessitating populations exceeding 20,000 inhabitants, historical prominence, or designation as regional centers with expanded municipal powers including independent budgeting and authority. In comparison, urban-type settlements, or posyolki gorodskogo tipa, are established at the regional level with looser criteria focused on functional rather than size alone, typically featuring populations under 10,000–12,000 but with developed like centralized utilities and a where over 65% engage in non-agricultural sectors such as or . This intermediate status limits their administrative independence, subordinating them often to nearby cities for higher-level services. Relative to rural settlements like selya (villages with central status) or derevni (hamlets), urban-type settlements emphasize industrial or service-based economies over agriculture, with population densities and amenities—such as paved streets, multi-story housing, and public transport—approaching urban norms while rural areas prioritize farming, exhibit lower densities below 1,000 inhabitants per square kilometer, and rely on basic, decentralized infrastructure. For instance, rural classifications under Rosstat statistics hinge on over 50% agricultural employment and absence of urban facilities, contrasting with urban-type settlements' mandate for majority urban-type occupations established since Soviet decrees in the 1920s–1930s. The concept of "towns" lacks a distinct formal category in Russian , where smaller urban entities fall under either urban-type settlements or minor cities; internationally, urban-type settlements parallel small towns by bridging rural-urban divides but are differentiated by Soviet-era legacies of planned industrialization without full civic elevation, often resulting in populations 3,000–20,000 without the symbolic or fiscal privileges of cityhood. This positioning has persisted post-1991, with over 1,000 such settlements in as of 2021, many demoted or stagnant due to economic shifts, underscoring their role as transitional rather than endpoint urban forms.

Historical Development

Pre-Soviet Influences

In the prior to 1917, inhabited localities were broadly divided into urban and rural categories, with cities (goroda) distinguished by historical charters granting , trade privileges, and administrative , often tracing origins to medieval fortified centers or princely grants. Smaller urban forms included posady (merchant suburbs attached to monasteries or fortresses) and slobody (tax-exempt settlements populated by retirees, artisans, or freemen), which functioned as semi-urban hubs with and markets but lacked full civic status. Rural settlements encompassed sela (larger villages with churches), stanitsy (Cossack communities), and derevni (simple hamlets), where agriculture dominated and urban traits were minimal. This binary system, rooted in and Petrine reforms, emphasized legal privileges over demographic or economic function, resulting in only about 13% of the population classified as urban by the 1897 despite pockets of non-agricultural activity. The late imperial era's industrialization, accelerating from the 1880s under Finance Minister Sergei Witte's policies, spurred the growth of de facto urban enclaves without corresponding status upgrades. districts in regions like the Urals, Donbass, and Polish territories attracted migrant laborers, forming rabochie poselki (workers' settlements) around mills, , and railways, where populations swelled to several thousand by 1900—exemplified by the 1.5 million industrial workers nationwide in 1913, many in unplanned lacking or . These settlements mirrored and wage labor but remained administratively rural, ineligible for city charters due to bureaucratic inertia and fears of empowering proletarian unrest, as seen in the 1905 Revolution strikes. By 1914, such areas contributed to uneven , with urban growth rates reaching 2-3% annually in industrial zones, yet official city lists stagnated at around 900 entities. This discrepancy between functional and administrative lag provided a conceptual precursor to Soviet classifications, highlighting the need for intermediate categories to capture emerging industrial agglomerations amid Russia's transition from agrarian empire to modern economy. Imperial statisticians and (local assembly) reports increasingly noted these hybrid settlements' role in demographic shifts, influencing early Bolshevik planners who sought to rationalize for socialist control, though pre-1917 data underscored the Empire's failure to adapt rigid feudal-era categories to capitalist-driven change.

Origins and Establishment in the Soviet Union

The concept of urban-type settlements, known in Russian as posëlki gorodskogo tipa, originated in the early Soviet period as a means to classify rapidly developing non-agricultural localities that did not qualify as full cities under existing administrative criteria. The foundational legal framework was established by the General Statute on Urban and Rural Settlements enacted on 15 September 1924 in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), which differentiated settlements into cities, rural areas, and intermediate categories such as workers' settlements (rabochiye posëlki) and resort settlements. This classification addressed the ambiguities in pre-revolutionary urban definitions, where no uniform parameters existed for "city" status, by introducing a tiered system to reflect emerging industrial agglomerations. Workers' settlements, the primary subtype of urban-type localities, were defined by a minimum adult population of 1,000 residents, with at least two-thirds engaged in non-agricultural occupations, emphasizing their economic orientation toward industry, , or transportation rather than farming. Resort settlements followed similar demographic thresholds but focused on health or recreational functions. These criteria allowed Soviet authorities to designate areas sprouting around new factories, rail hubs, and resource extraction sites during the (NEP) era and the onset of centralized planning, without the fiscal and obligations of , such as mandatory provisioning. By the late , as industrialization accelerated, the category formalized the reality of dispersed, purpose-built communities tied to state-directed economic projects. The establishment of urban-type settlements aligned with broader Soviet goals of rapid and territorial redistribution to support under the First Five-Year Plan (1928–1932). These localities enabled statistical recognition of urban growth in peripheral regions, promoting regional equalization and defense through population dispersion, while the 1932 propiska system regulated migration to control inflows and prevent overcrowding in major cities. Unlike full cities, which required larger populations (often standardized at 12,000 by later decrees) and administrative autonomy, urban-type settlements remained subordinate, often administratively linked to districts or oblasts, reflecting their role as appendages to industrial enterprises rather than independent economic centers. This structure facilitated the creation of hundreds of such settlements by the 1930s, capturing the causal link between state-mandated extraction and manufacturing booms and unplanned . Across the , the 1924 RSFSR statute served as a template, extended to other republics upon their integration into the USSR in , though implementation varied by local economic priorities—such as mining in or transport nodes in . By the eve of , urban-type settlements numbered in the thousands, embodying the regime's prioritization of productive forces over comprehensive urban development, with minimal investment in non-industrial amenities to sustain worker housing near sites of extraction and production.

Expansion and Variations Across Soviet Republics

The designation of urban-type settlements expanded rapidly across the Soviet republics during the industrialization drives of and post-1945 reconstruction, serving as a mechanism to classify burgeoning worker concentrations near industrial sites without elevating them to , which required stricter administrative and infrastructural standards. Originating in the Russian SFSR in the mid-1920s, the category was extended to all 15 republics by the early , aligning with the First and Second Five-Year Plans that prioritized rapid extraction and manufacturing growth; by , these settlements accounted for a notable share of urban increments, particularly in peripheral regions where full cities were infeasible due to sparse . Their proliferation peaked in the 1960s–1970s, as central planning directives encouraged dispersed industrial nodes to mitigate overcrowding in major cities, resulting in thousands of such designations union-wide by the census. Criteria for urban-type settlements varied modestly across republics, with each setting independent thresholds for minimum (often 2,000–3,000 residents) and non-agricultural share, fluctuating from a to as high as 85% of the workforce to accommodate local economic realities. In the RSFSR and Ukrainian SSR, heavily industrialized heartlands, settlements emphasized proximity to or rail lines, often evolving from temporary rabochie poselki (workers' settlements) with laxer initial non-agricultural ratios to reflect mining and metallurgical foci; conversely, Central Asian republics like applied the status more flexibly to nascent oases of processing or resource extraction, where agricultural ties lingered longer, contributing to that republic's sharp rise from 33% in 1959 to 57.2% by 1989. Baltic republics, inheriting denser pre-Soviet urban networks, used the category sparingly, favoring upgrades of existing towns over new designations. These variations underscored republics' specialized roles in the Soviet —industrial cores versus agrarian peripheries—yet maintained a uniform emphasis on non-agricultural dominance to align with central urbanization metrics, which by 1989 classified over 65% of the USSR as urban, partly through such intermediate settlements. In Caucasian republics, application often hinged on or subtropical adjuncts, with thresholds adjusted downward for resort-area developments, illustrating how local committees balanced ideological imperatives for against geographic constraints. This decentralized calibration, while minor, enabled tailored responses to uneven development, though it occasionally led to inconsistencies in statistical reporting across republics.

Administrative Framework and Implications

In , urban-type settlements (посёлок городского типа) hold the legal status of urban settlements (городское поселение) under the Federal Law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003, "On General Principles of Local Self-Government in the Russian ," which defines them as territorial units comprising a settlement—either a town or an urban-type settlement—with adjacent areas where local self-government is exercised directly by residents or through elected and other bodies. This classification positions them intermediate between rural localities and full-fledged cities, emphasizing non-agricultural economic activity and infrastructure development rather than solely population size, with eligibility typically requiring at least 3,000 residents, over 50% non-agricultural , and urban amenities like paved roads and utilities serving a majority of households. The status is conferred or revoked by regional legislative acts, often in coordination with federal statistical criteria from Rosstat, ensuring alignment with metrics while allowing flexibility for regional economic needs. Governance in urban-type settlements mirrors that of other urban settlements, featuring a dual structure of representative and executive local self-government organs as mandated by Article 34 of No. 131-FZ, including an elected (representative body) responsible for normative acts, budgets, and planning, and a head (elected or appointed) leading the administration for such as service provision and . These entities exercise powers outlined in Article 17, encompassing adoption, official symbol establishment, local tax regulation within federal limits, and municipal , though constrained by subordination to municipal authorities if not standalone urban okrugs. In practice, many function as administrative centers of municipal districts, amplifying their role in inter-settlement coordination, but smaller ones may delegate certain services to higher levels due to limited fiscal capacity, with budgets derived primarily from local taxes and transfers averaging 20-30% below those of comparable small towns as of 2020 data. This framework promotes administrative efficiency by granting urban-type settlements in and decisions, such as and utility development, distinct from rural settlements' agrarian focus, yet it has faced critique for inconsistent application, with over 600 such settlements reclassified or abolished between 2000 and 2023 amid depopulation and economic shifts, per regional legislative records. In closed administrative-territorial formations (ЗАТО), governance incorporates federal oversight for security, limiting local powers under Federal Law No. 378-FZ of December 21, 1994, but retaining core self-government elements. Overall, the status underscores a pragmatic balance between statistical urban metrics and municipal viability, though regional variations persist, with stronger in resource-rich areas like compared to depopulating .

Demographic and Economic Effects

The designation of urban-type settlements as urban localities has enabled the statistical inclusion of smaller communities with predominant non-agricultural employment, thereby contributing to higher reported urbanization rates in Soviet and post-Soviet contexts by classifying industrial worker housing and resource outposts as urban without necessitating extensive municipal services. In Russia, where 1160 such settlements remained as of recent administrative reviews, 84% house fewer than 10,000 residents, reflecting their role in distributing urban-like populations across peripheral and extractive regions rather than concentrating them in large cities. This classification facilitated Soviet-era demographic shifts, including rural-to-urban migration for industrial jobs, which helped offset negative natural population growth through repatriation and internal flows during the 1990s. Post-Soviet transitions have exerted pronounced demographic pressures, with widespread depopulation driven by economic contraction; the number of urban-type settlements in declined by over 100 to 1,182 between the early 2000s and 2022, a 1.9-fold reduction from Soviet peaks exceeding 2,000, as many were reclassified as rural or abandoned amid out-migration. In resource-dependent areas like 's Extreme North, this has accelerated settlement shrinkage, with dozens of urban-type localities facing total depopulation and liquidation since , exacerbating regional imbalances in age structures and labor force availability. Such effects underscore the settlements' vulnerability to centralized planning's legacy, where initial inflows for state-directed projects reversed without sustained employment anchors. Economically, urban-type settlements were engineered to underpin localized industrialization, channeling labor into , , and projects that elevated regional under Soviet five-year plans but fostered mono-dependency on subsidized sectors. Post-1991 market reforms and diminished state intervention triggered sharp contractions, as exposure to global competition eroded uncompetitive industries, leading to surges and fiscal strain in these outposts; for example, the rejection of centralized allocation in amplified disparities, with many settlements reliant on federal transfers amid collapsing local output. This has perpetuated uneven development, where surviving settlements contribute modestly to extractive economies but struggle with diversification, highlighting the classification's role in embedding economic rigidity rather than adaptive growth.

Statistical Role in Urbanization Metrics

In official statistical frameworks of the and its successor states, urban-type settlements are classified as urban localities alongside cities, with their fully incorporated into calculations of the rate, defined as the percentage of total residing in such areas. This inclusion stems from criteria emphasizing non-agricultural employment (typically over 85% of the workforce) and infrastructure development, rather than minimum thresholds alone, enabling smaller industrial or workers' settlements to contribute to urban totals. For instance, in the 1959 census, urban encompassed both legal cities and urban-type settlements, reflecting Soviet priorities in industrial mobilization where such designations facilitated rapid reported from 18% in 1926 to over 50% by 1960. Historically, this classification played a pivotal role in Soviet metrics, as urban-type settlements proliferated to support resource extraction and , often in remote areas, thereby elevating national figures beyond what stricter density-based definitions might indicate. By the late Soviet period, the (RSFSR) achieved a 73.6% rate, partly attributable to thousands of such settlements workers in non-agricultural pursuits, though their average size remained modest (under 12,000 residents in many cases). Post-Soviet continuity in this approach has sustained high reported rates—Russia's stood at approximately 74% as of —yet reclassifications of some urban-type settlements to rural status between 1989 and 2010 artificially boosted rural population counts by 2.4 million, underscoring how administrative decisions can distort longitudinal metrics. In contemporary , urban-type settlements number around 1,182 as of the early , down from over 2,000 in the late Soviet era due to mergers, depopulation, and downgrades, yet they account for roughly 10% of the urban , or about 10 million within a total urban figure exceeding 100 million. This share influences metrics by embedding semi-urban or transitional localities into urban aggregates, potentially inflating rates relative to international standards that prioritize metropolitan or service provision; for example, while official data align with World Bank reporting, the settlements' often peripheral economic roles highlight a divergence from organic urban growth patterns observed in market-driven economies. In other like and , similar inclusions persist, though with varying scales— retains fewer such designations—contributing to regional rates of 77-79% while masking underlying rural-like characteristics in and . The statistical weighting of urban-type settlements thus amplifies perceived progress, particularly in resource-dependent regions, but invites scrutiny for conflating administrative status with substantive urbanity; empirical analyses indicate that their non-agricultural focus, inherited from Soviet , sustains this role amid demographic shrinkage, with over 1,000 such settlements lost since the USSR's dissolution due to outmigration and economic contraction. Reforms in Central Asian and Caucasian republics have accelerated downgrades, reducing their metric impact and aligning rates closer to 50-60%, revealing how the category's persistence in bolsters continuity in high claims despite stalled investments.

Usage in Post-Soviet States

Russia

In Russia, urban-type settlements, designated as posëlki gorodskogo tipa (ПГТ), constitute a category of urban localities that exhibit characteristics of urbanization without qualifying as full cities. These settlements feature a primarily non-agricultural engaged in industry, services, or other urban economic activities, with typical populations between 3,000 and 12,000 residents, though regional variations allow for deviations based on , historical role, or strategic importance. The category originated in the Soviet era but was retained post-1991, serving to classify smaller developed areas for statistical and administrative purposes, contributing to 's urban share of approximately 75% as of 2023. The legal basis for designating urban-type settlements lies in the administrative discretion of federal subjects' legislative bodies, without a strict defining uniform criteria; factors include exceeding rural norms (often 700–1,000 persons per square kilometer within boundaries), prevalence of urban infrastructure like multi-story and utilities, and economic orientation away from . Exceptions apply to settlements in closed administrative-territorial formations (e.g., military or nuclear sites), which receive status via , or those as centers. This flexibility contrasts with , which often requires federal legislative approval for populations under certain thresholds or . typically occurs through municipal urban settlements or integration into municipal s, enabling access to urban funding for roads, schools, and utilities while limiting compared to cities. According to the 2021 All-Russian Population , had 1,179 urban-type settlements alongside 1,118 cities, down from about 1,370 such settlements in the census, reflecting reclassifications, mergers, and depopulation in remote areas. These settlements house millions of residents, often in resource-extraction regions like the or , where they support , , or hubs; for example, many emerged around industrial projects but face challenges like aging and out-migration. Statistically, they bolster metrics by classifying their populations as urban, influencing federal allocations for development, though critics note the category can inflate urban figures amid rural-to-urban downgrades exceeding 750 settlements since 1989, displacing over 2.6 million from urban status.

Belarus and Ukraine

In Belarus, the classification of urban-type settlements (Belarusian: пасёлкі гарадскага типу) has been retained since the Soviet era, with a law establishing three categories: urban settlements (горадскія пасёлкі), worker settlements (працоўныя пасёлкі), and settlements (курортныя пасёлкі). These settlements are governed by local executive committees subordinate to district or regional administrations, functioning as intermediate administrative units between cities and rural areas, often featuring industrial or service-based economies. As of January 1, 2025, counts 85 urban-type settlements, alongside 115 cities and over 22,000 villages, contributing to an urban population share of approximately 75%. In , urban-type settlements (Ukrainian: селища міського типу, smt) originated in the Soviet period as non-agricultural localities with at least 2,000–3,000 residents, subdivided into worker (minimum 3,000 inhabitants), (minimum 2,000), and types, typically administered by elected councils with urban but rural-like . Prior to abolition, there were 881 such settlements, housing about 13% of the urban as of early data, though numbers fluctuated with administrative changes. On January 26, 2024, Law No. 3285-IX took effect, abolishing the category entirely as part of reforms, reclassifying all smt to standard villages (селища) unless elevated to via parliamentary approval based on and criteria. This shift simplifies the administrative framework to binary urban-rural divisions, potentially affecting local and statistical metrics amid ongoing territorial adjustments from conflict.

Central Asian Republics

In the Central Asian republics, the Soviet-era classification of urban-type settlements—intermediary populated places with urban characteristics but lacking full city status—has been broadly retained post-independence, facilitating administrative distinctions between rural areas and major cities while accommodating semi-urban growth tied to industry, mining, and agriculture. This persistence reflects limited reforms to Soviet administrative frameworks amid economic transitions and resource-dependent development, with such settlements often hosting worker housing near extractive sites or transport hubs. As of the early 21st century, these designations continue to influence population statistics, governance, and urbanization metrics, though exact criteria vary by republic, typically emphasizing population thresholds (e.g., 2,000–12,000 residents), non-agricultural employment, and infrastructure levels. Kazakhstan maintains approximately 30 urban-type settlements alongside 87 cities, serving as secondary urban nodes in resource-rich regions like East Kazakhstan, where Soviet-era workers' settlements evolved into semi-urban centers supporting and rail infrastructure. These entities, often reclassified from rural status during industrialization, now house populations exhibiting mixed economic activities, with status reflecting demographic shifts rather than strict economic primacy. In , the category endures without major abolition, exemplified by settlements like Ketmen-Töbö and Shamaldy-Say in Jalal-Abad , which originated as outposts and retain administrative roles in regional districts, contributing to fragmented patterns where over 100 such places exist amid 30 cities. similarly preserves around 49 urban-type settlements from the late Soviet period, concentrated in northern and southern districts like Sughd and Khatlon, functioning as district centers or jamoats with populations up to 20,000; recent assessments count 57 towns alongside 18 cities, underscoring their role in absorbing rural-to-urban migration despite civil war disruptions in the . Turkmenistan sustains 76 urban-type settlements as of 2016, many renamed post-independence (e.g., Saparmyrat Türkmenbaşy, formerly Oktyabrsk), aligned with state-driven gas and cotton economies in Ahal and Lebap regions, where new developments like Darganata integrate transport corridors. hosts the largest network, with 1,085 urban-type settlements accommodating 6 million residents or 39.1% of the urban populace, predominantly in Ferghana and Qashqadaryo, where they bridge 119 and vast rural expanses, fostering agglomeration in valleys but straining services amid from 10.3% urban-type share in the . Across these republics, retention supports statistical tracking of intermediate —e.g., boosting reported urban shares without full investments—but invites critique for perpetuating Soviet hierarchies, as smaller settlements lag in economic diversification and face depopulation risks from youth outmigration.

Caucasian Republics

In , urban-type settlements were discontinued in the through reclassification into either full cities or rural villages, eliminating the intermediate category. The country's settlement structure now consists exclusively of urban localities (primarily cities, totaling 49 as of 2021) and rural communities (954). This reflects post-independence administrative simplification amid economic challenges and depopulation pressures on smaller locales. Azerbaijan has retained the urban-type settlement designation post-Soviet era, integrating it into its hierarchy of 78 cities and over 260 such settlements as of the early . These entities, often tied to industrial or resource-extraction activities, support metrics by accommodating populations between 2,000 and 20,000 while receiving municipal-like governance without full . Official urbanized settlements, numbering around 269, underscore the category's role in distributing development beyond Baku's dominance, though many face stagnation due to oil-dependent economics. Georgia employs an equivalent classification termed "daba" (დაბა), denoting semi-urban townships with at least 3,000 residents and urban traits such as non-agricultural employment majorities. This persists alongside 5 self-governing cities and broader municipalities, aiding in the recognition of 110 total urban areas despite Tbilisi's outsized role (housing 33% of the population). Daba status facilitates targeted infrastructure investment in peripheral settlements, though rural-urban migration has strained smaller ones, with many exhibiting hybrid economic profiles blending services and subsistence agriculture.

Reforms, Transitions, and Criticisms

Post-Soviet Changes and Abolitions

In the years following the in December 1991, many successor states began reforming or phasing out the urban-type settlement (UTS) classification, which had been a hallmark of Soviet administrative planning to designate semi-urban areas tied to industrial or resort functions. These reforms were driven by depopulation in remote or economically unviable settlements, fiscal pressures on local budgets, and efforts to streamline by reclassifying small UTS as rural villages, thereby reducing urban infrastructure obligations. By the early 2000s, had transferred numerous UTS to rural status amid administrative consolidations, leaving approximately 1,160 such settlements as of 2023, with 84% having populations under 10,000 and facing ongoing shrinkage due to outmigration and industrial decline. Ukraine pursued the most decisive abolition, signing Law No. 8263 on October 24, 2023, under President , which eliminated the UTS category effective January 26, 2024, and reclassified all 881 existing UTS as villages to simplify administrative divisions and align with modern demographic realities. This move addressed long-standing inefficiencies in the Soviet-era system, where UTS often lacked full urban services despite their status, exacerbating maintenance costs in depopulating areas. In contrast, retained the classification with modifications, introducing new urban settlement types in the —such as residential districts in cities like Borisov and Baranovichi—to accommodate suburban growth without full , reflecting a more conservative approach to post-Soviet continuity. Central Asian republics, including and , experienced partial transformations rather than outright abolitions, with many UTS declining post-1991 due to collapsed Soviet-era industries like and , leading to de-urbanization and informal reclassifications as rural amid reduced state funding for urban upkeep. For instance, 's urban system underwent significant reconfiguration from 1979 to , with smaller UTS merging into larger municipalities or reverting to village status to cope with shifts toward major cities. These changes highlighted causal links between and settlement viability: Soviet subsidies had artificially sustained UTS, and their post-Soviet erosion stemmed from market-driven depopulation rather than ideological rejection alone. Caucasian states like and Georgia similarly downgraded some UTS in the – for budgetary reasons, though data remains fragmented due to conflicts and limited statistical harmonization. Overall, while full abolitions were rare outside , the trend across post-Soviet space reduced UTS prevalence by over 20–30% in key states, prioritizing administrative efficiency over historical nomenclature.

Criticisms of the Classification System

The urban-type settlement classification, inherited from Soviet administrative practices, has been criticized for its inconsistent and vague criteria, which fail to uniformly distinguish between urban and rural localities. In the Soviet era, parameters for designating a settlement as urban-type varied by , often relying on thresholds like a minimum of 3,000 to 12,000 with a non-agricultural majority, yet lacking precise enforcement or adaptation to local economic realities. This ambiguity persisted post-1991, enabling arbitrary assignments that do not reflect functional , such as including seasonal communities or resort areas without sustained industrial or service-based economies. A primary flaw lies in the mismatch between formal urban status and actual infrastructure provision, where many lack essential urban amenities like hospitals, comprehensive , or adequate utilities, despite being statistically counted as urban. In , for instance, not all such settlements possess a full range of , undermining claims of genuine urban development. This discrepancy contributes to overstated national rates—Russia's official figure exceeds 74% as of 2021—but critics argue the effective urban share is lower when accounting for these hybrid entities' rural-like conditions, particularly in deindustrialized mono-company towns. exacerbates this, with youth out-migration from small urban-type settlements reaching critical levels, as documented in analyses of Russia's Spatial Development Strategy debates. Administratively, the category fosters inefficiencies in governance and , as urban-type settlements occupy an intermediate tier with limited fiscal compared to full cities, yet higher obligations than rural villages. Reforms proposed in Russia's 2019 Spatial Development Strategy highlight the need to transform or reclassify these settlements to address migration-driven depopulation and align status with modern economic viability, yet implementation has been slow due to entrenched bureaucratic inertia. In , the legal urban-rural binary, including urban-type designations, is deemed outdated, prompting calls for scientific reevaluation to better capture settlement functionality amid post-Soviet . Overall, the system's Soviet legacy distorts hierarchical and policy planning, prioritizing administrative relics over empirical indicators of development.

Comparative Analysis with Non-Soviet Systems

In non-Soviet systems, urban classifications typically rely on statistical and density-based criteria rather than the administrative designation characteristic of Soviet , which were granted status by state authorities to align with centralized and industrialization goals. Soviet criteria emphasized non-agricultural employment (often requiring over 50% of the ), infrastructure development, and functional roles like or rail hubs, with thresholds varying by but generally starting around 2,000-3,000 inhabitants for urban-type status. This approach allowed the state to extend urban privileges—such as subsidized services, higher wages, and priorities—to remote or specialized locales, fostering rapid but tying settlement type directly to ideological and productive imperatives. By contrast, the U.S. Census Bureau employs objective, data-driven delineations for urban areas, identifying them as contiguous blocks of high-density census blocks (cores with at least 1,000 persons per ) that extend to lower-density outgrowths, qualifying with a minimum of 5,000 persons or 2,000 housing units under 2020 standards. Urbanized areas exceed 50,000 population, while urban clusters range from 5,000 to 50,000, prioritizing spatial continuity and settlement patterns over economic function or . This method supports and resource allocation without conferring economic incentives, reflecting a market-driven context where urban growth emerges organically from private and migration rather than state fiat. European classifications, as standardized by , further diverge by using a grid-based degree of urbanisation typology at the local administrative unit (LAU) level: cities are defined as densely populated areas with over 1,500 inhabitants per km² and a total population of at least 50,000; urban clusters involve moderate densities (300-1,500 per km²) with minimums of 5,000 inhabitants; and rural areas fall below 300 per km². Predominantly urban regions are those where fewer than 20% of grid cells are rural by this metric. Unlike the Soviet model, these frameworks separate statistical urban-rural divides from administrative statuses (e.g., municipal charters), enabling cross-national comparability for economic studies while accommodating varied national laws on incorporation. These differences underscore broader systemic variances: Soviet urban-type designations served as instruments of command economies to classify and subsidize intermediate settlements, potentially inflating official metrics by including functionally specialized but modestly sized locales. Western systems, oriented toward empirical measurement, emphasize density and contiguity to capture lived urban experience, with administrative perks (like local taxation powers) decoupled from classification to prevent politicization. Consequently, Soviet-era —reaching 66% by 1989—included a higher proportion of small urban-type entities that might register as rural or peripheral under density-focused Western benchmarks, highlighting how classification methods encode underlying priorities of state control versus statistical neutrality.

References

  1. https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Urban-type_settlement
  2. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/255/oa_edited_volume/chapter/2793796
  3. https://journals.eco-vector.com/2587-5566/article/view/18724
  4. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/7374168/file/7374174.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10108806/
  6. https://populationandeconomics.pensoft.net/article/60443/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016718572900048
  8. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11389
  9. https://ehes.org/wp/EHES_270.pdf
  10. https://ia601507.us.archive.org/33/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.214078/2015.214078.Modern-Soviet_text.pdf
  11. https://unn.ua/en/news/ukraine-has-finally-abandoned-the-soviet-type-of-settlement-urban-village
  12. https://ucentralasia.org/media/l2ffkgw2/uca-ippa-wp75eng.pdf
  13. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4m3nb2mm&chunk.id=0&doc.view=print
  14. https://repozytorium.umk.pl/bitstreams/c19bb394-f83f-4509-8da1-2ac87854d6ef/download
  15. https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/russian-industrialisation/
  16. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/253735/1/EHES_221.pdf
  17. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/10613IIED.pdf
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2561838
  19. https://sites.bu.edu/revolutionaryrussia/files/2013/09/Urbanization-and-Deurbanization.pdf
  20. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/1991/demo/ussr.pdf
  21. https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_44571/7af8214defd24542ba9c45e06a63067a0fda4e2c/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9244206/
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965218300884
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1757780223004109
  25. https://erj.eurasian-research.org/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/213-published.pdf
  26. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=RU
  27. https://izvestia.igras.ru/jour/article/download/967/652
  28. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=RU-BY-UA
  29. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/poselki-gorodskogo-tipa-v-protsessah-postsovetskoy-transformatsii-gorodskogo-rasseleniya-v-zabaykalie-i-na-dalnem-vostoke
  30. https://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/35108
  31. https://www.interfax.ru/russia/884171
  32. https://geps.ru/news/novosti/vse-naselennye-punkty-v-rossii-tipiziruyut-v-zavisimosti-ot-chislennosti-naseleniya/
  33. https://02.rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/Krupnye-goroda-Rossii.pdf
  34. https://smgrf.ru/analiticheskaya-zapiska-dinamika-kolichestva-gorodskih-naselyonnyh-punktov-v-rossii-i-chislennosti-naseleniya-v-nih-za-poslednij-mezhperepisnoj-period/
  35. https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa02/cd-rom/papers/021.pdf
  36. https://president.gov.by/en/belarus/numbers/facts
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264575642_Settlement_System_of_Belarus_Spatial_and_Temporal_Trends_at_the_End_of_20_th_and_the_Beginning_of_the_21_st_Centuries
  38. https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CU%5CR%5CUrban6typesettlement.htm
  39. https://hungarian-geography.hu/inmaps/pdf/Ukraine-in-Maps_81.pdf
  40. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/3285-20
  41. https://solotvino-rada.gov.ua/news/1706465315/
  42. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/hlm/prgm/cph/experts/uzbekistan/brief_overview_PART_2_EN.pdf
  43. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2017/06/oecd-urban-policy-reviews-kazakhstan_g1g74e2b/9789264268852-en.pdf
  44. https://countrystudies.us/tajikistan/19.htm
  45. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/961491/tajikistan-national-urban-assessment.pdf
  46. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Urbanization-in-CA-ENG.pdf
  47. https://populationandeconomics.pensoft.net/article/118381/
  48. https://bakudialogues.idd.az/articles/long-way-ahead-applying-the-sustainable-cities-implementation-framework-in-azerbaijan-11-10-2024
  49. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/282241468274759653/pdf/862400REVISED00view0Report003252014.pdf
  50. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/186168/urban-potential-georgia.pdf
  51. https://ekhsuir.kspu.edu/bitstreams/c2470d67-dc4e-4d8d-98e9-c2f9dd97d9b7/download
  52. https://populationandeconomics.pensoft.net/article/34777/
  53. https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/euco-2022-0014
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.