Soviet statistical data and studies on the levels of regional economic development present that interregional differences in national income per capita of major economic region are more than two fold. But these data do not perfectly reflect the levels of living of the peoples in each region, because data of major economic regions of the R.S.F.S.R. and Ykraina were estimated by incomplete sources and did not estimate social infrastructure which closely relate to the living conditions of regional inhabitants. This is also proved by studies from point of view of interregional population flow and the settlement network. Especially, lasting outflow of inhabitant in the Ural where is ranked as one of regions with high levels of economic development and inflow of population in the North Caucasus where is ranked in low level show that above mentioned factors were not considered.
In the USSR, one sided population movement among major economic regions, especially, movement from eastern part of the USSR (Ural, Siberia) to western part, often explains by way of the regional differrences in climatic conditions. But in addition to this, it is ovbious that the development city network in region plays an important part to settle the inhabitant of region, because in the USSR, major economic regions in which large cities don't develop except the central city as administrative center, usually have outflow of population. From this point, creation of central town in subareas of major economic region will be nessesary to settle regional people, above all, in Ural and Siberia.
In the Soviet Union, though the policy of limmiting growth of large towns has adoptted, the population concentration to regional central city is remarkable, especially, in millionaire cities as Moscaw, Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk and the disparity of regional development in regions in which these cities are located (insufficient development of central town in subareas, medium and small towns, appearence of many aears with outflow of population) have brought about the bad influences on regional economic growth and the living conditions of people. These phenomena, I suppose, were raised by the reinforcement of centralized administration and the insufficient accumulation of social infrastructure. After this, population concentration to large towns will still proceed, if the Soviet government does not drive forward the policy of dispersion of administrative, social and cultural functions in large cities (dispersion of the industrial function to medium and small towns being planned) and perfecting the settlement system.

View full abstract

In almost every Kosekiku of Sakai Pref. founded public elementary schools in the 5th year of Meiji (1872) for the first time. They were called Kengaku-bunko in the urban district and Gogakko in the rural area. But in the next year according to the act of educational system called Gakusei they were abolished and new primary schools called Shogaku were founded in each Shogakku. This Shogakku was a type of school district and resembled closely to that in USA. In two years after the abolishment of Shogakku at the 12th year of Meiji, a new type of school district called Gakku was established. It was larger than Shogakku, and in over half of all prefectures it contained 1, 000∼2, 000 people and 1∼2 primary schools on the average. But in Osaka Pref. it was larger than in other prefectures and contained 3∼20 villages and 1∼6 primary schools, of which the name was changed to Shogakko.
According to the new act about Shogakko in the 23th year of Meiji, an ordinary primary school was founded in each new village to which several old villages combined under the new local administrative system, Choson-Sei. Afterwards, in the rural area the ordinary primary schools scarcely changed and each of school areas was coincident with its village area, while in the urban district school areas were established in the 34th year of Meiji for the first time and from that time they were reviced again and again.
In the Taisho Era (1912∼26), the population had increased in the villages neighboured with the urban district, and nearly all of those villages were incorporated into Sakai City.
In the Showa Era, the urban district extended with the years. In the new city area abovementioned ordinary primary schools increased and the school areas also repeatedly reviced. Such currents caused to disregard for the boundaries of the previous administrative units when the border lines of school area were decided. For example, in the 15th year of Showa (1940) parts of border lines of school areas were decided in disregard for the boundary of the old Sakai City. The changes of administration of education in the 31th year of Showa created difficulties in the revice of school areas. Therefore since this time school areas were reviced only when a new primary school was founded because of the increase of population.
Now in the old section of Sakai City and its neighbouring area primary schools have fewer pupils and more limited school areas, while they have more pupils and over half of them have larger school areas in the new city area incorporated in the Showa Era.

View full abstract