Subtracting equation (10) from equation (7) yields the formula for calculating the demographic dividend. The formula is quite intuitive. First term reflects the net increase in working age ratio compared to base (1997) year multiplied by the estimated elasticity. The second terms is the growth rate of working age ratio multiplied by its elasticity. We take the total growth rate since under the assumption of constant working age ration at the level of 1997 year the growth rate would be zero.

We applied formula (11) to calculate the DD for the sample period of our model from 1997 until 2011. The results are presented in the table below. The results are both at the national and Federal Okrugs (district) levels. Federal Okrugs contain 7-12 regions, divided by geographical location. We also reported information for two groups of regions: rich/poor and leaders/laggards. Rich/poor is the division based on the level of GDP per capita in 1996 (the year before sample period). Leaders/laggards – based on average growth rates of first 5-year period. Leaders are 10 regions with highest average annual growth rate in the period of 1997-2001, laggards – with the lowest.

**Table 3: Demographic Dividend by Groups**

||Demo|graphic div|idend(D|D), p.p.|GDPpe|r capita a|nnualgro|wth,%|Net of DD G|DPper ca|pita annu|algrowth,%|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||1997‐2001|2002‐06|2007‐11|1997‐2011|1997‐2001|2002‐06|2007‐11|1997‐2011|1997‐2001|2002‐06|2007‐11|1997‐2011|
|Russian Federation|1.1|2.1|1.4|1.5|3.8|7.8|3.3|4.9|2.7|5.7|2.0|3.4|
|Central Federal Okrug|1.1|2.1|1.4|1.5|5.2|9.1|2.1|5.5|4.1|7.1|0.7|3.9|
|North‐Western Federal Okrug|1.0|1.9|1.0|1.3|3.9|8.5|3.8|5.4|2.9|6.7|2.9|4.1|
|Southern Federal Okrug|1.0|2.2|1.5|1.6|4.2|7.4|4.6|5.4|3.2|5.2|3.1|3.8|
|North‐Caucas Federal Okrug|1.2|2.8|2.5|2.2|3.3|8.1|5.1|5.5|2.1|5.3|2.6|3.3|
|Volga Federal Okrug|1.0|2.3|1.5|1.6|3.3|6.2|4.2|4.6|2.3|3.9|2.7|3.0|
|Ural Federal Okrug|1.1|2.2|1.1|1.5|3.5|7.8|2.7|4.6|2.4|5.6|1.6|3.2|
|Siberia Federal Okrug|1.2|2.2|1.2|1.5|1.8|6.9|4.0|4.2|0.7|4.7|2.7|2.7|
|Far East Federal Okrug|0.8|1.3|0.3|0.8|2.5|6.0|6.0|4.8|1.7|4.8|5.6|4.0|
|10 Leaders|1.0|2.2|1.5|1.6|5.9|10.0|6.3|7.4|4.8|7.8|4.8|5.8|
|10 Laggards|1.0|1.9|0.9|1.2|3.1|3.4|2.4|3.0|2.2|1.6|1.5|1.8|
|Rich|1.0|2.0|1.0|1.3|3.2|6.7|3.9|4.6|2.2|4.7|2.9|3.2|
|Poor|1.1|2.3|1.6|1.7|3.9|7.0|4.6|5.1|2.8|4.7|3.0|3.5|

Table 3 shows that DD explains a large part of growth in regional GDP per capita. On average, at the national level, it explained 30 percent of total GDP growth. This contribution is in line with other countries. For example in India the DD explained up to 40% of total GDP per growth (Aiyar and Mody 2011). During 2002-06 the absolute contribution of DD (2.1 percentage points) was highest supported by both channels – fast growth and high initial level of working age ratio, but the relative contribution was the lowest (explained only 27% of total GDP growth) because of high oil prices and other factors driving the growth in Russia. In the first and third five-year periods, the DD was much smaller – 1.1 and 1.4 percentage points, respectively. In 1997-2001, DD was explained by the fast growth of working age ratio, while in the third period by high level of working age ratio. As other factors of economic growth were on average weak in late 1990s (including 1998 crisis) and after the 2008 crisis relative contribution of DD in first and third fiveyear periods was higher than in the second.

On a regional level, the results are similar. Highest share of DD contribution to the total GDP per capita growth is in North Caucasus Federal Okrug where on average up to 40 percent GDP growth was explained by DD and in Siberian and Volga Federal Okrugs, where share of DD is higher than 35 percent. The smallest share of DD contribution is in Far East Federal Okrug – less than one-sixth of GDP growth was driven by 14