Nefedova T.G. Contemporary peasant economy in the rural-urban environment // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2018. V.3. №1. P. 117-140.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2018-3-1-117-140
Annotation
The article considers features of contemporary Russian households under the concentration of large enterprises and polarization of the countryside. The author compares farms at the beginning and in the middle of the twentieth century to show that many factors determining the households’ life a century ago are still active. The article describes features of today’s small households and farmers and their main types; identifies their variety in the Non-Black Earth, southern and eastern regions, in the suburbs and on the periphery. Among the factors affecting activities of population in households, the author focuses on the degree of rural depopulation, rural ethnic composition, and interaction between households and large agricultural enterprises. Thus, inefficient enterprises were not replaced by small farms due to the gradual decrease of agricultural activities of rural population. There is a significant share of the unused land with an exception of some southern regions, which proves that land is not the key factor in enhancing agricultural activities of small farms. However, the agricultural land use of gardeners is very intensive except for the suburbs of Moscow and Saint Petersburg. The greatest activity is typical for farms with high marketability, including “shadow farms”, and for subsistence households following peasant traditions and partially self-sufficient.
Keywords
Peasant farm, agricultural enterprises, farmers, household plots, gardeners, land use, livestock.
About the authors
Tatyana G. Nefedova, DSc (Geography), Chief Researcher, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences; 119017, Moscow, Staromonetny Per., 29.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Ideology and philosophy of the successful regional development in contemporary Russia: The Belgorod case
Apr 05 2018Nikulin A.M., Trotsuk I.V., Wegren S. Ideology and philosophy of the successful regional development in contemporary Russia: The Belgorod case // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2018. V.3. №1. P. 99-116.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2018-3-1-99-116
Annotation
The article considers economic successes of the Belgorod region as significantly determined by the governor Yevgeny Savchenko’ agrarian policies, which compensate for the region’s small size and modest human capital. In 2017, the authors published an article describing economic policies and social programs of regional authorities; now the authors focus on the leadership by Yevgeny Savchenko, and his rather paradoxical personal and management views. First, according to Max Weber’s typology of authority, Savchenko is a charismatic leader with strong personality traits and careful political behavior, who benefits from the traditional Slavophile populism and institutional design of the gubernatorial powers that has allowed governors to become more powerful compared to other regional actors during 2002–2012. Second, the Belgorod governor’s project has quite traditional Russian roots in the spirit of A.V. Chayanov’s novel “My brother Alexey’s journey to the land of peasant utopia”, which allowed the Belgorod modernization project to successfully cope with unpredictable challenges from the Russian oligarchy and global economy, and to use competitive standards of consumer society as the grounds for conservative modernization and solidary society development. The Belgorod governor implements his own model of new economy consisting of the extensive development of solidarity and cooperation; ideals of healthy lifestyle; and freedom in choosing ways to work and to rest (regional authorities support corporate, family and individual strategies of life). Third, Savchenko has publicly articulated his personal political-economic theory reflecting a conglomerate of conservative, socialist and populist ideas, and combining anti-liberalism and statist philosophy as the basis for the revival of the Russian state, which the governor sees as an engine of social progress.
Keywords
Belgorod region, governor, leadership, regional authorities, regional development, ideological roots, philosophical foundations.
About the authors
Alexander M. Nikulin, PhD (Economics), Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Irina V. Trotsuk, DSc (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Associate Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University. Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Stephen Wegren, Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Merl S. Agrarian transformations in the former GDR in 1989–2017: A success story? // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №4. P. 130-147.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-4-130-147
Annotation
The transformations of agriculture in the direction of privatization and adaptation to the market started in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. Looking back from today, this was a difficult process for the economic transition was strongly influenced by changing prices and demand for agricultural goods. Today in most countries, agricultural productivity is higher though problems and uncertainties are still evident especially considering the structural changes of agricultural enterprises and their consequences for rural life. The article focuses on the country in which agrarian transformations seem to be a success story: in the GDR, the agricultural productivity grew significantly, and the new structures of the agricultural enterprises allowed competing at the world market. The author does not directly compare the former GDR and Russia though the article contributes to understanding the reasons of the problematic outcomes of the transition in Russia. The article highlights general problems of agrarian transformations such as the uncertainty of their structural aims, and puts forward the following questions: can the GDR be considered a success story transferable to other countries as the political approach in Germany was more sophisticated or is there another explanation of its success? Was the success a result of the political course, or was it, on the contrary, an unexpected result of the lack of control? Another question is the criteria for considering the transition in the GDR a success in the economic sense (increase in productivity), social (keeping up the rural community), ecological or agricultural (increase in sustainability of production). To answer these questions the author relies on the statistical data for more than two decades, monitoring data on the still ongoing transition and partly privatization and registration of new enterprises, his own studies of agricultural enterprises in different new countries together with the Russian colleagues (1992, 1997, 2002 and 2016), which allowed to understand the estimates and reactions of people to different challenges of the transition.
Keywords
agrarian transformations, the former GDR (German New Countries), economic transition, agricultural production, rural communities
About the author
Stephan Merl, DSc (History), Professor, Bielefeld University; 25 Universitätsstr., 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Gusakov T.Yu. Rural informal economy of the Crimean village Novoalekseevka // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №4. P. 107-129.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-4-107-129
Annotation
The article considers the situation in the Crimean village as a result of the dynamic development of informal economy in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The author tries to adapt the existing classifications of informal economy to the specific features of rural Crimea, in which informal relations are primarily determined by the exogenous forces such as the return of deported peoples, the collapse of the collective farms system and peculiarities of the Ukrainian state building. The Crimean countryside became a hostage of the social-economic transformations of the post-Soviet period, and found the only way to adapt and survive under the “wild capitalism” in the refusal to follow the rules of ineffective formal institutions and in replacing them with informal ones.
“Self-reliance” became the main slogan of the Crimean village in the ‘dashing 1990s’. Ethnic, ideological and intercultural disagreements and a lack of trust determined a new model of coexistence of rural residents — a commonalty (an analogue of the pre-revolutionary rural community) constituted by a network of informal ties. Combinations of various mental features determine specific types of informal economy such as a traditional shift to trade and agriculture due to the available resource base. Transformations of the institutional environment and social-economic stabilization in the 2000s contributed to the reduction of informal sector in the rural economy of the Crimea.
Keywords
Crimea, countryside, informal economy, shadow economy, agriculture, peasantization, commonalty
About the author
Timur Y. Gusakov, Junior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Averkieva K.V. Symbiosis of agriculture and forestry on the early-developed periphery of the Non-Black Earth Region: The case of the Tarnogsky district of the Vologda Region // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №4. P. 86-106.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-4-86-106
Annotation
The article considers the social-economic structure of the Tarnogsky district of the Vologda Region, which has a peripheral position in both European Russia and the region. Its specific features such as the low rate of population decline and the growth of the local economy that is not high compared to other Non-Black Earth regions do not correspond to the centre-periphery logic of the well-developed space adopted in social and economic sciences. There is a highly developed timber industry including manufacture of a wide range of complex products; eleven agricultural enterprises and creamery that increase production annually, which is a rarity in the peripheral Non-Black Earth region. Such success of the Tarnogsky district is determined by both reasonable regional policies in forestry and agriculture and by personal qualities of the residents, i.e. the social capital. The author argues that the long-term territorial isolation combined with a long history of economic development played an important role in the current situation. Perhaps, the development of stable and close social ties was influenced by the ‘cluster’ (or “nesting”) type of rural settlement, in which “bushes” of 10-15 villages are located in walking distance from each other and separated by forest areas.
Keywords
rural area, periphery, early-developed territory, agriculture, forestry, social capital
About the author
Kseniya V. Averkieva, PhD (Geography), Senior Researcher, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119017, Staromonetny Per., 29.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Russia, Poland, and China: Models of post-socialist rural development. Round table // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №3. P. 120-151.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-3-120-151
Annotation
This article is a transcript of the round table at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation on March 27, which focused on the comparative analysis of the strategic directions of post-socialist rural development in the People’s Republic of China, the Polish People’s Republic and the Russian Federation. Professor Roman Kisiel made a presentation on the problems of Polish rural economy; professor Yan Hairong highlighted the dialectics of contradictions between collective and private farming in China. To a certain extent the Russian scientists L.D. Boni, V.V. Babashkin, and A.V. Gordon became the co-presenters of the Polish and Chinese colleagues when discussing such problems of rural development as the interaction of large and small-scale agrarian production, capitalist, family and collective forms of agriculture, economy and ecology, the city and village, and especially the national agrarian policies regulating all the above. In many ways, China and Poland turned out to be the poles of political and social-cultural agrarian transformations, which determine possible variations of regional models of rural-urban development in Russia. The round table discussion can be useful not only for academic scientists, but also for practitioners involved in developing state and municipal agrarian policies that are to take into account international agrarian experience.
Keywords
peasantry, land ownership, agrarian reforms, rural development, comparative studies, China, Poland, Russia
About the authors
Vladimir V. Babashkin., Professor, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, prospect Vernadskogo, 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Ludmila D. Boni, DSc (Economics), Chief Researcher, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 117997, Nakhimovsky Av., 32.
Alexander V. Gordon, DSc (History), Head of the East and South-East Asia Branch, INION of the Russian Academy of Sciences
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Roman Kisiel, Professor of Economic Science, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland. 10-719 Olsztyn, ul. Oczapowskiego 4.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Alexander M. Nikulin, PhD (Economics), Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; 82, Prosp. Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119571, Russia
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Marina G. Pugacheva, Senior Researcher, Centre for Fundamental Sociology Higher School of Economics, Deputy Editor Russian Sociological Review, Staraya Basmannaya str., 21/4, Room A205, Moscow, Russian Federation 105066.
Irina V. Trotsuk, DSc (Sociology), Associate Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University; Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, prosp. Vernadskogo, 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hairong Yan, Professor, Hong Kong, Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon,
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Kisiel R., Marks-Bielska R. Transformations of the Polish agriculture // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №3. P. 108-119.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-3-108-119
Annotation
Agriculture has always been an extremely important branch of the Polish economy as a stabilizer of economic fluctuations, a source of basic consumer goods and raw materials for other branches of economy in the periods of instability, a guarantee of self-sufficiency and food security of the country, a protector of natural environment, a source of labor and an employer, and finally a significant factor of national identity and culture. Agricultural production occupies almost half of the Polish territory, and has always determined the main ways of using land and influencing natural environment and landscape. At the same time, for many years the Polish agriculture has been under political, economic, and environmental pressure that determined its numerous transformations. The article considers key changes of rural Poland under the economic transformations focusing on the ownership system at the start of political and economic reforms. The author assesses the role of Polish agriculture and its production potential within the national economy paying particular attention to the European Union budgetary support. Thus, the author aims to analyze all these changes on the basis of statistical data of the Main Statistical Office and Agrarian Property Agency focusing on the transformations of rural areas of former state farms.
Keywords
polish farm, economic transformation in Poland, agricultural policy in Poland, European Union
About the authors
Roman Kisiel, Professor of Economic Science at University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland. Faculty of Economic Science, Department of Economic and Regional Policy. 10-719 Olsztyn, ul. Oczapowskiego 4.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Renata Marks-Bielska, Professor of Economic Science at University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland. Faculty of Economic Science, Department of Economic and Regional Policy. 10-719 Olsztyn, ul. Oczapowskiego 4.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Zhidkevich N. Today’s migrant workers in the north and south of European Russia // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №3. P. 97-107.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-3-97-107
Annotation
The article considers the phenomenon of temporary labor migration, i.e. the so-called ‘contemporary migrant/seasonal work’. The author focuses on its regional features determined by economic, social-cultural and demographic situation in the migrant workers’ hometowns and villages. There is a clear differentiation in such characteristics as the scale of migrant work, women’s seasonal positions, dominant motives of such work and its key specialties, migrant workers’ status in the local community, etc., especially in the northern and southern parts of European Russia. The share of migrant workers in local communities is much higher in the ‘south’ than in the ‘north’ for the density of population in the ‘south’ is higher. In the ‘south’, both men and women are engaged in migrant work while in the ‘north’ women among the migrant workers are rare. The ‘north’ with its forests is known for migrant carpenters that build houses, bathhouses and other buildings for wealthy city dwellers (there are almost no carpenters in the ‘south’). The ‘southern’ migrant workers can be divided into two groups —general workers and skilled workers engaged in oil and gas industries, so labor competition is fierce in the ‘south’; moreover there is a big demand for ‘northern’ carpenters’ unique skills. Thus, ‘southern’ migrant workers are motivated by push-factors, while the ‘northern’—by the attraction-factors. The scale of migrant work and its key specialties determine the differences in migrant workers’ positions in local communities: for instance, carpenters of the ‘north’ mainly have a high social status; ‘southern’ migrant general workers usually have a low status, while the skilled ones—a high status.
Keywords
migrant work, (temporary) labor migration, regional differences, the north and south of European Russia, Russian periphery, employment strategies
About the author
Natalia N. Zhidkevich, Analyst, Project-Training Laboratory of Municipal Government, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Ovchintseva L.A. Rural cooperatives: Same goals, new problems // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №2. P. 121-141.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-2-121-141
Annotation
The article considers the development of farmer cooperatives for processing and marketing of agricultural products. The article is based on the federal and regional statistical data and on the expert interviews conducted by the author with the heads of farms and cooperatives, managers of regional and municipal agribusiness, specialists of auditing unions, cooperation development funds, cooperative unions and other institutions supporting the development of соoperation. The survey was conducted in 2016 in four regions of the Russian Federation—Lipetsk, Penza, Moscow and Kaluga, mainly among cooperatives processing fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products. The situation in the Lipetsk Region is particularly interesting due to the threelevel system of cooperation support: by rural settlements, by districts and by the regional government. The author also describes the influence of district agencies of the Pensa Region on small business. The forms and methods of cooperation support by the regional agroindustrial complex are described on the basis of the author’s research data, which allowed to identify the key difficulties of the farmers that decided to create cooperatives. The article presents the most illustrative quotes from the interviews confirming the lack of access to financial resources, the variability of the state policy considering farmer cooperatives, the imperfection of legal regulation of cooperation, the administrative pressure on cooperatives and small and medium business, the insufficient development of distribution networks and rural infrastructure, and some subjective factors.
Keywords
rural cooperation, factors of cooperatives’ development, cooperatives in the Russian regions, cooperative system in Lipetsk, Penza Agency for the development of cooperation, Kaluga cooperatives, cooperatives in the Moscow Region
About the author
Lyubov A. Ovchintseva, PhD (Economics), Senior Researcher, Department of Sustainable Rural Development and Rural Cooperation, Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics. 21–1, Bolshoi Kharitonievski per., Moscow, 105064, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Vinogradsky V.G. Forms of informality: Invisible economy of the peasant house // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2017. V.2. №2. P. 101-120.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2017-2-2-101-120
Annotation
The article presents author’s interpretation of a number of interviews with the head of the household in the Kuban village, the mother of three children, Lyubov Kuranovskaya, who, while answering the interviewer’s questions, created a detailed picture of peasant everyday life, of the rural formal and informal economy. Fifteen years ago, the journal “Sociological Studies” published the first data of this project, and the articles were not typical for such a scientific edition. In the special foreword, the Editorial Board mentioned that the journal usually did not publish such research documents (reports, tables, interviews, etc.); however, an exception was made for the text was of a great value in terms of its content, and it was an example of qualitative interviewing that could be further analyzed. Thus, the respondent ‘received a voice’ and told the readers about her life without any analytical explanations and generalizations. Lyuba Kuranovskaya still lives in the Kuban stanitsa, though much has changed in fifteen years. The author follows the publishing format of 2002 to show Lyubov Ivanovna’s present life practices, and focuses on those aspects of her family economy that are usually named ‘informal’, ‘expolar’, ‘shadow’ or ‘invisible’. Lyuba talks about her life sincerely, trustingly, and picturesquely. The words speak for themselves — the narrator tries to discursively support her own life world so that to move confidently into the future. The text presents fragments of narratives recorded in 2000 and 2012 (previously not published) together with short comments aimed to tie up current and previous life experiences of Lyubov Ivanovna Kuranovskaya.
Keywords
in-depth interview, types of informality, family economy, peasant life practices, peasant worlds, rural sociology, discourse of rural everyday life
About the author
Valery G. Vinogradsky, DSc (Philosophy), Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, prosp. Vernadskogo, 82, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.