Lisichkin G.S., Pugacheva M.G., Yarmolyuk S.F. “I wanted to draw the society’s attention to agriculture” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2020. V.5. №2. P. 159-174.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2020-5-2-159-174

Annotation

This interview with Gennady Stepanovich Lisichkin was taken on February 1, 1999 for the book Press in Society (1959-2000). Estimates of Journalists and Sociologists. Documents. We believe that the biography of this famous scholar and publicist, which is closely related to the development of agriculture in the USSR in the 1950-1970s, will be interesting to the readers of the Russian Peasant Studies. In 1953, after graduating from the MGIMO University and working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gennady Stepanovich voluntarily went to Kazakhstan and was the head of the collective farm for three years. Later he worked at the USSR Embassy in Yugoslavia, as an editor of the department in the Izvestia and as an economic observer in the Pravda. He was an involuntary initiator of the public discussion on the economic challenges of agricultural production in the central press in the 1960s (a selection of documents from the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History was published in the section “Beyond the Economic Discussion in the Press”).

Keywords

agriculture, virgin lands development, Germans in Kazakhstan, market socialism, Izvestia, economic discussion

About the authors

Lisichkin Gennady S., DSc (Economics), Senior Researcher, Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Pugacheva Marina G., Senior Researcher, Center for Fundamental Sociology, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Myasnitskaya St., 20, Moscow, 101000.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Yarmolyuk Svetlana F. (1936-1917), PhD (Economics), Head of the project, Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Gusakov T.Yu. Rural Crimea and its agroholdings // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2020. V.5. №2. P. 106-129.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2020-5-2-106-129

Annotation

The increase in number of agroholdings in the Russian regions changes the paths of rural development and attracts the scientific interest to interaction of business groups with the authorities and local communities. Concentration of agricultural production in the hands of large companies has regional peculiarities determined by the level of integration: there are regions with a high share of holdings in the structure of agricultural production (for example, the Belgorod and Voronezh Regions) and, on the contrary, regions with a high share of agricultural production in households (Dagestan, Crimea, Tuva). The article considers the Republic of Crimea as a participant of the emerging holding structure of the agricultural production, but the increase in the share of agricultural enterprises is accompanied by the dominance of the informal household economy. The author also considers the influence of agroholdings on the development of rural territories and agricultural production on the example of the largest Crimean producer of agricultural products.

Keywords

agriculture, rural area, agroholding, rural development, integrated business group, Republic of Crimea

About the author

Gusakov Timur Yu., Junior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Gusakov T.Yu. The multistructure of the contemporary ethnic region in Russia: Archaization, agrarianization and migration (on the example of the Republic of Tyva) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2019. V.4. №4. P. 76-95.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2019-4-4-76-95

Annotation

The article considers the features of the contemporary rural development of the Russian ethnic region on the example of the Republic of Tyva. In 2017, according to the official statistics, it was the poorest Russian region by the share of the rural population below the poverty line. This situation was determined by a number of factors exacerbating Tuva’s economic depression: its being a periphery and its remoteness from economic centers, stagnation and impossibility to revitalize the industrial complex, destruction of the agricultural sector, a high share of the shadow economy, and so on. The reason for the economic stagnation is the agrarian path of Tyva chosen by the regional elites, which consists of the support for small archaic agricultural production as an ethnic type of activity. The article describes the vectors of the contemporary rural development of the Republic of Tyva, its economic and ethnic-social features, and changes determined by the large transfers from the federal budget to the regional economy. Today, there is spatial polarization and rural depopulation in the depressed agrarian regions, and the cities remain the main centers of population concentration (mainly the city of Kyzyl).

Keywords

agriculture, rural settlement, ethnic region, migration, spatial mobility, Republic of Tyva

About the author

Gusakov Timur Yu., Junior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Andreenkov S.N. Reforms in the economies’ system and land use in the Novosibirsk Region in the 1990s // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2019. V.4. №4. P. 58-75.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2019-4-4-58-75

Annotation

The article considers the features of reorganization of agricultural enterprises and land use system in the Novosibirsk Region in the 1990s. This reform was the main direction of the agrarian transformations in the 1990s. The author identifies the logic and consequences of the collective and state farms transformation into various forms of commercial enterprises (joint-stock companies, cooperatives, peasant farms and their associations) and features of the land redistribution. At the first stage of the reform (1991), the collective and state farm system of the Novosibirsk Region did not change, new forms of farms and land use just started to develop, and the size of subsidiary plots significantly increased. At the second stage of the reform (1992–1993), the reorganization of collective and state farms accelerated, a network of large commercial enterprises developed, and the number of peasant farms increased. However, the new organizational-economic system met the market economy standards only formally. The new agricultural jointstock companies and cooperatives did not differ much from their predecessors—collective and state farms. Large farms remained the main supplier of agricultural products on the market although they worked in extremely unfavorable conditions. Nevertheless, the role of small economies represented by peasant farms also increased.

Keywords

land reform, collective farms, state farms, agriculture, land use, Novosibirsk Region

About the author

Andreenkov Sergey N., PhD (History), Senior Researcher, Sector of Agrarian History, Institute of History, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 630090, Novosibirsk, Akademika Nikolaeva St., 8.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Il'inykh V.A. Organization of the agronomic services in Siberia in the 1920s: Discourse and choice // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2019. V.4. №2. P. 83-107.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2019-4-2-83-107

Annotation

The article presents the expert discourse on the optimal structure of the agricultural network in Siberia in the 1920s and its institutionalization in the agronomic services in the village. The author conducts his analysis taking into account the agrarian policy of the Soviet state and the ideological-theoretical struggle in the agrarian science; he also focuses on the views of A.V. Chayanov. Before the revolution, there were two systems of agronomic assistance in Russia. The state agricultural assistance was sectoral and was provided in large districts. The zemstvo (public) assistance was local and complex. In Siberia in the early 20th century, the state agronomy prevailed. After the establishment of the Soviet power in the region, the discussion began between supporters of the sectoral, local and district systems of the agricultural network. The People’s Commissariat of Agriculture recommended the widespread introduction of the local agricultural network; and there were also local experiments with other systems. In the mid1920s, under the administrative reform, the local-district system was chosen, but soon it was changed into the district one. The Soviet agronomic system developed under the NEP was largely based on the principles of pre-revolutionary social agronomy. The distinctive feature of the Soviet agricultural assistance was its nationalization. Theorists of the public agronomy positively evaluated this feature of the Soviet agricultural system, which, in their opinion, allowed efficient rationalization of the peasant economy. In the late 1920s, the USSR abandoned the basic principles of public agronomy and later eliminated the agronomic assistance system of the NEP period.

Keywords

agriculture, peasantry, land authorities, agronomic services, NEP, A.V. Chayanov

About the author

Il’inykh Vladimir A., DSc (History), Head of the Department of Agrarian History, Institute of History, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 630090, Novosibirsk, Akademika Nikolaeva St., 8. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Makarov N.P. At the great crossroads. The comparative analysis of the evolution of agriculture in China, the United States of North America, the USSR, and Western Europe (Article of N.P. Makarov) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2019. V.4. №1. P. 6-21.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2019-4-1-6-21

Abstract

This article published in the mid-1920s in the Peasant International was written by an outstanding Russian agrarian scientist and a prominent representative of the organization-production school Nikolai Pavlovich Makarov (1887–1980). It is quite strange that this article was not listed in the bibliographies of Makarov’s works although it is absolutely important for the understanding of the evolution of world agriculture in the 20th century. Moreover, the reader will see that in the second half of the 1920s the ideas of this article were developed in the works of other representatives of the organization-production school — A.V. Chayanov, G.S. Studensky, A.A. Rybnikov. As the title and the foreword of the article show, the author seeks to provide an analytical description of the main directions of the world agrarian evolution of the 1920s and its possible alternatives on the example of four main macro-regions of world agriculture: the USA, China, Western Europe and Russia. First the author focuses on the two so-called “poles” of agrarian development — the United States and China — and argues that “old” labor-intensive agrarian China and the “young” capital-intensive agrarian United States are the exact opposites of each other. It is between these poles that the paths of the agricultural evolution of most countries of the world, including Europe and Russia, are located. Makarov concludes with a preliminary diagnosis of the approaching “great agrarian crossroads” of world agriculture. The publication with comments was prepared by A.M. Nikulin.

Keywords

agriculture, USA, China, Western Europe, Russia, agrarian evolution, peasants, farmers

About the authors

Makarov Nikolai Pavlovich

Editor: Nikulin Alexander M., PhD (Economics), Head of the 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. 

Round table “The 100th anniversary of the academician Alexander Alexandrovich Nikonov (1918–1995)” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2018. V.3. №3. P. 70-94.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2018-3-3-70-94

Annotation

The round table at the Center for Agrarian Studies of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration was dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the academician Alexander Alexandrovich Nikonov (1918–1995) and focused on the milestones of the biography of this prominent agrarian scientist, his intellectual and organizational contribution to the Russian agricultural science. A.A. Nikonov, a heroic participant of the Great Patriotic War, took part in the organization and development of agriculture in Latvia, the Stavropol Region and Moscow, held many senior positions from the Minister of Agriculture of Latvia to the President of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, was known not only for outstanding organizational and intellectual but also personal qualities. The participants of the round table recognized the contribution of the academician Nikonov to the development of the agrarian reforms’ strategy in the USSR of the 1980s and to the creation in the years of perestroika of the Agrarian Institute — a scientific organization of a fundamentally new type, which is now named after the scientist — Nikonov VIAPI. The round-table discussions emphasized that A.A. Nikonov was not working in safe conditions, and scientific activities often demanded from him civil courage and political responsibility. It is to A.A. Nikonov that the Russian agrarian science should be grateful for the consistent desire to rehabilitate the names of A.V. Chayanov and his colleagues from the organization-production school and to re-introduce into scientific discourse the forbidden and forgotten heritage of these outstanding scientists. Finally, the discussions emphasized the importance of the last work of the scientist, his book The Spiral of the Century-Old Drama: Agrarian Science and Policy of Russia (18-20 centuries). The participants of the round table consider this book as a still unique and relevant guide for the scientific and moral search for the ways of decent rural development of Russia. 

Keywords

A.A. Nikonov, Nikonov VIAPI (Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics), VASKhNIL (Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences), agrarian science, agrarian policy, agrarian reforms, agriculture, A.V. Chayanov’s school.

About the authors

Bakaev Vladimir V., DSc (Economics), Researcher, Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics; 105064, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonievski Per., 21–1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Bautin Vladimir M., DSc (Economics), Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, Chair of Management and Rural Consulting, in 2002–2013 — Rector, in 2013–2016 — President of the Russian State Agrarian University — Timiryazev Moscow Agricultural Academy; 127550, Moscow, Timiryazevskaya St., 49.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  
Krylatykh Elmira N., Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, DSc (Economics), Chief Researcher, Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics; 105064, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonievski Per., 21–1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  
Nikulin Alexander M., PhD (Economics), Head of the 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. 
Ovchintseva Lyubov A., PhD (Economics), Senior Researcher, Department of Sustainable Rural Development and Rural Cooperation, Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics; 105064, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonievski Per., 21–1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Petrikov Alexander V., DSc (Economics), Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics, in 2007–2016 — Deputy Minister of Agriculture; 105064, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonievski Per., 21–1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Uzun Vasily Ya., DSc (Economics), Chief Researcher, Center for Agro-Food Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Frolova Elena Yu., PhD (Economics), Senior Researcher, Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics; 105064, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonievski Per., 21–1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Kharitonov Nikolay S., PhD (Economics), Honored Lecturer, Chair of Agroeconomics, Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University. 119992, Moscow, Leninskie Gory, 1-46, bld. 3.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Khozhainov Nikolay T., PhD (Economics), Associate Professor, Chair of Agroeconomics, Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University. 119992, Moscow, Leninskie Gory, 1-46, bld. 3.
Е-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Krylatykh E.N., Lerman Z., Strokov A.S., Uzun V.Ya., Shagaida N.I. Round table “Assessment of structural changes in agriculture: Methodological approaches and estimated results” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2018. V.3. №2. P. 102-126.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2018-3-2-102-126

Annotation

The round table on the “Assessment of structural changes in agriculture: Methodological approaches and estimated results” was held under the leadership of Natalia Ivanovna Shagaida, head of the Center for Agro-Food Policy, and consisted of two main reports and discussion on them. The first report “International methodological approaches to assessing structural changes in agriculture” was presented by Zvi Lerman, professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Uzun Vasily Yakimovich, chief researcher of the Center for Agro-Food Policy, presented the second report “Assessment of structural changes in Russian agriculture: Hypotheses and research methods”. Professor Lerman conducted a comparative analysis of the dynamics of various indicators of structural changes in agriculture of such post-socialist countries as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Professor Uzun was a co-rapporteur of professor Lerman and described structural changes in Russian agriculture paying special attention to the institutional components of agrarian structural changes associated with the interrelation of large and small forms of agricultural production. At the end of the seminar, the discussion focused on the phenomenon of agroholdings as the main factor of diverse and ambiguous agrarian changes in the contemporary Russian agriculture. 

Keywords

Agriculture, post-socialist countries, structural changes, agroholdings, research methods.

About the authors

Krylatykh Elmira N., academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, DSc (Economics), Head of the Department of Organizational Management, Higher School of Corporate Management, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 84.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Lerman Zvi, Sir Henry d’Avigdor Goldsmid Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, Department of Environmental Economics and Management, Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel), P.O. Box 12, Rehovot, 76100, Jerusalem, Israel.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Strokov Anton S., Senior Researcher, Center for Agro-Food Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Uzun Vasily Ya., DSc (Economics), Chief Researcher, Center for Agro-Food Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Shagaida Natalia I., DSc (Economics), Head of the Center for Agro-Food Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
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

Gusakov Timur Yu., 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

Averkieva Kseniya V., 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.