Yanbykh R. G., Lerman Z. The future of agricultural cooperatives in Russia: Does theory matter? // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №4. P. 6-20.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-4-6-20

Annotation

The article aims at identifying theoretical and practical reasons for the failure of the agricultural cooperation development in Russia. Authors suggest that rural cooperatives in Russia do not develop due to the general features of the formation of social capital in the Russian countryside, the lack of necessary institutional conditions, and the wrong idea that cooperatives based on the classical principles of cooperation can operate successfully in the contemporary economy and society. The first theoretical barrier to cooperation is that in the contemporary high-technology agriculture, hybrid structures (cooperatives) are less efficient than the hierarchical one used by agroholdings. The second theoretical barrier is the inconsistency of seven classical principles of cooperation formulated at the time of Raiffeisen (i.e. outdated) with today’s economic realities and their transformations. The third practical barrier is the rapid degradation of rural areas and the low level of trust and interaction between members of agricultural cooperatives, which is why there are no trends of the bottom-up development of cooperation. The authors conclude that a high level of social capital is the necessary condition for cooperation: at the formation stage, this level is high due to interpersonal relationships developed from the informal social interactions of its members and a high level of trust among members and between members and management, but cooperatives start to lose their social capital as they enlarge — the sense of community, trust and mutual assistance disappears, the atmosphere becomes more business-oriented.

Keywords

Cooperation, agricultural cooperatives, classical principles of cooperation, agroholdings, social capital, trust, rural development, rural areas.

About the authors

Renata G. Yanbykh, DSc (Economics), Institute for Agrarian Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Pokrovsky Blvr., 11, Moscow, 109028, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Zvi Lerman, PhD (Finance), Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). 76100, Israel, Rehovot, 12.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Savinova T. A. 1918 in the life of A. V. Chayanov: Cooperation, writing and anarchism // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2022. V.7. №2. P. 38-46.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-2-38-46

Annotation

The article considers the life and work of the great Russian and Soviet economist A. V. Chayanov in the watershed year of 1918. The article introduces into the scientific circulation a number of documents from the funds of the Russian State Archive of Economics and of the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. The author describes the work of Chayanov in the bodies of cooperation — cooperative publishing house, Council of the Central Association of Flax Growers, and Committee for the Protection of Art Treasures which was established at his suggestion by the decision of the cooperative congress. The author emphasizes the role of cooperation in the survival of the scientific and creative intelligentsia under the hunger, devastation and chaos after the outbreak of the Civil War. Among the few surviving documents of the Council of All-Russian Cooperative Congresses, the most interesting are the meetings of the publishing commission, which prove that in 1918, Chayanov was one of the most published authors. The Council of the Central Association of Flax Growers helped Chayanov to survive, although its position as a key member of the All-Russian Cooperative Congresses was greatly shaken. The article describes the work of Chayanov in the Committee for the Protection of Art Treasures. The author considers the creation, criticism and role in Chayanov’s biography of his two fiction works — History of Miusskaya Square (to the history of the University named after A. L. Shanyavsky) and History of a Barber’s Doll, or the Last Love of the Moscow Architect M. — and the ideology of Chayanov at the end of 1918, which helps to understand his psychological condition and the evolution of his worldview when searching for his place in the life of new Russia.

Keywords

A. V. Chayanov, cooperation, publishing committee, writing, anarchism.

About the author

Tatyana A. Savinova, PhD (Economics), Head of the Department of the Russian State Archive of Economics, Researcher, Chayanov Research Center, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. 119435, Moscow, Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St., 17.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Chayanov A.V. What will our national economy be like after the war? (Article of A.V. Chayanov) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2021. V.6. №1. P. 6-12.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-1-6-12

Annotation

This article by A.V. Chayanov was published in the edition of the Moscow Union of Consumer Societies “Cooperative Rural Calendar for 1918” (Moscow, 1917, pp. 42–44). The article is of interest mainly as a short, impressive, journalistic, rapid forecast of the possible evolutionary directions of the Russian economy and society in the short-term and mid-term national-economic perspective. This is a polemical political-economic article due to Chayanov’s reflections on the interpretation of such concepts as ‘state socialism’ and ‘socialism’ in general, on the meaning of ‘public reason’ in the ongoing and future reforms, and also due to Chayanov’s forecasts of the Russian economic development as determined by such multidirectional economic, political and social factors as the state debt that had multiplied during the war, the weakening impact of inflation on the economy, and the after-war tasks of transferring the economy to a peaceful track. In his positive forecasts, Chayanov put special hopes on the awakening social and productive forces of the Russian peasantry. Chayanov believed that the growth of culture, labor productivity and cooperation among the peasantry would allow to find a way out of the impasse of the 1917 economic devastation. Although, as the later historical events showed, Chayanov’s belief in ‘public reason’ and the corresponding humanistic socialist prospects for Russia did not come true, he systematically identified the key dominants of both revolutionary and evolutionary transformations of the huge peasant country under the great social-political upheavals of the 20th century. 

Keywords

Agrarian reform, A.V. Chayanov, state socialism, cooperation, peasantry, public reason, World War I, revolution.

About the authors

Alexander V. Chayanov
Vladislav O. Afanasenkov, Researcher, Chayanov Research Center, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences; Junior Researcher, Research Laboratory of Economic and Social History, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Bozhkov O.B., Trotsuk I.V. Post-Soviet farmers’ international in the agriculture of the North-West Region // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2020. V.5. №4. P. 162-179.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2020-5-4-162-179

Annotation

The article presents the life trajectories of representatives of those national groups that became active rural entrepreneurs in the North-West Region of Russia at different times. Unfortunately, we have not yet considered the national-ethnic aspect of rural entrepreneurship in our research projects (see, e.g.: Bozhkov, 2019; Bozhkov, Ignatova, 2015; 2017; Bozhkov, Trotsuk, 2018; Ignatova, 2016). The article focuses on various problems that the migrants from different former republics of the Soviet Union face in the zones of risky Russian agriculture. The empirical basis of the article is the data (transcripts of interviews and field observations) of sociological expeditions supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in 2005–2008 and 2018–2019. The four ‘cases’ confirm the hypothesis that, regardless of the migration-generational trajectory and activities in the Russian countryside, all entrepreneurs face the same problems (labor shortage, abandoned production facilities and dilapidated social infrastructure, expensive loans and harsh tax and administrative pressure ‘from above’—despite the declarative-nominal support of the state, the general atmosphere of social distrust, the lack of traditions and skills of real cooperation, and so on). There is some specificity of such problems; however, it is determined not by the national-ethnic factor, but rather by the reaction of the traditional rural community to ‘outsiders’ who bring their own rules and disrupt the routine of local life (with its unemployment, impoverishment, desolation and alcoholism).

Keywords

migration, nationality, rural entrepreneurs, northern Non-Black-Earth Region, local communities, cooperation, government support

About the authors

Oleg B. Bozhkov , Senior Researcher, Sociological Institute — a branch of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 7th Krasnoarmeyskaya St., 25/14, Saint Petersburg, 190005.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
Irina V. Trotsuk., DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University; Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82, Moscow, Russia, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Brutskus B.D. Agricultural Economy: National-Economic Foundations. Chapter 14. General Principles of Agricultural Cooperation // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2026. V.11. №1. P. 6-24.

EDN: DORWDB

Annotation

This is an English translation of Chapter 14 “General Principles of Agricultural Cooperation” from the textbook published in Russian by the agricultural economist B. D. Brutskus in Germany in 1923. Boris Davidovich Brutskus (1874–1938), a liberal economist, always emphasized the importance of the multi-structured national economy in which various social institutions can have goals and values   different from those of entrepreneurial enterprises of the capitalist market economy. Brutskus recognized the specificity of agriculture compared to other economic sectors, in particular the different organization of the peasant economy and the capitalist enterprise. Thus, he was a like-minded colleague of scholars from Alexander Vasilyevich Chayanov’s organization-production school. The Soviet government declared Brutskus a reactionary bourgeois economist and expelled him from the USSR in 1922 for his profound and witty critique of the political-economic foundations of the socialist economy.
While in exile, Brutskus presented his agrarian-economic views as a textbook on agricultural economy. In both Tsarist Russia and Soviet Russia of the 1920s as a primarily agrarian country, such textbooks were very popular. Brutskus’s textbook had two distinctive features: first, since the author was an agronomist by basic education, he placed a strong emphasis on agricultural biological processes in relation to agrarian economy; second, two final chapters of the textbook focused on agricultural cooperation, which was also unusual for textbooks that certainly included information about cooperation, but not in such large volumes and not in such a structured manner. 
Brutskus’s textbook attracted attention not only in the Russian emigrant community, but also in Soviet Russia, where it was reprinted and widely used in universities until the start of collectivization in 1929, despite the fact that the author was in exile and had been declared an enemy of Soviet power. However, in the USSR the textbook was published without two last chapters on cooperation due to Soviet censorship. Brutskus commented on this ban in the article on cooperative ideology published in the German newspaper in Russian: “Recently, the Soviet government showed minimal liberality towards my academic work. After 15 months of censorship, my course on agricultural economy was cleared for publication4... But in one respect censors showed extreme intolerance: two chapters on agricultural cooperation were cut from the first page to the last. Although there is nothing specifically political in these chapters. However, the Bolshevik censorship could not accept my description of cooperation as a unique principle of economic construction, different from socialism”5. According to Brutskus, cooperative social institutions — a special economic phenomenon, a unique third force, different from institutions of both capitalist and state-controlled, socialist economies; however, cooperation always faces the risk of being incorporated and absorbed by both market entrepreneurship and state bureaucracy. The past hundred years seem to have convincingly confirmed many of Brutskus’s ideas of cooperation and his concerns about the distorting influence of both capitalism and socialism on cooperation. We publish this chapter from Brutskus’s book in English as a still-relevant example of the classic legacy of Chayanov’s school from its golden age.

Keywords

Cooperation, agrarian policy, market, peasantry, capitalism, socialism.  

About the authors

Boris D. Brutskus

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

Irina V. Trotsuk (translator), DSc (Sociology), Senior 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.