Serova E. V., Nikulin A. M. “Today, in the rural development, the main goal is to change the paradigm” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2022. V.7. №3. P. 210-236.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-3-210-236
Annotation
In the interview, the famous economist E. V. Serova talks about the features of the life path of the agrarian scientist and describes the stages of her scientific career — studies at the Faculty of Economics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, work at the Agrarian Institute headed by the Academician A. A. Nikonov and in the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Government in the early 1990s, and later in the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The interview pays particular attention to the research directions at the Institute for Agrarian Studies and to the development of agrarian education at the Higher School of Economics. Based on the ideas of randomness and regularity in the choice of the scientific profession, on the meaning of controllability and spontaneity of social-economic processes in the course of agrarian reforms, Serova identifies the system features of the strategic transformations of agriculture and rural development in Russia and abroad, which are related not only to economy but also to policy and culture. At the same time, Serova emphasizes the importance of social institutions and historical-cultural patterns of the rural residents’ behavior, on which the efficiency of the state measures in market transformations largely depends. The final part of the interview focuses on the prospects for the development of agrarian science and education, in particular on the need for a new paradigm for the development of rural areas in Russia.
Keywords
Economics, agrarian science, agricultural policy, agrarian education, transitional economy, agriculture, rural development.
About the authors
Evgeniya V. Serova, DSc (Economics), Head of the Institute for Agrarian Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Pokrovsky Blvd., 11, Moscow, 109028, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Nikulin Alexander M., PhD (Economics), Heal of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Head of the Chayanov Research Center, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences; Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Fadeeva O. P. Transformation of the rural self-government: A Siberian case // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2022. V.7. №2. P. 122-157.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-2-122-157
Annotation
The permanent transformation of the Russian local self-government comes to its logical end. The trend of management centralization including the ‘upward’ transfer of the powers of local authorities, combined with a decrease in their financial resources, determines the transition to the system of ‘single public authority’ as declared in the new version of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author’s description of these changes’ impact on the organization of everyday rural life and rural development challenges is based on semi-formalized interviews with representatives of local authorities in three regions of Siberia. According to the respondents, the redistribution of power resources in favor of the regional level and the reduction of the local self-government powers threaten the ability to effectively solve local tasks, primarily those of the rural development. The not always justified transfer of urban (corporate) management standards to rural areas inevitably leads to manipulations with statistical reports and data which serve as the basis for decisions on the distribution of budgetary funds. Administrative reforms did not solve but rather exacerbated both the direct financing of the local authorities work and the allocation of resources for rural development projects. The co-financing of initiative projects by the population and local businesses did not deliver the expected results. ‘Digitalization’ of management activities by uniform patterns which ignore local features rather creates an additional burden on local administrators than saves costs or increases decisions’ efficiency. The identified trends determine new significant risks for rural life and development. To reduce such risks to reasonable limits, we need deep, carefully thought-out and well-balanced changes in the rural self-government institutions.
Keywords
Local self-government, municipal government, rural development, reforms, formal and informal institutions, Omsk Region, Altai Region, Tomsk Region.
About the author
Fadeeva Olga P., PhD (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Institute of Economics and Organization of Industrial Production, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 630090 Novosibirsk, Academician Lavrentieva St., 17.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
A house in the village vs. the city: A review of presentations at the XXVI Nikonov Readings
Jan 13 2022Krylatykh E. N., Frolova E. Yu. A house in the village vs. the city: A review of presentations at the XXVI Nikonov Readings // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2021. V.6. №4. P. 200-214.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-4-200-214
Annotation
The coexistence of the city and the village and their joint successful development are reflected in the concept of the “integrated development of urban and rural habitat”. These issues have not been in the focus of scientists, the state and authorities of the Russian Federation for a long time. In Russia, different types of cities and villages coexist on the same territory, and their social-economic interaction is often contradictory. The annual International Scientific-Practical Conference XXVI Nikonov Readings was held on October 25-26, 2021, and focused on the interaction of the city and the village in the contemporary society, the trends, challenges and prospects of this interaction.
Keywords
Deurbanization, dichotomy of the city and the village, rural development, local rural economy.
About the authors
Krylatykh Elmira N., Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, DSc (Economics), Senior Researcher, VIAPI named after A. A. Nikonov — a branch of the All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Economics. 107078, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonevsky Per., 21, bldg. 1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Frolova Elena Yu., PhD (Economic Sciences), Senior Researcher, VIAPI named after A. A. Nikonov — a branch of the All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Economics. 107078, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonevsky Per., 21, bldg. 1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Shagaida N.I., Nikulin A.M. “All generations of my family... have been involved in global agrarian transformations” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2021. V.6. №2. P. 121-153.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-2-121-153
Annotation
In the biographical interview, N.I. Shagaida, DSc (Economics), Head of the Center for Agro-Food Policy of the RANEPA, considers the historical roots of the development of the Soviet agrarian system on the examples of her life experience and her family generations involved in agricultural activities in different regions of the former USSR. The interview focuses on her reflections on the peculiarities of agrarian university and academic organizations and on the role of outstanding scientists as determining the results of research teams and the horizons of agrarian sciences. The article presents the milestones in N.I. Shagaida’s scientific research as coinciding with the key stages in restructuring and reforming the Soviet and post-Soviet agrarian system, especially with the social-economic experiments and transformations under the reform of the Soviet collective-farm and state-farm system in the Nizhny Novgorod Region and other regions of the Russian Federation in the 1990s, and with the creation of rural development institutions in Lodeynopolsky district of the Leningrad Region. N.I. Shagaida emphasizes that for the successful and sustainable agrarian transformations, science and government have to work systematically in pilot regional projects in order to take into account opinions, requests and estimates of the rural population and local rural leaders in the development and adaptation of the daily innovations under the necessary agrarian changes. Thus, the interview questions the strategic goals of the state in the regulation of land relations, food security, agricultural production and the Russian rural development in general.
Keywords
Family, school, science, USSR, perestroika, reform, agricultural enterprises, land, rural development.
About the authors
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.
Nikulin Alexander M., PhD (Economics), Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Head of the Chayanov Research Center, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp, 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Light, water and playgrounds: Local initiatives in the Tver Region as reflecting the territorial challenges
Jul 24 2020Smirnova A.A. Light, water and playgrounds: Local initiatives in the Tver Region as reflecting the territorial challenges // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2020. V.5. №2. P. 151-158.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2020-5-2-151-158
Annotation
The author continues the study of the Local Initiatives Support Program in the Tver Region, which was started in 2016. Based on the rural settlements’ participation in this Program from 2013 to 2018, the author drew a map and made conclusions about the rural population activity. However, according to the field data, rural residents rarely propose projects; therefore, the map presents rather the activity of local administrations. The article focuses on contradictions and difficulties in the implementation of local projects in different municipalities. The survey and expert interviews in the municipalities of the Tver Region showed that the general idea of the Program differs from the results of its regional implementation for participation in the Program was very difficult for many municipalities due to bureaucratic obstacles. The proper application and achievement of the required results including involvement of local communities were as difficult for many administrations as ensuring the project information support which was one of the necessary conditions for getting a regional subsidy. Moreover, there are differences in the directions of the rural development compared to the European LEADER approach: LEADER projects usually do not focus on the infrastructural development and aim primarily at the small business development, preserving the cultural heritage and increasing the tourist attractiveness of rural settlements.
Keywords
Local Initiative Support Program, Tver Region, local initiatives, rural areas, activity of the rural population, rural development, LEADER approach
About the author
Smirnova Alexandra A., PhD (Geography), Assistant Professor, Tver State University. Zhelyabova St., 33, Tver, 170100.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
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.
Schneider S., Nikulin A.M. “In the joint comparative studies, there is much we can learn from each other” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2019. V.4. №3. P. 167-185.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2019-4-3-167-185
Annotation
In the autobiographical interview, Sergio Schneider, a leading Brazilian sociologist in the field of sociology of rural development and professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, reconstructs his scientific career and considers dramatic changes in the life of rural and urban communities of Brazil in the late 20th—early 21st century. In particular, the interview focuses on the development of rural sociology in Brazil, its institutionalization, and research interests of those Brazilian social scientists that determined the development of rural sociology and were the teachers of Sergio Schneider. The development of rural sociology in Brazil is presented as influenced by the German, French, American and English historical-sociological traditions of the study of the agrarian question and interaction of the city and the village. The interview emphasizes the significance of A.V. Chayanov’s intellectual heritage for the worldview of Sergio Schneider and Brazilian rural sociology in general. Sergio Schneider stresses the importance of his personal activist position that has always helped him in the search for interaction between politics and science. In conclusion, he raises the question of the development of comparative Brazil-Russian-Chinese rural-urban studies, in which he currently participates.
Keywords
Brazil, sociology, regions, peasantry, university science, rural development, Marxism, Chayanov
About the authors
Schneider Sergio, DSc (Sociology), Professor of Sociology of Rural Development and Food Studies, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul. Av. Paulo Gama, 110, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 90040-060.
Е-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, Head of the Chayanov Research Center, MSSES. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp, 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Savchenko E.S., Nikulin A.M. “We are all pioneers” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2018. V.3. №2. P. 127-154.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2018-3-2-127-154
Annotation
In the interview to the Russian Peasant Studies, the Governor of the Belgorod Region, Doctor of Economics, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yevgeny Savchenko refers to his life trajectory to consider the history and the present state of the agrarian and social policy in Russia and the Belgorod Region. The interview focuses on the role of the state in developing a responsible agrarian policy that establishes the rules under the market economy and regulates economic and social interaction of large and small forms of agricultural production, the social development of the village, innovative trends in agriculture, and takes care of environmental challenges, problems of local self-government, and training of personnel for agriculture. The governor emphasized the significance of agroholdings in agriculture and in the Russian society in general, identifies possible directions of agroholdings participation in the development of rural areas. In the Belgorod rural programs, particular attention is paid to restoring soil fertility, environmental development of the “Green Capital” project, and barriers to the spread of bioenergy and alternative energy. The governor notes that despite the catastrophic trials in the life of the Russian peasantry in the 20th century, which determined the loss of peasant mentality, in contemporary Russia there is still a need for preservation and development of the culture of rural communities and territories that seamlessly combine rural traditions and innovations, for example, in the form of ancestral estates and homeowners’ associations. In the conclusion, the interview stresses that by the will of fate rural Russia often had to be a pioneer.
Keywords
Rural Russia, rural development, agrarian policy, collective and state farms, agroholdings, vertical integration, ecology, local self-government.
About the authors
Savchenko Evgeny S., DSc (Economics), Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Governor of the Belgorod Region. 308005, Belgorod, Sobornaya pl., 4.
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.
Round table “Organization-production school in the Russian agrarian-economic thought: History and the present time” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2018. V.3. №1. P. 74-98.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2018-3-1-74-98
Annotation
The round table “Organization-production school in the Russian agrarian-economic thought: History and the present state” at the Center for Agrarian Studies of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration gathered historians, sociologists, economists, and culturologists for an interdisciplinary discussion of the relevance of the scientific legacy of A.V. Chayanov and his colleagues not only for agrarian science, but also social sciences and humanities on the eve of the anniversaries of the organization-production school representatives. The participants of the round table focused on the genesis and historical prerequisites of the organization-production school, and on the ideas of the Chayanov’s school as influencing the rural development of Russia and the world in the past and present. The participants of the round table were particularly interested in the recently discovered unique archival papers, such as the responses of A.V. Chayanov and N.P. Makarov to criticism of L.N. Litoshenko and A.A. Manuylov considering the theoretical-methodological foundations of the organization-production school’s idea of peasant economy; and the Chayanov’s texts for the German, French and American journals comprehensively describing features of the Russian and Soviet agrarian-economic science development. The intellectual legacy of A.V. Chayanov and his colleagues A.A. Rybnikov, A.N. Chelintsev, B.D. Brutskus, N.P. Makarov, A.N. Minin, and G.A. Studentsky was considered from the perspective of populist, socialist and liberal traditions in the development of Russian and international peasant studies. The participants of the round table also mentioned theories of other remarkable agrarians that can be called predecessors and followers of the organization-production school.
Keywords
Peasant studies, interdisciplinary studies, organization-production school, theory of peasant economy, populism; socialism, liberalism, rural development.
About the authors
Vinogradsky Valery G., DSc (Philosophy), 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.
Gordon Alexander V., DSc (History), Head of the East and South-East Asia Branch, Institute of Scientific Information in Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Kuznetsov Igor A., PhD (History), Senior Researcher at the School of Public Policy 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.
Kurakin Alexander A., Senior Researcher at the Center for Agrarian Studies of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Higher School of Economics, 101100, Moscow, Myasnitskaya, 20.
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 RAS, Head of the Alexander Nikonov All-Russian Institute of Agrarian Issues and Informatics; 105064, Moscow, Bolshoi Kharitonievski Per., 21–1. In 2007–2016 — Deputy Minister of agriculture.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Savinova Tatyana A., PhD (Economics), Head of Organizational-Methodical and Personnel Work Chair, Russian State Archive of Economy; 119992, Moscow, B. Pirogovskaya St., 17.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Shanin Teodor, Professor, President of the Moscow School of Social and Economics Sciences, chairman of the Advisory Board of the journal “Russian Peasant Studies”. 119571, Moscow, Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82.
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
Babashkin Vladimir V., 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.
Boni Ludmila D., DSc (Economics), Chief Researcher, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 117997, Nakhimovsky Av., 32.
Gordon Alexander V., 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.
Kisiel Roman, 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.
Nikulin Alexander M., 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.
Pugacheva Marina G., 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.
Trotsuk Irina V., 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.
Russian Peasant Studies. Scientific journal
The Russian Peasant Studies is published by the Center for Agrarian studies of the Russian Presidental Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) since 2016. ISSN 2500-1809. Frequency - four issues per year. The Russian registration number is PI FS77-65824 27-May-2016. Open access: All volumes and articles can be downloaded for free in the PDF format. Russian Peasant Studies included to Russian Science Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index Core, List of Journals approved by Russian Hihger Attestation committee (Ministry for Sciende and Education) and Scopus database. The publisher: Delo Publishing House of the RANEPA. Hard copies of the journal can be purchased at the Delo e-store or by subscription in the "Press of Russia" Agency (subscription index - Т81017). Full list of the RANEPA Journlas
- Russian Peasant Studies in UlrichsWeb
We are pleased to announce that since September 2020 the Russian Peasant Studies Journal has been indexed in the UlrichWeb Global Serials Directory.
Subscription
Friends and Partners
Rosa Luxemburg foundation
was a partner of Russian Peasant Studies before it was removed from list of approved foundation in 2022
