DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-142-166
The article considers various approaches to the concept “civil society” (designed to serve the state, and therefore created on state initiative and with its support; a classical type of opposition to the government and business; Soviet-type organizations, a part of official and formal structures of the state and society), and discusses the possibilities to apply this concept to contemporary Russia. Although some scientists raise the question of whether or not there is a civil society in Russia, the author is interested in finding answers to other questions: what kind of civil society exists in Russia? Is there a rural civil society? If the answer to the last question is positive, then what are the in dicators of civil society — geography, target audience, registered social activity? The article considers examples of registered and unregistered public, non-profit organizations of different levels (federal level, e. g. ACCOR, and local level — e. g. women’s, sports and other clubs, veterans’ councils, action groups). The author discusses the criteria by which public organizations and initiative groups can be attributed to the rural civil society, and identifies two types of rural social organizations — the first possess political influence, the second focus on solving local problems by the local community members.
Civil society, state, civil participation, Russian society, rural communities, local initiatives, non-profit and non-governmental organizations.
Kopoteva Inna V., PhD (Geography), Senior Researcher at the Center for Agrarian Studies of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 82/5, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russian Federation 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-122-141
The author believes that rural Russia is much more unequal today than during the Soviet period in terms of income and wealth (land). The article describes three periods in the XX century, when rural Russia experienced a significant upheaval in the economic interaction between peasants and their means of production: the Stolypin reform of 1906–1911, the Stalin’s collectivization, and the ending of the Soviet system in the early 1990s. The author analyzes the effects of the market revolution that came with the end of Soviet rule and facilitated the growth of village inequality, and focuses on intra-village relations between different economic strata. The paper has several goals: to quantify the growth in household inequality; to examine intra-village relationships between “rich” and “poor” households; to explore whether high-income households feel communality with the village community. To analyze the level of village discord, the author uses survey data from a geographically diverse sample of 900 rural households. The article argues that the post-socialist moral economy is not based upon state regulated income levels or wealth holdings—rather on opportunity and economic freedom bounded mainly by the energy, willpower, capabilities and adaptability of household members.
Village stability, household inequality, village conflict, high- and low-income households, (post-socialist) moral economy, means of production.
Wegren Stephen, Professor of Political Science at the Southern Methodist University. Dallas, Texas, 75275, USA. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.