Chayanov A.V. On the Agrarian Question. Translated from: Chayanov A.V. What is the Agrarian Question? Moscow: Joint-stock company “Universal Library”, 1917. 63 p. (League for Agrarian Reforms)
The article focuses on the theoretical and methodological problems encountered by the Russian scholars of cooperative organizations. The authors identify four basic methodological approaches to the cooperation phenomenon in the Russian academic tradition: (1) socio-reformist (or socio-ideological), (2) descriptive-monographic, and (3) economic-theoretical, with the first two being dominant. After a short discussion of the prospects and limitations of the theoretical studies of cooperatives as business organizations by Russian scholars, some of the distinguishing features of Russian cooperation thought are mentioned. Considering the features of the Russian cooperative thought, the authors found it useful to name the most prominent Russian researchers of cooperation who can be included in the ICA list of the world cooperative heritage. The authors pay special attention to the myth of the first Russian cooperative and the Decembrists as the first Russian cooperators. Unfortunately, this myth was officially recognized and determines the birthday of the cooperative movement in Russia. The article briefly discusses the contribution to cooperative thought made by Antsiferov, Bilimovich, Tugan-Baranovsky, Chayanov, and Totomianz. Special attention is paid to the scientific contribution of Emelianoff, almost unknown in modern Russia, and the fate of his ideas. Finally, the authors emphasize the particular importance of describing the transformations and the most important achievements of the Russian and foreign cooperative thought in the curriculum of the discipline “Theory and practice of cooperation”.
Review of the 4-th International Conference of BICAS: Agro-Extractivism Inside and Outside BRICS
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.
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.