Agrarian Reform in Russia: The Road from Serfdom1
This book examines the history of reforms and major state interventions affecting Russian agriculture: the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the Stolypin reforms, the New Economic Policy (NEP), the collectivization, the Khrushchev reforms, and finally the farm enterprise privatization in the early 1990s. It shows a pattern emerging from a political imperative in imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet regimes, and it describes how these reforms were justified in the name of the national interest during severe crises – rapid inflation, military defeat, mass strikes, rural unrest, and/or political turmoil. It looks at the consequences of adversity in the economic environment for rural behavior after reform and at longrun trends. It has chapters on property rights, rural organization, and technological change. It provides a new database for measuring agricultural productivity from 1861 to 1913 and updates these estimates to the present. This book is a study of the policies aimed at reorganizing rural production and of their effectiveness in transforming institutions.
There co-exist several problems when measuring the level of competitiveness. The major one is that it represents an integral indicator of the enterprise performance. The indicator has something in common with the notion of the utility function used in economics. The latter one stamps a numerical equivalent of the utility associated by an individual from the consumption (or possession) of certain goods. Nevertheless, it stays an implicit (non-observable) function.
This chapter examines the rise of applied entomology in the nineteenth-century Russian empire from the time when certain branches of the Russian civil service began collecting field data on insect pests till the moment when the first professional positions for agricultural entomologists were established. The central theme of our research is the interaction between a small group of trained naturalists, the Russian state administration, and a broader network of provincial observers that was instrumental for the emergence of a discipline whose success ultimately depended on a stable flow of mass-produced field data. The paper explores the complex relations between the state and civil society, and between the political and academic center of St. Petersburg and regional initiatives that shaped the early history of applied entomology in Russia.
This book explores events in Georgia in the years following Stalin’s death in March 1953, especially the demonstrations of March 1956 and their brutal suppression, in order to illuminate the tensions in Georgia between veneration of the memory of Stalin, a Georgian, together with the associated respect for the Soviet system that he had created, and growing nationalism. The book considers how not just Stalin but also his wider circle of Georgians were at the heart of the Soviet system, outlines how greatly Stalin was revered in Georgia, and charts the rise of Khrushchev and his denunciation of Stalin. It goes on to examine the different strands of the rising Georgian nationalist movements, discusses the repressive measures taken against demonstrators, and concludes by showing how the repressions transformed a situation where Georgian nationalism, the honouring of Stalin’s memory and the Soviet system were all aligned together into a situation where an increasingly assertive nationalist movement was firmly at odds with the Soviet Union.
This work deals with key aspects of the Stalin’s policy in relation to the village in the Ural in the 1930s. Based on a large documentary material, the author examines in detail both social and property status of the ‘dekulakized peasants’ of the Ural, which, by 1932, had become the largest area of labor settlements. Special attention is paid to the methodological issues of the study, in particular, to the justification of the representativeness concerning the selection of households prepared, its further evolution in the course of the work, as well as laying special emphasis on the multidimensional typology of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants.
Three e-prosopographical databases were created – ‘Dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural (1930-1934)’ based on 34 parameters for 1461 ‘dekulakized’ families; ‘Labor settlers in the Southern Ural (1930-1934)’ based on 20 parameters for 1200 families of the labor settlers; and ‘Dekulakized’ peasants of the Orenburg region (1930-1934)’ based on 34 parameters for 210 families of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants. Databases in question have become a tool for analysis of the generalized characteristics of the ‘dekulakized’ households and the subsequent reconstruction of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural and the Orenburg region.
Causes and reasons for ‘dekulakization’ were analyzed. Thus, according to the documents, the policy of the country administration had been reciprocated neither by peasants, who could not understand why they were taken the last piece of bread at hungry times and denied the opportunity to raise the economy of the households, nor by the local leaders, who had periodically ‘perverted’ the party line, which turned out to be not so direct as it was seen from the Center.
As in the whole throughout the country, in the Southern Ural, the ‘dekulakization’ campaign, reinforced by the famine of 1932-1933, has affected not only the rich peasant families (they obviously would not be enough to perform ‘the control figures’), but wealthy medium peasant households, as well, that, on the one hand, has neutralized property differentiation of the peasantry, preparing the appropriate soil for the functioning of the collective farms, and on the other hand, has significantly slowed down the rate of growth of the agricultural production, destroying entrepreneurial initiative, which became stronger during the NEP, and significantly shaking the trust of the peasants to the country administration.
For eight decades of the study of various aspects of the history of the Soviet ‘dekulakization’, an extensive and diverse literature was developed, hundreds of studies were written, among which the works of the following authors are of particular note: V. P. Danilov, N. A. Ivnitskiy, Y.A. Moshkov, N.L. Rogalina, T.I. Slavko, N.Y. Gushchin, V.V. Kondrashin, etc. So much academic interest in the topic can be explained very simply: by 1926, 73% of the USSR population was presented by peasants, and the policy, pursued by the government, could not have been affected such huge population in the most devastating way, especially given the traditionally strong relationship between peasant families.
Historiography of the ‘dekulakization’ issue at the present stage is concentrated towards the revision of the estimates based on multiple vectors, including both identification of social groups and layers, on which repressions were directed, and personification of ‘dekulakization’ in the fate of certain families.
In the present work, we focused on social and economic aspects of collectivization and ‘dekulakization’ of the peasantry of the Ural, as well as reconstruction of the social portrait of the ‘dekulakized’ peasants of the Southern Ural and the Orenburg region.
The book is designed both for specialists in economic and social history of the USSR, and a wide readership interested in the Stalin’s collectivization and ‘dekulakization’ in the 1930s.
Кредитный договор; субъект кредитной сделки; объект кредитной сделки; экономические условия; правовая основа; обеспечение кредита; взаимная заинтересованность; защита от риска; санкции.
The article, based on archives materials, analyzes a reaction of the victims of repressive policy (peasants and their home-folks) in Perm Region to the beginning of «dekulakisation» and expulsion, also discovers the motives of peasants' complaints to the authorities.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.