Russia’s Agrarian Question in Historical and Contemporary Context

  • Stephen K. Wegren


This book focuses on rural responses to agrarian reform from above, using Russia as a case study. Although the factual material and analysis apply to present-day Russia, the questions this book addresses have a long history in the literature on peasant studies. The “agrarian question” is one of the most enduring issues in peasant studies, although the definition of the agrarian question has been approached differently by various authors, with both the questions and approaches evolving over time.1 Russia’s contemporary “agrarian question” is straightforward: how to achieve agrarian capitalism, which in turn implies that issues such as peasant adaptation, peasant resistance, embedded values, the nature of reform from above, state strength, and rural orientations are of crucial importance. The hope here is that this book contributes to a general understanding of rural actors and their rural economy by shedding new light on rural orientations to marketization and privatization in post-communist societies. In doing so, the larger question of how and why peasant behaviors adapt to their economic environment is addressed.


Farm Manager Land Reform Moral Economy Agrarian Reform Collective Farm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi, “The Agrarian Question, Past and Present,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 25, no. 4 (July 1998), pp. 134–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephen K. Wegren, Agriculture and the State in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998), pp. 63–68.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The World Bank, Food and Agricultural Policy Reforms in the Former USSR: An Agendla for the Transition (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1992).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For an extended critique of the moral economy and its main principles, see Samuel L. Popkin, The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), pp. 5–17.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See William James Booth, “On the Idea of the Moral Economy,” American Political Science Review, vol. 88, no. 3 (September 1994), pp. 653–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 29.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid.; and Forrest D. Colburn, ed., Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1989).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    On adaptation by economic strata in the contemporary Russian countryside, see Stephen K. Wegren, “From Communism to Capitalism: Agrarian Relations in Twentieth Century Russia and Beyond,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 31, nos. 3–4 (April–July 2004), pp. 363–99;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. and Stephen K. Wegren, “Rural Adaptation in Russia: Who Responds and How Do We Measure It?” Journal of Agrarian Change, vol. 4, no. 4 (October 2004), pp. 553–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    See e.g., Esther Kingston-Mann, “Peasant Communes and Economic Innovation: A Preliminary Inquiry,” in Esther Kingston-Mann and Timothy Mixter, eds., Peasant Economy Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800–1921 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp. 30–34;Google Scholar
  13. Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia: From the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (New York: Atheneum, 1967), chap. 19;Google Scholar
  14. and V. I. Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956), esp. chaps. III and IV.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    Robert H. Bates, Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    Carol Scott Leonard, “Rational Resistance to Land Privatization: The Response of Rural Producers to Agrarian Reforms in Pre- and Post-Soviet Russia,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, vol. 41, no. 8 (November–December 2000), pp. 605–20.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    Theodore W. Schultz, Transforming Traditional Agriculture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 28.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Muhammad Yunus, “The Grameen Bank,” in Robert M. Jackson, ed., Global Issues 2000/01 (Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 2000), pp. 188–92.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    For differences between the Yeltsin and Putin periods, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Russian Agrarian Policy Under Putin,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, vol. 43, no. 1 (January–February 2002), pp. 26–40.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Stephen K. Wegren, “Putin and Agriculture,” in Dale R. Herspring, ed., Putin’s Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Unknown, 2nd. edn (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004).Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    See Eric R. Wolf, Peasants (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966), chap. 2.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    Most historians and anthropologists agree that significant ruptures in peasant cultural values occur when peasants migrate from the countryside. In addition, another source of cultural change is when village inhabitants depart to the city to work for part of the year, returning during the harvest season. In Russia, these so-called otkhodniki (seasonal migrants) carried with them urban values that over time led to adjustments in peasant culture. See William J. Chase, Workers, Society and the Soviet State: Labor and Life in Moscow 1918–1929 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), esp. pp. 87–89. There were, of course, instances when peasant culture resisted outside influence, e.g., during the “going to the people” (Narodniki) movement in Russia during the 1860s and 1870s, when intellectuals and populists tried to influence peasant culture.Google Scholar
  23. See Abbott Gleason, Young Russia: The Genesis of Russian Radicalism in the 1860s (New York: The Viking Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terence Emmons, “The Peasant and the Emancipation,” in Wayne S. Vucinich, ed., The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968), p. 51.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Franco Venturi, Roots of Revolution: A History of Populist and Socialist Movements in Nineteenth Century Russia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 65. Parentheses in original.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    For a contrary view of the reforms, their impact, and how peasants adapted during these reforms, see David A. J. Macey, “Reflections on Peasant Adaptation in Rural Russia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: The Stolypin Agrarian Reforms,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 31, nos. 3–4 (April–July 2004), pp. 400–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 31.
    There is a large literature on the Stolypin reforms, see e.g., Geroid Tanquary Robinson, Rural Russia under the Old Regime (New York: MacMillan Co, 1932), chaps. 9 and 10;Google Scholar
  28. Lazar Volin, A Century of Russian Agriculture: From Alexander II to Khrushchev (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), chap. 5;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. and David A. J. Macey, “The Peasant Commune and the Stolypin Reforms: Peasant Attitudes, 1906–1914,” in Roger Bartlett, ed., Land Commune and Peasant Community in Russia: Communal Forms in Imperial and Early Soviet Society (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), pp. 219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 32.
    The Peasant Bank was created in 1882 and sold land to peasants from its own land fund, provided loans for purchasing private land, and granted mortgages. For additional information on the Peasant Land Bank, see Dorothy Atkinson, The End of the Russian Land Commune, 1905–1930 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1983), pp. 67–74.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    George Yaney, The Urge to Mobilize: Agrarian Reform in Russia, 1861–1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1982), p. 278.Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    See Orlando Figes, Peasant Russia, Civil War: The Volga Countryside in Revolution (1917–1921) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), chaps. 2 and 3.Google Scholar
  33. 37.
    These are explained in John L. H. Keep, The Russian Revolution: A Study in Mass Mobilization (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1976), pp. 187–88.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    Leon Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution, vol. 1 (New York: Monad Press, 1980), p. 392.Google Scholar
  35. 45.
    Alec Nove, An Economic History of the USSR (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), p. 110; and Volin, A Century of Russian Agriculture, pp. 176–77.Google Scholar
  36. 49.
    Volin, A Century of Russian Agriculture, pp. 184–87; and see Edward Hallett Carr, The Interregnum, 1923–1924 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1954), pp. 3–149.Google Scholar
  37. 58.
    Lynne Viola, Peasant Rebels under Stalin: Collectivization and the Culture of Peasant Resistance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 206–210.Google Scholar
  38. 59.
    The classic work based on archival documents is Merle Fainsod, Smolensk under Soviet Rule (New York: Vintage Books, 1958), chap. 12.Google Scholar
  39. 60.
    The literature on collectivization is quite large. Some of the best-known and notable monographs include Moshe Lewin, Russian Peasants and Soviet Power: A Study of Collectivization (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1968);Google Scholar
  40. R. W. Davies, The Socialist Offensive: The Collectivisation of Soviet Agriculture, 1929–1930 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980);Google Scholar
  41. Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986);Google Scholar
  42. Sheila Fitzpatrick, Stalin’s Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village After Collectivization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); and Viola, Peasant Rebels under Stalin.Google Scholar
  43. 61.
    Tracy McDonald, “A Peasant Rebellion in Stalin’s Russia: The Pitelinskii Uprising, Riazan, 1930,” in Lynne Viola, ed., Contending with Stalinism: Soviet Power and Popular Resistance in the 1930s (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), pp. 102, 105.Google Scholar
  44. 64.
    Mark B. Tauger, “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization 1930–1939: Resistance and Adaptation,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 31, nos. 3–4 (April–July 2004), pp. 427–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 65.
    Karen Brooks, et al., Agricultural Reform in Russia: A View from the Farm Level, World Bank Discussion Papers no. 327 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1996), p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 66.
    Calculated from Narodnoe khoziaistvo Rossiiskoi Federatsii. 1992 (Moscow: Goskomstat, 1992), p. 405. Farms also had to contribute to raion land funds for private farming, and to allocate land to be used for household production. These land uses added to the “losses” experienced by the farm.Google Scholar
  47. 71.
    David J. O’Brien, Stephen K. Wegren, and Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, “Contemporary Rural Responses to Reform from Above,” The Russian Review, vol. 63, no. 2 (April 2004), pp. 256–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 73.
    Jerry F. Hough, The Logic of Economic Reform in Russia (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2001), pp. 31, 57.Google Scholar
  49. 74.
    On Russian liberals’ acceptance of rural changes, see E. V. Serova, “The Impact of Privatization and Farm Restructuring on Russian Agriculture,” in Institute for Economy in Transition, Farm Profitability, Sustainability and Restructuring in Russia (Moscow: Agrifood Economy, 1999), pp. 4–35; and see “Outcomes in Institutional Changes in Russian Agriculture,” Farm Profitability, pp. 152–55.Google Scholar
  50. 75.
    Andrew Barnes, “What’s the Difference? Industrial Privatization and Agricultural Land Reform in Russia, 1990–1996,” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 50, no. 5 (1998), p. 844. Emphasis in original.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 76.
    See e.g., Leonard, “Rational Resistance to Land Privatization”; and Don Van Atta, ed., The Farmer Threat: The Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in Post-Soviet Russia (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  52. 77.
    Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 2.Google Scholar
  53. 78.
    Gabriel A. Almond, Comparative Politics: A Theoretical Framework, 3rd ed. (New York: Longman, 2001), chap. 1.Google Scholar
  54. 79.
    “Interest groups” in the USSR is a term coined by Gordon H. Skilling and Franklyn Griffiths, eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).Google Scholar
  55. 81.
    Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 375.Google Scholar
  56. 82.
    Eric R. Wolf, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1969), chap. 1.Google Scholar
  57. 83.
    Ibid, chap. 3. For a somewhat different interpretation of peasant responses and the reasons for those responses to CCP mobilization, see John Dunn, Modern Revolutions: An Introduction to the Analysis of a Political Phenomenon, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), chap. 3;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. and Lucien Bianco, Peasants Without the Party: Grass-roots Movements in Twentieth-Century China (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001), esp. chap. 11.Google Scholar
  59. 84.
    Again, the literature is quite large. For representative examples, see Robert J. Alexander, Agrarian Reform in Latin America (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974);Google Scholar
  60. William C. Thiesenhusen, ed., Searching for Agrarian Reform in Latin America (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989);Google Scholar
  61. and Peter Dorner, Latin American Land Reforms in Theory and Practice: A Retrospective Analysis (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  62. 86.
    See Stephen K. Wegren, ed., Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (London: Routledge, 1998);Google Scholar
  63. and F. M. Swinnen, Allan Buckwell, and Erik Mathijs, eds., Agricultural Privatization, Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997).Google Scholar
  64. 87.
    See Zvi Lerman, Csaba Csaki, and Gershon Feder, Land Policies and Evolving Farm Structures in Transition Countries, Policy Research Working Paper no. 2794 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2002), chap. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 91.
    See James W. Wilkie, Measuring Land Reform: Supplement to the Statistical Abstract of Latin America (Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center, 1974), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  66. 92.
    See Grigory Ioffe and Tatyana Nefedova, Continuity and Change in Rural Russia: A Geographical Perspective (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  67. 94.
    See Mykola Pugachov with Don Van Atta, “Reorganization of Agricultural Enterprises in Ukraine in 2000: A Research Note,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, vol. 41, no. 7 (October 2000), pp. 527–40;Google Scholar
  68. and Stephen K. Wegren, The Land Question in Ukraine and Russia, Donald W. Treadgold Papers no. 35 (Seattle: University of Washington, 2002).Google Scholar
  69. 95.
    Csaba Csaki, “The Status of Agricultural Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union,” in Peter Tillack and Eberhard Schulze, eds., Land Ownership, Land Markets and their Influence on the Efficiency of Agricultural Production in Central and Eastern Europe (Wissenchaftsverlag Van Kiel, Germany: Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, 2000), p. 21. In the former Soviet Union, one could also include Armenia and Azerbaijan as states that have experienced rapid transition away from state ownership and a communist-type of agricultural system.Google Scholar
  70. 97.
    See Tamas Fricz, “Democratization, the Party System, and the Electorate in Hungary,” in Zsuzsa Kormendy, ed., Transition with Contradictions: The Case of Hungary 1990–1998 (Budapest: Kairosz Publishing Co., 1999), pp. 93–124.Google Scholar
  71. 106.
    Nancy J. Cochrane, “Farm Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe,” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review, vol. 21, nos. 2–3 (1994), p. 325.Google Scholar
  72. 110.
    For more detail on the legislative basis of land reform in Moldova, see Zvi Lerman, Csaba Csaki, and Victor Moroz, Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Moldova: Progress and Prospects, World Bank Discussion Paper no. 398 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1998), pp. 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 116.
    Csaba Csaki and Zvi Lerman, “Moldova: A Real Breakthrough?” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 49, no. 1 (January–February 2002), p. 44.Google Scholar
  74. 121.
    Eric Wolf, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1969);Google Scholar
  75. Joel S. Migdal, Peasants, Politics, and Revolution: Pressures Toward Political and Social Change in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974);Google Scholar
  76. Jeffrey Paige, Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World (New York: Free Press, 1975); Cynthia McClintock, “Why Peasants Rebel: The Case of Peru’s Sendero Luminoso,” World Politics, vol. 37, no. 1 (October 1984); and Gary Hawes, “Theories of Peasant Revolution: A Critique and Contribution from the Philippines,” World Politics, vol. 42, no. 2 (January 1990).Google Scholar
  77. 122.
    Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 123.
    Eric R. Wolf, “Peasant Rebellion and Revolution,” in Jack A. Goldstone, ed., Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986), p. 174.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen K. Wegren 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen K. Wegren

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations