Why Peasants Adapt: Origins of Behavioral Change Under Yeltsin

  • Stephen K. Wegren

Abstract

Why do peasants adapt and change their behavior? How do they react to external stimuli? An understanding of adaptation in rural orientations and behavior requires an examination of the factors that affect reform in general and the rural sector in particular. The analysis in this chapter sets the stage for understanding adaptive behavior by rural actors, a topic that is examined in subsequent chapters.

Keywords

Corn Europe Income Diesel Expense 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See Stephen K. Wegren, Agriculture and the State in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburah Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Stephen K. Wegren, “Civil Society in Rural Russia,” in Alfred Evans and Laura Henry, eds., Civil Society in Russia: Continuity and Change (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2005).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See Erik P. Hoffman, “Dynamics of State-Society Relations in Post-Soviet Russia,” in Harry Eckstein, Frederic J. Fleron, Jr., Erik P. Hoffman, and William M. Reisinger, Can Democracy Take Root in Post-Soviet Russia? (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), pp. 69–104;Google Scholar
  4. and Mikhail Krasnov, “The Rule of Law,” in Michael McFaul, Nikolai Petrov, and Andrei Ryabov, Between Dictatorship and Democracy: Russian Post-Communist Political Reform (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2004), pp. 195–212.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    For a discussion of adaptation versus survival strategies, see David J. O’Brien, Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, and Larry D. Dershem, Household Capital and the Agrarian Problem in Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000);Google Scholar
  6. David J. O’Brien and Stephen K. Wegren, eds., Rural Reform in Post-Soviet Russia (Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002);Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 5.
    Eugenia Serova, “Reform and Economic Behavior in Russian Agriculture,” in L. Alexander Norsworthy, ed., Russian Views of the Transition in the Rural Sector: Structures, Policy Outcomes, and Adaptive Responses (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2000), p. 103.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    As Popkin points out, these considerations take on short-term and long-term dimensions. Samuel L. Popkin, The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    This goes to the root question of peasants’ ability to innovate and change. The seminal argument has been made by Theodore Schultz, who argues that given the correct incentives and a sufficient amount of educational and technical assistance, “traditional” agriculture (and its peasants) can be transformed into a productive and efficient sector in society. Theodore W. Schultz, Transforming Traditional Agriculture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).Google Scholar
  11. Research on this question, in the Russian context, may be found in 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). Some innovations were more successful than others, e.g., in some provinces in European Russia changes were made from a three-field system to a four-field system, with two of the fields used for clover to feed livestock. In addition, there was unmistakable progress in the area of land improvement, as lands were drained, irrigated, and cleared. In other instances, fertilizer use was inhibited by disincentives imposed by landlords. The general conclusion is that peasant innovations “were carried out within a general context of geographic and political constraints.”Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    For two contrasting approaches on this question, see Popkin, The Rational Peasant; and James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  13. For an excellent contribution to this debate, see Robert H. Bates, “Lessons from History, or the Perfidy of English Exceptionalism and the Significance of Historical France,” World Politics, vol. 40, no. 4 (July 1988), pp. 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 11.
    Michael Lipton, Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    See e.g., Robert H. Bates, Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981);Google Scholar
  16. Bates, Essays on the Political Economy of Rural Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yahya M. Sadowski, Political Vegetables? (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1991); Special issue “Beyond Urban Bias,” Journal of Development Studies, vol. 29, no. 4 (July 1993);Google Scholar
  18. and William C. Thiesenhusen, Broken Promises: Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  19. The eloquence of the model did not make it immune to attack. For a critique of Lipton and the urban bias approach, see T. J. Byres, “Of Neo-Populist Pipe-Dreams: Daedalus in the Third World and the Myth of Urban Bias,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 6, no. 2 (January 1979), pp. 210–44. Generally, however, the model was attractive as a number of scholars applied its basic ideas to different regions and individual countries.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 13.
    For an application and critique of state urban bias in contemporary Russia, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Democratization and Urban Bias in Postcommunist Russia,” Comparative Politics, vol. 34, no. 4 (July 2002), pp. 457–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 14.
    See e.g., Bertram Silverman and Murray Yanowitch, New Rich, New Poor, New Russia: Winners and Losers on the Russian Road to Capitalism (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2000).Google Scholar
  22. 15.
    The concept of “state withdrawal” was first presented in Stephen K. Wegren, “State Withdrawal and the Impact of Marketization on Rural Russia,” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 28, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 16.
    Cited in Marshall I. Goldman, The Piratization of Russia: Russian Reform Goes Awry (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 17.
    Increases in monetary flows to agriculture during the 1960s and 1970s, rural investments, farm subsidies and soft loans represented state attempts to partially compensate collective farms for disadvantageous purchase prices, increased labor, and production costs as a result of the mechanization of agriculture. See Alec Nove, An Economic History of the USSR 1917–1991, 3rd ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), pp. 378–82.Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    Mikhail Gorbachev, Memoirs (New York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 118–20.Google Scholar
  26. 20.
    See V. S. Pavlov, Radikal’naia reforma tsenoobrazovaniia (Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 1988), pp. 71–72;Google Scholar
  27. and Valentin Pavlov, Overhauling the Entire System of Prices (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency, 1987).Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    See Peter Reddaway and Dmitri Glinski, The Tragedy of Russia’s Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy (Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace, 2001), pp. 247–54.Google Scholar
  29. 23.
    Boris Yeltsin, Midnight Diaries (New York: Public Affairs, 2000), p. 105.Google Scholar
  30. 25.
    For example, A Reddaway and A Glinski, The Tragedy of Russia’s Reforms; and Jerry F. Hough, The Logic of Economic Reform in Russia (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2001).Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    Egor Gaidar, Dni porazheniy i pobed (Moscow: Vagrius, 1997), p. 154.Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    See Lynn Nelson and Irian Kuzes, Radical Reform in Yeltsin’s Russia: Political, Economic, and Social Dimensions (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1995);Google Scholar
  33. Steven D. Boilard, Russia at the Twenty-First Century: Politics and Social Change in the Post-Soviet Era (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1998), chap. 4. Contrary to statistical data and widespread consensus by Russian and foreign analysts, Anders Aslund denies that living standards deteriorated or even that Russia experienced production declines. See Anders Aslund, “Russia,” Foreign Policy, no. 125 (July–August 2001), pp. 20–25.Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    In English, see Jerry F. Hough, Evelyn Davidheiser, and Susan Lehmann, The Presidential Election of 1996 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1996). For Russian sources, see Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniia: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny, which is a journal published by the Russian Center for Public Opinion six times a year.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Paul R. Gregory and Robert C. Stuart, Soviet Economic Structure and Performance, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1986), pp. 279–82.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    See Stephen K. Wegren, Russia’s Food Policies and Globalization (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), chap. 3.Google Scholar
  37. 43.
    Ibid., p. 14; and see Stephen K. Wegren, Vladimir R. Belen’kiy, and Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, “The Challenge of Rural Revival,” in Stephen K. Wegren, ed., Russian Policy Challenges: Security, Stability, and Development (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2003), p. 229, table 12.2.Google Scholar
  38. 46.
    See Ed A. Hewett with Clifford Gaddy, Open for Business: Russia’s Return to the Global Economy (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1992).Google Scholar
  39. 64.
    See Marian Amelina, “Why Russian Peasants Remain in Collective Farms: A Household Perspective on Agricultural Restructuring,” Post-Soviet Geography andEconomics, vol. 41, no. 7 (September 2000), pp. 483–511.Google Scholar
  40. 65.
    Anders Aslund, How Russia Became a Market Economy (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1995), p. 166.Google Scholar
  41. 73.
    When a new Land Code was finally adopted in October 2001 and signed into law by President Putin in November 2001, it omitted rural land transactions. Rural land turnover was so contentious that it was dealt with in a separate law, passed by the Duma in June 2002, which took effect in January 2003. For an analysis of the law on rural land transactions, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Observations on Russia’s New Agricultural Land Legislation,” Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 43, no. 8 (December 2002), pp. 651–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 74.
    For an early discussion of these weaknesses, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Rural Politics and Agrarian Reform in Russia,” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 43, no. 1 (January–February 1996), pp. 23–34; and Wegren, “Democratization and Urban Bias in Postcommunist Russia.” Some of the material in this section is drawn from those articles.Google Scholar
  43. 75.
    The literature is already vast on this point, but see M. Steven Fish, “The Executive Deception: Superpresidentialism and the Degradation of Russian Politics,” in Valeri Sperling, ed., Building the Russian State: Institutional Crisis and the Quest for Democratic Governance (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000), pp. 177–92.Google Scholar
  44. 80.
    The APR (and conservatives in general) fare better in southern, agricultural regions, the so-called red belt of Russia. See John O’Loughlin, Michael Shin, and Paul Talbot, “Political Geographies and Cleavages in the Russian Parliamentary Elections,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, vol. 37, no. 6 (June 1996), pp. 355–85.Google Scholar
  45. Interview, Allan Mustard, Minister-Counselor for Agriculture, U.S. Embassy in Moscow (May 12, 2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen K. Wegren 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen K. Wegren

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations