How Peasants Adapt: Rural Households

  • Stephen K. Wegren


Chapter 3 examined adaptation on large farms and among farm managers. This was an important starting point for discussing adaptation because large farms feed the country and farm managers have a significant influence on the direction of reform. Further, this focus was important for showing how members of Russia’s rural elite responded to reform policies. This chapter focuses on rural households, using survey and opinion data, national-level statistical data, and regional-level data to explore household orientations and behavior.1 The shift in focus to households is warranted because, whereas there are only about 27,000 large farms (and thus 27,000 farm managers), there are several million rural households, with a rural population that exceeds 39 million. In 2002, for example, if the mean family size of three persons is used, this equates to about 13 million rural households. Thus, the sheer magnitude of the rural population requires attention to how they responded, and needless to say, the patterns of responses by rural households determine the ultimate failure or success of reform policies.


Rural Household Large Farm Market Reform Rural Dweller Land Market 
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. 2.
    For data on sources and uses of rural household income, see Statisticheskii biulleten’, no. 1 (March 1999); ibid, no. 1 (January 2000); David J. O’Brien, Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, and Larry D. Dershem, Household Capital and the Agrarian Problem in Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), chap. 8; Dokhody, raskhody, i potreblenie domashnikh khoziaistv v III–IV kvartalakh 2000 goda (Moscow: Goskomstat, 2001); Dokhody raskhody i potreblenie domashnikh khoziaistv v I–IV kvartalakh 2001 goda (Moscow: Goskomstat, 2002); Dokhody, raskhody, i potreblenie domashnikh khoziaistv v 2002 godu (Moscow: Goskomstat, 2003);Google Scholar
  2. and David J. O’ Brien, Stephen K. Wegren, and Valeri V. Patsiorkokvski, “Contemporary Rural Responses to Reform from Above,” The Russian Review, vol. 63, no. 2 (April 2004), pp. 256–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregory Ioffe and Tatyana Nefedova, Continuity and Change in Rural Russia: A Geographical Perspective (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997), chap. 12.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Although influential, the moral economy argument is controversial. For an alternative view, see Robert H. Bates, “Lessons from History, or the Perfidy of English Exceptionalism and the Significance of Historical France,” World Politics, vol. XL, no. 4 (July 1988), pp. 499–516;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Thomas Clay Arnold, “Rethinking Moral Economy,” American Political Science Review, vol. 95, no. 1 (March 2001), pp. 85–95.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    See Eric R. Wolf, “Peasant Rebellion and Revolution,” in Jack A. Goldstone, ed., Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986), chap. 5;Google Scholar
  7. and James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 7.
    James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985);Google Scholar
  10. and Forrest D. Colburn, ed., Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1989).Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    See Karen Brooks, et al., Agricultural Reform in Russia: A View from the Farm Level, World Bank Discussion Paper no. 327 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1996);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. and Maria Amelina, “False Transformations: From Stalin’s Peasants to Yeltsin’s Collective Farmers,” Paper presented at Workshop on Rural Russia, Woodrow Wilson Center, Kennan Institute, Washington, DC (May 4–6, 1999).Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    The most explicit treatment of the survival versus adaptation question is in 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
  14. this issue is also discussed in David J. O’Brien and Stephen K. Wegren, eds., Rural Reform in Post-Soviet Russia (Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), especially in part I.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    A variation of this thesis was postulated by Raymond Duch, though not exactly in the terms stated here. See Raymond M. Duch, “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union,” American Political Science Review, vol. 87, no. 3 (September 1993), pp. 590–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 11.
    Jerry E Hough, Evelyn Davidheiser, and Susan Goodrich Lehmann, The 1996 Russian Presidential Election (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1996), p. 7.Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    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. 605–06.Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    Jerry F. Hough, “The Russian Election of 1993: Public Attitudes Toward Economic Reform and Democratization,” Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 10, no. 1 (1994), p. 6.Google Scholar
  19. For an extended discussion of the problems with the neoliberal model of reform in Russia, see Jerry E Hough, The Logic of Economic Reform in Russia (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2001), chap. 1, particularly pp. 4, 8, 12.Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    Joan Debardeleben, “Attitudes Towards Privatization in Russia,” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 51, no. 3 (1999), p. 462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alfred B. Evans, Jr. “The Decline of Rural Living Standards in Russia during the 1990s,” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, vol. 12, no. 3 (September 1996), pp. 293–314;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. and Stephen K. Wegren, “The Rise, Fall, and Transformation of the Rural Social Contract,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 36, no. 1 (March 2003), pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 24.
    On declines in rural living conditions, see Stephen K. Wegren and Frank A. Durgin, “Why Agrarian Reform is Failing,” Transition, vol. 1, no. 19 (October 20, 1995), pp. 50–55.Google Scholar
  24. 29.
    David Epstein and Peter Tillack, “How Russian Agricultural Enterprises are Surviving,” Eastern European Economics, vol. 37, no. 5 (September–October 1999), p. 82.Google Scholar
  25. 31.
    See N. M. Rimashevskaia, ed., Rossiia 1997: sotsial’no-demograficheskaia situatsiia (Moscow: Institute for Socioeconomic Problems of the Population, 1998), p. 231;Google Scholar
  26. Stephen K. Wegren, “Socioeconomic Transformation in Russia: Where is the Rural Elite?” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 52, no. 2 (2000), pp. 247–48; and O’Brien, Patsiorkovski, and Dershem, Household Capital and the Agrarian Problem, pp. 164–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 32.
    V. Ia. Uzun, ed., Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie posledstviia privatizatsii zemli i reorganizatsii sel’skokhoziaistvennykh predpriiatii (1994–1996gg.). (Moscow: Entsiklopediia rossiiskii dereven,’ 1997), p. 84.Google Scholar
  28. 34.
    This section draws from Stephen K. Wegren, David J. O’Brien, and Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, “Russia’s Rural Unemployed,” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 55, no. 6 (2003), at pp. 850–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 35.
    A. V. Petrikov, “Sotsial’nye problemy Rossiiskoi derevni,” in A. V. Petrikov, ed., Ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye problemy agrarnogo sektora (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998), p. 166.Google Scholar
  30. 39.
    B. P. Pankov, “Problemy regulirovaniia rynka truda na sele,” in A. V. Petrikov, ed., Rynochnaia trasformatsiia sel’skogo khoziaistva: desiateletnii opyt i perspektivy (Moscow: Entsiklopediia rossiiskikh dereven’, 2000), p. 285.Google Scholar
  31. 41.
    Zemfira Kalugina, Rural Women of Russia under Agrarian Transformations (Novosibirsk: Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, 1999), p. 18; Trud i zaniatost’ v Rossii (2001), pp. 61, 84.Google Scholar
  32. 44.
    See World Bank, Local Self-Governance and Civic Engagement in Rural Russia (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2003), p. 45.Google Scholar
  33. 57.
    The size of a plot of land is limited by the 2002 law on rural land transactions. No person, family, or group of related persons may own more than 10 percent of total agricultural land in a given raion. The 2003 law on private plots frees the sale of food production from income tax, and thus some reports suggest that some “private plots” exist up to 50–100 ha, thereby blurring the distinction with private farms, whose food sales are subject to taxation. For an analysis of the 2002 legislation, 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
  34. and of the 2003 law on private plots, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Russian Peasant Farms and Household Plots in 2003: A Research Note,” Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 45, no. 3 (April–May 2004), pp. 230–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 74.
    A. V. Chaianov, The Theory of Peasant Economy (Homewood, IL: RD. Irwin, 1966); and for a discussion of the model as it pertains to contemporary Russia, see O’Brien, Patsiorkovski, and Dershem, Household Capital and the Agrarian Problem, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar
  36. 82.
    The findings were first published in Stephen K. Wegren, David J. O’Brien, and Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, “Why Russia’s Rural Poor Are Poor,” Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 19, no. 3 (July–September 2003), pp. 264–87. This discussion draws from that article.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. See also David J. O’Brien, Valeri Patsiorkovski, and Stephen K. Wegren, “Rural Adaptation and Poverty in Russia,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 31, nos. 3–4 (April–July 2004), pp. 457–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 85.
    See Stephen K. Wegren, Russia’s Food Policies and Globalization (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), table 1.6, for data. This discussion draws from the text following that table.Google Scholar
  39. 88.
    The number of collective farm markets throughout the USSR declined from 7,522 in 1970 to 6,098 in 1988. Stephen K. Wegren, “Private Agriculture in the Soviet Union Under Gorbachev,” Soviet Union, vol. 16, nos. 2–3 (1989), p. 131.Google Scholar
  40. 93.
    In 2003, a new law on private plots established that food sales from private plot activity is not subject to income taxation. See Stephen K. Wegren, “Russian Peasant Farms and Household Plots in 2003: A Research Note,” Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 45, no. 3 (April–May 2004), pp. 230–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 110.
    See e.g., the letter from the head of the Duma’s Agroindustrial Deputy group, N. Kharitonov, to President Putin, in Sel’skaia zhizn’ August 17–23, 2000, p. 3. It is important to bear in mind that the speculative side of the land market has always been quite small, as the 1995–96 survey clearly showed. In that survey, land buyers were grouped into four subcategories: (1) Operators, who obtained land for the conduct of small-scale agriculture, for instance, collective vegetable and fruit gardens. Operators comprised 60% of the responses; (2) Dachniki, who were largely urban residents looking for a place for rest and relaxation for family members. Dachniki comprised 20% of the responses; (3) Owners, who were motivated to obtain land in order to pass it to their heirs or to protect themselves from inflation. Owners comprised 17–18% of the responses; and (4) Speculators, who obtained land for the sole purpose of resale. Speculators comprised 2.5% of the responses. See Stephen K. Wegren and Vladimir R. Belen’kiy, “The Political Economy of the Russian Land Market,” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 45 (July–August 1998), p. 62.Google Scholar
  42. 111.
    See the article by Peter Baker in The Washington Post, March 25, 2001, p. A23.Google Scholar
  43. 112.
    Stephen K. Wegren, David J. O’Brien, and Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, “Russian Agrarian Reform: The Gender Dimension,” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 49, no. 6 (November–December 2002), p. 56. Note that this question asked about attitudes toward state policy and land reform, not land reform itself. A person could express a negative opinion about state policy and still support land reform in principle.Google Scholar
  44. 116.
    See Stephen K. Wegren, “Land Reform and the Land Market in Russia: Operation, Constraints and Prospects,” Europe Asia Studies, vol. 49, no. 6 (1997), pp. 959–87; Wegren and Belen’kiy, “The Political Economy of the Russian Land Market,” pp. 56–66; Wegren and Belen’kiy, “Change in Land Relations: The Russian Land Market,” in O’Brien and Wegren, eds., Rural Reform in Post-Soviet Russia, chap. 4;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Louis Skyner, “Property as Rhetoric: Land Ownership and Private Law in Pre-Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia,” Europe Asia Studies, vol. 55, no. 6 (September 2003), pp. 889–906;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. and Stephen K. Wegren, “Why Rural Russians Participate in the Land Market: Socioeconomic Factors,” Post-Communist Economies, vol. 15, no. 4 (December 2003), pp. 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 127.
    Roskomzem, Gosudarstvennyi (natsional’nyi) doklad o sostoianii i ispol’zovanii zemel’ Rossiiskoi Federatsii za 1995 god (Moscow: Committee on Land Resources and Land Tenure, 1996) p. 76; and Svedeniia o sdelkakh s zemlei i platezhakh za zemliu, pp. 18, 28. Some observers, such as former minister of agriculture Viktor Khlystun, estimate that the number of registered sales are only about one-half of the actual number, in part to avoid taxes and fees.Google Scholar
  48. 128.
    Author’s calculations from data in Roskomzem, Gosudarstvennyi (natsional’nyi) doklad o sostoianii i ispol’zovanii zemel’ Rossiiskoi Federatsii v 1998 godu (Moscow: Committee on Land, 1999) p. 60; Gosudarstvennyi (natsional’nyi) doklad o sostoianii i ispol’zovanii zemel’ Rossiiskoi Federatsii v 2000 godu (Moscow: Federal Land Cadastre Service, 2001), p. 121; and Svedeniia o sdelkakh s zemlei i platezhakh za zemliu, p. 28.Google Scholar
  49. 136.
    See Zvi Lerman and Karen Brooks, “Russia’s Legal Framework for Land Reform and Farm Restructuring,” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 43, no. 6 (November–December 1996), pp. 48–58;Google Scholar
  50. and Louis Skyner, “Political Conflict and Legal Uncertainty: The Privatisation of Land Ownership in Russia,” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 53, no. 7 (November 2001), pp. 981–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 138.
    Interview, Natalia Shagaida, Agrarian Institute, Moscow (May 24, 2004); and see N. Shagaida, “Zemel’nyi rynok,” in E. Serova and B. Gardner, eds., Rynki faktorov proizvodstva v APK Rossii: perspektivy analiza (Moscow: AFE and IRIS, 2002), pp. 86–116.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen K. Wegren 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen K. Wegren

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations