Effects of Adaptation and Sources of Rural Revival

  • Stephen K. Wegren


The previous chapters investigated the degree of change among farm managers and among the rural population. Some segments of the population adapted more than others, leading to the conclusion that rural behavior was opportunistic toward reform. Rural adaptation occurred in the most unfavorable of political and economic climates, changing the way rural actors live, work, and earn a living. Evidence strongly suggests that rural behavior has not been inherently antimarket, nor that peasants’ moral economy was violated. Instead, evidence from previous chapters suggests that reform opportunities and market opportunities were utilized in order to partially escape state urban bias. In this sense, adaptation was less risky than resistance.


Communist Party Rural Household Large Farm Moral Economy Land Plot 
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.
    For example, food production trends in postcommunist Russia stand in sharp contrast to Soviet trends on a number of dimensions: (1) during the 1990s, gross food production declined significantly, measured either in ruble value or in volume; (2) during the 1990s, food production decreased faster than the decline in the Russian population; (3) during the 1990s, decline in food production among large farms was compensated by increased food imports, which in turn generated political concerns over the nation’s “food security.” See Stephen K. Wegren, Agriculture and the State in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998), chaps. 4–6;Google Scholar
  2. and E. V. Serova, “The Impact of Privatization and Farm Restructuring on Russian Agriculture,” in Institute for Economies in Transition, Farm Profitability, Sustainability, and Restructuring in Russia (Moscow: Agrifood Economy, 1999), pp. 4–35.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    See 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
  4. 4.
    Ia. V. Uzun, “Formy organizatsii sel’skokhoziaistvennogo proizvodstva v Rossii,” in E. Serova and B. Gardner, eds., Rynki faktorov proizvodstva v APK Rossii: perspektivy analiza (Moscow: AFE and IRIS, 2002), pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The surveys were conducted June–September in each wave of the panel. For a description of the methodology for the sample, see David J. O’Brien, Valeri V. Patsiorkovski, and Larry D. Dershem, Household Capital and the Agrarian Problem in Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), chap. 4. The 1995 and 1997 data are available from ICPSR at the University of Michigan. I thank David O’Brien and Valeri Patsiorkovski for making the 1999 and 2003 data available to me.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For analyses of rural poverty in Russia, see Stephen K. Wegren, David J. O’Brien, and Valeri Patsiorkovski, “Why Russia’s Rural Poor are Poor,” Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 19, no. 3 (July–September 2003), pp. 264–87;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. David J. O’Brien, Valeri V. 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
  8. 7.
    See Alfred Evans, Jr., “The Decline of Rural Living Standards in Russia during the 1990s,” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, vol. 12, no. 4 (December 1996), pp. 293–314;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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), pp. 161–72; A. V. Petrikov, “Sotsial’nye problemy Rossiiskoi derevni,” Ekonomika sel’skokhoziaistvennykh i pererabatyvaiushchikh predpriiatii, no. 3 (March 1999), pp. 37–41;Google Scholar
  10. and Stephen K. Wegren, “The Rise, Fall, and Transformation of the Rural Social Contract in Russia,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 36, no. 1 (January 2003), pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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. 14.
    Anders Aslund, “Social Problems and Policy in Postcommunist Russia,” in Ethan B. Kapstein and Michale Mandelbaum, eds., Sustaining the Transition: The Social Safety Net in Postcommunist Europe (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1997), p. 129.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    N. M. Rimashevskaia, ed., Rossiia 2000: sotsial’no-demograficheskaia situatsiia (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001), p. 89.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    See Stephen K. Wegren, “Rural Support for the Communist Party and Implications for the Party System,” Party Politics, vol. 10, no. 5 (2004), pp. 565–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 20.
    For an excellent booklength study of the Communist Party, see Luke March, The Communist Party in Post-Soviet Russia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002). The literature on elections is already quite large.Google Scholar
  16. For a good starting place, see Christopher Marsh, Russia at the Polls: Voters, Elections, and Democratization (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 2002);Google Scholar
  17. and Timothy J. Colton and Michael McFaul, Popular Choice and Managed Democracy: The Russian Elections of 1999 and 2000 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2003).Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    Graeme Gill, The Collapse of a Single-Party System: The Disintegration of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 22.
    Jerry F. Hough, Democratization and Revolution in the USSR 1985–1991 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1997), pp. 165–66.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    Mikhail Gorbachev, Memoirs (New York: Doubleday, 1996), p. 281.Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    Ronald J. Hill, “The Communist Party and After,” in Stephen White, Alex Pravda, and Zvi Gitelman, eds., Developments in Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992), p. 78.Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    See Ronald J. Hill and Peter Frank, The Soviet Communist Party, 2nd edition (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982), pp. 35–37.Google Scholar
  23. 29.
    Timothy J. Colton, “Determinants of the Party Vote,” in Timothy J. Colton and Jerry E Hough, eds., Growing Pains: Russian Democracy and the Election of 1993 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1998), pp. 75–114;Google Scholar
  24. Timothy J. Colton, Transitional Citizens: Voters and What Influences Them in the New Russia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000);Google Scholar
  25. Ralph S. Clem and Peter R. Craumer “Urban and Rural Effects on Party Preference in Russia: New Evidence from the Recent Duma Election,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, vol. 43, no. 1 (January 2002), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Yitzhak M. Brudny, “Continuity or Change in Russia Electoral Patterns? The December 1999–March 2000 Election Cycle,” in Archie Brown, ed., Contemporary Russian Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 154–78.Google Scholar
  27. 32.
    This finding is supported by the question in the survey that asked “which party best represents your interests?” Female responses about the Communist Party increased for each age bracket through age 59. For 60 and above, it declined. See Stephen K. Wegren, David J. O’Brien, and Valeri V. Patskiorkovski, “Russian Agrarian Reform: The Gender Dimension,” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 49, no. 6 (November–December 2002), p. 55.Google Scholar
  28. 35.
    See Ralph S. Clem and Peter R. Craumer, “Redrawing the Political Map of Russia: The Duma Election of December 2003,” Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 45, no. 4 (June 2004), pp. 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 37.
    See e.g., Eric Wolf, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1969);Google Scholar
  30. Joel S. Migdal, Peasants, Politics, and Revolution: Pressures Toward Political and Social Change in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974);Google Scholar
  31. Jeffrey Paige, Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World (New York: Free Press, 1975);Google Scholar
  32. Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cynthia McClintock, “Why Peasants Rebel: The Case of Peru’s Sendero Luminoso,” World Politics, vol. XXXVII, no. 1 (October 1984), pp. 48–84;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. and Gary Hawes, “Theories of Peasant Revolution: A Critique and Contribution from the Philippines,” World Politics, vol. XLII, no. 2 (January 1990), pp. 261–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 38.
    The rarity of peasant revolution is precisely the reason that scholarly attention turned to the use of passive strategies to resist change (“weapons of the weak”). See James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985);Google Scholar
  36. and Forrest D. Colburn, ed., Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1989).Google Scholar
  37. 39.
    On the macroeconomic environment and its effects on reform, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Russian Agrarian Reform and Rural Capitalism Reconsidered,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 26, no. 1 (October 1998), pp. 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 40.
    For an analysis of Kostroma oblast and other regions, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Socioeconomic Transformation in Russia: Where is the Rural Elite?” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 52, no. 2 (2000), pp. 237–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 43.
    The new program was designed to replace the previous program, “The Federal Special Purpose Program for the Stabilization and Development of the Agroindustrial Production during 1996–2000,” which had been largely ignored and was ineffective. The discussion of the program to 2010 is based upon the speech given by Gordeev on July 27, 2000. The program posited three broad tasks: (1) to develop and strengthen market conditions in the rural economy; (2) to stabilize food production, even with limited state resources; and (3) to achieve the first two tasks in the shortest time possible. See Stephen K. Wegren, “Russian Agrarian Policy Under Putin,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, vol. 43, no. 1 (January–February 2002), pp. 26–40. There was a clear recognition that state capacities have diminished, and it is acknowledged that the center no longer is able to carry the entire burden. In fact, Gordeev referred to the “relatively limited material and financial resources of the state” in his July 27, 2000 speech.Google Scholar
  40. The basic directions of the program and agrarian policy are also summarized in interviews with Gordeev in Sel’skaia zhizn’, July 25, 2000, p. 1; August 24–30, 2000, pp. 1, 4; December 7–13, 2000, pp. 1, 3; and January 30, 2001, pp. 1, 2.Google Scholar
  41. 61.
    Russia’s foreign agricultural trade policies are analyzed in detail in Stephen K. Wegren, Russia’s Food Policies and Globalization (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), chap. 5.Google Scholar
  42. 75.
    World Bank, Local Self-Governance and Civic Engagement in Rural Russsia (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2003), pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
  43. 79.
    For a detailed analysis of the law, 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. This discussion draws from parts of this article.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 85.
    “O lichnom podsobnom khoziaistve,” Sobranie zakonodatel’stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii, no. 28 (July 14, 2003), pp. 6870–77. The law itself is rather short, spanning only 11 articles, 10 of which are substantive. For an analysis of this law as well as the law on private farming, 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. This abbreviated discussion draws from this article.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 94.
    See Grigory Ioffe and Tatyana Nefedova, “Areas of Crisis in Russian Agriculture: A Geographic Perspective,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, vol. 41, no. 4 (April 2000), at pp. 293–300.Google Scholar
  46. 105.
    See Stephen K. Wegren and Vladimir R. Belen’kiy, “Change in Land Relations: The Russian Land Market,” in David J. O’Brien and Stephen K. Wegren, eds., Rural Reform in Post-Soviet Russia (Washington and Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), chap. 4.Google Scholar
  47. 108.
    Richard Rose, “Uses of Social Capital in Russia: Modern, Pre-modern, and Anti-modern,” Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 16, no. 1 (January–March 2000), p. 53.Google Scholar
  48. 112.
    See the story of a private farmer and his struggles to become successful in B. S. Kriven’kii, “Fermerskoe khoziaistvo i naemnyi trud,” in A. V. Petrikov and R. E. Praust, eds., Problemy fermerskogo dvizheniia v Pytalovskom raione Pskovskoi oblasti (Moscow: AgriPress, 2000), pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
  49. 113.
    R. V. Ryvkina and L. Ia. Kosals, eds., Sotsial’nye posledstviia rynochnykh reform v Rossii (Moscow, 1997), p. 236.Google Scholar
  50. 129.
    V. D. Smirnov, Fermerstvo v Rosii—chto eto takoe (Novosibirsk: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2003), p. 38.Google Scholar
  51. 136.
    For an analysis of economic achievements toward large farms during Putin’s first term, see Stephen K. Wegren, “Russian Agriculture During Putin’s First Term and Beyond,” Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 46, no. 3 (April–May 2005), pp. 224–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 138.
    Gavin Kitching, “The Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Russia 1991–97: Some Observations from Fieldwork,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 25, no. 3 (April 1998), p. 12. Emphasis in original.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen K. Wegren 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen K. Wegren

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations