Stolypin Reform Research Articles

Destabilization of the Peasant Community during the years of Stolypin's agrarian reforms: a microhistorical overview

The objective of the article is to analyze the information found in the Ukrainian newspaper "Rada" regarding the resettlement and forced eviction of peasants from settlements in Uman County during the implementation of P. A. Stolypin's reform. This information sheds light on demographic changes and the moral values of peasant communities (rural communities). The research methodology combines general scientific, specialized historical, and interdisciplinary methods and tools of scientific analysis. The scientific novelty lies in the use of microhistorical approaches to expand anthropocentrism in the discussed topic, which may be considered well-studied when it comes to resettlement policy in the years 1906-1912. As for the issue of forced eviction by the decision of the rural community, the material presented in the article could serve as the starting point for a comprehensive study of this segment of peasant self-government activity. An element of novelty is the introduction of information into scientific circulation that complements local history and ethnographic studies. Conclusions. Between 1907 and 1912, the Ukrainian newspaper "Rada" published more than thirty notes about migration and forced evictions from rural communities in just one Uman County of the Kyiv Governorate. Systematizing such information personalizes the migration of Ukrainian peasantry during the Stolypin agrarian reforms, detailing general perceptions of resettlement policy, and revealing the risks and difficulties faced by the most active peasantry, which sought a better life but often fell victim to various fraudsters and the imperial authorities due to their naivety, trustfulness, and illiteracy. Systematization of information about forced evictions from rural communities by the decision of the rural community provided the opportunity to identify the reasons and mechanisms for such punishment. The reasons for eviction and the number sentenced to expulsion indicate the presence of crisis phenomena in the peasant society. The government's desire to resettle the most active peasants to remote regions of the empire and the spread of the practice of cleansing rural communities of politically undesirable and socially problematic elements did not yield the expected results: the subjugation and pacification of the peasantry.

Changing trend of peasant behavior in Russia during Stolypin's agrarian reform

In this article, the authors aim to differentiate various categories of the peasantry according to the views on property to develop an optimal research approach that will allow for an objective and comprehensive analysis of the attitudes and behavior of the peasant population of Russia during the Stolypin course of agrarian policy pursued by the autocracy. The study shows the validity of using the peasantry's attitude to property as one of the key criteria for assessing the degree of efficiency of the Stolypin reform. The selected criterion allows one to show the evolution of this attitude depending on the social characteristics of a particular category of peasants. Any reform should be assessed from the standpoint of those whose interests are affected first. Property is one of the main guidelines that determine the position of a person in society and the world. Aimed at creating the stratum of steady owners in the village, P.A. Stolypin's reform frees the peasants from the petty fiscal and bureaucratic oversight of the state. As the peasantry realizes the seriousness of the government's intentions and possible prospects for the development of the economy, their attitude to the reform also changes. This change takes place along with the peasantry's realization that the state is interested in steady owners in the village. Those who can and want to be one, accept the reform with enthusiasm, others ultimately see in the reform an opportunity to shift the blame for their failure to the state.

Terminology of Land Ownership and Types of Settlements in the Oikonymy of Belozerye

This article discusses the names of settlements in Belozerye, including designations of settlement types (выселок, городок, двор, мыза, погост, починок, слобода, усадьба, хутор), several terms with the suffix -ище (дворище, городище, погостище, селище, усадище, etc.), denoting places of former settlements, and some definitions characterising the ownership status of lands (казённый, монастырский, барский, боярский, княжий). In addition, the author examines the issue of the use of terms under consideration naming the types of settlements as a designation of the type of object in the official lists of settlements and in the speech of residents. The study refers to data from the lists of settlements of Olonets (1905) and Novgorod (1911–1912) provinces, and for the later period, to data from field collections of the Toponymic Expedition of the Ural University of the 1960s–2010s. The difference in the toponymic use of certain terms of land ownership is mainly explained by the peculiarities of the settlement of the territory and the existing types of land ownership (this is especially typical of the characterising names: казенный, монастырский, княжий, etc.). The designations of settlement types turn out to be less dependent on the established land tenure practices and more susceptible to subsequent administrative regulation, although certain historical patterns can be traced here: the terms городок and городище mark the sites of archaeologically confirmed and documented medieval fortified settlements; the Novgorod toponymic models Большой Двор and Великий Двор make it possible to clarify the zone of Novgorod development of the territory and delimit it from the more eastern Rostov-Suzdal. The term погост is most widely represented on the territory of the former Novgorod pyatinas which inherited the Old Russian system of pogosts; the appearance of the term хутор in Belozerye is clearly connected with the Stolypin reform, although it was known in other Great Russian territories before that time.

Regional Effects of the Stolypin Reform

The main goal of P. A. Stolypin’s reform was to increase yields in peasant farms. The unification of peasant allotments into farms opened the way for the use of more advanced agricultural machinery. Historians argue about the extent to which the reforms affected the dynamics of yields on the eve of the First World War. In recent years, mathematical methods have been used to solve this problem. However, the application of these methods requires careful selection of both independent and dependent variables. In this paper, the share of consolidated lands in the total area of allotment lands in different provinces is used as an independent variable, and the dependent variable is the net grain yield on allotment lands. Correlation analysis shows that, in general, in 43 provinces of European Russia, land consolidation explained 30 % of the yield dynamics. But at the same time, there were very large regional differences. In 26 provinces of Great Russia, the reform did not have a significant impact on yields; in many provinces, yields decreased. The failure of the reform in Great Russia was due to the presence of strong peasant communities here, who practiced land redistribution and resisted the spread of farms. On the contrary, in 11 marginal western and southern provinces, the reform was marked by success. For a long time, communities with hereditary home ownership dominated here, and these communities generally supported Stolypin’s program. The spread of farms has led to a significant increase in yields here, and 50 % of this growth is due to the consolidation of peasant allotments.

Деятельность местных органов управления по реализации Столыпинской аграрной реформы на территории Беларуси (1906–1914 гг.)

Introduction. The preparation and implementation of the Stolypin agrarian reform attracted the attention of researchers of the 20th – 21st centuries. However, the interaction of the entire system of already existing and new local government institutions in implementing the reform in Belarus has not become a subject of a special study. The purpose of the article is to prove the interaction of local government institutions within the implementation of the Stolypin agrarian reform in 1906–1914 in the territory of Belarus. Methodology. The sources of the article were legislative acts, as well as the information founded in the archival and published documents. The general scientific and specific historical methods were used there as well as the principles of objectivity, historicism, the value approach. Results. In the early 20th century, a system of local government institutions on the implementation of the government agrarian policy was formed in the Empire. It included land (zemstvo) captains, their district (uyezd) congresses and provincial (guberniya) agencies (prisutstviya). The implementation of the Stolypin agrarian reform required the creation of new institutions – land management commissions. The absence of zemstvo and noble election in the territory of Belarus caused the peculiarities of the formation of the commission staff. Land captains and members of land management commissions carried out explanatory work among the population about the benefits of the transition to farms (khutors) and cuts of lands (otrubs). Based on the information collected by land captains, land management commissions drew up land management plans for the next year, distributed and carried out the work. District congresses and provincial agencies approved land certificates. Conclusion. The success of the reform depended on the coordinated work and cooperation of all elements of the local government system, the prevalence of household land use. The explanatory work carried out by land captains and members of land management commissions, the promotion of sale of banking lands, allotment of land units to ownership and the transition to new household forms received support of the population. All those facts ensured the success of the implementation of the Stolypin reform in the territory of Belarus.

Tatar Population of Western Siberia in the Second Half of the XIX — First Third of the XX Centuries: Historical and Demographic Characteristics

The dynamics of urbanization processes among the Tatar population of Western Siberia during the second half of the 19th — first third of the 20th centuries is considered on the basis of the materials of the First General Census of the Population of the Russian Empire in 1897 and the All-Union Census of 1926. The main attention in the article is paid to the factors that influenced urbanization processes, among which are the bourgeois reforms of the second half of the 19th century, the Stolypin reform of the early 20th century, as well as the policy of the emerging Soviet state in the 20s of the 20th century. The results of a comparative analysis with the general situation in the country in the study period for the Tatar and Russian population are presented. The question is raised about the role and place of Tatar migrants from the Volga and Ural regions in the cities of Western Siberia. Particular attention is paid to the demographic indicators of urbanization processes, identifying the features of their course. The novelty of the research is seen in the fact that the process of the formation of the urban Tatar population in the second half of the 19th — the first third of the 20th centuries is for the first time considered in historical dynamics. The relevance of the study is due to the poor study of the topic.

К ДИСКУССИИ О РЕФОРМЕ П. А. СТОЛЫПИНА И УРОВНЕ ЖИЗНИ В РОССИИ НАЧАЛА ХХ в.

The article is devoted to the discussion on living standards in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century in the context of the P. A. Stolypin reform. This discussion has been ongoing for ten years ago and divided historians into two groups, “optimists” and “pessimists”. The “pessimists” adhered to the traditional position of pre-revolutionary economists (and Soviet historiography) about the “impoverishment” of the peasantry in the central regions of Russia. The “optimists” (both Western and Russian) defended the thesis of raising the peasants’ living standards. The most famous representatives of the “optimistic” school in Russia are B. N. Mironov and M. A. Davydov. The article analyzes the evolution of M. A. Davydov’s position, which can be judged by his latest article in “Ural Historical Journal”. If previously Davydov avoided mentioning the “agrarian crisis” in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, now he recognizes the existence of a “crisis of agrarian overpopulation” and considers the Stolypin reform as an attempt to mitigate this crisis. Davydov claims that this attempt was successful and the crisis was mitigated thanks to the “agrotechnological revolution”. However, the author of the article shows that in reality, the increase in crop yields was not associated with the Stolypin reform. The greatest increase in productivity was noted not in those provinces where the reform was carried out most intensively.

Mechanisms of Interaction Between Power, Society and Handicrafts in the Russian Empire at the End of the XIX – the Beginning of the XX century

Introduction. The article discusses the mechanisms of interaction between power, society and handicrafts in the Russian Empire in the late XIX – early XX centuries as part of the study of problems of Russian economic policy. The struggle between two ideological directions – conservative and liberal – was most clearly expressed in the attitude of government circles towards the peasantry. The author tries to trace two ways of interaction between the authorities and artisanal peasants. Materials and Methods. Based on archival and published sources, an analysis is made of the mechanism of interaction between power, society and handicrafts in the Russian Empire at the turn of the XIX–XX centuries. In the work, we used narrative, historical-typological, and historical-systematic methods of historical research. Results. The first way of interaction between the authorities and handicrafts included research activities, surveys, censuses. Committees and commissions played an important role in the mechanism of relations between power and handicraftsmen, which gathered at the initiative of the government in order to obtain information from the localities about the needs of peasant handicraftsmen. The highest public body in the system of relations between power and handicraftsmen was the congresses of workers in the handicraft industry, the decisions and decisions of which, after discussions, were submitted to the government for consideration and were also taken into account when developing government measures for the development of crafts. This whole mechanism was quite effective and made a significant contribution to the implementation of state assistance to artisans. Discussion and Conclusion. In recent years, research has been conducted on the problems of the interaction of power, society and the peasantry in various aspects on the materials of individual regions. The literature received coverage of the interaction of the state and various economic and political strata: the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, zemstvos, and the peasantry. The topic under consideration is of great importance for identifying the effectiveness of the Stolypin reform and its compliance with the traditions of the economic life of the Russian village. Of the two ways of interaction between power structures and artisanal peasants: “from above” and “from below,” the most effective was the first path, initiated from power structures. State programs for the development of handicrafts, formed in the process of interaction with handicraftsmen, were aimed at supporting small and medium enterprises in the peasant environment.

Success Factors of Land Reform and Sustainable Rural Development: History Background and Tendencies

Success factors of the of land reforms and sustainable development of the rural areas. Ownership and use of land resources has a dynamic and increasing tendency towards the concentration of land by certain state and public institutions as well as individuals in the historical aspect. It leads to the enrichment of the small monopolists and the poverty of the village. Usually, when a critical limit of conflict will be reached, it should be resolved by state reforms. From the second half of the 19th century, on the territory of today’s Ukraine there were three significant land reforms. First two are the reforms in 1848 in Austrian-Hungary, and Stolypin reform of 1906–1907. Their purpose and solutions can be directly related to the land reform that has started in the beginning of 1991 in Ukraine. Until now, this reform has not yet been fully implemented. It causes a number of progressive prods, connected primarily with the land market. The moratorium on the sale of agricultural land does stands in the way of land mortgages, land capital, investment attractiveness, issues related to land protection, soil fertility conservation, land use optimization, excessive use, land reclamation, and the development of small and medium-sized agricultural producers. Small and large villages have been disappearing, the problems of preserving forests, reservoirs, and biological diversity has been worsening. Certain risks can be seen in the newly amalgamated territorial communities as there is a high dependence between the number of village councils and villages. There are different models of land reforms applied in the world. European models of land reform, particularly Polish and French models are the most suitable in the light of current situation in Ukraine. The model of the harmonious development of rural areas, covering about 90% of the entireterritory of the country, should be based on the paradigm of sustainable development. In Europe, three major models of rural development have emerged: sectoral based on the development of agriculture; redistribution, which involves the reduction of discrepancies between the more underdeveloped rural areas and advance industries and the territorial (cluster) model that implies the development of the rural territories is carried out on the basis of the corresponding interdependencies within the local economy. There five models of rural development in Ukraine at the current stage: sectoral (intersectoral); redistributive; cluster; model, focused on the village, that entails priority given to meet the needs of the specific territory and local tradition preservation; and finally, the mixed, based on several components of the different models, mainly sectoral and cluster. Education, professional enhancement, spirituality and Christian ethics, citizens’ activism and civic society development also belongs to the crucial factors for the sustainable development of rural areas.

Stolypin's Resettlement Policy and the Problem of the Land Issue Softening in European Russia: Assessments of the German-Speaking Russian Studies of the 20th Century

In Germanic studies of Russia, the issue of the resettlement movement to Asian Russia prospects was regarded at the beginning of the twentieth century, which became much more active during the years of the Stolypin reform, to defuse the acuteness of the agrarian issue in the European part of the empire. In this regard, the attention was drawn to the extent of to Siberia and to the categories of migrants. After a long break, the interest to the problem resumed in the German-speaking historiography during the 60-70s of the 20th century. The researchers of Germany, and somewhat later of Austria, paid a close attention to the factor of back migration, the return of migrants to their former place of residence due to unfavorable circumstances, to these very unfavorable circumstances, largely in solidarity with Soviet historians during the explanation of the reasons for re-immigration. And not without the influence of the latter, the possibilities of resettlement to contribute to the mitigation of the agrarian problem in European Russia were usually considered skeptically. However, since the mid-1980s, there has been a clear overcoming of pessimistic assessments and conclusions. The Austrian historian A. Moritsch and the West German researcher D. Landgraf drew attention to the place of origin of the peasants who moved to Siberia and the Far East, analyzed the causes of back migration more closely, stressed that, with all the difficulties of adaptation to life in a new place, the majority of migrants still did not repatriate, which had a positive effect both for the progress of agriculture in Asian Russia, and (with all possible reservations) for the situation with the agrarian issue in the European part of the country.

The Stolypin reform and agricultural productivity in late imperial Russia

Abstract We study the effect of changes in land tenure, launched by the 1906 Stolypin reform, on agricultural productivity in Imperial Russia. The reform allowed peasants to obtain individual land titles and consolidate separated land strips into a single privatized allotment. We present evidence that land consolidations enabled peasants to make independent production decisions from the village commune and take advantage of readily accessible technological advancements. In contrast, land titles decreased land productivity in the short-run, but the overall effect of the reform on land productivity was still positive.

Метаморфози аграрної еліти українських губерній на зламі ХІХ–ХХ ст.

In the Ukrainian provinces, for the agrarian elite represented mostly by the nobility landowners, the modernization process, which itensified in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, did not pass unnoticed. The paper seeks to analyze the transformations among the agrarian elite at the turn of two centuries. The latter serves as the conceptual foundation of research enriched with the data of statistical, clerical, publicist character as well as those in private ownership of landowners.Upon the abolition of serfdom, the agrarian crisis of the late nineteenth century, the largescale peasant movement at the beginning of the 20th century, the Stolypin reform, and the First World War, the agrarian elite, which consisted of nobles until the midth of the nineteenth century, was subjected to sweeping transformations. Among the most noticeable shifts were the rapid reduction of the nobility's land ownership, the replenishment of the agrarian elite by the «new» landowners, and the entrepreneurial reorientation of part of the landlords. The professionalization of the household management, the application of new technologies in agriculture, the development of industrial enterprise, active charity, the rights protection through membersship in various organizations became part of the new reality. In this period, the agrarian elite moved from a privileged state to a class of agrarian entrepreneurs, who found themselved in the conditions of free competition and had to respond to the demands of society. The transformation was interrupted by the revolutionary 1917-1921s, after which the agrarian elite was liquidated. The present research would be further developed through studying of the narrative sources by the agrarian elite on the overcoming of the crisis.

Столыпинское дежавю генерала Врангеля

<p>В статье указывается, что последний Верховный правитель белого движения генерал П. Н. Врангель подвергал резкой критике просчеты А.В. Колчака и А.И. Деникина в отношении аграрной реформы. Врангель предпринял попытку решительного поворота в решении земельного вопроса с целью привлечения на свою сторону крестьянства, преимущественно средних и зажиточных слоев.</p><p>Программа Врангеля, походившая на столыпинскую, была направлена на преодоление отжившего помещичьего землевладения и создание условий для развития капиталистических отношений в деревне. Утверждается, что одновременно земельная реформа Врангеля являлась симбиозом столыпинской реформы и преобразований Александра II. </p>

ПЕРЕСЕЛЕННЯ СЕЛЯН КИЇВСЬКОЇ ГУБЕРНІЇ ДО СИБІРУ В РОКИ СТОЛИПІНСЬКОЇ АГРАРНОЇ РЕФОРМИ

In the article represent of the transmigration movement peasants Kyiv province during the Stolypin's agrarian reform. Attention is drawn to reason, results and consequences of migration of peasants to the land. To directed the data aboutthe size resettlement for 1906 – 1912 years to east of Russian Empire in the opposite direction.Is noted,that among the factors that led to significant migration movement should be called a revolution, which further aggravated the agrarian question; law 9 November 1906 to withdraw from the community, which made it possible to move those wishing to sell their portion; cessation of hostilities and the gradual release of railway transport and military, finally, to encourage migration by the government.During the migration policy Stolypin's reform, has become more clear and directional character. The state underto okprovide preferential transport of migrants, reduce the railway tariff for their luggage and pets, organizerapid settlement and allotment of land, remove arrears, debts of zemsky assembly for five years, interest-free loans to each family 165 rubles, immigrants for 5 years freed from treasury, zemsky taxes for three years - from military service.Natives of Kiev province settled mainly in Tomsk Akmolinskiy, Maritime and Turgay provinces.It is concluded that, during the Stolypin's agrarian reform Kiev province occupied a significant place in the colonization movement in Siberia, which was part and a means of implementation of the new agricultural policy.

A history of resistance to privatization in Russia

We investigate the connection between privatization in post-communist Russia and a mass privatization reform in Imperial Russia, the 1906 Stolypin land reform. Specifically, we relate historical measures of conflicts associated with the Stolypin reform to contemporary views on whether the privatization of the 1990s should be revised. These historical measures could influence contemporary views in two ways: first, differences in privatization-related conflicts in the past could have directly altered attitudes towards privatization in the 1990s and, second, these differences could merely reflect pre-determined dissimilarities in preferences. We first show that historical measures of resistance to privatization are associated with views that favor state ownership. One standard deviation increase in the historical resistance to privatization explains a quarter of the negative sentiment toward private property today. We also find that negative experiences with the Stolypin reform are associated with views on the procedural unfairness of modern privatization reforms, suggesting that pre-determined preferences cannot fully explain the weight of history.

Land Tenure and Productivity in Agriculture: The Case of the Stolypin Reform in Late Imperial Russia

We study the effect of improvements in peasants’ land tenure, launched by the 1906 Stolypin reform, on agricultural productivity in late Imperial Russia. The reform allowed peasants to obtain land titles and consolidate separated land strips into single allotments. We find that consolidations increased land productivity. If the reform had been fully implemented, it would have doubled grain production in the empire. We argue that an important factor determining the positive impact on productivity is a decrease in coordination costs, enabling peasants to make independent production decisions from the village commune. In contrast, the titling component of the reform decreased land productivity and we present evidence that transaction costs explain this short-run decline.

Lessons of p. A. Stolypin's reform in A. V. Chayanov's works

A new way of farming — the peasant (farmer) economy was formed in the agricultural sector in Russia during the reforms of its economy. Prospects for the development of this category of households still do not have an unambiguous assessment. This is explained by differences in economic and often political interests of many participants of the discussions. Stolypin's agrarian reforms are received with little or not at all taking into account the existing historical experience of Russia. Underestimated in this regard and forecasts made by the great Russian scientist of agriculture, A. V. Chayanov. At the same time, the ideas and postulates of Stolypin and Chayanov have received important confirmation in virtually all modern agro-developed countries, not only providing the population with food from their own agricultural production, but also supplying agricultural products in large quantities for export. Organizational structure of agriculture in these countries has common features, mainly related to everything desired by P. A. Stolypin and scientifically predicted by A. V. Chayanov. The modern peasant-farms, armed with high technology, preserved and affirmed as the main elements everywhere in the agroindustrial structures.

Liberal Reform in an Illiberal Regime: The Creation of Prìvate Property in Russia, 1906-1915 by Stephen F. Williams (review)

REVIEWS 769 Balkanwarof1877-78and thesovietization oftheBuriatsin easternSiberia also receiveattention. Altogether thisvolumecontains muchuseful information, butmoreattentionmight havebeenpaid torelevant Western work, especially sincetheaim oftheconference, as ofitsfourpredecessors, was 'bridge-building between [.. .] Russia and theWest',as P. Longworth explains(p. 9). He pleadsthat anylackofthematic coherence is offset bythemerits ofdiversity; thevolume shouldbe valuedas an 'expression ofacademicfreedom'. Manyreaderswill surely agree,butinanysequelthecontributors shouldbe allowedmorespace inwhichto displaytheir manifold talents. Bern JohnKeep Williams, StephenF. Liberal Reform inanIlliberal Regime: TheCreation ofPrivate Property inRussia, igo6-igi$.HooverInstitution Press,Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2006.xiv+ 320pp.Maps.Figures. Tables.Notes.Statutory appendix.Bibliography. Index.$15.00(paperback). Sometimes long-term historical debates- in thiscase over the Stolypin reforms - can profit fromarbitration. I hesitateto describeStephenF. Williams as an 'outside'mediator, becauseheiswellversed inRussianhistoriographyand an activeparticipant in thelivelyfieldofRussianlegal studies. ButtheauthorofLiberal Reform inanIlliberal Regime: TheCreation ofPrivate Property inRussia,igo6-igij is a judge, not a historian, by profession, and his perspective diverges markedly, and helpfully, from thoseinternal totheacademy .Formanyreaders, thiscompactvolumewillclarify thesubstance ofthe controversial reform - thelawsthemselves. By focusing on statute law, Williamssteersaway fromofficials' intents, peasants'desires, and arguments 'for'or 'against'Stolypin and theautocracy he served.Instead,Williamsentersthefray withquestionsthatderivefrom thelaw and economicsfieldand from politicaltheories abouttheorigins of liberalism. Ratherthanworrying aboutwhether liberalism wouldhave been good forRussia,he askswhytheStolypin reform was enactedin autocratic Russiaand whatconsequences thenewregulations couldhavehad. Williams'introduction surveys purported relationships betweentheruleof law, democracy, privateproperty and civilsociety, and derivesa quandary from liberaltheory whydidthetsarist government devolveproperty rights to a largepartofthepopulation whenno one was forcing thisreform upon thestate'sleaders?In Chapter2 on peasantland rights in Russia,Williams arguesthatthe'transaction costs'ofimproving agriculture undercommunal tenure werehighand thatthestatehad notdoneenoughearliertogiveindividualpeasantscontrolovertheirland holding.The thirdchapterreviews debatesoverpeasantwelfare. Although Williams credits recent scholars (Hoch, Wilbur.Gorshkov and others') onneasants'mobilitv and commercial activism. he relieson conventional viewsofpeasantmentality - to developthecase forland reform. A functional - anti-law, anti-wealth istimperative underpins 770 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 2OO9 thisargument, as wellas a tension betweendescribing peasantsas heldback bytheir conditions or as holding themselves back. ouivcying puiiuucu cuiiuiuuiià di uic ume ui uic iciuiiii, vvimams cunuiuucs thatno substantial groupofpolitical activists (thenobility, liberalsorsocialist parties) supported thecreation ofindividual peasantlandholdings - thekind ofreform thatwouldmeettheefficiency imperative described above. Hence thefirst finding ofthebook.Contrary toDouglasNorth's theorization ofhow liberalreforms come about,theStolypin reforms werenotwrested from the statebypressure groups.Insteadthereforms werea 'case ofgenuineliberalizationfrom above'.The abolitions ofthepolltax,collective responsibility and redemption duesalso defy institutionalist theories aboutliberalization. The mostuseful partofthisstudy isChapter5, 'Overview oftheReforms'. The majorprovisions oftheukazof9 November1906,law of 14June1910, andlawof29May 191 1aresetoutclearly. (Translations ofmostpartsofthese 'Stolypin' laws are providedin an appendix.)This chapterdescribes clearly the distinctions betweenconversion of titleand land consolidation, along withthechangesin rulesfortheseprocessesand theirrelationship to each other.Relying on earlierstudies, Williams displays in clearcharts and maps, province byprovince, thepercentages ofhouseholds and peasantlandsthat wereconverted toindividual title orconsolidated between1907and into1915 whentheprocesswas stopped.He makestheimportant pointthatapplicationsoutstripped processing, and thepercentages ofconversions orconsolidations in 1915do notsignalan 'outcome'ofan ongoing processthatmight have becomelong-term. In thefinalchapters ofthebook,Williams cutsthrough earlierdebatesby asking aboutthedesignofthereform, rather thanhowmanypeopleusedits provisions. Did theStolypin reforms putinplace thekindsofproperty rights thought to be essential fora market-based economy, a vibrant civilsociety, andliberaldemocracy? The answer isno:thelawssetlimits onpeasants'right to selland to acquireland,and didnotgivepeasantselectoral rights equivalentto thoseofnoble and otherlandholders. Williamsaccusesthereforms themselves ofpreserving theold regime oftutelage. One conclusion to drawfromthisattentive analysisofstatute law is that thehigh-pitched debateover'private'vs communalproperty is off base: no privateproperty rightwas on offer. Williamsshowshow the cooperative movement andthestate's lending terms further stifled individual initiative and choice.Some evidence- offlimits in Soviettimes- suggests thatwhere strips wereconsolidated, agricultural outputincreaseddramatically by 191 3. But theseincreasesin efficiency did notchallengethepoliticsofprotection andpatrimonialism preserved in Stolypin's reform. Williams notessimilarities withpost-Soviet land laws:they,too,setlimits on purchasesand sales and retained stateofficials' authority overagricultural land. Based on liberaltheoriesof governance, Williams'book both answers itsquestions and posesnew ones.The autocracy - an 'illiberal'regimeproduceda reform thatwas notfoisted upon itand thatseemedto devolve powerand property to outsiders (peasants).But the reform was not really 'liberal';it preserved inequitiesin civilstatusand constrained individuals' REVIEWS 771 powersover'their' land.Theseconclusions do notresolve a century ofdebate overStolypin's reforms, but as a good mediatorshould,Williamsputsthe past intoa new and soberingperspective. At the same time,the poor fit betweenliberalpoliticaltheory and Stolypin's initiative meansthatwe need moreexpansivenotionsoflaw and politicsto understand whythisreform happenedat all. Department ofHistory Jane Burbank MewYorkUniversity Finkel, Stuart. On theIdeological Front:The RussianIntelligentsia of theSovietPublic Sphere. Yale UniversityPress, New H and theMaking [aven,CT and...

崔在東著, 『近代ロシア農村の社会経済史-ストルィピン農業改革期の土地利用・土地所有・協同組合-』, 日本経済評論社, 2007年, xv+459頁

崔在東著, 『近代ロシア農村の社会経済史-ストルィピン農業改革期の土地利用・土地所有・協同組合-』, 日本経済評論社, 2007年, xv+459頁

Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen K. s> Wegren (review)

388 SEER, 85, 2, 2007 on the adoption of arbitrary,subjective thresholds for which no sensitivity analysisappears to have been carried out and presents statisticaldifferentials without commenting on their statistical significance. For a study so ready to dismisswhat it (wrongly)terms 'theoreticaleconomistic models' (p. 47)it is all too ready to attempt to shadow the methods of that discipline. I would much rather have seen more of the illuminatingand absorbingethnographic vignetteswhich do much to shed light on the notion of 'survival'and suggest that it may be survival that straddles the concepts of poverty and social exclusion. Such insight is essential to inform interdisciplinary studies of well-being. Chapter four provides a useful historical account of the evolution of the term 'social exclusion' though there is no attempt, until the final page, to relate that to the transitionprocess. This mantle is taken on in chapter five, which is also left with the more challenging problem of delineating between social exclusion and poverty. The attempt to do the latter is laudable though undermined through our knowledge that, by construction, all of the social exclusion indicatorsare associatedwith poverty, and that the entire sample is 'poor' and thereforeit is not possibleto distinguishcause and effect.Thus the effortsto realize their conceptual distinctionempiricallyis criticallyfloored. It is only on reachingthe finalfew pages of chapterfive, in discussionof the issue of 'old' and 'new poor' in Russia, that one startsto feel convinced that social exclusion and poverty could have been successfullydistinguishedas concepts. It is a shame that more was not made, and earlier,of this theme. The final part of the book, concerning ethnic, cultural and gender based experiences, offers up fascinating and thought provoking insights into the evolution of well-beingin Russia and if followedby a thoroughreadingof the detailed ethnographic vignettes, incorporated in appendix two, one cannot but be engaged. The book shouldbe of interestto anyone concerned by the ongoing affects of transitionon the peoples of EasternEurope and the former Soviet Union. It should also provide a useful reference point for scholars concerned with the concept and measurement of poverty and social exclusion and beyond that any readerwith an interestin the region cannot fail to find somethingof interestin the rich ethnographicstoriesfound within. School of Slavonic andEastEuropean Studies C. J. GERRY University College London Wegren, Stephen K. (ed.). RuralAdaptation in Russia.The Libraryof Peasant Studies, 22. Routledge, London and New York, 2005. 237 pp. Tables. Figures. Bibliography.Index. ?6o.oo. THIS is a collection of articles on rural reform in Russia, Ukraine and the USSR, first published in the Journalof PeasantStudies,April-July 2004. Its unifying theme is the way peasants and farms have adapted to the varying policies emanating from the capital in the past hundred years. The editor's REVIEWS 389 introductorychapteris followedby two historicalchapters.David Macey provides yet another surveyof the Stolypinreform.His chapter,which displaysa solidknowledgeof the literatureon this controversialsubject,arguesforcefully that the Stolypin reform should be considered a success. Mark Tauger discusses peasant responses in the I930S to collectivization. He argues strongly againstthe currentlyfashionable'resistanceinterpretation'.He considersthat collectivization should be seen as a policy to increase food production in a countryprone to famines,and thatpeasantresponsesto it were variedand not exclusivelyto be characterizedas 'resistance'.His sourcecriticismof the use of OGPU documents by adherentsof the 'resistanceinterpretation'is spot on. As far as contemporary Russia is concerned, David O'Brien, Valeri Patsiorkovskiand Stephen Wegren contribute a chapter on rural poverty, based on a 200I survey.This shows a very sharpincreasein both poverty and inequality in 199I-95, followedby a declinein bothin I995-2001, andsignificant fluctuationsin both in I997-200I. Povertywas higher in ruralareas than in urbanones. It was concentratedin householdswith children.The phenomenon of the working poor was widespread. It is left unclear whether or not these last two phenomena were an artefactcreated by measuringper capita income rather than using equivalence scales. This chapter makes clear the importanceof pensions for the welfareof their recipientsand the effectiveness of the Russian pension system in maintaining the living standards of the elderly. Jessica Allina-Pisanois the author of a very interestingsociologicalchapter on the originsof privatefarmersin Russiaand Ukraine.This is based on fieldwork in two black earth regions, Voronezh region in Russia and Kharkiv region in Ukraine. She argues that...