The Transformation of Agriculture in Russia: Myths and Realities

Abstract

Tatiana Nefedova — Leading Researcher, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences. Address: 29, Staromonetniy Ln., Moscow, 119017, Russian Federation. E-mail: trene12@yandex.ru

Two oppositely directed processes have become the major geographical challenge for rural Russia in the 20th century: 1) the shrinkage of its social and 2) the expansion of its economic dimensions. These, along with the inability of the collective and state farm systems to adapt to socio-demographic and economic shifts, have generated a set of persistent problems and a vast explanatory mythology. This article examines the pros and cons of four of Russia’s widespread myths about the reasons for its agricultural failures: (1) Russia is a cold country, i.e. its climate is simply the reason for low productivity and inefficiency of rural labor (and rural poverty, consequentially); (2) urban industries developed at the expense of rural areas doom the latter to lag behind eternally; (3) Soviet equalization and the loss of a proprietary interest; and (4) rural depopulation and labor shortage in rural areas due to urbanization.

The reforms of the 1990s rested on a quite unreliable base and often brought incalculable effects to agriculture. In the end, they promoted two different organizational processes. On the one hand, it was a deconcentration of a notable portion of production resulting from the collapse of the Soviet enterprise system. The deconcentration, especially in the 1990s, manifested itself, first of all, in a secondary ‘agrarization’ of the population (not only rural, but also urban) and in a contribution of small-scale subsistence and semi-natural farms growing from 26 to 47%. Though commodity farms emerged, too, their role proved to be much less than expected. Large and medium-sized enterprises still remain the major commodity domestic caterers of the cities. On the other hand, a secondary concentration and modernization of production became a key tendency of the 2000s which involved the agricultural enterprises in the vertically integrated large-scale structures formed and governed from the cities, with the use of new processing technologies and logistics. They initiated the sector’s updating. The emergence of these huge holdings in the 2000s has assisted in the partial recovery of agriculture and forestry, while on the other hand, the sector of medium-size enterprises has continued to erode.

This article then studies different agribusiness models of adaptation to the new conditions and geographical specifics. The recovery has been quite unequal. Only a few successful enterprises and regions have contributed to the production growth in agriculture. Economic depression and the desertion of fallow lands have become typical for a considerable share of rural areas. Though assisting in returning some abandoned territories to agriculture, the agriholdings contribute to the polarization of Russia’s space as they select the best or most opportunely located enterprises and exclude the multitude of farms from these vertical structures. The demand for new post-industrial network structures falls in contradiction with the consequences of this industrial overconcentration.