Productive Activity and the Types of Rural Households: the Case of Family Farms

Abstract

Maria Mukhanova — Senior Researcher, Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences. Address: Bldg. 5, 24/35, Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation. E-mail: mukhanova_m@rambler.ru

This article examines socio-structural processes which take place in the Russian countryside based on data from the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) 1994-2010. Households whose members are involved in working activity in private farms represent a broad category of the self-employed in agriculture. This study reveals the differentiation of rural households in two types: consumer and commercial ones. This principle of classification of rural households is completed by their typology, built on such criteria as volume of agricultural production and their sales income. The author traces the correlation between the volume of production and its income, depending on the size of land owned by rural households, the type of family, rural occupational structure, and the age groups of rural residents.

The analysis data shows that the number of rural households which produce agricultural products under private farming has actually reduced as a result of the 1990 agrarian reforms. Since the private sector is an important traditional institution of peasant economy, its reduction in agricultural production could be interpreted as a gradual disappearance of the traditionalist segment. Despite market reforms in rural areas, households have not become a fully-fledged institution of commodity production. The more distinct trend toward commercialization of agricultural production is observed in households which breed livestock. But there is a tendency of reducing marketability of large and medium scale households. On the other hand, the level of marketability in small households has not changed much. Moreover, the number of private households remains very low (no more than 15-20%). Productive activity of 80- 85% of households is focused on the consumption of its own produce and reciprocal exchange. The boundaries between different categories of rural households, as well as between producing and consumer households are relative. Moreover, the distinction between large and medium scale household-producers is quite vague, since they are very likely to morph into one another.

The relativity of boundaries between different categories of households reveals the volatile nature of this institution. In spite of the unstable population dynamics of commercial agricultural households, this self-employed segment of the rural population can hardly be regarded as a long-term trend in Russian village social processes. The market reforms of the 1990s have also actualized a rather goal-oriented rational type of social action as treated conventionally by M. Weber. This is particularly evident in the social practices adopted by young people with their inclination towards urban life and careers. This upheaval leads to the disruption of generational continuity in rural areas and increases social mobility, which bears a negative effect on rural community.