Interpretations and Dimensions of Food Security in Contemporary Russia: Discursive and Real Contradictions

Abstract

Irina Trotsuk – Doctor of Science in Sociology, Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Associate Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University. Address: 82, Avenue Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation. E-mail: irina.trotsuk@yandex.ru

Alexander Nikulin – Candidate of Science in Economics, Head, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Address: 82, Avenue Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation. Email: nikulin@ranepa.ru

Stephen Wegren – Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University. Address: Dallas, Texas, 75275, USA. E-mail: swegren@smu.edu

Citation: Trotsuk I., Nikulin A., Wegren S. (2018) Interpretations and Dimensions of Food Security in Contemporary Russia: Discursive and Real Contradictions. Mir Rossii, vol. 27, no 1, pp. 34–64 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2018-27-1-34-64

This article considers the reasons and consequences of the increased attention from politicians and scholars to the challenges of national and global food security. First, the authors focus on the contradictory definitions of food security in intellectual and ideological debates which determine the development of national and global doctrines of food security (and ‘food sovereignty’ as its critical alternative). Secondly, the authors consider past and present attempts to ensure food security and identify the historical zigzags of food policies in Russia (from the Soviet autarchic policy of food self-sufficiency to attempts to liberalize food security definitions in the 1990s, and the new protectionist and autarchic food security doctrine of the 2000s). The authors also present a range of common indicators of food security, and emphasize that the gross growth in the production of various types of food is insufficient to assess the quality of national food policies. The key indicators of food security include the effectiveness of agricultural production, access to quality food for all social groups, and the potential of consumers to control the issues of national food security. Finally, the authors consider the sociological approach to the study of food security and present data from a series of sociological monitoring developed and conducted by the Center for Agrarian Studies of RANEPA 2015-2017. The analysis identified the ‘double autarchy’ in the responses of respondents: on the one hand, they support the general political course on food protectionism and nationalism (state autarchy), while, on the other, they strive to implement a micro-policy of autonomous food sovereignty (family autarchy) by intensifying household efforts to ensure natural self-sufficiency.