Where is the backward Russian peasant? Evidence against the superiority of private farming, 1883–1913

Kopsidis, Michael; Bruisch, Katja; Bromley, Daniel W.

doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.990895

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They, however, find positive impact of land consolidation (which they also attribute to the reform). Kopsidis et al (2015) show that in 1892-1913 crop yields evolved similarly in communes and private farms.…”

Section: B3 Limited Competition (Monopoly Capitalism)mentioning

confidence: 92%

The Industrialization and Economic Development of Russia through the Lens of a Neoclassical Growth Model

Cheremukhin¹,

Golosov²,

Guriev³

et al. 2016

Review of Economic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies the structural transformation of Russia in 1885-1940 from an agrarian to an industrial economy through the lens of a two-sector neoclassical growth model. We construct a data set that covers Tsarist Russia during 1885-1913 and Soviet Union during 1928-1940. We develop a methodology that allows us to identify the types of frictions and economic mechanisms that had the largest quantitative impact on Russian economic development. We find that entry barriers and monopoly power in the nonagricultural sector were the most important reason for Tsarist Russia's failure to industrialize before World War I. Soviet industrial transformation after 1928 was achieved primarily by reducing such frictions, albeit coinciding with a significantly lower performance of productivity in both agricultural and nonagricultural sectors. We find no evidence that Tsarist agricultural institutions were a significant barrier to labour reallocation to manufacturing, or that "Big Push" mechanisms were a major driver of Soviet growth.

show abstract

Section: B3 Limited Competition (Monopoly Capitalism)mentioning

confidence: 92%

The Industrialization and Economic Development of Russia through the Lens of a Neoclassical Growth Model

Cheremukhin¹,

Golosov²,

Guriev³

et al. 2016

Review of Economic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grain productivity was higher on private land than on commune land, and both types of farms experienced growth in yields during the pre-war years. Kopsidis, Bruisch and Bromley (2015) argue that "crop yields on peasant allotments evolved similarly to those on private land during the years 1892-1913", comparing regional trends in productivity growth, but their analysis cannot establish breaks in trends.…”

Section: A1 Institutional Background Of Russian Agriculture Before Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Labor Misallocation and Mass Mobilization: Russian Agriculture during the Great War

Dower

Markevich

2018

The Review of Economics and Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We exploit a quasi-natural experiment of military draftees in Russia during World War I to examine the effects of a massive, negative labor shock on agricultural production. Employing a novel district-level panel dataset, we find that mass mobilization produces a dramatic decrease in cultivated area. Surprisingly, farms with communal land tenure exhibit greater resilience to the labor shock than private farms. The resilience stems from peasants reallocating labor in favor of the commune because of the increased attractiveness of its nonmarket access to land and social insurance. Our results support an institutional explanation of factor misallocation in agriculture.

show abstract

“…Analyzing micro-level data in Moscow province, Nafziger (2008 argues that one explanation of the negative correlation between the number of repartitions and agricultural productivity is that repartitions themselves were endogenous, responding to shocks in productivity and substituting for undeveloped factor markets. At a more aggregate level, Kopsidis et al (2015) argue that "crop yields on peasant allotments evolved similarly to those on private land during the years 1892-1913", comparing regional trends in productivity growth.…”

Section: Peasants' Property Rights Before the Stolypin Reform: The Comentioning

confidence: 99%

The Stolypin reform and agricultural productivity in late imperial Russia

Dower

Markevich

2018

European Review of Economic History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Where is the backward Russian peasant? Evidence against the superiority of private farming, 1883–1913

Cited by 20 publications

References 54 publications

The Industrialization and Economic Development of Russia through the Lens of a Neoclassical Growth Model

The Industrialization and Economic Development of Russia through the Lens of a Neoclassical Growth Model

Labor Misallocation and Mass Mobilization: Russian Agriculture during the Great War

The Stolypin reform and agricultural productivity in late imperial Russia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About