Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:50:51.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Quantitative Approach to the Russian Past: A Comment on “European Statistics, Russian Numbers and Social Dynamics, 1861–1914” by Alessandro Stanziani

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2017

Andrei Markevich  and
Ekaterina Zhuravskaya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Alessandro Stanziani’s article re-launches the discussion about the quality of Russian imperial statistics and the relevance of quantitative analysis for historical research at an important moment for Russia’s economic history, when a lot of new data are being compiled and used by scholars. Similar productive discussions took place at other critical junctions for the fields of history, economics, political science, and other social sciences. For example, Robert Fogel’s and Stanley Engerman’s “Time on the Cross” (1974) triggered a profound discussion of potential benefits and limitations of quantitative approach to studying the history of the United States. The punch line of that discussion can be illustrated by the justification of the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics dedicated to Fogel “for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change.” In the context of Russian history, similar discussions took place in the Soviet Union in the 1970s between Ivan Koval'chenko and Boris Litvak and then later in this journal in the 1990s.

Type
Critical Forum on Statistics
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 37 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for instance: Fogel, Robert William, “The Limits of Quantitative Methods in History,” The American Historical Review 80, No. 2 (April 1975): 329–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Koval'chenko, I.D. and Selunskaia, N.B., “Massovye istochniki i kolichestvennye metodi v izuchennii agrarnoi istorii Rossii,” in Koval'chenko, I.D. and Tishkov, V.A., Kolichestvennie metodi v sovetskoi i amerikanskoi istoriographii (Moscow, 1983)Google Scholar; Litvak, B.G., Ocherki istochnikovedeniia massovoi dokumentatsii XIX—nachala XX vekov (Moscow, 1979)Google Scholar; Hoch, Steven L., “On Good Numbers and Bad: Malthus, Population Trends and Peasant Standard of Living in Late Imperial Russia,” Slavic Review 53, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 41–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Komlos, John, “On the Biological Standard of Living in Russia and the Soviet Union,” Slavic Review 58, no.1 (Spring 1999): 71-79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mironov, B., “New Approaches to Old Problems: The Well-Being of the Population of Russia from 1821 to 1910 as Measured by Physical Stature,” Slavic Review 58, no.1 (Spring 1999): 1–26 Google Scholar; Wheatcroft, Stephen G., “The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880–1960,” Slavic Review 58, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 27–60 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3. Ran Abramitzky, “Economics and the Modern Economic Historian,” National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working paper 21636 (2015), at www.nber.org/papers/w21636 (last accessed January 20, 2017).

4. Koval'chenko and Selunskaia, “Massovye istochniki i kolichestvennye metodi”; Gregory, Paul, Before Command: An Economic History of Russia from Emancipation to the First Five-Year Plan (Princeton, NJ, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anfimov, A. M. and Korelin, A.P. (Eds.) Rossiia 1913 god. Statistiko-dokumentalnyi spravochnik (St. Petersburg, 1995), among many othersGoogle Scholar.

5. Ivantsov, Dmitrii N., K kritike russkoi urozhainoi statistiki (opyt analiza nekotorykh ofitsialnykh i zemskikh tekushchikh dannykh) (Petrograd, 1915)Google Scholar.

6. A.S. Nifontov, Zernovoe proizvodstvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka (Moscow, 1974).

7. See “Historical Appendix to Demoskop Weekly,” at www.demoscope.ru/weekly/pril.php (last accessed 11/8/2016); Gijs Kessler and Andrei Markevich, “Electronic Repository for Russian Historical Statistics,” at https://ristat.org (last accessed 11/8/2016); L. I. Borodkin, “Dinamika Ekonomicheskogo i Sotsial'nogo Razvitiia Rossii v XIX – Nachale XX vv.” at www.hist.msu.ru/Dynamics/index.html (last accessed 11/8/2016).

8. Kessler and Markevich, “Electronic Repository for Russian Historical Statistics.”

9. Andrei Markevich and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, “The Economic Effects of the Abolition of Serfdom: Evidence from the Russian Empire,” SSRN working paper (2017), at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2514964 (last accessed January 28, 2017).

10. Johannes C. Buggle and Steven Nafziger, “Long-Run Consequences of Labor Coercion: Evidence from Russian Serfdom,” (unpublished paper, 2015) available at http://www.johannesbuggle.com/docs/serfdom_1.4.pdf); Markevich and Zhuravskaya, “The Economic Effects of the Abolition of Serfdom.”

11. Markevich and Zhuravskaya, “The Economic Effects of the Abolition of Serfdom.”

12. Vil'son, I.I., Vykupnye za zemli platezhi krest'ian-sobstvennikov byvshikh pomeshchechikh (St Petersburg, 1878)Google Scholar.