Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:21:31.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did Russia's Emancipated Serfs Really Pay Too Much for Too Little Land? Statistical Anomalies and Long-Tailed Distributions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Steven L. Hoch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the widely accepted view, under the terms of emancipation and land reform, Russian peasants received inadequate allotments of land for which they had to pay a disproportionately high purchase price. The data used to support the standard interpretation and the statistical methods underlying it are seriously flawed, however. Steven L. Hoch provides a detailed critique of these data and the methods of analysis, and he concludes that the price Russia's former serfs paid was fair, if not below the market price, for a viable subsistence plot. Overall, Hoch believes that the land reform settlement was a reasonable state policy producing a desirable economic outcome.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , Summer 2004 , pp. 247 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2004

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

Epigraph taken from Thaddeus Stevens to Charles Sumner, 7 October 1865, in Charles Sumner Papers. Cited in Foner, Eric, Nothing but Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge, 1983), 8.Google Scholar

1. Ianson, Iu. E., Opyt statisticheskago izsledovaniia o krest'ianskikh nadelakh i platezhakh (St. Petersburg, 1877), 123-25.Google Scholar

2. Brokgauz, F. A. and Efron, I. A., eds., “Krest'iane,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ (St. Petersburg, 1895), 32:723-24.Google Scholar

3. Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Agrarian Policies and the Industrialization of Russia, 1861-1917,” in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe (Cambridge, Eng., 1965), vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 741-43 (emphasis in the original).Google Scholar

4. Robinson, Geroid T., Rural Russia under the Old Régime: A History of the Landlord- Peasant World and a Prologue to the Peasant Revolution of 1917 (New York, 1932), 88 Google Scholar; Pokrovskii, M. N., Russkaia istoriia s drevneishikh vremen (Moscow, 1934), 4:93 Google Scholar; Liashchenko, P. I., Istoriia narodnogo khoziaistva SSSR (Moscow, 1956), 1:584 Google Scholar; Zaionchkovskii, P. A., Provedenie v zhizn'krest'ianskoi reformy 1861g. (Moscow, 1958), 138-39, 305-7Google Scholar; Zaionchkovskii, P. A., Otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii, 3d ed. (Moscow, 1968), 232-59, 299Google Scholar; Blum, Jerome, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1961), 597 Google Scholar; Blum, Jerome, The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe (Princeton, 1978), 390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Philippot, R., “L'application de la Réforme dans la province de Kharkov,” in Portal, Roger, ed., Le Statut des paysans libérés du servage, 1861-1961 (Paris, 1963), 245 Google Scholar; Basile Kerblay, “La vie rurale dans la province de Smolensk vers 1875, d'après A. Engel'gardt,” in Portal, ed., Le Statut, 272-77; Khromov, P. A., Ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii (Moscow, 1967), 321 Google Scholar; Volin, Lazar, A Century of Russian Agriculture: From Alexander II to Khrushchev (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Druzhinin, N. M., Russkaia derevnia naperelome 1861-1880gg. (Moscow, 1978), 114-33Google Scholar; Gatrell, Peter, The Tsarist Economy, 1850-1917 (London, 1986), 196-98Google Scholar; Kahan, Arcadius, “The Russian Economy, 1860-1913,” in Kahan, , Russian Economic History: The Nineteenth Century, ed. Weiss, Roger (Chicago, 1989), 5 Google Scholar, and Gregory, Paul R., Before Command: An Economic History of Russia from Emancipation to the First Five-Year Plan (Princeton, 1994), 40.Google Scholar

5. While not taking issue with Chaianov's actual Theory of Peasant Economy, the findings to be presented here place the peasant family farm in a more favorable economic setting, suggesting that peasants were more autonomous, with greater capital and fuller control over their labor output. Thorner, Daniel, Kerblay, Basile H., and Smith, R. E. F., eds., A. V. Chayanov on the Theory of Peasant Economy (Madison, 1986), 1–28.Google Scholar

6. Lositskii, A. E., Vykupnaia operatsiia (St. Petersburg, 1906).Google Scholar

7. I. Vil'son, “Vykupnye za zemli platezhi krest'ian-sobstvennikov byvshikh pomeshchich'ikh 1862-1876,” in Zapiski Imperatorskago russkago geograficheskago obshchestva po otdeleniiu stalistiki (1878), 5:259-318 and 325-80; and Khodskii, L. V., Zemlia i zemledelels: Ekonomicheskoe i statisticheskoe izsledovanie (St. Petersburg, 1891).Google Scholar

8. Kovan'ko, P. L., Reforma 19 fevralia 1861 goda i eia poskdstviia s finansovoi tochki zreniia (Vykupnaia operatsiia 1861g.-1907g.) (Kiev, 1914), 4.Google Scholar

9. Otchet gosudarstvennago banka po vykupnoi operatsii s otkryliia vykupa po 1 ianvaria 1892 (St. Petersburg, 1893), 1-4.

10. Ibid. Thereafter, annual reports were published though 1907. See Otchet gosudarstvennago banka po vykupnoi operatsii za 1892 … through … za 1907 [titles vary] (St. Petersburg, 1893-1908), and Kovan'ko, Reforma, 20-22.

11. Migulin, P. P., Vykupnye platezhi: Kvoprosu o ikh ponizhenii (Khar'kov, 1904), 18 Google Scholar; and Kovan'ko, Reforma, 278-79.

12. Departament okladnykh sborov, Materialy po stalistike dvizheniia zemlevladeniia v Rossii, 25 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1896-1917); Svod dannykh o kuple-prodazha zemel’ v 45 guberniiakh Evropeiskoi Rossii za tridtsatiletie 1863-1892 gg. (1901-1903), vol. 4, pt. 1, and vol. 7, pt. 2 (see also vols. 1-3); Materialy po stalistike dvizheniia zemlevladeniia v Rossii [v 1893 g.] (1896); Kuplia-prodazha zemel’ v Evropeiskoi Rossii v 1894 g. (1898); and Kupliaprodazha zemel’ v Evropeiskoi Rossii v 1895 g. (1898).

13. Land sold by deeds of purchase excluded all transfers by inheritance, escheat, or public auction for nonpayment of state debts, or as a result of confiscation for criminal activity or disloyalty.

14. D. I. Rikhter, “Zabytyi material po statistike prodazhnykh tsen na zemliu,” Trudy Imperatorskago Vol'nago Ekonomicheskago Obshchestva (September 1897), vol. 2, bk. 4, 1-28.

15. “Obshchii balans vykupnoi operatsii,” Vestnik Finansov, Promyshlennosti i Torgovli (8 June 1903), prilozhenie no. 23.

16. Evsey Domar, “Were Russian Serfs Overcharged for Their Land by the 1861 Emancipation? The History of One Historical Table,” Research in Economic History, supplement 5B (1989): 429-39.

17. Ibid., 430 and 437.

18. Ibid., 436.

19. Ibid., 437.

20. Ibid., 430.

21. Tsentral'nyi statisticheskii komitet, Ministerstvo vnutrennikh del, Tseny na zemliu v Evropeiskoi Rossii po prodazham, sledannym v 1882 i 1887godakh, in Vremennik Tsentral'nago statisticheskago komiteta Ministerstva vnutrennikh del, no. 11 (St. Petersburg, 1889).

22. Ministerstvo gosudarstvennykh imushchestv, Prodazhnye tseny na zemliu, in Sel'skokhoziaistvennye i statisticheskie svedeniia po materialam, poluchennym ot khoziaev (St. Petersburg, 1891), vol. 4. Summary data from these two sources were published in 1894 by the Chancellery of the Council of Ministers, Svod statisticheskikh materialov, kasaiushchikhsia ekonomicheskago polozheniia sel'skago naseleniia Evropeiskoi Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1894).

23. Ministerstvo gosudarstvennykh imushchestv, Prodazhnye tseny na zemliu, 4:1—10.

24. Ibid., 4:2; Rikhter, “Zabytyi material,” 2.

25. Rikhter, “Zabytyi material,” 2. Domar assumed these were the data used by Lositskii for the 1860s, and, not surprisingly, “lost further interest in them.” Domar, “Were the Russian Serfs Overcharged,” 433.

26. Russia, Redaktsionnye Kommissii dlia sostavleniia polozhenii o krest'ianakh, vykhodiashchikh iz krepostnoi zavisimosti, Prilozheniia k trudam Redaktsionnykh Kommissii dlia sostavleniia polozhenii o krest'ianakh vykhodiashchikh iz krepostnoi zavisimosti, vol. 14, Svedeniia o tsenakh nazemli naselenniia i nenaselenniia (St. Petersburg, 1860), 7-9; Rikhter, “Zabytyi material,” 6-7.

27. Russia, Redaktsionnye Kommissii, Prilozheniia k trudam, vol. 14, Svedeniia o tsenakh na zemli naselenniia i nenaselenniia, 5.

28. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, Sobranie vtoroe, 55 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1830-1894), vol. 15, no. 13, 750 (31 August 1840). See also Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, 1857 edition (St. Petersburg, 1857), 5:156-57.

29. Russia, Redaktsionnye Kommissii, Prilozheniia k trudam, vol. 14, Svedeniia o tsenakh nazemli naselenniia i nenaselenniia, 6. See also Zemledel'cheskaia gazeta 57 (17 July 1859).

30. Ministerstvo gosudarstvennykh imushchestv, Materialy dlia statistiki Rossii, sobiraemyepo vedomstvu ministerstva gosudarstvennykh imushchestv (St. Petersburg, 1858) 1:145.

31. Russia, Redaktsionnye Kommissii, Prilozheniia k trudam, vol. 14, Svedeniia o tsenakh na zemli naselenniia i nenaselenniia, 7.

32. Russia, Redaktsionnye Kommissii, Prilozheniia k trudam, vol. 14, Svedeniia tsenakh na zemli prodanniia s publichnago torga s 1 ianvaria 1854 do 1 ianvaria 1859g. (St. Petersburg, 1859), 1-3.

33. Russia, Redaktsionnye Kommissii, Prilozheniia k trudam, vol. 14, Svedeniia o tsenakh na pustoporozhniia zemli (v vol'noi prodazhe v 1856-1858 gg.) (St. Petersburg, 1860), v.

34. Pervoe izdanie materialov Redaktsionnykh Kommissii, dlia sostavleniia “Polozhenii o krest'ianakh vykhodiashchikh iz krepostnoi zavisimosti,” 18 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1859-1860), 3:98 (Report of the Economic Division, no. 17).

35. See also Domar, “Were the Russian Serfs Overcharged,” 433.

36. Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, vol. 5, Ustav o poshlinakh, 1857 edition (St. Petersburg, 1857), 87 (article 399, emphasis added).

37. Ibid, (article 400).

38. Ibid, (article 402).

39. Svod dannykh o kuple-prodazhe zemel’ v 45 guberniiakh Evropeiskoi Rossii za tridtsatiletie 1863-1892gg. (St. Petersburg, 1903), 38-49, 74-85, and 112-33.

40. Freedman, David et al., Statistics, 2d ed. (New York, 1991), 60.Google ScholarPubMed

41. Svod dannykh o kuple-prodazha zemel', and V. V. Sviatlovskii, Mobilizatsii zemel'noi sobstvennosti v Rossii (1861-1908g.) (St. Petersburg, 1911), viii.

42. Svod dannykh o kuple-prodazha zemel', pt. 1,8-14.

43. Various weights were tested, but the results did not substantially differ. To give but one example, for the black earth provinces, assuming that 60 percent of all peasant purchases on the open market between 1863 and 1872 involved fewer than 25 desiatinas, 30 percent between 25 and 500 desiatinas, and 10 percent more than 500 desiatinas (as opposed to the weights of 73, 27, and 0 used in table 8 above), the weighted average price is 39.67 rubles per desiatina. Weights of 50, 30, and 20 percent for the non-black earth provinces (as opposed to the weights of 60, 40, 0 used above) yield a weighted average of 30.78 rubles. Using similar weights for the western provinces (as opposed to 64, 36, and 0) produces a weighted average sale price of 29.74 rubles per desiatina. With these weights, the total market value of the non-black earth land allotted to the peasants would be 378 million rubles, 390 million rubles in the black earth provinces, and 302 million rubles in the western provinces for a total of 1,070 million rubles. This would still imply a very substantial undercharge, as the peasants paid a total of 867 million rubles under the terms of redemption. And given the average size in desiatinas of peasant purchases, these weights are quite inappropriate as they imply average peasant purchases (in area) considerably above observed levels.

44. Blum, End of the Old Order, 391.

45. Kahan, “Russian Economy, 1860-1913,” 5.

46. Anisimov, V. I., “Nadely,” in Dzhivelegov, A. K., Mel'gunov, S. P., and Picheta, V. I., eds., Velikaia reforma; russkoe obshchestvo i krest'ianskii vopros v proshlom i nastoiashchem, 6 vols. (Moscow, 1911), 6:92–96 Google Scholar; Robinson, Rural Russia, 87.

47. Gerschenkron, “Agrarian Policies,” 729-30; Blum, End of the Old Order, 395.

48. Robinson, Rural Russia, 88.

49. Litvak, B. G., Russkaia derevnia v reforme 1861 goda: Chernozemnyi tsentr 1861-1865 gg. (Moscow, 1972), 196.Google Scholar

50. Zaionchkovskii, Otmena krepostnogo prava, 240.

51. Zaionchkovskii, Provedenie v zhizri, 181.

52. Robinson, Rural Russia, 88; Zaionchkovskii, Provedenie v zhizn', 181; Gerschenkron, “Agrarian Policies,” 729; “Finansovaia politikav period 1861-1880 gg.,” Otechestvennye zapiski 11, pt. 2 (1882): 1-34.

53. Robinson, Rural Russia, 88.

54. Zaionchkovskii, Otmena krepostnogo prava, 24l;Litvak,Russkaia derevnia, 152-321; Gerschenkron, “Agrarian Policies,” 729.

55. Degtiarev, A. Ia., Kashchenko, S. G., and Raskin, D. I., Novgorodskaia derevnia v reforme 1861 goda: Opyt izucheniia s ispol'zovaniem EVM (Leningrad, 1989)Google Scholar; Kashchenko, S. G., Reforma 19 fevralia 1861 goda v Sankt-Peterburgskoi gubernii (Leningrad, 1990)Google Scholar; and Kashchenko, S. G., Otmena krepostnogo prava v Pskovskoi gubernii: Opyt komp'iuternogo analiza uslovii realizatsii krest'ianskoi reformy 19 fevralia 1861 (St. Petersburg, 1996).Google Scholar

56. Degtiarev, Kashchenko, and Raskin, Novgorodskaia derevnia, 24, and Kashchenko, Otmena krepostnogo prava, 19.

57. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (RGADA), f. 1262, op. 4, ch. 1, ed. khr. 558, 14 June 1837; and ch. 2, ed. khr. 846, 15 October 1857 and 20 May 1858.

58. Degtiarev, Kashchenko, and Raskin, Novgorodskaia derevnia, 24; Kashchenko, Otmena krepostnogo prava, 19, and Kashchenko, Reforma 19 fevralia 1861 goda, 21-23, 129.

59. Floud, Roderick, An Introduction to Quantitative Methods for Historians, 2d ed. (London, 1979), 82.Google Scholar

60. Degtiarev, Kashchenko, and Raskin, Novgorodskaia derevnia, 79-80, 86-87, 92- 93, 98-99,102-3,106-7,113,121, and 125; Kashchenko, Otmena krepostnogo prava, 37, 44, 56, 60, 64, 69-70, and 74.

61. Kashchenko, Reforma 19 fevralia 1861 goda, 129.

62. Degtiarev, Kashchenko, and Raskin, Novgorodskaia derevnia, 134; Litvak, Russkaia derevnia, 150-51.

63. Pervoe izdanie materialov, 3:27, 34 (Report of the Economic Division, no. 15). The coefficients of variation for serfs on mixed dues, that is, those carrying both labor obligations and money payments, varied considerably, at times closer to pure quitrent peasants, at times closer to serfs only on corvée. In all likelihood, this depended on whether the quitrent was primarily a supplement to barshchina or whether the reverse held true.

64. Degtiarev, Kashchenko, and Raskin, Novgorodskaia derevnia, 79-80, 86-87, 92- 93, 98-99, 102-3, 106-7,113, 121, and 125; Kashchenko, Otmena krepostnogo prava, 37, 44, 56, 60, 64, 69-70, and 74; and Kashchenko, Reforma 19 fevralia 1861 goda, 43-44, 68-70, 78-80, 90-92, 97-98, 102,107-8,116 and 123-25.

65. Degtiarev, Kashchenko, and Raskin, Novgorodskaia derevnia, 135-39; see also 64 - 65.

66. Kashchenko, Reforma 19 fevralia 1861 goda, 135-36, 145.

67. Kashchenko, Otmena krepostnogo prava, 113.

68. Blum, End of the Old Order, 383-400.

69. Hoch, Steven L., “The Serf Economy and the Social Order in Russia,” in Bush, M. L., ed., Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage (Longman, 1996).Google Scholar See Thorner, Kerblay, and Smith, eds., A. V. Chayanov on the Theory of Peasant Economy, 16-28, 224-41.