No abstract

No abstract

Rapid yet delayed urbanisation close to that seen in the Third World, a history full of troubles, and a demographic condition that today has a Western look -such a combination makes the Russian case not an easy one for the differential urbanisation theory. Testing the latter for over 100 years by a period of time and population dynamic (with a sliding city class scale), the authors find that the all-Russian advances in the urbanisation stage were interrupted twice by the cataclysms of the century. After its third start, the stage lasted until the 1980s when signs of polarisation reversal were observed (this time in migration). The recent crisis was marked first by a steep turn to a premature counter-urbanisation, and then by a 'swing back'. On 'average', the reversal looks most 'normal' for the 1990s' stage.Several regional and local studies proved that the dates of stages depend on the general and the urban development level, although the relationship may be far from linear or even paradoxical (in the South and in the East of Russia). Also, the size-distance regularity is observed for the case of the Moscow agglomeration, prescribed by the differential urbanisation theory during the polarisation reversal stage.All these lead to the conclusion that the theory can explain the Russian trends when they are not deeply distorted by some extraordinary events, which, however, were and are so common in this country.

Using survey data from rural rayons in four oblasts, the authors show that household production, formerly personal subsidiary agriculture, is geographically differentiated in post-Soviet Russia. They argue that the common tendency to view household production as an adaptive response by those especially vulnerable to economic shocks of the transition does not do justice to the diversity of its forms and, in particular, overlooks a growing commercializa tion of the sector. Factors such as distance from the market, the physical environment, and "cultural-ethnic" factors influence production in the household sector, including the ability of different groups of producers to compete in the market.

⎯Structural and regional changes in Russian agriculture over the past 25 years are analyzed, and the main antagonistic trends in its development are identified. Regional differences in decreasing planted areas are considered, which nevertheless did not hinder increased crop production or its exports. Annual changes in the balances of production and consumption; grain, meat, and milk exports and imports; and regional shifts in the production of key products are analyzed. Herd dynamics of various cattle and poultry species and changes in the ratio of meat-to-milk production at agricultural enterprises, farms, and homesteads are considered. Analysis of production concentration in agroholdings has shown that it facilitates urban food supply, but intensifies the spatial polarization of agriculture. Changes in the production pattern in the aftermath of the crisis and modernization of agriculture are considered in comparison to decreasing employment, the low prestige of agricultural labor, and its underpayment. These have resulted in increased rural unemployment and expanded temporal labor migration (otkhodnichestvo) from country to cities. Temporal labor migration in several regions surrounding the Moscow agglomeration has led to the blockage of agricultural development. Graphs and maps are widely used.