Local effects of the new land rush: How capital inflows transformed rural Russia

Abstract

Rising global prices for agricultural commodities have led to the inflow of capital to rural economies and to transfers of land ownership to new agricultural operators (NAOs) in developing and post‐Soviet countries. How capital inflows affect rural communities is often explained with the variable of institutional strength, an explanation aligned with the good governance approach to economic development: Capital inflows have positive developmental effects, if strong domestic institutions vet land deals and regulate NAOs. Contra the focus on institutional parameters as exogenous variables, this article highlights the role of political projects in shaping local outcomes and driving institutional change. Evolving political priorities are important to understand domestic rural transformations because they lead to interventions that privilege some actors as agents of change, while others are sidelined—hence transforming local economies. This theoretical suggestion is based on a study of Russia's rural transformation that followed a significant influx of capital.

The new plenty; why are some post‐Soviet farms thriving?

“…Although states' roles in East Asia have evolved since the post‐War period, they continue to matter in “market‐steering, ‘societal mission’ roles well beyond neoliberal limits” (Wade, ). This finding aligns with my earlier research on the post‐Soviet transformation in Russia (Wengle, ; Wengle, ).…”

Missions of Russian Cheese Producers: Principal Components and Relevance for Rural Communities

“…This means that the strategic priorities of these organizations should be relevant in some way to the needs of the rural communities. Aleksandrov and Fedorova [31], Bozhkov and Trotsuk [32], Polushkina et al [33], Shirokalova and Deriabina [34], and Wengle [35] have shown that the Russian agriculture and rural population faces challenges and transformations, and that they need support. The three most important issues are new jobs, new professional skill development, and 'greening'.…”

Not About Land, Not Quite a Grab: Dispersed Dispossession in Rural Russia

“…Studies with a more regional focus on Russia also framed accumulation tendencies here as “land grabbing” or a “land rush” (Atkin ; Visser et al. ; Visser and Spoor ; Wengle ). Amongst the latter, the initial contribution on “land grabbing in post‐Soviet Eurasia” (Visser and Spoor )—although relatively recent—has already been cited more often than any journal article and most books published on issues around post‐Soviet rural and agrarian transformation over the course of two and a half decades.…”

“…One possible solution to such overgeneralisation is becoming more specific about the cases, ways and degrees to which a “land grab” pattern would apply: regions or districts where land has become scarce, context‐specific mechanisms of accumulation, or instances of landed dispossession in a narrower sense (see Uzun ; Visser et al. ; Wengle ).…”

“…Unlike most rural contexts around the world mainly shaped by smallholder and family farming (FAO ), however, large agricultural enterprises have been predominant in Russian agriculture since Soviet times. In effect, the accumulation tendencies in this sector do not usually result in the displacement of family or subsistence farmers, or immediate threats to their land rights (Wengle ). I argue that the notion of the “land grab” fails to capture these circumstances, and that what is needed instead to address them more adequately is a reconceptualisation of rural dispossession.…”