Responses to agrarian reforms in Russia: Evidence from Novosibirsk oblast

Differentiating farmers: opening the black box of private farming in post-Soviet states

“…The social objectives of managers of post-Soviet collective agrarian forms (privatized collectives in Russia, reorganized cooperatives in Bulgaria and elsewhere in EE) are well known, and demonstrated through on-going support to village services (Davydova and Franks 2006;Kaneff 1998;Gambold-Miller 2003). In her study of agricultural employees in Russia, Sutherland (2008) found a combination of economic and personal incentives reinforcing ongoing agricultural employment on privatized state and collective farms.…”

“…In light of this, recent academic work has focused quite usefully on the resilience of collectivized agricultural production, and the internal dynamics and external circumstances that have made survival of these enterprises possible (Kalugina 2002;Spoor and Visser 2004;Sutherland 2008). However, although academics are recognizing that the business orientations of managers of privatized collective farms and newly formed cooperative farms differ considerably from those of private farmers (Davydova and Franks 2006;Kaneff 1998), little work has been done on the approaches to agricultural engagement adopted by private farmers. This research represents an initial step in that direction.…”

Post-Soviet Agricultural Employment: A Case Study of Employee Incentives in Krasnodar Territory, Russia

“…Gambold-Miller [2003] found this in her case study village in Nizhny Novgorod region; Perrota [1998] identified a similar goal of social responsibility among farm managers in her work. The social role is made most evident in service provision: O'Brien et al [2000] and Davydova and Franks [2006] both presented evidence that managers continue to authorise support to social services, and act as a local employer. Similarly, the large enterprises in this study were also contributing to local social services and maintaining large numbers of staff.…”

“…A growing body of literature has established that large-enterprise management has highly social rewards: large agricultural enterprise managers are often members of the rural elite [Allina-Pisano, 2004], positioning themselves socially as local community patriarchs or matriarchs [Gambold-Miller, 2003]. The resultant community orientation of large enterprises, which continue to provide support to the physical infrastructure and social services of local villages [Davydova and Franks, 2006;Kalugina, 2002;O'Brien et al, 2000] is well known. The identification of the social significance and rewards of large-enterprise management raises the issue of social and intrinsic rewards, as well as unseen structural rewards associated with other enterprise positions, and how these impact on the viability of large enterprises.…”

Social capital in Russian agricultural production co-operatives

“…At the time of the conversion the production co-operatives generally took over tasks such as medical care, leisure activities, old age pensions, schooling and other services of a public character. While these services had to be cut compared with Soviet times, the members in general still have access to some basic social services (Davydova and Franks, 2006).…”