Power and collective ownership: the experience of land reform

Kryskov, Andrii
Habrusieva, Nataliia
Shostakivska, Nadiia

Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University, 56 Ruska str., 46001, Ternopil, Ukraine

Kryskov, A., Habrusieva, N. & Shostakivska, N. (2021) Vlada i kolektyvna vlasnist: dosvid realizatsii zemelnoi reformy [Power and collective ownership: the experience of land reform]. Sotsialno-ekonomichni problemy i derzhava [Socio-Economic Problems and the State] (electronic journal), Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 550-557. Available at: http://sepd.tntu.edu.ua/images/stories/pdf/2021/21kaasar.pdf

Socio-Economic Problems and the State

2(25)

Nov-2021

Oct-2021

22-Sep-2022

Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University

UA

Ternopil

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1437-4823
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1229-4766
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7732-6186

https://doi.org/10.33108/sepd2022.02.550

33(091)

N43

reform
land tenure
cutting
hamlet
community
capitalism
peasantry
nobility
government

8

550-557

550

557

The main reason for the implementation of the next agrarian reform was the profound changes that have taken place in the field of socio-economic relations. The economy of the Russian Empire, after series of crisis and internal political upheavals, found itself in a state of prolonged depression. The economic lag behind Western European countries has led to dependence on foreign investment. The tasks set before the reform of February 19, 1861, were never realized. Starting the agrarian reform, the government headed by P. Stolypin set the task of comprehensively addressing the following issues: increase efficiency, marketability of agricultural production, strengthen the social resistance of the government in the countryside by destroying the community and transferring land to private ownership. It was believed that the appearance of the peasant’s sense of ownership would automatically remove the problem of dissatisfaction with the policy of the authorities in the countryside. The Peasant Land Bank was the main lever for reform. Pre-designed legislation expanded its powers. Of all the hamlets and cuttings, the highest were the share of those that appeared on the lands of the Peasant Land Bank. On the other hand, the State Noble Land Bank actually preserved the existence of the feudal in the form of the creation of aristocratic land tenure, credit support hindered the development of capitalist relations. The Peasant Land Bank, with the aim of lending to peasant land tenure, stimulated the growth of land prices, which indirectly helped the noble land tenure. The reform significantly accelerated the development of capitalist relations in the countryside: as a result of the destruction of the community, capitalist land ownership was created, strips were eliminated, the process of land concentration in the hands of wealthy peasants intensified, and the marketability of agriculture increased. However, in general, P. Stolypin’s reform did not achieve its goal – it did not ensure the creation of a strong capitalist system in the countryside, as aristocratic land tenure was preserved. During its implementation, there were no cardinal changes in land tenure and land use in the provinces of the Right Bank of Ukraine. The main reason was the predominant farmland ownership of peasants. The creation of farms and cuts contributed to a partial solution to the problem across the strip.

http://elartu.tntu.edu.ua/handle/lib/38782

2223-3822

Scientific Journal "Socio-Economic Problems and the State"

http://sepd.tntu.edu.ua/images/stories/pdf/2021/21kaasar.pdf

1. Vlasiuk I. (2004) Zminy u rozvytku pomischytskykh hospodarstv Pravoberezhnoii Ukraiiny v roky provedennia Stolypinskoii reformy (1906-1914 rr.) [Changes in the development of landed estates of the Right Bank Ukraine during the Stolypin agrarian reform (1906-1914)]. Problems of the history of Ukraine of the XIX – early XX centuries. Vol. 7. pp. 48-54. (in Ukrainian).
2. Nechytailo V.V. (2004) Selianske hospodarstvo fermerskoho typu v Ukraiini: istoriia i suchasnist [Peasant farming in Ukraine: history and modernity]. Kamianets-Podilsky (in Ukrainian).
3. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii. Sobranie tretie (PSZ-III) [Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Third meeting]. Т.26, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1906. №28315 “O prednaznachenii kazennykh zemel k prodazhe dlia rasshirieniia krestianskogo zemlevladenia” [On the purpose of state land for sale for the expansion of peasant land tenure]. St. Petersburg, 1909. pp.846-847. (in Russian).
4. PSZ-III. Т.26, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1906. №28416 “O ponizhenii platezhei zaemschikov Krestianskogo Pozemelnogo Banka” [On the decrease in payments of borrowers of the Peasant Land Bank]. St. Petersburg, 1909. pp.902-903. (in Russian).
5. PSZ-III. Т.26, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1906. №28528 “O dopolnenii nekotorykh postanovlenii deistvuiuschego zakona, kasaiuschikhsia krestianskogo zemlevladenia i zemlepolzovania” [On the addition of some provisions of the current law concerning peasant land tenure and land use]. St. Petersburg, 1909. pp.970-974. (in Russian).
6. PSZ-III. Т.26, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1906. №28547 “O vydache Krestianskim Pozemelnym bankom ssud pod zalog nadelnykh zemel” [On the issuance of loans by the Peasant Land Bank on the security of allotment land]. St. Petersburg, 1909. p.981. (in Russian).
7. PSZ-III. Т.28, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1908. №30521 “O soglasovanii posrednicheskoi deiatelnosti Krestianskogo Pozemelnogo Banka s obschimi zemleustroitelnymi meropriiatiiami pravitelstva” [On the coordination of the intermediary activities of the Peasant Land Bank with the general land management measures of the government]. St. Petersburg, 1911. pp.377-378. (in Russian).
8. PSZ-III. Т.29, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1909. №31728 “O poriadke vydachi ssud na obschepoleznyie nadobnosti pereselentsev” [On the procedure for granting loans for general useful needs of migrants]. St. Petersburg, 1912. p.267. (in Russian).
9. PSZ-III. Т.31, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1911. №35370 “O zemleustroistve” [About land management]. St. Petersburg, 1914. pp.453-471. (in Russian).
10. PSZ-III. Т.32, otdelenie pervoe [part first], 1912. №37341 “O ssudakh i posobiiakh iz sredstv kazny pri zemleustroistve” [About loans and benefits from the treasury for land management]. Petrograd, 1915. pp.711-713. (in Russian).
11. Romaniuk N. (2010) Pryvatne zemlevolodinnia v konteksti pidpryiemnytstva v umovakh ahrarnykh peretvoren druhoi polovyny XIX – pochatku XX st. [Private land tenure in the context of entrepreneurship in the conditions of agrarian transformations of the second half of the XIX – beginning of the XX century]. Volyn historical notes. No. 5. pp.25-31. (in Ukrainian).
12. Selskoe khoziaistvo Rossii v XX veke. Sbornik statistiko-ekonomicheskikh svedenii za 1901-1922. (1923) [Agriculture of Russia in the XX century. Collection of statistical and economic information for 1901-1922]. Moscow. (in Russian).
13. Statisticheskii spravochnik po agrarnomu voprosu (1917) [Statistical handbook on the agrarian question]. Vypusk 1. Zemlevladenie i zemlepolzovanie [Issue 1. Land tenure and land use]. Moskow (in Russian).
14. Yakymenko M.A. (1996) Stanovlennia selianskoho (fermerskoho) hospodarstva v Ukraiini pislia skasuvannia kriposnoho prava (1861-1918 rr.) [Formation of peasant (farmer) economy in Ukraine after the abolition of serfdom (1861-1918)]. Ukrainian Historical Journal. No.1. pp.3-14. (in Ukrainian).

Article

Scientific Journal "Socio-Economic Problems and the State" Vol 2(25)