Suchergebnisse

This article considers the reasons and consequences of the increased attention from politicians and scholars to the challenges of national and global food security. First, the authors focus on the contradictory definitions of food security in intellectual and ideological debates which determine the development of national and global doctrines of food security (and 'food sovereignty' as its critical alternative). Secondly, the authors consider past and present attempts to ensure food security and identify the historical zigzags of food policies in Russia (from the Soviet autarchic policy of food self-sufficiency to attempts to liberalize food security definitions in the 1990s, and the new protectionist and autarchic food security doctrine of the 2000s). The authors also present a range of common indicators of food security, and emphasize that the gross growth in the production of various types of food is insufficient to assess the quality of national food policies. The key indicators of food security include the effectiveness of agricultural production, access to quality food for all social groups, and the potential of consumers to control the issues of national food security. Finally, the authors consider the sociological approach to the study of food security and present data from a series of sociological monitoring developed and conducted by the Center for Agrarian Studies of RANEPA 2015-2017. The analysis identified the 'double autarchy' in the responses of respondents: on the one hand, they support the general political course on food protectionism and nationalism (state autarchy), while, on the other, they strive to implement a micro-policy of autonomous food sovereignty (family autarchy) by intensifying household efforts to ensure natural self-sufficiency. © 2018 National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Der Autor beschäftigt sich mit der Rolle der KPdSU in der Landwirtschaft und bei der Implementierung der Agrarpolitik. Für den Zeitraum der Stalin-Ära geschieht dies anhand einer Besprechung der Titel: Kaplan, Cynthia S.: The Party and Agricultural Crisis Management in the USSR (1927-1939), und Thorniley, Daniel: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Rural Communist Party, 1927-1939. Analysiert wird die Rolle der KPdSU in der Landwirtschaft im Kontext der sozio-ökonomischen Entwicklung und des Entwicklungstands der KPdSU im Hinblick auf ihre Fähigkeit zur Penetration aller Sektoren der Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Bezüglich der Gorbatschow-Ära wird eine dominante Rolle der KPdSU in der Agrarverwaltung und bei der Implementierung der Gorbatschowschen Landwirtschaftsreformpolitik konstatiert (verglichen mit der Stalin-Ära also eher Kontinuität denn Wandel). Abschließend wird auf die Gefahr einer Unterminierung der Perestroika in den ländlichen Regionen durch die Parteiorganisationen der unteren Ebenen verwiesen. (BIOst-Klk)

The Russian countryside was among the biggest losers during market reforms in the 1990s. The combination of an emasculated state, vocal rural leadership which opposed reform, and rural conservatism would seem to portend rural instability. Yet, mass protests did not occur, and in general the countryside was quiet. Why?This article analyzes sources of rural stability in Russia through the prism of the social contract. Rural quiescence occurred because of a transformation in the rural social contract. As market reforms unfolded, the Soviet era rural social contract ended, or at the very least was rendered untenable, and a new relationship between state and the countryside emerged. This transformation of the rural social contract was characterized by movement from statedependence to relative household independence. The nature of the rural social contract changed in three important ways: (1) the 'contract' was changed from below, not above; (2) rural households became less dependent upon the state for their income and welfare; and (3) the content of the 'contract' changed from the Soviet era exchange of increasing standards of living for quiescence/compliance to increased economic freedom for political quiescence/compliance.