Forms of Communication between Large-scale Farms and Local Administrative Authorities in Russian Villages: About Benefactors and Sponsors

Abstract

This article investigates the forms of communication emerging between local administrative authorities and large-scale agricultural enterprises with regard to public service provision in two Russian villages. Using a systems theory approach and conceptualising Soviet society as an organisational society, privatisation and local government reform may be observed as attempts to disentangle former collective farms and local authorities and adjust them to the logics of functional differentiation. Empirical evidence from a former kolkhoz and an agro-holding shows that both react to the contradiction between global transformation imperatives and local expectations, using a specific combination of formality and informality as a condition of their reproduction in the villages.

Notes

¹ ‘Chelovek ot zemli’, leaflet distributed by the local administration in Andreevka village, February 2009.

² This and the following quote stem from the record of the ceremony by local TV station, TV Okhansk, August 2008.

³ See also, Lee (2007).

⁴ See also, Pollack (1990), Hayoz (1997).

⁵ The Standard Charters were standardised patterns which had the force of law and defined the general principles for the internal structure and the duties of the collective farms (Altrichter 1984, p. 195; Lindner 2008, p. 72).

⁶ For extensive descriptions of collective farms in the Soviet regime, see Wädekin (1969, 1973), Humphrey (1998), Lindner (2008).

⁷ For functional differentiation as a frame for the observation of organisations, see Tacke (2001).

⁸ For the distinction between purpose and function, see Luhmann (1995a, pp. 222–23).

⁹ For privatisation policies in Russia, see World Bank (1992, Chapter 5), Boycko et al. (1993), Appel (1997); for voucher privatisation in Russian agriculture, see Barnes (1998), Wegren (2009b, p. 51).

¹⁰ For empirical evidence see Amelina (2000), Lindner (2008).

¹¹ ‘Ob Obshchikh Nachalakh Mestnovo Samoupravleniya i Mestnovo Khozyaistva v SSSR’, adopted 9 April 1990.

¹² ‘Konstitutsiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii’, adopted 12 December 1993 by referendum, available at: http://www.constitution.ru/index.htm, accessed 17 August 2016; ‘European Charter of Local Self-Government’, Council of Europe, ETS No. 122, 1 September 1988, available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/122, accessed 17 August 2016; ‘Ob Obshchikh Printsipakh Organizatsii Mestnovo Samoupravleniya v Rossiiskoi Federatsii’, 154-FZ, 28 August 1995; ‘O Finantsovykh Osnovakh Mestnovo Samoupravleniya v Rossiiskoi Federatsii’, 126-FZ, 25 September 1997.

¹³ For similar judgements, see Gel’man (2002), Young and Wilson (2007, p. 1075f), Wollmann and Gritsenko (2009).

¹⁴ ‘Ob obshchikh printsipakh organizatsii mestnogo samoupravleniya v Rossiskoi Federatsii’, 131-FZ, 6 October 2003, available at: https://rg.ru/2003/10/08/zakonsamouprav.html, accessed 17 August 2016.

¹⁵ See also the statistical material in Lindner and Vorbrugg (2011), Wegren (2009a).

¹⁶ For comparable data, see Rylko and Jolly (2005, pp. 119–21), Uzun (2009a, pp. 26–8).

¹⁷ My analysis is based on ethnographic data collected during three field trips (August–September 2008, February–March 2009 and February–March 2010). The interviews were problem-focussed in-depth interviews (Witzel 1982) with members of local authorities (mayors, members of the village councils, employees of the local administrations), members of the farm management (chairman, executive employees), farm workers and other residents of the settlements. The data were analysed according to the documentary method as suggested by Bohnsack (2008).

¹⁸ The existence of ‘personal subsidiary economies’ (lichnoe podsobnoe khozyaistvo) goes back to regulations set out in the Standard Charters. Every kolkhoz member was officially entitled to cultivate (but not own) a small piece of land (0.5 hectares maximum), to keep a limited amount of livestock (especially small livestock like pigs, sheep, goats and poultry) and to sell the goods produced for his own account. The collective enterprises actively supported the smallholdings by providing technical equipment and input like fodder, fertiliser or seed at low prices.

¹⁹ Author’s interview with members of the local council, Andreevka, 13 August 2008.

²⁰ For organisational façades, see Kühl (2011, pp. 136–38).

²¹ Author’s interview with chairman of the former kolkhoz, Andreevka, 20 February 2010.

²² Author’s interview with a leading economist (glavnyi ekonomist) of the former kolkhoz, Andreevka, 19 February 2010.

²³ Author‘s interview with the chairman of the former kolkhoz, Andreevka, 20 February 2010.

²⁴ Author’s interview with the mayor, Andreevka, 12 March 2010.

²⁵ Author’s interview with the leader of the medical care centre, Andreevka, 14 August 2008.

²⁶ For the meaning of access rights in the Soviet village, see Amelina (2001, pp. 44–6).

²⁷ Author’s interview with the chief economist of the former kolkhoz, Andreevka, 19 February 2010.

²⁸ Author’s interview with the chairman of the former kolkhoz, Andreevka, 20 February 2010.

²⁹ The notion of the ‘investor’ refers to the local language usage in the village, where talk was usually about ‘our investor’ or sometimes even about ‘our oligarkh’. The person standing behind this term was the chief executive officer of the corporation.

³⁰ Author’s interview with an employee of the local administration, Belyaevka, 24 March 2009.

³¹ Author’s interview with the CEO of the agro-holding, Belyaevka, 13 August 2008.

³² Author’s interview with the CEO of the agro-holding, Belyaevka, 13 August 2008.

³³ Author’s interview with the CEO of the agro-holding, Belyaevka, 13 August 2008.

³⁴ Author’s interview with the CEO of the agro-holding, Belyaevka, 13 August 2008.

³⁵ Author’s interview with the CEO of the agro-holding, Belyaevka, 13 August 2008.