Yuli Zhukovsky’s contribution to Russian debates on economic development of the 1860s–70s

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the debate on economic development in Russia after the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and focuses on the contribution of Yuli Zhukovsky, a self-taught economist. Based on his interpretation of western ideas, he saw material conditions as the crucial factor of economic development and suggested a set of measures that would ensure the improvement of the country’s productivity. Zhukovsky’s eclectic views differed from the ideas of the radical intelligentsia and the liberals, thus making his contribution unique.

Keywords:

• Yuli Zhukovsky
• Emancipation reform
• economic policy
• peasant question
• Russian economic thought

JEL CODES:

• B12 Classical (includes Adam Smith)
• B31 Individuals
• O10 Economic Development General

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This research would not have been possible without Denis Melnik. I am also grateful to Guenther Chaloupek, Nikolay Nenovsky and Vladimir Avtonomov for their valuable comments at the ESHET 2021 Conference. Finally, I would like to thank the two referees and the editors of the journal who have helped in improving the paper. All remaining shortcomings are mine.

2 For Zhukovsky’s complete biography see (Zhukovsky 1909, I–XXIX).

3 Zhukovsky wrote for Sovremennik until it was closed due to increased censorship after the attempt on Alexander II in 1866 (Ruud 1969, 244).

4 For quantitative analysis of Emancipation reform consequences see (Markevich and Zhuravskaya 2018)

5 In fact, the peasants were outraged, and the announcement of the Emancipation Manifesto led to a wave of peasant uprisings (Blum 1961, 591–592).

6 Unlike Zhukovsky, the general public proclaimed the immorality of serfdom as the main reason for the Emancipation reform (Zhukovsky 1863a, 178). Such a position was largely inspired by popular Russian novelists like Ivan Turgenev, though it lacked any normative propositions of what had to be done (Blum 1961, 568).