land reform and land relations in rural russia

17
Land Reform and Land Relations in Rural Russia By Valery Patsiorkovsky, David O´Brien, Stephen K. Wergen Presented by: Linda Mankovecká, IBAC 2010/2011

Upload: gus

Post on 24-Feb-2016

45 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Land Reform and Land Relations in Rural Russia. By Valery Patsiorkovsky , David O´Brien , Stephen K. Wergen Presented by: Linda Mankovecká , IBAC 2010/2011. Keywords. Farming enterprise Rural household Household plot – area , estate , parcel Privatisation. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Land Reform and Land Relations in Rural Russia

By Valery Patsiorkovsky, David O´Brien, Stephen K. WergenPresented by: Linda Mankovecká, IBAC 2010/2011

Page 2: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Keywords

• Farming enterprise

• Rural household

• Household plot – area, estate, parcel

• Privatisation

Page 3: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Introduction• Fall of Communism in Russia – privatisation (as

society and economy moved away from the principles of Marxism)

• By the end of the 1990´s Russias economy was more private than not

• Primary goal of privatization – to transfer land from the state to private citizens

• The study focuses on the impact of Land Reform in Russia on land relations and land use within rural population

Page 4: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Legislation• Legislative foundation for LR in Russia – adopted

during 1990-1995

• Several decrees were issued – initiated the process of creating institutions to support a market economy in agriculture

• 1,2 million km² (60% of total agricultural land) – privatised during 1992-1997

• Distribution of land – share certificate system

Page 5: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

• 11,9 million land shares were issued – majority was distributed to private owners (members of collective and state farms, pensioners, social service workers, teachers and medical personell)

• 70,8% - land used by large enterprises for rent• 25,6% - land invested as a physical capital of the

large enterprise – no control over that land• 3,8% - people who retain the control over the land

they have received

• Low usage of agricultural land

Page 6: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

• 2001 – President Putin signed the new Land Code – brought clarity to land relations by establishing certain rights (expected to increase land transfers)

1. Right to own and transfer private property2. Right to lease land

However, there still remains a great deal of confusion among all land users (industry, agriculture, households)

- Rejection of the new Land Code by some regions

Page 7: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

• Regions´ own land laws and land markets• e. g.: in the Land Law of Saratov there are

determinations of minimum and maximum sizes for land to be classiffied for private agricultural use

• By 2002 there were four categories of regions according to their responses to LR and privatisation

1. Places where regional law doesn´t recognise land as private property – strong legal barriers to the purchase or sale of land (even prohibition)

Page 8: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

2. Regions where 40 – 49% of agricultural land has been privatised

3. Regions where 50 – 59% of agricultural land has been privatised

4. Regions where 60% or more of agricultural land has been privatised

Page 9: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Change in land use – survey data• 2 surveys were taken in various Russian villagesThree villages (in Rostov, Belgorod and Tver regions)

were surveyed in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2003 and 800 households were interviewed in 2001

A. Belgorod – Vengerovka, Veseloe, Zasosno, Kazaskoe, StreletskoeB. Volgograd – Dubrinka, Dubovsky, Katovsky, MikhailovskayaC. Krasnodar – Kartushina Balka, Novoivanovskoe, Razdolnoe, ShkurinskayaD. Novgorod – Berezovik, Borovenka, Melnitsy, OzerkiE. Rostov – LatonovoF. Tver – Bolshoe, SviattsovoG. Chuvash – Vurmankasy-Munsut, Mikhailovka, Tuvsi, Churachiki

Page 10: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

From these survey data, certain patterns/trends were evident:1. Only a very small % (1,3) of households reported

buying or selling land – although this was the goal of the reformers in Moscow

• The majority of changes involved new types of formal and informal land rental arrangements

- FRA – local village administrations using a portion of the land of the households

- IRA – one household rents land from another household usually in return for some portion of the food produced on that land

Page 11: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

2. throuhghout rural Russia - smaller number of households controlls/owns slightly larger plots

3. An increase in formally leasing land for agriculture use by households (56,3% in 1993 and 75,9% in 2003)

Unique aspects of land relations – instead of eschewing new opportunities presented by land reform, households found new and creative ways of combining different types of land for usage

Page 12: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Average size of different types of land use arrangements in 2001

Region Average sizePrivate

plotFormal

leased landShare crop

arrangementsInformal

leased landTotal land

use

Belgorod Oblast 0,35 0,13 0,17 0,43 1,09Chuvash Republic 0,30 0,20 0 0 0,51

Krasnodar Krai 0,26 0,16 0,03 1,69 2,15Novgorod Oblast 0,16 0,36 0,49 0,31 1,33

Volgograd Oblast 0,17 1,61 0,27 1,84 3,90Total 0,25 0,49 0,85 0,85 1,79

• the biggest difference occur in the categories of formal and informal leased land – reflection of regional legal institutions (Volgograd vs. Krasnodar)

Page 13: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Another unique aspect that comes from the survey concerns land shares (their distribution)

Differences between regions in the average size and number of households with land shares:

Region Average sizeof land share

Number of households with land shares

Number Percentage of HHs inregional sample

Belgorod Oblast 2.90 99 61.9

Chuvash Republic 1.97 64 40.0

Krasnodar Krai 6.30 117 73.1

Novgorod Oblast 4.41 82 51.3

Volgograd Oblast 10.38 111 69.8

Total 5.19 473 59.6

e. g.: in the Chuvas republic with high population density (74.2 p/km²) only 40% of Households received land shares. By contrast, Volgograd with much lower population density (23.5 p/km²) 69.8% of households received land shares

Page 14: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

The third notable aspect – many households not only have enough/sufficient land, but they may actually have more land that they can effectively use

(-suggestion that in some regions the disctinction between rural household land holdings and smaller private farms might be blurred

-rural households took advantage of reform and obtained land for use in agricultural production)

Page 15: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Conclusion• There has been much more change in land relations in

the Russian countryside than has been previously acknowledged

• Rural households and individuals have responded in opportunistic way – important restructuring of land use and land ownership

• If macro-economic trends continue to improve and incomes continue their increase, the rural land market may be expected to become more robust and take on a great economic significance

Page 16: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Resources

Page 17: Land Reform  and  Land Relations  in  Rural Russia

Thank you for your attention