the socioeconomic and cultural significance of food gardening in the vladimir region of russia

293 Pages·2008·3.34 MB·English

THE SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
FOOD GARDENING IN THE VLADIMIR REGION OF RUSSIA
________________________________________________________
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate School
at the University of Missouri–Columbia
________________________________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
________________________________________________________
by
LEONID SHARASHKIN
Dr. Michael A. Gold, Dissertation Supervisor
MAY 2008
The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School,
have examined the dissertation entitled
THE SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
FOOD GARDENING IN THE VLADIMIR REGION OF RUSSIA
presented by Leonid Sharashkin,
a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.
________________________________________________________
Dr. Michael A. Gold
________________________________________________________
Dr. Harold E. Garrett
________________________________________________________
Dr. William B. Kurtz
________________________________________________________
Dr. Elizabeth Barham
________________________________________________________
Dr. Mary K. Hendrickson
________________________________________________________
Dr. James S. Rikoon
To Anastasia and to millions of Russian gardening families who are perpetuating
the ancient tradition of living in union with Mother Earth.
“The Earth needs our help. Tenderness and a loving attitude give it strength. The Earth may
be large, but it is most sensitive. And it feels the tender caress of even a single human hand.
Oh, how it feels and anticipates this touch!
“There was a time in Russia when the Earth was deemed to belong to everyone and
therefore nobody in particular. So people did not think of it as their own. Then changes came
in Russia. They began giving out tiny private plots to people to go with their dachas.
“It was no coincidence at all that these plots were extremely small, too small to culti-
vate with mechanised equipment. But Russians, yearning for contact with the Earth, took
to them with joyous enthusiasm. They went to people both poor and rich. Because nothing
can break Man’s connection with the Earth!
“After obtaining their little plots of land, people intuitively felt their worth. And mil-
lions of pairs of human hands began touching the Earth with love. With their hands, you
understand, not with mechanised tools, lots and lots of people touched the ground caress-
ingly on these little plots. And the Earth felt this, it felt it very much. It felt the blessing
touch of each individual hand upon it. And the Earth found new strength to carry on.”
— Vladimir Megré, The Ringing Cedars of Russia
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
When I started researching the outwardly simple question of how and why the majority
of Russian families were growing their own food, the project did not seem to promise any
big discoveries. Indeed, I already knew that over 50% of Russia’s agricultural output was
coming from family garden-plots. That already sounded spectacular enough to overshadow
any new findings I might come up with. However, the research did yield many results
that — apart from their importance in the academic field — were also deeply transforma-
tive for me on both the professional and personal level. I thank my advisors for their guid-
ance and support which made this experience and dissertation possible.
My sincere gratitude to Dr. Michael A. Gold, my advisor, for his unparalleled support,
insightful guidance, trust, patience, and commitment to researching and promoting Earth-
friendly agricultural and agroforestry practices.
To Dr. Harold E. (“Gene”) Garrett for bringing me to Missouri in 2003, and for his end-
less support and encouragement ever since.
To Dr. Elizabeth Barham, for her support, sincere interest in my research, and for help-
ing me discover the momentous intellectual heritage of the Russian agricultural economist
Alexander Chaianov, who has been so thoroughly forgotten back in his home country.
To Dr. Mary Hendrickson, Dr. William Kurtz and Dr. Sandy Rikoon for their help,
encouragement, and guidance.
My gratitude and appreciation to 1,200 families of the Vladimir region of Russia, for tak-
ing their time to participate in the survey, and for their beautiful and productive gardens.
To Evgenii Polkovnikov and Andrei Kuzmin, directors of the non-profit Independent
Agency for Regional Research (NARI) in Vladimir, Russia, and to their staff, for their
ii
highly professional help with the field part of my research, and to my 22 interviewers for
their hard work, timeliness and dedication to get to even the most remote rural interview
sites through the snow and cold.
My special thanks also go to the Russian entrepreneur and writer Vladimir Megré who,
through his unique and insightful books, has illuminated for me the cultural and spiritual
significance of connectedness to the Earth in the Russian tradition.
This work was funded through the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those
of the author.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
CHAPTER 1. ANCIENT ROOTS, MODERN SHOOTS:
RUSSIA’S FAMILY AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definition of key terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why study household agriculture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Research objectives and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
PRIMARY AGRICULTURE: PRESENT PLACE OF HOUSEHOLD GARDENING IN RUSSIA’S ECONOMY . 10
Two agricultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Key macroeconomic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Productivity: share of GDP and agricultural output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Use of land resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Labor: participation in gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Other economic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Subsistence vs. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Produce sharing networks and food security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Other economic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Conclusion: household agriculture vs. commercial agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
BENEFITS OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD GARDENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Natural resource, agricultural, and sustainability dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Soil conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Decreasing chemical pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
iv
Wildlife and biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Natural resources conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The human dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Satisfying the psychological need for interaction with plants and nature . . . . 47
Health and physical well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Personal self-esteem and independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Hobby and recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Social interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Community development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Children development and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Other benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
THE CULTURAL DIMENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Culture and agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Definitions: culture and values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Definition of culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Definition of values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Cultural values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Spiritual values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A THOUSAND-YEAR WAR ON SUBSISTENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Why do history and tradition matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Food, freedom and authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Deep antiquity: before 9th century CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
The enslavement of Slavs: 10th to 19th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
The peasant economy and the agrarian question in the 19th – early 20th centuries 91
The agrarian question: Marxists vs. Chaianov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Agrarian values — the cultural dimension of peasantry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Soviet period: collectivization and persistence of small-scale private gardens . . 100
Chaianov’s utopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Subsidiary plot and dacha cultivation (1920s to present) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Post-Soviet period and to the present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
v
CHAPTER 2. HOUSEHOLD GARDENING IN THE VLADIMIR REGION . . . . . . 112
RESEARCH PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Research purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Research objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Participation in food gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Economic dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Agricultural dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Socio-cultural dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
RESEARCH APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Quantitative vs. qualitative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Descriptive vs. correlational research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Value and limitations of the regional approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Feasibility and meaningfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Relevance to decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Generalizability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Study region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Unit of observation: family (household) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Target population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Accessible population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Sampling design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Sample size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Sampling technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Addressing errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Description of instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Measuring cultural characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Validity procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Reliability procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
vi
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Survey type selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Interviewers’ selection and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Interviews: the field phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Addressing the non-response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
News from the field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Data entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
GENERAL SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Demographics of responding households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Participation in gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
ECONOMIC DIMENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Capital: tools and improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Subsistence, sharing, and market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Place in household’s food economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
AGRICULTURAL DIMENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Crops: diversity, annuals and perennials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Soil fertility maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Weed and pest control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Seed sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
SOCIOCULTURAL DIMENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
vii