CONCEPTUALISING THE NOTION OF "PROFIT" AMONG THE RUSSIAN NOBILITY (SECOND HALF OF THE 18th -FIRST HALF OF THE 19th CENTURIES) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Economic history of early modern Russia. Introduction
Cahiers du monde russe. , 2023
Russie-Empire russe-Union soviétique et États indépendants 64/2 | 2023 Histoire économique de la Russie au début de l'époque moderne Dossier. Histoire économique de la Russie au début de l'époque moderne Economic history of early modern Russia Zoia V. Dmitrieva's scientific career is a long and successful one. Born in 1946, she studied sixteenth-and seventeenth-century Russian history at Leningrad State University, which shaped her further professional development. She was part of the group of students who, in the second half of the 1960s, were involved in preparing 2 SEARCH All OpenEdition
Ukraina Moderna. Special issue, The Economic Elite of Ukraine from a Comparative Historical Perspective 25 (2018): 103–120, 2018
This paper examines the economic background of the integration of Slobidska Ukraine Cossack officers into the Russian imperial nobility in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. From the very beginning, they enjoyed self-government and equal economic liberties within the so-called “Cherkassky custom.” The settlers acquired plots in accordance with the right to occupy land freely, while tax-exempt alcohol production and trade proved to be a most lucrative enterprise. In the mid-1760s, the imperial government destroyed the Cossack autonomy of Slobidska Ukraine and set in motion a profound social transformation. In contrast to the former rank-and-file Cossacks who sunk to the status of peasants under poll taxation, the officers preserved their economic privileges and obtained their lands legally. The local landowning elite was finally ennobled (1786-1796) and thus remained loyal to the state.
Property Rights and the Economic Development of Early Modern Russia
2004
The alleged lack of formally codified property rights has established itself as a standard explanation for Russia's economic and political "backwardness" in the early modern period and even thereafter. Under the most pessimistic interpretation Russia is said to have had "no guarantees of civil rights and no economic security (emphasis mine)." It is suggested that the absence of such rights resulted in a lack of incentives to invest and produce beyond the necessary minimum. Moreover, no economically independent "bourgeoisie" was able to emerge to serve as an effective counterpoise to the all-powerful tsar, so as to modify the autocratic character of the Russian government. The main problem with this "standard story," as well as with most of its critics, is that it views property relations almost entirely through a judicial, political, or sociological prism. Russia was clearly evolving towards an absolutism of sorts and its law codes did not appear to provide for anything comparable to, say, Anglo-Saxon notions of property. This choice of sources has led many scholars to effectively ignore many of the crucial economic aspects of ownership. The chief tenet of the approach adopted in this paper is that economic efficiency was a more important consideration for the long-term development of Russia than de iure property rights. It will be argued that Anglo-Saxon notions of property are an inappropriate reference point in trying to understand the evolution of property relations in Muscovy. Instead of merely assessing how far Russian law codes diverged from their Western counterparts, we should try to analyze the administration of property relations which was often done outside of the realm of formal law. The Russian approach to property saw countless significant instances where de facto claims, rather than any judicial or political decisions, created the relevant set of incentives driving productive behavior. The importance of such claims was further enhanced by the enormous size and low population density of Russia, which imposed considerable transaction costs on any attempts to enforce juridical rights. Ultimately, it will be argued, Muscovite Russia gradually moved towards more economically efficient institutions and found increasingly effective ways of administering its available resources.
2020
Defence date: 29 May 2020 (Online)Examining Board: Prof. Youssef Cassis (EUI, Supervisor); Prof. Andrei Markevich (NES, Moscow, External Advisor); Prof. Alexander Etkind (EUI); Prof. Tracy Dennison (Caltech)In recent years, there has been an explosion of literature about material inequality and the historical linkages between socio-economic disparities and inheritance strategies. These studies mainly focus on Western Europe and North America, while histories of personal wealth in the Russian Empire are underrepresented. My dissertation investigates the role of social stratification and private property rights in the accumulation and redistribution of personal wealth among the Russian urban population. I particularly focus on guild merchants during the second half of the nineteenth century. I have examined this group because merchants straddled social estates (as defined by law), class (as defined by socio-economic activity) and most were successful in the accumulation of personal as...
THE CULTURE OF THE NOBILITY OF KYIV PROVINCE IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19 TH CENTURY
The authors made an attempt to explore the particularities of the economic development and the financial standing of the Nobility of Kyiv Province in the First Half of the 19th Century. The Ukrainian nobility originates from the senior Cossack officers (starshyna) and the Right-Bank gentry (shliakhta), who received privileges and began to serve to the czarist government of the Russian Empire. The noblemen had to meet the requirements of their privileged position, including their activity in every sphere: economic, financial, credit, educational. The attitude of the imperial authorities towards the gentry depended on their loyalty; in case of such loyalty, the gentry were granted legal supremacy and financial benefits, even under conditions of persistent state budget deficits. A favorable attitude to the idleness and eternal leisure contributed to deepening crisis in nurturing palette of high aristocratic feelings. In this context, particular attention was paid to the significant influence of the legal and economic advantages of the Kyiv Province nobility on further development of this privileged social stratum.
2019
The purpose of this research is to investigate the material world of Ukrainian economic elites in 1920s-1930s. The turn to the Communist ideology caused the transformation of the state’s and society’s attitude towards everyday life and the world of things. In those circumstances, wealth, luxury, as characteristic features of the material world of any elite, should have also lost its relevance. The material world of the Ukrainian economic elites under NEP and early Stalinism kept all signs of belonging to the higher social strata. Thus, the main objects of this research are two groups of Ukrainian economic elites: private entrepreneurs and managers of state industrial companies, “nepmen” and Soviet “red directors” respectively. It is necessary to find out what were the features of wealth in Soviet times. What was the material world of the Ukrainian economic elite during the 1920s-1930s? What was the difference in the social position of its various representatives? What kind of goods “created” the elite everyday life for entrepreneurs and directors of the Soviet industry? Is it possible to create a sort of formula of wealth in Soviet times in the interwar period? To summarize, the material values, symbols of luxury and wealth, were extremely valuable for the economic elites of the 1920s-1930s. It was one of the reasons that differed them from the others strata of Soviet society. Their consumption had the statutory and demonstrative features. It was the period when shortage and closed distribution of goods transformed usual everyday things into luxury items that were only available to the higher circles. In fact, the priority of wealth as the characteristic features of the elite led to the formation of the privileged group of Soviet society, based on the ownership of property and goods. In fact, the personal and social identity of the economic elites in the 1920s-1930s was shaped by the possession of a certain set of goods and services that emphasized the status of their owner. Some researchers, on the contrary, suggest paying attention to the immateriality as a key feature of the Soviet project as a whole. That is why the prosperous consumer groups of Soviet society could be an interesting and controversial field of research, which can lead to understanding how were implemented the ideals of equality in practice. During the 1920s and 1930s, the social class of the Soviet economic elite and its consumer culture was formed. Both for “nepman” and “red director” things represented the same material value. However, the acquisition of wealth by those two groups of the economic elite took place in a different way. When a private trader bought certain material assets, the Soviet manager received them, mainly through a system of state distribution for workers or through the though social benefits. As a result, his consumer basket included not only things of everyday consumption, but also more durable items such as real estate, vehicles and other property.