Institute of Private Land in Cross-Border Zones of Southern Russia: Ethnic Aspect
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-3-664-676
Abstract
The paper presents intermediate results of a comparative analysis of land reforms conducted on the cusps of XIX– XX and XX–XXI centuries. It focuses on their medium- and long-term impact on the native territories of Russia’s southern frontier. The article describes the correlation of state and ethnic interests in land management and formation of the private land institute. The research owes its relevance to the problems of the system of regional ethnological monitoring, as well as that of the effect of the national and agricultural state policy on the scientific forecasting of the changes in the ethno-social situation. The corruption-based principle of social stratification was initially incorporated in the mechanism of land market formation proposed by the state. In ethnic regions, the reorganization of land ownership triggered a secondary process of ethnic stratification. As a result, allocated shares concentrated in the hands of ethnic nobility families, thus shaping a social stratum during the Soviet period. The research was a pilot study of the natural resource management systems used by ethnic and migrant communities in the southern frontier and social policy of the late XIX – early XXI centuries. The author concludes that the Russian government retained levers of direct influence on the processes of: a) administrative and territorial structure; b) settlement system and population structure, including ethnic; c) social strata of land owners; d) traditional land use systems and subsistence of rural enclave transformation. This trend made it possible to consider the history of Russian state land policy in the context of the general course of national policy, which is part of interdisciplinary research that unites history, ethnology, politics, sociology, and economics.
About the Author
A. N. Sadovoy
Federal Research Centre the Subtropical Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Sochi
Russian Federation
Sochi
References
1. Sadovoy A. N. Historical mythmaking in the structure of ethnological expertise: the problem of ethnic process and social technologies distinction. Myth in history, politics, culture: Proc. III Intern. Sci. interdisciplinary Conf., Sevastopol, June 26–27, 2019. Sevastopol: Filial MGU im. M. V. Lomonosova v gorode Sevastopole, 2019, 398–402. (In Russ.)
2. Sadovoy A. N. Methodological and organizational aspects of the formation of the source base for the modern system of intercultural communications. Problems of modern sociocultural research: Proc. All-Russian Sci.-Prac. Conf., Astrakhan, November 28, 2019. Astrakhan: ID Astrakhanskii universitet, 2019, 12–16. (In Russ.)
3. Sadovoy A. N. The ethnic entrepreneurship in the transboundary regions. To the methods of adaptation processes analysis. Social, economic, technological, and environmental aspects of sustainable development of Russian regions: Proc. All-Russian Sci. Conf., dedicated the 30th anniversary of the SNITs RAS and SSU, Sochi, October 23–26, 2018. Sochi: Optima, 2018, 167–173. (In Russ.)
4. Mileshina N. A. Russian nobility's homestead heritage preservation problems in modern legislation and in practice. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kul'turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2012, (1-1): 132–135. (In Russ.)
5. Mileshina N. A., Potapova L. A. The restoration of the manor heritage of Russia: legislative support problems. Sovremennyj uchenyj, 2017, (3): 241–244. (In Russ.)
6. Lipski S. A. The land reform in post-soviet Russia. Ekonomicheskiy zhurnal, 2013, (3): 139–148. (In Russ.)
7. Obukhova O. V. Features of the Russian Federation land reforms on the example of Primorsky region. Agrarnyi vestnik Primoria, 2016, (3): 55–58. (In Russ.)
8. Pustovalova O. V. Land reforms of 1990: historical and legal analysis. Interekspo Geo-Sibir, 2015, 6(2): 34–43. (In Russ.)
9. Palladina M. I. The legal regulation of land reform: the emergence and development of private ownership of agricultural land. Agrarian and land law, 2013, (3): 19–25. (In Russ.)
10. Serogodskii N. A. Land reform and its realization in Krasnodar Krai (1991 – the beginning of the 2000s). Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridiche-skie nauki, kul'turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2015, (1-1): 182–184. (In Russ.)
11. Khubiev K. A., Makarov A. I. An alternative approach to land reform in Russia: property relations and the problem of their decriminalization. Problems in Political Economy, 2016, (2): 76–87. (In Russ.)
12. Poddubikov V. V., Sadovoy A. N., Belozerova M. V. Expertise and monitoring of traditional forms of environmental management of indigenous small ethnic groups: methods of applied ethnology. Kemerovo: Praktika, 2014, 358. (In Russ.)
13. Chenciner R., Magomedkhanov M. Ethno-cultural consequences of the mass migration of highlanders of Dagestan to plains. Proceedings of V International Congress of Caucasologists. Tbilisi, 2019. P. 301–302.
14. Magomedhanov M. M., Ramazanova Z. B. Transformation of land use traditions in Nagorny Dagestan: historical experience and socio-economic effect. Regionalnye problemy preobrazovaniia ekonomiki, 2016, (12): 56–62. (In Russ.)
15. Rodzi N. I., Zaki S. A., Subli S. M. Between tourism and intangible cultural heritage. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013, 85: 411–420.
16. Karpova G. A., Khoreva L. V. Commodification of intangible cultural heritage in the cultural tourism. Servis v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2016, 10(9): 6–14. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.22412/1995-042X-10-9-1
17. Kurinskikh P. A. Problems of folklorism in foreign historiography. Nauchnyi dialog, 2016, (2): 250–260. (In Russ.)
18. Magomedhanov M. M., Sadovoy A. N., Chenciner R., Bakanov A. V., Garunova S. M. The "green path" of ethnotourism's monetization: Dagestan. The Archi project. History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Caucasus, 2020, 16(1): 157–184. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.32653/CH161157-184
19. Dameshek L. M. Codification of the norms of customary law of the peoples of Siberia as a source for the history of the internal politics of the autocracy in the nineteenth century. Source study of the history of state and law of pre-revolutionary Russia, ed. Skripilev E. A. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutskogo un-ta, 1983, 29–41. (In Russ.)
20. Sadovoy A. N. Territorial community of Mountain Altai and Shoria (late – early centuries). Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 1992, 198. (In Russ.)
21. Hrapova N. Yu. On the matter of content and staffing of the Altai mission agency in the second half of the XIX – early XX centuries. Major issues of the history of Siberia, eds. Kiryushin Yu. F., Skubnevsky V. A. Barnaul: Izd-vo AGU, 1998, 120–123. (In Russ.)
22. Khramkov A. A. On the matter of the results of the land-organizational reform in Siberia (1896–1916). From the history of Altai, eds. Borodavkin A. P., Khramkov A. A. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tom. un-ta, 1978, 52–68. (In Russ.)
23. Korneeva G. A. Development of the law "On land management" on May 23, 1896 and the issue of land ownership in Siberia. Agrarian relations and land policy of tsarist regime in Siberia (late XIX – 1917), ed. Sheinfeld M. B. Krasnoyarsk: KGPI, 1982, 15–29. (In Russ.)
24. Sadovoy A. N., Belozerova M. V., Setrov M. I., Eliseev D. O., Lukashev E. P., Muradullaev R. S. Report on research "Development of methods for expert assessment and forecast of the quality of life of the population" ( final). Sochi: SNITs, 2016, 130. State No. reg. 114100740110. (In Russ.)
25. Maasikamae S., Shavrov S. A., Jirgenson E. Land reform and foreign experience. Trudy BGTU. Seriia 5: Ekonomika i upravlenie, 2017, (1): 110–115. (In Russ.)
26. Adiev A. Z. Land reform and protests in the Nogai district of Dagestan (the analysis of the events of 2017). Vlast. 2017, 25(11): 181–186. (In Russ.)
27. Khalidov D. Culture and mountain economy of Dagestan: the growth of conflict potential and the problem of the adequacy of public policy. Proceedings of V International Congress of Caucasologists. Tbilisi, 2019, 352–353.
28. Belozerova M. V. Traditional shapsurs’ natural resource use: prospects for revival. Nauchnyi dialog, 2017, (11): 328–339. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2017-11-328-339
29. Belozerova M. V. Sources on the history of ethnic entrepreneurship of the Republic of Adygea and the Black Sea in the early 1990s. Nauchnyi dialog, 2019(10): 310–327. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2019-10-310-327
30. Makarov A. N. On food security and land reform. Socio-economic and engineering systems: research, design and optimization, 2017, (1): 68–83. (In Russ.)
31. Divnogortseva O. I., Kozhevnikova L. M. Experience and problems of land management in agriculture Krasnoyarsk territory in the conditions of modern land reform. Science and Education: Experience, Problems, and Development Prospects: Proc. Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf., Krasnoyarsk, April 18–20, 2017. Krasnoyarsk: KrasGAU, 2017, pt. 2, 17–22. (In Russ.)
32. Dugina T. A. Development of land relations in Russian agriculture. Rossiykoe predprinimatelstvo, 2014, (2): 78–85. (In Russ.)
33. Balashov E. V. Stolypin agrarian reform and contemporary land legislation. Vestnik VEHGU, 2010, (5): 4–7. (In Russ.)
34. Sadovoy A. N., Belozerova M. V., Zinoviev V. P., Kulemzin V. M. Historical and ethnosocial aspects of analysis of the efficiency of the Russian state national policy of the XIX–XXI centuries. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriya, 2020, (65): 178–189. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17223/19988613/65/23
Review
For citations:
Sadovoy A.N. Institute of Private Land in Cross-Border Zones of Southern Russia: Ethnic Aspect. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2020;22(3):664-676. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-3-664-676
Views:
415
Email this article 