Land reform and the land market in Russia: Operation, constraints and prospects

Europe - Asia Studies

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 959-987

  Wegren, Stephen K ^a  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LAND MARKET; LAND REFORM; RURAL PLANNING;

RUSSIAN FEDERATION;

EID: 0031413450     PISSN: 09668136     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09668139708412484     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. The Stolypin reforms proceeded in two phases. The first phase allowed a peasant member of the village commune to lay claim to his share of communal land, for which he would receive a deed of ownership. Between November 1906 and January 1915 some 2.7 million households applied for land appropriation, and 1.97 million rural families received land deeds. However, this first phase was not very effective. In the words of one historian, 'the separation of title did not in itself result in the establishment of an isolated and independent farm ... and most of the separations of title recorded during the inter-revolutionary decade did not result from, or lead to, the physical consolidation of scattered holdings'. Geroid Tanquary Robinson, Rural Russia Under the Old Regime (New York, 1932), p. 216. The second phase, dated from mid-1910, dissolved all communes which had not redistributed land since Emancipation in 1861. In 1911 another decree simplified consolidation and allowed the registration of land plots as private property even if they were still fragmented into strips, and peasants were given the right to sell all or part of their strips. By 1915 land titles had been given to 6-7 million peasant households, but only 1.2 million households had consolidated their holdings into separate farms. Nonetheless, a class of productive, relatively wealthy peasants did emerge. Between 1906 and 1913 Russia enjoyed the highest annual average grain production in its history up to that time, and during 1909-13 kulaks produced more marketable surpluses of grain than either middle and poor peasants or large land owners. Zhores A. Medvedev, Soviet Agriculture (New York, 1987), pp. 15-17.
2. The Stolypin reforms proceeded in two phases. The first phase allowed a peasant member of the village commune to lay claim to his share of communal land, for which he would receive a deed of ownership. Between November 1906 and January 1915 some 2.7 million households applied for land appropriation, and 1.97 million rural families received land deeds. However, this first phase was not very effective. In the words of one historian, 'the separation of title did not in itself result in the establishment of an isolated and independent farm ... and most of the separations of title recorded during the inter-revolutionary decade did not result from, or lead to, the physical consolidation of scattered holdings'. Geroid Tanquary Robinson, Rural Russia Under the Old Regime (New York, 1932), p. 216. The second phase, dated from mid-1910, dissolved all communes which had not redistributed land since Emancipation in 1861. In 1911 another decree simplified consolidation and allowed the registration of land plots as private property even if they were still fragmented into strips, and peasants were given the right to sell all or part of their strips. By 1915 land titles had been given to 6-7 million peasant households, but only 1.2 million households had consolidated their holdings into separate farms. Nonetheless, a class of productive, relatively wealthy peasants did emerge. Between 1906 and 1913 Russia enjoyed the highest annual average grain production in its history up to that time, and during 1909-13 kulaks produced more marketable surpluses of grain than either middle and poor peasants or large land owners. Zhores A. Medvedev, Soviet Agriculture (New York, 1987), pp. 15-17.
3. In 1995, for example, land taxes and lease payments generated revenues of 3.3 trillion rubles, 3.1 trillion of which went to regional budgets (94%). Land taxes were expected to generate around 5.5 trillion rubles in 1996. By the year 2000 land taxes may generate revenues of 60 trillion rubles according to the deputy head of Roskomzem. Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 38, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 20, p. 8
4. Large Soviet collective farms were notorious for their low efficiency - estimated by one Western economist as one-half as efficient per unit of input when compared to US agriculture. See Karen Brooks, 'The Technical Efficiency of Soviet Agriculture', in D. Gale Johnson & Karen McConell Brooks, Prospects for Soviet Agriculture in the 1980s (Bloomington, 1983).
5. See Stephen K. Wegren (ed.), Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (London and New York, 1998).
6. See for example, Zvi Lerman & Karen Brooks, 'Russia's Legal Framework for Land Reform and Farm Restructuring', Problems of Post-Communism, 43, 6, 1996, pp. 48-58.
7. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 16, 1991.
8. 'O neotlozhnykh merakh po osushchestvleniyu zemel'noi reformy v RSFSR', Rossiiskaya gazeta, 31 December 1991, p. 3.
9. The law was titled 'O prave grazhdan Rossiiskoi Federatsii na poluchenie v chastnuyu sobstvennost' i na prodazhu zemel'nykh uchastkov dlya vedeniya lichnogo podsobnogo i dachnogo khozyaistva, sadovodstva i individual'nogo zhilishchnogo stroitel'stva', reprinted in Zakon, 3, 1997, p. 5.
10. The decree was titled 'O regulirovanii zemel'nykh otnoshenii i razvitii agrarnoi reformy v Rossii'. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 43, 1993, pp. 8-9. For an analysis of this decree, see Stephen K. Wegren, 'Yeltsin Decree on Land Relations: Implications for Russian Agrarian Reform', Post-Soviet Geography, 35, 3, 1994, pp. 166-178.
11. The decree was titled 'O regulirovanii zemel'nykh otnoshenii i razvitii agrarnoi reformy v Rossii'. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 43, 1993, pp. 8-9. For an analysis of this decree, see Stephen K. Wegren, 'Yeltsin Decree on Land Relations: Implications for Russian Agrarian Reform', Post-Soviet Geography, 35, 3, 1994, pp. 166-178.
12. That is, property shares were based upon length of service to the farm and amount of work performed, and land shares were equal in size for all members of the farm.
13. Rossiiskaya gazeta, 11 February 1995, p. 4.
14. Rossiiskaya gazeta, 12 March 1996, p. 5.
15. See Krest'yanskaya Rossiya, 24, 1995, p. 1; and ibid. 1995, 28, p. 2.
16. See Krest'yanskaya Rossiya, 24, 1995, p. 1; and ibid. 1995, 28, p. 2.
17. Krest'yanskaya Rossiya, 28, 1996, p. 1.
18. Seiskaya zhizn', 13 April 1996, p. 2.
19. Article 3193, Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 27, 1996, p. 6573.
20. Krest'yanskaya Rossiva, 50, 1996, p. 1.
21. Sel'skaya zhizn', 15 December 1996, p. 2.
22. Rossiiskii fermer, 61, 1996, p. 2.
23. Rossiiskii fermer, 3, 1997, p. 1.
24. Article 625, Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 5, 1997, p. 978. The two members who were removed were Ivan Shabunin and Lev Korshunov.
25. For more detail on land distribution see Stephen K. Wegren, 'Political Institutions and Agrarian Reform in Russia', in Don Van Atta (ed.), The Farmer Threat: The Political Economy of Agricultural Reform in Post-Soviet Russia (Boulder, 1993), pp. 121-147.
26. See Stephen K. Wegren, Gregory Ioffe & Tatiana Nefedova, 'Demographic and Migratory Responses to Agrarian Reform in Russia', Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 13, 4, 1997.
27. Government resolution 96, signed in February 1995, changed the original provisions of the October 1993 decree and provided other alternatives. According to this resolution, a land share holder could lease the land share back to the agricultural enterprise, for a period not to exceed three years, thereby retaining private ownership. After three years the person has the right to convert his land shares to land in kind and to leave the farm in order to begin a private farm. Rossiiskaya gazeta, 11 February 1995, p. 4.
28. Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 22, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 20, p. 7.
29. The Law on Peasant Farming (1990) and the Land Code of the RSFSR (1991) established these principles; the October 1993 decree and presidential decree no. 2287 in December 1993 restated these obligations. On the latter reference see Rossiiskaya gazeta, 29 December 1993, p. 8.
30. In reality, land shares were sometimes sold to persons other than members of an agricultural enterprise, and land use changes did occur, the outcome varying by locale and location of the land in question.
31. For an analysis of land leasing in post-Soviet Russia see V. Vashanov & V. Maslova, 'Zemel'nyi oborot v Rossii', Ekonomist, 4, 1996, pp. 85-87.
32. For an analysis of the 1992 law and its revisions of 1994, see I. Vyskrebentsev, 'Plata za zemlyu', APK: ekonomika, upravlenie, 8, 1995, pp. 38-49.
33. The text of the original law 'O plate za zemlyu' and subsequent government resolutions are reprinted in Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 19, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 19, pp. 7-10. A list of instructions from the tax service are found in 33, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 24, p. 7.
34. The text of the original law 'O plate za zemlyu' and subsequent government resolutions are reprinted in Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 19, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 19, pp. 7-10. A list of instructions from the tax service are found in 33, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 24, p. 7.
35. In Moscow oblast' location greatly influenced land prices, a sign of market forces at work. Measured from the highway ring surrounding the city of Moscow, market forces created three price zones for land: up to 30 kilometres, 30 to 50 kilometres, and beyond 50 kilometres. In general, land closer in costs more - up to 10 times more expensive per sotka - although specific location and direction from the city exert an influence. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 36, 1996, p. 2.
36. Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 29, 1996, p. 9.
37. Reorganizatsiya kolkhozov i sovkhozov Rossiiskoi Federatsii po sostoyaniyu na 1.1.94g. (Moscow, 1994), p. 1.
38. See Stephen K. Wegren, 'Farm Privatization in Nizhnii Novgorod: The Model for Russia?', RFE/RL Research Report, 3, 21, 1994, pp. 16-27; and Stephen K. Wegren, 'The Conduct and Impact of Land Reform in Russia', in Wegren (ed.), Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
39. See Stephen K. Wegren, 'Farm Privatization in Nizhnii Novgorod: The Model for Russia?', RFE/RL Research Report, 3, 21, 1994, pp. 16-27; and Stephen K. Wegren, 'The Conduct and Impact of Land Reform in Russia', in Wegren (ed.), Land Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
40. See for instance the results of a five oblast' survey conducted by the World Bank that ranked restrictions on buying and selling land last out of 14 possible responses. Karen Brooks et al., Agricultural Reform in Russia: A View From the Farm Level, World Bank Discussion Paper no. 327 (Washington DC, 1996), p. 54.
41. This is measured in part by the increase in agricultural produce from private plots, rising from about 24% in the late 1980s to an estimated 47% in 1996. See also Brooks et al., Agricultural Reform in Russia: A View from the Farm Level, p. 54 who reported that 90% of farm employees surveyed did not plan to become private farmers in the next two to three years.
42. Data from Roskomzem, Moscow.
43. See, for example, Frank A. Durgin, 'Russia's Private Farm Movement: Background and Perspectives', The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review, 21, 2-3, 1994, pp. 211-252.
44. Kostroma oblast' is located in Central European Russia, in the Central Region. For a general description of the oblast' see Stephen K. Wegren, 'Agricultural Reform in the Nonchernozem Zone: The Case of Kostroma oblast', Post-Soviet Geography, 33, 10, 1992, pp. 645-685.
45. For example, in June 1996 the first computerised land cadaster system began operation in Dmitrovskii raion, Moscow oblast'. The start-up of the system was intended to simplify the purchase/selling process for clients, and to ensure that all taxes and fees which were due from the transaction were paid to the relevant local and federal authorities. The Dmitrovskii model was to be used as a basis for a national automated land cadaster system. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 26, 1996, p. 2; and 28, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 22, p. 7. In August 1996 the Russian government adopted resolution no. 932 which established the federal programme 'Sozdanie avtomatizirovannoi sistemy vedeniya gosudarstvennogo zemel'nogo kadastra'. The programme was to be introduced into 35 regions of Russia during 1997-98 (ibid., 36, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 25, pp. 7-10). Funding for this national programme is to come from the federal budget (39% in 1996, 27% in 1997, 35% in 1998) and from regional and local budgets. However, it was reported that the programme did not receive federal funds at all in 1996 (ibid., 1996, 41, p. 2). For 1997, an estimated 15 billion rubles was allocated to fund the programme from the federal budget, but according to the general director of the Federal Cadaster Centre this sum amounted to only 8% of the necessary funds, and equal to only 2% of the sum envisioned in the programme (see ibid., 46, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 31, p. 7). Financial assistance was also to be provided by the World Bank and the German government credit insurance company Hermes. This funding, however, would provide for 10% of the programme's goals. Interfax Food and Agriculture Report, 5, 6, 1996, p. 8. The pace of implementation therefore remains in question.
46. For example, in June 1996 the first computerised land cadaster system began operation in Dmitrovskii raion, Moscow oblast'. The start-up of the system was intended to simplify the purchase/selling process for clients, and to ensure that all taxes and fees which were due from the transaction were paid to the relevant local and federal authorities. The Dmitrovskii model was to be used as a basis for a national automated land cadaster system. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 26, 1996, p. 2; and 28, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 22, p. 7. In August 1996 the Russian government adopted resolution no. 932 which established the federal programme 'Sozdanie avtomatizirovannoi sistemy vedeniya gosudarstvennogo zemel'nogo kadastra'. The programme was to be introduced into 35 regions of Russia during 1997-98 (ibid., 36, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 25, pp. 7-10). Funding for this national programme is to come from the federal budget (39% in 1996, 27% in 1997, 35% in 1998) and from regional and local budgets. However, it was reported that the programme did not receive federal funds at all in 1996 (ibid., 1996, 41, p. 2). For 1997, an estimated 15 billion rubles was allocated to fund the programme from the federal budget, but according to the general director of the Federal Cadaster Centre this sum amounted to only 8% of the necessary funds, and equal to only 2% of the sum envisioned in the programme (see ibid., 46, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 31, p. 7). Financial assistance was also to be provided by the World Bank and the German government credit insurance company Hermes. This funding, however, would provide for 10% of the programme's goals. Interfax Food and Agriculture Report, 5, 6, 1996, p. 8. The pace of implementation therefore remains in question.
47. For example, in June 1996 the first computerised land cadaster system began operation in Dmitrovskii raion, Moscow oblast'. The start-up of the system was intended to simplify the purchase/selling process for clients, and to ensure that all taxes and fees which were due from the transaction were paid to the relevant local and federal authorities. The Dmitrovskii model was to be used as a basis for a national automated land cadaster system. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 26, 1996, p. 2; and 28, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 22, p. 7. In August 1996 the Russian government adopted resolution no. 932 which established the federal programme 'Sozdanie avtomatizirovannoi sistemy vedeniya gosudarstvennogo zemel'nogo kadastra'. The programme was to be introduced into 35 regions of Russia during 1997-98 (ibid., 36, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 25, pp. 7-10). Funding for this national programme is to come from the federal budget (39% in 1996, 27% in 1997, 35% in 1998) and from regional and local budgets. However, it was reported that the programme did not receive federal funds at all in 1996 (ibid., 1996, 41, p. 2). For 1997, an estimated 15 billion rubles was allocated to fund the programme from the federal budget, but according to the general director of the Federal Cadaster Centre this sum amounted to only 8% of the necessary funds, and equal to only 2% of the sum envisioned in the programme (see ibid., 46, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 31, p. 7). Financial assistance was also to be provided by the World Bank and the German government credit insurance company Hermes. This funding, however, would provide for 10% of the programme's goals. Interfax Food and Agriculture Report, 5, 6, 1996, p. 8. The pace of implementation therefore remains in question.
48. For example, in June 1996 the first computerised land cadaster system began operation in Dmitrovskii raion, Moscow oblast'. The start-up of the system was intended to simplify the purchase/selling process for clients, and to ensure that all taxes and fees which were due from the transaction were paid to the relevant local and federal authorities. The Dmitrovskii model was to be used as a basis for a national automated land cadaster system. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 26, 1996, p. 2; and 28, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 22, p. 7. In August 1996 the Russian government adopted resolution no. 932 which established the federal programme 'Sozdanie avtomatizirovannoi sistemy vedeniya gosudarstvennogo zemel'nogo kadastra'. The programme was to be introduced into 35 regions of Russia during 1997-98 (ibid., 36, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 25, pp. 7-10). Funding for this national programme is to come from the federal budget (39% in 1996, 27% in 1997, 35% in 1998) and from regional and local budgets. However, it was reported that the programme did not receive federal funds at all in 1996 (ibid., 1996, 41, p. 2). For 1997, an estimated 15 billion rubles was allocated to fund the programme from the federal budget, but according to the general director of the Federal Cadaster Centre this sum amounted to only 8% of the necessary funds, and equal to only 2% of the sum envisioned in the programme (see ibid., 46, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 31, p. 7). Financial assistance was also to be provided by the World Bank and the German government credit insurance company Hermes. This funding, however, would provide for 10% of the programme's goals. Interfax Food and Agriculture Report, 5, 6, 1996, p. 8. The pace of implementation therefore remains in question.
49. For example, in June 1996 the first computerised land cadaster system began operation in Dmitrovskii raion, Moscow oblast'. The start-up of the system was intended to simplify the purchase/selling process for clients, and to ensure that all taxes and fees which were due from the transaction were paid to the relevant local and federal authorities. The Dmitrovskii model was to be used as a basis for a national automated land cadaster system. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 26, 1996, p. 2; and 28, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 22, p. 7. In August 1996 the Russian government adopted resolution no. 932 which established the federal programme 'Sozdanie avtomatizirovannoi sistemy vedeniya gosudarstvennogo zemel'nogo kadastra'. The programme was to be introduced into 35 regions of Russia during 1997-98 (ibid., 36, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 25, pp. 7-10). Funding for this national programme is to come from the federal budget (39% in 1996, 27% in 1997, 35% in 1998) and from regional and local budgets. However, it was reported that the programme did not receive federal funds at all in 1996 (ibid., 1996, 41, p. 2). For 1997, an estimated 15 billion rubles was allocated to fund the programme from the federal budget, but according to the general director of the Federal Cadaster Centre this sum amounted to only 8% of the necessary funds, and equal to only 2% of the sum envisioned in the programme (see ibid., 46, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 31, p. 7). Financial assistance was also to be provided by the World Bank and the German government credit insurance company Hermes. This funding, however, would provide for 10% of the programme's goals. Interfax Food and Agriculture Report, 5, 6, 1996, p. 8. The pace of implementation therefore remains in question.
50. For example, in June 1996 the first computerised land cadaster system began operation in Dmitrovskii raion, Moscow oblast'. The start-up of the system was intended to simplify the purchase/selling process for clients, and to ensure that all taxes and fees which were due from the transaction were paid to the relevant local and federal authorities. The Dmitrovskii model was to be used as a basis for a national automated land cadaster system. See Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 26, 1996, p. 2; and 28, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 22, p. 7. In August 1996 the Russian government adopted resolution no. 932 which established the federal programme 'Sozdanie avtomatizirovannoi sistemy vedeniya gosudarstvennogo zemel'nogo kadastra'. The programme was to be introduced into 35 regions of Russia during 1997-98 (ibid., 36, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 25, pp. 7-10). Funding for this national programme is to come from the federal budget (39% in 1996, 27% in 1997, 35% in 1998) and from regional and local budgets. However, it was reported that the programme did not receive federal funds at all in 1996 (ibid., 1996, 41, p. 2). For 1997, an estimated 15 billion rubles was allocated to fund the programme from the federal budget, but according to the general director of the Federal Cadaster Centre this sum amounted to only 8% of the necessary funds, and equal to only 2% of the sum envisioned in the programme (see ibid., 46, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 31, p. 7). Financial assistance was also to be provided by the World Bank and the German government credit insurance company Hermes. This funding, however, would provide for 10% of the programme's goals. Interfax Food and Agriculture Report, 5, 6, 1996, p. 8. The pace of implementation therefore remains in question.
51. For the city of Kostroma, two unpublished documents were made available to the author which regulate land use and the local land market. The first was 'Vremennoe polozhenie o poryadke prodazhi zemel'nykh uchastkov pod privatizirovannymi predpriyatiyami i ob"ektami na territorii Kostromskoi oblasti', adopted by the city administration on 13 April 1995. and the second was 'Vremennoe polozhenie o regulirovanii zemel'nykh otnoshenii v gorode Kostrome', adopted by the city Duma on 20 December 1995. These documents conform to existing national land legislation, but will be superseded by the land code when it is finally adopted. The first document indicates the step-by-step process of concluding a land transaction in the city of Kostroma, including the obligations that must be fulfilled by the purchaser, committees on land resources (Gorkomzem and Obkomzem), the office of the city architect, and the city committee on property. The second document is a more general 'land law' that defines different types of land ownership (state, municipal and private), the rights of land use (inheritable rights, permanent use, leasing, and private ownership), regulates the registration of land plots, stipulates the local authority to regulate land relations, and establishes 'normative prices' for land.
52. According to local legislation, refusal may be made on the grounds that: (I) issuance of the land deed would contradict legal acts of the Russian Federation; (2) disagreements exist over who owns the land plot; or (3) due to a proposed change in land use (for rural land within city borders).
53. 'Vremennoe polozhenie o poryadke prodazhi zemel'nykh uchastkov pod privatizirovannymi predpriyatiyami i ob"ektami na territorii Kostromskoi oblasti', articles 2.1-2.9.
54. Permission for land use is decided by the upravlenie gradostroitel'stva within the office of the city architect. Interview, office of the city architect, city of Kostroma, 19 June 1996.
55. Appeals may be made to the oblast' administration, but the administration normally abides by the recommendations drafted by the office of the architect.
56. Land deed forms are federal documents that are strictly controlled. Each is consecutively numbered so that a sequence of transactions and records can be maintained.
57. Interview, Gorkomzem, city of Kostroma, 21 July 1995.
58. Unpublished data from Gorkomzem, city of Kostroma.
59. 'Svedeniya sdelki po kuple-prodazhi zemli na 1 Oktyabrya 1995 g,', unpublished data from Kostroma oblast' Committee on Land Resources and Land Surveying.
60. Out of a total of 175.8 hectares purchased by individuals (ibid.).
61. Out of a total of 314.1 hectares purchased by organisations (ibid.).
62. Ibid.
63. 53 'Polozhenie o plate za zemlyu na territorii goroda Kostromy', Kostromskie vedomosti, 6 April 1996, pp. 3, 6.
64. As explained to the author, locations designated as zone 7 often are situated on the edges of the city proper and contain industrial enterprises. Source: unpublished map of city tax zones, prepared by Gorkomzem, city of Kostroma, June 1996.
65. O' vnesenii izmenenii i dopolnenii v Zakon RSFSR "O plate za zemlyu'", Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 19, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 19, pp. 7-10.
66. Resolution no. 562, Ob indeksatsii stavok zemel'nogo naloga n 1995 godu', Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 24, 1995, p. 4422.
67. Interview, Obkomzem Kostroma oblast', 10 June 1996.
68. Ibid.
69. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe polozhenie Kostromskoi oblasti yanvar'-Dekabr' 1995 g. (Kostroma, 1996), p. 107.
70. Decree no. 301 of 25 March 1992, and decree no. 631 of 14 June 1992, both reprinted in Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 34, 1995, pp. 8-10.
71. While the enterprise itself may be privatised, neither the dwellings of its workers nor the land on which those dwellings stand may be privatised - they remain enterprise land. Interview, Obkomzem, Kostroma oblast', 27 June 1995.
72. Interview, Gorkomzem, city of Kostroma, 7 July 1995.
73. Unpublished data, Gorkomzem, city of Kostroma.
74. Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 51, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 35, p. 7.
75. See Rossiiskaya gazeta, 13 August 1994, p. 4.
76. Resolution no. 1204, "O poryadke opredeleniya normativnoi tseny zemli', Krest'yanskaya Rossiya, 46, 1994, p. 22.
77. 'Svedeniya sdelki po kuple-prodazhi zemli na 1 Oktyabrya 1995 g.', unpublished data from Kostroma oblast' Committee on Land Resources and Land Surveying.
78. 'Sdelki po kuple-prodazhi zemli za 1 kvartal 1996 goda.', unpublished data from Kostroma oblast' Committee on Land Resources and Land Surveying.
79. See Stephen K. Wegren, The Development of Market Relations in Agricultural Land: The Case of Kostroma Oblast', Post-Soviet Geography, 36, 8, 1995, pp. 507-510.
80. Land transaction data include the number of contracts concluded by raion, the area of land purchased (by 'juridical persons' - organisations - and by physical persons - individuals), the value of the land plot including 'immovable property', and the value of the land plot alone.
81. Eleven raiony indicated a different value for the land plot plus immovable property and the value of the land plot alone. The data therefore coincide with information received from the city architect in Kostroma, who explained that if a land plot had a structure on it the land plot was not given a separate value but rather was assessed together with the building. In cases where values differ, therefore, these data suggest that the land did not have a structure on it, which most probably indicates some type of agricultural land. Thus, agricultural land plots are being bought and sold, not just land with buildings on it. Inverview, 19 June 1996.
82. If Nerektskii raion is excluded, whose two transactions by enterprises accounted for more than 85% of the total area of land purchased by juridical persons in the oblast', the average size for the remainder of the transactions was 5.76 hectares. The average land plot size for transactions concluded by organisations was 31.4 hectares.
83. Izvestiya, 18 March 1997, p. 2.
84. Severnaya pravda, 5 October 1994, p. 3.
85. Interview, oblast' Committee on Land Resources, Kostroma oblast', 10 June 1996.
86. Itogi proizvodstvenno-flnansovoi deyatel'nosti sel' skokhozyaistvennykh predpriyatii Kostromskoi oblasti za 1995 god (Kostroma, 1996), pp. 16, 30.
87. Based on an exchange rate in July 1996 that was about 5000 rubles to the dollar.
88. Calculated from Itogi proizvodstvenno-finansovoi deyatel'nosti sel'skokhozyaistvennykh predpriyatii Kostromskoi oblasti za 1995 god, p. 27.
89. Ibid., p. 103.
90. Calculated from ibid., p. 26.
91. See Wegren, The Development of Market Relations in Agricultural Land: The Case of Kostroma Oblast', p. 503.
92. Interview, Evgeniya Serova, 2 August 1996.
93. Out of 750 000 hectares of cultivated agricultural land in the oblast', 150 839 hectares were in private individual hands at 1 January 1996. Calculated from Itogi proizvodstvenno-finansovoi deyatel'nosti sel'skokhozyaistvennykh predpriyatii Kostromskoi oblasti za 1995 god, p. 30; and 'Otchet o khode osushchestvleniya zemel'noi reformy po sostoyaniyu na 1 marta 1996', unpublished data from the Committee on Land Resources, Kostroma oblast'.
94. Out of 750 000 hectares of cultivated agricultural land in the oblast', 150 839 hectares were in private individual hands at 1 January 1996. Calculated from Itogi proizvodstvenno-finansovoi deyatel'nosti sel'skokhozyaistvennykh predpriyatii Kostromskoi oblasti za 1995 god, p. 30; and 'Otchet o khode osushchestvleniya zemel'noi reformy po sostoyaniyu na 1 marta 1996', unpublished data from the Committee on Land Resources, Kostroma oblast'.
95. This multiplier was established by federal resolution no. 1204, adopted on 3 November 1994 and is used throughout Russia.
96. Interview, Committee on Land Resources, Kostroma oblast', 10 June 1996.
97. Private plots have become even more popular in the past few years so that in 1995 they accounted for more than 40% of total food production, a dramatic rise from the steady decrease experienced before 1990 when plot output comprised 24% of gross food production. S. Kiselev, 'Otnosheniya sobstvennosti v agrarnom sektore: proshloe, nastoyashchee i budushchee', Ekonomist, 6, 1996, p. 88.
98. Interview, office of the city architect, city of Kostroma, 19 June 1996.
99. Krest'yanskie vedomosti, 9, 1996, 'Land' insert no. 36, p. 10.