Agriculture and Rural Development in Russia Since the 2000s

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1. Frontmatter

2. Chapter 1. Introduction

   Andrey Baldanov, Lily Kiminami, Shinichi Furuzawa

   Abstract

   The productivity of agricultural sector has been gradually improved in Russia since 2000s, however, the revival of agriculture has been leading by the Southern Federal District and Central Federal District. The key constraints on the Russian agricultural industry are the shortcomings of government regulation, insufficient government support and financing, and lack of skilled personnel etc. There was a decrease in the number of employee in agriculture from 18.3 to 12.6% and an annual outflow of the rural population and an increase of the urban population from 2005 to 2015. Agriculture and rural sector in Russia needs not only qualified specialists who are able to quickly and effectively carry out the entire cycle of agricultural work but also those who are thinking creatively (TC) to solve social problems through business activity. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to clarify the relationships among agriculture and rural development, human development and human capital in Russian Federation since 2000s. It will also draw policy implications for the central and local governments on their strategy for the cultivation of human capital based on analytical results.

3. Chapter 2. Literature Review on Human Development, Human Capital, Agriculture and Rural Development

   Andrey Baldanov, Lily Kiminami, Shinichi Furuzawa

   Abstract

   In this chapter, the basic concepts and issues of human development, human capital, agriculture and rural development are reviewed from existing research. In agriculture as in other sectors, innovation is the main driver of productivity growth and entrepreneurial human capital plays a relatively more important role in intermediate-income countries. On the other hand, there is the dimension of “quantity and quality” in agriculture and rural development, in which the quantitative aspect includes the increase in wealth, income level, and availability of assets or services, and the qualitative aspect includes the realization of social welfare, creation of employment opportunities, sustainable development, and improvement in the quality of life. Social innovation that meets social need, that engages and mobilizes its beneficiaries, and that to some extent transforms social relations by improving beneficiaries’ access to power and resources provides new solutions to social problems that are especially complex in the time of crisis.

4. Chapter 3. Situation of Human Development, Human Capital, Agriculture and Rural Development in Russia

   Andrey Baldanov, Lily Kiminami, Shinichi Furuzawa

   Abstract

   In this chapter, the situation of human development, human capita, agriculture and rural development in recent Russia is described by using the government statistical data. First, the whole situation of human development, human capital, agriculture and rural development has be improved since 2000s. However, there are large differences in the growth of the population, the salary level and human capital among regions. Secondly, the importance of agriculture enterprises (AEs) has increased in the period. Especially a different type so called “new operators” (a particular class of these new operators is the very large agroholdings) emerged and it has given a great impact on the agriculture sector. Thirdly, a low entrepreneurial activity was found by Global Entrepreneurship Monitory (GEM) in the attitude of the population towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. Many Russians fear the failure of undertaking their own businesses. Although the government of Russia takes a strong position on influence for development of social innovations in the country, there is few in agricultural and rural development. Social innovations are most used in areas related to the direct functions of the welfare state, such as health care and social assistance, education, reducing inequalities in access to services, employment and environmental protection.

5. Chapter 4. Conceptual Framework, Hypotheses and Methods

   Andrey Baldanov, Lily Kiminami, Shinichi Furuzawa

   Abstract

   For achieving the purpose of our research, the conceptual framework is designated to describe the relationships among agriculture and rural development, human development and human capital in this section. Secondly, two hypotheses are set for verification as well. They are: “There is a positive relationship between agricultural development and human development in Russia since 2000s (H1)” and “Structural changes in agricultural sector and human capital have impacts on the agricultural development in Russia since 2010 (H2)”. Thirdly, the methodologies for verifying hypotheses in this research are also explained such as Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) through comparing with Data Envelopment analysis (DEA). Finally, the reasons we chose SFA in this research are given as follows. This method can more accurately estimate the “true” production boundary, rather than the average of all agricultural organizations. SFA assumes the existence of random deviations from the border of efficiency associated with the non-constant nature of the production process, for example, the differences in the climatic conditions of production which is thought exactly suitable for the analysis of agriculture in Russia.

6. Chapter 5. Hypotheses Verification

   Andrey Baldanov, Lily Kiminami, Shinichi Furuzawa

   Abstract

   Using the methodologies of SEM and SFA to verify our hypotheses, we obtained the following analytical results. Agricultural development in Russia has made a significant progress since 2000s. First, a positive relationship among agricultural development and human development has increased (H1). However, agriculture and rural development in Russia has been uneven across regions; regions such as Siberian FD has left behind development. Secondly, structural changes in agricultural sector as well as human capital in higher education have impacts on the agricultural development since 2000s (H2). Although agricultural enterprises (AEs) remain an important role in the country’s agriculture performance among others, family farms (FFs) have started to have impact on agricultural development since 2011. During the period of 2012–2016, the efficiency of agricultural production has been improved through the structural change in the sector. However, human capital in general education has no impact on agricultural development in this period which was thought due to its migratory outflow to the urban area.

7. Chapter 6. General Conclusions and Policy Implications

   Andrey Baldanov, Lily Kiminami, Shinichi Furuzawa

   Abstract

   The main purpose of this study is to clarify the relationships among human development, human capital, agriculture and rural development in Russian Federation since 2000s. Based on the empirical analysis, we obtained the following conclusions. First, agricultural development in Russia has made a significant progress since 2000s. It has improved the nation’s food security and rural development. Secondly, structural changes in agricultural sector as well as human capital of higher education have impacts on the agricultural development since 2000s. However, human capital in general education had no impact on agricultural development in the period of 2012–2016. The fruits of agricultural development in Russia needs to spill over to the whole rural sector which means that it is necessary to realize agricultural development and rural development simultaneously. Policy implication drawn from this research recommends that agriculture and rural development in Russia should be accelerated by the supply of technological innovation and social innovation including institutional innovation through the improvement in human capital.