History Grad: Publications since January 2023
%% Gilmintinov, Roman
@article{fds374909,
Author = {Gilmintinov, RR and Chupin, MY},
Title = {RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND SOPS ON THE
“RATIONALIZATION OF NATURE MANAGEMENT” IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SIBERIA (1900–1910s and
1970–1980s)},
Journal = {Ural'skij Istoriceskij Vestnik},
Volume = {81},
Number = {4},
Pages = {76-85},
Publisher = {Institute of History and Archaeology of Ural Branch of
Russian Academy of Science},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.30759/1728-9718-2023-4(81)-76-85},
Abstract = {The article analyzes the approaches to nature management of
two departments responsible for the development of Siberia
in the Russian Empire and the USSR: the Resettlement
Administration and the Council for the Study of Productive
Forces (Sovet po izucheniyu proizvoditel’nyh sil –
SOPS). Both structures were established in the late imperial
period, carried out practice-oriented research on the
outskirts for the purpose of economic planning and
development of Asian regions, and then, to varying degrees,
were integrated into the Soviet system. Comparison of the
views of the experts from these two structures makes it
possible to reveal the peculiarities of understanding the
problems of nature management in the late imperial and late
Soviet periods, the development of Asian regions, continuity
and gaps between the two regimes. Studying the approaches of
the Resettlement Administration and SOPS to nature
management demonstrates that the development of Siberia was
a way to build not only a new society, but also new
approaches to the interaction between society and the
environment. The article concludes that the goals of the
experts of the Resettlement Administration and SOPS were not
purely commercial in nature, their expertise contributed to
the solution of political, social, environmental issues,
such as the shortage of land in the European part of the
Russian Empire; the danger of transferring this problem to
the east; dependence on resource exports; uneven
distribution of hazardous industries and the associated with
it excessive concentration of pollution in industrialized
regions. Thus, the deconcentration of the population and
industries and their more even distribution, according to
the experts, would not only contribute to the development of
regions on the periphery, but also weaken environmental
problems in the center.},
Doi = {10.30759/1728-9718-2023-4(81)-76-85},
Key = {fds374909}
}
@article{fds375843,
Author = {Gilmintinov, RR},
Title = {“Accept Costs as an Exception”: Social Costs in Soviet
Land Management with Reference to Conflicts around the
Reconstruction of the Bachatsky Surface Mine in the Late
1960s — 1970s},
Journal = {Izvestia of the Ural federal university. Series 2.
Humanities and Arts},
Volume = {25},
Number = {4},
Pages = {200-217},
Publisher = {Ural Federal University},
Year = {2023},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2023.25.4.069},
Abstract = {<jats:p>This article uses the concept of social costs to
analyse the features of Soviet land use in the
1960s–1970s. This concept is based on the study of the
mechanisms of modern economies, in which shifting costs to
society becomes the most important way to increase profits
for producers. Resources depletion and environmental
pollution are inevitable costs of any economic activity, but
they are usually borne not by the manufacturer, but by third
parties and society. The concept of social costs makes it
possible to carry out a comprehensive analysis and highlight
the complex picture of the actors involved in nature
management: those who are the source of social costs, who
bear them, and who becomes an agent of redistribution. The
empirical material in the article is the conflicts around
the reconstruction of the Bachatsky surface coal mine. Its
expansion and transformation into one of the largest
enterprises of the Soviet coal mining in the late 1960s
required withdrawal of significant land plots from nearby
farms. The study of conflicts around land allotment,
reclamation and compensation demonstrates the following
dynamics. In different contexts, the coal industry at all
its institutional levels acted as a source of social costs:
the ministry, the Kuzbasskarierugol trust, and the Bachatsky
mine itself. The Ministry of Agriculture and farms, which
directly incurred costs due to the expansion of the mine,
did not participate in conflicts on their own behalf. Other
actors acted as agents of redistribution: first of all, the
Kemerovo Regional Executive Committee, as well as regional
Soviet authorities and the State Planning Committee of the
USSR. At the same time, each of these bodies had its own
vision of the volumes and forms in which coal miners had to
compensate social costs.</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.15826/izv2.2023.25.4.069},
Key = {fds375843}
}