By the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Empire was becoming strongerlagged behind its Western competitors in its technical, economic and social development. The so-called "catch-up" modernization, which began in the middle of the XIX century, did not help to close this gap. Not brought the desired results and large-scale reforms of the 1860s and 70s. The state simply needed new
The beginning of reform
Such an attempt was the complex of reforms of the chapterthe government of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. First of all, it concerned transformations in the agrarian sphere. It was expected that the results of Stolypin's reform would give a powerful impetus to the development of all significant spheres in the country. Their main plan was to create a powerful stratum of well-off, independent and enterprising peasantry that would revitalize commodity relations and turn Russia into an even more important exporter of agricultural products. The final results of Stolypin's reform were seen as its inspiration for the emergence of a class of strong business executives, similar to American farmers. For these purposes, the state
Results of the agrarian reform of Stolypin
Ideas, no doubt, significant in the RussianThe history of politics has never been brought to its logical conclusion. Their implementation was first interrupted by his death in 1911, and later finally postponed in connection with the continental
Positive results of the Stolypin reform in the agrarian sphere
The result of government action was that,that from peasant community was allocated from 10% to 20% of the population. The latter began independent management. In the next few years, successful peasants began to give up to half of all the bread that appeared on the market. In part, plans were made to develop Siberia, as more than 3 million farms moved there during the reform. As a consequence, new regions were involved in commodity-market relations. The area of arable lands has significantly expanded in the country.
Negative results of the Stolypin reform
The stratification of an independent village led to,that along with the successful emerged and the poor peasants. Even the households that left the community still maintained close relations with it. In this regard, the reform was half-hearted. It also did not have a tangible impact on the technological development of agriculture. By 1911, the main tool of the Russian peasant was still the archaic plow.