printEmployment in Personal Subsidiary Farm:
Ethnic and Regional Features (the case of Khakassia)
Lushnikova O.L
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Senior Research Fellow, Department of Economics and Sociology, Khakass Research Institute of Language, Literature and History, Abakan, Russia oltolt@mail.ru
The study was funded by the RSF, project No. 23-28-00307.
Lushnikova O.L Employment in Personal Subsidiary Farm: Ethnic and Regional Features (the case of Khakassia). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2024. No 4. P. 153-159
Employment in a personal subsidiary farm (PSF), aimed at providing products for own subsistence, becomes an alternative to job for hire in conditions of high unemployment in rural areas. At the same time, the role of personal subsidiary farms varies in differing climatic, economic and sociocultural conditions. The purpose of the article is to compare the practices of personal subsidiary farms in multiethnic region of Khakassia in order to identify the ethnoregional features of household farmsteads. Surveyed ethnic groups (566 respondents) are living in Russians, Khakass and Shors rural areas. Khakass people turned out to be the most active in the management of personal economy, the Shors were the least involved, and the Russians occupy a “middle” position. The differentiation of household plots is due to the fact that the motives for farming among these ethnic groups are not the same. Russians are engaged in economic activities mainly to provide themselves with food, although many of them just like this activity. The value of land and livestock is high for Khakass people and Shors, but most of them lead personal subsidiary farming rather as a habit.
Baksheev S.L. (2016) To the Concept of Essence and Place of Ethnoeconomics in the Economy of Region. Gumanitarnye, social’no-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki [Humanities, Social-Economic and Social Sciences]. Vol. 26. No. 5: 146–150. (In Russ.)
Bushueva O.N. (2014) Role of smallholdings in the adaptive behaviour models of the rural population in modern Russia. Nauka i obschestvo [Science and Society]. No. 1 (16): 99–102. (In Russ.)
Gabdrakhmanova G.F. (2021) Significance and Practices of Daily Work Behavior of Rural Russians and Tatars. EKO [ECO]. No. 2 (560): 85–103. (In Russ.)
Igosheva M.A. (2020) Economic Resource of Ethnic Identity in the Conditions of Current Migration Processes. Filosofskaya mysl’ [Philosophical Thought]. No. 7: 72–84. (In Russ.)
Ivanova M.V. (2018) Ethnic Economy: Approaches to the Definition. Trudy KolNC RAN. [Proceedings of the Kola Science Centre RAS]. Vol. 9. No. 7–14: 6–13. (In Russ.)
Lushnikova O.L. (2022) Ethnic Features of Farming, or Who Has More Livestock? Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 6: 77–87. (In Russ.)
Nechiporenko O.V. (2013) Part-Time Farms of Rural Population in the Context of Social Adaptation Practices. Vestnik NGU. Ser.: Filosofiya [Bulletin of NSU. Philosophy]. Vol. 11. No. 2: 86–92. (In Russ.)
Shabanov V.L. (2018a) Resources of rural households as a factor of agricultural production potential. Ostrovskie chteniya [Ostrovsky Readings]. No. 1: 31–35. (In Russ.)
Shabanov V.L. (2018b) Transformation of private subsidiary farms is as a source of employment and income of rural population. Ekonomika selskogo khozyaystva Rossii [Economics of Agriculture of Russia]. No. 7: 79–84. (In Russ.)
Velikiy P.P., Shabanov V.L. (2019) Features of Agrarian Self-employment. Experience of Sociological Research of the Independent Economy of Rural Families. Istoricheskaya i sotsial’no-obrazovatel’naya mysl’ [Historical and Social Educational Idea]. Vol. 11. No. 4: 105–121. (In Russ.)
Zhalsanova V.G. (2018) The Private Subsidiary Farming of Rural Residents: Survival way or Development way? (Based on the Materials of Sociological Research in the Republic of Buryatia). Sociodinamika [Sociodynamics]. No. 9: 1–7. (In Russ.)