The article discusses the existing regional types of agriculture — Western European temperate zone, Eastern European and Asian. Their agricultural growth is based on different levels of integration both in the inner circle (integration of agriculture and animal husbandry) and in the outer circle (integration of agriculture and industry). The article also describes the fourth type of agricultural economy, which does not have regional features, having been formed in the conditions of internal or external colonization under the influence of technological progress (mechanization) created outside its base.

Keywords: agriculture, integration, agriculture, animal husbandry, industry.

Considering the historical dynamics of regional features of the development of agriculture in various countries of the world, we will focus on the problem of agricultural integration. The modern agricultural economy was formed under the influence of two types of integration processes in agriculture-let's call them conditionally internal and external circles of integration. The inner circle of agricultural integration consisted in the integration of agriculture and animal husbandry, the outer circle-in the integration of agriculture and industry, the link between these two circles was market exchange (see Figure 1). The degree of intensity of integration processes and market relations are interdependent variables. On the one hand, the more widespread market relations were, the more intensive integration processes took place in agriculture, and, on the other hand, the stronger the integration of agriculture and animal husbandry, the earlier the links between agriculture and industry were established and the faster commodity-money relations developed.

In historical dynamics, the high degree of iterative processes that took place in the agricultural sector led to the formation of a more efficient model of agricultural growth, capable of endogenously generating technologies of the scientific and technological revolution. Under the influence of weak integration processes (or their absence), a model has been formed that can still follow mainly in the direction of catch-up development, taking into account agricultural knowledge developed outside its borders.

First of all, we will consider various schemes for classifying agricultural types. V. A. Pulyarkin, based on the historical and geographical approach, identifies six extra-European types of agriculture and five types of agriculture in the temperate zone of Europe [Lipetsk, Pulyarkin, Shlichter, 1999, pp. 62-73; Pulyarkin, 2005]. From non-European countries

page 129

Figure 1. Integration processes in the formation of an agricultural economy

types of farming it describes: 1) slash - and-burn agriculture in tropical forest areas, 2) slash-and-burn agriculture in savanna areas, 3) mountain agriculture, 4) irrigated agriculture in the Arid East, 5) rice civilization in monsoon Asia, 6) Mediterranean agriculture. All these extra-European types of agriculture that were formed in ancient times, with minor changes, have been preserved for a long time (in most cases until today), so this classification is more of a spatial and geographical sample. The five types of agriculture identified by him in the temperate zone of Europe developed in historical retrospect, replacing each other, so we can call this a historical classification. The evolution of agricultural systems in the temperate zone of Europe (including Eastern Europe) was as follows: 1) slash-and-burn agriculture, 2) perelozhnaya system, 3) steam systems (two-field, three-field), 4) grass-field system, 5) fruit-changing system. V. A. Pulyarkin emphasizes that a feature for all classification schemes of agricultural systems ishistorical and geographical diversity is different, so the examples below will relate to different historical ranges and will only be combined by spatial sampling.

E. Boserup's approach to the classification of agricultural types is based on the study of the historical transition from one system of agriculture to another [Boserup, 1965, Chapter 2]. It focuses on the ratio of the period of continuous cultivation of a site vs the abandonment of this site in deposits. It classifies agricultural systems as: 1) systems with long-term deposits (equivalent-slash-and-burn agriculture); 2) systems with short deposits (equivalent — shifting systems); 3) systems with short deposits (equivalent - steam systems: two-field and three-field); 4) systems with annual processing (grass-field and fruit-changing systems); 5) multiple processing systems (Asian labor-intensive system)1. In its scheme, the geographical approach takes a back seat, and different types of agriculture are studied as a result of the heterogeneity of historical conditions of transition from one system of agriculture to another - a transition that, in conditions of limited resources, is determined by the growth of population density, on the one hand, and the degree of provision of agriculture with livestock, on the other.

1 The corresponding names are shown in parentheses in generally accepted terminology, including Russian terminology.

page 130
INNER CIRCLE OF INTEGRATION-INTEGRATION OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

According to S. V. Onishchuk, differences in the directions of changes in agricultural systems characterize the type of intensification of production in agriculture and are due, among other things, to the integration of agriculture and animal husbandry (the inner circle of integration) [Onishchuk, 1995; Boserup, 1965]. We are talking about the stage of integration of agriculture and animal husbandry, which was based on natural (pre-industrial) productive forces.

The transition from a less intensive farming system to a more intensive one in the distant historical retrospect was accompanied by additional labor costs. This is due to the fact that each unit of arable land began to be used more intensively, and the deposit period, during which soil fertility was restored, was increasingly reduced, the yield decreased - the law of decreasing soil fertility was clearly manifested. To increase the yield or at least maintain it at a stable level, additional labor costs were required for fertilization, irrigation, and other protective measures. However, during the transition from systems with long and shortened deposits, even an increase in productivity could not always compensate for the need for additional labor, and in some regions the yield during this transition decreased, resulting in a decrease in the productivity of the farmer (the yield per unit of labor input was reduced). Thus, in the 19th century in Russia, on subsections in the wooded northern regions (this system of agriculture was called "lyadinnaya"), the yield of rye was sam-7 [Druzhinin, 1978, p. 147-154], while in the regions of the Russian Trehpolye during this period, the average yield of bread ranged from sam-3 to sam-4. [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2009, p. 67]. At the same time, slash-and-burn and shift farming required less labor to cultivate the soil than in steam systems, which involved various methods of artificial restoration of fertility.3
In this era, the use of working cattle was practically the only way to reduce the labor costs of the farmer during the transition from a less intensive farming system to a more intensive one. Accordingly, the direction of changes in agricultural systems and the formation of a certain type of economy directly depended on the availability of cattle in agriculture, or rather, on the integration of agriculture and animal husbandry. During the intensification of agriculture, animal husbandry assumed a twofold role: first, cattle acted as a draught force, reducing the labor costs of the farmer, and secondly, they provided the arable land with organic fertilizer. Accordingly, the more livestock in agriculture, the higher the fertility of the soil and the more human labor used in tillage was released. At the same time, animal husbandry needed a feed base (natural pastures or harvested fodder), and the minimum required ratio of arable land and meadows (pastures) could not fall below 1 : 1.24 [Milov, 1998, essay 7]. The degree of availability of organic fertilizer for agriculture and, accordingly, the potential for increasing agricultural efficiency were determined by indicators of the number of livestock per capita or per unit of cultivated area.

S. V. Onishchuk identified three areas of integration of agriculture and animal husbandry, which corresponded to three types of intensification of agricultural systems in evolution

2 " Sam " was the ratio of the volume of harvested grain crops to the volume of sown seeds. For comparison, we note that in Russia of the XVIII-XIX centuries, the weight of one" sam " tended to decrease from 1.55 kg / ha to 1.5 kg / ha.

3 As noted by S. V. Onishchuk, the absolute number of labor costs per employee per year was 700 hours for shift systems, 1200 hours for three-field systems in medieval England, and over 3000 hours in labor-intensive systems in East Asia (Onishchuk, 1999).

page 131
world agriculture [Onishchuk, 1995]. Within the framework of these three directions, various types of agricultural production, which differ in organizational, economic and production characteristics, have been formed.

The first direction is the highest level of integration of animal husbandry and agriculture, typical for agriculture in the western and central part of the temperate zone of Europe. Here is an example of England. Gregory King, a well-known statistician and economist, in his essay "Natural and political observations and conclusions about the situation and conditions of England" provides data on wealth, its distribution in England in 1688. The number of rural population was 4.1 million people (75% of the total population); the number of cattle - 4.5 million heads; the area of land in the United States of America. The area of arable land was 3.65 million hectares, and the area of meadows and pastures was 4.85 million hectares (King, 1696). Consequently, the ratio of arable land to meadows (and pastures) was 1: 1.33, and there were 1.1 cattle units per 1 villager. The average yield of the four main loaves was approximately sam-9. Historically, the western and central parts of the temperate zone of Europe were the only places where the degree of integration of animal husbandry and agriculture was achieved, which made it possible to make the transition from systems with long and shortened deposits to the classic three-field system, ensuring an increase in yields due to saturation with organic fertilizers, and then to the grass - field and fruit-growing system.

The second direction is the average degree of integration of animal husbandry and agriculture, typical for the eastern part of the temperate zone of Europe and the subtropical zone. In contrast to the West, where almost year-round cattle keeping was carried out on natural pastures, in the eastern part of Europe, due to unfavorable climatic conditions, stable cattle keeping and fodder harvesting were practiced for up to 7 months a year. Let's take Russia as an example. According to L. Milov, in the XVIII century in all provinces of Russia (with the exception of the Arkhangelsk and non-agricultural territories of the Saratov and Orenburg provinces at that time) meadows were many times less than normal. For example, in the central agricultural provinces, the ratio of arable land to meadows (hayfields) was 1 : 0.2, and on average in Russia - 1 : 0.6 (Milov, 1998, Table 1.12). Accordingly, the number of livestock was also incomparably smaller, in the central agricultural regions, one or two cows were kept for draft and the same number of horses for plowing. The draft population consisted of 2.5 males or approximately 5 males of both sexes (Milov, 1998, ch. 1), which means that there were 0 per capita rural population.4 units of cattle. To confirm these indicators, we will analyze the statistical data for the USSR for 1924 (the beginning of the NEP). The number of cattle was 57.7 million, and the agricultural population was 116.8 million. Thus, 0.5 units of cattle per capita accounted for the rural population [Results of the decade of Soviet Power, 1927, p. 118]. The extremely small number of cattle and small animals, the lack of sufficient organic fertilizers, and the acute shortage of working cattle led to a weak integration of agriculture and animal husbandry. The classical three-field system was not formed in Russia; in the Russian regions it was reduced to a modified three-field, four-field (in combination with the transposed system), and two-field 4. The average yield of the main four loaves in Russia from the end of the XVIII century to the end of the XIX century rose quite slightly - from sam-3 to sam-5 [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2009, p. 67]. Moreover, various types of tillage in the conditions of a modified three-field (with a lack of fertilizers) required

4 In the form of various modifications of the three fields, there were double and triple plowing and the same burying; simultaneous sowing of spring and winter crops (which were mowed down together with spring crops by autumn, and finally ripened by the beginning of the next growing cycle); use of clearing and cutting for the fourth field when new lands were introduced into circulation (internal colonization). All these operations required additional labor costs [Milov, 1998, essay 1].

page 132
significantly higher labor costs of the farmer than in the case of a classic three-field field (with a sufficient amount of fertilizers). As a result, in the eastern part of the temperate zone of Europe, due to insufficient integration of agriculture and animal husbandry, a transition was made from systems with long and shortened deposits to a modified three-field system and then to a partially grass-field system. In the subtropical zone, the transition was made to a bipolar system (see the example of Egypt below).

The third direction is the lowest degree of integration characteristic of the tropical belt. In a number of Asian and African regions, we are witnessing the complete disintegration of animal husbandry and agriculture. This disintegration was manifested in the fact that animal husbandry developed in these territories in a nomadic form, and in agriculture, in the absence of organic fertilizers and the draft power of livestock, a labor-intensive (Asian) system was formed (in East Asian countries), or a slash-and-burn (partially shifted) system of agriculture was preserved (in Tropical Africa). It is not possible to make a comparison in the same time range of England, Russia and East Asian countries, i.e. it is impossible to compare the number of livestock and the structure of agricultural land during the formation of modern agricultural systems, but statistical data on agriculture in the Eastern countries for the beginning of the 50s-60s of the XX century, when The tools of modern productive forces that have been introduced can provide some insight into the integration of animal husbandry and agriculture in a labor-intensive (Asian) model. So, in 1950. in Japan, the ratio of cultivated area to the area of meadows and hayfields was 1 : 0.1 [Japan Statistical Yearbook, 1954, p. 79]; in 1961, in Thailand-1 : 0.03; Vietnam-1 : 0.05; in India-1 : 0.09; in China (meadows in the south-east of the country) - 1 : 0.07 [http://faostat.fao.org, 17.07.2012]. There were: in 1950 in Japan - 0.05 cattle units (Japan Statistical Yearbook, 1954, p. 23, 86, 99); in 1961 in Thailand - 0.16 cattle units; in Malaysia - 0.05 cattle units; in Vietnam - 0.06 cattle units; in India - 0.4 cattle units. China - 0.09 units [http://faostat.fao.org]. In the conditions of complete disintegration of agriculture and animal husbandry in the tropical zone, the transition from systems with long and shortened deposits to steam systems was not carried out (we can state only a short period of double-field), and in a rather distant historical retrospect, a labor-intensive (Asian) model was formed.

In the labor-intensive model, human muscle power becomes the main type of energy capacity, and the restoration of fertility is achieved at the cost of applying more and more labor to add compost to the soil and build irrigation systems. Accordingly, this model makes it possible to maintain a high density of the agricultural population, while the agricultural economy absorbs all the excess labor, and the size of the agricultural economy is sharply reduced. Yields per unit of land area due to irrigation and organic fertilizers are relatively high, but per unit of labor costs are quite low, and with a secular stagnation dynamics. For cross-country comparison, we present data for the beginning of the XX century: in 1922, the yield of "brown" rice in Japan was 30 centners / ha, the yield of refined rice in India - 8.6 centners/ha, and the yield of wheat in the USA - 9.3 centners/ha, in the RSFSR (Russia) - 7.0 centners/ha [Rastyannikov 1999, pp. 450-454; Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2009, pp. 16-21]. Grain production per hour of labor costs was equal to: rice in India-1.3 kg / hour (1936/37), Japan - 1.7 kg/hour (1950), wheat in the USA-26 kg/hour (1920), in Russia - 3.9 kg/hour (1922). And if by the end of the XX century in the USA wheat production per hour of labor costs reached 400 kg / hour, and in Russia-almost 100 kg/ hour, then in Japan and India rice per hour of labor costs was produced 14 kg/hour and 1.8 kg / hour, respectively. Labor productivity in wheat cultivation in Punjab was 1.8 kg/hour per hour of labor input in the early 1930s and 11 kg / hour in the late 1990s [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 1999, p. 186, 192, 210, 213].

page 133
As a result, in historical retrospect, the different degrees of integration of animal husbandry and agriculture led to the formation of three main types of agriculture.

1. The European type of crop production-it went from systems with a long and shortened deposit to three-field (from the XI century) and then to grass-field (from the XVII century) and to fruit-growing (from the XIX century) systems. This way provided, in comparison with other directions, an increase in the yield of agricultural product per unit of labor input and the possibility of freeing up labor from agriculture.

2. Eastern European type of agriculture - here the transition was made from systems with long and shortened deposits to modified types of three-field crop rotation and then to a partially grass-field system. Agriculture in Eastern European countries did not have the resource potential necessary to increase the yield of agricultural products per employee. Accordingly, the release of labor from agriculture with its low efficiency could not be realized, on the contrary, state policy was aimed at even greater enslavement of the peasantry in order to produce the necessary agricultural product and its further non-economic withdrawal (the tightening of serfdom, which began at the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries).

3. In historical retrospect, the type of agriculture in East Asia showed a movement from shifting systems to steam systems (like a two-field system) and to a labor - intensive (Asian) model or its variation-bed culture. Here is an example of Ancient China, where agriculture developed near the great Yellow River and Yangtze. In the Zhou era (1027 - ca. 250 BC), the Chinese adopted the steam system of farming, when after two years of use for crops, a plot of land was left uncultivated for a year. Since the end of the Zhanguo era (IV-III centuries BC) in China, it was known that the periodic alternation of crops of millet and wheat, wheat and legumes helps to increase soil fertility. In the Han period (II century BC - III century AD), steam farming systems were replaced by labor-intensive "qu tian" and "dai tian"systems. In the first case, the field was dug up along and across furrows about 30 cm deep (squares were obtained). When planting the necessary crop in these furrows, the earth from them was thrown out on the square plots between them, where it was then mixed with last year's tops and leaves (compost). The resulting mass was added to the furrows as fertilizer. In the second case, ditches were dug in the field with a width and depth of about 30 cm, where they were planted and, as the plants grew, they repeatedly added compost-fertilized earth with ridges between the ditches (ridges were obtained). The next year, ditches were dug in place of ridges, which made it possible to constantly maintain the necessary soil fertility [Dukhovnaya Kul'tura Kitay, 2006, p. 389]. The transition to bed culture meant that the intensification in this model was carried out by the complete disappearance of livestock as a draught force and a source of organic fertilizers.

The type of soil treatment and fertilization adopted in the labor-intensive Asian model, the construction of irrigation facilities, required increasing labor costs of the agricultural worker, which led to a significant decrease in the yield of agricultural product per employee, even though the yield per unit area increased. So, in China, already at the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia AD, an average grain yield of 14 centners/ha was achieved, and, although by the middle of the XX century, the average grain yield of 14 centners / ha was achieved. it was reduced to 10-12 centners / ha, and by the beginning of the 2000s (before the last spurt of scientific and technological progress in agriculture) it exceeded 40 centners / ha [Lipetsk, Pulyarkin, Shlichter, 1999, p. 66; http://faostat.fao.org]. However, grain production per capita in China remained at a low level - in the period 1875-1914. it fell from 326 to 301 kg / person, to 160 kg/person by the middle of the 20th century, and by the beginning of the 2000s it rose to only 311 kg/person, never reaching the level of 1875 [Nepomnin, 1980, p. 118; Gelbras, 2010, p. 476-477]. http://faostat.fao.org].

page 134
Declining labor productivity has created an immanent need to tie the peasant to the land plot and block the release of labor from agriculture. For example, in Ancient China, this was facilitated by the system of "equal fields" introduced in the fifth century, in which a certain part of the peasant's allotment was to be used for grain production in order to meet the food needs of his family and state duties, and the peasant had no right to transfer this part to other hands (neither on the rights of sale, nor History of the Middle Ages, 1986, ch. 8]. Other methods used by the authorities to keep farmers in agricultural production will be discussed below.

Between the second and third described directions of agricultural evolution lies the path that developed agriculture in the Middle East and North Africa; its most prominent representatives are Egypt, Turkey, and Iran. E. Boserup refers agriculture in all countries of the subtropical zone to the second type (the average degree of integration of agriculture and animal husbandry, the formation of steam farming systems by type dvupolya). However, the models of economic growth in agriculture in these countries differ markedly-both among themselves and in relation to the second type described. It is more appropriate to consider them as a separate type of agricultural economy, located in this classification scheme between the second and third types. Here is an example of the Egyptian crop industry.

Here, cattle are not completely alienated from agriculture, but the amount of it is clearly not enough for full-fledged processing and fertilization of our crops. In the first half of the 20th century, there were 0.14-0.16 units of cattle per agricultural inhabitant. At this time, the ratio of arable land to pasture continued to decrease from 1:0.008 (1929) to 1:0.001 (1950) [Friedman, 1973, pp. 98, 99, 113]. Forage was harvested by sowing grasses, but there were no clear crop rotations and other attributes of the grass-field system (with some stretch, such a system can be called a partially grass-field system). According to L. A. Fridman, the process of agricultural overpopulation began in the mid-19th century, and the share of cultivated area per rural resident decreased from 0.5 ha (1.1 fedana) in 1852 to 0.17 ha (0.4 fedana) in 1952 (Fridman, 1973, p.93). This stage of development of the crop industry in Egypt is associated with the strengthening of the process of intensification of agricultural production. The transition from basin-type irrigation to year-round irrigation led to the disappearance of steam, which caused a deterioration in soil fertility, its restoration became possible through the introduction of organic fertilizers, and since there were clearly not enough livestock, it was necessary to use labor-intensive production of compost (since the 1920s-artificial fertilizers), and all the work was done manually. The year-round type of irrigation required huge additional labor costs for the construction and maintenance of irrigation systems. The land use ratio increased from 1.0 in 1852 to 1.7 in 1952, but the efficiency of a unit of acreage remained virtually unchanged (the production index per 1 fedan increased from only 100 to 105 from 1913 to 1952) [Friedman, 1973, p. 379, 395].

Summarizing the data obtained, L. F. Friedman asserts that "after 1907 in Egypt, there was a steady trend towards a decrease in social labor productivity in agriculture", i.e., the output per employee fell (the index of production per employee decreased from 110 in 1907 to 85 in 1952) [Friedman, 1973, p. 395-396]. According to all economic parameters, this type of agricultural economy was already approaching a labor-intensive system, although not as intensive as in East Asia; in Egyptian agriculture, the draught power of livestock was used to a much greater extent. Thus, Egypt's agriculture is

page 135
Table 1

Indicators of integration in agriculture

First type (England, 1688)

Second type (Russia, 1924)

Intermediate type (Egypt, 1907)

Third type (Japan, China)

Number of cattle per unit of agricultural population, heads

1.1

0.5

0.14

0.05

(Japan, 1950)

0.09

(China, 1961)

Arable land: pasture (meadow)ratio

1:1.33

1:0.6

1:0.01

1:0.1

(Japan, 1950)

0.07

(China, 1961)

Size of cultivated area per unit of agricultural population, ha

0.9

0.9

0.25

0.11

(Japan, 1905)

0.21

(China, 1913)

Share of industrial output in agricultural production costs

18.8% (1929)

29.5% (1950)

(United States)

8.0% (1924)

22.0% (1970)

(Russia)

10.1%

(India, 1950)

59.3%

(Japan, 1950)

an example of how the transition from the steam system of agriculture (dvupillye)was made in one century to a labor-intensive model.

Let's summarize the parameters of the described types of agriculture in a table (see Table 1).
EXTERNAL CIRCLE OF INTEGRATION-INTEGRATION OF AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY

When studying the outer circle of integration-the integration of agriculture and industry, to explain the intensity of integration processes between agriculture and industry, E. Boserup introduces the concept of a "compensation barrier" (Boserup, 1965). This is the amount of labor consumed by one agricultural worker per year, which must be compensated by means of labor made in industry, so that when this worker goes to industry, the productivity of labor in agriculture does not decrease. With the intensification of agriculture, as shown above, additional labor is required to produce a unit of product, and labor productivity decreases. In countries where intensification followed the first direction (the highest degree of integration of agriculture and animal husbandry), the absolute amount of labor required to produce a unit of product was much less, due to the availability of natural fertilizer, than in countries where intensification followed the second and even more so the third path, in which much more workers were spent on restoring fertility hours.

The "compensation barrier" was lower in those countries where less labor was required to process a unit of area. As noted by S. V. Onishchuk, the absolute number of labor costs of one employee per year was 700 hours for shift workers.

page 136
For example, 1200 hours in three-field systems in medieval England and over 3000 hours in labor-intensive systems in East Asia (Onishchuk, 1995). In countries with a low" compensation barrier", there was a transfer of labor to industry, while in countries with a high "compensation barrier", labor had to remain in agricultural production in order to produce the necessary agricultural product. Also, for the transfer of labor to industry, it was necessary that the growth rate of the industrial product obtained by agriculture should not be less than the growth rate of the peasant's labor costs (therefore, the transfer of labor to industry first began in England at the manufacturing stage of production) [Onishchuk, 1995]. In this case, the industrial product created in the industrial sector (agricultural implements) compensated for the labor transferred from the agricultural sector. If there was no such compensation, then labor ceased to be transferred from agriculture to industry, which was observed during the transition to a labor-intensive Asian system. At that stage of the development of a labor-intensive agricultural economy, huge labor costs could not be compensated by an industrial product. It will be shown below that this process resulted in agricultural overpopulation in East Asian countries (with the exception of modern Japan).

In countries with a lower "compensation barrier", the integration of agriculture and industry occurred earlier and was more widespread. How was the integration of agriculture and industry expressed? First, an exchange began to take place between these sectors. On the one hand, agricultural products (cereals and industrial crops, wool, meat and dairy products) entered the industrial sector for the processing and production of textiles, food, beverages (and currently products of the chemical industry - ethanol, paints, plastics). On the other hand, the production of means of production previously produced in agriculture itself was moving to the industrial sector. Secondly, the intensity of this exchange depended on the release of labor from agriculture and its transfer to industry, and this process, in turn, was associated with the size of the "compensation barrier" that had developed in agricultural production. The lower the "compensation barrier" in a country, the faster surplus labor was transferred from agriculture to industry, the greater was the need for industrial means of labor in agriculture, the more intensively industry developed and, accordingly, the higher was the demand that it presented for additional labor. As a result, the integration of agriculture and industry, as well as the intensification of agricultural production, accelerated. The entire chain was mediated by the development of commodity-money relations and the growth of market relations [Shirokov, 1981, pp. 26-38, 98-102; Shirokov, 1998, pp. 164-184].

If to analyze the integration of animal husbandry and agriculture, we used such indicators as the ratio of arable and meadow (pasture) lands, the number of cattle per capita in the rural population, then the degree of integration of agriculture and industry can be measured using the parameters of marketability of agricultural production, its labor productivity, and the structure of production costs in agriculture [Rastyannikov, Deryugina, 2004, ch. 1-3]. It should be noted that the greater the share of industrial output in agricultural production costs, the greater the integration of agriculture and industry.5 In European countries, up to the middle of the 20th century, agricultural production costs had a fundamentally different structure from those in Asian agriculture. For example, in the United States, from 1929 to 1950, the share of industrial

5 This category includes industrial production of fertilizers, chemicals, fuels, depreciation of fixed capital.

page 137
The share of production in all agricultural production costs increased from 18.8% to 29.5%, in Russia from 1924 to 1970 - from 8% to 22%, and in India in 1950 it was only 10.1% [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2004, p. 42, 64, 84, 96, 102].

Japan shows a unique type of integration of labor-intensive agriculture into the national economy: for example, the share of industrial production in all agricultural production expenditures in 1950 was 59.3% - more than in many European countries or the United States, but at the same time 62% of the population was classified as "rural", and agriculture was concentrated in the country. about 30% of all people employed in the national economy [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2004, p. 73; Japan Statistical Yearbook, 1954, p. 22] (the reasons for this phenomenon will be explained below).

Thus, the formation of the type of agricultural economy was influenced by two interrelated integration processes: internal-agriculture / animal husbandry and external-agriculture / industry, mediated by the market. The size of the "compensation barrier" depended on the degree of the inner circle of integration-agriculture and animal husbandry, but the inner integration itself was determined by the outer circle of integration or the development of market relations between the city and the countryside, because the excess product of the livestock industry could only be used to meet the needs of the city or in the industrial sector. It is these two interoperable integration processes that have enabled the temperate countries of Western Europe (England, Holland, France) to develop high-intensity agriculture.

In Russia, almost until the last third of the 19th century, there was no integration between agriculture and industry. In the absence of market relations between the city and the countryside, the goal of animal husbandry development (with an acute shortage of feed) was exclusively to obtain organic fertilizers (and even those were not enough), and not the main products of animal husbandry. L. Milov points out that " in the Non-Black Earth region, for centuries, the principle has worked: We do not need so much oil as cattle (for manure)... Cattle were kept half-starved in vast areas of the Non-Chernozem region, as long as they provided manure" (Milov, 1998, essay 7). The demand created by the city for basic livestock products was met through non-economic withdrawals, rather than through market exchange. The internal circle of integration of agriculture and animal husbandry did not exist (as emphasized above), and the additional obstacles created by the state to bind the peasant to the land (serfdom) also blocked the external circle of integration between agriculture and industry. Agricultural products were seized for market exchange in distorted forms (see below). These factors did not allow the creation of intensive agriculture in the vast expanses of the Russian Empire, and in the XX century. it has entered the path of catch-up development. The disintegration of agriculture and industry in Russia is also evidenced by the fact that the demand for agricultural machinery, which gained the greatest strength in the first decade of the XX century, was mainly met by imports [Teri, 2008, p.90]. In England, the first specialized factory for the production of agricultural tools began work in 1763.

More threatening processes of agricultural and industrial disintegration were observed in the countries of the East. Under the labor-intensive (Asian) model, almost complete destruction of steam, meadows and pastures and, accordingly, cattle occurred. The restoration of fertility was achieved by the preparation and application of organic fertilizers (mainly of plant origin), which, as noted above, requires an increase in labor costs. In order to produce an additional unit of agricultural product, it is necessary to use an increasing amount of labor. As a result, there was a situation when the population not engaged in agricultural production could not exceed 10-15% of its total population. The state was forced to use non-economic methods to retain the labor force.

page 138
forces within the framework of agriculture and preventing its overflow into the city. There was a reduction in market relations and an increase in natural exchange (Onishchuk, 1999). Population growth in agricultural regions caused agricultural overpopulation, a decrease in the cultivated area per farm, and a reduction in grain production per capita. As shown by V. G. Rastyannikov, these processes are not yet complete [Rastyannikov, 2010]. S. V. Onishchuk cites the following data: the cultivated area per capita (rural) population in China was 0.36 ha in 1400, 0.23 ha in 1760, and 0.21 ha in 1913; in Japan, the area under cultivation per capita (rural) population was 0.35 ha. in 1600-0.12 ha, in 1905-0.11 ha; in India - in 1600-0.37 ha, in 1901-0.28 ha [Grigg, 1974, p. 88, 96]; and by now (2007) these indicators have decreased to: in China-0.1 ha, in Japan - 0.1 ha, in India-0.2 ha [Russia and countries of the world, 2010, pp. 29, 40, 209]. For comparison, we note that in England in 1688 per capita of the rural population accounted for 0.9 ha of cultivated area and in 2007-the same 0.9 ha; in Russia in 1913-0.9 ha, and in 2007-3.2 ha; in the United States in 1920-2.1 ha, and in 2007 - 2.9 ha [King, 1696; Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 1999, p. 210, 214; Collection of statistical and economic data, 1917, p. 60; Results of the decade of Soviet Power, 1927, p. 32; Russia and countries of the world, 2010, p.29, 40, 209].

AGRICULTURAL OVERPOPULATION

In the modern labor-intensive economy of East Asian countries, we observe two models of agricultural growth: under the first model, agricultural overpopulation was formed (almost all countries of South and Southeast Asia), and under the second (Japan), agricultural overpopulation was not formed, since all the growth of the rural population in the process of development of capitalism (a process launched by the Meiji reforms) it was absorbed into the industry and the product per employee was not reduced. But this unique path of development was made possible by the high protectionist barriers that protected Japan's agriculture, and, as a result, very high prices (compared to world prices) for agricultural products6.

At first glance, these models appear to be different stages in the development of a single model, but when viewed in detail, the economic conditions in which they were formed were different (see Figure 2).

At the stage of formation of labor-intensive farming in East Asia, the differences between the two models were not yet observed. Gradually, livestock was completely alienated from agriculture, the need for additional labor to intensify agriculture increased, the size of the cultivated area per employee decreased, and labor productivity (the amount of product per employee) decreased, which should have led to an increase in the cost of a unit of agricultural product (Onishchuk, 1995). Then the differences begin.

In the classical model of labor-intensive farming (Figure 2 shows the example of China), the state resorted to non-economic methods of coercion in order to withdraw the necessary amount of agricultural product at stable prices. The main component of such a policy in most Eastern countries was the receipt of rent payments in kind in order to set such prices for grain as the state considered appropriate, and these prices, as a rule, were lower than those that the state had to pay for the product in a free market exchange. If rent and tax payments were withdrawn in cash, then the state would have to pay an ever - increasing price for the required amount of product over time. In addition to these measures, the policy of non-economic

6 In 1992, a Japanese producer received 7 times more per unit of agricultural product than a producer in the United States, and 10 times more than a producer in Thailand, and in 2000 it was already 15 times more than a producer in the United States [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2004, p. 72, 73, 75].

page 139

Figure 2. Two models of the evolution of labor-intensive farming

coercion included restricting the free trade of grain, setting marginal prices for it, binding the peasant to the land (the system of" equal fields " in Ancient China, where the peasant could not sell land intended for planting grain), limiting the choice of residence. In order to produce the necessary product, the share of the agricultural population in the total population could not fall below 85-90%, respectively, the transfer of labor to industry was blocked, commodity-money relations did not develop, and agricultural overpopulation was formed.

In the unique model of Japan, since the Meiji reforms, the state has stimulated the development of industry and market capitalist relations, so the transfer of labor to industry began here, and imported agricultural machinery compensated for its decline in agriculture. But since in any model of labor-intensive economy, simultaneously with the process of intensification, there is a sharp increase in the cost of a unit of product, and the decline in labor productivity in agriculture could not be covered by technical means, the price of the product increased significantly. Rent and tax payments were paid in Japan in cash, and the state not only did not limit grain prices, but on the contrary, introduced protectionist measures in order to maintain high prices for agricultural products on the Japanese market. Due to the transfer of labor to industry, an agricultural overpopulation did not form in Japan, but the European type of agricultural economy was also impossible, since high prices for agricultural products still act as a deforming factor in economic growth. It is interesting to note that in 1950, labor remuneration in Japanese agriculture accounted for 67.3% of all production costs, compared to 32.6% in the United States [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2004, p. 42, 65, 84, 96, 102].

page 140
The state also used non-economic methods of withdrawal of agricultural products in the evolution of agriculture within the framework of the Eastern European model, which was due to the low efficiency of agricultural production. Let's look at two historical periods when these problems were most acute in Russia. The first period began at the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. The Russian state needed to tighten serfdom in order to forcibly tie the peasant to the land and get the necessary amount of agricultural product in its natural form7. The increased demand for agricultural products was caused by the development of industry in Russia (Petrovsky manufactories) and the growing demand for Russian grain in Western Europe. We will not raise the question of whether the manufactories were serf-like or capitalist, but in any case, the normal transfer of labor from agriculture to industry did not occur under serfdom, and conditions for agricultural overpopulation were created in the original Russian grain production areas. However, this process was muted by the spatial expansion of the Russian Empire and the internal colonization of new lands that began during this period.

The second period of non-economic coercion of agricultural producers in Russia (now the USSR) occurred in the 1930s. In this completely different historical period, methods of non-economic withdrawal of grain by the state were covered up in the form of purchases of grain at extremely low prices (pseudo-commodity form) [Rastyannikov, 2006, pp. 224-249]. Initially, the NEP period was characterized by all the signs of agricultural overpopulation. V. G. Rastyannikov notes that the average industry productivity decreased, the share of people employed in agriculture increased to 80%, and agricultural overpopulation increased [Rastyannikov, 1995, pp. 38-43]. At the end of the NEP period, the state introduced strict measures of non-economic coercion, including confiscation of grain surpluses, prohibition of intra-village purchase and sale of grain, prohibition of the free grain market, payments for bread with forced peasant loan bonds, and introduction of direct product exchange. But despite these measures, the output of marketable grain from the countryside to the city market during the NEP period did not exceed 12.2%. Since the 1930s, after collectivization, under the influence of new forms of non-economic coercion of the state, the withdrawal of grain products from the countryside began to increase. In-kind payments to the state at forcibly low prices in 1928-1930. they were 30.9%, in 1933-1937 - 32.4%, in 1940-42.9%, in 1947-51.2% of the gross grain harvest by collective farms [Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 1999, p. 261; Rastyannikov and Deryugina, 2004, p. 228, 234, 275]. But since during this period the USSR forced the transition to industrialization and there was a great need to transfer labor to industry, agricultural overpopulation was eliminated. The share of the population employed in agriculture decreased from 80% (1928) to 51% (1939) and 31% (1958) [Deryugina, 2011, p.31]. Since the period of collectivization in Russia, the integration of agriculture and industry has been gradually implemented and a new model of agricultural growth has been formed.

In addition to the three main paths of natural development of agriculture described above, it should be noted that by now a separate, fourth type of economy has been formed, which arose in migrant countries or during the colonization of territories with free land suitable for cultivation. Let's call it colonization. An example of such a farm is the agriculture of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Kazakhstan; in Russia, this type of farm can be observed in the regions of South America.

7 One of the main obstacles to anti-serfdom reforms in Russia was the inability to produce the necessary agricultural product with fewer employees and to withdraw a sufficient amount of product from agriculture using market methods.

page 141
Siberia, the Volga region, which began to be developed on a large scale in the XX century. In this fourth type of agriculture, agriculture was initially conducted on rainfed land, and the internal integration of agriculture and animal husbandry was completely absent. Relatively low yields resulting from the lack of organic fertilizers or low economic efficiency of mineral fertilizers and weak irrigation were offset by an increase in acreage per employee. An increase in product output per worker in such a farm was also achieved by expanding the cultivated area, and it was possible only if agricultural mechanized tools (machines) were used, which had already been created by industry at the time of development of these territories. Currently, these regions are the leading producers and world exporters of wheat.

A special feature of this type of farm is the large size of the cultivated area per person employed in agriculture, a high degree of mechanization, a relatively small amount of mineral fertilizers used and, as a result, a lower yield compared to the countries of the fruit-changing system of agriculture (countries of Western, Central and Northern Europe). In Russia, since the end of the twentieth century, we have been observing the tendency of the agrarian economy to this fourth type, while the type of Eastern European economy described above is losing its significance in the production of the gross agricultural product.

Thus, we have described three historically (naturally) formed regional types of agriculture - Western European temperate zone, Eastern European and Asian. In each of these types, the agricultural growth model is based on different levels of integration both in the inner circle (integration of agriculture and animal husbandry) and in the outer circle (integration of agriculture and industry). The high degree of integration processes in the agricultural sector in historical dynamics has led to the formation of a more effective model of agricultural growth, capable of endogenously generating technologies of scientific and technological progress. Under the influence of a low degree of integration processes (or their absence), a model has been formed that cannot yet generate scientific and technical knowledge independently, but is forced to follow the trend of catching up development. The fourth type of agriculture considered by us does not have regional features, it was formed in the conditions of internal or external colonization under the influence of technological progress (mechanization) created outside its base. It is united by high economic efficiency due to the possibility of expanding the cultivated areas (to the extent that does not exist in any of the regional models described above), partially similar climatic conditions and similar production technologies.

list of literature

Aleksandrov Yu. G. Sel'skoe khozyaistvo [Agriculture] / / Yugo-Vostochnaya Aziya (nesocialisticheskie strany). Moscow, 1989.

Gslbras V. G. Ekonomika Kitayskoi Narodnoi Respubliki [Economy of the People's Republic of China], Moscow, 2010.
Deryugina I. V. Historical aspects of development and prospects of modernization of Russian agriculture // Voprosy statistiki [Questions of Statistics], Moscow, 2011, no. 11.
Druzhinin N. M. Russkaya derevnya na perelome [Russian village at a Turning point]. 1867-1880 Moscow, 1978.

Dukhovnaya kul'tura Kitay: entsiklopediya v 5 tomakh [Spiritual Culture of China: an encyclopedia in 5 volumes].

History of the Middle Ages / Edited by N. Kolssnitsky, Moscow, 1986.

Results of the decade of Soviet power in figures 1917-1927. TsSU SSSR. Moscow, 1927.

King G. Natural and political observations and conclusions on the situation and conditions of England. 1696 // http://www.coins-gb.ru/vncshnyaya-i-vnutrcnnyaya-torgovlya-anglii-xvii-veka.html

Lipetsk Yu. G., Pulyarkin V. A., Shlikhtsr S. B. Geografiya mirovogo khozyaistva [Geography of the World Economy]. Moscow, 1999.

page 142
Markarian S. B. Politika obespecheniya prodovol'stvennoi bezopasnosti [Food security policy]. Post-war State Policy: Challenges and Responses, Moscow, 1998.
Milov L. V. Velikorussky plowman i osobennosti rossiiskogo istoricheskogo protsessa [The Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian Historical process].
Nspomnin O. V. Socio-economic history of China, Moscow, 1980.
Onishchuk S. V. Historical types of social reproduction. Politekonomiya mirovogo istoricheskogo protsessa [Political Economy of the World Historical process].
Pulyarkin V. A. Local civilizations in time and space. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works], Moscow, 2005.

Rastyannikov V. G. Sel'skoe khozyaistvo versus promyshlennost ' [Agriculture versus industry]. Voprosy statistiki, Moscow, 1995, no. 4.

Rastiannikov V. G. Stanovlenie sovremennogo agrarnogo khozyaistva v Indii [Formation of modern agricultural economy in India]. Edited by E. S. Stroev, Moscow, 1999.

Rastyannikov V. G. Vlast ' i krestyanin v Rossii [Power and the peasant in Russia]. 30s-early 50s of the XX century / / To Valery Shirokov: I would like to talk to you. A. M. Petrov, St. Soplsnkov, Moscow, 2006.

Rastyannikov V. G. Agrarian India: Paradoxes of Economic Growth, Moscow, 2010.
Rastyannikov V. G., Deryugina I. V. Agricultural dynamics. XX century. Moscow, 1999.

Rastyannikov V. G., Deryugina I. V. Models of agricultural growth in the XX century. India, Japan, USA, Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan. Moscow, 2004.

Rastyannikov V. G., Deryugina I. V. Bread yield in Russia. 1795-2007. Moscow, 2009.

Russia and other countries of the world 2010. Statistical Collection, Moscow, 2010.

Collection of statistics and economic data on agriculture in Russia and foreign countries. Petrograd, 1917.

Tsri E. Economic Transformation of Russia, Moscow, 2008.
Friedman L. A. Egypt in 1882-1952 Socio-economic structure of the village, Moscow, 1973.
Shirokov G. K. Promyshlennaya revolyutsiya v stranakh Vostoka [Industrial Revolution in the countries of the East].
Shirokov G. K. Paradoxes of the evolution of capitalism (West and East). Moscow, 1998.

Boscrup Е. The Condition of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. L., 1965.

Grigg D. The Agricultural Systems of the World: An Evolutionary Approach. Cambridge, 1974 [pit. by: Onishchuk, 1999].

FAOSTAT Agriculture // http://faostat.fao.org. 17.07.2012.

Japan Statistical Yearbook 1953. Tokyo, 1954.

page 143

Permanent link to this publication: