There are many ways of looking at the history of Russia's agrarian reforms. One may see them in light of industrial policy: evidence of the government's determination to break with rural backwardness, or one may trace the process of decision-making for a study of governance. One may see them in light of their effect on agricultural performance or the evolution of agrarian institutions. But one can hardly fail to identify in each way of looking the close cooperation even in eras of reform between the state and rural elites. Ordinarily, the influence of vested interests was sufficient to block legal change to their exclusive prerogatives in the rural economy. Even in conditions of crisis, elite interests were conciliated by compromise. Cooperation on one reform was coordinated with concessions on another, and those who opposed reforms were assured of retained power in government. The crisis- reform pattern in agriculture survived for a century and a half because it was collectively stable and deliberately constructed to stimulate the economy without causing extensive social disruption.

BREAKING WITH BACKWARDNESS

Generally concerned more about stability and order, the Russian government was nevertheless particularly concerned about the consequences of rural backwardness in times of crisis. Rosenberg (1993, p. 841) explains perceptions about the necessity of agrarian reform in the late nineteenth century: