Russian Officialdom in Crisis Autocracy and Local Self-Government, 1861}}}1900 [Hardcover]

This is the first full account of the development of rural self-government in Russia from the emancipation of the serfs to its bureaucratisation in the counter-reforms of 188990. Professor Pearson challenges the conventional view of the counter-reforms as a concession to gentry class interests and a reaction against 'zemstvo' political activity.This is the first full account of the development of rural self-government in Russia from the emancipation of the serfs to its bureaucratisation in the counter-reforms of 188990. Professor Pearson challenges the conventional view of the counter-reforms as a concession to gentry class interests and a reaction against 'zemstvo' political activity.Modern Russian history began with the Great Reforms of 1861-4 which emancipated the serfs and introduced public self-government to assist the state in managing rural administration and change. In this capacity, peasant and zemstvo self-government, established partly on the basis of Western administrative theory, was important to the solvency of the entire state, autocracy's political evolution, and the fate of the rural gentry, peasants, and townspeople. This book is the first full-scale account of the development of rural self-government from the Great Reforms to its bureaucratization in the counterreforms of 1889-90 and their implementation during the following decade. Drawing on a wide range of archival material in Moscow and Leningrad, Pearson pinpoints the concrete problems that Russian officials experienced in introducing rural self-government, and shows that the land captain and zemstvo counterreforms, like the earlier Great Reforms, resulted from practical statist considerations.Preface; Acknowledgments; 1. Introduction: old problems, new principles - tsarist government and the Great Reforms; 2. The birth of a new rural order: the state and local self-government, 186175; 3. The breakdown of tsarist administrative order, 187581; 4. The debate revived: state, social clï