Misunderstanding and confusion in zemstvo and post-kolkhoz budget studies: comparing field experiences

Alexander Nikulin

Misunderstanding and confusion in

zemstvo and post-kolkhoz budget

studies: comparing field experiences

P R Z E G L 4 D W S C H O D N I O E U R O P E J S K I 2 2 0 1 1 : 2 0 7 - 2 1 6

Al e x a n d e r Ni k u l i n

T h e M o s c o w S c h o o l o f S o cial a n d E c o n o m ic S cien ce s

MISUNDERSTANDING AND CONFUSION IN ZEMSTVO

AND POST-KOLKHOZ BUDGET STUDIES:

COMPARING FIELD EXPERIENCES

1. Family budget in the epicenter o f centennial confusion

Sociological studies o f the family budget are based on drawing up a balance o f expenses and revenues o f the family in the course o f one year. One o f the major difficulties in applying the budget method is connected with getting accu­ rate and authentic information about a household. The distortion and confusion which intentionally or unintentionally may appear in the families’ answers will destroy and decrease the value o f the most thorough budget-based research concept.

Participating in the budget studies of rural households in the late 1990’s in Russia, I became interested in the opportunity to compare the contemporary me­ thods and results of field work with the famous zemstvo (land council) tradition in

budget studies. I discovered that zemstvo colleagues had left for us several manual books on how to do budget studies. Even among those there was one legendary weighty tome with a lengthy old-fashioned and boring title - „A consolidated collection of reports on 12 uyezds /districts/ o f the Voronezh province. Voronezh. 1897”. It was written by F. A. Scherbina, the founder o f zemstvo statistics. One half of the book was taken up by statistical calculations of budget research, the other - by detailed recommendations on how to conduct the interviews with peasants in order to collect detailed information. It was just the thing.

The deeper I plunged into Scherbina’s volume, the more amazed I was. If today’s rural sociologist acted upon these recommendations in the contemporary village, h e ... would make a mess o f the whole research. The zemstvo statistician would have certainly failed, if he had followed our recommendations. In both cases, the village families in the times o f the tsar and in the post-soviet times, undoubtedly, would have had no wish to communicate with researchers because o f their mistrust and lack o f understanding.

For instance, how should one begin collecting information: visit each house­ hold separately or collect information getting together with all the peasants?

Scherbinа advises to start work at the village meeting (skhod). There, in

front o f the whole community, each family will in turn answer the questions of the budget form. Here are some excerpts from the description o f this process in Scherbina’s book:

A lo n g s id e w ith th o s e p re s e n t a t th e c e n su s , h e re th e re w a s a lso a c ro w d o f w o ­ m e n , y o u n g p e o p le , te e n a g e rs a n d c h ild re n - a ll o f th e m p a y in g a tte n tio n , c ra n in g th e ir n e c k s , p ric k in g u p th e ir ears. O fte n o n e c o u ld h e a r h e a te d a rg u m e n ts a n d q u ic k - te m p e re d w r a n g le s ... h e re , to o , th e y a s k e d q u e s tio n s o f e a c h o th er, g av e a d v ic e . A p e a s a n t sta n d s lis te n in g c lo s e ly to w h a t h is n e ig h b o r o r fe llo w -v illa g e r w ill s a y - w h e n th e y w ill te ll th e tr u th a n d w h e n th e y w ill p alter. E v e n w ith o u t th is it is in te re s tin g to h e a r h o w m a n y c a ttle h is n e ig h b o r o r g o d fa th e r o f h is c h ild , fa th e r o f h is d a u g h te r -in -la w o r frie n d h a s a t th e m o m e n t, h o w m u c h g ra in h e b o u g h t o r so ld , h o w b ig h is d e b t is, h o w m u c h h e e a rn e d h im s e l f a n d h o w m u c h th e o th e r fa m ily m e m b e rs c o n tr ib u te d in to th e h o u s e h o ld . S o m e tim e s, th is h e a rin g o u t a lte rn a te d w ith q u e s tio n s a b o u t w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d to th e g re y c o w o r h o w c o m e th e re s p o n d e n t h a d n o t r e a c h e d a g re e m e n t o n re n tin g th e la n d p lo t [..■ h1

Scherbina definitely believes that by bunching all the peasants the resear­ cher will get more reliable information rather than by going for information from farm to farm, where each individual family will get something wrong in the answers.

Personally, I recommend, relying on my own experience, going from house­ hold to household; and I cannot even imagine how it could be possible, in today’s community, to get together and discuss household aspects, which in Scherbina’s times may have been transparent and well-known to all, but are today secret and private. Let me quote some notes from my research diaries:

Y e ste rd a y I w a s a t th e k o lk h o z m e e tin g . A s b e fo re , it is c u s to m a ry h e re n o t to say w h a t y o u th in k , - to th in k d if fe re n tly fro m w h a t y o u say. O n e d r iv e r ’s w o rd s stic k in m y m e m o ry . H e w a s c ry in g o u t th e fig u re o f h is s c a n ty p a y a n d q u e s tio n in g h o w o n e c o u ld liv e o n th is p a ltry m o n ey . In re s p o n s e , th o s e p re s e n t s ig h e d h e a v ily a n d sa d ly s h o o k th e ir h e a d s. R ig h t th e n , I a s k e d in w h is p e r th e z o o -te c h n ic ia n sittin g n e a rb y : „ W h y d o e s n ’t a n y o n e ra is e a n o b je c tio n a g a in s t th e d riv e r: y o u d o n ’t liv e o n ly o n y o u r fa rm w a g e s, d o y o u ? W h a t a b o u t th e g a s o lin e y o u p o u r o f f fro m th e ta n k o f th e k o lk h o z c a r in to y o u r g a s o lin e c a n ? A n d w h a t a b o u t th e k o lk h o z fo d d e r a n d m ilk y o u b rin g fo r y o u r s e lf in th a t v e ry c a r? ...” T h e zo o - te c h n ic ia n , la u g h in g so ftly , re p lie d w ith a n a ffe c te d frig h t: „ W h a t are y o u say in g ?! C a n y o u r e a lly a s k a b o u t th is?! I f I a s k h im th a t, h e w ill s h o u t to m e in re s p o n se :

1 Ф. А. Щербина, Сводный сборник по 12 уездам Воронежской губернии, Воронеж 1897, р. 148.

M isunderstanding and confusion in zemstvo and post-kolkhoz.. ₂₀₉

y o u p in c h fo d d e r y o u r s e lf ! ” E v e ry b o d y s te a ls h e re , e v e ry b o d y ! B u t y o u c a n n o t s p e a k a b o u t it a t a m e e tin g .2

Further, comparing the experience o f the researchers’ communication with peasants a hundred years ago and today, I found an interesting regularity and evolution in the confusion o f memory loss and frights of rural inhabitants.

2. Confusion in family backgrounds

A century ago peasants confused and forgot, it would seem today, the most elementary data about the age o f family members, their number, and who had died! And who was disabled.

According to Scherbina:

T h e p e a s a n ts q u ite o fte n d o n o t k n o w h o w o ld n o t o n ly th is o r th a t fa m ily m e m b e r is, b u t e v e n w h a t th e ir o w n a g e is [ . . . ] T h e p e a s a n ts so m e tim e s fo rg e t to n a m e the e x a c t n u m b e r o f fa m ily m e m b e rs ; a s a ru le , th e y te n d to fo rg e t to n a m e th e e ld e rly a n d th e c h i l d r e n . In th e p e a s a n ts ’ e y e s, th e d is a b le d a re m o s tly o n e g ro u p - th e s o -c a lle d ‘m is e r a b le ’, th a t is th e p e o p le d e p riv e d o f e ith e r th e in te lle c tu a l o r p h y s ic a l a b ility to w o r k . W h ile th e h u n c h b a c k e d , th e la m e , th e d e a f, e v e n th e d e a f-a n d -d u m b , th e w e a k -s ig h te d a n d o th e rs are r e c k o n e d b y th e m a m o n g th e w o rk e rs. F in a lly , th e y r e c a lle d w ith m o re a c c u ra c y in y e a rs o th e r v a rio u s fa c ts in th e fa m ily life a n d e v e n ts o f p u b lic n a tu re , ra th e r th a n s o m e b o d y ’s d e a th [ . ] . 3

All this could be accounted for by mass illiteracy among the Russian peasants at the end o f the XIX century; however, in other matters, fairly complex, requiring the skills o f not only counting, but o f generalizing and analyzing, the peasants were confident and precise.

The peasants remembered well the data concerning their households. They forgot much o f what was unrelated to the households.

The formal dates o f birth in the family were not related to the family econo­ my, the more so since families used to celebrate not birthdays, but name days (the peasant calendar was consistently aligned with the hierarchy of Orthodox holidays). And at that time the Russian state did not yet provide the people with various certificates o f birth for the sake o f permanent police prevention. Because o f this, their own dates o f birth and the number o f years they had lived blurred in the peasants’ memory into a vague blot o f recollections.

2 A uthor’s archive o f the socilogical project „Informal Economy o f Urban and Rural House­ holds: Restructuring o f Family Economic Networks” INTAS 1999-2000.

In the peasant household, the determining factor was not the formal degree o f kinship, but the degree o f participation in labor and consumption. Those who toiled in full with the others and „supped cabbage soup from the same bowl” with the others - those were not forgotten. And those who were yet unable (children) or already unable (old people) to work - those could be „inadverten- tly” omitted from the list of family members. The district council statisticians sometimes would get annoyed: how could the head o f a family with many children fail to mention a little child, but at the same time, he knew exactly how many calves and piglets he had!

But then, if a twelve-year child, with his common sense and strength could already work like an adult, or a seventy-year old man kept plowing on a par with the rest of them, such family members were always remembered exactly.

A working cripple, in the peasant’s understanding, was not at all disabled. While an invalid who could not work - suffered from God’s punishment for his sins, a punishment, first of all, of religious and moral nature, burdening not only the cripple, but his relatives too. They chose to forget about this. „Masters in whose families these accidents occurred, always gave information about the type o f disability and its causes with reluctance, with a sullen, depressed air”.4

Underlining the tact required in such cases, Scherbina advised the district clerks to question tentatively, as follows: „Did God spare you from cripples?” or „Who doesn’t work? Is everybody in the family fit to work?”5.

And the total oblivion of morbid events (especially of infant mortality - A.N.) is quite strange.

I t is d iffic u lt to s a y w h a t g a v e ris e to th is p h e n o m e n o n . M a y b e th e e c o n o m ic b a c k g ro u n d c a n a c c o u n t fo r th is. T h e lo ss o f a w o rk e r is a b ig fa c t in th e life o f a fa m ily c h ie f ly in th e e c o n o m ic se n s e , a n d th is fa c t m u s t h a v e b e e n b e tte r r e t a i­ n e d in th e m e m o ry th a n th e d e a th o f a n in fa n t, w h o s e fu n e ra l c o s t j u s t o n e ru b le. M e a n w h ile , a fire d e v o u rin g 3 0 0 o r 5 0 0 r u b l e s ’ w o rth o f b u ild in g s , a lo s s o f s e v e ra l c o w s a t o n e tim e d y in g fro m c a ttle p la g u e , a b a d h a rv e s t ru in in g th e h o u s e h o ld e tc - a ll th e s e w e re s u c h c irc u m s ta n c e s th a t w e re h a rd to fo rg e t in th e p e a s a n t c o m m u n ity . T h a t w a s w h y d e a th s w e re a s s o c ia te d w ith th e s e c ir c u m s ta n ­ ces. T h e p e a s a n ts w o u ld say: „ P e te r ’s b o y d ie d b e fo re th e fire, so it w a s le s s th a n te n y e a rs a g o ” , o r „ th re e c h ild re n d ie d in th e fa m ily o f so -a n d -s o w h e n th e b u c k ­ w h e a t c ro p w a s b e a te n b y h a il, a n d th a t w a s 8 y e a rs a g o e tc .6

To get more accurate information about deaths, Scherbina recommended specifically turning to women because „Men, in general, were less reliable and careful than women in taking account o f the death rate in the family [.. .]”7.

4 Ф. А. Щербина, op. cit., p. 54. 5 Ibidem, p. 55.

6 Ibidem, p. 52. 7 Ibidem, p. 53.

M isunderstanding and confusion in zemstvo and post-kolkhoz.. 211

A hundred years have gone by. Today, such things are not forgotten. Our village interlocutors simply adore telling about their children and grandchildren, telling about the efforts devoted to bringing up the young and helping grown up children.

Moreover, often the interlocutors made such candid sexual and moral reve­ lations, which we do not even include in the questionnaire. Here is a characteri­ stic example from the interview held by my colleague-sociologist with a house­ wife:

S o c io lo g is t: - In y o u r b u d g e t y o u sta te a r e g u la r a n d c o n s id e ra b le re c e ip t o f fo d d e r fo r y o u r h o u s e h o ld . A n d w h a t fo r - in e x c h a n g e o r fo r so m e se rv ic e s - do y o u g e t fo d d e r? R e s p o n d e n t (la u g h s in re s p o n s e ): - F o r w h a t s e rv ic e s, fo r w h a t s e r v i c e s . W h a t c o n v e n t h a v e y o u c o m e f r o m . fo r w h a t s e r v i c e s . ” .8

A number o f other stories about the details of personal life even brought us to an amusing conclusion that relations between lovers in the Russian province on average come to 200 rubles a month at the rate o f 1999. It was this sum that was given by a Krasnodar respondent - a widow, mother o f three children, who, as she said, had a lover only for material reasons. And it was exactly the same sum that was mentioned by one o f our married interviewees in Saratov. He pointed out that his lover was better off than he, as she worked in a bank, and he himself was an intellectual with an artistic occupation. But as an admirer, he had to give his beloved sweets and wine costing him 200 rubles a month.

I do not believe that in Scherbina’s times family relations were more moral and the spouses - more faithful, but it was absolutely impossible to discuss it.

There is only one kind o f questions about the family that still arouses anxiety, confusion and reticence: about the subjects o f repression and convicted family members. In the meantime, in the XX century, the number o f people who were or are imprisoned per a thousand inhabitants has grown considerably, and for the families o f the end o f the XX century the criminal truism „do not swear off prison” remains to be as alarming as the lean year truism „do not swear off begging” o f the end o f the XIX century.

3. Confusion in the information on the household

The main economic mode o f existence o f the rural family at the end o f the XIX century was a combination in their household o f farming, cattle bree­ ding and crafts. The family’s production activities focused on arduous efforts to

reproduce itself („to make both ends meet”) - mostly to provide sustenance for the family and pay the taxes. Village families were united into a local communi­ ty in the form o f a commune.

The main economic mode o f existence of the rural family at the end of the XX century includes, firstly, work at the agrarian-industrial enterprise (the former kolkhoz, sovkhoz transformed into a joint-stock company), secondly, work at the individual subsidiary farm, thirdly, secondary employment in the form o f odd jobs on the side or craftsmanship inside the household. Families, as a rule, are involved in a dense network of corporate ties o f the local agrarian-industrial enterprise.

The household economy at the end o f the XIX century is naturally autono­ mous. The means o f production and articles o f consumption turn over inside the household, and only part o f the family balance o f receipts and expenditures is drawn into the outside world o f commodity-money relations.

The household economy at the end o f the XX century is by far more depen­ dent on the „outside world” - on the wages and other resources o f the kolkhoz/ JSC, on the local functionaries and the involvement in market relations. The individual auxiliary farm (IAF) plays an important stabilizing natural-autonomo­ us role, but auxiliary indeed. The scope o f the family IAF (the nature and boundaries o f its natural autonomy), as well as the secondary employment, are directly tied in to the relations with the kolkhoz/JSC, the local administrative and market structures.

With great pleasure Scherbina describes the carefulness and meticulousness with which the peasants tell about the live and dead cattle stock, the land, its cultivation and leasing, the buildings and other real estate, industrial and com­ mercial institutions, the history and nature of money expenses, accounting of money receipts, accounting o f crafts, credits and remainders.

Yes, sometimes there are distortions-hesitations in the answers, but they are mostly connected with somebody’s slow-wittedness and lack o f education. And this is exactly what the ‘skhod’ is for. There and then, the most observant and sharp-witted among the crowd will explain the essence o f the asked question to the bewildered fellow-villager, the respondent.

However, the thorough Scherbina did notice one important type o f syste­ matic distortion in the information about the household: it was the questions potentially linked to the fiscal interests o f the state. The questions concer­ ning the fertility of the lands and crop capacity and the questions about crafts sometimes aroused confusion among the peasants, urging them to diminish some figures.

B itte r e x p e rie n c e h a s ta u g h t th e p e a s a n ts th a t g iv in g th e a u th o r itie s e x a c t d a ta a b o u t th e s e su b je c ts w a s n o t sa fe fo r th e in te re s ts o f th e c o m m u n e . T h e p e a sa n ts u n d e rs ta n d o n ly to o w e ll th e d e p e n d e n c e o f fis c a l c o n s id e ra tio n s a n d c a lc u la tio n s

M isunderstanding and confusion in zemstvo and post-kolkhoz.. ₂₁₃

o n th e q u a lity o f th e la n d a n d th e siz e o f c ro p s , a n d h e re lie th e r e a s o n s fo r th e u n a n im o u s r e b u f f o f b o th th e ‘s k h o d ’ a n d its in d iv id u a l m e m b e rs w h e n e stim a tin g th e v a lu e a n d y ie ld o f th e la n d s .9

Scherbina also mentioned some amusing incidents: the men would under­ state their expenses on alcohol, the women - on clothes and knick-knackery.

One special type o f distortions includes those to which the richest and the poorest people in the village are inclined. Russian populist-socialist Scherbina, with particular enmity, warns about the kulaks, profiteers and usurers in talking with whom the zemstvo (district) clerk must manifest his professionalism in full:

T h e c o rn - m e rc h a n t c o n tra c to r, th e h u c k ste r, th e h o rs e -d e a le r s to o d o u t p ro m in e n ­ tly in th e ir h o u s e h o ld d e c o r a n d th e ir n e e d s. T h e ir v e ry a p p e a ra n c e , d e c e n t c lo ­ th e s , g a lo s h e s , p o s s e s s io n o f w a tc h e s , rin g s a n d so o n le t th e c le rk k n o w w h a t k in d o f e x p e n s e s h e sh o u ld p a y s p e c ia l a tte n tio n to.

In such cases the talk about the budget turned into an exciting spectacle in front o f the whole ‘skhod’. Scherbina describes it as follows:

A fig h t a n d c o m p e titio n w o u ld s ta rt b e tw e e n th e d is tric t c le rk , m a k in g th e k u la k sw e a t a n d s h iv e r u n d e r th e c ro s s fire o f a rtfu lly d e v is e d q u e s tio n s , a n d th e r e s p o n ­ d e n t, s u lle n ly a n d a p p re h e n s iv e ly try in g in o n e c a s e to c o n c e a l th e re q u ire d in f o r ­ m a tio n , in a n o th e r - to d is to rt it, a n d in still a n o th e r - d e s p e r a te ly to d e c la re s o m e th in g w h ic h sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n s a id in p u b lic u n d e r d if fe re n t c ir c u m s ta n ­ ces. T h is h a lf -fo r c e d n e c e s s ity „ to re v e a l” th e c o n c e a le d se c re ts o f th e k u la k h o u s e h o ld a lw a y s a m u s e d th e p e a s a n ts [ ...] .

If the rich distorted the information out o f greed, keeping the „commercial secret”, the poor did it because o f „inborn muddle-headedness”. Scherbina poin­ ted out:

M e n ta l s q u a lo r a lw a y s g o e s h a n d in h a n d w ith m a te ria l sq u alo r. T h a t w a s w h y a p o o r m a n , e n ta n g le d in h is s ta te m e n ts, c o u ld b e h e lp e d o u t to g iv e th e p ro p e r a n s w e rs b y h is n e ig h b o r s a n d th e fe llo w -v illa g e rs o f th e ‘s k h o d ’.10

But overall, any possible distortions made up just a small part o f the econo­ mic information about the life o f the family, given in detail, honestly and con­ scientiously.

9 Ф. А. Щербина, op. cit., p. 68. 10 Ibidem, p. 154-155.

One hundred years later, the level o f the „alcohol-dress” distortions was nearly unchanged, if not lower. Muddle-headedness did diminish - the people are indeed educated.

However, it is just impossible to arrange for a budget interview with the obvious rich and the obvious poor. The obvious rich, living in red-brick cottages, driving impressive cars, from the very beginning refused to participate in the budget study. The obvious poor are, as a rule, hard drinking families, unable to keep coherent budget accounting.

Personal self-appraisal o f village families between the obvious signs o f affluence and poverty is o f interest: well-to-do families (rich with regard to the local middle level) asserted that they were average; somewhat poor families (poor with regard to the local middle level) also asserted that they were average. Thus, even one hundred years later, the economy and ideology o f the peasant of average means in the village remain in the lead.

The „anti-fiscal” type o f distortions has changed sharply: from concealment o f family information concerning crafts and land fertility a century ago it has broadened to global systematic misinformation concerning employment and the resources o f family economies o f the present day.

So, we find here illegally and half-legally used economic resources o f the family as an enterprise. For the most part, such a supply o f resources to the family enterprise is arranged from the workplaces o f the big enterprises where family members work. The list o f resources is extraordinarily diverse. The most valuable o f them are those which can be immediately used in various areas of family production. These include: fodder for the livestock o f the family farm; construction hardware for the family house, fuel, spare parts for the private car, various instruments and the like.

The most realistic and principled interviewees warned openly at the start of our talk: „Well, let us assume that I will include in the budget my official pay, but I won’t tell you how I pilfer from the kolkhoz, all right?”11.

In such situations, the sociologist had to patiently reassure the representative o f the family household that the received confidential data would not be disclo­ sed to anyone but the sociologist. All the budget data are analyzed anonymously. This is actually true, so none o f our respondents, thank God, ever suffered from their openness.

Anyway, the families were apprehensive and unhappy to answer the questions touching upon informal economic relations. Intentionally or unintentio­ nally they sought to understate the scope o f their informal actions. And the reason for this was not only the sense o f fear, but also the sense o f morality. Humanly, it is hard to speak about it. As one o f the respondents asked in a fit of

M isunderstanding and confusion in zemstvo and post-kolkhoz.. ₂₁₅ temper, summing up the informal characteristics o f his family household: „But why does our state create such conditions which force us to steal?! And for us not to steal - the state doesn’t create such conditions!”12.

And so the families sought to understate the size o f their real economic potential. It is in this informal dimension that the main difference between budget information about the family household o f the end of the XX century and that o f a century ago was rooted.

In such cases, we have methods o f neutralization and clarification. First of all, o f course, there must be friendly relations o f trust with the interviewees. At the same time, his right to put a stop to the discussion o f any unpleasant topics was recognized and respected. Some facts can be reconstructed from indirect data: for example, how much fodder and from what source the master gets for his cattle can be deduced from the number o f that very cattle and the volume o f fodder in fodder-units. And the respondent may hold back on where he gets this amount o f fodder, it is clear as it is - from the local big agrarian enterprise.

Nevertheless, it does not seem possible to fully overcome this type o f distor­ tion. The results (proven) o f our budget studies are higher and more exact than the official statistics, but still admittedly lower than the real (not proved) data on informal family economies.

Possibly, it is because o f these unintentional shady activities o f family house­ holds that the families today prefer to speak about the nicer aspects of their lives. They find a meaning and justification for their household economy in their well-groomed children and a decent physical and cultural subsistence o f their family. It may be for this reason that at the turn o f the XXIst century the respondents seek to transform the information about the family, as an economic unit, into information about the family as a family.

4. Fears

Among other things, intentional and unintentional distortions o f information are instigated in the people’s answers by various sorts of anxieties and fears. These are the anxieties o f intimate intra-family secrets: unaccounted money of the hus­ band and wife - on alcohol, knick-knacks; expenses on conjugal infidelity.

These are the anxieties o f local secrets: the families conceal from one ano­ ther and from the researcher how the local community resources are used. In Scherbina’s times, they concealed the turnovers of usurious kulak households; nowadays they hush up the control o f the clans and local elite families over

various resources. For example, the family clan o f the chief farm engineer con­ trols the machinery and spare parts, the clan of chief livestock-technician con­ trols fodder, etcetera.

Finally, the fear of the outside, big, alien world, represented in the minds of the families, first o f all, by the Russian state itself. The Russian state acts here as the great demiurge of fear, permanently destroying the old fears and creating new ones, the demiurge whose casuistry of law and lawlessness penetrates the local and even the intra-family levels. The notable slip of the tongue of Russian prime-minister Putin could become the best epigraph to this kind of fear: „You must have forgotten that in our society there exist wonderful opportunities not only for criminals, but for the state, too!?” These fears are elaborately intertwi­ ned, creating a thick atmosphere of anxiety, oppressing family households. They did exist earlier, but they were different. This is why the structure of distortions in family statistics has changed: a century ago distortions in the answers about the family prevailed over distortions in the answers about its economy. Today, the answers about the family household economy are more distorted than the answers about the family.

Недоразумения и путаница в земских и пост-колхозных бюджетных исследованиях: сопоставляя опыт полевой работы В статье п р о вед ен о и с т о р и к о -со ц и о л о ги ч еск и й ан ал и з о с о б е н н о с т е й и зучен и я бю дж етов с е л ь с к и х д о м о х о зяй ств н а о с н о в е м атер и ал о в р у к о в о д и тел я р о сси й ск о й зем ской стати сти ки конц а X IX в ека Ф. А. Щ ерб ин ы и м атериалов соц иологического п р о ек та конц а X X в ека И Н ТА С : «Н еф о р м альн ая экон ом и ка городски х и сем ей н ы х д о м о х о з я й с т в : р е с т р у к т у р и з а ц и я с е т е й м е ж д у с е м е й н о г о о б м е н а » . В р е з у л ь т а т е сф о р м у л и р о в ан р я д п ар ад о ксо в в сто л етн ей тр а н с ф о р м а ц и и ти п и ч н ы х бю дж етн ы х о ш и б о к и и с к а ж е н и й , в о зн и к а в ш и х с р е д и з е м с к и х с т а т и с ти к о в и п о с т с о в е т с к и х социологов в п р о ц ессе общ ения с р азли чн ы м и стратам и сельского населени я. Главный а н а л и т и ч е с к и й в ы в о д д а н н о го и с с л е д о в а н и я : з а п р о ш е д ш и е сто л е т и зм е н и л и с ь б а з о в ы е с т р у к т у р ы и с к а ж е н и й с в е д е н и й в б ю д ж е т н о й с т а т и с т и к е р о с с и й с к и х дом охозяйств. С то л ет н азад в царской России и скаж ения в ответах о сем ье п реобла­ д али над искаж ен иям и в ответах о ее хозяйстве. В постсоветской Р осси и и скаж ения в ответах о хозяйстве п реобладаю т над искаж ен иям и в ответах о сем ье. Н еизм енны м в б ю д ж етн ы х о т в е т а х с е л ь с к и х р е с п о н д е н т о в и ц ар ско й и п о с т с о в е т с к о й Р о сси и о с т а е т с я п с и х о л о г и ч е с к о е н а п р я ж е н и е , с в я з а н н о е с в о п р о с а м и ф о р м а л ь н о г о и н еф орм альн ого в заим одействия эконом ики дом охозяйств с государственн ой властью .