207 



get the same amount of land. I've interviewed vice presidents of 

 agrobanks, and they tell me anyone who isn't drunk for their inter- 

 view can get a loan. In other words, loans are not based on how 

 productive you will be or what you're going to grow, but rather if 

 you don't show up drunk for your interview. 



Furthermore, I would say that you have in the countryside the 

 rural Soviets are the ones giving out the land, they have a disposi- 

 tion to meike sure everyone is basically equal, and so the land sizes 

 tend to be very small, and you don't get much differentiation ac- 

 cording to ability once again. 



The third reason for egalitarianism is that you have a basic con- 

 tinued rural conservatism, and here I agree very much with Dr. 

 Van Atta, that essentially rural people have no interest in 

 privatizing. They^re opposed to the purchase and sale of land. Why? 

 Because they know the Soviet system. The Soviet system is based 

 on connections, it's based on influence. Those who have connections 

 are going to grab up the best land, they're going to grab the ma- 

 chinery, they're going to bid up the price of land so that peasants, 

 the average Ivan Ivanoff, will never be able to buy land, will never 

 be able to buy machinery, because they don't have the connections. 



So, in sum, what is the effect of this egalitarianism? It means 

 that you're not getting the stratum of strong peasant farmers that 

 you should. In fact, Rutskoi was quoted in mid- 1992 as saying, "Of 

 the 150,000 peasant farms in existence, 3,000 are producing above 

 subsistence levels." So only 3,000 out of 150,000 were producing 

 more than what they consumed themselves. So you're not getting 

 the stratum of strong farmers. 



What does this mean? It means that Russia, in my view, ^yill 

 continue to remain an importer of food, because they're not getting 

 the surpluses of food that would solve the food problem. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Wegren appears at the conclu- 

 sion of the hearing.] 



Mr. Penny. How would you assess Yeltsin's commitment to land 

 reform, and given the political situation in Russia, does it really 

 matter what his commitment might be? 



Mr. Van Atta. Clearly, Minister Khlystun, whose background is, 

 first of all, as a person who wrote a dissertation about the Stolj^jin 

 reforms before the revolution, and then as head of a surveying 

 school, not a professional agricultural bureaucrat, is in the Min- 

 istry of Agriculture at the pleasure of the president. Were Yeltsin 

 not committed to the agrarian reform which began even before the 

 Soviet Union broke up, there would be no agrarian reform, and at 

 the point at which Yeltsin goes away. Minister Khlystun will go 

 away. His successor will almost certainly be a man named 

 Shcherbak, who is the First Vice Minister of Agriculture. 



Mr. Penny. I've met Shcherbak. 



Mr. Van Atta. I have not met Shcherbak, but based on what he 

 says, I doubt he will be very committed to land reform. I'd be inter- 

 ested to know what you think on that score. 



Mr. Penny. He didn't impress me as a creative thinker. 



Mr. Van Atta. He's a professional bureaucrat. He was actually 

 appointed before Khlystun got the ministry, which is an mterestmg 

 point also. It seems to me that in that sense, Yeltsin is committed, 



