‘With reference to these extracts and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two extracts provides the more convincing interpretation of the main contributors to Russia’s economic modernisation?’

Firstly, Extract A provides the interpretation that the emancipation of the serfs was the primary contributor Russia’s economic modernisation. This is evident when Falkus states ‘the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 removed a considerable barrier to industrial growth’. The extract states this as it goes on to say ‘serfdom was clearly incompatible with the requirements of an industrialising society’. This is supported by the facts that before emancipation, serfs were not allowed to leave their land and had to work for their Mir. Largely uneducated, there was no sense of prosperity within the serf’s population thus industrial modernisation could not occur. However, after emancipation, serfs were allowed to leave their land and go to prosperous environments such as cities (Moscow and St Petersburg), therefore industrialisation could thrive as now serfs believe there is opportunity for their lives to improve and not stay stagnant. On the other hand, although serfs could move from their land, redemption payments had to be paid. Thus any money earned from moving to cities and working in factories were largely deducted via these payments. This would imply that there was in fact no prosperous attitude as the emancipated serfs were just working to pay off debts and not to move up the classes.

In Extract B, Bradley Woodworth provides the interpretation that Russia’s economic modernisation is ‘one that cannot be uniformly defined’ therefore going against Extract A which believes there is a clear reason for industrialisation. Furthermore, Extract B reinforces this by stating that ‘it is difficult to arrive at a universally agreed-upon statement’ in regards to the reason of which economic modernisation occurred. Further knowledge suggests this may be indeed the more accurate extract as although emancipation played a significant role in modernisation there were other contributors that provided equal influence. It could be argued that the Crimean War had equal if not more contribution to economic modernisation as it exposed Russia’s weaknesses not only to themselves but to everyone else in the world. This lead to not only emancipation of the serfs but many other significant reforms such as local government reforms which would lead to modernisation. However, one could argue emancipation influenced all other reforms and laid foundations for further industrialisation. This is because the majority of reforms set out by Alexander II largely aimed to benefit the serfdom, which could be interpreted to be due to the fact that the serfs have new found freedom yet nothing to do it with it.

Furthermore, in Extract A, Falkus tries to reinforce his interpretation that emancipation was a significant contributor to economic modernisation by stating before the proclamation; ‘serfdom bred values and attitudes inimical to modernisation’. By this statement, Falkus is trying to imply that (as stated before) there was no initiative to improve or industrialise Russia as their attitudes towards modernisation were hostile. With serfs, making up roughly 80% of the population of Russia at the time, it could be seen that emancipation was hugely significant, as by giving 80% of the population an opportunity to thrive for the first time in there lives, due to their conditions, it is likely they would take up support that is being given to them and Russia would start to see improvements. This did indeed happen to an extent as in 1862, a year after emancipation, total industrial growth grew about 5%. However, there is no evidence to suggest this happened purely due to emancipation being declared. In addition, in Russia, nationalism was non-existent. Serfdom largely believed in localism, as for the majority of their lives before emancipation they had to stay in their land and could never move from there. Therefore, it could be seen that emancipation had little effect by itself as due to the serf’s deep rooted beliefs, there was no possibility of changing their mind sets.

On the contrary, Extract B does state that although there is no clear contributor to economic modernisation, Woodworth does suggest ‘Sergei Witte, as a finance minister for much of this era, was the key figure in this progress and transformation’. Sergei Witte was Minister of Finance between the years 1892 – 1903. Some argue Witte allowed Russia to become a major world producer in industries such as oil, steel and iron. His adoption of the gold standard and high tariffs on foreign good meant a huge boost in Russia’s industrialisation. However, in 1899, when the international recession occurred, there was a sudden stop in economic growth and a significant slump in oil industry. Witte soon lost support from the Tsar in 1903 and was removed as Minister of Finance. Furthermore, it could be argued that Witte took the praise from Von Reutern and Vyshnegradsky whom before him had also made attempts to modernise Russia and did so with some success. Before Witte, Vyshnegradsky had made notable strides to modernise Russia. Increased indirect taxes and mounted a drive on swell grain exports. Between 1881 and 1891, grain exports increased by 18%, as a percentage of total Russian exports. Furthermore, by 1892 the Russian budget was in surplus. Thus, it can be seen that Vyshnegradsky was just as important to Russia’s economic modernisation.

In conclusion, I believe that Extract B provides the more convincing interpretation as although emancipation did provide a door to economic modernisation, there were other significant factors that were equal to or even more important to Russia’s economic modernisation such as the minds of Witte and Vyshnegradsky.