Social and Economic Monitoring Survey Oryol Oblast, July 1996
The integrated monitoring survey was completed in Oryol Oblast in May, incorporating previous studies conducted this year in Oryol, Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov and Ryazan into a single survey. The survey establishes a baseline for evaluating changes in management strategies, land and labor markets, sources of income, job security and satisfaction, decision-making, opinions on land ownership and assessments of social services. The 1996 survey provides a basis for cross-sectional analyses between oblasts and farm types, comparing reorganized to non-reorganized or large to small farms, for example, or mixed partnerships to limited liability companies. When the survey is conducted in subsequent years, results can be expected to reflect changes due to capital investment, market conditions, and the agricultural economy in general.
Perhaps in the long run, workers on reorganized farms will recognize the connection between their work behavior, salaries, farm profits, lease payments and dividends, making workers more disciplined and interested in their work. In the short run, the principal effects of reorganization are on farm management strategies. Reorganization provides profit incentives to farm directors to manage workers more rigorously, increase work loads, recruit new workers and raise salaries. Searching for ways to cut costs and increase profits, managers of reorganized farms increase work loads, enforce worker discipline, and are less tolerant of drinking at work and stealing from farms. Better discipline and greater interest in work are already evident on pilot farms one year after reorganization, and on second-season farms only a few months after reorganization.
Farm reorganization distributes land and other farm assets to individuals—farm managers, workers and pensioners. Private ownership provides incentives to these individuals to use farm assets more efficiently. Survey results have reflected these incentives in several ways:
· Reorganization caused measurable changes in workers’ motivation. Both workers and managers agreed that there was a reduction in drinking during working hours and stealing from the farm. Work loads increased, and workers were more interested in their work compared to the year before.
· Limited evidence indicates increasingly competitive labor markets on reorganized farms.
· Managers’ experience with land lease contracts indicates a growing appreciation of the need to negotiate realistic terms tailored to the needs of participants. In some cases, the initial terms of land lease contracts were set too high; due to poor harvests, managers had difficulty fulfilling contract terms. Farm managers adjusted to these difficulties by renegotiating contracts with different sets of payment terms for farm workers and pensioners, or on an individual basis.
The quality of social services does not depend on reorganization or the transfer of services to local administrations. Farmers on both reorganized and non-reorganized farms rated social services similarly and, in general, were satisfied with their quality. In general, social services did not deteriorate after being transferred to local administrations. Medical units and schools were rated by farm managers, workers and pensioners as "satisfactory" to "good."
.
.
.
BACK