The Influence of “Family” on Agrarian Structure: Revisiting the Family Farm Debate in Bulgaria and Southern Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an exploration of the influence of “family” on structural changes in agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe. In the study, the term “family” is used as a metaphor for two fundamental aspects of Western family farming: access to resources through kinship ties and the reproduction of the joint farm and family unit across generations. The discussion is based on findings from inductive field research into agrarian livelihood strategies in Bulgaria and southern Russia. One hundred and fifty one interviews were conducted with co-operative farm employees and independent farmers in Dobrich and Plovdiv regions in Bulgaria, and Pavlovsky and Krimsk regions of Krasnodar Territory. Russia. Although family-operated farm enterprises are the clear minority of agrarian forms in the study sites, “family” is found to play a significant role in the evolution of agrarian structures, particularly through dynamics of land access and entrepreneurialism. In questioning the influence of “family” on agrarian development, the author argues that elements of the Western family farm debate are useful in understanding the resilience of large-scale, co-operative farming in Central and Eastern Europe. Further, she argues that the analysis of the emergent agrarian forms in the study sites can be used to challenge assumptions embedded in Western thinking about the persistence of the family farm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".