Pre-revolution living standards: Russia 1888-1917

Ekaterina Khaustova (Russian State Social University (Kursk Branch))
Preliminary version April 2013

Inrtoduction

After 1917 Russia underwent extraordinary transformations. Its capitalist based economy was reshaped to centrally-planned economic system.

Even on the threshold of a hundred year anniversary of Russian revolution many issues remain unresolved. Economic historians of 20th century Russia focused their attention on pre-revolutionary economic problems and in many classical books Russia looks a lot like lugging part of Europe. Over recent years some Russian historiansincreasingly analyzed and reviewed this part of Russian economic history.

Some scientists assume that due to a number of unfavorable social, geographical, political or historical conditions which remained over that time, the economy of pre- revolutionary Russia was left behind and labour class was encouraged to fight. Others believe that economic failure and weakness were the main reasons of Russian revolution 1917. Others have attributed Russian revolution 1917 to economic failure and weakness.

Russia’s bad set of financial institutions has often been cited as a possible cause of revolution too. There are lots of complications on the way to the study of this aspect.

Perhaps the most discussed problem is that the unfavorable conditions impacted the results of previous research drawn by economists of Soviet era. Their main conclusion is that labour class was 

affected by horrible poverty. Perhaps not the most surprising is that this conclusion is based on limited evidence. Were workers affected by poverty or were economical and political change “on the 

air” and easily changed mood of people? Much has been written on the importance of fast change for 

economic development. However was it really so bad?

Meanwhile, if we look on the situation impartially, we can see much more than a common view of that period of time.

Historical background

If history matters for what we truly believe in, we need to make some historical review. At the end of 19th century Russia was in the first place in population growth. For the 100 years before, Russian population has increased by 111 million, 637 thousand, or 3.55 times, and the increase was caused by country residents. Absolute increase in population and its rate was in the period between 1863 and 1913. There were also significant differences between the rates of population growth of 50 provinces of European Russia. Russian population from 1863 to 1913 (without Poland and Finland) grew at 122,2% , in particular from 1897 to 1913 – at 33,7% . 

Highest population growth was in the Caucasus and Siberia, mainly because of internal migration. See Rashin “Russian population for 100 years”.

Between 1861 and the Revolution of 1905, rural Russia experienced significant social and economic hange. Emancipation of the serfs began a sequence of reforms designed to improve the civil rights of the rural population. The land reforms that accompanied emancipation transferred property rights rom the gentry and the state to the peasantry. The expansion of the railway network and growing tegration with global markets led to increased regional specialization as grain exports boomed in the south and substantial industrial growth took place in the north-central provinces.2 2. Micro-Perspectives on 9th –century Russian Living Standards. Tracy Dennison & Steven Nafziger

In the late XIX — early XX century the Russian government took a number of measures to strengthen the role of Russia in the world economy, namely: stimulation of economic growth through industrial development, improvement of public finances, stabilization of the ruble by the introduction of the gold standard, protectionism, and expansion of transport infrastructure. This study assesses the 

impact of the above mentioned measures on the formation of investment climate in Russia in 1885–1913.

The years 1885–1913 are considered as an integral period from the point of view of the conducted economic policy, and, consequently, its impact on the investment climate. It should be noted that success in the development of Russia in the late XIX — early XX century is traditionally associated with the policies of Sergei Witte.3 3. Government Economic Policy and the Formation of Investment Climate: The Experience of 

Russia in theLate Nineteenth — Early Twentieth Century Natalia P. Drozdova ,Irina G. 

Kormilitsyna.

There was a rapid growth of cities and urban population, however urban population grew slower than 

total population. The rising demand for labour in Russian cities is unquestionable.

W. Rostow believed that at the end of XIX — early XX century Russia has entered a stage of take-off with self-sustained growth4. According to P. Gregory during 1885-1913 the growth rate accounted for 3.25% per year, and per capita — 1.75% per year5. In comparison with the developed countries of the time Russia was one of the fastest growing economies.

Industrial growth rates were significantly higher than the average for the national economy and for the years of industrial expansion (1885–1913) reached 5.72%, and in 1890-ies — even 8.03%.

During the period the average annual growth rate of industrial production in the U.S. amounted to 5.26%, in the UK — 2.11%, in Germany — 4.49%, in Sweden — 6.17% 6. Thus at the turn of the XIX–XX century Russia held one of the first places in the world for the  pace of industrial development.

A characteristic feature of the reform era was growth of the urban population. High taxes and  redemption payments for land made peasants flock to cities and industrial towns, factories, mining industries and to railway construction in order to earn money to survive. The influx of cheap labour was one of the most important factors in capitalization of the country.

From the second half of nineteenth century manufacturing begins to develop rapidly. In the European part of Russia, especially in Moscow and Moscow region, Donbas, Volga region and St. Petersburg region numerous factories were built. The most intensively developed branch of industry was metallurgy, textile industry and construction.

By the early 80's of nineteenth century, along with continued development of handicrafts, the role of factory production was increasing. An important feature of its formation was gradual transition from manual labour to mechanization. The greatest development of machine technology was in the manufacturing sector. Metallurgy industry, which contained 24.8% of all engines and concentrated 77.5% of all workers, gave 86.3% of total production industry.

Rising demand for manufactured goods caused innovation and production increase during the nineteenth century and the beginning of twentieth century.

Large investments have ensured rapid railway development. If in 1860 the construction length of  the railway network in Russia was 1626 km, then in 1870 it increased to 10,731 km, in 1880 this figure reached 22,865 km.

During the industrial boom of the 90s over 2.5 thousand km of railways were built annually.

From 1893 to 1902 - 27 thousand km of railways were put in operation, and their total length  exceeded 55 thousand km. In 1891, the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway began, and it was 

largely completed in the beginning of the XX century.7

A breakthrough in the country's railway construction has given a powerful fillip to the growth of  production in other industries. The demand of the railway industry for metal, coal and rolling stock stimulated the development of mechanical engineering, mining, metallurgy, power industry.

The rapid development of industry and railways in the late XIX century led to rapid growth of the number of workers in the country.

If in 1865 there were 706 thousand people working on factories and railroads (European part), by 1879 the number of employees rose to 1179000, in 1890 it amounted to 1432000, and finally in 1900 - 2208000. Over the period between the years 1865 and 1900 the number of workers in European Russia more than tripled.8

In the period between 1909 and 1913 average annual increase in industrial output was 8.9%. 

Industries producing capital goods increased by 83%, and those producing consumer goods - by 35%. 

The bulk of industrial capacity was concentrated in the Russian Central part ,North West, Baltic, Southern Poland and Ural regions. They produced over 75% of gross production and concentrated up to 79% of all factory workers. Other areas were less developed.9

The number of industrial establishments decreased from 33.618 in 1888 to 27.914 in 1913 due to 

financial crisis in the beginning of twentieth century and also because of consolidation.

The proof is increase in number of employees from 1.231500 in 1888 to 2.897969 in 1913.10 Much attention was drawn to the working issue. On the 2nd of June 1897 the law on limitation of working day was issued. It set the maximum limit of working day at no more than 11.5 hours on weekdays and 10 hours on Saturdays and days before holidays, or if the working hours at least partly fell on night time.

At factories with more than 100 workers free medical care was constituted, and it covered 70% of all factory workers (1898). In June 1903 Regulations on compensation for industrial accidents were established, obliging the employer to pay benefit and pension to the person affected or their family ranging from 50 to 66% of the person’s allowance.11 In 1906 labor unions were created in the country. The law of 23th of June 1912 set forth compulsory accident and health insurance for workers.

4. Rostow, 1990, p. xviii
5. see Gregory, 1982, p. 192

6. see Gerschenkron, 1947, p. 156

7. SSSR Ensiklopedicheskii spravochnik. M.:Sovetskaya ensiklopediya, 1982. str 117.

8. Gerschenkron A. 1947 The Rate of Growth in Russia: The Rate of Industrial Growth in Russia, 

Since 1885 // Journal of economic history. Vol. 7. Supplement. P. 144-147

9. Statisticheskii ezegodnik Rossii za 1900-1916. SPb

10. See Strumilin, S.G. Ocherki Ekonomicheskoi Istorii Rossii, 1960

11. See Kirianov, U.I., 1989

Wage development

For study of Russian economy a real wage approach offers a more vital and accurate picture of actual purchasing power and economic development of Tsarist Russia. In the paper we are analyzing wage and commodity price data for the two main Russian cities. St Petersburg and Moscow were (and still are) the two biggest cities in Russia, they were the heart of revolutionary movement and centers of industrialization.

Due to 2 wars (Russo - Japanese war (1904-1905) and World War 1)) it is difficult to make continuous solid wage series. During that time Russian social structure was reshaped. In the period of First World War the statistics was scrappy, lots of sources were destroyed during the “dark period of Russian Revolution”. However, we have collected this fragmented data as much as possible.

There are three main sources for these scattered data: Factory inspection reports 1900-1917, Statistical and documentary handbook (Russia 1913), History of the national economy. Also some administration reports that are available in the archives.

The most systematic and detailed source of data are accounting books of textile factory(1888 to 1916), they contain very detailed information written before Soviet time.12 These reports contain very personalized information with the name of a person, date of birth, job title, start time and so on.

Of course these sources have some drawbacks as well. First of all some indicators were said to be inaccurate. In point of fact it is an evidence of high degree of Russian State bureaucracy. In some provinces wages were probably lower, than in these reports (at least Soviet classical authors always refer to this). But on another hand we make wage and price series of St.Petersburg and Moscow (two capitals). The importance of these cities for Tsarist Russia makes us sure that the information in the statistical books we used is close to the truth, because these cities were full of inspectors and auditors.

We focused on urban skilled and unskilled adult male wages. By focusing on both groups of labours we are trying to get a broad picture of real wage situation, also because the variation in wage levels of unskilled workers is usually smaller than that of skilled workers. We want to emphasize that adult male wages were not equal to total household income. Labour wives usually worked, so did children. (There are lots of evidences of that in statistical documents of pre-revolution time).13

In Moscow we have the data for real wages of textile factory skilled and unskilled labours from 1888 to 1916. Our information on St.Petersburg labours is less comprehensive. Data availability determines the number of observations in our dataset. We use real wage data of skilled and unskilled constructing workers.14 Our real wage series are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. All wage series are stated in Russian Rubles on average per year.(before 1914 ruble was freely convertible)15

12. main sources were published in Soviet period and that affected results and conclusion, due to 

negative attitude of the Soviet government to the Tsarist regime.

13. See Statisticheskii ezegodnik Rossiya 1900-1916. SPb

14. due to the reason of data availability we have to use data Rikachev A. Tseni na xleb i tryd za 

58 let, Vestnik finansov. № 31. 1911 for unskilled workers in St.Petersburg from 1888 to 1910….We 

do not have same data after 1910, so we consider that these variables have missing values for these 

years when we construct annual averages of these variables for the period after 1910.

15. Borodkin L.I. (ed.) 2005. Russian Ruble in the European Currencies: The Rate of Exchange

Here we can make some conclusions. First, despite the fact that St.Petersburg was the capital of Tsarist Russia and an industrial city, skilled workers in Moscow earned more in most cases. With unskilled workers we got a different picture. Unskilled workers earned more in St.Petersburg than in Moscow, and the difference is pretty much obvious.

Second, the gap between skilled and unskilled workers wages was large.

Commodity prices and consumption patterns

One important measure of economic performance is the extent to which an economy meets the material  need of its population with a given productive capacity , and in this respect the Soviet planning system often fell short in terms of the lack of consumer goods for purchase with the wages the were earned. 16

As a framework for our research we are using Allen’s concept (Robert C.Allen) He defines two baskets of goods. The more expensive one is a “European respectability basket”. The respectability budget provided 2,500 calories and whopping 112 grams of protein per day.17

Because the respectability budget was not the kind of diet that many workers can afford – Allen suggests ‘bare-bones subsistence basket’. In this paper we will use both baskets to compare the purchasing power of wages over time and compare it with Europe.

Bare bones subsistence basket keeps an average working family alive, but offers nothing more than that. It contains 1,940 calories per day and 66 grams of protein, which is barely suffice to replenish a male adult body after a day of physical work without losing muscular strength in the long run.

We define price series on a basis of price indices. Moscow – Strymilin S.G.Essays on Russian economic history. M.,1960. p.115 For St.Petersburg Korelin A.P. Statistical and documenrary handbook 1995, p. 317-318. Also price booklet 1913. These sources provide detailed information on retail prices recorded in Moscow and St.Petersburg which allowed us to construct price series of major products, such as rye bread and white bread, potatoes, buckwheat, meet, butter, sugar etc.

Using Allen’s concept, we substitute some food products, making basket more appropriate for Russian diet. The diet was determined by using source (Petrogradskie statisticheskie dannie. S.Petersburg 1916, pp.34-35.) with description of soldier daily ration.

Because beans and peas were not widely used on Russian territory, we substitute it with bread. Rye bread offers more nutritional value per unit of land and labor than any other staple crop and is widely found in any part of Russia. T. Dennison and S. Nafzigerargue in their paper that rye bread did not determine spikes in mortality, but some other research show the importance of correlation between rye prices and fertility.19

Potatoes became a major food crop in Russia in Caterine the Great time.20 Soil conditions were suitable for successful cultivation and potatoes were cheap. Also potatoes basket provide high nutritional and caloric value. Buckwheat is another important and traditional staple crop. Nowadays used in Western Europe mostly by vegans, buckwheat is still a major crop in Russia. In subsistence basket Allen used 5 or even 3 kg of meat (depends on the region). We put 5 kg, however, due to the cold climate and traditionally high consumption of meat this amount is absolute possible minimum. 

(meat is beef.)

We substitute beer/wine with vodka. It was another source of calories. In Allen's subsistence basket there is no alcohol, but for our geographical region and (which is even more important) due traditions, we put alcohol even to subsistence basket. 21

For non food products we used Allen’s assumptions for northern Europe (Allen 2001) but made them 

more appropriate for our geographical region and observed period.

So for that we substituted lamp oil and candles (Allen) with kerosene (it was widely used in all Russian territory at that time) and measuring fuel 4,0 M BTU instead of 2.0 M BTU (Allen) because Russia’s average temperature is lower than that of northern Europe.

The rental price is 5% of spending, according to Allen.

Table 4 present the contents of this basket.

To determine expensive respectable basket of goods we used source with explanation of soldier daily ration.22 According to Soviet classical assumption, which prevails in many sources, the average number of calories for labor per day is around 3.500 cal. This basket is too expensive even compare to “European respectability” basket. So regarding consumed products we are using this source but for consumption volume we are combining it with Allen’s basket (2500 calories).

In respectable basket of goods we divide bread into rye bread and white bread. We put cheese and eggs in a same proportions as Allen, add fish, increase amount of meat, oil, soap, linen, kerosene and fuel.

Of course we understand that not many workers can afford respectable basket, on another hand subsistence basket was absolute minimum and workers who ate like this must have been hungry all the time. That is why we assume that a more realistic picture is between minimum and maximum baskets.

16. P.Gregory, R.C. Stuart, Soviet and Post-Soviet Economic Structure and Performance (5th edition,
New York: Harper Collins, 1994), p.253ff.
17. see Allen The British industrial Revolution in global perspective 2009, 35. This was about the level of calories available in many poor countries.

18. E.Frankema, M. Waijenburg Structural empediments to African growth? New evidence from real 

wages in British Africa, 1880-1965

19.Micro-Perspectives on 19th- century Russian Living standards Tracy Dennison and Steven

Nafziger, p.35. 2007 Pokrovskii (1897, pp.237-238)does find some evidence of a negative corre ation between grain prices and fertility rates and a positive correlation between grain prices and mortality rates. However, he only calculates rough correlations without any controls of age structure or other socio- economic conditions.

20. The potato was introduced to Russia by Peter the Great, but until Caterine II potatoes were not widely used by people. In 1765, by order of Empress Catherine II, throughout the empire were sent to the tubers and gives instructions for its cultivation.

21. vodka was expensive and in most cases could be substituted with cheap home moonshine (alky)

22. Petrogradskie statisticheskie dannie. S.Petersburg 1916, pp.34-35.

Comparison of living standards

In order to convert nominal wages to real wages we follow Allen’s assumptions that a man worked 250 days per year – roughly full time work excluding holidays, illness and slack periods. We also assume that an average family, including a husband, a wife and two or three children, requires three subsistence baskets to survive, so we multiply the cost of the budget by three to represent the annual budget of a family and refer to this as the “family subsistence basket”. The number of such family subsistence baskets that can be obtained from an adult male wage (controlled for non-working days) is referred to as welfare ratio. A welfare ratio of one is considered to be the absolute subsistence income level 23

Table 6 shows welfare ratios in St.Petersburg and Moscow for skilled and unskilled workers.

As we see, welfare ratios rose over time for the observed period. Of course skilled workers earned more than unskilled ones. However skilled workers earned more in Moscow, which is unexpected and is probably the evidence of employers competition.24 As for unskilled workers, here we see that unskilled workers in St.Petersburg earned more thanthose in Moscow. Some workers in Moscow did not earn enough to reach specified level of consumption – one subsistence basket. These workers needed additional sources of family income in order to survive. That could be payments in kind, female and children wages.25

The difference in levels and trends in these two cities was large. The gap between skilled and unskilled workers was much smaller in St.Petersburg. In Moscow we see a big gap, which may probably have caused riots.

23. E.Frankema, M. Waijenburg Structural empediments to African growth? New evidence from real
wages in British Africa, 1880-1965
24. St.Petersburg was the capital of Tsarist Russia. As always were and will be, internal migration
from other regions of country was high and lots of people were willing to work
25. During the survey work, it was found out that people, who have relatives in province often send
money to h lp them and receive natural product in return. But of course not everyone has
this opportunity

This gap persisted over all the observed period. In this case we are not considering the data after 1914, because it is simply absent in most cases due to devastating impact of World War 1.

To compare main Russian cities with European ones we use Allen’s data for the observed period for London, Amsterdam and Milan. We have a good reason for doing so: comparing these cities allows us to estimate the complete picture. London workers enjoyed highest living standards and welfare ratio in Europe, Milan had the lowest standards of living among European cities and Amsterdam by the beginning of twentieth century had the middle place. The welfare ratios of these cities were made 

for unskilled workers and “subsistence basket”. Figure 3 shows welfare ratios from 1888 to 1914.

1. We see that welfare ratios for unskilled workers in Moscow and St.Petersburg were higher than in Milan (unskilled) Italian cities had the lowest standard of living in Europe. (Allen). However Soviet classical view blames Tsarist Russia’s living standards to be much lower than at any European country.26 Here is the evidence that the assumption was wrong.26. See Kirianov, Rashin, ect.

2. We see some declines and rises of welfare ratios, but the trend in the standard of living was generally upward for the observed period.

3. Petersburg unskilled welfare ratio is comparable (and in some cases close) to the level of Amsterdam. It may indicate the quickening economy in Russia. But in case of Moscow unskilled workers situation is not that encouraging.

4. The standard of living of workers in London was always much higher than that of workers in Russia. After the middle of the nineteenth century, London living standards began an upward trajectory and increased. (Allen) But here we need to emphasize that industrialization just recently reached Russia, while in Brittan it has lasted.

People living at bare bones subsistence were usually hungry, so the usual   response to rising incomes was increased food consumption.27

Figure 4 presents welfare ratio for respectable basket.

Of course the respectable basket was expensive and not many workers could afford it on a regular basis, however we can assume that unskilled workers in St.Petersburg (in most cases) could buy one. 

That makes us suggest that the Soviet scientists were largely wrong when they claimed Tsarist era had extremely small incomes and low consumption pattern.

Of course we are aware of the fact that not every worker consumes bare bone’s subsistence basket, as that not any worker can afford respectable lifestyle, alone with they families. So we assume some average basket on the basis of average wages data and analysis we have made before. We compare this average welfare ratio with the same European cities (London, Amsterdam, Milan).

Figure 5 shows our main result

This Figure tests generality of all conclusions which we made before. So here we can argue that in the beginning of 20th century Russia was looking more like lugging part of Europe. Of course workers in Amsterdam and London enjoyed higher living standards in the early twentieth century, but from the last quarter of nineteenth century Russian wages started to grow and in the beginning of twentieth century the positive trend in Russian welfare  ratios was obvious. In particular, there was a rapid surge following Tsarist industrialization at least in St.Petersburg and Moscow. The industrialization (that came to Russia in second half of nineteenth century) made wage levels rise. At least Russian welfare ratios can be simply compared and they don’t look very lugging in comparison to industrial European cities.

27. Robert C. Allen. The British Industrial Revolution In Global Perspective. 2009., p.46

As we have already mentioned, the lowest welfare ratio doesn’t mean family income. Except any payments in kind or utility subsistence farming, wife’s wages, men can increase their work time. 

Also they can cheapen the consumption basket. (for instance workers can simply consume cheap pork instead of comparably expensive beef). Due to traditional consumption we put alcohol even to subsistence basket. Alcohol gives calories, but not protein and it makes subsistence basket costly. 

If workers had given up alcohol (at least a half) they could have saved. As Allen proposed, reducing number of kids – the fertility option was not the case of Russia, because by the beginning of twentieth century fertility in industrial cities was already reduced. That mostly happened because both family members needed to work full time. Industrial cities were overpopulated and medical services were in short supply. Lots of workers had one or two children, some workers stayed single.28

Varying labour regimes.

In our paper we focused on skilled and unskilled workers in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Of course we understand that Russia is a big country and St.Petersburg and Moscow are unable to show us a broad picture of living standards, however in most cases the general trend is clear. Moscow and S. Petersburg reveal great industrial progress and also greatest social activity among all country.

In the last decade of Tsarist regime there were lots of efforts to improve living standards of urban and rural population. In the last quarter of nineteenth century working hours were 12-14 hours per day. For 1885 we have continuous data from Factory surveys reports, that 8 working hours were at 2,2 % of factories, 9 hours -2,1 %, 10 hours – 18,1% ,11 hours -20,8 % , 12 hours -36,8%, more than 12 hours – 20%.29

By 1913 working hours decreased to 9-10 hours after revolution movements for better living standards (1905-1907). But the actual time was stretched to working hours plus lunch time and sometimes breakfast (1,5-3 hours, depends on factory) In 1913 2/5 workers had less than 10 hours working day, 8 hours -7,9 % of workers, 3/5 – 10 hours and more, 15,5% - more than 11 hours. This data is for males working hours. As for women – their working hours for 75,7% were 9-10 hours. 

Teenagers and kids were working 8 hours and less. Here we should say that working day in Russia was longer that in foreign countries. Meanwhile in 1900 working day in Australia was 8 hours, in Britain – 9 hours, USA -9, Norway – 10 hours, Sweden, France and Switzerland – 10.5 hours, Germany around 10.5 hours etc.30 . In 1899-1902 working day in Russia was 11-11.4 hours a day.31 We are aware that decrease in working hours was unequal, it depends on the branch of industry and from 1885 to 1912 it was: in paper industry - 2.5 hours (21%), in printing industry - 2.5 hours (22%), in manufacture of wood processing - 2.5 hours (20%) in mechanical engineering - 2 hours (17% ) in porcelain industry - 1.5 hours (13%) in brick industry - 3 - 3.5 hours (20 - 23%) in the production of processing livestock products - by 2.5 hours (20%) , in milling industry - 0.5 hours (4.2%) in sugar refining industry - 1 hour (8.3%)  in chemical industry - 1.5 hours (13%).

In general, most production scale reduction of working hours was similar (17 - 23%), the weakest one affected only the production of food processing industry, which, however, was characterized by seasonal work. 32

Comparison of the data for the two approximately equal time stages - from 1885 to 1898 and from 1898 to 1912 - leads to the conclusion that most significant changes date back to the beginning of XX century. Just then 8 hours instead of two shifts, three shifts in paper, porcelain, brick and ceramic industries.

Reduction in working hours in the second stage was primarily due to agreements (collective bargaining agreements) concluded by workers and employers in 1905 and 1906.33, ie, occurred under direct pressure of the proletarian struggle in the years of the people's revolution.

The rising demand for labor in Russian cities was uncontested. Since the last half of nineteenth century urban population starts to grow. In direct proportion to working class population the trade union and strike movement starts to grow rapidly. The pooled data from Factory inspection surveys shows that trend. Summary data is "reduced reports of factory inspectors" in which the proportion of strikers on working time in the 1895 - 1914 years by five-year periods is as follows: from 1895 - to 1899 - 35,4% strikers, from 1900 - to 1904  - 30,1%, in 1905 - to 1909 - 18,6%, from 1910 – to 1914 yrs. - 11,3% strikers.34

28. See Rashin. Russian population for 100 years. (1813-1913)

29. O deyatelnosti fabrichnoi inspektsii. Otchet za 1885 god glavnogo fabrichnogo inspektora,pp.34, 52.

30. Promishlennost I zdorovie, SPb.,1903, kn.4, pp.141; Mizyev P.G. Vosmichasovoi rabochii den. 

SPb., 1907, pp.7-8.

31. Strymilin S.G. Izbranniye proizvedeniya., t.3, pp.363.

32.O deyatelnosti fabrichnoi inspektsii. Otchet za 1885 god glavnogo fabrichnogo inspektora,pp.34, 52.

33. See Groman V. Prodolzitalnost rabochego vremeni v predpriyatiyax po obrabotke xlopka – Vestnik finansov I promishlennoi torgovli, SPb.№ 40.,pp.11.Statisticheskii sbornik za 1913-1917. Trydi CSU, t.7, M.,1921, pp. 92-93, 107.O deyatelnosti fabrichnoi inspektsii. Otchet za 1885 god glavnogo fabrichnogo inspektora, pp.34, 52.

34. See Statisticheskii ezegodnik Rossii za 1900-1916. SPb

Concluding thoughts

Russian Revolution of 1917 leads to huge political, social and economical change in the whole region. Lots of efforts were made to investigate the reasons and explain the causation of this event. Conclusions made depend on the time when the research was done. All Soviet sources suggest pre-revolution poverty and weakness of Tsarist economy. Recent studies mainly show that the situation was stable and favorable. In this paper we were trying to look at the observed period impartially, without giving any preferences to any point of view.

Our investigation of wages earned by workers in St. Petersburg and Moscow shows that classical Soviet assumption was not well-grounded and much more complicated than they suggested. On the one hand we should admit that workers’ wages were not high enough to benefit everyone but on the other hand we see that in comparison with different European cities the welfare in Moscow and St.Petersburg was surprisingly high. From the last quarter of nineteenth century Tsarist industrialization has began and urban population started to grow rapidly. In industrial cities real wages raised during all the observed period. From the historical point of view, real wage growth rates were respectable, because in Russia industrialization recently began, meanwhile in Europe it has lasted already (at least) a century.

Devastating impact of World War 1 lead to economic hardship after 1914. That made political and 

economical situation unstable.

However the evidence that we presented here is based on a very preliminary examination. Moscow and St. Petersburg (even though capitals they are) can’t show us a broad Russian pre-revolutionary live standards reality. This subject requires much deeper study than we can offer here. Therefore the two main Russian cities and regions don’t look like a lugging part of Europe at all. So here we need to admit that the picture of Russian labor-class living standards is much wider and needs historical and economical revision.

References

Allen, Robert C., 2009. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK

Allen, Robert, C., 2001. The Great Divergence in European Wages and Prices from the Middle Ages to the First World War. Exploration in Economic History 38, 411-447.

Borodkin L.I., (ed.) 2005. Russian Ruble in the European Currencies: The Rate of Exchange 1814-1914.

Bartlett, Roger, ed., 1990. Land Commune and Peasant Community in Russia. Communal Forms in 

Imperial and Early Soviet Society. Basingstroke, UK: MacMillan Press.

Bushen, A., ed., 1863. Nalichnoe naselenie imperii za 1858 god. Vol. 2, Statisticheskiia tablitsa Rossiiskoi imperii. St. Petersburg, Russia.

Statisticheskii sbornik za 1913-1917. Trydi CSU, t.7, M.,1921, 92-93, 107. Strymilin, S.G., 1960. Izbranniye proizvedeniya., t.3, 363.

Coale, Ansley J., Barbara Anderson, and Erna Harm., 1979. Human Fertility in Russia since the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dennison, T., Nafziger, S.,2007. Micro-Perspectives on 19th –century Russian Living Standards.

Drozdova, N.P, Kormilitsyna, I.G., 2011. Government Economic Policy and the Formation of Investment 

Climate: The Experience of Russia in the Late Nineteenth — Early Twentieth Century.

Engel, Barbara A., 1996. Between the Fields and the City: Women, Work, & Family in Russia, 

1861-1914. Cambridge University Press.

Ensiklopedicheskii spravochnik SSSR, 1982. M.:Sovetskaya ensiklopediya, 117.

Filippova, S.S., 1959. Provedenie reformy 1861 goda v Moskovskoi gubernii. Materialy po istorii selskogo khoziaistva i krest’ianstva SSSR. Collection III. Moscow: Publisher of the Academy of Science of the USSR, 368-191.

Frankema, E.,Waijenburg, M., 2011. Structural empediments to African growth? New evidence from real wages in British Africa, 1880-1965.

Gerschenkron, A., 1947. The Rate of Growth in Russia: The Rate of Industrial Growth in Russia, Since 1885. Journal of economic history. Vol. 7. Supplement., 144-147, 156.

Gregory, P., 1982. Russian National Income, 1885-1913. New York: Cambridge University Press. 192-195.

Gregory, P., Stuart, R.C., 1994. Soviet and Post-Soviet Economic Structure and Performance 5th edition, New York: Harper Collins, 253ff.

Gregory, P., 1994. Before Command: An Economic History of Russia from Emancipation to the First 

Five-Year Plan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gregory, P., Sailors, J., 1976. Russian Monetary Policy and Industrialization, 1861-1913. Journal of Economic History. Vol.36. No 4., 836-351.

Groman, V. Prodolzitelnost rabochego vremeni v predpriyatiyax po obrabotke xlopka – Vestnik finansov I promishlennoi torgovli, SPb.№ 40.,11.

Kirianov, U.I., 1989. Budzetnie rashodi rabochix Rossii v kontse X1X nachale XX veka. Moscow.

Kahan, A., 1967. Government Policies and the Industrialization of Russia. Journal of Economic 

History. Vol. 27. No 4., 460-477.

Metzer, J., 1974. Railroad Development and Market Integration: The Case of Tsarist Russia. Journal 

of Economic History. Vol. 34. No 3. 529–550.

Mizjuev, P.G., 1903. Promishlennost I zdorovie. SPb., kn.4, 141; Mizjuev, P.G., 1907. Vosmichasovoi rabochii den. SPb., 7-8.

O deyatelnosti fabrichnoi inspektsii. Otchet za 1885 god glavnogo fabrichnogo inspektora, 34, 52.

Petrogradskie statisticheskie dannie.1916. S.Petersburg, pp.34-35.

Pokrovskii, V.I., 1897. Vliianie Kolebanii Yrozhaia I Khlebnih Tsen Na Estestvennoe Dvizenie 

Naseleniya. In Vliyanie Yrozaev I Khlebnich Tsen Nakotorie Storoni Russkogo Narodnogo Khozyaistva. 

Edited by Chuprov A.I. and Posnikov A.S., Petersburg, Russia:

V. Kirshbaum.

Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiskoi imperii. Online edition available at http://www.nlr.ru/e- 

res/law_r/content.html

Rashin, A.G., 1956. Naselenie Rossii za 100 let. 1811-1913. Moskva.

Rikachev, A., 1911. Tseni na xleb i tryd za 58 let, Vestnik finansov. № 31.

Rostow, W.W., 1990. The Stages Of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. 3rd ed. New York, NY:  Cambridge University Press.

Statisticheskii Ezegodnik Rossii za 1900-1916. SPb.-Pg., 1901-1917.

Strumilin, S.G., 1960. Ocherki Ekonomicheskoi Istorii Rossii. Moscow.