OCR Specification focus:
‘Urban and rural living and working conditions shifted under policy.’
Between 1855 and 1881, urban and rural conditions in Russia underwent major transformation as Alexander II’s reforms reshaped society, economy, and governance following the Crimean War.
Urban and Rural Conditions under Alexander II
Context: Russia Before Reform
Mid-19th century Russia remained overwhelmingly rural, with over 85% of the population living in the countryside and dependent on agriculture. Towns and cities were small and underdeveloped, lacking infrastructure, sanitation, and organised administration. The serf-based economy limited labour mobility and urban growth, while industrialisation lagged behind Western Europe. Alexander II’s reign (1855–1881) aimed to modernise Russia and address social and economic backwardness, profoundly affecting both village life and urban environments.
Rural Conditions and Peasant Life
Emancipation of the Serfs, 1861
The most significant change in rural Russia was the Emancipation Edict of 1861, which abolished serfdom and freed over 50 million serfs from legal bondage.
Grigoriy Myasoyedov, Reading of the 1861 Manifesto (1873). The painting depicts villagers hearing the Emancipation terms, capturing mixed reactions from hope to uncertainty. It is an effective visual anchor for the legal and social transition initiated in 1861. Source
Serfdom: A social and economic system in which peasants were legally bound to the land and subject to the control of landowners, providing labour and dues.
While emancipation granted personal freedom and the right to marry, own property, and engage in business, it had profound and often contradictory effects on rural life:
Land allotments: Peasants received land but often smaller and less fertile plots than before. Land was allocated to the mir (village commune), which redistributed it among households.
Redemption payments: Peasants were required to repay the state over 49 years for land transferred from landowners, often at inflated valuations, leading to long-term debt.
Obshchina control: The mir (communal system) retained strong control over land distribution and migration, restricting individual enterprise and mobility.
Economic stagnation: Limited landholdings and outdated agricultural techniques led to continued subsistence farming and low productivity.
Social Change and Peasant Unrest
Despite legal freedom, many peasants felt betrayed by the terms of emancipation. Rural discontent manifested in:
Riots and uprisings, particularly in 1861–63, as peasants protested redemption terms and land shortages.
Continued economic hardship, with famine risk due to low yields and population growth.
The rise of populist movements in later decades seeking to mobilise peasants for broader political change.
Zemstva and Local Administration in Rural Areas
The Zemstvo reform of 1864 created elected local councils responsible for infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
Former Zemstvo school building at Zvyaginki (Oryol oblast). Zemstva funded and administered primary schools that slowly improved literacy and access to basic education in the countryside. The image shows the modest, functional architecture typical of such rural institutions. Source
Zemstva: Local self-government institutions established in 1864, composed of representatives from peasants, nobles, and townsmen, tasked with local administrative and social functions.
Their impact on rural conditions included:
Construction of roads, schools, and hospitals, improving access to services in some provinces.
Promotion of public health measures and basic literacy programmes.
However, limited budgets and noble dominance of zemstva restricted their transformative potential, particularly in poorer regions.
Urban Conditions and Industrial Development
Early Industrialisation and Urban Growth
Urban conditions changed more slowly than in rural areas but began to shift as Russia pursued state-led industrialisation. The growth of railways and development of textile, mining, and metallurgy industries fostered urbanisation.
Key urban changes included:
Expansion of St Petersburg, Moscow, and new industrial towns such as Yuzovka and Baku.
An influx of former serfs seeking employment in emerging factories and workshops.
Gradual creation of a working class, though still small compared to Western Europe.
However, rapid growth created new social and environmental challenges:
Overcrowding in poorly built housing with inadequate sanitation.
High rates of disease and mortality due to limited medical care and water supply.
Lack of organised policing, sewage systems, or public services in many towns.
Labour Conditions in the Emerging Urban Workforce
The industrial workforce faced harsh working conditions and limited rights:
Long working hours (often 12–14 hours per day) and low wages.
Absence of legal protections or trade unions to represent workers’ interests.
Frequent accidents and poor safety standards in factories and workshops.
Urban workers often lived in barrack-style accommodation, with entire families crowded into single rooms.
St Petersburg, workers’ housing for the Ludwig Nobel plant (constructed 1906). Uniform, dense blocks like this concentrated labour near factories and exemplified overcrowded, minimally serviced accommodation. Extra detail: the specific building dates to 1906 (post-Alexander II) but typifies earlier barrack-style developments described in the notes. Source
These conditions contributed to labour unrest and the emergence of radical ideologies, laying groundwork for future revolutionary movements.
Social Change and Education
Education Reforms and Literacy
Alexander II’s education reforms (1863–1864) aimed to improve literacy and modernise Russia’s workforce:
Expansion of primary schools, many funded by zemstva, improved basic literacy in rural and urban areas.
Growth of secondary schools and universities, providing opportunities for the emerging middle class.
Education for peasants remained limited and uneven, especially in remote regions.
In urban areas, rising literacy supported the growth of a professional class (teachers, clerks, engineers) and fostered social mobility for a small but significant segment of the population.
Urban-Rural Divide and Social Stratification
Persistent Inequalities
Despite reforms, the gap between urban and rural Russia remained wide:
Urban areas experienced modest industrial progress, whereas the countryside remained predominantly agrarian and traditional.
Former serfs often lacked the resources to migrate, while nobles retained significant economic power.
The state prioritised industrial growth over peasant welfare, deepening social divisions.
Attitudes to Change
Peasant attitudes often reflected traditionalism and suspicion toward change imposed from above. The mir’s conservative influence limited adoption of new farming techniques, while in towns, the emerging working class began to demand reform and representation.
The state itself maintained a paternalistic attitude, balancing modernisation with the preservation of autocracy. This tension shaped the evolution of Russian society under Alexander II and laid foundations for future upheavals.
Impact of Policy on Living and Working Conditions
Alexander II’s policies brought both continuity and change:
Continuity: Poverty, inequality, and autocratic control persisted in both urban and rural settings. Many peasants remained tied to the land economically, if not legally.
Change: Emancipation, zemstvo reforms, and early industrial growth introduced new social dynamics, mobility, and institutions, gradually transforming Russia’s socio-economic landscape.
While reforms improved some aspects of life, they often created new challenges — debt, overcrowding, and social unrest — which would shape Russia’s turbulent path into the twentieth century.
FAQ
The mir (village commune) played a central role in post-emancipation rural Russia by organising land distribution and managing tax and redemption payments. It ensured equality by redistributing strips of land among households, but this communal system discouraged innovation and individual initiative.
The mir also controlled internal migration, limiting peasants’ ability to leave the village for urban work. This conservative influence reinforced traditional farming practices and slowed agricultural modernisation, even as Russia attempted to industrialise.
Redemption payments placed a heavy financial burden on peasants, who were often charged above market value for land. Paid over 49 years, they consumed a significant portion of household income, leaving many peasants in chronic debt.
This fostered resentment towards the state and landowners, as peasants believed they had been cheated out of the land they worked for generations. This discontent contributed to rural unrest and fuelled revolutionary sentiment in later decades.
Urban public health conditions were generally poor. Rapid population growth and lack of infrastructure led to overcrowded housing, inadequate sewage, and contaminated water supplies.
Epidemics of diseases such as cholera and typhus were frequent, with mortality rates significantly higher than in rural areas. Efforts by zemstva and local authorities to improve sanitation and healthcare were limited by funding and expertise, so improvements were patchy and often confined to major cities like St Petersburg and Moscow.
Industrialisation began to reshape Russia’s social hierarchy by creating a small but distinct urban working class and a growing middle class of professionals and entrepreneurs.
The working class was concentrated in factories and lived in poor conditions, often organising informally in response to shared grievances.
The middle class, benefiting from educational reforms and economic growth, began to demand greater participation in public life.
Although these groups remained small, their emergence introduced new social dynamics and laid the foundations for political activism in the later 19th and early 20th centuries.
Zemstva expanded access to primary education by funding local schools and hiring teachers, significantly raising literacy rates in some rural areas. They also introduced practical curricula focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic, which were valuable for agricultural and administrative work.
However, progress was uneven. Many remote villages remained without schools, and resources were often insufficient. Despite these limitations, the spread of basic education fostered social change, empowering some peasants to seek employment beyond agriculture and increasing awareness of wider political and social issues.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Give two ways in which the 1861 Emancipation of the Serfs changed rural living conditions in Russia.
Mark scheme (2 marks total):
Award 1 mark for each valid way identified. Accept any two of the following (or similar):
Peasants gained personal freedom, such as the right to marry and own property. (1 mark)
Land was distributed through the mir, though plots were often small and of poor quality. (1 mark)
Peasants had to make redemption payments over 49 years, creating long-term debt. (1 mark)
Greater legal mobility, though migration remained restricted by communal control. (1 mark)
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how Alexander II’s reforms affected urban living and working conditions in Russia between 1855 and 1881.
Mark scheme (6 marks total):
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Simple statements with limited detail or relevance.
Examples: “Cities grew bigger” or “Factories were built.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Some explanation of how reforms affected urban living or working conditions, with limited supporting evidence.
May address either living or working conditions but not both in detail.
Examples: Mentions industrialisation leading to population growth and overcrowded housing, or notes poor working hours and conditions.
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Clear and developed explanation of how reforms affected both living and working conditions, supported by accurate factual detail.
Examples: Explains that industrial growth following the emancipation of the serfs led many former peasants to migrate to cities, resulting in overcrowded barrack-style housing with poor sanitation and high disease rates. Notes that workers often faced 12–14 hour working days, low wages, and unsafe conditions, while the lack of legal protections contributed to labour unrest. May also include the role of zemstva in providing limited urban services such as schools and healthcare.
