Growth of Human Capital in the Regions of the Russian Empire in 1897-1913: The Role of Local Self-Government Dodies (zemstva) Financing

Abstract

The previous research with incomplete data revealed that zemstva were spending more per capita in regions with low level of education, but these spending did not make much of a difference – human capital in these regions remained relatively low (Popov, Konchakov, Didenko, 2024). The results reported in this paper provide additional and more rigorous proof that zemstva activities and the increase in their spending for education in 1897-1913 contributed to the spread of primary education and to the decline in the inequality of the distribution of human capital within the regions (ratio of secondary to primary education enrollment).

But we also show that there were more powerful forces at play – education for tuition fees, central government and city/town administration financing, that were pushing the development in an opposite direction, increasing the secondary education enrollment in most regions faster than the primary education enrollment. The result was the widening gap between low and high educated individuals that could have contributed to the formation of the intelligentsia phenomenon – educated intellectuals that were not able to find the proper place in the national economy to apply their knowledge. Intelligentsia opposition to the tsarist regime, however, did not take violent forms –regions with fast growing educational disparities registered lower, not higher increases in peasants’ unrest, industrial strikes and crimes against persons.

Full text

1
Growth of human capital in the regions of the Russian Empire in 1897-1913: the role of local
self-government bodies (zemstva) financing
Vladimir Popov, Roman Konchakov, Dmitry Didenko1
ABSTRACT
The previous research with incomplete data revealed that zemstva expenditure on education per
capita were higher in regions with low level of education, but these spending did not make much
of a difference – human capital in these regions remained relatively low (Popov, Konchakov,
Didenko, 2024). The results reported in this paper provide additional and more rigorous proof that
zemstva activities and the increase in their spending for education in 1897-1913 contributed to the
spread of primary education and to the decline in the inequality of the distribution of human capital
not only between the regions< but also within the regions (ratio of secondary to primary education
enrollment).
But we also show that there were more powerful forces at play – education for tuition fees, central
government and city/town administration financing – that were pushing the development in an
opposite direction, increasing the secondary education enrollment in most regions faster than the
primary education enrollment. The result was the widening gap between low and high educated
individuals that could have contributed to the formation of the intelligentsia phenomenon –
educated intellectuals that were not able to find the proper place in the national economy to apply
their knowledge. Intelligentsia opposition to the tsarist regime, however, did not take violent forms
– regions with fast growing educational disparities registered lower, not higher increases in
peasants’ unrest, industrial strikes and crimes against persons.
Keywords: educational attainment, school enrollment, inequality, land distribution, growth.
JEL: D63, I24, J24, N93, R11.
1 RANEPA (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration), corresponding author –
Vladimir Popov, vpopov@nes.ru
The paper was prepared within the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher
Education of the Russian Federation (Grant Agreement No.: 075-15-2022-326).

2
Growth of human capital in the regions of the Russian Empire in 1897-1913: the role of local
self-government bodies (zemstva) financing
Vladimir Popov, Roman Konchakov, Dmitry Didenko
Introduction and literature review
One of the results of the previous research is that human capital (as measured by literacy rates and
years of schooling), as well as evenness in the distribution of educational attainments among
population, was higher in the relatively prosperous regions of the Russian Empire in 1897 with
higher GRP per capita, harvest yields, and inequality in land distribution (Popov, Konchakov,
Didenko, 2024).
The natural question, of course, is about the mechanism at work ensuring that these relatively well-
off provinces (but also with higher inequality in land distribution) had higher and more evenly
distributed human capital. Data on 14 regions seemed to suggest that it was not caused by the rural
local government – zemstva – educational activity2. If the indicator of zemstva expenditure per
capita in 1868-1903 is added into the right hand side of the equation explaining the level and
evenness of distribution of human capital, it acquires the negative sign or is insignificant (Popov,
Konchakov, Didenko, 2024, table 4)3.
2 Educational activities of the zemstva were divided between rural (most) and urban areas. The former were district
administrations (uezdnye zemstva), which dealt with rural primary schools, while provincial ones (gubernskie zemstva) dealt
with secondary, vocational and higher schools which were mostly urban (Abramov, 1996, p. 110-126). Various zemstva
actors were vocal supporters of proliferation of education for the masses. Similar views came from the government officials,
for instance Nikolai Bogolepov, rector of Moscow University in 1893, subsequently curator of Moscow educational district
and Minister of Education in 1898-1901 (Alston, 1969, p. 141).
3 Zemstva expenditures are not linked to literacy levels, but depend positively on GRP per capita and negatively – on the
share of serfs in rural population in 1858.
ZEMSTVOexp35 = 1.3*** -.004* GRPcap – .009*SERFshare1858, robust standard errors,
N=34, R2 = 0.25. Here and later – standard notations: *** - significant at 1%, **- 5%, *- 10%.
ZEMSTVOexp35 – average annual expenditures of local self-government bodies (zemstva) per capita in 1868-1903, rubles,
GRPcap – GRP per capita in 1897, rubles,
SERFshare1858 – share of serfs in rural population in 1858, %.

3
But zemstva accounted for only part of the expenditure for education and this part formally was
only auxiliary (Abramov, 1996, p. 26). Even though zemstva share was the largest part of the
expenditure in the 1870s-80s, in the 1890s the share of the central government (including the Holy
Synod) was increasing and exceeded that of the zemstva by the 1900s (Didenko, 2021a, p. 137-
138).
The financing of education at the turn of the century came from several sources – Ministry of
Public Education (literally: Ministry of Peoples’ Enlightenment), local rural authorities (zemstva),
local urban authorities (upravy), fees for educational services, church authorities, charitable
donation. In the regions of European part of the country the share of zemstva was about 1/3 of
total financing with similar amounts coming from the Ministry, whereas in the Eastern regions the
share of the financing from the Ministry was usually over 50%, and zemstva did not exist at all,
even though there were zemstva taxes collected and managed by the central government (Didenko,
2021a; 2024).
Sample data on financing of education (only for 14 regions – 8 provinces in the European part of
Russia and 6 provinces in Siberia and Far East) are presented in table 1. The data suggest that total
expenditures for education per capita as a rule were several times higher in Siberia and Far East
than in the European regions of the country (fig. 1), and this was true for two major components of
these expenditures – central government financing (not only via the Ministry of Peoples’
Enlightenment4) and local city/town governments financing, but not the zemstva.
In the European provinces city/town authorities’ (upravy) share in total education expenditures did
not change much over time, it was about 10% in 1870-1914 (Didenko 2021a, p. 138-139).
4 The Holy Synod and the Ministry of War were the next large administering bodies providing funds for education
(Johnson, 1969, p. 184, 293).

4
Table 1. Expenditure on education per capita by major sources in 14 regions of the Russian
Empire in 1897, rubles
Region
Education
expenditure
per capita,
total
Education
expenditure
per capita,
zemstva
Education
expenditure per
capita, central
government
Education
expenditure
per capita,
cities
GRP
per
capita
Inequality
index for
all land
European part of Russia
Voronezh
governorate
0.29
0.08
0.09
0.04
42
0.36
Vologda
governorate
0.48
0.18
0.15
0.02
49
0.49
Kaluga
governorate
0.68
0.19
0.15
0.05
55
0.47
Kursk
governorate
0.32
0.11
0.09
0.02
47
0.30
Perm’
governorate
0.43
0.20
0.18
0.03
69
2.15
Ryazan
governorate
0.38
0.13
0.03
0.03
49
0.44
Saratov
governorate
0.50
0.11
0.17
0.15
70
0.85
Yaroslavl’
governorate
0.48
0.16
0.20
0.07
119
0.39
Siberia and Far East
Primorskiy
region
1.57
0.01
1.27
0.17
294
Amur
region
1.36
0.05
0.69
0.36
148
Yenisey
governorate
0.82
0.06
0.26
0.06
86
Tomsk
governorate
0.57
0.04
0.42
0.03
66
Irkutsk
governorate
0.99
0.04
0.60
0.11
102
Tobol’sk
governorate
0.39
0.07
0.11
0.03
49
Source: Estimated in (Didenko, 2021a, 2024) based on Governors’ annual reports; Kessler,
Markevich (2014) based on Yasnopol’skii (1897), with model assumptions.
In the Far East and Siberia, the central government played a greater role in financing education
than in the European provinces. Also, in most of the Far Eastern and some of the Siberian
provinces institutional structure of financing education was shifted to city/town administrations.

5
They were more active in proliferation and financing of schooling (especially primary) than their
counterparts in European Russia5. Their share in total education expenditures in the Far East
increased from 11-15% in the 1880s to over 25% in the 1900s and in the Siberia was close to the
level of the European Russia, i.e. about 10% (Didenko 2024, p. 20-26).
Unlike zemstva, central government and city/town administrations (upravy) were spending money
in relatively well-off regions with high inequality in land distribution, and their spending resulted
in relatively higher levels of human capital in these regions.
Fig. 1. Educational expenditure per capita in selected regions and GRP per capita in 1897
Source: Table 1.
Why the central government and the city/town authorities were spending more money per capita
on education in relatively prosperous regions with already high levels of educational attainments?
5 See e.g. Shilov (2008, p. 20, 418-420).
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
EDUCATION EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA, RUBLES
GRP PER CAPITA, RUBLES
Education
expenditure per
capita, total
Education
expenditure per
capita, central
government
Education
expenditure per
capita, cities
Education
expenditure per
capita, zemstva

6
Galor (2012, p. 44) is citing Johnson (1969), claiming that large land owners were not interested in
the education of the peasants (trying to keep them in the villages) unlike industrialists that were
interested in educated labor force in the cities6. It could be true, but their interests did not
determine the financing flows in any case. Neither the central government budget, nor city/town
finances were dependent on land taxes. In 1897 only 3% of total tax revenues of the government
budget came from land taxes, whereas over 1/3 of all tax revenues were collected from the excise
tax on alcoholic beverages (Shatsillo, 2003, table 2).
In contrast, zemstva revenues came from taxation of real estate property (most) and entrepreneurial
activities (a lot) with certain ceiling limits established by the central government (Abramov, 1996,
p. 14-15, 20-21; Naftziger, 2011, p. 400).
To put it differently, there was a lack of pro-active education policy before the first Russian
revolution. Even though the government succeeded in moderating spatial inequality in education
finance in certain aspects (Didenko, 2021b), it was acting very much in line with the market
demand.7 Various levels of governments (except for zemstva that were created in 1864 in 30
regions of European Russia and by 1914 existed in rural areas of 43 regions of European Russia 8)
were going with the grain, spending money on education in relatively wealthy provinces, where
the revenues of the budgets were higher. And, as was mentioned previously, these were exactly the
periphery provinces with the high inequality in land distribution (Popov, Konchakov, Didenko,
2024).
6 “Provincial councils dominated by wealthier landowners were responsible for their local school systems and were
reluctant to favor the education of the peasants (Johnson, 1969)” (Galor, 2012, p. 44). Similar pattern for the period of
the 1860s-80s is thoroughly documented in (Eklof, 1986, p. 72-83).
7 Expenditure for education at the time in Russia was less than 2% of GDP versus 2.4-2.5% in Japan [Levine, Kawada,
1980, p. 82; Kaser, 1966, p. 142-173]. Japan had similar level of GDP per capita at the time (MPD, 2020) and
basically won the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
8 In other regions of the Russian Empire the local bodies of the central government collected local taxes and spent
them for the same purposes as the zemstva, acting as a substitutes for zemstva. Hereinafter we refer to the former local
bodies as substitutes for zemstva. However, these central government local funds we not channeled through the State
Treasury.

7
Zemstva were created to bridge the gap that emerged between the government and the rural areas
after the abolition of serfdom and the loss of the gentry’s control over the village. The rural
elections were designed to ensure the pre-dominance of large rural landowners at the expense of
the peasantry and towns. However, the zemstva staff was hired from gymnasium and university
graduates, i.e. not from the gentry, but from the “third estate” (Alstom, 1969, p. 59; Eklof, 1986, p.
55-56, 61-62).
In the 20th century (and perhaps even since the 1890s9), especially after the first Russian
revolution, the government stepped up its efforts in the formation of human capital – in 1908-12
the discussions in the State Duma (created during the first Revolution) resulted in the decision to
introduce obligatory primary education in the European part of Russia by 1918, and in the whole
Empire – by the end of the 1920s. The bill was finally voted down by the State Council10, but the
number of primary schools and gymnasiums in 1897-1914 increased 1.6 times, the number of
schoolchildren – 2.1 times11, the number of secondary schools and gymnasiums – 2.0 times, the
number of schoolchildren in them – 2.5 times12. The share of the entire population that was
actively attending schools increased threefold from 1.7% in 1897 to 5.7% in 1915 (Dennis, 1961).
Even so, by 1914 Russia was very much behind European countries in this respect – the number of
school attendees was only 59 per 1000 inhabitants as compared to 143 in Austria, 152 in Great
Britain, 175 in Germany, 213 in the US, 148 in France, 146 in Japan (Mironov, 2018, p. 759).
But in 1897, when the government was going largely with the flow, and its educational
expenditure were determined by the relative incomes of the regions in question, human capital
formation was proceeding slowly and mostly in rich regions with high inequality in land
distribution.
9 “A revolution in school finances occurred in the 1890s, the result of a joint government-zemstva endeavor— both had
given low priority to popular education until 1890, but both moved rapidly after that date to bring about universal
education.” (Eklof, 1986, p. 88).
10 About the discussion of the bill and its legislative track see Santa Maria (1990, p, 56-57).
11 As it follows from the data in MNP (1898) and TsSK MVD (1916).
12 As it follows from the data in Kessler and Markevich (2014) and TsSK MVD (1916).

8
Overall, the education expenditures of zemstva have grown significantly: their share in the total
expenditures increased from 7.7% in 1871 to 28.1% in 1913 (Naftziger, 2011, p. 400). The level of
representation of the peasant curia had a positive effect on the level of zemstva expenditures on
education (Naftziger 2011, p. 415-431). But such an increase in the zemstva role occurred mostly
before 1897: whereas in 1869-97 the educational expenditure of local administrations grew nearly
5 times faster than total expenditure for education (21.4 and 4.4 times respectively) and over 8
times faster than the expenditure of the central government (21.4 and 2.6 times respectively), later,
in 1897-1913, the growth of education financing from different sources was more even (3-4 times
– table 2).
Having collected data on enrollment ratios – number of students enrolled in primary and secondary
education in 1897 and 1913, as well as data on the zemstva expenditure on education in these
years, we try to explore the role of zemstva in the formation of the human capital. The hypotheses
to test are that zemstva contributed to the formation of human capital in more/less rich and
educated Russian regions and to the more/less even distribution of human capital in the Russian
regions in the pre-revolutionary period.
Table 2. Increase in total financing of education in 1869-1913 by source
Increase in
expenditure for
education by source
Central
govern
ment
Local
administra
tions
Private and
non-profit
organizations
House
holds
Other
TOTAL
Increase in 1869-97
(28 years), times
2.58
21.42
6.31
8.02
8.41
4.43
Increase in 1897-1913
(16 years), times
4.38
4.15
3.97
3.39
2.49
4.12
Source: Computed based on GK (1868-1916), MNP (1871-1903; 1904-1916), TsSK MVD (1886a;
1886b; 1888; 1897; 1911-1912), MinFin (1896-1915a; 1909), Sharyi V.I. (ed.) (1913, 1914),
Johnson (1969, p. 291).
It appears that the gap in the distribution of human capital within regions (the ratio of secondary to
primary school enrollment) increased despite the efforts of the zemstva, and this growing gap
contributed to the formation of the intelligentsia phenomenon – well educated social group,

9
graduates of high schools (gymnasiums), colleges and universities, that were not able to find a
proper application to their skills in the national economy and joined the social opposition to the
tsarist regime.
Recent World Development Report (WDR, 2024) makes an argument in favor of the universal
character of education. “The Republic of Korea adopted this approach. In the 1950s, it enforced
compulsory education and devoted nearly 80 percent of its education budget to primary education,
thereby increasing enrollment rates from about 40 percent to 90 percent in 10 years. Korea then
shifted its efforts and spending to secondary education and attained equally rapid success. Only
later did it invest substantially in tertiary education. …. An emphasis on foundational skills for all
was key to the success of school reforms in other countries as well” (WDR, 2024, p. 191).
In pre-revolutionary Russia the educational policy was skewed in favor of secondary education,
probably because it was mostly left to the market: high schools (gymnasiums), colleges and
universities accepted the children of nobility and of relatively well-of commoners (raznochyntsy),
whereas primary education was underfinanced. Zemstva were pushing in a different direction
trying to encourage primary education to correct market failure, but their efforts were not enough.
Data
Human capital stock
 The share of literate population in 1897.
This indicator is reported in the publications of the First General Census of the Russian Empire in
1897 (Troinitskii, ed., 1898-1905), and built into the data set in (Kessler and Markevich, 2020). It
is highly correlated (R=0.95) with another human capital proxy, namely average years of
schooling, computed by the authors based on the data of the same census. There is no data reported
for literacy and average years of schooling for other years during the period under study.
Predictably, this share was higher in more urban and rich regions (higher GRP per capita) – fig. 2.

10
Fig. 2. Literacy rate, urbanization and GRP per capita in 1897
Source: Kessler and Markevich (2020), Markevich (2022).

11
Education expenditure per capita
For 1897, the data on education expenditure are available at sub-national level by the following
institutional sources13:
 central government,14
 zemstva or their substitutes,15
 city/town self-governance bodies (upravy),
 rural self-government (mir, volost'),
 corporate (charity),
 private (tuition fees).
To the best of our knowledge, for 1913, the last year of peaceful life in the Russian Empire, only
expenditures made by zemstva and their substitutes are available at the sub-national level in
MinFin (1915a) and MinFin (1915b) respectively. These per capita expenditures for education in
1897 and 1913 are plotted at fig. 3, they are quite correlated (R2=83% for 73 observations).
Education facilities and enrollment ratios
These are reported in TsSK MVD (1915); population data – in TsSK MVD (1916), in particular:
 Number of primary and secondary schools per 100 000 inhabitants.
 Number of students in education facilities per 100 inhabitants (gross enrollment ratio).
13 Computed based on Kessler and Markevich (2014; 2020) for finance and population respectively.
14 The total sum of education expenditures by the ministries of the central government, estimated in Kessler and
Markevich (2014) based on Yasnopol’skii (1897), is 53 559 979 rubles. This is close to the figure obtained from the
sources to the Table 2 (42 424 145.53 rubles).
15 Central government local bodies (substitutes for zemstva), which collected similar taxes and made similar
expenditures as zemstva in the provinces with rural self-governance. These funds of the local bodies, however, were
not channeled through the State Treasury. The sum of education expenditures by the zemstva and their substitutes,
estimated in Kessler and Markevich (2014), is 12 295 464 rubles versus 9 170 415 in our estimate based on the sources
to the Table 2.

12
Fig. 3. Zemstva and their substitutes education expenditures per capita: 1913 versus 1897,
rubles
Source: Kessler and Markevich (2014; 2020), MinFin (1915a; 1915b), TsSK MVD (1916).
As fig. 4 shows, there is virtually no correlation between the increases in enrollments in secondary
and primary education in 1897-1913.
Demographics
 Total number of people in the region.
 Population density.
 Share of urban population.
Akmola region
Amur region
Arkhangelsk province
Astrakhan province
Baku province
Bessarabian Governorate
Vilna province
Vitebsk province
Vladimir province
Vologda province
Volyn province
Voronezh province
Vyatka province
Grodno province
Dagestan region
Yekaterinoslav Governorate
Elisavetpol Governorate
Yenisei province
Transbaikal region
Transcaspian region
Irkutsk province
Kazan province
Kaluga province
Kara Governorate
Kyiv province
Kovno province
Kostroma province
Kursk province
Kutaisi province
Minsk province
Mogilev province
Moscow province
Nizhny Novgorod province
Novgorod province
Region of the Don Army
Olonets province
Orenburg province
Oryol province
Sakhalin island
Penza province
Perm province
Podolsk province
Poltava province
Primorsky region
Pskov province
Ryazan province
Samarkand region
Samara province
St. Petersburg Governorate
Saratov province
Semipalatinsk region
Semirechensk region
Simbirsk province
Smolensk province
Stavropol province
Syrdarya region
Tauride province
Tambov province
Tver province
Tiflis Governorate
Tobolsk province
Tomsk province
Tula province
Turgai region
Ural region
Ufa province
Fergana region
Kharkov province
Kherson province
Chernigov province
Black Sea Governorate
Erivan Governorate
Yaroslavl province
0.5 11.5
1913 zemstva or their substitutes education expenditures per capita
0.1 .2 .3 .4
1897 zemstva or their substitutes education expenditures per capita

13
Fig. 4. Primary versus secondary enrollment per capita: 1897-1913, relative change
Source: Computed based on Kessler and Markevich (2014; 2020), MinFin (1912a; 1912b; 1915a;
1915b), TsSK MVD (1915; 1916).
These are reported in the publications of the First General Census of the Russian Empire in 1897
(Troinitskii, 1898-1905), and structured into the data set in Kessler and Markevich (2020). The
data on population in 1914 were directly extracted from the official statistics reported in TsSK
MVD (1916). The data on provinces area was borrowed from the official data of the time and is
based on processing of the original maps in Strel’bitskii, 1915; GSh, 1884, 1921, into digital GIS
systems).
Level of development:
 Gross regional product per capita in 1897 (Markevich, 2019, 2022).
Akmola region
Amur region
Arkhangelsk province
Astrakhan province
Baku province
Bessarabian Governorate
Warsaw Governorate
Vilna provinceVitebsk province
Vladimir province
Vologda province
Volyn province
Voronezh province
Vyatka province
Grodno province
Dagestan region
Yekaterinoslav Governorate
Elisavetpol Governorate
Yenisei province
Transbaikal region
Transcaspian region
Irkutsk province
Kazan province
Kalisz Governorate
Kaluga province
Kara Governorate
Kielce Governorate
Kyiv province
Kovno province
Kostroma province
Kuban region
Courland Governorate
Kursk province Kutaisi province
Livland Governorate
Lomzhinsky province
Lublin Governorate
Minsk province
Mogilev province
Moscow province
Nizhny Novgorod province
Novgorod province
Region of the Don Army
Olonets province
Orenburg province
Oryol provincePenza province
Perm province
Petrokovskaya province
Plock Governorate
Podolsk province
Poltava province
Primorsky region
Pskov province
Radom Governorate
Ryazan province Samarkand region
Samara province
Saratov province
Semipalatinsk region
Semirechensk region
Simbirsk province
Smolensk province
Stavropol province
Suwalki Governorate
Syrdarya region
Tauride province
Tambov province
Tver province
Tobolsk province
Tomsk province
Tula province Turgai region
Ural region
Ufa province
Fergana region
Kharkov province
Kherson province
Chernigov province
Black Sea Governorate Erivan Governorate
Estonian province
Yakutsk region
Yaroslavl province
-4 -2 0 2 4
LN (Growth in enrollment in secondary education, 1897-1913)
-1 0 1 2
LN (Growth in enrollment in primary education, 1897-1913)

14
Institutional environment:
- Zemstva dummy variable – equals to 1, if the local self-governments in rural regions existed in
1897, to 0 otherwise. Zemstva were created in 1864; by 1897 they existed in rural areas of 34
regions of European Russia, by 1914 – in 43 regions.
- The average annual expenditures of local self-government bodies per capita in 1868-1903, in
rubles. The measure captures the level of development of local self-government institutions
(zemstva) that moderated social tensions and promoted economic development (Markevich,
Zhuravskaya, 2018). These expenditures are for all purposes (not only for education) and are in
current rubles (without deflation), so should be interpreted with care.
Social protest indicators and some of their determinants
All indicators of social protest and their determinants are described in (Popov, Konchakov,
Didenko, 2023):
- Increase in peasants’ unrest per 1 million rural inhabitants from 1890-99 (average) to 1900-04
(average).16
- Man-days lost due to strikes as a percentage of total man-days worked – increase from 1895-99 to
1900-04, times.17
- Increase in the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of crimes against persons from 1896 to 1912, times.18
- Share of serfs in rural population in 1858, %.19
- Index of inequality of private land distribution in 1877, times.20
- Average grain harvest yield for 10 years, c/ha (year 1907 - the middle of the period).21
16 The data for 1890-99 were borrowed from (Zhukov et al., 2017), for 1900-04 from Anfimov, ed., 1998. In turn,
these studies were based on processing multiple sources, including archival.
17 The data was borrowed from the data set (Borodkin, Shilnikova, 2020), based on the Collection of Reports by
Factory Supervisors.
18 Based on the number of convicts for crimes against persons reported by the Ministry of Justice for 1896 and 1912
(Miniust, 1900, 1915).
19 Borrowed from (Markevich and Zhuravskaya, 2018).
20 Computed from Survey conducted in 1877 by the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
published in (TsSK MVD, 1880-1885).

15
- Growth of alcohol consumption per capita from the 1870s to the 1890s, times.22
Results
At a first glance it seems that zemstva expenditure for education in 1897-1913 did not contribute to
the proliferation of primary and secondary education in Russian regions by 1914. The correlation
between the growth of zemstva education expenditure and the increase in primary and secondary
enrollment is very weak, if any, and negative, rather than positive (fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Increase in enrollment in primary and secondary education and in zemstva
expenditure for education in 1897-1913
21 Reported by the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, processed in (Obukhov, 1927),
from where we borrowed the annual data for the period of 1903-12.
22 Reported in (Minfin, 1903).
Akmola region
Amur region
Arkhangelsk province
Astrakhan province
Baku province
Bessarabian Governorate
Vilna province
Vitebsk province
Vladimir province
Vologda province Volyn province
Voronezh province
Vyatka province
Grodno province
Dagestan region
Yekaterinoslav Governorate
Elisavetpol Governorate
Yenisei province
Transbaikal region
Transcaspian region
Irkutsk province
Kazan province
Kaluga province
Kara Governorate
Kyiv province
Kostroma province
Kursk province
Kutaisi province
Minsk province
Mogilev province
Moscow province
Nizhny Novgorod province
Novgorod province
Region of the Don Army
Olonets province
Orenburg province
Oryol province
Sakhalin island
Penza province
Perm province
Podolsk province
Poltava province
Primorsky region
Pskov province
Ryazan province
Samarkand region
Samara province
Saratov province
Semipalatinsk region
Semirechensk region
Simbirsk province
Smolensk province
Stavropol province
Syrdarya region
Tauride province
Tambov province
Tver province
Tobolsk province
Tomsk province
Tula province
Turgai region
Ural region
Ufa province
Fergana region
Kharkov province
Kherson province
Chernigov province
Black Sea Governorate
Erivan Governorate
Yaroslavl province
-1 012
LN (Growth in enrollment in primary education, 1897-1913)
010 20 30
Increase in zemstva education expenditure per capita in 1897-1913, times

16
Source: Computed based on Kessler and Markevich (2014; 2020), MinFin (1915a; 1915b), TsSK
MVD (1915, 1916).
The straight forward comparison of primary enrollment ratios in 1897 and 1913 does not seem to
suggest that zemstva financing of education did matter23. But once the control variables explaining
the increase in the enrollment in primary and secondary education are added to the right hand side,
the impact of the increase in zemstva educational spending becomes positive and significant.
23 PRIMenr1913 = 1.1***PRIMenr1897 + 0.03ZEMedGR97_13 + 1.3***
Robust standard errors, N = 70, R2 = 0.63. Here and later – standard notations: *** - significant at 1%, **- 5%, *- 10%.
(ZEMedGR97_13 is significant at 36%).
SECONenr1913 = 0.4SECONenr1897 + 0.004ZEMedGR97_13 + 0.2***
Robust standard errors, N = 70, R2 = 0.16.
(SECONenr1897 is significant at 12%, ZEMedGR97_13 – at 19%)
Where:
PRIMenr1913 – number of students in primary education per 100 inhabitants in 1913,
PRIMenr1897 – number of students in primary education per 100 inhabitants in 1897,
SECONenr1913– number of students in secondary education per 100 inhabitants in 1913,
SECONenr1897 – number of students in secondary education per 100 inhabitants in 1897,
ZEMedGR97_13 – increase in zemstva education expenditure in 1897-1913, times.
Akmola region
Amur region
Arkhangelsk province
Astrakhan province
Baku province
Bessarabian Governorate
Vilna province Vitebsk province
Vladimir province
Vologda province
Volyn province
Voronezh province
Vyatka province
Grodno province
Dagestan region
Yekaterinoslav Governorate
Elisavetpol Governorate
Yenisei province
Transbaikal region
Transcaspian region
Irkutsk province
Kazan province
Kaluga province
Kara Governorate
Kyiv province
Kostroma province
Kursk province
Kutaisi province Minsk province
Mogilev province
Moscow province
Nizhny Novgorod province
Novgorod province
Region of the Don Army
Olonets province
Orenburg province
Oryol provincePenza province
Perm province
Podolsk province
Poltava province
Primorsky region
Pskov province
Ryazan province
Samarkand region
Samara province
St. Petersburg Governorate
Saratov province
Semipalatinsk region
Semirechensk region
Simbirsk province
Smolensk province
Stavropol province
Syrdarya region
Tauride province
Tambov province
Tver province
Tobolsk province
Tomsk province
Tula province
Turgai region
Ural region
Ufa province
Fergana region Kharkov province
Kherson province
Chernigov province
Black Sea Governorate
Erivan Governorate
Yaroslavl province
-4 -2 0 2 4
LN (Growth in enrollment in secondary education, 1897-1913)
010 20 30
Increase in zemstva education expenditure per capita in 1897-1913, times

17
Primary education enrollment increase
In 1897-1913 the greatest growth of the number of students per capita in primary schools was
observes in regions with:
- low population density in 1904,
- high literacy rates in 1897,
- high share of urban population in 1897,
- high zemstva educational expenditure per capita in 1897,
- existence of zemstva (dummy),
- increase in zemstva educational expenditure per capita from 1897 to 1913,
- low inequality in the distribution of human capital (as measured by the ratio of residents with
secondary and higher education degrees to the residents with primary degrees in 1897).
The impact of share of urban population in 1897 and literacy rates in 1897 is somewhat unclear –
if the indicators are included separately into the right hand side, both are significant and positive, if
they are included together, literacy rate acquires a negative sign (strictly speaking, they cannot be
included together due to multicollinearity problem – R2 = 52% – see fig. 2).
To put it differently, the largest increases in proliferation of primary education took place in
regions with low population density, high share of urban population/high literacy, low inequality in
the distribution of human capital, but also with the existence of zemstva administrations, high
zemstva expenditure for education in 1897 and high growth of these expenditure in 1897-1913 (see
table 3).
Secondary education enrollment increase
As was already mentioned, zemstva were financing not only primary, but also secondary
education. District administrations (uezdnye zemstva) dealt with rural primary schools, while
provincial ones (gubernskie zemstva) financed secondary, vocational and higher schools which
were mostly urban.

18
Table 3. Regression of the primary enrollment rate (number of students in primary education per
100 inhabitants) in 1913 on zemstva expenditure for education in 1897-1913 and control variables,
robust estimates (standard notations: ***, **, * – significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively)
Dependent variable
Number of students in primary education per
100 inhabitants primary education in 1913
Equation, N //
Indicator
1,
N= 60
2,
N=60
3,
N = 54
4,
N=54
Number of students in primary education facilities per 100
inhabitants in 1897
.9***
.8***
.7***
.9***
Share of urban population, 1897, %
.07***
.07***
.05***
Literacy rate in 1897, %
-.05***
-.04***
-.06***
Population density in 1904, inhabitants per 1 sq. km
-.01**
-.01*
-.02***
-.03***
Education inequality (ratio of students enrolled in secondary
and primary education in 1897)
-15.6***
-15.2***
Existence of zemstva in the region dummy
.7***
.08***
Zemstva education expenditure per capita in 1897
2.5*
Increase in zemstva education expenditure in 1897-1913,
times
0.05***
.006***
Constant
3.3***
3.2***
1.2***
1.2***
R2, %
59
61
63
63
Regressions with few control variables show that zemstva per capita education expenditure in 1897
and the growth of this expenditure in 1897-1913 contributed to the increase in the enrollment ratios
in secondary education in 1897-1913 (table 4). But once more controls are added, the coefficients
with the zemstva education expenditure variables loose significance.
- In 1897-1913 the greatest growth of the number of students per capita in secondary schools was
observed in regions with:
- high GDP per capita in 1897,
- high literacy rates in 1897,
- low share of urban population in 1897.

19
Table 4. Regression of the secondary enrollment rate (number of students in secondary
education per 100 inhabitants) in 1913 and the increase in enrollment in 1897-1913 on
zemstva expenditure for education in 1897-1913 and control variables, robust estimates
(standard notations: ***, **, * – significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively)
Dependent variable
Number of students in
secondary education per 100
inhabitants secondary education
in 1913)
LN (Increase in the number of
students in secondary education
facilities per 100 inhabitants in
1897-1913
Equation, N //
Indicator
1,
N = 70
2,
N = 70
3,
N = 70
4,
N= 70
5,
N =61
6,
N=45
Number of students in secondary
education facilities per 100
inhabitants in 1897
.4 (11%
significan
ce)
-5.6***
-6.6***
-3.2***
Share of urban population, 1897, %
-.03***
Literacy rate in 1897, %
.03**
Share of serfs in rural population in
1858, %
.005**
GRP per capita in 1897, rubles
.002**
.006***
Zemstva education expenditure per
capita in 1897, rubles
.6***
.7***
4.0***
4.6***
2.5***
4.1***
Upravy education expenditure per
capita in 1897, rubles
-.8***
Charity education expenditure per
capita in 1897, rubles
4.5*
4.6***
Increase in zemstva education
expenditure in 1897-1913, times
.006*
.007**
.02 (13%
significan
ce)
.02**
.005
-.004
Constant
.1***
.06
.7***
.5***
.5***
.6***
R2, %
25
34
28
58
69
89
To put it differently, the largest increases in proliferation of secondary education took place in
rural, but relatively well-off regions (high GRP per capita and high literacy rates). There is the
same multicollinearity problem, as in regression explaining the growth of enrollment ratios in
primary education (strong correlation between the share urban population and literacy rates), so the
relative contribution of urbanization and literacy rates to the growth of secondary enrollment is
also uncertain. But the addition of these variables either separately or together undermines the
significance of the growth of zemstva education expenditure variable (table 4). The absolute
zemstva expenditure for education per capita in 1897 (as the absolute expenditure for education of
charity organizations, but not that of upravy and central government) had always a positive and

20
significant impact on the growth of the enrollment in secondary education in 1897-1913, but
neither the existence of zemstva, nor the growth of zemstva education expenditure in 1897-1913
had a stable and significant impact on the dynamics of secondary education enrollment (in a couple
of regressions it is significant, but the significance disappears, once other control variables are
added).
Share of serfs in 1858 variable turns out to be surprisingly significant (positive impact – probably
because serfdom was concentrated in historical Russian proper, not in the outskirts of the Empire),
but it limits the number of observations to only 46 (table 4).
Finally, other sources of the financing of education in 1897 had a varying impact on the growth of
secondary education enrollment. Charity financing of education has a positive sign and is
statistically significant, whereas financing by upravy (city/town self-governance bodies) has a
negative sign, suggesting that increases in enrollment were greater from a low base – in regions
where financing in 1897 was low. Upravy financing thus was contributing to the convergence of
secondary education levels within regions and among regions, but it was not enough to reverse the
general picture – greater increases in secondary enrollment education led to the increase in
educational inequalities within regions (see next section on the widening gap between secondary
and primary education enrollment).
Other variables characterizing sources of financing of education expenditure (central government,
tuition fees) were not significant for explaining the growth of enrollment ratios.
Change in inequality of the distribution of human capital
In 1897 zemstva were spending money on education mostly in poor regions with low urban
population, but high literacy rates (table 5).
The same is true for the increase in zemstva expenditure for education in 1897-1913: it also was
the strongest mostly in poor regions with low share of urban population, but with relatively high
literacy rates (table 6).

21
Table 5. Correlation coefficients between the level of zemstva per capita expenditure for
education in 1897 and literacy rate (1897), urbanization rate and GRP per capita in 1897, 86
observations
Indicator
Zemstva per capita
expenditure for
education in 1897
Literacy
rate in
1897, %
GRP per
capita in
1897, rubles
Share of
urban
population,
1897, %
Zemstva per capita expenditure for
education in 1897, rubles
1
Literacy rate in 1897, %
0.15
1
GRP per capita in 1897, rubles
-0.06
0.5
1
Share of urban population, 1897, %
-0.06
0.6
0.7
1
Table 6. Correlation coefficients between the increase of zemstva per capita expenditure for
education in 1897-1913 and literacy rate (1897), urbanization rate and GRP per capita in
1897, 72 observations
Indicator
The increase in zemstva per
capita expenditure for edu-
cation in 1897-1913, times
Literacy
rate in
1897, %
GRP per
capita in
1897, rubles
Share of urban
population,
1897, %
The increase in zemstva per capita
expenditure for education in 1897-
1913, times
1
Literacy rate in 1897, %
.14
1
GRP per capita in 1897, rubles
-.07
.6
1
Share of urban population, 1897, %
-.03
.6
.7
1
Fig. 6 indicates that the growth of the enrollment ratios for primary education contributed to the
decline in the inequalities in the distribution of human capital in 1897-1913 (as measured by the
ratio of secondary to primary enrollment), whereas the growth of the enrollment ratios for
secondary education contributed to the increase in these inequalities.

22
Fig. 6. The growth of the enrollment ratios for primary education and the inequalities in the
distribution of human capital in 1897-1913 (as measured by the ratio of secondary to
primary enrollment)
Source: Source: Computed based on Kessler and Markevich (2014; 2020), TsSK MVD (1915,
1916).
Akmola region
Amur region
Arkhangelsk province
Astrakhan province
Baku province
Bessarabian Governorate
Warsaw Governorate
Vilna province
Vitebsk province
Vladimir province
Vologda province
Volyn province
Voronezh province
Vyatka province
Grodno province
Dagestan region
Yekaterinoslav Governorate
Elisavetpol Governorate
Yenisei province
Transbaikal region
Transcaspian region
Irkutsk province
Kazan province
Kalisz Governorate
Kaluga province
Kara Governorate
Kielce Governorate
Kyiv province Kovno province
Kostroma province
Kuban region
Courland Governorate
Kursk province
Kutaisi province
Livland Governorate
Lomzhinsky province
Lublin Governorate
Minsk province
Mogilev province
Moscow province
Nizhny Novgorod province
Novgorod province
Region of the Don Army
Olonets province
Orenburg province
Oryol province
Penza province
Perm province
Petrokovskaya province
Plock Governorate
Podolsk province
Poltava province
Primorsky region
Pskov province
Radom Governorate
Ryazan province
Samarkand region
Samara province
Saratov province
Semipalatinsk region
Semirechensk region
Simbirsk province
Smolensk province
Stavropol province
Suwalki Governorate
Syrdarya region
Tauride province
Tambov province
Tver province
Tobolsk province
Tomsk province
Tula province
Turgai region
Ural region
Ufa province
Fergana region
Kharkov province
Kherson province
Chernigov province
Black Sea Governorate
Erivan Governorate
Estonian province
Yakutsk region
Yaroslavl province
0 5 10
Ratio of seconday to primary enrollment in 1913 to same indicator in 1897
-1 0 1 2
LN (Growth in enrollment in primary education, 1897-1913)
Akmola region
Amur region
Arkhangelsk province
Astrakhan province
Baku province
Bessarabian Governorate
Warsaw Governorate
Vilna province
Vitebsk province
Vladimir province
Vologda province
Volyn province
Voronezh province
Vyatka province
Grodno province
Dagestan region
Yekaterinoslav Governorate
Elisavetpol Governorate
Yenisei province
Transbaikal region
Transcaspian region
Irkutsk province
Kazan province
Kalisz Governorate
Kaluga province
Kara Governorate
Kielce Governorate
Kyiv province
Kovno province
Kostroma province
Kuban region
Courland Governorate
Kursk province
Kutaisi province
Livland Governorate
Lomzhinsky province
Lublin Governorate
Minsk province
Mogilev province
Moscow province
Nizhny Novgorod province
Novgorod province
Region of the Don Army
Olonets province
Orenburg province
Oryol province
Penza province
Perm province
Petrokovskaya province
Plock Governorate
Podolsk province
Poltava province
Primorsky region
Pskov province
Radom Governorate
Ryazan province
Samarkand region
Samara province
Saratov province
Semipalatinsk region
Semirechensk region
Simbirsk province
Smolensk province
Stavropol province
Suwalki Governorate
Syrdarya region
Tauride province
Tambov province
Tver province
Tobolsk province
Tomsk province
Tula province
Turgai region
Ural region
Ufa province
Fergana region
Kharkov province
Kherson province
Chernigov province
Black Sea Governorate
Erivan Governorate
Estonian province
Yakutsk region
Yaroslavl province
0 5 10
Ratio of seconday to primary enrollment in 1913 to same indicator in 1897
-4 -2 0 2 4
LN (Growth in enrollment in secondary education, 1897-1913)

23
Overall, the inequality in the distribution of human capital within the regions increased. Out of 84
regions on which data are available, in 31 regions the ratio of students enrolled in secondary
education to those enrolled in primary education fell, whereas in another 53 regions it increased
(fig. 7). It may be not exactly obvious from fig. 7 below, which gives the impression that there
were roughly as many regions with growing ratio of secondary to primary school enrollments, as
there were regions with the falling ratio, but the national averages story is straightforward and
definite: the number students enrolled in primary education in all Russian regions (unweighted
average) increased from 2.47 in 1897 per 100/000 inhabitants to 3.75 in by 1913 (1.5 times),
whereas the enrollment into the secondary education increased more rapidly – from 0.15 to 0.28 by
1914 (1.8 times). And the total enrollment in secondary education all over the Empire from 1897
to 1913 increased 2.5 times, whereas primary education enrollment – only 2.1 times.
Fig. 7. Ratio of students enrolled in secondary education to the students enrolled in primary
education in 1897 and in 1913 by regions
Source: Computed based on Kessler and Markevich (2014; 2020), TsSK MVD (1915, 1916).
Akmola region
Amur region
Arkhangelsk province
Astrakhan province Baku province
Bessarabian Governorate
Warsaw Governorate
Vilna province
Vitebsk province
Vladimir province
Vologda province
Volyn province
Voronezh province
Vyatka province
Grodno province
Dagestan region
Yekaterinoslav Governorate
Elisavetpol Governorate
Yenisei province
Transbaikal region
Transcaspian region
Irkutsk province
Kazan province
Kalisz Governorate
Kaluga province Kara Governorate
Kielce Governorate
Kyiv province
Kovno province
Kostroma province
Kuban region
Courland Governorate
Kursk province
Kutaisi province
Livland Governorate
Lomzhinsky province
Lublin Governorate
Minsk province
Mogilev province
Moscow province
Nizhny Novgorod province
Novgorod province
Region of the Don Army
Olonets province
Orenburg province
Oryol province
Penza province
Perm province
Petrokovskaya province
Plock Governorate
Podolsk province
Poltava province
Primorsky region
Pskov province
Radom Governorate
Ryazan province
Samarkand region
Samara province
Saratov province Semipalatinsk region
Semirechensk region
Simbirsk province
Smolensk province
Stavropol province
Suwalki Governorate
Syrdarya region
Tauride province
Tambov province
Tver province
Tobolsk province
Tomsk province
Tula province
Turgai region
Ural region
Ufa province
Fergana region
Kharkov province
Kherson province
Chernigov province
Black Sea Governorate
Erivan Governorate
Estonian province
Yakutsk region
Yaroslavl province
0.2 .4 .6
Ratio of students enrolled in secondary and primary education in 1913
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Ratio of students enrolled in secondary and primary education in 1897

24
In most regions, to put it differently, the proliferation of secondary education was progressing
noticeably faster than the spread of primary education, which contributed to the increase in
inequalities in the distribution of human capital and allegedly created the class of intellectuals that
became intelligentsia – educated individuals not being able to apply their knowledge and skills in
the national economy and looking for the solution in various kinds of social activity.
As the table 7 suggests, the greatest increases in the gap between secondary and primary school
enrollment in 1897-1913 took place mostly in the European part of the Empire (except for
Transbaikal and Primorsky regions) and to a large extent in the historical proper (with the
exceptions of Warsaw, Grodno, Estonia, Kuban, Poltava, Chernigov), whereas the smallest
increases in the educational inequalities occurred in the remote regions.
Education and social protest
The recent paper (Popov, Konchakov, Didenko, 2023) made an attempt to quantify the social
protest on the eve of Russian revolutions: it established the relationship between three indicators
of social protest (peasants’ unrest, strikes at industrial enterprises, crimes against persons) and
inequality of land distribution. It was also argued in the paper that the stock of human capital in
1897 (as measured by the literacy rate and the average number of the years of schooling) had
significant positive impact on the increase in strikes at industrial enterprises, significant negative
impact on the increase in violent crimes (crimes against persons), and no significant impact on the
increase of peasants’ unrest.

25
Table 7. Increases in gross enrollment in primary and secondary education and Increase in
human capital inequality in the regions of the Russian Empire in 1897-1913
Increase in gross
enrollment in
secondary
education in
1897-1913
(1)
Increase in gross
enrollment in
primary
education in
1897-1913
(2)
Increase in human capital
inequality (growth of enrollment
in secondary education to the
growth of enrollment in primary
education in 1897-1913), times
(3) = (2) : (1)
Regions with greatest increase in the inequality in HC
(over 3 times faster increase in secondary than in primary education enrollment)
Warsaw Governorate
0.99
0.25
3.98
Vladimir province
6.90
1.55
4.44
Vyatka province
9.29
1.64
5.68
Grodno province
3.65
1.55
2.36
Transbaikal region
13.09
1.30
10.06
Kaluga province
5.08
1.44
3.54
Kostroma province
5.83
1.76
3.31
Kuban region
7.63
2.10
3.64
Olonets province
13.85
1.23
11.26
Poltava province
6.54
1.46
4.48
Primorsky region
19.49
3.38
5.77
Samara province
4.21
1.31
3.21
Tambov province
2.10
0.59
3.55
Tver province
5.56
1.32
4.21
Chernigov province
3.75
1.25
3.00
Estonian province
3.01
1.00
3.01
Regions with smallest increase in the inequality in HC
(over 2 times faster increase in secondary than in primary education enrollment)
Akmola region
1.61
4.67
0.34
Astrakhan province
0.89
1.87
0.48
Baku province
0.08
1.04
0.07
Dagestan region
1.66
4.57
0.36
Elisavetpol Governorate
1.01
3.55
0.28
Kalisz Governorate
0.63
1.57
0.40
Kara Governorate
0.99
8.73
0.11
Lomzhinsky province
0.32
0.85
0.37
Orenburg province
1.19
3.53
0.34
Semipalatinsk region
1.37
5.09
0.27
Ural region
0.63
7.35
0.09
Fergana region
1.39
3.51
0.39
Erivan Governorate
2.65
6.31
0.42
Source: Computed based on Kessler and Markevich (2014; 2020), TsSK MVD (1915, 1916).

26
As we show in this paper, adding variables characterizing the level and growth of human capital
does not help much to explain the increase in the social protest. Variables, characterizing the
growth in secondary education enrollment and inequality in the formation of human capital turn
out to be insignificant in most cases, and, when significant, have a negative signs – in regions with
the higher growth in enrollment in secondary and primary education and widening gap between
secondary and primary education, increases in peasants’ unrest and strikes activity were less
pronounced (table 8). These results confirm the findings of another paper about the impact of
education levels on social protest (Popov, Konchakov, Didenko, 2023). However, the evidence
may be not very persuasive because the data on peasants’ unrest limit the number of observations
to only 19-26 regions.
Only increases in crimes against persons depended positively on the increases in enrollment in
primary education in 1897-1913, even though negatively on the literacy rate. The reason is
probably the multicollinearity – a rather strong negative correlation (R2 = 46%) between the level
of literacy in 1897 and the subsequent increase in primary education enrollment (these increases
were higher in more illiterate regions).
Also, we do not have at a moment good indicators of the dynamics in the inequality in the
distribution of human capital: only the flows indicators – enrollment into secondary and primary
education, not the stocks of the individuals with different number of years of education.
Reconstruction of the stock indicators of human capital by regions (number of years of education,
number of individuals with primary, secondary and tertiary education within different social
groups) would allow making a better comparison with the indicators of the social protest.
Besides, the growth of social protest in particular regions could have been driven by “oversupply”
of intelligentsia (students with secondary education – potential revolutionaries) from the other
regions.

27
Table 8. Regression explaining the increase in social protest
(standard notations: ***, **, * – significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively)
Dependent variable
Increase in peasants’
unrest per 1 million rural
population from 1890-99
(average) to 1900-04
(average)
Man-days lost
due to strikes as a
percentage of
total man-days
worked – increase
from 1895-99 to
1900-04, times
Increase in the
rate (per 100,000
inhabitants) of
crimes against
persons from
1896 to 1912,
times
Equation, N //
Indicator
1,
N= 25
2,
N=26
3,
N=25
4,
N=19
5,
N=43
Index of inequality of private land
distribution in 1877, times
.4***
.4***
.5***
.1*
GRP per capita in 1897, rubles
.4**
The average annual expenditures of local
self-government bodies (zemstva) per
capita in 1868-1903, rubles
-1.7*
Average harvest yield for 10 years, c/ha
(year 1907 - the middle of the period)
-32.7***
Increase in peasants’ unrest per 1 million
rural population from 1890-99 (average)
to 1900-04 (average)
16.2**
Growth of alcohol consumption per capita
from the 1870s to the 1890s, times
2.5***
Literacy rate, 1897, %
-.04**
Share of population with secondary and
higher education to those with primary
education in 1897
-1136.3**
Increase in zemstva education expenditure
in 1897-1913, times
-.04***
Number of students in secondary
education facilities per 100 inhabitants in
1897
1.4
(signif
icant
at
11%)
Increase in gross enrollment in primary
education, 1897-1913, times
-43.4**
Increase in gross enrollment in secondary
education, 1897-1913, times
-.2**
-8.6*
LN (increase in gross enrollment in
secondary education, 1897-1913, times)
1.0**
Increase in human capital inequality
(growth of enrollment in secondary
education to the growth of enrollment in
primary education in 1897-1913), times
-.3*
Constant
.5
.5
1.3
342.7***
.08

28
Dependent variable
Increase in peasants’
unrest per 1 million rural
population from 1890-99
(average) to 1900-04
(average)
Man-days lost
due to strikes as a
percentage of
total man-days
worked – increase
from 1895-99 to
1900-04, times
Increase in the
rate (per 100,000
inhabitants) of
crimes against
persons from
1896 to 1912,
times
R2, %
38
42
49
78
54
But it may well be that the intelligentsia opposition to the regime took mostly the form of non-
violent and cooperative activities – working in zemstva as teachers and doctors, as narodniks’ (one
group of socialist reformers) populist movement of khozhdeniye v narod (“going to the people”)
advocated. The more educated was the population, the less likely the social protests were to take
more extreme forms of peasants’ unrest, strikes and violence against persons.
The findings should be viewed in the framework of the major debate of that time – whether
zemstva could transform Russian communal pre-capitalist village into the capitalist “American
type” farming or whether the zemstva activities were just a palliative care that did not affect the
root causes of inequality. Narodniks (“populists”) believed that transition to socialism was possible
through the agricultural community and zemstva activities24, whereas Marxists (social democrats at
the time) considered a revolution a sine qua non for social progress25. Our data, even though
incomplete, suggest that Russian educated class was leaning towards reforms, not revolution. More
violent forms of social protest – peasants’ unrest, strikes at industrial enterprises and crimes
24 In 1879 narodnik’s “Zemlya i Volya” (Land and Liberty) organization split into two. One of the offspring –
“Narodnaya Volya” (People's Will) – adopted terrorist methods, organizing many terrorist attacks on tsarist officials
(including the murder of the tsar Alexander II in 1881).
25 As the main character in Anton Chekhov’s famous short story “The House with the Mezzanine” (1896) argues:
“medical stations, schools, libraries, pharmacies, under existing conditions, only lead to slavery. The masses are
caught in a vast chain: you do not cut it but only add new links to it”. Although the line of his argument did not lie in
the realm of economic materialism, as Marxism was then commonly perceived, it borrowed much from thoughts and
disputes of Marxist-influenced intelligentsia of the time. Later on, during the Russian Revolutions of 1917 and the
Civil War, this debate transformed into the political struggle between socialist revolutionaries (essers, former
narodniks), and bolsheviks.

29
against persons26 – were driven mainly by the inequality in land distribution, whereas education
levels and growth of these levels had mostly a negative impact, if any.
Conclusions and future research
We find that the largest increases in proliferation of primary education took place in the remote
regions with low population density, high share of urban population, low inequality in the
distribution of human capital and low literacy rates. The zemstva and charity organizations
financing was taking place mostly in regions where the increase in proliferation of primary
education was low, so it should have contributed to the reduction of the inequality in human capital
distribution within the regions. To a much lesser extent zemstva educational spending contributed
to the growth of secondary education enrollment, but the other sources of financing (central
government, urban upravy, tuition fees and charity) pushed secondary enrollment up, so it grew
faster than the primary enrollment.
The previous research with incomplete data revealed that zemstva were spending more on
education per capita in regions with low level of education, but these spending did not make much
of a difference – human capital in these regions remained low (Popov, Konchakov, Didenko,
2024). The results reported in this paper provide additional and more rigorous proof that zemstva
activities contributed to the spread of primary education and to the decline in the inequality of the
distribution of human capital within the regions (ratio of secondary to primary education
enrollment).
But there were more powerful forces at play – central government and city/town administration
financing, education for tuition fees – that were pushing the development in an opposite direction,
increasing the secondary education enrollment in most regions faster than the primary education
enrollment. The result was the widening gap between low and high educated individuals that could
have contributed to the formation of the intelligentsia phenomenon – educated intellectuals that
were not able to find the proper place in the national economy to apply their knowledge. However,
26 Increases in crimes against persons in 1896-1912 (controlling for land inequality and growth of alcohol
consumption) were negatively related to the literacy levels and the growth of zemstva education expenditure, but
positively linked to the growth of enrollment in primary education in 1897-1913 (table 8, model 5).

30
this widening gap between the secondary and primary education enrollment was not linked to the
increase in the social unrest in the Russian provinces: in regions where this gap was growing,
social protest increased less, not more.
We hope the future research could shed more light on the link between the educational patterns
and disparities in the pre-revolutionary Russian regions and the magnitude of social protest.
References
Abramov, V.F. (1996). Абрамов В.Ф. Российское земство: экономика, финансы, культура
[The Russian zemstvo: Economy, finance, and culture]. Moscow: ФГ «Ника» [Nika Financial
Group Publishing], 1996.
Alston, P.L. (1969). Education and the State in Tsarist Russia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Anfimov A.M. (ed.) (1998). Крестьянское движение в России в 1901-1904 гг. Сборник
документов [The Peasant Movement in Russia in 1901-1904. A Collection of documents].
Moscow: Наука [Science].
Borodkin L., Shilnikova I. (2020). Labour Conflicts: Russia 1895-1904. Version 1.
https://datasets.iisg.amsterdam/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:10622/LSCGBO.
Dennis, G. (1961). Education, in M. T. Florinsky (ed.), Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet
Union. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Didenko, D.V. (2021a). Диденко Д.В. Динамика и институциональные источники накопления
человеческого капитала в регионах России (вторая половина XIX в. - начало XX в.)
[Dynamics and institutional sources of human capital accumulation in Russia’s regions (19th —
early 20th centuries)]. In Borodkin L.I., Petrov Yu.A. (Eds). Экономическая история:

31
ежегодник [Russian Economic History Yearbook]. 2020, Moscow: Российская политическая
энциклопедия (РОССПЭН) [Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN)], pp. 107-149.
Didenko, D.V. (2021b). Диденко Д.В. Пространственное неравенство и накопление
человеческого капитала в Европейской России при переходе к «современному» типу
экономического роста (конец XIX – начало XX в.) [Spatial Inequality and Human Capital
Formation in the Transition of European Russia to the ‘Modern’ Type of Economic Growth (Late
19th to Early 20th Centuries)]. Мир России = Universe of Russia, Vol. 30. No 3, pp. 100-126.
Didenko, D.V. (2024). Диденко Д.В. Институциональные источники формирования
человеческого капитала в регионах Европейской России, Сибири и Дальнего Востока (конец
XIX – начало XX в.) [Institutional sources of human capital formation in the regions of European
Russia, the Siberia, and the Far East (late 19th – early 20th centuries)]. Вестник Томского
государственного университета. История = Tomsk State University Journal of History. No
90, pp. 17-29.
Eklof, B. (1986). Russian peasant schools. Officialdom, village culture and popular pedagogy,
1861 – 1914. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Galor, Oded (2012). Inequality, Human Capital Formation and the Process of Development. IZA
Discussion Paper No. 6328. January 2012.
GK (1868-1916). Отчет Государственного контроля по исполнению Государственной
росписи и финансовых смет [State Control Report on the Execution of the State Budget and
Financial Statements]. St. Petersburg.
GSh (1884). Военно-топографический отдел Главного штаба [Military Topographic
Department of the General Staff]. Карта Азиатской России с прилегающими к ней владениями
[Map of Asian Russia with adjacent possessions]. St. Petersburg.

32
GSh (1921). Военно-топографический отдел Главного штаба [Military Topographic
Department of the General Staff]. Военно-дорожная карта Азиатской России. Составлена в
1895 г. Исправлена в 1908-19 гг. [Military road map of Asian Russia. Compiled in 1895,
corrected in 1908-19]. Moscow.
Johnson, W. (1969). Russia’s Educational Heritage. 2nd ed., New York: Octagon Books.
Kaser, M.C. (1966). Education and Economic Progress: Experience in Industrialized Market
Economies. In Robinson E.A.G., Vaizey J.E. (Eds). The Economics of Education. London: St
Martin’s Press; New York: Macmillan, рp. 142-173.
Kessler, H., A. Markevich. (2014). Electronic archive of Russian Historical Statistics, 18th – 21st
centuries. Version 1. Datatype 5.01; 5.02 – Output of the service sector, benchmark year 1897
[ERRHS_5.01_data_1897.xlsx; ERRHS_5.02_data_1897.xlsx]. http://ristat.org.
Kessler, H., A. Markevich (2020). Electronic archive of Russian Historical Statistics, 18th – 21st
centuries. Version 1. [Topic 1-Population]. http://ristat.org.
Levine, S., Kawada, H. (1980). Human Resources and Japanese Industrial Development.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Markevich, A. (2019). A Regional Perspective on the Economic Development of the late Russian
Empire (May 14, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2555273 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2555273.
Markevich, A. (2022). "GRP estimates for the provinces of the Russian Empire in 1897",
https://hdl.handle.net/10622/ZNA2NP, IISH Data Collection, V3; Markevich GRP estimates for
the provinces of the Russian Empire in 1897.csv.

33
Markevich, A., E. Zhuravskaya (2018). The Economic Effects of the Abolition of Serfdom:
Evidence from the Russian Empire. American Economic Review, Vol. 108, No. 4-5, pp. 1074-
1117. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160144.
MinFin (1896a-1915a). Министерство финансов. Департамент окладных сборов [Ministry of
Finance. Department of Direct Taxes]. Доходы и расходы земств … по сметам [Incomes and
expenditures of zemstvos ... according to the budget statements]. St. Petersburg.
MinFin (1898-1915b). Ежегодник министерства финансов [Ministry of Finance Yearbook].
Petrograd. P. 542-545
Minfin (1903). Департамент окладных сборов Министерства финансов [Department of Direct
Taxes of the Ministry of Finance]. Материалы высочайше учрежденной 16 ноября 1901 г.
Комиссии по исследованию вопроса о движении с 1861 г. по 1900 г. благосостояния
сельского населения среднеземледельческих губерний, сравнительно с другими
местностями Европейской России [Materials of the High Commission established on November
16, 1901 to investigate the welfare of the rural population of the central agricultural provinces
from 1861 to 1900, compared with other areas of European Russia]. Part 1. St. Petersburg.
MinFin (1909). Министерство финансов. Департамент окладных сборов [Ministry of Finance.
Department of Direct Taxes]. Мирские доходы и расходы за 1905 год по 50 губерниям
Европейской России [Communes’ incomes and expenditures for 1905 in 50 provinces of
European Russia]. St. Petersburg.
Miniust (1900). Министерство юстиции [Ministry of Justice]. Свод статистических сведений
по делам уголовным, проводившимся в 1896 году в судебных учреждениях, действующих
на основании уставов Императора Александра II [A summary of statistical information on
criminal cases conducted in 1896 in judicial institutions operating on the basis of the statutes by
Emperor Alexander II]. St. Petersburg.

34
Miniust (1915). Министерство юстиции [Ministry of Justice]. Свод статистических сведений о
подсудимых, оправданных и осужденных по приговорам общих судебных мест, судебно-
мировых установлений и учреждений, образованных по законоположениям 12 июля 1889
года за 1912 год [A set of statistical information about the accused, acquitted and convicted by
the verdicts of the common courts, peace-making judicial institutions and institutions formed
according to the provisions of the law as of July 12, 1889 for 1912]. Petrograd.
Mironov, B.N. (2018). Российская империя: от традиции к модерну. [The Russian Empire:
from Tradition to Modernity]. Vol 3. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Дм. Буланин.
MNP (1871-1903). Министерство народного просвещения [Ministry of Public Education].
Извлечение из всеподданнейшего отчета министра [Extract from the Most Humble Report of
the Minister]. St. Petersburg.
MNP (1898). Департамент [Министерство] народного просвещения [Department of Public
Education]. Статистические сведения по начальному образованию в Российской империи за
1896 год [Statistical data on primary education in the Russian Empire in 1896]. St. Petersburg.
MNP (1904-1916). Министерство народного просвещения [Ministry of Public Education].
Всеподданнейший отчет министра [The Most Humble Report of the Minister]. St. Petersburg.
MPD (2020). Maddison Project Database, version 2020. Bolt J., Van Zanden J.L. Maddison style
estimates of the evolution of the world economy. A new 2020 update.
https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-
2020?lang=en.
Obukhov, V.M. (1927). Движение урожаев в Европейской России в период 1883 - 1915 гг.
[The movement of crops in European Russia in the period 1883 – 1915]. In Groman V.G. (ed.).
Влияние неурожаев на народное хозяйство России. [The impact of crop failures on Russia’s
national economy]. Part 1. Moscow. Prilozhenie 1 [Appendix 1], pp. 59-108.

35
Popov, V., R. Konchakov, D. Didenko (2023). Factors of social tension in the provinces of the
Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. – MPRA Paper No. 118464, Sept. 2023
Https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/118464/.
Popov, V., R. Konchakov, D. Didenko (2024). Human capital in the regions of the Russian Empire
and inequality in land distribution at the turn of the 20th century," MPRA Paper № 119796,
January 2024. Https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/119796/.
Santa Maria, P. (1990). Question of Elementary Education in the Third Russian State Duma (1907-
1912). Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Sharyi V.I. (ed.) (1913, 1914). Статистический ежегодник. [Statistical Yearbook]. St. Petersburg:
Совет съездов представителей промышленности и торговли [Council of Congresses of
Industry and Trade Representatives].
Shatsillo, M.K. (2003). Эволюция налоговой системы России в XIX веке [Evolution of
Russia’s taxation system in the 19th century]. In Borodkin L.I., Petrov Yu.A. (Eds).
Экономическая история. Ежегодник. [Russian Economic History Yearbook]. 2002. Moscow:
Российская политическая энциклопедия (РОССПЭН) [Russian Political Encyclopedia
(ROSSPEN)]. P. 345—383).
Shilov, A. (2008). Шилов А.И. Начальная и средняя школа Восточной Сибири в конце XIX -
начале XX вв. [Primary and secondary school in the late 19th – early 20th centuries] Krasnoyarsk:
Krasnoyarsk Astafiev State Pedagogical University Publishing.
Strel’bitskii, I.A. (1915). Специальная карта Европейской России [Special map of European
Russia] (1:420,000). 1865-1871. Petrograd: Литография картографического заведения
Военно-топографического отдела [Lithography of the Cartographic Establishment of the
Military Topographic Department of the General Staff].

36
Troinitskii, N.A., ed. (1898-1905). Первая всеобщая перепись населения Российской империи
1897 г. [The First General Census of the Population of the Russian Empire in 1897. Vols. 1-50,
65, 67, 68, 70, 72-80 [in Russian] St. Petersburg: Центральный статистический комитет
Министерства внутренних дел [Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs].
TsSK MVD (1880-1885). Центральный статистический комитет Министерства внутренних
дел [Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs]. Статистика поземельной
собственности и населенных мест Европейской России: по данным обследования,
произведенного статистическими учреждениями Министерства внутренних дел, по
поручению Статистического совета [Statistics on land ownership and settlements in European
Russia: according to a survey conducted by the statistical offices of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs, commissioned by the Statistical Council]. St. Petersburg.
TsSK MVD (1886a). Центральный статистический комитет Министерства внутренних дел
[Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs]. Статистический временник
Российской империи. Серия III. Вып. 13. Мирские расходы крестьян за 1881 год. [[Statistical
Annual Book of the Russian Empire. Series III. Issue 13. Peasant communes’ expenses for 1881].
St. Petersburg.
TsSK MVD (1886b). Центральный статистический комитет Министерства внутренних дел
[Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs] Статистический временник
Российской империи. Сер. III. Вып. 16. Доходы и расходы губернских и уездных земств за
1883 год [Statistical Annual Book of the Russian Empire. Series III. Issue 16. Receipts and
Expenditures of Regional and Local Self-governments in 1883], St. Petersburg.
TsSK MVD (1888). Центральный статистический комитет Министерства внутренних дел
[Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs]. Статистика Российской
империи [Statistics of the Russian Empire]. Vol. III. Университеты и средние учебные
заведения 50-ти губерний Европейской России и 10-ти Привислянских, по переписи 20-го

37
марта 1880 г. [Universities and secondary educational institutions of 50 provinces of European
Russia and 10 Vistula provinces, according to the census of March 20, 1880]. St. Petersburg.
TsSK MVD (1897). Центральный статистический комитет Министерства внутренних дел
[Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs]. Статистика Российской
империи [Statistics of the Russian Empire]. Vol. XXXIX. Мирские доходы и расходы за 1892-
94 годы в 50 губерниях Европейской России [Communes’ incomes and expenses for 1892-94 in
50 provinces of European Russia]. St. Petersburg.
TsSK MVD (1911-1912). Центральный статистический комитет Министерства внутренних
дел [Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs]. Статистический
ежегодник России за 1910 г., 1911 г. Статистический ежегодник России [Statistical Yearbook
of Russia for 1910, 1911]. St. Petersburg.
TsSK MVD (1915, 1916). Центральный статистический комитет Министерства внутренних
дел [Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs]. Статистический
ежегодник России за 1914 г., 1915 г. [Statistical Yearbook of Russia for 1914, 1915]. Petrograd.
WDR (2024). The Middle-Income Trap. World Development Report. Wash., DC, 2024.
Yasnopol’skii N.P. (1897) Приложения к исследованию о географическом распределении
государственных расходов в России: Статистические таблицы, картограммы и диаграммы
[Appendices to the Study on the Geographical Distribution of the Government Expenditures in
Russia: Statistical Tables, Maps and Charts]. Part 2, Kiev: Типография Киевского
Императорского университета [Printing house of the Kiev Imperial University].
Zhukov D.S., Kanishchev V.V., Lyamin S.K. (2017). Исследование интенсивности
крестьянских волнений в Европейской России во второй половине XIX в. средствами
теории самоорганизованной критичности [A study of the intensity of peasant unrest in
European Russia in the second half of the 19th century, by means of the theory of self-organized

38
criticality]. Историческая информатика [Historical Informatics]. No. 1. Р. 38-51.
https://doi.org/10.7256/2306-0891.2017.1.22145.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian
Federation (grant ID: 075-15-2022-325). The authors thank our colleagues Evgenii Grishin, Maria
Karpenko, Igor Kuznetsov, Anna Nifontova, and Ruben Vartanian for their assistance in data
processing. Special gratitude is to Maria Karpenko for her assistance in organizing the research.