Why Is Russia So Backwards Compared to Other European Countries?
Historically, Russia has often been noted as lagging behind other European nations in terms of development and industrialization. However, a closer look at the figures from the eve of the First World War reveals a complex picture. On one hand, Russia exhibited significant advancements in key industries; on the other, vast disparities in economic structures and productivity posed substantial challenges. This article will explore these aspects and explain why Russia was so 'backwards' in comparison to its European counterparts.
Industrial Growth: Key Achievements
In the early 20th century, Russia made remarkable strides in several major industries. For instance, its steel production was on par with France and Austria-Hungary, and far surpassed Italy and Japan. This was matched with a record of coal production, which increased from six million tonnes in 1890 to thirty-six million tonnes in 1914, making Russia the world's second-largest oil producer. The expansion of the chemical, electrical, and armaments industries further fortified Russia's industrial base.
Gigantic factories and plants emerged in cities like St. Petersburg and Moscow, employing thousands of workers. Iconic industrial landmarks sprang up rapidly, signifying a significant industrial transformation. Additionally, Russia’s railway network, which in 1900 stood at approximately 50,000 kilometers, grew to nearly 74,000 kilometers by 1914, facilitating better trade and communication. By 1914, it had become the fourth most industrialized country in the world.
Economic Disparities: Agriculture vs. Industry
Despite these industrial strides, Russia remained predominantly an agrarian society. The vast territory required an extensive railway network to connect remote regions. While industry grew at an impressive rate, averaging 5-8 percent annually, it did not translate into per capita gains, leaving Russia lagging behind many of the main European countries in terms of industrial development. This dichotomy forced Russia onto a rapid development path, prioritizing exports rather than local needs.
The growth of the agricultural sector was meager, with food production per capita increasing only by 0.5 percent annually. This inefficiency in agriculture coupled with the need to support military spending and growing population meant that the burden fell heavily on workers and peasants. Moreover, Russia’s foreign debt soared, becoming the largest in the world and perpetually increasing.
Resource Export and Military Spending
Russia often sold agricultural and timber products on the international market to finance its rapid industrialization and military expenditures. This strategy meant that essential resources were exported, disrupting the local economy and leaving the population in a precarious state. The average inhabitant of Russia allocated 50 more units for military spending compared to the average British inhabitant, despite earning only 27 percent of British income. Such heavy spending on the military and economic deficits inevitably put a strain on the population, exacerbated by high worker mortality rates and frequent peasant uprisings.
The Cumulative Impact: Leading to Revolution
The cumulative pressures of rapid industrialization, heavy military spending, and socio-economic disparities led to a significant crisis. The combination of economic struggles and social discontent culminated in a major revolution during the First World War, which destabilized the Russian regime and reshaped the nation's future.
Understanding the dual nature of Russia's development—a thriving industrial sector coexisting with an underdeveloped agricultural base and overburdened populace—offers crucial insights into the complex reasons why Russia appeared 'backwards' compared to other European nations. This narrative extends beyond the historical context, echoing contemporary debates on sustainable economic development, resource allocation, and social equity.