| Abstract |
Many geographers in Russia before the Revolution tried to make economic regionalization. In the middle of the 18th century, M. V. Lomonosov opened the new field of research, namely, " economic geograp...hy " and called attention to the regional differences of the Russian economy. A.N.Radishchev, in the late 18th century, developing this conception of Lomonosov, proposed the principle of economic regionalization, for example, saying that Russia could be divided geographically according to the economic character of each region, and argued that the administrative regionalization was to be related to the regional economic conditions. In the early 19th century, such scholars as K. I. Arseniev, K. F. German, and so on, basing on the abundant data, made regionalization of Russia according to the physical and economic conditions. In the middle of the 19th century, N. P. Ogaryov emphasized the significance of the industrial development and growth of productive power of the country in the study of economic geography, and argued that the economic regionalization had to be done by discovering the most dominant productive power in each region and by taking into account of the socio-economic relations of each region around its productive power, namely, that the regional divisions of productive powers were to be the basis of the economic regionalization, and showed the same idea as that of Radishchev as to the administrative regionalization. Ogaryov's study is regarded today as one of the most excellent achievement among the economic geographical surveys before the Revolution. In the early 20th century up to 1917, there were the studies of economic regionalization by P. P. Semyonov=Tyan=Shansky, etc., but the most important studies in this field were those of V. I. Lenin, especially his Development of Capitalism in Russia, to which I will refer at another occasion. Among the various studies of economic regionalization before the Revolution, those of Ogaryov and Radishchev are, generally speaking, highly regarded today, but there is a considerable difference in the appreciations of the works by Arseniev and P. P. Semyonov, and so on. One group of scholars estimate that Arseniev and others built the basis of theory and practice of economic regionalization and that the ideas which they conceived had a progressive meaning in those days. However, other scholars argue that, though there were several merits in their studies, there could be found no theories, and criticize the scholars who give affirmative estimate to them saying that their opinions have some tendencies to underestimate their bourgeois limitations and to ignore the underlying essential difference between the pre-revolutionary era and the Soviet era. One reason why there is a tendency to overestimate the pre-revolutionary studies is that those scholars who overestimate them are proposing the theory of “unified geography”, in which the economic geography constitutes one part of the geographic science. They say that Arseniev and others already proposed this conception. This opinion seems to have resulted in their overestimation of the achievements of the pre-revolutionary era, by relating it to their present theory. I think that the adequate recognition on the essential difference between the pre-revolutionary era and the Soviet era is important when we examine the economic-geographical studies in the Russia before the Revolution. And addingly, it is necessary to take into account the Lenin's studies, and to use the idea of Lenin as one index.show more
|
Export Mendeley
p017