I Dont Want To Work in Agriculture The Transition

Rural Sociology 0(0), 2018, pp.
1–35
DOI: 10.1111/ruso.12245
© 2018 by the Rural Sociological Society
“I Don’t Want to Work in Agriculture!” The Transition

from Agricultural Education to the Labor Market in Rural
Russia*
İlkay Unay-Gailhard
Department of Structural Development of Farms and Rural Areas
Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies
Miroslava Bavorová
Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences
Czech University of Life Sciences
Zuzana Bednaříková
Department of Rural Development
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information
Elena V. Ponkina
Faculty of Mathematics and Information Technology
Altai State University
Abstract In Russia, the shift in career incentives from agriculture-related

jobs to other sectors, even among agriculturally educated students, presents
two main challenges to rural labor markets. The first relates to the shortage
of agricultural employees. The second concerns difficulties in the school-to-
work transition, characterized by long periods of unemployment. This article
addresses these challenges by studying the career incentives of postsecondary
agriculturally educated students, based on data from the Altai region, Siberia
(N = 474). We use a logit regression to predict the probability of career transi-
tion, given the incentives. We examine whether familial background and life
expectations are associated with plans to pursue a career in agriculture within
a life course context. The results show that students’ career plans with respect
to agriculture vary according to both sociofamilial background and views
about one’s life course.
Introduction
This article focuses on postsecondary agricultural students in the Altai
Krai region of Russia who are planning to pursue careers outside the agri-
cultural sector and who could potentially become part of the discouraged
*
We gratefully acknowledge the close collaboration with scientists within the
KULUNDA project (Ecological and Economic Strategies for Sustainable Land
Management in the Russian Steppes) and for being able to present our work during
KULUNDA conferences. An initial version of this article was presented at the “Rural
Labor in Transition” conference, organized by the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural
Development in Transition Economies, on June 22–24, 2016, in Halle (Saale), Germany.
Direct correspondence to Miroslava Bavorová, Martin Luther University Halle-
Wittenberg, Karl-Freiherr-von-Fritsch-Str. 4, D-06120 Halle (Saale), Germany; e-mail:
miroslava.bavorova@landw.uni-halle.de.
2 Rural Sociology, Vol. 0, No. 0, Month 2018
labor force. Historically, looking at the socialist period (1966–90) com-

pared to the transition period (1991–2005), although there was a per-
manent increase in postgraduate educational attainment among youth,
this development is not reflected in an increased number of blue-collar
positions for agricultural employees (Bühler and Konietzka 2012). The
share of educated youth who entered the labor market as agricultural
employees has continuously decreased (Bühler and Konietzka 2012),
notably from 1991 to 2005.
In Russia, the shift in career incentives from agriculture-related jobs
to other sectors, even among agricultural students, presents two main
challenges for rural labor markets. The first relates to the shortage of
agricultural employees in rural Russia, a shortage that involves a lack
of specialists in agriculture, especially in cases where a farm is the only
employer in a village. A low average wage in agriculture, outdated
technology, hard physical work, and the remoteness of farms diminish
the attractiveness of jobs in agriculture. These facts have led to a sig-
nificant deficit in workers and specialists in agriculture and have neg-
atively impacted agricultural production, regional development, and
agricultural labor markets (Shibaeva 2012). Because young agricultural
specialists are often more open to innovative ideas than those in older
age groups, a lack of young specialists has an impact on the adoption
of innovative, environmentally friendly agriculture practices (see e.g.,
Unay-Gailhard and Bavorová 2014). The adoption of environmentally
friendly innovations is important for land management in Altai Krai,
where serious problems with soil degradation are prevalent and the
adoption of innovative conservation plant production technologies
is necessary to mitigate the problems (Bavorová, Imamverdiyez, and
Ponkina 2017). Studies focused on out-migration from rural regions
point out that postgraduate students have chosen not to work in agri-
culture-related jobs not because they are well suited to other jobs, but
because they believe that a higher quality of life and higher earnings are
available only in careers outside rural regions (Bednaříková, Bavorová,
and Ponkina 2016; Kashnitsky, Mkrtchyan, and Leshokov 2016).
The second challenge arises from the fact that the school-to-work tran-
sition of agricultural students into nonagricultural sectors without a cor-
responding diploma appears to be difficult. This transition increases the
unemployment spell of youth, who may wind up in an inactive status that
is neither employed nor in education or training (termed the NEET
rate).1 As stressed in the transition labor market literature, this potential
1
The NEET rate is studied using concepts such as “problematic transitions” (Furlong
2016), “disconnected youth” (Fernandes and Gabe 2006), and “social and mental prob-
lems of youth” (Ose and Jensen 2014).
I Don’t Want to Work in Agriculture!— Unay-Gailhard et al. 3
erosion of the youth labor force gives rise to large disadvantaged groups
(Bacher et al. 2017; Bollmann and Bryden 1997; Philip and Shucksmith
2003; Unay-Gailhard 2016). A disadvantaged group is defined as a popu-
lation that has a higher risk of long-term unemployment or an inactive
spell in the school-to-work transition period, giving rise to social exclu-
sion (Philip and Shucksmith 2003; Shucksmith 2012). Studies in coun-
tries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
have found that many young people have left the labor market either
because they have been unemployed for more than a year or have been
inactive and have not sought work (OECD 2010).
This article investigates these challenges by exploring the factors that
influence postgraduate agricultural students’ choice to not want to work
in agriculture, using the research question “To what extent do sociofa-
milial background and considerations throughout the life course influ-
ence agricultural students’ future career perspectives of work in the
agriculture sector?”
Our research is motivated by evidence that postgraduate agricultural
students’ incentives to not work in agriculture may lead not only to a
lack of economic cohesion in the rural labor market but also to a risk
of high transition flows into unemployment and inactivity that could
make reintegration into the labor market more difficult. While there is
an emerging body of research on school-to-work transitions (Bühler and
Konietzka 2012; Gerber 2003) and agricultural employment incentives
in Russia (Amelina 2000; Sutherland 2008), such studies evaluate the
transition period within an institutional context and focus on agricul-
tural employment incentives from an economic reward and employee
perspective. Our study aims to contribute to the rural sociology litera-
ture, and to provide an initial exploration of agricultural employment
transition incentives among agricultural students, providing contextual
information on students’ life course.
The data set used in the analysis consists of survey responses of post-
graduate students in different agricultural faculties in the Altai region
of southwest Siberia, Russia. The selection of Altai Krai for our study is
based on its leading characteristics as an agricultural region of Russia,
one that plays an important role in ensuring food self-sufficiency. On
the one hand, agricultural enterprises in Altai Krai suffer from a lack
of agriculturally educated labor (Chekavinskiy 2012; Kareva 2003). On
the other hand, unemployment in the rural areas of Altai Krai is very
high (Bystrickaya and Shatokhin 2015). This study looks at students,
some of whom are incentivized to pursue careers in the agricultural
sector while others are not. We perform analyses to determine which
characteristics significantly differentiate the two groups. The results are

derived through quantitative analysis.
Basing our approach on previous gender studies, the sociological the-
ory of Bourdieu, the transitional labor market approach, human capi-
tal theory, life course theory, and the sense-of-belonging literature, we
argue that young adults’ career plans with respect to the agricultural
labor market vary consistently with sociofamilial backgrounds and life
course considerations.
The article is organized into seven sections. In the following section, we
provide background information on agricultural education and employ-
ment in Altai Krai. The third section provides a theoretical background.
Our research question and the hypotheses are stated in the fourth sec-
tion. Detailed information about the data and methodology employed is
provided in the fifth section. The sixth section presents our results and a
discussion. Conclusions are drawn in the final section.
Background
School-to-Work Transition in Russia

In general, Russia is facing difficulties with youth employment.2 As a
result of regionalization processes and the regional specificities of the
Russian labor market, a layer of unemployed youth has formed. This
unemployed young population can be divided into two groups: (1) vol-
untarily unemployed and (2) forcibly unemployed (Korshunov 2011).
One of the main reasons for youth unemployment relates to job-specific
work experience; a “youth experience gap” leads to higher employability
of older adults than young adults (Demidova, Marelli, and Signorelli
2015).
Difficulties in employment as well as noncompliance conditions of
employment plans influence university graduates’ expectations regard-
ing the school-to-work transition. This leads to decisions to postpone
employment, which not only increases the unemployment period but
also promotes “deprofessionalization.” A high degree of dissatisfaction
with work negatively impacts social well-being. Researchers estimate that
30 percent of Russian graduates are indifferent; their work is not associ-
ated with any particular feelings or moods. This is a key reason for the
increase in the level of “deprofessionalization” and the motivation to
solve it (Korshunov 2011).
2
For a deeper analysis of the school-to-work transition in postsocialist societies includ-
ing Russia, see Bühler and Konietzka (2012).
During the period of the socialist educational system, efforts to achieve

equality of access to higher education led to positive discrimination in
favor of agricultural and industrial worker families (Köhler and Stock
2004). However, with the transformation to market mechanisms, entry
into universities depends on cultural and economic family resources
(Gerber and Hout 1995; Kogan, Gebel, and Noelke 2012).
Regarding agricultural education in Russia, the government subsidizes
this type of education at colleges and universities with fellowship grants
that do not need to be paid back to the government by students who
graduate. As a result, subsidies encourage heavy enrollment in agricul-
tural education, but this does not always increase the agricultural labor
force, as graduates may choose to pursue careers in other industries
(Wegren 2005).
Agricultural Employment in Russia

In 2016, only 59.4 percent of graduates of Russian agricultural schools
joined agricultural enterprises, which is approximately 12,000 young
specialists (Gajazova and Melent’eva 2016). The main reasons for the
low interest of rural youth in employment in agriculture are an insuffi-
cient development of production, poor working conditions, dissatisfac-
tion with the nature and content of the work, and relatively low salaries
(Kalugina 2000; Nosko 2014).
According to Kalugina (2000), the reluctance of females to seek
employment in agricultural enterprises has less to do with the unat-
tractiveness of the agrarian profession than with the unattractiveness of
rural life.
Immigrant workers, generally from the former Soviet republics, who
work in agriculture (often illegally) are essentially unskilled and semi-
skilled workers working on a seasonal or temporary basis and cannot
replace educated agricultural specialists.
Agricultural Employment in Altai Krai Region

The agricultural sector represents an important part of the labor mar-
ket in Altai Krai. The average number of people employed in agricul-
tural organizations was 11,147 employees in 2012, of which 50.7 percent
were female (Nosko 2014). The number of females in agriculture pre-
dominates only among workers, while managerial positions are occu-
pied mainly by males.
As with the national average given in the previous section, around 59
percent of graduates of Altai State Agricultural University were employed
in agricultural enterprises from 2015 to 2017 (ASAU 2017).
The number of people employed in agriculture in Altai Krai decreased

by 8,973 people from 2002 to 2012. There are two main reasons for this.
First, there was a reduction in the number of agricultural enterprises in
the region. Second, the introduction of modern technologies in crop
and livestock production led to a reduction in overall staff requirements
(Nosko 2014).
The personnel situation in the agricultural sector is tight. The propor-
tion of young professionals under the age of 30 is 8.8 percent of total
employment, a number that has tended to decrease. The share of experts
aged over 55 years who were trained in the Soviet period is 11.4 percent
of total employment, a number that has tended to increase (General
Directorate 2016). This situation is caused, on the one hand, by a lack of
young professionals moving to rural areas and, on the other hand, by the
natural aging of employees (General Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences,
Czech University of Life Sciences 2016; Nosko 2014). A shortage is
observed across all agricultural specialties; for example, there is a lack
of zoo technicians, agronomists, economists, and veterinarians. Demand
for machine operators and tractor drivers has increased. Unfortunately,
the prestige of agricultural professions among rural youth remains low.
Within the framework of the state program “Development of
Agriculture in Altai Krai for the Period 2013–2020,” a number of activi-
ties aim to attract young specialists to work in agriculture. Such activities
include training of young specialists in agricultural specialties on the
basis of “target” training contracts: retraining, advanced training and
internships for agricultural employees, and state support of relocation
for young professionals who decide to live and work in the village. A total
amount of 134 million rubles was spent implementing these measures
from 2013 to 2015 (General Directorate 2016).
Quality of Rural Life Challenges for the Youth Labor Force

A well-known and important factor that may hinder young adults’
career plans in rural areas is the low quality of rural life, especially
because of infrastructure problems. As Lavrukhina (2011:179) notes,
there is a “chronic infrastructural backwardness” of life in Russian vil-
lages. Villagers experience problems with drinking water, have no con-
nection to the systems of gas supply, have limited electric power at home,
have no connection to the central sewage and heating systems (they
have wood furnace heating), and have insufficient street and road main-
tenance. In 2013, a total of 100 percent of urban and 32 percent of rural
settlements were provided with water, and 98 percent of urban and only
5 percent of rural settlements were provided with sewage (Bystrickaya
and Shatokhin 2015). There are no playgrounds, kindergartens, shops,
or leisure-time activities in many villages. In 2014, the average distance

for a villager to a hospital was 85 kilometers, the distance to school
was 16 kilometers, and the distance to leisure activities was 15 kilo-
meters (Bondarenko 2015). Such long distances to services are a con-
sequence of a decrease in the number of schools, doctors, and clubs
caused mainly by depopulation and the disappearance of villages. The
worst situation appears in medical care, where the number of doctor’s
offices decreased by 65 percent from 2000 to 2013. Furthermore, more
than 45,000 villages are not accessible by paved roads (Government of
Russian Federation 2015). In 2013, only 31 percent of rural libraries had
Internet access, and just one-half of rural families had Internet connec-
tions in their home, compared to 70 percent of urban families (Wegren
2016). Even though some problems with Internet connectivity persist,
coverage of rural areas by the Internet has increased considerably in the
last few years. Nowadays, the majority of youth in rural areas use their
mobile phones to access the Internet.
Theoretical Background
Sociofamilial Background and Career Plans in Agriculture

The theoretical background of the role of sociofamilial background in
young adults’ career plans in agriculture is based on gender studies and
Bourdieu’s sociological theory. Bourdieu (1986) conceptualizes actions
of individuals as arising from historical social processes and including
resources accrued via parents. Bourdieu’s theory distinguishes several
forms of capital that are accrued and transferred via parental relations.
In his studies, “human capital” (knowledge and skills) and “financial
capital” (monetary resources) accrued via parents are important means
of obtaining prosperous future returns when young adults form their
own careers (Bourdieu 1985, 1986).
The role of gender. Recent studies in Western European countries have
documented that gender is a strong predictor of future labor market
trajectories among youth who are similar in their experiences (see
Dorsett and Lucchin [2014] for the United Kingdom and Jacob,
Kleinert, and Kühhirt [2013] for Germany). Many students involved in
higher agricultural education in Western Europe intend to work in farm
management.
In the United States, numerous studies highlight that women are heav-
ily underrepresented in agricultural education and training (Liepins
and Schick 1998; Shortall 2005; Trauger et al. 2008). On the one hand,
educational choices are made in a culture in which women perceive
agricultural training provisions as exclusively for men (Jonsson 1999;

Liepins and Schick 1998). On the other hand, agricultural education
that involves the farm sector has a vocational-educational link that is
reversed. This reverse relation is borne of farm inheritance traditions
that we observe in both Eastern and Western countries; mostly men
inherit farms, and this increases their likelihood of participating in agri-
cultural education and vocational training.
There are also certain regularities in professional choice by gender in
the labor market, as Smyth (2005) and Russell, Smyth, and O’Connell
(2010) summarize in their studies. While females have dominant roles in
health, welfare, teaching, education, and the arts, males dominate among
the engineering professions. As Unay-Gailhard (2016) highlights in a study
done in Germany, even in the first job experiences of young adults, there
are significant gender differences in the professional fields in which youth
are employed. An analysis of survey data on German agricultural students
by Lehberger and Hirschauer (2015) shows that participating women are
less inclined to pursue farm management positions than participating
men for two main reasons: First, they expect less inner contentment and
enjoyment in performing the tasks involved in such positions; second, they
believe themselves to be less able to meet the professional requirements.
The role of the educational level of parents. Human capital theory can be
employed to relate education to the labor market (Belfield 2000). Over
the life cycle, investments in education or training (e.g., the direct costs
of tuition fees) generate returns through increased earnings or more
certain employment, which is associated with higher levels of human
capital. In the Russian case, it is important to note that there was a positive
aspect of the Soviet system in this regard. A high level of educational
achievement is characteristic of agricultural employees across Eastern
Europe (Swain 1999) and Russia (Sutherland 2008). Lerman, Serova,
and Zuyagintsev (2008) investigated the role of educational attainment
in menial nonfarm activities (e.g., picking wild berries and mushrooms
rather than entrepreneurial activities) in rural Russia and found that
the attainment of high-level education negatively affects the likelihood
of engaging in menial nonfarm activities. Highly educated people are
more likely to seek more remunerative occupations than the menial
opportunities of nonfarm self-employment.
Although there is little research in the labor market literature on the
link between parents’ education levels and working in the agriculture
sector, migration studies have found a negative correlation between par-
ents’ education levels and return to one’s rural home region after grad-
uation (Rérat 2014; Rye 2011). Chaplin, Davidova, and Gorton (2004)
observed that in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, high levels
of education encourage nonfarm employment of family members.
The role of self-employment of parents. There are numerous publications on
the discourse of agrarian reform in post-Soviet Russia and its influence
on households’ responses to market reform in the new market-based
environment. As Wegren (2008) notes, the importance of having an
increasing number of self-employed households lies in the relationship
among increased entrepreneurial skills, commercial activities,
improvements in rural standards, and reduced out-migration. An effect
of self-employed parents on the occupational choice of children can be
assumed because of accrued human and financial capital via parents: If
the parents are self-employed in the agricultural sector, then a positive
effect on their children’s choice toward agricultural occupation can be
expected. Crockett, Shanahan, and Jackson-Newsom (2000) in their
study of Russian rural youth found that farm adolescents who plan to
continue working on the farm are those who are more highly integrated
into the family business and enjoy better relationships with their parents.
The role of income level of parents. Several studies use Bourdieu’s theory
to interpret the fact that financial resources accrued by parents also
affect a young adult’s career development plans (see Jayawarna, Rouse,
and Macpherson 2014). Previous studies have found that parents with
higher socioeconomic status transfer tangible and intangible resources
to their children that could attract prosperous future returns when they
form their own careers. In contrast, parents of lower socioeconomic
backgrounds do not confer credibility on their children in high-class
occupations (Jayawarna et al. 2014; Roberts 2001).
The youth migration literature has found that graduates whose par-
ents have higher-level positions (such as managerial positions) show
higher levels of out-migration (Belfield and Morris 1999), whereas grad-
uates whose parents have lower-level positions have a higher tendency to
return to their rural residences (Jamieson 2000; Rye 2011).
The role of parents’ attachment to rural regions. We measure parents’ attachment
to rural regions using two variables: the location of rural parents’
residence and whether the family owns land in a rural area. The positive
relationship between attachment to rural regions by parents and their
children’s career plans is mostly found in the “employability” literature.3
3As Lindsay, McCracken, and McQuaid (2002) summarize, “employability” is the result
of a complex interaction of different components such as employability assets (e.g., basic

skills and essential personal attributes), presentation (e.g., demonstration of employabil-
ity assets through the competent completion of a CV), deployment (e.g., career manage-
ment skills), and external context factors (e.g., physical health and household status).
Employability has become an important concept, and previous literature

highlights that parents’ attachments to rural regions enhance children’s
employability in rural regions (Lindsay et al. 2003).
However, the intersection between parents’ attachments to rural
regions and youth career plans in the agriculture sector may also have a
negative effect. Sutherland (2008:382), based on a survey of agricultural
employees in the Krasnodar territory of Russia, summarizes this possible
negative effect as follows: “Rural life still appeals to agricultural employ-
ees in this study, but this does not carry forward to wanting their children
to remain in rural areas: instead, employees typically hope that their chil-
dren will find better work—less arduous and better paying—in cities.”
Considerations throughout the Life Course and Career Plans in

Agriculture
Transitional labor market (Schmid 1995; Schmid and Gazier 2002)
and life course theories (Heinz and Marshall 2003) have provided a
framework to conceptualize both institutional and individual aspects of
the labor market. Life course theory provides a sociological framework
in which transitions are viewed as periods of the life course marked
by potential outcomes of individual characteristics and expectations
(Heinz and Marshall 2003). Individual characteristics of age, relation-
ships, life transitions, and social changes shape individuals’ lives from
birth to death (Hutchison 2003). Life course theory also emphasizes
the significant relationship between subjective individual expectations
and their effects on lives. Individuals’ expectations frequently reflect an
adaptive response and affect both current and subsequent life course
choices (Moen and Wethington 1992).
The role of work-life expectations. Sutherland’s (2008) survey of agricultural
employees in Russia found that a combination of economic and personal
incentives reinforces ongoing agricultural employment on privatized
state and collective farms in Russia. To measure the economic incentives
to live in rural areas, the study used two variables: expected salary from
work in the rural area and satisfaction with salary in parental residence.
Crockett et al. (2000) show that appreciation of the rural way of life
influences the later residential choices of young people. To test the
effect of appreciation of the rural way of life on respondents, we involve
the variable “contentment with rural work life.”
The importance of working-life quality. Under the life course approach, future
life course expectations of individuals regarding working conditions
and living standards have been largely studied from a sociological
perspective (see Heinz and Marshall 2003). In a pioneering study of

different regions of the former Soviet Union, Titma and Tuma (1995)
first made use of young people’s perceptions of their life chances in
postcommunist societies, revealing the impact of market reforms on
people’s subjective well-being. To measure individuals’ expectations
regarding working-life quality, we introduce variables that depict
the importance of employment opportunities, wage level, and career
opportunities for the respondent.
The role of life satisfaction. Empirical studies have shown a causal
relationship between life satisfaction and job satisfaction (Bowling,
Eschleman, and Wang 2010; Mishra et al. 2014). While life satisfaction
involves an individual’s assessment of one’s satisfaction with one’s life
circumstances (Erdogan et al. 2012), job satisfaction involves a positive
emotional state associated with one’s job or job experiences (Spector
1985). Previous literature on students’ need to belong to a community
highlights that success and accomplishment in life play important roles
in generating positive group identity and a sense of belonging (Osterman
2000; Trell, Van Hoven, and Huigen 2012, 2014). Additionally, positive
achievements profoundly affect young people’s sense of belonging to
and pride in their communities and their willingness to engage in local
life (Trell et al. 2012). To investigate the effect of life satisfaction on the
willingness to work in agriculture, we introduce the following variables
into the model: optimism about future life, sense of accomplishment
in life, and positive feelings about oneself. We assume that those who
study agriculture and want to use the knowledge gained in agriculture-
related jobs are more optimistic about their future life and feel more
accomplished in life than those who study agriculture for other reasons.
Research Question and the Hypotheses

Although previous findings suggest the important role of sociofamiliar
background in young adults’ job choice, little research has been under-
taken on how the considerations throughout the life course of youth
affect their career plans. By considering the sociofamiliar determinants
as control variables, research has given particular importance to the
question “To what extent do sociofamilial background and consider-
ations throughout the life course influence agricultural students’ future
career perspectives of work in the agriculture sector?”
We test the following four hypotheses in this study:
H1 (The role of gender): Being a female agricultural student
increases the probability of not wanting to work in the agricul-
ture sector.
H2 (The role of work-life expectations): The higher the young

adult’s expectations for the high quality of work life, the higher
is the probability that she or he does not want to work in the
agriculture sector.
H3 (The role of working life quality): The more important high
working-life quality is for the student, the higher is the proba-
bility she or he does not want to work in the agriculture sector.
H4 (The role of life satisfaction): The higher the young adult’s
life satisfaction during postgraduate agricultural education,
the higher probability that she or he does want to work in the
agriculture sector.
Data and Methodology
Study Survey in Altai Krai Region, Russia

The target population of our research consists of postgraduate students
of the State Agricultural University in Barnaul, which is the only agri-
cultural university in Altai Krai. Postgraduate students’ parental com-
munities are located in both urban and rural municipalities in Altai
Krai and the Altai Republic. Barnaul is an important regional center
of scientific development, with eight state and four private universi-
ties. The number of students in this area exceeds 80,000. Altai State
Agrarian University is a federal state budgetary educational institution
established in 1943. The number of full-time students was 3,600 in 2014.
The respondents were full-time students in their fourth and fifth years
at the university. Most students at this point have formed an idea of
their future employment and prospects in life. We collected data on
future occupation intentions by questionnaires from three study groups
of fourth-year students and three groups of fifth-year students before
they began their lessons. We randomly selected the classes.
The purpose of the survey and the rules for completing the question-
naire were explained to the students before they began completing the
questionnaire. The average duration of completion of a questionnaire
was 15 minutes. The survey provides information about factors that
motivate educated young people to work either in agriculture or in
another sector. To ensure that students understood the questionnaire,
we conducted a pretest survey with a group of 15 students at the State
Agricultural University in May 2014.
Data collection commenced in May 2014, when we distributed and
collected 200 questionnaires. An additional 300 questionnaires were dis-
tributed and collected in September and October 2014. The survey had
Figure 1. Respondents’ Parental Municipalities in Altai Krai and Altai Republic

(N = 474).
to be conducted in two waves as the aimed minimum 5 percent of all

students from each faculty could not be interviewed in the first period.
Due to the summer break between June and August, students were not
available during this period, and the survey had to be interrupted.
The final number of students who completed questionnaires was 500;
we obtained valid questionnaires from 474 students. Respondents were
distributed across all faculties of the university as follows: agronomi-
cal (18.3 percent), biotechnological (17.7 percent), economical (22.2
percent), engineering (16.1 percent), veterinary (15.4 percent), and
natural sciences (10.3 percent). From the study sample 448 students
originated from 178 municipalities in Altai Krai, 22 originated from the
Altai Republic (see Figure 1), and 4 respondents’ parental municipali-
ties were outside Altai Krai and the Altai Republic.
In addition to the collected data, having completed the study analyses,
in 2017 we conducted seven qualitative face-to-face stakeholder inter-
views in the Altai Krai region to understand the youth needs, oppor-
tunities, and challenges, as summarized in this article with a few direct
quotes.
Methodology
The study model aims to specify which characteristics have greater
explanatory power in predicting answers to the question “Why are agri-
cultural students incentivized not to work in agriculture after gradua-
tion?” To obtain our answer, we ran a logit regression model, with the
incentive “to work in agriculture or not to work in agriculture” as the
dependent variable. The dependent variable is coded as binary, with
a value of 1 representing the occurrence of a targeted outcome and a
value of 0 representing the absence of a targeted outcome as:
Yi = 1 if the student agrees with the statement “I do not want to
work in agriculture after graduation” by the survey date.
Yi = 0 if the student does not agree with the statement “I do
not want to work in agriculture after graduation” by the survey
date.
We found 318 students (67 percent), including students from diverse
departments, who desire work in the agricultural sector, and 156 stu-
dents (33 percent) who confirmed the statement “I do not want to work
in agriculture.”
We checked for potential multicollinearity between the explanatory
variables of the model by applying two tests. First, using Menard’s (2002)
approach, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) by construct-
ing an ordinary least squares regression with the same variables in the
equation. The results show a mean VIF value of 1.53, which falls below
the acceptable upper critical limit of 10.0 (Chatterjee and Hadi 2006).
Second, we checked the pairwise correlation coefficients between the
explanatory variables. Among the total coefficient values of the model,
values ranged from 0.0003 to 0.585. We observed a coefficient value of
0.585 between the “career importance” and “wage importance” vari-
ables. In addition to these two variables, other tested correlations ranged
from 0.0003 to 0.414, indicating weak correlations. As a result of the two
multicollinearity tests, we expect that there is no multicollinearity prob-
lem in the model.
Independent variables are divided into two main groups: (1) the socio-
familial background characteristics of students with variables of gender,
human capital, and financial capital accrued via parents and (2) subjec-
tive considerations of students throughout the life course with variables
of students’ work-life expectations, working-life quality, and life satisfac-
tion. Appendix Table A1 provides the description of the used indepen-
dent variables. Tables A2 and A3 give detailed descriptions of the key
variables.
Table 1. Logistic Regression Model Results with Dependent Variable Students’ Incentives to Not Pursue a Career in
Agricultural Sector.
95 Percent Confidence
Coefficient Standard Error Odds Ratio Interval
Sociofamilial background
Gender
Female 1.048** 0.252 2.851 0.553 1.542
Human capital accrued via parents
Father’s education
Middle 0.109 0.336 1.115 −0.550 0.768
High −0.092 0.371 0.912 −0.818 0.635
Mother’s education
Middle −0.563 0.344 0.570 −1.236 0.111
High −0.368 0.358 0.692 −1.069 0.333
Father’s job as self-employed −0.773** 0.348 0.461 −1.455 −0.091
Mother’s job as self-employed 0.769* 0.437 2.158 −0.088 1.627
Financial capital accrued via parents
Family owns land in rural area 0.767** 0.376 2.153 0.031 1.503
Family income level 0.540** 0.250 1.717 0.051 1.030
Rural parental residence location 0.182 0.266 1.200 −0.339 0.703
Considerations throughout the life course
Work-life expectations
Expected salary of work in rural area a 0.756** 0.178 2.129 0.407 1.104
Satisfaction with salary in parental −0.285** 0.112 0.752 −0.505 −0.064
residenceb
Contentment with rural work-lifec −0.693** 0.214 0.500 −1.112 −0.274
Importance of working-life quality
Employment opportunitiesd 0.461* 0.272 1.586 −0.072 0.994
Wage-level importanced −0.541** 0.240 0.582 −1.011 −0.070
Career opportunitiesd −0.272 0.234 0.762 −0.730 0.187
Table 1. (Continued)
95 Percent Confidence
Coefficient Standard Error Odds Ratio Interval
Life satisfaction
Optimism about future lifee −0.322** 0.162 0.724 −0.640 −0.005
Sense of accomplishment in lifee −0.514** 0.165 0.598 −0.837 −0.191
Positive feelings about oneselfe 0.291** 0.174 1.337 −0.051 0.632
Constant −0.513 0.995 0.599 −2.464 1.438
*p < .10, **p < .05. Source: Study survey in Altai Krai region, Russia 2014.
Note: number of observations: 457; LR chi2 (19): 113.67; pseudo R2: 0.195.
a1 for 0 ≤ 15,000 rubles; 2 for 15,001−25,000 rubles; = 3 for 25 001−50,000 rubles; = 4 for ≥50,001 rubles.
b0 for strongly disagree; 1 for disagree; 2 for neutral; 3 for agree; 4 for strongly agree.
c0 for no; 1 for yes, if economic and social conditions are satisfactory; 2 for yes.
d0 for unimportant; 1 for less important; 2 for important; 3 for very important.
e0 for strongly disagree; 1 for disagree; 2 for neutral; 3 for agree; 4 for strongly agree.
Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows the results of the logit analysis.
Sociofamilial Background
Career transition incentives from agriculture to other sectors are sig-
nificantly influenced by gender, the self-employment skills of parents,
whether parents own land in a rural area, and family income level.
Gender. The positive sign of the estimates of the female variable
confirm that being female in postsecondary agricultural education
positively influences career transition incentives (do not want to work
in agriculture after graduation). The first hypothesis, H1—being a
female agricultural student increases the probability of not wanting to
work in the agriculture sector—was confirmed for the tested variable of
“gender” at a significance level of p < .05.
As highlighted in previous literature, factors such as regularities in
profession choice by gender (Russell et al. 2010; Smyth 2005; Unay-
Gailhard 2016), rural masculinities (Campbell and Bell 2000), farm
masculinity (Brandth 2016), and economic and social inequalities
by gender in post-Soviet rural regions (Leonard and Kaneff 2002;
Liljeström 2005) could explain this strong predictor of future labor
market trajectories of female students. Our results confirm that being
female has an important negative influence on transition into the agri-
cultural labor force, even among women who choose postsecondary
education in agriculture.
Regarding the regional aspects of Altai Krai, one important factor
that does not foster the employment of women in agriculture is the dis-
parity of wages between men and women. While the ratio of the average
agricultural wage to an average statistical value in all branches of the
economy is 0.74 for women, this indicator is 0.86 for men (ROSSTAT
2015).
Another stimulating factor could be associated with decisions regard-
ing living in the countryside. According to our survey, when students
were asked “Are you attracted by the rural way of life in general?” 16.3
percent of male respondents answered “yes” as did 7.8 percent of female
respondents, while 20 percent of male respondents and 30 percent of
female respondents answered “no.” Furthermore, more than half of the
male and female respondents answered “yes, if economic and social con-
ditions are satisfactory” (see Table A3 for the results of the whole study
sample).
Self-employment of parents. Basing our work on studies by Lerman et al.

(2008) and Wegren (2008) of rural employment in Russia, we construct
two employment typologies: (1) salaried employment and (2) self-
employment. Salaried employment pertains to households that have
family income through salaried employment in different sectors, that
is, both the agricultural and nonagricultural sectors. The findings show
that having a self-employed father increases the probability of wanting
to work in agriculture after graduation over having a father who works
as a business employee or civil servant or is unemployed. A different
picture emerges with respect to the employment status of mothers. A
self-employed mother positively influences incentives not to work in
agriculture after graduation. The difference between the effect of self-
employment of the father and of the mother may be explained by the
different types of businesses owned by men and women. As we discussed
with respect to gender studies in the theoretical background section
(“Sociofamilial Background and Career Plans in Agriculture”), females
(mothers) are probably less likely to be managers of private family farms
or enterprises connected to agriculture than are males (fathers). We
assume that students may wish to take over or create businesses in the
fields in which their mothers or fathers are doing business.
Ownership of land in rural areas by parents. Ownership of land in rural
regions by the families of the surveyed students positively influences
the incentives for career transition from agriculture to other sectors. A
possible explanation for this is that students who have a connection with
rural life (in our case via ownership of land by a family) have not carried
this connection forward into a desire to pursue a career in a rural area;
instead, these students may typically wish to find better work outside the
agricultural sector. Contrary to this finding, the employability literature
has devoted considerable attention to the fact that parents’ attachments
(in terms of living and working in rural regions) to rural areas enhance
their children’s “employability” in rural regions (Crockett et al. 2000;
Lindsay et al. 2003). This is partly due to children having strongly
established ties to diverse rural community organizations and access
to social capital that is important in their job search in the agricultural
sector. In our study region, the challenge is a resistance of students to
pursue careers in agriculture, even when parents own land in rural
regions. Given economic and social inequalities between rural and
urban areas, one of the additional sources of resistance of students
could also be attitudes of parents who are agricultural workers. As
noted in Sutherland (2008), agricultural employees in rural Russia do

not want their children to remain in rural areas to pursue their careers.
Because few students in our sample have parents who own land in
rural areas (50 out of 474), and land owned by each family has heteroge-
neous characteristics (from 3 to 2,000 hectares), career transition incen-
tives of students must be interpreted carefully by considering the Altai
Krai region’s agricultural land market characteristics. In Russia, post-So-
viet land reform4 implemented after 1991 aimed at changing ownership
of farmland from state to private ownership, while the dominant large
state and collective farms were to be restructured toward “individual-
ized” production (Visser, Mamonova, and Spoor 2012).
In the Altai Krai region, the land market and its infrastructure are
still in the process of formation. Procedures for the rent, purchase, and
sale of agricultural land are both lengthy (four months to two years)
and costly (Chebotaev 2010). These barriers limit both the motivation
of rural workers to become involved in agricultural production and the
incentives for organizations to engage in agribusiness. These realities
partly explain the weak activity in Altai Krai’s land market: the older gen-
eration is no longer interested in buying land, and the young generation
is not interested in agricultural production (Chebotaev 2010). As noted
by Vinogradskaya and Nikulin (2013), during a generational change,
although the new landowners share the land, they do not wish to engage
in agricultural production or even live in rural areas, regardless of their
family’s income.
The previous results on gender and parental background are illustrated
by the statements of three young people educated in agriculture from the
Altai Krai region, whose parents are private farmers and own land:
Statement 1 [I don’t want to work in agriculture because]: I real-
ized that I have other goals in my life and they are not connected
to agriculture; the job in agriculture is very hard work. It is not
prestigious. I don’t want to be a manager of my family farm
because it needs a great responsibility for workers and own busi-
ness that I don’t want to take, it would be like a burden. (2017),
female; 26 years old; high agricultural education in economics
from Altai State Agricultural University, Barnaul. Her father is
the owner of a large successful farm in Altai Krai (about 10,000
hectares of agricultural land), 150 kilometers from Barnaul.
Now she works in a nonagriculture enterprise in Barnaul.
4
For detailed information on the implementation stages of post-Soviet land reform
after 1991, see Visser et al. (2012).
Statement 2 [I want to work in agriculture because]: I wanted to

go in the “footsteps” of my parents as a successor of our family
business. I like life in rural areas and my father usually moti-
vated me to help at the farm. Driving tractors and harvesters
and working in field were interesting activities for me when I
was a teenager. (2017) male; 29 years old; agricultural educa-
tion in agricultural machinery and services from Altai State
Technical University, Barnaul. His father is the owner of a large
successful farm in Altai Krai (about 20,000 hectares of agricul-
tural land), 350 kilometers from Barnaul. Now, he works as a
manager of the family’s farm.
Statement 3 [I want to work in agriculture because]: It is real
work. I think where a person was born, there she [or] he will be
needed. I can be successful in my parent’s village with my fam-
ily. (2017) male; 20 years old; student of Altai State Agricultural
University, third year of education, agronomy specialization.
His father has his own small farm (about 800 hectares of agri-
cultural land), 35 kilometers from Barnaul. He already works
part time at his father’s farm.
Family income level. The estimates of family income levels confirm that
students from middle- (20,001−60,000 rubles) and high-income (≥60,001
rubles) families are more likely to not want to work in agriculture after
graduation than students from low-income (≤20,000 rubles) families.
This finding is in line with labor market and migration studies that
highlight the important role of parents’ financial capital in young
adults’ labor market status (Jamieson 2000; Jayawarna et al. 2014;
Roberts 2001; Rye 2011). Students from low-income families may have
fewer opportunities to develop their own businesses and to out-migrate
to urban regions than colleagues from middle- or high-income families.
In our case, there is a relationship between family monetary resources
and career plans of young adults with regard to the agricultural sector.
This could be explained by a mismatch between youth expectations
and future labor market conditions. Students from high- and middle-
income families may experience greater difficulty dealing with income
levels characteristic of the agriculture sector than their colleagues from
low-income families.
Considerations throughout the Life Course

The second group of variables examined in the logit regression model
highlights the importance of “work-life expectations,” “working-life
quality,” and “life satisfaction” in students’ career transition incentives

after graduation.
Work-life expectations. The positive sign of the estimates of the categorical
variable “expected salary of work in rural areas” confirms that career
transition incentives improve with increases in the expectations toward
salaries in rural areas. With respect to another categorical variable,
“satisfaction with salary in parental residence,” we found that highly
satisfied students did not agree with the statement “I do not want to work
in agriculture after graduation.” In other words, high satisfaction with
salary in the parental residence decreases incentives to avoid working
in agriculture. Similarly, students who are attracted by the rural way
of life are less likely to agree with the statement “I do not want to work
in agriculture after graduation.” Hypothesis 2—the higher the young
adult’s expectations assigned to the high quality of work life, the higher
is the probability that she or he does not want to work in the agriculture
sector—was confirmed for all three tested variables, at a significance
level of p < .05. Overall, these results show that the decision to work in
the agricultural sector is often part of the life plan concept of students.
Crockett et al. (2000) found that appreciation of the rural community
influences young adults’ future residential choices in rural areas. In line
with this study, our results show that appreciation of the rural work-life
balance influences career planning of youth in favor of the agricultural
sector.
Working-life quality. Students who gave high importance to “employment
opportunities in working life” are more likely to agree with the statement
“I do not want to work in agriculture.” This could be explained by the
fact that there are limited employment opportunities for youth in
rural areas. Therefore, living in a limited set of circumstances does not
motivate individuals to pursue a career in agriculture. Students who
accorded higher importance to “wage level in working life” are less likely
to agree with the statement “I do not want to work in agriculture.” This
negative relationship could be explained by the variety of occupational
choices available within agriculture. As highlighted by previous studies
(Sutherland 2008, 2010), there are fundamental differences between
working as an agricultural employee and running a private farm in
Russia. For example, there are important differences with respect
to wage-level security, vacation, and working hours. Therefore, in
explaining the role of “importance of wage level” in career planning,
further research on students’ occupational incentives to work in the
agricultural sector as agricultural employees and as private farm

managers could be helpful.
Hypothesis 3—the more important the high working-life quality for
the student, the higher is the probability she or he does not want to
work in the agriculture sector—was confirmed for two tested variables
of “employment opportunities” and “wage level importance,” at a signif-
icance level of p < .05.
The study results are complemented by statements of two farmers:
Statement 4: Wages have become an unimportant factor for
youth. I can pay a much higher wage than they can get in a city.
I can provide a big and cheap house which can be purchased to
ownership in the future for a young specialist. However, I can’t
provide a high quality of social services in my village. The main
problems are the quality of infrastructure (natural gas, roads)
and development of social services (school, kindergarten, cul-
tural organization). (2017) owner of highly profitable farm,
mixed specialization (crop production and livestock), 10,000
hectares, 150 kilometers from Barnaul, medium-sized village
with less than 1,100 inhabitants.
Statement 5: We could give everything, but the youth would not
come to work and live in our village. They would come to a vil-
lage with good social infrastructure; where there are not “dys-
functional families” and a deficit of teachers in a school; where
they would have more opportunities for raising children and
their education. The roads are a big problem in rural areas. In
my village, the roads have been not renovated since 1988. The
wage isn’t a stimulus for youth. People who don’t want to work
at all usually complain about a low wage level. (2017) owner and
head of a small farm, crop production, 800 hectares of arable
land, 35 kilometers from Barnaul, small village with less than
600 inhabitants, steadily decreasing.
Life satisfaction. The negative signs of estimates of the categorical

variables “optimism about future life” and “sense of accomplishment
in life” confirm that career transfer incentives (do not want to work in
agriculture after graduation) decrease with increasing optimism and
accomplishments. These findings are partly in line with the sense-of-
belonging literature, which maintains that belonging can help explain
a variety of human behaviors, especially individuals’ social integration
patterns (Hurtado and Carter 1997; Maestas, Vaquera, and Zehr 2007;
Osterman 2000; Trell et al. 2012). Based on the theory, one should
expect a positive causal relationship between the accomplishment levels
of students and their incentives to integrate into jobs that relate to their
subject of study. Our results confirm this expectation for agricultural
education students: Positive perception of achievements in life and an
optimistic view of the future could affect students’ sense of association
with their subject of study and their willingness to pursue jobs that are
relevant to that subject. Thus, the fourth hypothesis, H4—the higher
the young adult’s life satisfaction during postgraduate agricultural
education, the higher probability that she or he does want to work in the
agriculture sector—was confirmed for two tested variables of “optimism
about future life” and “sense of accomplishment in life” at a significance
level of p < .05.
Conclusion and Practical Implications

The results highlight that agricultural students’ incentives to supply
their labor to the labor market differs: A considerable number of stu-
dents do not want to pursue jobs that are relevant to their current sub-
ject of study. Although the surveyed student population is homogenous
in age range, subject of study, and regional location, the results reveal
that it is important to take into account different flows in the transi-
tion from agricultural education to the labor market. Taken together,
the findings show regularities. In particular, students’ career plans with
respect to agriculture vary according to both sociofamilial background
and views about one’s life course.
As agricultural studies and possible employment sectors are quite
broad, it is of interest to observe the important role played by gender,
human and financial capital accrued via parents, work-life expectations,
the importance of working life quality, and life satisfaction. The results
provide a first indication that an explanation of the transition from agri-
cultural education to nonagricultural labor is more complex than can be
explained solely by students’ economic incentives.
The fact that inequality between men and women exists in the rural
labor market is well established (Inglehart and Norris 2003; Shucksmith
2012), but the role of gender differences in agricultural careers after
graduation is not well known. Our results contribute to previous liter-
ature on the patterns of professional choice by gender (Russell et al.
2010; Smyth 2005; Unay-Gailhard 2016) and show that the incentives to
transition from agricultural education to the agricultural labor market
vary according to gender. Females enrolled in postsecondary agricul-
tural education are less likely to work in agriculture after graduation
than are male colleagues. Further research is needed to answer the ques-
tion of “why females enroll in agricultural education if they don’t have
an incentive to work in agriculture after graduation.” In the case of Altai
Krai, we expect that economic and institutional factors (such as finan-

cial and academic support for agricultural education with no study fees,
enrollment opportunities at agrarian universities with weak competition,
gaining the high prestige of a university education that may create the
opportunity to find a good job outside agriculture sector) are related
to enrolling in agricultural education for females. These factors may be
of importance especially for females originating from economically dis-
advantaged rural families. However, future research should explore the
relationships between gender and enrollment patterns in agricultural
education among female youth in more detail.
Furthermore, female agricultural students’ incentives to enter work-
ing life outside the agricultural sector not only reflect patterns of pro-
fessional choice by gender but also indicate potential problems in the
school-to-work transition period. In Russia, both under socialism and in
the postsocialist period, females and males have faced a high likelihood
of not entering the labor market within a short period after graduation
(Bühler and Konietzka 2012). The probability of becoming unemployed
is high, especially for females, who often end up with less stable jobs
(Bühler and Konietzka 2012). Additionally, women are underrepre-
sented in leadership positions in agricultural enterprises (O’Brien and
Wegren 2015). Beside these difficulties, female agricultural graduates’
incentives to pursue careers in other sectors may result in long-term
unemployment. Understanding the career plans of female students in
the early period after graduation, and how educational gains of women
may foster employment in agriculture, is essential in this respect.
The book Post-Soviet Peasant, edited by Leonard and Kaneff (2002),
reinforces the notion that postsocialist rural areas have very little to offer
women in terms of economic and social advancement as well as in terms
of academic study, which could create trajectories of advancement in the
rural labor market. Liljeström (2005) uses the term “double othering”
to refer to gender- and geography-based inequalities in economic and
social opportunities in rural Russia. Her study conceptualizes rural “dou-
ble othering” in terms of dichotomies of power, reified boundaries, and
visible differences both in gender and East-West geographic divisions.
The results of our study do not provide a direct relationship between
the variables of “attracted by the rural way of life” and “incentive to work
in agriculture sector.” We urge caution in inferring that the attractive-
ness of the rural lifestyle for women is important in understanding their
reluctance to work in agriculture. Even though our descriptive results
show that female students have a lower willingness both to work in agri-
culture and to live in a rural area than male students, the interdepen-
dencies between these variables could trigger unexpected results.
The findings document the relevance of introducing Bourdieu’s social

theory in attempting to understand the underlying logic of students’
career plans, which interrelate to human and financial capital accrued
by parents. There are important divisions in individuals’ historical social
processes, and these impact young adults’ career planning. The incen-
tive to work in agriculture appears to be embedded in the life course of a
student and to depend on his or her parents’ self-employment skills (or
risk-taking characteristics, as described in Wegren 2008), income level,
and attachment to rural regions through landownership. In accordance
with Bourdieu’s theory, this study views youth as “free” social actors.
Furthermore, our approach is in line with an understanding of young
adults’ career planning as an element of their intentions of “self-realiza-
tion” and “construction of life projects” (Giddens 1996). It is of interest
to observe the vital role of family resources in the trajectories chosen
and to see how young adults’ labor market intentions take shape, given
these resources.
The transition from agricultural education to the labor market depends
on the sociofamilial background of the student and the student’s life
course provisions. Our results show the importance of adopting a life
course perspective when looking at students’ career planning in agricul-
ture. As noted in earlier sociological research, future studies should take
into account the life course expectations of individuals with regard to
working conditions and living standards (Heinz and Marshall 2003). In
our case, three interrelationships between life course considerations and
career planning in agriculture may be observed: (1) interrelationships
among work-life expectations (contentment with rural work life, one’s
expected salary in rural work), (2) interrelationships among expecta-
tions regarding working-life quality (employment opportunities and the
importance assigned to wages), and (3) interrelationships pertaining to
life satisfaction (feelings of optimism in future life and of accomplish-
ment in life). These observations give new direction to school-to-work
transition research and go beyond the undesirable case of graduates’
occupational shift in the labor market. As discussed earlier, under the
transitional labor market approach, the widespread occupational shift in
the labor market could lead to (1) substantial long-term unemployment
and (2) a large number of discouraged workers. These potential trends
could render a large part of the labor force inactive, creating socially
excluded groups.
As Spoor and Visser (2004) stress, even managers of large farm enter-
prises in Russia that may pay higher salaries than the small farms have
little ability to prevent youth out-migration from villages and the farm
enterprises from losing their workers. One reason is that the prestige
of the agricultural professions among rural youth remains low (Novikov

and Glotova 2004). An increase in the prestige of agricultural work could
be encouraged if the state media would promote a positive image of agri-
culture and its importance to the food sovereignty of Russia.
Trends like those in the United States or in Western Europe, where many
young people are interested in self-production of food, which popularize
urban-periurban agriculture and gardening, are not very widespread in
Russia. Even though scientific studies are missing, anecdotal evidence says
that people in Altai Krai are not as interested in the way food was pro-
duced and marketed as food consumers in Western countries are. Direct
food marketing channels such as farmers’ markets and farm gate shops
are not considered to provide food of better quality then supermarkets, as
they are in many cases in Western Europe and in the United States.
A strong relationship between agricultural vocational schools and
agricultural companies existed until 1993 (Kareva 2003). The failure
of the Russian labor market in rural areas led to serious problems with
employment and a lack of highly educated specialists. The enhancement
or recovery of relationships between agricultural schools and agricul-
tural companies may help develop contacts between young specialists
and agricultural enterprises and motivate agriculturally educated youth
to work in agriculture.
Solving problems with staff and increasing young specialists’ career
incentives in rural areas requires a strengthening of measures designed to
improve the quality of village life and the comfort of working conditions.
This study considers career incentives, bearing in mind that not all
students end up in their desired occupations they expressed at the
time of the study survey. Some could change their future labor market
plans, while others become discouraged and search for work in other
sectors. Nonetheless, interesting insights are afforded by an analysis of
the incentives of young people with respect to the labor market in their
early period after graduation, when choices are relatively less influenced
by future labor market conditions and family situations.
References
Amelina, Maria. 2000. “Why Russian Peasants Remain in Collective Farms: A Household
Perspective on Agricultural Restructuring.” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics
41(7):483–511.
ASAU (Altai State Agricultural University). 2017. Informatsija o trudoustroistve vypusknikov
(2015–2017). Barnaul, Russia: Altai State Agricultural University. Retrieved August
24, 2018 (https://www.asau.ru).
Bacher, Johann, Christina Koblbauer, Heinz Leitgöb, and Dennis Tamesberger. 2017.
“Small Differences Matter: How Regional Distinctions in Educational and Labour
Market Policy Account for Heterogeneity in NEET Rates.” Journal for Labour Market
Research 51(1):4.
Bavorová, Miroslava, Nizami Imamverdiyev, and Elena Ponkina. 2017. “Farm-level

Economics of Innovative Tillage Technologies: The Case of No-till in the Altai Krai
in Russian Siberia.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25: 1–17.
Bednaříková, Zuzana, Miroslava Bavorová, and Elena V. Ponkina. 2016. “Migration
Motivation of Agriculturally Educated Rural Youth: The Case of Russian Siberia.”
Journal of Rural Studies 45:99–111.
Belfield, Clive R. 2000. Economic Principles for Education. Theory and Evidence. Cheltenham,
England: Edward Elgar.
Belfield, Clive and Zoe Morris. 1999. “Regional Migration to and from Higher Education
Institutions: Scale, Determinants and Outcomes.” Higher Education Quarterly
53(3):240–63.
Bollman, Ray D. and John M. Bryden. 1997. Rural Employment: An International Perspective.
Wallingford, England: CAB International.
Bondarenko, L. 2015. “Preodolenie razlichiy mezhdu gorodom i derevney: Istoria i sovre-
mennost.” APK: ekonomika, upravlenie 10:92–102.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1985. “The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups.” Theory and Society
14(6):723–44.
———. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241–58 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education, edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood.
Bowling, Nathan A., Kevin J. Eschleman, and Qiang Wang. 2010. “A Meta-analytic
Examination of the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-
being.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83:915–34.
Brandth, Berit. 2016. “Rural Masculinities and Fathering Practices.” Gender, Place and
Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 23(3):435–50.
Bühler, Christoph and Dirk Konietzka. 2012. “Institutional Change and the Transition
from School to Work in Russia.” Pp. 296–319 in Making the Transition: Education and
Labor Market Entry in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Irena Kogan, Clemens
Noelke, and Michael Gebel. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bystrickaya, A. Y. and M. V. Shatokhin. 2015. “Sravnitelnaya kharakteristika urovnya
zhizni gorodskogo i selskogo naseleniya.” Vestnik Kurskoy gosudarstvennoy selskok-
hozyaystvennoy akademii 2.
Campbell, Hugh and Michael Mayerfeld Bell. 2000. “The Question of Rural Masculinities.”
Rural Sociology 65(4):532–46.
Chaplin, Hannah, Sophia Davidova, and Matthew Gorton. 2004. “Agricultural
Adjustment and the Diversification of Farm Households and Corporate Farms in
Central Europe.” Journal of Rural Studies 20:61–77.
Chatterjee, Samprit and Ali S. Hadi. 2006. Regression Analysis by Example. 4th ed. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Chebotaev, A. N.2010. “Analysis of the Using of Agricultural Land in the Altai Krai, the
Problems Arising for the Implementation of the Land Legislation and Ways to Solve
Them.” Pp. 176–85 in The Role of Agrarian Reform of P. A. Stolypin in the Development of
Siberia and the Far East, edited by M. P. Shchetinin. Red Corner.
Chekavinskiy, A. N. 2012. “Razvitie selskogo khozyaistva Rosii—sostavnaya chast resh-
eniya prodovolstvennoy problem v mire.” Ekonomicheskie i socialnye peremeny: fakty,
tendencii, prognoz 6:197–204.
Crockett, Lisa J., Michael J. Shanahan, and Julia Jackson-Newsom. 2000. “Rural Youth:
Ecological and Life Course Perspectives.” Pp. 43–74 in Adolescent Diversity in Ethnic,
Economic, and Cultural Contexts, edited by R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, and T. P.
Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Demidova, Olga, Enrico Marelli, and Marcello Signorelli. 2015. “Youth Labour Market
Performances in the Russian and Italian Regions.” Economic Systems 39(1):43–58.
Dorsett, Richard, and Paolo Lucchin. 2014. “Explaining Patterns in the School-to-Work
Transition: An Analysis Using Optimal Matching.” Advances in Life Course Research
22:1–75.
Erdogan, Berrin, Talya N. Bauer, Donald M. Truxillo, and Layla R. Mansfield. 2012.
“Whistle While You Work: A Review of the Life Satisfaction Literature.” Journal of
Management 38(4):1038–83.
Fernandes, Adrienne L. and Thomas Gabe. 2009. Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to
24-Year-olds Who Are Not Working or in School. Washington, DC: Diane.
Furlong, Andy. 2006. “Not a Very NEET Solution: Representing Problematic Labour
Market Transitions among Early School-leavers.” Work, Employment and Society
20(3):553–69.
Gajazova, L. A. and O. S.Melent’eva. 2016. Organizatsija mnogourovnevogo sotrudnichestva
mezhdu agrarnymi vysshimi uchebnymi zavedenijami i predprijatijami APK. Moscow,
Russia: Federal State Budget Scientific Institution “RosInformAgrotekh.”
General Directorate of Agriculture of the Altai Krai. 2016. Progress Report and Results of
the Implementation of the State Programs in the Sphere of Development of Agriculture of Altai
Krai in 2015. Barnaul, Russia: General Directorate of Agriculture of the Altai Krai.
Gerber, Theodore P. 2003. “Loosening Links? School-to-Work Transitions and
Institutional Change in Russia Since 1970.” Social Forces 82(1):241–76.
Gerber, Theodore P. and Michael Hout. 1995. “Educational Stratification in Russia
During the Soviet Period.” American Journal of Sociology 105:611–60.
Giddens, Anthony. 1996. Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge, England: Polity
Press.
Government of Russian Federation. 2015. Strategiya ustoychivogo razvitiya selskikh territoriy
Rossiyskoy Federacii na period do 2030 goda. Moscow, Russia: Government of Russian
Federation.
Heinz, W. R. and V. W. Marshall. 2003. Social Dynamics of the Life Course: Transitions,
Institutions, and Interrelations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hurtado, Sylvia and Deborah Faye Carter. 1997. “Effects of College Transition and
Perceptions of the Campus Racial Climate on Latino College Students’ Sense of
Belonging.” Sociology of Education 70:324–45.
Hutchison, Elizabeth D. 2003. Dimensions of Human Behavior: The Changing Life Course. 5th
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change
Around the World. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jacob, Marita, Corinna Kleinert, and Michael Kühhirt. 2013. “Trends in Gender
Disparities at the School to Work Transition: Labor Market Entry of Young Men
and Women between 1984 and 2005 in Germany.” Journal of Vocational Education and
Training 65(1):48–65.
Jamieson, Lynn. 2000. “Migration, Place and Class: Youth in a Rural Area.” Sociological
Review 48:203–23.
Jayawarna, Dilani, Julia Rouse, and Allan Macpherson. 2014. “Life Course Pathways to
Business Start-up.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 26(3–4):282–312.
Jonsson, Jan O. 1999. “Explaining Sex Differences in Educational Choice: An Empirical
Assessment of Rational Choice.” European Sociological Review 15(4):391–404.
Kalugina, Z. I. 2000. Paradoksy agrarnoy reform v Rossii: sociologicheskiy analiz transforma-
cionnykh processov. Novosibirsk, Russia: IEIOPP CO RAN.
Kareva, S. V.2003. “Iz derevni v gorod.” Pp. 72–74 in Goroda regiona: Kulturno-simbolicheskoe
nasalenie kak gumanitarnyy resurs budushego, edited by T. P. Fonkina. Sartov, Russia:
Iz-vo Sarat.
Kashnitskiy, Ilya, Nikita Mkrtchyan, and Oleg Leshukov. 2016. “Interregional Migration
of Youths in Russia: A Comprehensive Analysis of Demographic Statistics.”
Educational Studies Moscow 12(3):169–203.
Kogan, Irena, Michael Gebel, and Clemens Noelke. 2012. “Educational Systems
and Inequalities in Educational Attainment in Central and Eastern European
Countries.” Studies of Transition States and Societies 4(1):69–83.
Köhler, H. and M. Stock. 2004. Bildung nach Plan? Bildungs- und Beschäftigungssystem in der
DDR 1949 bis 1989 [Education According to the Plan? Educational and Employment
Systems in the GDR from 1949 to 1989]. Opladen, Germany: Leske, Budrich.
Korshunov, A. V. 2011. “Modern Russian Youth of Labour Market in Terms of Social
and Economic Instability and Uncertainty.” Teoriya i praktika obshestvennogo razvitiya
8:54–57.
Lavrukhina, E. A. 2011. “Osobennosti sociologicheskikh obsledovaniy kachestva zhizni v
selskikh territoriyakh Rosii.” Nikonovskie chteniya 11:177–79.
Lehberger, Mira and Norbert Hirschauer. 2015. “Recruitment Problems and the
Shortage of Junior Corporate Farm Managers in Germany: The Role of Gender-
specific Assessments and Life Aspirations.” Agriculture and Human Values 33(3):1–14.
Leonard, P. and D. Kaneff. 2002. Post-socialist Peasant? Rural and Urban Constructions of
Identity in Eastern Europe, East Africa and the Former Soviet Union. New York: Palgrave.
Lerman, Zvi, Eugenia Serova, and Dmitry Zvyagintsev. 2008. “Diversification of Rural
Incomes and Non-farm Rural Employment: Survey Evidence from Russia.” Journal
of Peasant Studies 35(1):60–79.
Liepins, Ruth and Ruth Schick. 1998. “Gender and Education: Towards a Framework for
a Critical Analysis of Agricultural Training.” Sociologia Ruralis 38:286–302.
Liljeström, M. 2005. “Knowledge and Otherness: Russian Women as Doubled Others.”
Pp. 31–43 in Gender Transitions in Russia and Eastern Europe, edited by I. Asztalos
Morell, H. Carlbäck, M. Hurd, and S. Rastbäck. Eslöv: Förlags ab Gondolin.
Lindsay, Colin, Martin McCracken, and Ronald W. McQuaid. 2003. “Unemployment
Duration and Employability in Remote Rural Labour Markets.” Journal of Rural
Studies 19(2):187–200.
Maestas, Ricardo, Gloria S. Vaquera, and Linda Muñoz Zehr. 2007. “Factors Impacting
Sense of Belonging at Hispanic-serving Institution.” Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education 6:237–56.
Menard, S. 2002. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. 2nd ed. London, England: Sage.
Mishra, V., I. Nielsen, R. Smyth, and A. Newman. 2014. “The Job Satisfaction−Life
Satisfaction Relationship Revisited: Using the Lewbel Estimation Technique to
Estimate Causal Effects Using Cross-sectional Data.” No. 26–14. Clayton, Australia:
Monash University, Department of Economics.
Moen, Phyllis and Elaine Wethington. 1992. “The Concept of Family Adaptive Strategies.”
American Sociological Review 18:233–51.
Nosko, M. V. 2014. Razvitie kadrovogo potenciala selskogo khozyaystva Altaiskogo kraya.
Barnaul, Russia: Altai Institute of Professional Development of Agro-industrial
Complex in Altai Krai.
Novikov, D. A. and N. P. Glotova. 2004. Modeli i mekhanizmy upravleniya obrazovatelnymi
setyami i kompleksami. Moscow, Russia: Education Management Institute RAO.
O’Brien, David J. and Stephen K. Wegren. 2015. “The Underrepresentation of Women in
Leadership Positions in Rural Russia.” Rural Sociology 80(1):86–107. doi:https://doi.
org/10.1111/ruso.12053.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2010. Education at a
Glance 2010—OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD.
Ose, Solveig Osborg and Chris Jensen. 2017. “Youth Outside the Labour Force—Perceived
Barriers by Service Providers and Service Users: A Mixed Method Approach.”
Children and Youth Services Review 81:148–56.
Osterman, Karen F. 2000. “Students’ Need for Belonging in the School Community.”
Review of Educational Research 70:323–67.
Philip, L. and M. Shucksmith. 2003. “Conceptualising Social Exclusion.” European
Planning Studies 11(4):461–80.
Rérat, Patrick. 2014. “Highly Qualified Rural Youth: Why Do Young Graduates Return to
Their Home Region?” Children’s Geographies 12:70–86.
Roberts, J. 2001. Class in Modern Britain. Oxford, England: Open University Press.
ROSSTAT. 2015. Federal Service for State Statistics, Moscow, Russia. Retrieved August 24,
2018 (www.gks.ru).
Russell, Helen, Emer Smyth, and Philip J. O’Connell. 2010. “Gender Differences in Pay
among Recent Graduates: Private Sector Employees in Ireland.” Journal of Youth
Studies 13(2):213–33.
Rye, Johan Fredrik. 2011. “Youth Migration, Rurality and Class: A Bourdieusian
Approach.” European Urban and Regional Studies 18(2):170–83.
Schmid, G. and B. Gazier. 2002. The Dynamics of Full Employment: Social Integration through
Transitional Labour Markets. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Schmid, Gunther. 1995. “Is Full Employment Still Possible? Transitional Labour Markets
as a New Strategy of Labour Market Policy.” Economic and Industrial Democracy
16(3):429–56.
Shibaeva, E. 2012. “Russian Village in the Thick of the Demographic Crisis: Political
Aspect.” Teoriya i praktika obshestvenogo razvitiya 9:198–200.
Shortall, S.2005. “Gender and Farming: An Overview.” Pp. 21–30 in Rural Gender
Relations: Hues and Case Studies, edited by B. Bock and S. Shortall. London, England:
CAB International.
Shucksmith, Mark. 2012. “Class, Power and Inequality in Rural Areas: Beyond Social
Exclusion?” Sociologia Ruralis 52(4):377–97.
Smyth, Emer. 2005. “Gender Differentiation and Early Labour Market Integration across
Europe.” European Societies 7(3):451–79.
Spector, Paul E. 1985. “Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction: Development
of the Job Satisfaction Survey.” American Journal of Community Psychology 13:693–713.
Spoor, Max and Oane Visser. 2004. “Restructuring Postponed? Large Russian Farm
Enterprises ’Coping with the Market’.” Journal of Peasant Studies 31(3–4):515–51.
Sutherland, Lee-Ann. 2008. “Post-Soviet Agricultural Employment: A Case Study of
Employee Incentives in Krasnodar Territory, Russia.” Journal of Peasant Studies
35(3):369–89.
———. 2010. “Differentiating Farmers: Opening the Black Box of Private Farming in
post-Soviet States.” Agriculture and Human Values 27(3):259–76.
Swain, Nigel. 1999. “Agricultural Restitution and Co-operative Transformation in
the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia.” Europe-Asia Studies 51(7):1199–219.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09668139998507.
Titma, M. and N. Tuma. 1995. Paths of a Generation: A Comparative Longitudinal Study of
Young Adults in the Former Soviet Union. Center for Social Research in Eastern Europe,
Tallinn, Estonia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Trauger, Amy, Carolyn Sachs, Mary Barbercheck, Nancy Ellen Kiernan, Kathy Brasier,
and Jill Findeis. 2008. “Agricultural Education: Gender Identity and Knowledge
Exchange.” Journal of Rural Studies 24(4):432–39.
Trell, Elen-Maarja, Bettina van Hoven, and Paulus P. P. Huigen. 2012. “It’s Good to Live
in Järva-Jaani But We Can’t Stay Here: Youth and Belonging in Rural Estonia.”
Journal of Rural Studies 28(2):139–48.
———. 2014. “Youth Negotiation and Performance of Masculine Identities in Rural
Estonia.” Journal of Rural Studies 34(2):15–25.
Unay-Gailhard, İlkay. 2016. “Job Access After Leaving Education: A Comparative
Analysis of Young Women and Men in Rural Germany.” Journal of Youth Studies
19(10):1355–81.
Unay-Gailhard, İlkay and Miroslava Bavorova. 2014. “Innovation at Rural Entreprises:
Results from a Survey of German Organic and Conventional Farmers.” Technology
and Innovation 16(1):3–17.
Vinogradskaya, O. J. and A. M. Nikulin. 2013. “Innovative Strategies of Kulunda
Farmers: Between the State, Market and Drought.” Pp. 302–25 in Krestyanovedenie
Theory: History. Modernity, edited by A. M. Nikulin, M. G. Pugacheva, and T. Shanin.
Moscow, Russia: Delo RANHiGS.
Visser, Oane, Natalia Mamonova, and Max Spoor. 2012. “Oligarchs, Mega Farms and
Land Reserves: Understanding Land Grabbing in Russia.” Journal of Peasant Studies
39(3–4):899–931.
Wegren, Stephen K. 2005. “Russian Agriculture during Putin’s First Term and Beyond.”
Eurasian Geography and Economics 46(3):224–44.
———. 2008. Typologies of Household Risk-taking: Contemporary Rural Russia as a Case Study.
Presented at the Agrarian Studies Colloquium, February 22, 2008, Yale University,
New Haven, CT.
———. 2016. Putin’s Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain. 6th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Appendix
Table A1. Description of the Tested Variables in the Study in Altai Krai

Region, Russia.
Study Variables Description and Categories

Gender 0 for male; 1 for female
Parents’ education level 1 low: secondary education;
2 middle: secondary technical education;
3 high: university level
Parents’ job 0 for self-employed;
1 for business employee, civil servant,
unemployed
Family owns land in rural area 1 for yes; 0 otherwise
Family income level 0 low (≤ 20,000 rubles);
1 middle (20,001−60,000 rubles);
2 high income level (≥60,001 rubles)
Parental residence location 0 rural; 1 urban
Considerations throughout one’s life course
rural work-life expectations
Expected salary of work in rural area 1 for 0 ≤ 15,000 rubles;
2 for 15,001—25,000 rubles;
3 for 25,001—50,000 rubles;
4 for ≥50,001 rubles
Satisfaction with salary in parental 0 for strongly disagree;
residence 1 for disagree;
2 for neutral;
3 for agree;
4 for strongly agree
Contentment with rural work life 0 for no;
“Are you attracted by the rural way 1 yes, if economic and social conditions are
of life?” satisfactory;
2 for yes
Importance of working life quality 0 for unimportant;
“How important are the following 1 for less important;
dimensions of quality of life for 2 for important;
you?” 3 for very important
Employment opportunities 0 for strongly disagree;
Wage level
Career opportunities
Satisfaction with life
“To what extent do you agree with 1 for disagree;
the following statements?” 2 for neutral;
Feel optimistic about my future 3 for agree;
Feeling of accomplishment in my 4 for strongly agree
life
Feel very positive about myself
Source: Survey in Altai Krai region, Russia, 2014.
Table A2. Study Sample Description: Sociofamilial Background of

Postsecondary Agricultural Students in Altai Krai.
Entire Samplea Sample 1b Sample 2c
N % N % N %
Sex
Female 283 59.70 118 41.70 165 58.30
Male 191 40.30 38 19.90 153 80.10
Father’s education
Low 88 18.88 31 35.23 57 64.77
Middle 231 49.57 74 32.03 157 67.97
High 147 31.55 50 34.01 97 65.99
Mother’s education
Low 79 16.7 30 37.97 49 62.03
Middle 197 41.65 62 31.47 135 68.53
High 197 41.65 64 32.49 133 67.51
Father’s job
Self-employed 79 16.67 22 27.85 57 72.15
Other (business 395 83.33 134 33.92 261 66.08
employee, civil servant,
unemployed)
Mother’s job
Self-employed 41 8.65 18 43.90 23 56.10
Other (business 433 91.35 138 31.87 295 68.13
employee, civil servant,
unemployed)
Family owns land in rural 50 10.55 20 40.00 30 60.00
area
Family income level
Low: ≤20,000 rubles 246 52.23 66 26.83 180 73.17
Middle: 20,001−60,000 203 43.1 84 41.38 119 58.62
rubles
High: ≥60,001 rubles 22 4.67 6 27.27 16 72.73
Parental residence location
Rural 337 71.7 101 29.97 236 70.03
Urban 133 28.3 55 41.35 78 58.65
Source: Survey in Altai Krai region, Russia 2014.
a
N = 474.
b
N = 156; 32.91%. “I do not want to work in agriculture” = yes.
c
N = 318; 67.09%. “I do not want to work in agriculture” = no.
Table A3. Study Sample: Subjective Expectations of Postsecondary Agricultural Students in Altai Krai.
Entire Sample Sample 1 Sample 2
N % N % N %
Considerations throughout one’s life course
Rural work-life expectations
Expected salary of work in rural area
≤15,000 rubles 4 0.85 1 25.00 3 75.00
15,001−25,000 rubles 111 23.57 18 16.22 93 83.78
25,001−50,000 rubles 218 46.28 67 30.73 151 69.27
≥50,001 rubles 138 29.3 68 49.28 70 50.72
Satisfaction with salary in parental residence
Strongly disagree 107 22.57 41 38.32 66 61.68
Disagree 118 24.89 46 38.98 72 61.02
Neutral 161 33.97 52 32.30 109 67.70
Agree 75 15.82 14 18.67 61 81.33
Strongly agree 13 2.74 3 23.08 10 76.92
Contentment with rural work life
No 138 29.24 69 50.00 69 50.00
Yes, in case of satisfactory 281 59.53 81 28.83 200 71.17

economic and social
conditions
Yes 53 11.23 6 11.32 47 88.68
Importance of working-life quality
Importance of employment opportunities
Unimportant 5 1.05 3 60.00 2 40.00
Less important 15 3.16 5 33.33 10 66.67
Important 132 27.85 37 28.03 95 71.97
Very important 322 67.93 111 34.47 211 65.53
Wage-level importance
Unimportant 6 1.27 5 83.33 1 16.67
Less important 8 1.69 4 50.00 4 50.00
(Continued)
Table A3. (Continued)
Entire Sample Sample 1 Sample 2
N % N % N %
Important 143 30.17 40 27.97 103 72.03
Very important 317 66.88 107 33.75 210 66.25
Importance of career opportunities
Unimportant 5 1.05 3 60.00 2 40.00
Less important 25 5.27 6 24.00 19 76.00
Important 175 36.92 61 34.86 114 65.14
Very important 269 56.75 86 31.97 183 68.03
Satisfaction with life
Feel optimistic about future
Disagree 18 3.81 9 50.00 9 50.00
Neutral 88 18.6 42 47.73 46 52.27
Agree 222 46.93 63 28.38 159 71.62
Strongly agree 139 29.39 39 28.06 100 71.94
Feeling of accomplishments in life
Disagree 48 10.15 21 43.75 27 56.25
Neutral 173 36.58 72 41.62 101 58.38
Agree 200 42.28 47 23.50 153 76.50
Strongly agree 46 9.73 13 28.26 33 71.74
Feel very positive about myself
Disagree 30 6.34 9 30.00 21 70.00
Neutral 84 17.76 37 44.05 47 55.95
Agree 253 53.49 78 30.83 175 69.17
Strongly agree 102 21.56 30 29.41 72 70.59
Source: Survey in Altai Krai region, Russia 2014.
aN
= 474.
bN = 156; 32.91%. “I do not want to work in agriculture” = yes.
cN = 318; 67.09%. “I do not want to work in agriculture” = no.

I Dont Want To Work in Agriculture The Transition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I Dont Want To Work in Agriculture The Transition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Sociology 0(0), 2018, pp.

“I Don’t Want to Work in Agriculture!” The Transition

Abstract In Russia, the shift in career incentives from agriculture-related

labor force. Historically, looking at the socialist period (1966–90) com-

characteristics significantly differentiate the two groups. The results are

School-to-Work Transition in Russia

During the period of the socialist educational system, efforts to achieve

Agricultural Employment in Russia

Agricultural Employment in Altai Krai Region

The number of people employed in agriculture in Altai Krai decreased

Quality of Rural Life Challenges for the Youth Labor Force

or leisure-time activities in many villages. In 2014, the average distance

Sociofamilial Background and Career Plans in Agriculture

agricultural training provisions as exclusively for men (Jonsson 1999;

of a complex interaction of different components such as employability assets (e.g., basic

Employability has become an important concept, and previous literature

Considerations throughout the Life Course and Career Plans in

perspective (see Heinz and Marshall 2003). In a pioneering study of

Research Question and the Hypotheses

H2 (The role of work-life expectations): The higher the young

Data and Methodology

Study Survey in Altai Krai Region, Russia

Figure 1. Respondents’ Parental Municipalities in Altai Krai and Altai Republic

to be conducted in two waves as the aimed minimum 5 percent of all

Results and Discussion

Self-employment of parents. Basing our work on studies by Lerman et al.

noted in Sutherland (2008), agricultural employees in rural Russia do

Statement 2 [I want to work in agriculture because]: I wanted to

Considerations throughout the Life Course

quality,” and “life satisfaction” in students’ career transition incentives

agricultural sector as agricultural employees and as private farm

Life satisfaction. The negative signs of estimates of the categorical

Conclusion and Practical Implications

Krai, we expect that economic and institutional factors (such as finan-

The findings document the relevance of introducing Bourdieu’s social

of the agricultural professions among rural youth remains low (Novikov

Bavorová, Miroslava, Nizami Imamverdiyev, and Elena Ponkina. 2017. “Farm-level

Table A1. Description of the Tested Variables in the Study in Altai Krai

Study Variables Description and Categories

Table A2. Study Sample Description: Sociofamilial Background of

Entire Samplea Sample 1b Sample 2c

Entire Sample Sample 1 Sample 2

Yes, in case of satisfactory 281 59.53 81 28.83 200 71.17

cN = 318; 67.09%. “I do not want to work in agriculture” = no.

You might also like