Historically, the vast majority of villages have always maintained a balance between the amount of product that can be obtained from the available land – and the population. This is due to the fact that a limited amount of a product can provide a decent standard of living for a limited number of people.
Project Name: Will The Ukrainian Village Disappear
Studio Name: Archimatika
When the village was overpopulated, there was a natural outflow of residents to neighboring villages or cities in response. Thus, like a living organism, the village maintained its stability.
During the Soviet period, the idea appeared that agriculture could be turned into a kind of factory. Collectivization takes place – and all the inhabitants of the village are forced to go to the collective farm (Kolkhoz).
During this period, it is forbidden to leave the villages on your own. To go somewhere from the village, you need to get permission. In fact, the village council becomes a convoy. The number of people in the villages begins to grow rapidly.
As a result, population density increases. It was during this period that the present dense “yard-in-yard” streets appeared in the eastern and southern villages of Ukraine. With each yard, families have from 30 to 60 acres of land. From this area, it is possible to grow products only for yourself. Collective farms deprived peasants of the opportunity to produce surpluses and sell them. The population becomes dependent on collective farms.
As a result of this policy, by the 1970s, not only overpopulation occurred in the village, but also extreme poverty. At the end of the 70s, this “slavery” ends – people in the villages are issued passports and now they can leave independently.
A mass exodus begins, which we observe to this day. If you look at this dynamic without context, you really get the impression that the village is dying out. There are fewer people and it seems that soon there won’t be any at all.
But it is necessary to take into account the historical context. The classic form of resettlement in the village is living in “corners”. Certain groups of homesteads are grouped around paddocks, and all around is the amount of land necessary for a comfortable existence. It is a structure with a much lower population density than today, only remotely similar to a modern village.
After the collapse of the union, the natural return of rural communities to the organic and historically formed urban organization that existed before the Soviets began. This return is mistakenly associated with disappearance.
If you look at the dynamics from this angle, then the village is being reorganized and returned to its organic state. This movement is slow – and most people who could stay in the village and develop their farming household do not do it, because they do not see the point. However, regardless of state or business interventions, this process is happening and will continue.
Although the process is independent, if support for small farms is strengthened, the reorganization will happen faster and better. Villages will retain more of their authentic population that understands the rural way of life.
The ideal solution would be a government program that would encourage people not to seek better fortune in cities or even other countries. It can be both support for the initiative part of communities through the existing administrative structure of starostats, and a separate agency for the development of small communities.
A good example can be served by the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation – with a simple, clear proposal “money follows the initiative”. This will stimulate villagers to apply local knowledge, study and preserve local cultural features, and realize themselves at home. And a successful peasant means high-quality, comfortable villages for living.
