Summerfolk

2. “Suburbs” is a difficult term with different shades of meaning even in countries so apparently culturally congruent as Canada, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. One cogent explication lists five main aspects of the concept (which may, however, be weighted rather differently from one country or city to another): (1) peripheral location in relation to a dominant urban center; (2) partly or wholly residential character; (3) low density; (4) distinctive culture or way of life; (5) separate community identity, often embodied in local government. See R. Harris and P. J. Larkham, “Suburban Foundation, Form, and Function,” in Changing Suburbs: Foundation, Form and Function, ed. Harris and Larkham (New York, 1999), 8–14.

3. Thanks to Jana Howlett for the transcript of this discussion.

4. See Sh. Muladzhanov, “Pomest’e po-ministerski,” Moskovskaia pravda, 2 July 1991, 3.

5. S. Taranov, “Sobstvennost’ KPSS: Koe-chto iasno, no daleko ne vse,” Izvestiia, 27 Aug, 1991, 1.

6. A. Kravtsov, “‘Chtob ia tak zhil!’” Argumenty i fakty, no. 35 (1991), 6.

7. Full details in “Bigwigs’ holdings,” at <http://vlad.tribnet.com/1997/iss153/text/table.htm>.

8. See “Outrage as deluxe dachas rise from rubble,” at <http://vlad.tribnet.com/1998/iss171/text/news10.html>

9. Early examples from journalism include Muladzhanov, “Pomest’e po-ministerski,” and E. Berezneva, “Kto, gde, kogda i pochem privatiziroval gosdachi,” Kuranty, 7 June 1991, 1. There is an intelligent discussion of this issue in T. Colton, Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis (Cambridge, Mass.), 713–14.

10. On recent developments in Peredelkino, see N. Emel’ianova, “Nepriiatel’ v Peredelkine,” Vechernii klub, 25 Sept. 1999, and Robin Buss, “Letter from Peredelkino,” TLS, 24 Sept. 1999, 14.

11. “O merakh po razvitiiu uslug po remontu i stroitel’stvu zhilishch, postroek dlia sadovodcheskikh tovarishchestv, garazhei i drugikh stroenii po zakazam naseleniia v 1986–1990 godakh i v period do 2000 goda” (21 May 1985), text in SPP RSFSR, no. 15 (1985), art. 71. The late 1980s were also a time when the Party finally gave its unqualified approval to the “personal subsidiary farm” (lichnoe podsobnoe khoziaistvo) that had for so long endured an equivocal and shifting legal status: see V. Ustiukova, Lichnoe podsobnoe khoziaistvo: Pravovoi rezhim imushchestva (Moscow, 1990), esp. 7–16, and Z. Kalugina, Lichnoe podsobnoe khoziaistvo v SSSR: Sotsial’nye reguliatory i rezul’taty razvitiia (Novosibirsk, 1991), esp. 4–7.

12. “Ob utverzhdenii Tipovogo ustava sadovodcheskogo tovarishchestva” (11 Nov. 1986), SPP RSFSR, no. 18 (1986), art. 132.

13. “O merakh po dal’neishemu razvitiiu kollektivnogo sadovodstva i ogorodnichestva v RSFSR” (5 June 1986), SPP RSFSR, no. 20 (1986), art. 149.

14. “Ob utverzhdenii Tipovogo ustava sadovodcheskogo tovarishchestva” (31 March 1988), SPP RSFSR no. 10 (1988), art. 45.

15. “O sozdanii kompleksnykh torgovo-zakupochnykh punktov v sadovodcheskikh i sadovo-ogorodnykh tovarishchestvakh” (6 Apr. 1989), SPP RSFSR, no. 11 (1989), art. 56.

16. V. S. Zakharov, “Ochered’ na lono prirody,” Nedelia, no. 40 (1988).

17. Sotsial’noe razvitie SSSR: Statisticheskii sbornik (Moscow, 1990), 207.

18. “O pervoocherednykh zadachakh po realizatsii zemel’noi reformy,” in Dachniki: Vash dom, sad i ogorod (a newspaper published in the Moscow region), no. 1 (1991), 3.

19. Simon Clarke et al., “The Russian Dacha and the Myth of the Urban Peasant,” paper posted at <http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/complabstuds/russia/russint.htm>.

20. “O dopolnitel’nykh merakh po razvitiiu lichnykh podsobnykh khoziaistv grazhdan, kollektivnogo sadovodstva i ogorodnichestva,” SPP RSFSR, no. 22 (1987), art. 135.