Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
In the many works published on the imperial dimension of Russian history during the past decade, it is often the mechanical or “nuts and bolts” aspects of the empire's administration that are least discussed. So it is impressive to see two articles with a common focus on a practical institution—the Resettlement Administration—both of which argue for a strong connection between technical expertise and a colonial style of rule in the eastern Eurasian steppe and borderlands. But in spite of this common denominator, Willard Sunderland's and Peter Holquist's pieces could not be more different, in part because they approach the matter from opposite directions: Sunderland from a broad discussion of colonialism, Holquist from an analysis of a specific field of expertise.
1. One result of this is that the role of development in defining the phenomenon is overemphasized. In the economic theory of colonialism, the metropolis does not seek to transform colonies in its image but keeps them relatively undeveloped and thus available as a source of natural resources, cheap labor, and consumer markets. Britain's allegedly purposeful deindustrialization of India (or its allowing such to occur) epitomizes this definition.
2. Vinogradov, VI., “Zametki po pereselencheskomu voprosu,” Russkaia mysl’ 29, no. 6 (June 1908): 76–89, esp. 77-79, 86.Google Scholar
3. Klein, Naomi, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (New York, 2007).Google Scholar