The Gulag and the Non-Gulag as One Interrelated Whole
One would be hard-pressed to identify a question of the Soviet past that has been studied with the same intensity over the past few decades as the history of Stalin's Gulag. (1) Thousands of works have been written on the basis of manifold interviews, published memoirs, and archival documents from both state and private collections. The long list of thoroughly examined topics includes aspects of the Stalinist repressive political apparatus, the structure of the Gulag, the functioning of its administrative bureaucracy from the lowest rungs to the central leadership, and the principles undergirding forced labor and camp life. Many data concerning the magnitude of the camp system, its population, and indicators of production have been published and circulated. Scholars are investigating key moments in the history of the Gulag, such as prisoner uprisings. Increasingly, the object of study has become various aspects of Gulag society itself. (2) The historiography of the Gulag is, broadly speaking, approaching the point at which we merely begin to reproduce or touch up a well-illustrated picture; one now senses a pressing need to reconsider the literature with the aim of identifying lacunae and new directions for research. Indeed, the advent of new approaches for studying the Gulag is to some extent predicated on the development of new source bases. (3) At the same time, the "archival revolution" has inevitably contributed to ever-growing specialization, and therefore much will still depend on our ability to sharpen our perspective on the most fundamental questions and problems of Gulag scholarship. The present article is intended to highlight several complex questions regarding the Gulag's history. In particular, I draw attention to the task of defining the Gulag's boundaries, identifying the channels of its interaction with the broader Soviet society, and specifying the consequences of these interactions in both short- and long-term perspective. Such questions are not entirely novel; one need only recall Alexander Solzhenitsyn's journey through implicitly bounded circles of the Gulag hell or his conception of the Soviet world as bifurcated between greater and lesser zones. (4) At the same time, as they bring to bear previously unknown facts and new methods, historians are in a position to refine and even to challenge established perspectives, or at the very least to articulate new directions for research. Defining Boundaries Recent archival work has contributed to a vivid and compelling picture of Soviet society under Stalin as composed of several interrelated layers. The first is the Gulag itself--a flourishing system of camps, colonies, prisons, special settlements, and other more fleeting and specialized units of isolation and forced labor. The preponderance of available data indicates that between 1930 and 1952, nearly 25 million people passed through the Gulag system, 18-20 million of whom were sentenced to imprisonment in camps, colonies, and prisons. (5) Meanwhile, no fewer than six million people, mostly kulaks and members of repressed nationalities, were sent into internal exile, living under conditions approaching those of the camps themselves in special settlements. (6) In addition, World War II saw several million Soviet citizens interned, quarantined, or subjected to forced labor. The Gulag "population" was notable for its diversity and for an internal hierarchy that mirrored the hierarchy of Soviet society beyond the Gulag. There were inversions as well: political prisoners, many of whom occupied high positions outside the Gulag, frequently found themselves at a much lower level on the Gulag's social ladder, often yielding to common criminals. (7) The world of special settlements was similarly diverse. The groups most typically liable to deportation included peasants, Baltic and Ukrainian partisans, persecuted peoples of the North Caucusus, and city dwellers expelled during the passportization process. …
Supplementary Appendices
Appendix C considers some special cases of Proposition 6 in Section VI, while Appendix B supplements the empirical application in Section VII, explaining how the QUAIDS demand systems were estimated and how the data were calculated. Generalized Linearity is an extremely general specification of preferences, which nests many of the most widely-used demand systems. Proposition 6 is significantly strengthened when we specialise to some of these sub-cases: C.1 Price-Independent Generalized Linear ("PIGL") Preferences In this case, also due to Muellbauer (1975), the expenditure function specialises to a CES form: and the income function in the budget shares is independent of prices (whence the name): (A27) It follows that the average income level which generates world spending patterns at the GAIA (A28) prices is also independent of prices and equals a CES mean of individual countries' incomes: (A29) C.2 Price-Independent Generalized Logarithmic ("PIGLOG") Preferences This system is the limit of the PIGL system as α approaches zero. A special case, due to
Prevalence of lice on dairy cattle in England and the bordering counties of Wales
A postal questionnaire was used to collect information on the prevalence of lice on cattle on a random sample of dairy farms in England and the bordering counties of Wales. Replies were received from 1040 (52.8 per cent) of the 1970 farms which were mailed. Fifty per cent of farmers reported having ever seen or suspected lice in their herds and 29 per cent reported possible infestations in the winter of 1996/97. Visits were made to 24 farms in the south west of England during February 1998. Twelve of the farmers said that they had seen or suspected lice in their herd since October 1997, and that lice were more frequently observed on the adult cattle. However, examination revealed lice on 18 of the 24 farms, and adult cattle were the least likely group to be infested.