Again I ask the same question. The implication of your comment is that Imperial Warrants were not issued to Russians which I doubt. Secondly, the fact that the State owned underground mineral resources is not that surprising and in fact in the world today that is the norm, even in countries which have strong capitalist economic systems. The Tsar was the embodiment of the State but pre-Revolutionary Russia had a well developed legal system and confiscations were not that simple. There had to have been a trial and a basis for the confiscation other than the exercise of Imperial whim. (Actually the legal system particularly after the legal reforms of Alexander II was quite modern with a well developed commercial and criminal code and in my view the equal of or better than it is now because there was less political interference). As for access to capital yes its true there were difficulties and in fact that was the subject of my last post. There was an active banking system and commercial loans were obtainable but domestic risk (equity) capital was another matter and thus the need for foreign capital, at least for major capital investments (which typifies most mineral resource developments). By the way, manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, retail and other sectors of the economy were largely in private hands. Mineral resources in most countries have always had a special status being deemed part of the peoples' "patrimony". Actually you see that in the US as well in offshore leasing and mineral leasing out west on Federal lands in both cases under Federal (or State) government control. So, again, its a "what if" question. But for WWI and the Revolution would Russia have developed into a modern economy with a corresponding modern non-totalitarian non-autocratic political system...who knows. I think that the Stolypin agrarian reforms would have eventually been enacted in some fashion (despite resistance in certain quarters and despite his assassination) and the Zemstvos and provincial governments strengthened, decentralizing the state, but sadly we'll never know. I should note that my Grandfather did enact agrarian reforms in the Crimea in 1919 while in control of the area (Krivoshein was his Prime Minister and had worked with Stolypin) but by then it was too late. I further believe that there were enough indications (the rapidly developing economy and the events of 1905, etc.) that given time Russia would have evolved in much the same way western states such as the UK and the US evolved earlier in the 18th and 19th centuries into what most of us would consider a liberal democracy (or perhaps a republic or, more likely, a constitutional monarchy). But I'm afraid we are drifting off the topic that started this thread and perhaps should return to it. We could probably argue the point ad infinitum.
