Foreign policy and domestic reform in Central Asia

Abstract

A decade after national independence it is apparent that the differing development strategies adopted by the ve new governments of Central Asia in the rst years of independenc e led to signi cantly different policy outcomes. How have these economic development strategies affected the capacity of the states to manage the transition to post-communist governance? What relationship exists between the foreign development strategy adopted and domestic democratization? The present article addresses these questions by surveying development strategies of the ve Central Asian countries during the rst decade of independence with a focus on the contribution of each country's development strategy to the promotion of domestic reform.Wide agreement exists on the necessity of post-communist governments to undertake domestic structural reform and trade liberalization measures as key elements in the transition to internationa l standards. But not all analysts agree on the best mix of foreign and domestic policies for attaining these objectives. Two contrasting approaches dominate the debate. 1 The 'neo-liberal' approach argues that the rapid shift to privately owned assets, monetarization of the economy, trade liberalization , currency convertibility , and government structural reforms are necessary precondition s to establishing rational market incentives and a modern polity. The set of policies associated with this approach typically involves cutting government budgets and subsidies, privatizing some previously public operations, raising interest rates, opening national economies to foreign imports, corporations and capital, and increasing exports of raw materials or goods made with labour made relatively cheap by these policies.A contrasting 'structuralist' approach differs in maintaining that incremental reform measures are more likely to lead to industrial and agricultural restructuring than would an allocation of resources that is structured by existing imperfect markets. The structuralist approach argues in favour of a phased and gradual introduction of reform-oriented measures, emphasizing incentive selectivity, dynamic technical ef ciency and government guidance throughout the process of change. In many respects, the neo-liberal and structuralist prescriptions seek to arrive at the same destination. Both approaches ultimately seek to develop government scal responsibility and encourage disin ationary policies, price

Multilingualism, Russian Language and Education in Kyrgyzstan

“…Eventually, the new Kyrgyz government faced the need to integrate non-Kyrgyz elements into the new conception of the Kyrgyz state (Brubaker, 1994;Commercio, 2004;Laitin, 1996); to balance one's own interests with those of the Russian Federation that remains an important economic partner (Khruslov, 2006;Tishkov, 1997), and to have solid ties to other countries of the world while pursuing one's own geopolitical interests (Gleason, 2001;Khazanov, 1995;King & Melvin, 1999Kreindler, 1997;Schlyter, 2001). Schulter (2003) argues that past tensions and suspicions can be overcome through integration, fostered through changes in the school curriculum and the emphasis on multiculturalism and multilingualism among the new 'Kyrgyzstani' generation.…”

La diplomatie culturelle à l'ère de l'interdépendance globale : la Turquie à la recherche des éléments fédérateurs de l'identité panturque

“…Certes, l'appui de l'allié américain est pour beaucoup dans le choix du trajet turc mais il n'explique pas tout. 11 n'explique pas, par exemple, que les gouvernements centrasiatiques comme celui du Turkménistan aient fait du « lobbying acharné » pour que leur pétrole soit évacué vers la Turquie plutôt que vers la Russie, la mer Noire ou l'Iran 143 . En fait, même les analyses privilégiant le rôle des États-Unis reconnaissent l'importance centrale de la diplomatie turque et des liens culturels entre Ankara et les pays turcophones 144 .…”

World society as a shared ethnos and the limits of world society in Central Asia

“…In the literature, it is frequent to see 'Central Asia' uncritically used as a synonym with the five republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (see, among others, Mandelbaum, 1994;Gleason, 2001;Abdullaev, 2002;Burnashev, 2002;Polat, 2002;Rahimov, 2007;Pomfret, 2010;Cummings and Hinnebusch, 2011;Kavalski, 2012), listing as common factors economic transition from centralised to market-driven mechanisms, ethnic tensions, environmental degradation, presence of Islamic and Soviet traditions and authoritarianism as a general method of rule as regional characteristics.…”