Markets and Politics in Central Asia

Gleason, Gregory

doi:10.4324/9780203417683

Cited by 46 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Tajikistan, the only one of the five countries not to evolve peacefully from Soviet 1 The situation before independence and the immediate post-independence period are analysed in Pomfret (1995). Islamov (2001), Gleason (2003) and Pomfret (2006) provide alternative accounts of the region's economic development during the 1990s. Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan 1991 79 85 112 103 82 1992 1,381 855 1,157 493 645 1993 1,662 772 2,195 3,102 534 1994 1,892 229 350 1,748 1,568 1995 176 41 609 1,005 305 1996 39 31 418 992 54 1997 17 26 88 84 59 1998 8 36 28 24 29 1999 7 12 43 17 18 Source: EBRD Transition Report Update (April 2001: 16).…”

Section: Dissolution Of the Ussr And The Transition From Central Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central Asia after Two Decades of Independence

Pomfret

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractAfter becoming independent in 1991, the five Central Asian countries pursued differing transition paths from the defunct central planning. This paper analyses the connection between economic policies and performance during the 1990s and 2000s. Performance over the two decades has been determined by resource endowments rather than by policy. International relations, which were predicted to centre on a new Great Game among external powers, have been more muted than anticipated, centring on geopolitics and pipelines, and with a consequence of hampering desirable economic cooperation within Central Asia. Prospects for significant change in the near future are limited because by the end of the 1990s the window of opportunity for policy initiatives had shut and entrenched political regimes had little incentive to sponsor major reforms.

show abstract

Section: Dissolution Of the Ussr And The Transition From Central Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central Asia after Two Decades of Independence

Pomfret

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Kyrgyzstan remains the only Central Asian Republic to have witnessed a leadership change through popular protest. This distinction fitted the country's other unique record of maintaining, despite increased authoritarianism, the image of the most democratic of the five Central Asian states (Abazov 1999, Gleason 2003. Unlike in neighbouring countries, Kyrgyzstan's president was the only post-independence president to have emerged outside presidential structures.…”

Section: Kyrgyzstan Under Akaevmentioning

confidence: 93%

Introduction: ‘Revolution’ not revolution

Cummings

2008

Central Asian Survey

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…His presidential administration has considerable power relative to parliament, for example, in overseeing civil service reform and most ministries. With many ex-Communist officials involved in business, media, and real-estate deals as well, no middle class has yet emerged to challenge the ruling family and its associates (Gleason, 2003;Murphy, 2006;Pomfret, 2005b).…”

Section: Transition Strategymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Besides the disappointing economic results of the partial liberalisation that has occurred, sustained democratisation has failed to develop owing to domestic opposition by large-scale asset holders, indigenous values, and holdover Soviet institutions now manned by nationalist politicians (Gleason, 2003). Undoubtedly, this political stasis has retarded institutional progress in the economy.…”

Section: Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Turkmenistan's natural riches have facilitated arbitrary rule, together with corruption, low taxes, and an overwhelming state sector (Gleason, 2003). Up to his death in late 2006, the country was dominated by President Suparmurat Niyazov, whose careless and profligate management created budgetary deficits, double-digit inflation, and an inconvertible currency, the manat, whose dollar value on the black market was a small fraction of the official one.…”

Section: Transition Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Economies of Central Asia: A Survey

Spechler

2008

Comp Econ Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ex-Soviet republics of Central Asia have instituted some economic reforms within their authoritarian political systems, including reliance on worldwide exports of their energy, mineral, and agricultural products, and select imports. Besides relatively poor and aid-dependent Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, all have now recovered their pre-independence levels of income and begun to grow at respectable rates. The petro-dependent states of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have grown fastest lately but show signs of corruption and ‘Dutch disease’. Like independence-minded Uzbekistan, all try to derive benefits from surrounding great powers and international financial institutions without giving up their freedom of action. Comparative Economic Studies (2008) 50, 30–52. doi:10.1057/ces.2008.3

show abstract

Markets and Politics in Central Asia

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Central Asia after Two Decades of Independence

Central Asia after Two Decades of Independence

Introduction: ‘Revolution’ not revolution

The Economies of Central Asia: A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About