The Law on Special Social Services: a case study of policy translation in post-Soviet Kazakhstan

In memoriam Sofia AnThis special issue analyses the role that international actors play in the transfer of social policy concepts to reform processes in the former Soviet Union (FSU). At the same time, it asks how these concepts are perceived and evaluated and, in particular, which role domestic political decision-makers and the public ascribe to Western reform models. The articles look at a broad range of actors -not only at international governmental organisations (IOs), but also at relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and national experts. Consequently, the focus of the analysis lies on the main actors during the (still ongoing) re-design of post-Soviet welfare systems. In this context, we understand knowledge transfer as an open and multi-directional process with a strong discursive dimension.In order to keep the special issue focused, it follows the logic of a most similar cases design. We chose Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) as well as Russia and Ukraine and concentrated on only three policy fields: healthcare, gender and child welfare. Moreover, all contributions converge in their basic focus on international knowledge transfer and on the domestic evaluation of the related social policy concepts.

Section: In Memoriam Sofia Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

International knowledge transfer and learning in social policy: The case of the post-Soviet region

Heinrich

2021

“…Policy translation can be described as (re)interpretation of policy ideas, modification of policy frameworks, (re)creation of meanings and (re)adjustment of practices in the process of transnational travel of ideas (cf. An, 2014; Mukhtarov, 2014; Stone, 2012). Proponents of the policy translation approach place themselves in opposition to policy transfer by arguing that while the latter assumes linearity and finality of transfer, policy translation is certainly not a unidirectional, non-linear process (Freeman, 2009).…”

Section: Localising Harm Reduction: Nuances Of Policy Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, while analysing localisation of global knowledge and policy frameworks through the lens of policy translation, there is a need to account for the nuanced, non-linear, multi-directional and culturally contingent character of this process. Policy translation involves a number of different types of actors and their coalitions (An, 2014; Korneev, 2018; Mukhtarov, 2014) who introduce policy ideas and effectively reinterpret them both discursively (Mukhtarov and Gerlak, 2013) and through their practices (Bueger, 2015).…”

Section: Localising Harm Reduction: Nuances Of Policy Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, we inevitably witness different forms and degrees of localisation of global governance frameworks and knowledge claims through complex processes of policy translation involving various international and local actors (cf. An, 2014; Callon, 1986; Freeman, 2009). The latter include not only policymakers, civil servants, experts, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) but also international actors themselves, for instance, in situations in which local actors exploit for their own benefits differences and tensions between various international actors present on the ground.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Policy translation in global health governance: Localising harm reduction in Tajikistan

Kluczewska

Korneev

2020

This article analyses how global governance frameworks and knowledge claims are translated to fit local contexts. It specifically looks at harm reduction initiatives targeting injection drug users utilising the case of Tajikistan. In the 1990s, this post–Soviet Central Asian country became exposed to an inflow of cheap and easily available heroin from Afghanistan. While Tajikistan mainly became a transit country, some parts of the local population also became addicted. To tackle the negative consequences of heroin addiction, starting from the 1990s international donors proposed the country adopt a range of harm reduction measures, including providing access to opioid substitution therapy and establishing drop-in centres where single-use needles and syringes would be distributed. This article discusses how donor-promoted harm reduction initiatives were localised in Tajikistan, why and with what outcomes. It argues that instead of a full acceptance or rejection of knowledge promoted by international actors, a complex translation process can be observed on the ground. International norms are thus localised by taking into account societal attitudes towards injection drug users, the changing nature of legitimate expertise, evolving national legislation and everyday practices, against the background of other conflicting global governance regimes and local geopolitical priorities.

“…Thus, IOs have increasingly become the focal points of a global exchange of ideas on social policies (cf., for example, Liu, 2015; Ozkan, 2013; Seekings, 2010). In the post-socialist context, for example, IOs have played a prominent role in directing and shaping social policy (cf., for example, An, 2014; Cerami, 2006; Deacon, 2000; Lehrer and Korhonen, 2004). Thereby, IOs ‘help transfer the intellectual matter that underpins policies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The advice they give: Knowledge transfer of international organisations in countries of the former Soviet Union

Heinrich

2020

This article tests the assumptions of the literature regarding the neoliberal agenda (‘Washington Consensus’) promoted by international organisations through knowledge transfer and about the power they supposedly have through loan conditionality to impose their will on countries in financial need. In addition, it examines ‘avant-garde measures’ of neoliberal reforms exceeding the requirements from international organisations. Looking at the social policy concepts and advice these organisations give countries in the former Soviet Union, it utilises the example of healthcare reform in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The article examines the general advice these organisations gave between 1991 and 2018 for the reorganisation and management of the countries’ healthcare systems, especially concerning the introduction of a mandatory health insurance system.