Uzbekistan's defensive self-reliance: Karimov's foreign policy legacy

Fazendeiro, Bernardo Teles

doi:10.1093/ia/iiw062

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More specifically, Uzbekistan went from the Karimov-rule model (1991–2016) involving the elements of comprehensive political control, ‘self-reliance’, declared export orientation, isolationism (Fazendeiro, 2017) and ‘post-socialist development state’ (Bolesta, 2022) to a less dirigiste and more internationally open model of the Mirziyoyev presidency (2016-present) (Dadabaev, 2019c); (Dadabaev & Djalilova, 2021). Furthermore, Uzbekistan’s developmental state model was also reflected in its foreign policy (Dadabaev, 2019a, 2019b).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of development models in Japan’s and Korea’s relations with Central Asia: Discourses and practices

Murashkin¹,

Varpahovskis

2022

Journal of Eurasian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the policies of development cooperation promoted by Japan and Korea in Central Asia, focussing on the roles of discourses treating Japan and Korea as potential non-Western models for the region’s development and modernisation in their relations with Central Asian states. We trace the evolution of relevant developmental approaches made by Japan and Korea, analysing discourses and practices of sharing experiences, as well as the key drivers behind those shifts, and we seek to locate these changes in the larger context of regional political economy and international relations. Furthermore, the article seeks to address the ideational and normative aspects of Japanese and Korean development cooperation in Central Asia. We conclude with a recap comparison of Japan’s and Korea’s sharing of development experiences.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of development models in Japan’s and Korea’s relations with Central Asia: Discourses and practices

Murashkin¹,

Varpahovskis

2022

Journal of Eurasian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to these, many post-socialist states, including Uzbekistan, were presented with the choice of drastic liberalization of economy called “shock therapy” (Popov 2007 ) or some variation of developmental state (see Johnson 1982 ; for this model in CA, see Stark and Ahrens 2012 ). Uzbekistan opted to preserve the active agency of the state and aspired to shape its investment policy through governmental interventions (Spechler 2000 : 295–303; Fazendeiro 2015 , 2017 , 2018 ). Infrastructure development has been one of the most important policy aspects (see Fazendeiro 2015 ).…”

Section: From a State-controlled Economy Towards An Infrastructural Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To a great extent, Uzbekistan’s proposal to China about the potential for revival of the Silk Road in the early 1990s reflected the Uzbek government’s attitude towards developing its own economic model (for comparative analysis of East and Central Asian models, see Stark 2012 ; Thompson 2017 ). While this model has often been criticized for being based on “self-reliance” and isolationism (see Fazendeiro 2015 , 2017 ), its main principles resonate with the Chinese economic model, also referred to as China’s “Singapore” model (Thompson 2017 ) or “post-socialist development state” (Bolesta 2019 ). The five main principles of Karimov’s economic reforms referred to the priority of the economy over politics (ideology), the role of the state as the main actor (reformer) in economic activity, the establishment of transparency and rule of law, a social policy orientation, and, finally, a stage-by-stage transition towards a market economy (Karimov 1992 ).…”

Section: From a State-controlled Economy Towards An Infrastructural Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connectivity, energy, and transportation in Uzbekistan’s strategy vis-à-vis Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan

Dadabaev

Djalilova

2020

Asia Eur J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the articulated intentions andregistered projects of emerging developmental government in Uzbekistanvis-a-vis Russia, China, South Korea and Japan in the areas of Energy andTransport Infrastructure Development. By thematically analyzing the cooperationroadmaps for 2017–2019, this paper offers insights into how Uzbekistaninternalizes energy and infrastructure-related projects with these countries inits re-opening to the international community in post-Karimov era. This paperclaims that Uzbekistan looks beyond the connectivity rhetoric in its foreignpartners’ interest in energy and transportation and seeks to capitalize on therelated projects to position itself as an industrial and transportation hub forother CA countries and Afghanistan. In addition, for Uzbekistan, theinfrastructure and energy-related initiatives are part of its de-colonizationagenda aiming to shift its economy from being resource-based to being based onthe export of value-added products.

show abstract

“…3–19). Thus, as discussed in the sections below, Karimov’s cooperation partners changed depending on the weight of their support with respect to his ideological goals, while in the areas considered to be sensitive, Karimov attempted to achieve so-called “self-reliance” (Fazendeiro, 2017a, pp. 409–427).…”

Section: Motivations As Discursive Narrative For a Cooperation Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

De-securitizing the “Silk Road”: Uzbekistan’s cooperation agenda with Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea in the post-Karimov era

Dadabaev

2020

Journal of Eurasian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that Uzbekistan’s cooperation agenda with Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea demonstrates clear signs of breaking with the Karimov-era security-driven agenda for cooperation in favor of de-securitization. This article uses a comparative analysis of the engagement of Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea with Uzbekistan through an analysis of the shifting political discourses in Uzbekistan and these states, statistics regarding their interaction, and an analysis of the economic road maps of their engagement from 2015 onward. This timeframe is attributed particular importance in this article, as it symbolizes the new opening of Uzbekistan toward these four states after the death of its dictatorial President Islam Karimov. In terms of the narrative, this article will first explore the problem of the securitization of the Central Asian region and the cooperation agenda. The article then discusses the motivations of Uzbekistan and its cooperation counterparts in pursuing closer ties. This discussion will then be followed by an analysis of how the new leadership in Uzbekistan re-evaluated its past behavior to address its post- and neocolonial challenges and the cooperation agendas with Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan.

show abstract

Uzbekistan's defensive self-reliance: Karimov's foreign policy legacy

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

The role of development models in Japan’s and Korea’s relations with Central Asia: Discourses and practices

The role of development models in Japan’s and Korea’s relations with Central Asia: Discourses and practices

Connectivity, energy, and transportation in Uzbekistan’s strategy vis-à-vis Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan

De-securitizing the “Silk Road”: Uzbekistan’s cooperation agenda with Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea in the post-Karimov era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About