Paper long abstract:

Weber famously claimed that 'every political system attempts to establish and cultivate the belief in its legitimacy' (1978: 213). Debates on standards for assessing the legitimacy of states and regimes are numerous in both contemporary academic scholarship and political practice. The study of power legitimation has become a research field of its own, analysing legitimacy-seeking practices and the reasons behind de-legitimation (Bexell, 2014). Recent research on the durability of authoritarian regimes and the prospects for democratization has put a renewed focus on the question of legitimacy in non‐democratic contexts (Brownlee, 2007; Ghandi, 2008).

Legitimacy has been always treated as a secondary factor in explaining the persistence of non-democratic states; it is also too quickly equated with regime stability, and a lack of legitimacy is assumed to automatically mean regime collapse (Hoffmann, 2011). The political mechanics of legitimation are more complex, emphasising a dynamic paradigm with specific properties, discourses and strategies, through which political actors aspire to gain and maintain legitimacy. Regimes need to simultaneously invoke domestic and international legitimation sources to build a robust legitimation strategy, because no single legitimacy claim appears adequate enough or fully self-sufficient.

This paper will give prominence to the comparative perspective of ideological legitimation in modern Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan by focusing on their alphabet policies since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The (proposed) Latinisation of their alphabets demonstrates the exercise of political legitimacy, personalised power and legacy. It unleashes the problematic nature of national identity, attempts to de-Russify their writing scripts and the desire for modernisation and international recognition that it is assumed Latinisation will bring.

The Uzbek and Azerbaijani Latinisation projects in the years immediately after the end of the Soviet Union illustrate efforts for stronger nation-building credibility, coupled with the political legacies of Islam Karimov and Heydar Aliyev in situations of severe inter-ethnic tensions. The recent political decision of Nursultan Nazarbayev to Latinise the Kazakh alphabet creates a new approach to understand its relationship with the Eurasian Union and Russia, intensifies modernisation and legacy issues.

While examining the power discourse around the issue of Latinisation in the local press(es) alongside expert interviews, this research will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between legitimacy, legacy and ideology in post-Soviet Eurasia.

Paper long abstract:

The research paper aims to understand the institutions and effectiveness of State Business Relations (SBRs) in the food and agriculture sector of Georgia. Agribusiness (including fruits and vegetables, hazelnuts, wine) is perceived to be among the high potential industries for Georgia's economic growth prospects. Since 2010, the agriculture sector of Georgia is the target of the state intervention in order to support the growth of investment, production, and export in the sector. Considering the prominence of the effective SBRs for effective state intervention, this research aims to understand the characteristics/forms of SBRs and its adaptive efficiency in the food and agriculture sector of Georgia. Understanding how SBRs evolve over time will help to understand their adaptive efficiency (North, 1993;) as well, meaning their flexibility to be changed or replaced in response to the political and economic feedback.

The analytical framework of the research relies on the institutionalist approach to SBRs (North, 1993; Amsden, 1989; Schneider & Maxfield, 1997; Evans, 1998; Rodrik, 2004:). The forms of interaction between state and businesses might range from formal, highly organized (regular co-ordination arrangements) to informal (ad hoc) interactions (te Velde, 2013;). The state interventions to promote growth, it is necessary to identify constraints for restructuring and to understand what types of interventions are most likely to remove them, therefore, the strategic collaboration between state and private actors might serve this aim (Maxfield & Schneider, 1997; Rodrik, 2004;). If the state and businesses fail to collaborate or engage in collusive relations, state intervention might be beneficial only for few actors and be harmful to the others, hence, will not contribute in growth (te Velde & Sen, 2009;). This research assesses the effectiveness of SBRs in the food and agriculture sector of Georgia based on the following criteria: information exchange mechanisms, reciprocity, and credibility between state and private actors (Maxfield, & Schneider, 1997;).

The research is based data from interviews conducted with the representatives of umbrella organizations, businesses, state agencies, research, and international donor organizations. The paper will contribute to the academic literature on the role of institutions of state business relations for economic development.

The structure of the research paper is as follows: 1. Introduction; 2. State intervention in the food and agriculture sector of Georgia 3. Analytical framework; 4. Institutional of SBRs in the food and agriculture sector of Georgia; 5. The adaptive efficiency of SBRs; 6. Conclusion;