Send message to Authors

Paper abstract:

Patrimonial economic regimes and state capture continue to pose theoretical and analytical challenges both in political economy and area studies. In the political economy literature, both analyses of state-led capitalism and earlier proponents of the ‘developmental state’ model have argued that under certain conditions, a higher level of state control and centralization can be beneficial for economic and political stability. However, these findings are still contested by advocates of liberal policies and remain to be corroborated by in-depth and comparative analyses.

This paper tackles this proposal in the context of Central Asia which, given the significant divergence in economic and political development paths between its five republics, is a key site for further unpacking such dynamics. Focusing on the cases of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, it asks why liberal-democratic reform leads to political conflict and instability in some countries and not in others, and it zooms in on the interplay between economic development and institutional transformation and degradation (and particularly state capture) in effecting such outcomes. In particular, we aim to shed light on how political instability and (violent) conflict can be linked to different economic models and the welfare distributions they produce on the one hand, and the dynamics of institutional frameworks in both formal and informal perspectives, with their varying levels of authoritarianism and state capture, on the other. The paper is based on a mixed-methods approach research combining a (primarily) quantitative political economy perspective with a qualitative approach to capturing the way in which competition and is dealt with by political regimes. [With this analysis, we seek to generate insights that corroborate observations on recent conflicts and political turmoil in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan that stand in contrast with the relative stability exhibited by Uzbekistan recent reform path.]

The ‘state capitalism’-oriented model of Uzbekistan, initially one of the most authoritarian regimes of the region, brought higher economic growth and prosperity, and more social equality and stability along with it.

Kazakhstan's been more market-oriented and open to Western policies. It's experienced quite significant economic growth, but the split between rich and poor and the level of authoritarianism and state capture have become more pronounced in recent years, leading to numerous protests and discontent among wide groups of population.

The situation of Kyrgyzstan, initially ‘the best student of IMF’ in pushing through the neoliberal reforms, has not significantly improved from high rates of poverty, poor institutions, instability and state capture.