Log in to star items.
- Convenor:
-
Kuat Akizhanov
(CAREC Institute)
Send message to Convenor
- Format:
- Open panel
- Theme:
- Public Administration & Public Policy
- Location:
- Room 2008
- Sessions:
- Thursday 18 June, -
Time zone: KZT
Abstract
Over the past decades, neoliberalism has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for adaptation, embedding itself within diverse political and institutional contexts. From authoritarian regimes that deploy market logics without democratic accountability, to plutocratic arrangements that consolidate elite power, and to so-called “progressive” variants that combine technocratic governance with inclusive rhetoric, neoliberalism continues to transform rather than disappear. This open panel invites paper contributions that critically examine the multiple forms and trajectories of neoliberalism across different regions and political systems.
The panel seeks to explore neoliberalism as a political, economic, and social project, rather than solely as an economic doctrine. We welcome papers that analyze how neoliberal rationalities are adopted, reconfigured, or contested within specific national and regional contexts, with particular attention to Central Eurasia and Kazakhstan. Contributions may engage with empirical case studies, comparative analyses, or theoretical reflections. Submissions may address one or more of the following interrelated dimensions. First, the political dimension: how neoliberal ideas and practices are embedded within authoritarian, hybrid, or formally democratic regimes, and how they reshape state power, governance, and political accountability. Second, the economic dimension: the contemporary manifestations of neoliberalism at both macro- and micro-levels, including deregulation, financialization, new state-market configurations, and emerging forms of accumulation and dependency. Third, the social dimension: the impact of neoliberal reforms on welfare regimes, labor relations, education, health systems, social cohesion, and cultural narratives surrounding responsibility, merit, and inclusion. The panel particularly encourages papers that examine intersections between neoliberalism and class, gender, ethnicity, and labour, as well as contributions that explore resistance, alternatives, and post-neoliberal imaginaries. We also welcome analyses of the role played by international institutions, global financial actors, and development paradigms in shaping neoliberal trajectories. By inviting a diverse set of paper contributions, this panel aims to foster a critical and interdisciplinary discussion on the evolving varieties of neoliberalism and their enduring political, economic, and social consequences.
Accepted papers
Session 1 Thursday 18 June, 2026, -Abstract
Kazakhstan has recently pursued a state-led push towards using AI technologies in economic modernization and administrative efficiency. Initiatives such as the Alem.AI center and the introduction of an AI advisory system at Samruk-Kazyna signal an unusually top-down approach, in contrast to global patterns, in which AI development is typically driven by the private sector. This study examines how these developments are represented in the national news cycle and asks whether AI coverage in Kazakhstan reflects global narratives or exhibits distinct domestic patterns.
We conducted a dictionary-based analysis of more than 600 news articles published between January 2023 and December 2025 across four major outlets: the state-aligned Informburo.kz, the pro-government commercial Tengrinews, and the independent outlets Vlast.kz and Ulys Media. Using bilingual (Russian/English) keyword dictionaries, compound frame indices were constructed to show how frequently the themes of “modernization”, “control”, and others appear in news articles. The expectation is that state-aligned media frames AI as “modernization,” and independent outlets focus on “ethics” and “risks” more.
Our analysis reveals a dominant trend across all news outlets. AI is overwhelmingly framed in terms of modernization, efficiency, and innovation, while the coverage of ethics, privacy, or transparency appears only rarely. Approximately 90% of articles contain no references to ethics, privacy, or transparency. Contrary to expectations, independent outlets do not provide more critical coverage: they publish fewer AI-related articles overall and do not engage more extensively with ethics, privacy, or transparency issues than state-aligned media.
These patterns suggest that AI functions as a narrative tool for reinforcing technological optimism in Kazakhstan, contributing to a public discourse centered on efficiency rather than accountability. This study contributes to the existing literature on soft authoritarianism by showing how AI narratives narrow public debate on ethics through specific framing rather than censorship. It also challenges assumptions about media ownership, demonstrating that editorial independence does not necessarily translate into more critical coverage of emerging technologies. Finally, the paper also extends research on the AI governance literature to the understudied Central Asian context, providing empirical evidence on how political and media systems shape technological discourse.
Abstract
The paper examines the re-establishment of the Constitutional Court in Kazakhstan as a part of broader constitutional reforms initiated after the January 2022 events. Institutional changes in the constitutional control body are aimed toward democratization and the transparency of judiciary institutions, as well as the protection of fundamental human rights. As a result of reforms, the Constitutional Court declared that more than 5000 appeals were received by the Court annually. Currently, over 70 decisions have been issued by the Court regarding the constitutionality of enacted legislation.
The research explores whether the re-establishment of the Constitutional Court in Kazakhstan marks a genuine reform toward democratization or serves merely as a tool for autocratic survival. It will also assess whether constitutional review in Kazakhstan is consistently effective across all legal issues or if effectiveness varies by category.
Following this, the research design will follow a qualitative case study approach with a constructivist philosophy. The data collection techniques involve content analysis, document and statistical analysis, semi-structured interviews, and process tracing of the judicial review process to understand causal mechanisms and test hypotheses about constitutional reforms in Kazakhstan.
The study will contribute to scholarship on courts in hybrid regimes and develop new measurements for the Court's functions across three dimensions: independence, power, and efficiency. It also offers policy-relevant recommendations to strengthen constitutional review and improve legislative accountability in Kazakhstan and the broader Central Asian region.
Abstract
Urban dynamics across Central Asia nowadays exhibit notable similarities, including rapid marketization, large-scale construction booms, commodification of public spaces, and powerful growth coalitions which link political and economic elites. However, despite these common pressures, urban activism patterns vary considerably, from frequent, well-organized NGO campaigns in some cities to rare, easily suppressed grassroots initiatives in others. This paper develops an integrated theoretical framework to explain this variation. This framework combines three bodies of literature: authoritarian neoliberalism theory explains how market-oriented reforms under illiberal state authority generate grievances through displacement and environmental degradation; growth machine theory identifies the coalitions of developers, politicians, and financiers driving urban development; and political opportunity structure (POS) theory, adapted for authoritarian contexts, explains why similar structural conditions produce different activism patterns. This framework specifies three POS dimensions critical in authoritarian urban contexts in Central Asia: first, international openness accounted for by the ratification of conventions like Aarhus and transnational NGO presence; second, civil society space comprising legal protections, state toleration of autonomous organizing; and third, state capacity manifested by fiscal resources enabling co-optation versus repression. These dimensions combine into regime-specific configurations that shape activism intensity and organizational forms. The framework generates six testable propositions linking POS configurations to activism patterns. For instance, higher international openness enables NGO-led activism through resource flows and accountability mechanisms; broader civil society space permits more frequent mobilization; and state capacity deployment determines whether regimes go for co-optation or repression as a means of control. Integrating political economy and political process theory, this framework addresses the structural conditions generating grievances and the political configurations shaping the ways residents engage in contentious politics under authoritarian rule at the city level.