Log in to star items.
- Convenor:
-
Kuat Akizhanov
(CAREC Institute)
Send message to Convenor
- Format:
- Open panel
- Theme:
- Public Administration & Public Policy
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
Abstract
Since gaining independence in 1991, Kazakhstan has undergone far-reaching political, economic, and social transformations. While often portrayed as a model of gradual modernization and stability in the post-Soviet space, Kazakhstan’s transition raises important questions about the nature of reform and governance under authoritarian conditions. This contribution applies Antonio Gramsci’s concept of passive revolution to analyse Kazakhstan’s state-led reform trajectory. Rather than representing a clear rupture with the Soviet past or a linear movement toward democratization, Kazakhstan’s development is examined as a process of controlled adaptation, in which top-down reforms have been selectively introduced to preserve existing power structures while managing societal change. Drawing on historical and contemporary examples -including recent institutional reforms and episodes of social unrest - the paper argues that Kazakhstan’s political evolution reflects a strategy of pre-emptive change designed to contain disruption and maintain elite continuity. The analysis contributes to broader debates on state-led modernization and elite-driven reform in post-Soviet and authoritarian contexts.
Abstract
While scholarship has extensively documented digital authoritarianism in technologically advanced states like China, Russia and Iran, Central Asia remains critically understudied despite representing the frontier of authoritarian technology diffusion. This research addresses a fundamental gap: we lack systematic understanding of how digital authoritarianism operates in technologically dependent contexts where states must borrow, adapt, and negotiate control mechanisms rather than develop them locally.
This study introduces "borrowed authoritarianism" as an analytical framework for examining how Central Asian governments appropriate digital control mechanisms from Russian and Chinese models. Through comparative analysis of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, it investigates two research questions:
RQ1: Under what conditions do Central Asian states selectively adopt or substantially modify specific platform governance mechanisms (regulatory frameworks, surveillance infrastructure, content moderation practices, platform cooperation strategies) borrowed from Russian and Chinese models?
RQ2: How do competing sociotechnical imaginaries - Russian models emphasizing information sovereignty, Chinese approaches centered on algorithmic governance- shape state actors' decisions about which governance mechanisms to prioritize, how to implement them, and how to justify them?
The research challenges technological determinism by demonstrating that effective digital authoritarianism does not require indigenous technological capacity. It extends platform governance theory beyond Western-centric origins by examining how states govern platforms rather than only how platforms govern content.
The study generates the first comprehensive comparative dataset on platform governance mechanisms across four Central Asian countries, documenting regulatory frameworks, content moderation practices, and state-platform negotiations. Leveraging fluency in Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Uzbek, and Russian, the research includes 28-30 expert interviews plus systematic analysis of 100-120 legislative and policy documents.
Despite extensive research on digital authoritarianism in China and Russia, Central Asia remains understudied. My research introduces "borrowed authoritarianism," examining how technologically dependent states adapt digital control mechanisms from advanced authoritarian regimes. By integrating platform governance with sociotechnical imaginaries theory, I explore how competing visions (Russian information sovereignty and Chinese algorithmic governance) shape policy choices in contexts often lacking technological capacity in Central Asia.
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
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.