Log in to star items.
- Convenors:
-
Sherzod Eraliev
(Lund University)
Rustamjon Urinboyev (Lund University)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Sherzod Eraliev
(Lund University)
- Discussant:
-
Sherzod Eraliev
(Lund University)
- Format:
- Panel
- Theme:
- Sociology & Social Issues
- Location:
- Room 2002
- Sessions:
- Friday 19 June, -
Time zone: KZT
Abstract
Corruption has remained one of the most persistent governance challenges across post-Soviet Central Asia despite decades of international anti-corruption initiatives and domestic reform programmes. Conventional policy approaches – often centred on formal legal reforms, institutional compliance, and technocratic monitoring – have produced limited results. These outcomes have prompted growing scholarly calls to rethink corruption not simply as a deviation from formal rules but as a phenomenon embedded in complex legal, institutional, and social environments.
This panel brings together research conducted within the EU Horizon-funded project MOCCA (Multi-level Orders of Corruption in Central Asia) to examine corruption and anti-corruption efforts through the lens of legal pluralism, institutional transformation, and everyday professional practices. Rather than focusing solely on formal legislation and institutional frameworks, the panel explores how corruption emerges at the intersection of international norms, national laws, administrative reforms, and local legal cultures across Central Asia.
The papers approach this issue from complementary perspectives. Rustamjon Urinboyev’s presentation critically rethinks prevailing anti-corruption strategies by examining how corruption operates within hybrid legal landscapes where formal regulations coexist with informal governance practices. Madina Ishkibayeva investigates how professionals in higher education navigate corrupt environments and how maintaining professional identity can become a subtle form of resistance to corrupt practices. Daniya Nurmukhankyzy provides a comparative legal analysis of anti-corruption examinations of normative legal acts in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, highlighting the role of preventive legal mechanisms in regulatory reform. Kobil Ruziev examines doctoral education reforms in Uzbekistan, showing how institutional reforms aimed at strengthening research capacity encounter persistent informal practices and governance norms that undermine academic integrity and policy implementation.
Together, the panel advances a multi-level and interdisciplinary perspective on corruption in Central Asia. By combining socio-legal analysis, institutional reform studies, and empirical research grounded in regional fieldwork, it contributes to ongoing debates about how corruption should be conceptualized, studied, and addressed in post-Soviet governance contexts. The panel ultimately seeks to move beyond narrow legalistic approaches and offer new insights into the dynamic relationship between law, institutions, professional ethics, and reform processes in the region.
Accepted papers
Session 1 Friday 19 June, 2026, -Abstract
Since 2017 Uzbekistan has embarked on a comprehensive package of socio-economic reforms aimed at modernising its economy and strengthening national research capacity. Central to these efforts are doctoral education (DE) reforms, aligned with global trends that position doctoral training as a key driver of innovation, knowledge creation, and national advancement. This study critically examines the intentions, implementation, and outcomes of Uzbekistan’s DE reforms through the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, applying a mixed-methods approach that combines document analysis with in-depth interviews of 29 key stakeholders including doctoral students, supervisors, and higher education administrators. Findings reveal two research capacity gaps. The first comprises tangible resource and skills deficits, e.g. deficiencies in infrastructure, equipment, and research facilities, that are amenable to targeted investment and operational improvement. The second involves less tangible norms and governance gaps, rooted in longstanding challenges related to impartial rule enforcement and sustained collective participation and norm-building among academics. The IAD framework illustrates that while addressing material and skills gaps is necessary, it is insufficient to eliminate entrenched informal practices such as ghostwriting and predatory publishing. Lasting reform requires participatory, meritocratic structures grounded in shared ethical values that reduce enforcement costs and foster adherence to academic standards. A persistent disconnect between policy aspirations and lived realities highlight the enduring influence of command-administrative governance and the need for robust stakeholder engagement. This study offers theoretical and practical insights into the institutional foundations essential for sustainable research capacity building in Uzbekistan and comparable post-Soviet contexts.
Abstract
Historically a crucible of Islamic civilization, Uzbekistan underwent a profound transformation under Russian and Soviet colonization, resulting in the establishment of a secular legal order and the exclusion of Shari’a and customs from the public sphere. Following independence in 1991, Uzbekistan began moving away from socialism toward capitalism. At that time, the ruling class and intellectuals believed it appropriate to transplant norms from advanced legal systems in order to create new laws and regulations compatible with the emerging economic system. This tendency toward legal transplantation, often grounded in Eurocentric assumptions as well as the Soviet legacy, continues to shape contemporary lawmaking and has generated tensions in areas such as family, criminal, and civil law.
At the same time, post-independence Uzbekistan has experienced a significant Islamic revival within a predominantly Muslim society. Despite this, non-state normative orders, such as customary practices (adat) and Shari’a, remain marginalized within the formal legal system, where statutory law is dominant and exclusively applied by state courts. Prominent Uzbek jurists also emphasize that, as a secular state, statutory law takes precedence and that all residents are required to follow it exclusively. Even law school textbooks rarely mention the significance of religious rules and customs in legal practice, with legal education seemingly disconnected from societal realities. While existing scholarship on legal pluralism acknowledges the coexistence of state and non-state legal orders in Uzbekistan, it often stops at descriptive analysis and offers limited normative guidance on how to address this plurality within formal institutions.
This paper argues that the persistence of this hierarchy reflects not only legal positivism but also deeper patterns of epistemic and institutional dominance that can be understood through a decolonial lens. Drawing on decolonial theory, this paper proposes a shift from attempting to eliminate legal pluralism toward managing it. It advances a theoretical framework for incorporating forms of hybrid decision-making within state courts, aimed at recognizing the social significance of non-state norms while maintaining institutional coherence. In doing so, the paper contributes to ongoing debates on legal pluralism and decoloniality in post-Soviet contexts.
Abstract
This paper examines the institution of anti-corruption examination of normative legal acts in the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Uzbekistan through the lens of comparative legal analysis. The study begins with a review of the evolution of national legislation in both countries concerning the development of anti-corruption examination. Although the trajectories of legislative development in this area differ significantly, they also reveal certain similarities.
Particular attention in this research is devoted to the issues of transparency, professional ethics, and accountability in the process of anti-corruption examination. The central question is whether such examination genuinely influences the level of corruption in both countries or whether it functions merely as a formality.
The comparative analysis has demonstrated both convergences and divergences in the approaches of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to implementing anti-corruption examination, reflecting broader trends in the legal development of the post-Soviet space.
The findings suggest that strengthening the legal framework, improving the professional training of examiners, and ensuring political will are essential for enhancing the effectiveness of anti-corruption examination. The contribution of this paper lies in broadening the understanding of how preventive legal instruments can promote transparency and good governance in transitional societies.
Abstract
This study examined how professional identity (PI) shapes ethical resistance to corruption within Kazakhstan’s higher education sector, addressing the persistent gap between formal anti-corruption reforms and everyday academic practice. Using a mixed-method design, the research demonstrated that PI functions primarily as an internal ethical anchor rather than as a trigger for overt confrontation. Quantitative findings showed that faculty members exhibit significantly higher levels of ethical awareness, transparency commitment, and accountability orientation than students, reflecting the cumulative effects of professional socialisation. However, these gains do not translate into greater public advocacy, as no significant difference was found between faculty and students in integrity advocacy.
This apparent paradox is resolved through qualitative analysis, which revealed the prevalence of “silent resistance.” Academics with strong PI routinely uphold their ethical standards through discreet actions—such as refusing to participate in unethical practices or selectively complying with flawed procedures—while avoiding visible confrontation that could jeopardise their professional standing. In this context, silence should not be interpreted as ethical disengagement but as a rational and adaptive response to institutional environments characterised by hierarchical power, informal governance, and limited psychological safety.
The study also broadens the understanding of corruption by identifying structural rigidity as a form of institutional corruption. Inflexible administrative and research governance systems compel academics to compromise professional judgement even in the absence of personal gain, thereby eroding integrity at the systemic level. Crucially, the findings show that strong PI alone is insufficient to enable overt resistance when resource barriers and fear of retaliation persist.
Overall, the study contributes to corruption and higher education research by foregrounding professional identity as a key mechanism of ethical resilience and by reframing resistance as a spectrum of practices shaped by institutional risk. Sustainable anti-corruption strategies must therefore move beyond compliance and punishment toward creating identity-safe environments that support ethical action.