Log in to star items.
- Convenors:
-
Vera Axyonova
(University of Birmingham)
Bakhytzhan Kurmanov (University of Central Asia)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Vera Axyonova
(University of Birmingham)
- Discussant:
-
Bakhytzhan Kurmanov
(University of Central Asia)
- Format:
- Panel
- Theme:
- Political Science, International Relations, and Law
Abstract
Institutions such as universities, think tanks, media organizations, and civil society groups serve as important actors in producing expert knowledge, shaping public debate, and mediating between state and society. Across Central Asia, these institutions operate within evolving political and regulatory environments that require ongoing adjustment in organizational practices, professional norms, and modes of engagement. This panel examines how different types of institutions in Central Asia adapt to such conditions and what these adaptations reveal about the changing landscape of knowledge production, public discourse, and state-society relations in the region.
The papers analyze institutional responses across four sectors. Organizational practices within the higher education sector are studied through the lens of academic freedom in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, highlighting how universities and scholars navigate evolving expectations surrounding academic autonomy, research agendas, and public engagement. Civil society dynamics are explored through a study of non-governmental organizations in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, which examines how organizations adjust their strategies in response to changing regulatory frameworks through processes such as professionalization, diversification of partnerships, and other mechanisms that sustain their activities. The media sector is examined through the development of investigative journalism in Kazakhstan since 2019, focusing on how journalists working in major outlets adapt reporting practices and professional strategies in a changing media environment. Finally, the role of policy expertise is considered through a comparison of think tanks’ discursive responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in Kazakhstan and Russia, showing how these institutions attempt to shape public interpretations of the crisis.
Collectively, the papers offer a comparative perspective on institutional practices and adaptation strategies across sectors and country contexts in Central Asia and beyond. From a temporal perspective, the papers examine recent changes in the period during which Central Asian countries experienced a series of external and internal transformations and shocks. By examining universities, NGOs, media organizations, and think tanks side by side, the panel highlights how different types of institutions develop strategies to sustain their roles, maintain professional activity, and continue participating in evolving public and policy discussions across the region.
Accepted papers
Abstract
This paper examines how state-linked think tanks in Russia and Kazakhstan contributed to the endorsement of government policies and state authority during the Covid-19 pandemic. While some post-Soviet states are assumed to exhibit institutional and policy convergence, we have yet to understand how they compare in terms of their use of policy expertise. Existing studies of policy advisory systems in selected post-Soviet countries emphasize their importance in legitimizing government policy choices. Yet it remains unclear whether and how expert bodies differ in the ways they construct legitimacy across otherwise similar institutional settings. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of publications from the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS) and the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS) between January 2020 and February 2022, this study identifies divergent discursive approaches underpinning each institution’s response to the crisis. RISS instrumentalized the pandemic as a geopolitical narrative, depicting it as evidence of Western decline while portraying Russia – and, by extension, other non-Western powers – as responsible and capable actors. Its discourse relied on dramatization and polarization strategies that reinforced long-standing themes of multipolarity and moral superiority. KazISS, by contrast, framed the pandemic as a domestic governance challenge, emphasizing technocratic management, social responsibility, and national unity. By endorsing and rationalizing the leadership’s response to the pandemic, it projected an image of effective and transparent state action while depoliticizing the crisis. The comparison reveals that institutional similarity does not automatically translate into discursive uniformity. While both think tanks served to legitimize state authority, they did so through distinct mechanisms: RISS through the geopoliticization of the pandemic and KazISS through its depoliticization.
Abstract
This paper explores academic freedom in the higher education sector within the context of a cluster of four consolidated authoritarian countries in Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Drawing on qualitative data from key stakeholders in state and private universities, think tanks and the media, we investigate whether academic freedom has become part of the ‘authoritarian survival toolkit’ in Central Asia. We find evidence of repression, co-optation and legitimation where academia is not always seen as a domain of scholarly enquiry but rather a mechanism to reinforce state narratives, restrict academic freedom, and promote external legitimacy of the four authoritarian regimes. The case studies reposition academic freedom within authoritarian survival theory.
Abstract
This article examines the evolution of investigative journalism in Kazakhstan since 2019, when first president Nursultan Nazarbayev resigned after thirty years of rule. Based on an expert survey of journalists working in the country’s leading mass media outlets, it finds that two contradictory processes have been underway since 2019. On the one hand, there has been a growth in critical, investigative publications, specifically in digital media, which the state tolerates to a certain extent. On the other hand, there has been a notable increase in state repression. Accordingly, the paper argues that investigative journalism in Kazakhstan should be understood through the prism of networked authoritarianism, whereby investigative reporters have carved out limited autonomy in digital media due to digital activism, political emancipation, and the state’s desire to present an image of political liberalization.
Abstract
This article examines how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Central Asia adapt to ‘shrinking civic space’ through a diverse set of coping strategies. Drawing on 48 interviews and using the case studies of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan (2022–2024), it demonstrates how NGOs respond to regulatory changes by employing both inward-looking (professionalization, diversification, simulation) and outward-looking (boomerang tactics, GONGO-ization) accommodation strategies. While NGOs in Uzbekistan face GONGO-ization under strict state control, those in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have lower degree of GONGO-ization and employ a broader array of tactics to evolve and sustain their operations. Contrary to the assumption that restrictive environments lead solely to de-professionalization and informalization, this study demonstrates the adaptability of NGOs in Central Asia. This advances theoretical discussions on civil society under regulatory pressure by reframing NGOs as resilient agents operating within constraints.