Send message to Author

Abstract

Why do authoritarian leaders reform judiciaries they have spent decades constraining? I argue that strategies of judicial containment can produce overly deferential cultures that frustrate the regime's own objectives — legitimation, economic predictability, bureaucratic oversight — creating pressure to alter the composition of the bench. I investigate Kazakhstan's 2021 Administrative Procedures and Process Code, which established specialized administrative courts as part of President Tokayev's "Listening State" agenda. The reform staffed these courts partly with judges recruited from outside the career judiciary — bokoviki ("laterals") — to break what reformers described as an entrenched culture of judicial passivity. Analyzing over 7,000 Supreme Court administrative decisions (2021–2025) and interviews with judges, government lawyers, and litigants, I find that lateral presence on panels is associated with higher reversal rates of lower-court decisions favoring agencies, particularly against cabinet-level ministries and agencies rather than local bodies. This pattern complicates expectations that administrative courts in authoritarian settings primarily serve the center's interest in disciplining peripheral agents. Interview evidence reveals how this orientation was transmitted downward through informal mentorship, practice bulletins, and strategic sanctions, but also its limits: courts that aggressively scrutinized agencies exhibited marked caution in politically sensitive cases. By 2026, the political rhetoric had shifted toward "Law and Order," several lateral judges had departed, and agencies continued pursuing legislative rollbacks, raising questions about the durability of reforms

Send message to Author

Abstract

In the context of the digitalization of political communication, public authorities increasingly use social media to inform citizens about electoral processes and to shape public interpretations of institutional reforms. This trend is particularly visible during periods of constitutional and electoral change, when state institutions seek not only to communicate procedural information but also to legitimize reforms in the public sphere.

This paper examines the communication strategies of electoral authorities on social media during constitutional reform processes, focusing on the cases of 2020 Russian constitutional referendum and 2022 Kazakh constitutional referendum. The study analyzes how official accounts of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Kazakhstan construct narratives aimed at explaining and legitimizing institutional reforms.

The research addresses the following question: how do electoral authorities use social media to frame and legitimize electoral and constitutional reforms during periods of institutional change? The paper hypothesizes that electoral authorities primarily rely on informational and procedural frames that present reforms as technical and administrative processes rather than political decisions. It also assumes that communication strategies shift closer to the voting period, placing greater emphasis on citizen participation and the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Methodologically, the study combines qualitative and quantitative content analysis of posts published on official social media accounts of the electoral authorities. The empirical dataset includes posts published in the period preceding and during the reform campaigns, allowing the analysis of dominant themes, legitimation frames, and communication formats used in digital political communication.

By comparing the Russian and Kazakhstani cases, the paper seeks to identify similarities and differences in how electoral institutions frame institutional reforms in digital environments. The findings contribute to the broader discussion on the role of social media in the communication strategies of state institutions and in the public legitimation of political reforms.

Send message to Author

Abstract

The China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan railway represents one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in Central Asia, with the potential to transform Kyrgyzstan from a landlocked to a land-linked economy. By shortening transit routes between China and Europe by up to 900 km and reducing delivery times by nearly a week, the railway could significantly enhance regional connectivity and trade efficiency. For Kyrgyzstan, whose economy is increasingly shaped by re-export trade and logistics, the project offers an opportunity to consolidate its role as a transit hub within Eurasian supply chains. However, the railway project also raises substantial concerns regarding financial sustainability and economic dependence. With total project costs estimated at up to $8 billion—large relative to Kyrgyzstan’s GDP—the investment poses risks to public debt stability, especially given the country’s existing reliance on Chinese financing. This paper argues that the railway project is neither inherently a “game changer” nor a “debt trap,” but rather a conditional opportunity. Its long-term developmental impact will depend on governance quality, debt management strategies, and the extent to which Kyrgyzstan can leverage the project to foster high-value trade ecosystems. Without complementary reforms, the railway risks reinforcing dependency and low-value transit roles, with them, it could catalyze structural transformation in Kyrgyzstan’s economy.

Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper examines why digital transformation in Central Asia produces uneven gender-related outcomes despite the growing prominence of inclusion and skills development in official reform agendas. Focusing on Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, the study explores how state capacity, institutional coordination, and political priorities shape the incorporation of gender concerns into digital reform. Rather than treating women’s digital education as a separate policy field, the paper situates it within broader state-led modernization strategies and asks why gender priorities remain inconsistently embedded across sectors. Drawing on a comparative analysis of national policy documents, digital strategies, education reforms, and gender equality frameworks, the paper argues that uneven digital reform reflects not only differences in administrative resources but also distinct political choices about whose inclusion matters in development. While governments increasingly frame digitalization as a pathway to competitiveness and modernization, gender-sensitive implementation remains fragmented and often secondary. The paper contributes to debates on governance, power, and development in Central Eurasia by showing how digital reforms reveal broader hierarchies of state attention, institutional strength, and social inclusion.

Send message to Author

Abstract

This research examines the industrial policy pathways of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, focusing on post-independence de‑industrialisation of the 1990s and re‑industrialisation efforts since the 2000s. While existing literature has extensively covered the economic transformation of former planned economies, the unique pattern of industrialisation–de‑industrialisation–re‑industrialisation in these Central Asian nations remains understudied. Using a mixed‑methods approach combining policy document analysis, economic indicators, and the index of revealed comparative advantage, this study investigates how industrial policies have shaped the economic structure of both countries over three decades.

Preliminary findings suggest divergent outcomes driven by differences in resource endowment. Kazakhstan’s oil‑driven economy enabled more ambitious industrial policies; however, its export complexity has shown limited improvement. Kyrgyzstan, with fewer natural resources, pursued lighter industrialisation focused on textiles, food processing, and re‑exports, achieving modest gains in economic complexity despite significant resource constraints.

The study contributes to the development economics literature by demonstrating how resource endowments, institutional capacity, and policy choices interact to shape industrial development trajectories in these economies.