Send message to Author

Abstract

Post-communist public administration is often analysed through the lens of “communist legacies,” which typically emphasise institutional persistence, politicisation, and centralisation inherited from the socialist period. While this literature has generated important insights, it frequently assumes that administrative change follows a trajectory in which Soviet institutions are gradually replaced by Western-inspired governance models. This article challenges that assumption by arguing that administrative change in post-Soviet contexts is better understood as a process of institutional layering, in which multiple administrative logics coexist and interact rather than sequentially replacing one another.

Drawing on socio-legal and public administration perspectives, the article introduces the concept of layered administrations to explain the coexistence of three distinct yet interrelated governance repertoires in post-Soviet Central Asia: (1) inherited Soviet administrative doctrines, including hierarchical supervision, discretionary enforcement, and informal compliance mechanisms; (2) post-independence institutional reforms inspired by Western models of public administration, rule-of-law institutions, and new public management practices; and (3) informal normative orders rooted in local social institutions, moral economies, and community-based governance structures. Rather than displacing earlier administrative practices, these reforms have produced an additive governance environment in which bureaucrats navigate overlapping legal norms, administrative expectations, and informal obligations.

Empirically, the article draws on qualitative evidence from Central Asia, with particular attention to Uzbekistan, including ethnographic observations, socio-legal fieldwork, and analysis of administrative practices in everyday interactions between citizens and state officials. These materials reveal how administrative actors strategically mobilise different normative layers—formal law, bureaucratic rules, and informal norms—to manage policy implementation, resolve conflicts, and maintain administrative authority.

By conceptualising post-communist governance as a layered administrative order, the article contributes to debates on institutional change, informality, and state practice in post-socialist contexts. More broadly, it demonstrates that understanding the everyday state requires moving beyond dichotomies of legacy versus reform and recognising how administrative systems evolve through the accumulation and interaction of multiple governance traditions.