Gregory Gleason

Cultural Determinism versus Administrative Logic: Asian Values and Administrative Reform in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

Abstract Cultural explanations of development claim that the choices a nation makes are dependent upon the countrys deeply held norms and values. When this argument is extended to the realm of administrative science, it suggests that values rather than formal institutions under certain circumstances exert a determining influence in administrative development. The truth of this general proposition implies that societies that have similar cultural foundations and which undergo similar external pressures can be expected to follow similar paths of administrative change. Is this general tendency borne out by empirical observation? The present article examines this expectation using empirical evidence from the experience of administrative reform in two Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The article argues that these two countries, while having similar culture values and norms as well as a common administrative legacy, followed very different paths of administrative reform during the first decade of post-communist reorganization. The descriptive analysis of the two cases provides evidence for the conclusion that policy choice rather than cultural values played a determining role in administrative change in the countries reviewed. This argument rejects the assumption of cultural determinism, but does provide a nuanced interpretation of the continuing influence of cultural values on the process of policy.

The Uzbek Expulsion U.S. Forces and in Central Asia

Moscow was glad to see U.S. military forces expelled from Uzbekistan but may soon have its own problems with Tashkent.

Why Russia is in Tajikistan

Since the Soviet breakup in 1991, the Russian government has maintained a substantial military and diplomatic presence in Tajikistan, yet Tajikistan shares no common border with Russia, the once sizable Russian population largely has abandoned the country, and there is little in Tajikistan of commercial value to Russia. What then accounts for Russias continuing involvement in Tajikistan? This paper argues that Russias commitment to Tajikistan has psychological, tactical and strategic dimensions.

The Politics of Counterinsurgency in Central Asia

Insurgency movements and counterinsurgency measures both threaten to hinder the development of democracy and law-based states in Central Asia.

Russia and the Politics of the Central Asian Electricity Grid

Regional electricity integration makes economic sense, but many Central Asian leaders are reluctant to surrender power.

Afghanistan reconstruction in regional perspective

The reconstruction of Afghanistan is in part dependent upon the reintegration of Afghanistan into the international community. Reintegration, in turn, is dependent upon Afghanistans trans-border infrastructure of communication, trade, transport, water, power and investment. Accordingly, increased regional economic cooperation is a key element of Afghanistans reconstruction. This article analyses regional economic cooperation in the South and Central Asian region in terms of logic, institutions, actors, and expectations. The article argues in favour of inclusiveness to enlarge the number of beneficiaries of economic benefits of regional economic cooperation while avoiding the pitfalls of risky strategies of faulty collective action.

Lenin, Gorbachev, and ‘national-statehood’: Can Leninism countenance the new Soviet federal order?

One of the most intractable contemporary problems in the USSR is the Soviet federal dilemma. The late 1980s witnessed competing claims among the national minority groups of the USSR to rights of voice, representation, and cultural, economic, and even political sovereignty. Since the onset ofperestrojka, the principle of ‘nationalstatehood’ has acquired a new legitimacy. Nationality is one of the pillars of the federal reform. The drive to create a ‘new Soviet federalism’ has become an important component ofperestrojka. But, according to Leninist doctrine, the ‘nation’ is a transitional formation. Unless there is a significant departure from Leninist theory, the new acknowledgement of the ‘rights of nations’ in the USSR can only be a political — and thus temporary — concession. Can the ideology evolve in such a way as to provide ideologically-based political legitimacy to the notion of national-statehood? Is Gorbachevs ‘dynamic’ interpretation of Leninism capable of rejecting one of Lenins most fundamental concepts? The thesis of this article is that Soviet federal reform requires a substantial departure from the Leninist tradition. The extent to which Soviet leaders are prepared to do this casts light on one of the perennial concerns of socialist thought, namely whether ideology matters at all.