Social Capital Construction and Governance in Central Asia: communities and ngos in post-soviet uzbekistan

SOCIAL CAPITAL

CONSTRUCTION

AND GOVERNANCE

IN CENTRAL ASIA

Communities and NGOs

in post-Soviet Uzbekistan

EDITED BY

TIMUR DADABAEV

MUROD ISMAILOV

YUTAKA TSUJINAKA

POLITICS

AND HISTORY

IN CENTRAL ASIA

Politics and History in Central Asia

Series Editor

Timur Dadabaev

University of Tsukuba

Tsukuba, Japan

In the past few decades, Central Asia has drawn the attention of academic

and business communities as well as policy professionals because of its

geostrategic importance (being located between Russia and China and

in close proximity to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and India), its

international stability, and its rich energy resources. The region also faces

challenges, such as post-conflict peacebuilding, impacts of the Afghan

conflict, a number of recent inter-ethnic conflicts, and post-Socialist devel￾opment paradigms. Approaching the problems and issues related to this

region requires a multi-disciplinary perspective that takes into account

political science, international relations, political economy, anthropology,

geography, and security studies. The Politics and History in Central Asia

series serves as a platform for emerging scholarship on this understudied

region.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14540

Timur Dadabaev • Murod Ismailov • Yutaka Tsujinaka

Editors

Social Capital

Construction and

Governance in

Central Asia

Communities and NGOs in post-Soviet Uzbekistan

Politics and History in Central Asia

ISBN 978-1-137-52232-0 ISBN 978-1-137-52233-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52233-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017932396

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the

Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of

translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on

microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,

electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now

known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this

publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are

exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information

in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the

publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to

the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The

publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and

institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: John Wilkes Studio / Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Nature America Inc.

The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.

Editors

Timur Dadabaev

University of Tsukuba

Tsukuba, Japan

Yutaka Tsujinaka

University of Tsukuba

Tsukuba, Japan

Murod Ismailov

University of Tsukuba

Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

v

The primary aim of this book is to contribute to the understanding of the

processes taking place in Uzbekistan in terms of social capital formation

in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should be noted that

this book focuses on the years President Islam Karimov, who passed away

in September 2016, was in power. Therefore, the coverage and analysis of

this book primarily aims to elucidate the model of social capital construc￾tion attempted by the Uzbek government in the years of Islam Karimov’s

rein in power.

After years of political reforms following the collapse of the Soviet

Union, there is still no consensus on how to evaluate Karimov’s years

in power. On the one hand, Karimov has been praised both within

Uzbekistan and internationally for his ability to preserve inter-ethnic peace

and stability in the chaotic conditions of the post-independence years in

Uzbekistan. He successfully stopped extremist Islamic ideas from spread￾ing into Uzbekistan. On the other hand, however, Uzbekistan is still in

the process of establishing its stable and sustainable system of governance.

Similar to all post-Soviet Central Asian republics, this process is not yet

completed in Uzbekistan. Consequently, there is much speculation about

possible prospects for development, especially in the post-Karimov era.

However, analysis concerning the future of Uzbekistan is problematic and

premature unless the current processes in the country develop to include

both official political discourse and empirical data, and the views of the

population and patterns of public thinking are properly analyzed.

The aim of this book is to launch the process of analyzing Uzbekistan’s

government development over the years of its independence by analyzing

Preface

vi Preface

grand narrative of Karimov’s model of social capital construction empha￾sizing its strength and challenges.

Although this book raises various questions regarding local governance

units, their relations with the state and nature of public opinion, none of

the answers provided in this book are final and non-debatable. Rather,

this book represents an attempt to launch the process of considering these

issues and engaging in an analysis of the empirical evidence and theoretical

assumptions in an academic setting. This book is also an attempt to move

away from the dichotomous way of depicting many Central Asian societies

and developments, painting them either into ‘white’ (democratic, liberal,

‘correct’) or ‘black’ (non-democratic, non-liberal, ‘alien’) colors. On the

contrary, the authors in this book subscribe to the view that the evaluation

of the current situation in Uzbekistan needs to be carried out in a bal￾anced way in order to recognize the achievements of this country as well as

to understand the challenges it faces. In this way, we aim to promote a dia￾logue between and among scholars of various points of view, in an inclu￾sive way that offers a platform for a constructive fact-based discussion.

After the book manuscript had been submitted to the publisher and

when this book was in production, Uzbekistan suffered the loss of its first

President. Consequently, elections were held and Shavkat Mirzieev was

elected President. The newly elected President launched further reforms

by emphasizing the importance of dialogue between the state and the

population and thus recognizing the gap in this area in previous years.

Although this book was written and submitted to the publisher in the

years of Islam Karimov’s presidency, the importance of understanding the

narrative of social capital formation of Karimov’s presidency years con￾tributes to understanding future attempts of the newly elected President

Mirzieev to reform and improve the system of governance in the post￾Karimov years.

Timur Dadabaev

Murod Ismailov

Yutaka Tsujinaka

Tsukuba, Japan

vii

1 Theoretical Implications of and Methodological Approaches

to Studying Social Capital in Uzbekistan 1

Timur Dadabaev, Yutaka Tsujinaka, and Murod Ismailov

2 Introduction to Survey Research in Post-Soviet Central

Asia: Tasks, Challenges and Frontiers 29

Timur Dadabaev

3 Domestic Discourse on Civil Society and Social Capital 57

Murod Ismailov

4 Between State and Society: The Position of the Mahalla

in Uzbekistan 77

Timur Dadabaev

5 Social Capital and Liberal Democracy 97

Sabina Insebayeva

6 Civil Society and Environmental Issues 117

Murod Ismailov

Contents

viii Contents

7 Weaknesses and Capacities of Domestic NGOs 133

Murod Ismailov

8 Comparing Two Asian Perspectives: Nurturing Social

Capital in Uzbekistan and Japan 157

Murod Ismailov and Yutaka Tsujinaka

Index 179

ix

Fig. 4.1 The structure of the Mahalla committee in the 1970s

(for a Mahalla named after the 40th anniversary of the

October revolution) 87

Fig. 7.1 Domestic NGOs and their stated core missions 141

Fig. 7.2 Tools for achieving domestic NGO missions 142

Fig. 7.3 Areas in which NGOs could provide better than the

government (NGOs’ views) 143

Fig. 7.4 There should be less government intervention (NGOs’ views) 145

Fig. 7.5 Some rights could be compromised for the sake of public

safety (NGOs’ views) 146

Fig. 7.6 NGOs’ satisfaction with government policies 147

Fig. 7.7 NGOs’ trust in institutions (%) 148

Fig. 7.8 NGOs’ contacts with organizations and individuals (%) 150

Fig. 7.9 Support received by the NGOs from other organizations (%) 151

Fig. 7.10 Member participation in NGO activities 152

Fig. 7.11 Political influence of domestic NGOs 153

Fig. 8.1 Perception of changes in population growth over the years (%) 164

Fig. 8.2 Face-to-face interaction between citizens in two NHAs (%) 167

Fig. 8.3 Changes in face-to-face interaction between citizens within

two NHAs in the past 5 years (%) 168

List of Figures

xi

Table 2.1 JIGS survey summary 43

Table 2.2 Territorial-administrative distribution of NPO/NGOs in

Uzbekistan according to the official registry (as of

November, 2007) 43

Table 2.3 The types of CSOs surveyed 44

Table 8.1 Types of NHA activities in Uzbekistan and Japan and their

presumed impact on social capital 170

List of Tables

© The Author(s) 2017 1

T. Dadabaev et al. (eds.), Social Capital Construction and

Governance in Central Asia, Politics and History in Central Asia,

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52233-7_1

CHAPTER 1

Theoretical Implications

of and Methodological Approaches

to Studying Social Capital in Uzbekistan

Timur Dadabaev, Yutaka Tsujinaka, and Murod Ismailov

T. Dadabaev (*)

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tsukuba,

Tsukuba, Japan

Y. Tsujinaka

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tsukuba,

Tsukuba, Japan

Japan Political Science Association, Tokyo, Japan

M. Ismailov

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tsukuba,

Tsukuba, Japan

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, there have been drastic changes

to all aspects of Central Asian societies, from relations within states to

local communities, families and individual lives. In recent years, regional

and foreign researchers have produced a substantial body of literature

describing political and economic aspects of these changes and their

2

consequences. However, there is no clear picture of how the majority of

people evaluate their present situations or the processes taking place both

within and around their societies.

As some scholars rightly note, “it is remarkable how little social data

is available concerning the entire Asian region as a whole”. This is true

of post-Soviet Central Asia in particular (Inoguchi 2004: 6–7). This lack

of social data and information on public perspectives perhaps indicates

a need for a more imaginative approach, one that takes into account

the local realities, needs, aspirations and hopes, as well as the traditional

social institutions and methods that may help to address new and global

demands.

This book employs the term ‘social capital’, which is meant to refer to

a rather broad definition of civil society inclusive of various social asso￾ciations, public organizations, traditional communities and various grass￾roots associations; however, “perceptions of what civil society is, what it

can achieve and how it should be encouraged vary considerably amongst

policy makers, academics and practitioners both inside and outside of

region” (Giffen et al. n.d., 4). As they also correctly note, these “problems

of definition have been compounded by a lack of understanding of the

nature of society in these Central Asian countries and at times a tendency

to simplify the complex social interactions and practices that have evolved

in the region over centuries, as a result of shifting patterns of power and

control” (Giffen et al. n.d., 5). The case of Uzbekistan is no exception to

such misunderstanding and lack of conceptualization.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a discourse regarding democ￾ratization and democracy (or the lack thereof) has dominated debates

about the political development of Uzbekistan. With each re-election of

President Karimov, critics emphasized the lack of civil society organiza￾tions and social capital capable of producing a civil society and generating

‘genuine’ democracy. Those opposing such perceptions emphasized that

Uzbekistan, as well as the other republics, is in the process of constructing

its civil society and that there is a solid foundation of social capital in its

society, which supports the government in its post-Soviet nation build￾ing. The government has argued that democratic decision making is an

established practice and that the mindsets of those involved in politics will

evolve over time to eventually reach the standards of developed nations.

However, both of these perspectives seem to miss the process of social

capital construction in Uzbekistan, arguing either that such capital already

exists or that such capital is non-existent.

T. DADABAEV ET AL.

3

The main objective of this book is to take a first step toward under￾standing how such social capital is being constructed in Central Asia using

the society of Uzbekistan as a case study.

The following questions are addressed in this book: first, what are the

key issues and concepts that need to be taken into account in learning

about social capital in Uzbekistan? What are the challenges and problems

associated with the conceptualization of social capital formation? What

are the dominant discourses both in terms of theory and in its applica￾tion to Uzbekistan’s society? Second, which public associations exist in

Uzbekistan? What are their functions and how do they interact with gov￾ernmental institutions? Third, can social capital formation in Uzbekistan

be compared to other countries? Can democracy be nurtured through the

process of social capital construction observed in Uzbekistan?

We consider these sets of questions in several chapters as described in

the section below. Although this book attempts to answer these questions

in various analytical settings, the primary aim of this book is to prob￾lematize various issues and notions and to raise awareness of various local

implications related to the concept of social capital in the Uzbek context.

The main thrust of this book is to demonstrate the complexity of under￾standing the notion of social capital in post-Soviet Uzbek society and to

detail the challenges and pressures facing the Uzbek people during this

transition. Views on post-Soviet political transitions to democracy in the

international community have often been based largely on hypothetical

assumptions and speculation. Opposing such approaches, we wish to dem￾onstrate that successful transition to democracy and rule of law cannot

be accomplished unless the concerns, fears, frustrations and local under￾standings of the desired political system are heard, registered and carefully

considered/interpreted.

Evolution of the Concept of Social Capital

Social capital is a relatively new concept that first emerged in the second

half of the twentieth century following researchers’ search for answers

about the sources of social bonding and human interaction. The ini￾tial appearance of the term ‘social capital’ in the literature is associated

with Loury’s 1977 study, which highlighted the social relationships cre￾ated when people attempt to effectively utilize their individual resources

(1977). Loury applied the term ‘social capital’ to describe the pool of

resources that is present within families and in community-based structures

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES...

4

that eventually strengthen the mental development of children and affect

their sociability. Loury’s understanding of the concept is similar to that of

Ben-Porath (1980), whose research has focused on the functions of these

exchange systems. He referred to this as the ‘F-connection’, a complex

system of relationships among families, friends, and firms.

One of the main reasons for social capital’s popularity among sociolo￾gists is its applicability to a multiplicity of research fields. Although its

initial application was in the field of education, its theorization was solid￾ified in sociology, and the concept has grown into a multidisciplinary

area identified in political and economic activity and social welfare. In

politics, its effects have been in facilitating the political participation of

citizens and in improving the performance of institutions. In the eco￾nomic sphere, social capital has become useful in encouraging overall

development and collaboration between rational actors, including eco￾nomic agents, whereas in social welfare, the impact of social capital has

been seen in increasing social bonds and community-based interaction

(Castiglione et al. 2008).

To provide a clearer picture of the contemporary debates around the

concept of social capital, this section of the current book examines a

body of literature suggesting a typology of explanations of human action

(Parsons 2010). Parsons originally suggested four logics of explanation,

which he named for the elements’ causal mechanisms: structural, institu￾tional, ideational and psychological.

Parsons’ matrix of explanations is influenced by two logical distinctions:

the first logical distinction is that structural and institutional claims are

logics of position, while the ideational claim is a logic of interpretation. A

logic-of-position claim explains by detailing the landscape around some￾one to reveal an obstacle course of material or man-made constraints and

incentives channeling human beings toward certain actions. This logic

implies the existence of micro foundations of objective rationality. For

example, when social actors react constantly to external constraints, it is

possible that external constraints play an important role in explaining their

actions. On the other hand, there is a logic-of-interpretation claim, which

explains by showing that someone arrives at an action only through one

interpretation of what is possible or desirable. For instance, ideational

claims do so by assessing how certain groups of people have historically

searched for ways of interpreting the things around them.

Similarly, one important step toward developing a stronger theory of

social capital is identifying the forms of social capital and the relationships

T. DADABAEV ET AL.