Suchergebnisse

In the post-Soviet period, Central Asia has lost the cohesiveness it had in the Soviet period. The states of the region have since been seeking outward linkages to pursue their economic and security interests. In the process, the relation between the Central Asian countries weakened and, in some cases, became adversarial. The nation-building process undertaken by the national leaders alienated ethnic minorities and neighbouring states. As a result, the regional mechanisms or organizations that have come up in the region are led or initiated by powers such as Russia, China and the USA. The competing interests of these powers have not helped in promoting cooperation among the Central Asia countries though some of these organizations are useful for member states. However, a new trend is visible since 2016 when a new leader became president in Uzbekistan. Improved bilateral relations and summits of leaders of the region create hope for a new regionalism in Central Asia that is based on the internal cooperative dynamics within the region. This may not replace the already existing mechanisms or organizations. However, the process itself is conducive for intra-regional cooperation and would be helpful in keeping the region free from the geopolitical competition of external powers.

The newly independent countries of Central Asia were eager to integrate their economies with the global economy. This required not only the dismantling of the state-controlled economy but also ushering in some form of democracy, free press and independent civil society. Beginning with 1991, the leadership in Central Asia tried to shed the tag of being Communist Party leaders and sought political legitimacy on the basis of nationalism and democracy. As a result, the initial years following independence saw some progress away from the Soviet political system.But later this trend weakened and most states moved to a more authoritarian system. Some scholars argue that this is due to the enduring Soviet political culture. This could be so; but after nearly 26 years, everything cannot be attributed to Soviet legacy. This article argues that Central Asian states are strongly influenced by the current developments within and outside. The continuation of authoritarianism has been possible because of popular support for the leader as a symbol of stability. However, there are factors that could change popular perception and shake the edifice of the current system.

Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist der Einfluß von Agrarstruktur und Agrarpolitik in der sowjetischen Ära auf die Land-Stadt-Wanderung in Zentralasien. Der Verfasser zeigt, daß weder die verschiedenen Maßnahmen zur Senkung der Arbeitsintensität in der Landwirtschaft noch der sinkende Lebensstandard auf dem Land eine Migration vom Land in die Städte bewirkten. Als Ursache für dieses Phänomen wird der Umstand gesehen, daß wirtschaftliche Mechanismen in traditionalen Gesellschaften nur effektiv sind, wenn sie von entsprechenden sozial- und kulturpolitischen Maßnahmen flankiert werden. Nur so können ethnokulturelle Determinanten der Migration, wie Familienstrukturen, demographische Faktoren und Brauchtum, beeinflußt werden. In diesem Sinne wird abschließend gezeigt, daß der Schlüssel zu Modernisierung und sozialem Wandel in Zentralasien im kulturellen Wandel in den ländlichen Regionen liegt. (BIOst-Wpt)

section 1. Globalisation : political, economic and cultural dimensions -- section 2. Sustainable development, social welfare and human resources -- section 3. Civil society, informal networks and local governance -- Section 4. Globalisation : security and strategic dimensions