Strengthening the state is central to the post-communist reform agenda. Here, state capacity combines organisational, material and social resources and is conceptualised along four dimensions: ideational, political, technical and implementational. This conceptualisation is applied to a comparative, survey-based analysis in 2002 of 125 medium-ranking officials in two post-communist Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The findings reveal that although Kazakhstan's controlled economic reform programme and natural resources have placed it in a stronger position to develop its state capacity, important ideational, political and implementational problems pose long-term obstacles for reform. In turn, Kyrgyzstan's early liberalisation in the absence of economic and social resources may be serving to undermine its state capacity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AberbachJ. D.RockmanB. A. (1987) ‘Comparative Administration: Methods, Muddles and Models’, Administration and Society, 18 (4), 473–506.
2.
AkinerS. (1995) Formation of Kazakh Identity: From Tribe to Nation-State.London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
3.
AlesinaA.PerottiR. (1994) ‘The Political Economy of Growth: A Critical Survey of Recent Literature’, World Bank Economic Review, 8 (3), 351–71.
4.
AlexanderC. (2002) Personal States.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
AndersonJ. (1999) Kyrgyzstan: Central Asia's Island of Democracy?London: Routledge.
6.
BrinkerhoffD. W. (2002) ‘Government–Nonprofit Partners for Health Sector Reform in Central Asia: Family Group Practice Associations in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan’, Public Administration and Development, 22 (1), 51–61.
7.
CampbellJ. L. (1998) ‘Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy’, Theory and Society, 27 (3), 377–409.
8.
CummingsS. N. (2000) Kazakhstan: Centre-Penphery Relations.Washington DC: Brookings Institution and Royal Institute of International Affairs.
9.
DaveB. (1996) ‘Politics of Language Revival: National Identity and State-Building in Kazakhstan’, doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
10.
DolowitzD. P.MarshD. (2000) ‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13 (1), 5–24.
11.
DryzekJ. S.HolmesL. (2002) Post-communist Democratization: Political Discourses across Thirteen Countries.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
EgerbjergM. (1999) ‘Transcending Intergovernmentalism? Identity and Role Perceptions of National Officials in EU Decision-Making’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (3), 456–74.
13.
EvansP. (1995) Embedded Autonomy.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
EvansP.RueschemeyerD.SkocpolT. (1985) Bringing the State Back In.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GeddesB. (1994) Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America.Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
16.
GoetzK. H. (2001) ‘Making Sense of Post-Communist Central Administration: Modernization, Europeanization or Latinization’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8 (6), 1032–51.
17.
GoetzK. H.MargettsH. (1999) ‘The Solitary Center: The Core Executive in Central and Eastern Europe’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 12 (4), 425–53.
18.
GozmanL.EtkindA. (1992) The Psychology of Post-totalitarianism in Russia.Center for Research into Post-Communist Economies.
19.
HallP. (1983) ‘Policy Innovation and the Structure of the State: The Politics–Administration Nexus in France and Britain’, The Annals (AAPSS), 466, 43–59.
20.
HeadyF. (1995) Public Administration in Comparative Perspective.Fifth Edition. New York: Marcel Dekker.
21.
HobsonJ. (2000) The State and International Relations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HoodC. (1995) ‘Emerging Issues in Public Administration’, Public Administration, 73 (1), 165–83.
23.
Jones LuongP. (2002) Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia: Power, Perceptions, and Pacts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
JreisatJ. E. (2001) ‘The Organizational Perspective in Comparative and Development Administration’, in FarazmandA. (ed.), Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration.New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 16–42.
25.
JreisatJ. E. (2002) Comparative Public Administration and Policy.Boulder CO: Westview Press.
26.
KaganovaO.TianV.UndelandC. (2001) ‘Learning How to Be Efficient Property Owners and Accountable Governments: The Case of Kyrygzstan's Cities’, Public Administration and Development, 21 (4), 333–41.
27.
LeftwichA. (1995) ‘Bringing Politics Back In: Towards a Model of the Developmental State’, Journal of Developmental Studies, 31 (3), 400–27.
28.
LeftwichA. (2000) States of Development.Cambridge: Polity.
29.
LeijphartA. (ed.) (1992) Parliamentary versus Presidential Government.London: Oxford University Press.
30.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1995) Democratic Governance.New York: Free Press.
31.
McGlincheyE. (2001) ‘Capacity or Collapse? Nation-Building in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan’, Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Nationalities, Columbia University, April.
32.
MigdalJ. S. (1988) Strong Societies and Weak States.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
MoonM. J.IngrahamP. (1998) ‘Shaping Administrative Reform and Governance: An Examination of the Political Nexus Triads in Three Asian Countries’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 11 (1), 77–100.
34.
NohlenD.FernándesM. (eds) (1991) Presidencialismo versus Parlamentarismo.Caracas: Editorial Nueva Sociedad.
35.
NordW. A.FoxS. (1996) ‘The Individual in Organizational Studies’, in CleggS. R.HardyC.NordW. R. (eds), Handbook of Organization.London: Sage, pp. 145–73.
36.
NorthD. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
NunbergB. (1999) The State after Communism: Administrative Transitions in Central and Eastern Europe.Washington DC: World Bank.
38.
NunbergB. (2000) Ready for Europe: Public Administration Reform and European Union Accession in Central and Eastern Europe.Washington DC: World Bank.
39.
OlcottM. B. (2002) Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise.Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
40.
PageE. C.WrightV. (eds) (1999) Bureaucratic Elites in Western European States: A Comparative Analysis of Top Officials.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
PetersG. B. (1986) ‘The Relationship between Political Executives and the Civil Service: A Comparative Examination’, in LaneJ.-E. (ed.), Resource Allocation in the Public Sector.London: Sage.
42.
PetersG. B. (1996) ‘Theory and Methodology’, in BekkeH. A.JamesG. M.PeryL.ToonenT. A. J. (eds), Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective.Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 13–41.
43.
PetersG. B. (1999) Institutional Theory in Political Science.London: Pinter.
44.
PetersG. B. (2001) ‘Rebuilding the Village? Or Is It a Merely a Camp Ground?’, Paper presented at the 9th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Riga, Latvia, 10–12 May (available at http://www.nispa.sk/news/conf2001.html).
45.
PrzeworskiA. (1991) Democracy and the Market.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
PutnamR. (1976) The Comparative Study of Political Elites.Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
47.
RaschB. E. (1996) ‘Presidentstyrets Utfordringer. Demokratisk institutionsformning i Latin-Amerika og Chile’, Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift, 3 (4), 187–216.
48.
RiggsF. W. (1994) ‘Global Forces and the Discipline of Public Administration’, in Garcia-ZamorJ. C.KhatorR. (eds), Public Administration in the Global Village.Westport CT: Praeger, pp. 17–5.
49.
SeabrookeL. (2002) ‘Bringing Legitimacy Back in to Neo-Weberian State Theory and International Relations’, Working Paper 2002/6, Canberra.
50.
SearsA. (1999) ‘The Lean State and Capitalist Restructuring: Towards a Theoretical Account’, Studies in Political Economy, 59 (Summer), 91–114.
51.
SikkinkK. (1991) Ideas and Institutions: Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina.Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
52.
SkocpolT. (1979) States and Social Revolutions.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SørensenG. (1990) Democracy, Dictatorship, and Development.New York: St Martin's Press.
54.
StarkD.BrusztL. (1998) Post-socialist Pathways Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
StephanA.SkachC. (1993) ‘Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation’, World Politics, 46 (1), 1–22.
56.
SubramaniamV. (2000) ‘Comparative Public Administration: From Failed Universal Theory to Raw Empiricism – A Frank Analysis and Guidelines towards a Realistic Perspective’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66 (4), 557–72.
57.
UNDP Regional Report (1997) The Shrinking State: Governance and Human Development in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.New York: United Nations Development Program.
58.
UNDP (2001) Rebuilding State Structures: Methods and Approaches. The Trials and Tribulations of Post-Communist Countries.New York: United Nations Development Program.
59.
VerheijenT.KotcheguraA. (eds) (1999) Civil Service Systems in Central and Eastern Europe.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
60.
WeissL. (1998) The Myth of the Powerless State: Governing the Economy in a Global Era.Oxford: Polity.
61.
WeissL.HobsonJ. (1995) States and Economic Development.Cambridge: Polity.
62.
WelchE.WongW. (1998) ‘Public Administration in a Global Context: Bridging the Gaps of Theory and Practice between Western and Non-Western Nations’, Public Administration Review, 58 (1), 40–9.
63.
WendtA. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It.New York: Basic Books.
65.
World Bank (1997) World Development Report: The State in a Changing World.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
