Eurasianism and the Concept of Central Caucaso-Asia

78
Eldar Ismailov and Vladimer Papava
same time, its component parts have much in common, which makes it
possible to regard them as a single region. 316
All the countries of Central Caucaso-Asia began their post-Soviet lives under
more or less identical conditions: without the very much needed institutions
of statehood, with a fairly low level of political culture, and a command
economy. These three conditions were not merely interconnected: the future
of the reforms in these countries depended on their interconnection. Indeed,
the absence of the institutions of statehood, for example, made it hard to
develop a political culture and that, in turn, prevented democratization. On
the other hand, the absence of institutions of statehood made it much harder
to move into a market economy, 317 and also slowed down the advance toward
democracy. These problems were reflected, to different extents, in the
political and economic transformations in the Central Caucaso-Asian
countries. All these countries, with the exception of Kazakhstan,
demonstrated a reverse relationship between rich hydrocarbon reserves and
the pace of market reforms: the reserves obviously failed to stimulate
economic reform. 318 In addition, as during Soviet times, the economy of the
Central Caucaso-Asia countries is politicized. 319
316 Ismailov and Esenov, “Central Eurasia in the New Geopolitical and Geo-Economic
Dimensions,” pp. 11-43; Nazim Muzaffarli (Imanov), Reyting Azerbaydzhana v
mezhdunarodnykh stravnitel’nykh issledovaniiakh [Azerbaijan’s Rating in International
Comparative Analyses] (Baku: “Kavkaz,” 2006).
317 For example, Leszek Balcerowicz, Socialism, Capitalism, Transformation (Budapest:
Central European University Press, 1995), p. 146; Vladimer Papava, “Georgian
Economy: From ‘Shock Therapy’ to ‘Social Promotion’,” Communist Economies &
Economic Transformation, Vol. 8, No. 8 (1996), p. 252; Vladimer Papava, Necroeconomics:
The Political Economy of Post-Communist Capitalism (New York: iUniverse, 2005), p. 13;
Vladimer Papava, “On the Theory of Post-Communist Economic Transition to
Market,” International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1/2 (2005), p. 78; V.
Papava and T. Beridze, Ocherki politicheskoi ekonomii postkommunisticheskogo kapitalizma:
opyt Gruzii [Essays on the Political Economy of Post-Communist Capitalism: The
Georgian Experience] (Moscow: Delo i servis Publishers, 2005), pp. 68-69.
318 Anders Åslund, “Eventual Success of Market Reform,” in Kalicki and Lawson, eds.,
Russian-Eurasian Renaissance? U.S. Trade and Investment in Russia and Eurasia, pp. 405-
428.
319 Simons Jr., Eurasia’s New Frontiers, p. 7.