Neoliberalism in Kyrgyzstan : The Old and the New . A Short Historiography

Abstract

Neoliberalism has become one of the hot topics of research in the recent decades. One can find tons of academic literature on the topic. This is not surprising, as the world finds itself at the intersection of paradigms. The dogmas of liberal market have b een challenged by the statist and hybrid theories and successes of the newcomers. Kyrgyzstan was one of the first post Soviet countries to adopt and implement neo liberal reforms. Yet, the literature focusing on the process and actors, rather than normativ e consequences of the reforms is lacking. That is why I ask the question of who were and are the neoliberals. How do the older and younger neoliberals differ? Can we think of an organized network that influences the policy? How can a theory be dominant for so long, i.e. what can explain away its deficiencies? Looking at the time periods roughly corresponding to the presidencies of Akayev, Bakiyev and the post 2010 era, I speculate the following. The neoliberals could be categorized in two: the older cohort with Soviet communist background that see neoliberalism as a natural response and the younger cohort, who believe in the ideas of free market. The absence or presence of consolidated networks could not be established based on the data, as the study did not conduct interviews as it was initially planned. As for the factor used as a one fits all explanation for failures of the neoliberal policies, one could point to corruption. Although corruption is legitimate and represents a threat to the economy, it shoul d not be used as a shield against criticism.