Page 61 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 61 of 265 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
55
far from being developed in one short article (Migdal, 2004), it offers a few important insights that resonate with the experience of Kazakhstan. First, Midgal argues that with the end of the Cold War, newly independent states face an increased challenge of maintaining border stability as there is no competition of superpowers that are interested in preserving them. (Ibid, p. 20) Secondly, economic globalization also challenges the sovereignty of such new states, or indeed all the states in the system, by opening the markets and reducing the ability of governments to regulate the trade and financial flows, as well as expands the horizons of identity. (Ibid, p. 25) The resulting impact of the “double whammy” of these two factors makes newly independent states unable to form cohesive identity, therefore establishing non-nation states. Such polities are marked by multiple societal cleavages that establish and maintain varying levels of access to the political and economic resources of the state. (Ibid, pp. 33-35) While brief, Migdal’s discussion of non-nation state mirrors the emerging scholarship of the patronage networks, with one important difference: Midgal introduces a formative influence of global markets on identity which the researchers of patronage consider only in passing.
Unfortunately, Migdal’s article only introduces the concept of non-nation state without providing a robust theoretical framework for it. His examination of United States and Israel provides a modicum of support to the idea of the denationalizing role of globalization but not in any kind of satisfactory detail. The true test of Migdal’s idea should come from the examination of nation-building processes in the newly independent countries that he identifies as primary candidates for the application of his theory. So far, the literature on Kazakhstan associate the weakness of national identity with the presence
Object Description
| Title | Market reforms, foreign direct investment and national identity: Non-national identity of Kazakhstan |
| Author | Zhanalin, Azamat |
| Author email | janalin_a@yahoo.com; zhanalin@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | International Relations |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-29 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | English, Robert |
| Advisor (committee member) |
James, Patrick Rorlich, Azade-Ayse |
| Abstract | The present study offers an analysis of the concept of non-national identity in application to the Republic of Kazakhstan as the most likely case. The primary hypothesis is that newly independent states, which are undergoing a rapid transition to market economy and actively pursue integration in the world economy and foreign direct investment, will experience fragmentation of their national identity, defined as non-national identity.; Three sites in Kazakhstan, Almaty, Astana and Aktau, were chosen for the study as representative of the market reforms in the republic as well as the best examples of the country’s pursuit of foreign direct investment and integration into the global economy. The data collected indicates that while Kazakhstan does demonstrate fragmentation of its national identity, it is not necessarily caused by the market reforms and the participation in the global trade. Alternative causal variables such as the Soviet and Russian colonial legacy, intra-ethnic cleavages among the Kazakhs and the prevalence of multi-vector foreign policy were found to contribute to the development of non-national identity of Kazakhstan. The study’s results also suggest that in the last few years, Kazakh identity is experiencing a rather strong revival as well, which may yet counteract the existing factors leading to the emergence of the non-national identity of Kazakhstan. |
| Keyword | identity; nationalism; Kazakhstan; market reforms; globalization; foreign direct investment; national identity; countries in transition; foreign policy; culture; former Soviet Union; Central Asia; patronage networks; energy; oil; post-colonial legacy; nation-state |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Almaty; Astana; Aktau |
| Geographic subject (country) | Kazakhstan |
| Coverage date | 1970/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3812 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Zhanalin, Azamat |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Zhanalin-4506 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume51/etd-Zhanalin-4506.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 61 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 55 far from being developed in one short article (Migdal, 2004), it offers a few important insights that resonate with the experience of Kazakhstan. First, Midgal argues that with the end of the Cold War, newly independent states face an increased challenge of maintaining border stability as there is no competition of superpowers that are interested in preserving them. (Ibid, p. 20) Secondly, economic globalization also challenges the sovereignty of such new states, or indeed all the states in the system, by opening the markets and reducing the ability of governments to regulate the trade and financial flows, as well as expands the horizons of identity. (Ibid, p. 25) The resulting impact of the “double whammy” of these two factors makes newly independent states unable to form cohesive identity, therefore establishing non-nation states. Such polities are marked by multiple societal cleavages that establish and maintain varying levels of access to the political and economic resources of the state. (Ibid, pp. 33-35) While brief, Migdal’s discussion of non-nation state mirrors the emerging scholarship of the patronage networks, with one important difference: Midgal introduces a formative influence of global markets on identity which the researchers of patronage consider only in passing. Unfortunately, Migdal’s article only introduces the concept of non-nation state without providing a robust theoretical framework for it. His examination of United States and Israel provides a modicum of support to the idea of the denationalizing role of globalization but not in any kind of satisfactory detail. The true test of Migdal’s idea should come from the examination of nation-building processes in the newly independent countries that he identifies as primary candidates for the application of his theory. So far, the literature on Kazakhstan associate the weakness of national identity with the presence |
