Page 100 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 100 of 265 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
94
economic recovery was and still is the government policy of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) to the vast raw materials sector of economy in Kazakhstan to drive the economic growth. At some point, Kazakhstan was so successful that it placed second among all post-communist states after Hungary in terms of FDI per capita. (Cummings, 2005, p. 3 and 32) Within the Commonwealth of Independent States, it places consistently first and even has been recognized as a market economy in 2001-02 by the European Union and the United States. (Lee, Baimukhamedova, & Akhmetova, 2010, pp. 85-86)
However, it took a while before the FDI made a significant impact on the economic growth of Kazakhstan.120 In fact, before 1998, Kazakhstan’s economy shrunk by a third compared to what it was in the Soviet Union. (Spechler, 2008, p. 32) If in 1991, Kazakhstan was ranked sixty-first in terms of Human Development Index by the United Nations Development Program, only 4 years later, in 1995, it was ninety-third. (Peck, 2004, p. 64) Only since 1999, the republic started to post positive economic growth. (Ibid, p. 63) (Dave, 2007, p. 163) In Mangystau, it took two more years – only in 2000 the regional economy started to show signs of recovery as its oil industry began to expand again (Voloshin, 2001) and foreign companies invested money into it. The change was rather startling and in less than 2 years since 1999, Mangystau economy reduced the unemployment to what it was previously thanks to the rapid growth of
120 Research shows that FDI may not have had a direct effect on the growth of GDP in Kazakhstan but rather fixed capital investment and increased trade fueled by FDI had the desired effect (Lee, Baimukhamedova, & Akhmetova, 2010)
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 100 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 94 economic recovery was and still is the government policy of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) to the vast raw materials sector of economy in Kazakhstan to drive the economic growth. At some point, Kazakhstan was so successful that it placed second among all post-communist states after Hungary in terms of FDI per capita. (Cummings, 2005, p. 3 and 32) Within the Commonwealth of Independent States, it places consistently first and even has been recognized as a market economy in 2001-02 by the European Union and the United States. (Lee, Baimukhamedova, & Akhmetova, 2010, pp. 85-86) However, it took a while before the FDI made a significant impact on the economic growth of Kazakhstan.120 In fact, before 1998, Kazakhstan’s economy shrunk by a third compared to what it was in the Soviet Union. (Spechler, 2008, p. 32) If in 1991, Kazakhstan was ranked sixty-first in terms of Human Development Index by the United Nations Development Program, only 4 years later, in 1995, it was ninety-third. (Peck, 2004, p. 64) Only since 1999, the republic started to post positive economic growth. (Ibid, p. 63) (Dave, 2007, p. 163) In Mangystau, it took two more years – only in 2000 the regional economy started to show signs of recovery as its oil industry began to expand again (Voloshin, 2001) and foreign companies invested money into it. The change was rather startling and in less than 2 years since 1999, Mangystau economy reduced the unemployment to what it was previously thanks to the rapid growth of 120 Research shows that FDI may not have had a direct effect on the growth of GDP in Kazakhstan but rather fixed capital investment and increased trade fueled by FDI had the desired effect (Lee, Baimukhamedova, & Akhmetova, 2010) |
