Cultural Globalization in the Post - soviet “ south ” Douglas

Thanks to increasing globalization, both West and Islamic ideas are finding new adherents among young people in Central Asia, though an “Asian” identity is not developing, at least not yet. The changes are happening so quickly, it is hard to say whether one set of ideas will prevail or if the result will be a new amalgam. G defined as an increase in the volume and intensity of flows—of goods, finances, technology, ideas, and people—has received a tremendous amount of attention in recent years. Most research to date has dwelt on either the causes or the consequences of this process, and has tended to focus on one or another discrete aspect of such flows. Specifically with regard to the flow of ideas, it has been widely observed that cultural globalization results in an overarching pattern of “hybridity,” according to which certain foreign ideas are absorbed while others are rejected. Yet such hybridized outcomes are hardly coherent; rather, they more closely resemble a wild chorus of competing ideas than a wellintegrated intellectual model. It remains unclear exactly what kind—or kinds—of cultural amalgams are emerging in various regions, and what prospects there are that certain elements within these mixtures will become even more prevalent than they are now. This article explores the answer to that question by considering the cultural impact of globalization in the majority Muslim states of the former USSR: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and 224 Demokratizatsiya Uzbekistan. In particular, I aim to describe and explain cultural globalization in the form of specific identities that have begun to crystallize among a sizable group of adherents. Moreover, I focus on young people, since this segment of society is most powerfully connected to and influenced by globalization. I discuss the main causes of this process, as well as the most important constraints that may limit its further development. Drivers and Enabling Conditions A crucial factor driving cultural globalization is economic growth and, along with it, integration into the international economy. By far the most important indicators of this for our purposes are foreign direct investment (FDI) and trade—in particular, inflows of FDI and imports of goods and services. The overall picture is complex. On the one hand, considerable changes have taken place; on the other hand, they fall terribly short of meeting the requirements for full integration. The only question is whether such insufficiencies are so overwhelming as to nullify the effects of the progress to date. On the whole, the answer is that they are not. FDI inflows have certainly risen significantly overall during the past decade. Of course, it is by far greatest in the four oil and gas exporters, while Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan attracted only relatively meager investment.1 Nevertheless, this should not lead one to completely discount the importance of those investments that have been made. As observed in a 2011 report by the OECD, “In Central Asia, economies have achieved staggering growth performance over the past 10 years—labor productivity has grown between 3 and 6 percent above the world average, GDP has grown by about 8 percent annually and FDI has grown nine-fold.”2 Even though (as the same report notes) expansion has slowed sharply since the onset of the “Great Recession,” these numbers are still noteworthy. Growth has been accompanied by a strong and sustained rise in imports, largely independent of each country’s degree of energy dependency.3 Freight import tonnage also increased markedly between 2006 and 2009, with all countries seeing 1 According to World Bank data, FDI net inflows in 2010 were roughly as follows: Kazakhstan $9.1 billion, Turkmenistan $2.2 billion, Uzbekistan $820 million, Tajikistan $375 million, Kyrgyzstan $230 million. Azerbaijan is the outlier with respect to trend, as it achieved an FDI net inflow peak of $3.5 billion in 2004 followed by net outflows after 2006, before rebounding to $560 million net inflow in 2010. See http://data.worldbank.org. Also Farra Fadi, Claire Burgio, and Marina Cernov. 2011. Competitiveness and Private Sector Development: Central Asia 2011. At http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment, accessed January 8, 2012. 2 Fadi et al. 3 Using 2000-2005 as a baseline, each country’s percentage increase of total imports as of 2011 was: Azerbaijan 298%, Kazakhstan 221%, Turkmenistan 335%, Uzbekistan 300%, Kyrgyzstan 467%, and Tajikistan 255%. Based on data for imports of goods and services. IMF. 2011. Regional Economic Outlook: Middle East and Central Asia. At www.imf.org. Cultural Globalization 225 increases of over 50 percent, except Tajikistan (28 percent).4 It has been widely noted that these are not highly diversified economies. Only in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan were 80 percent of exports from three or more sectors.5 Consequently FDI tends to be concentrated— especially into the energy sector of the oil and gas exporters (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan).6 Nevertheless, the investment that has occurred provides a framework for further development. More importantly, it has helped furnish the foundation for a dramatic increase in the intensity of cultural flows. Of course, when speaking of economic progress in this part of the world, important caveats must be noted. While trade has certainly risen dramatically, it remains far below what it might be due to numerous bureaucratic, infrastructural, and policy barriers.7 Infrastructural challenges abound. There continues to be a serious lack of adequate transportation, storage, and (particularly in Tajikistan) electricity supply.8 Many local roads and bridges are in a state of utter disrepair (again, particularly in Tajikistan, as well as Kyrgyzstan). Investments into this sector have overwhelmingly focused on major national and international transit corridors rather than local transportation. As a result, these countries are receiving only a fraction of their potential cargo flows. As one might expect, the combination of bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption routinely stymies efforts to make a positive difference.9 There has been very slow progress in the diffusion of international economic norms and functional standards.10 Finally, the international economic crisis reversed some of the gains that had been made, heaping debt upon countries hard pressed to service 4 Transport Corridor Europe, Caucasus, Asia (TRACECA) dataset. At http://www.tracecaorg.org/en/routes/transport-data/trade, accessed January 8, 2012. No data available for Azerbaijan. 5 World Bank. 2011. Trade Expansion through Market Connection: The Central Asian Markets of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan. At http://www-wds.worldbank.org, accessed January 12, 2012. 6 Mohammad Zulfan Tadjoeddin and Anis Chowdhury. 2012. “International trade and foreign investment.” In Samiul Hasan, eds., The Muslim World in the 21st Century: Space, Power, and Human Development. New York: Springer. 7 Jacek Cukrowski and Daniele Gelz. 2011. Behind-the-Border Trade Facilitation: Development Along Trade Corridors in Central Asia. At www.developmentandtransition.net, accessed