Keywords

Introduction: Law, Society, and Governance in Central Asia

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 paved the way for the rapid proliferation of Western-backed good governance, rule of law, and democratisation initiatives in the newly independent states of Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, and Central Asia (Ajani, 1995; Carothers, 1998; Daniels & Trebilcock, 2004; Frasheri, 2011; Gupta et al., 2002). In the 1990s, a widespread viewpoint held that the dismantling of socialist (Soviet) law and the introduction of Western-style legal traditions and governance institutions would play a pivotal role in promoting the rule of law and democratisation in the post-socialist societies (Alkon, 2002; Axyonova, 2016; Frasheri, 2011; Gleason, 2001; Paggi, 2009; White, 2010). Reflecting this understanding over the last three decades, international development agencies, policymakers, law enforcement authorities, civil society organisations, academic researchers, advocacy groups, and individual activists have all produced countless strategies and approaches to modernise (i.e., Westernise) the legal and governance systems of post-socialist societies. Such strategies rest upon the assumption that legal and governance reforms were technical, managerial, and financial matters (Carothers, 1998; Otto, 2008), in turn, implying that the export of laws and the transplantation of legal and administrative structures would produce the rule of law and good governance in post-socialist societies.

However, despite the unrelenting efforts of international development organisations, the building of Western-style legal and governance systems in non-Western societies is proving to be a dauntingly difficult and complex task (Carothers, 1998, 2002; Ikejiaku, 2014; Otto, 2008; White, 2010). An analysis of global political developments over the last three decades indicates that the number of nondemocratic regimes has increased significantly, a global trend referred to as the ‘third wave of autocratisation’ (Lührmann & Lindberg, 2019) or ‘authoritarianism goes global’ (Diamond et al., 2016). The initial euphoria accompanying the spread of democratic ideals in the 1990s has been tempered by the rise of authoritarian governments across various parts of the world (Freedom House, 2022). Notwithstanding the failure of such efforts, legal reforms and development initiatives continue to rely on Western-centric, ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches which fail to consider the uniqueness of individual countries and the contextual factors and indigenous institutions and traditions that determine the nitty-gritty of everyday life in non-Western societies. Consequently, there has been a growing call to rethink existing approaches, maintaining that legal and governance reform processes in non-Western contexts should be ‘country-owned’, fitting the local social fabric in order to succeed (Ahmed, 2007; Drechsler & Chafik, 2022; Grajzl & Dimitrova-Grajzl, 2009; Newton, 2006; Tamanaha, 2011; Yilmaz, 2002). This call relies on the view that externally imposed laws and institutions do not enjoy local legitimacy and authority in non-Western societies and are often manipulated, reconstructed, or rejected by local actors on the ground.

This volume, situating itself within these ‘law and development’ debates, explores the interconnections between law, society, and governance in Central Asia, a post-socialist region embodying an amalgamation of Soviet, Western, and Islamic legal cultures. After gaining independence in 1991, all five Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—have become ‘laboratories’ for testing various global (Western) good governance and rule of law initiatives. The political leadership of all Central Asian countries proclaimed, at least on a rhetorical level, their strong commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and market economy ideals, as well as their intention to introduce Western-style political and legal institutions. As such, these official proclamations were reflected in institutional and legal reconfigurations, which, amongst many other legislative changes, included the establishment of Western-style constitutions, parliaments, judiciary systems, human rights ombudsmen, and anticorruption agencies.

More than three decades have passed since the Central Asian states embarked on their nation-building journeys. Yet, many commentators now argue that all five Central Asian countries have made precious little progress in building Western-style legal and governance structures and that many formal institutions of government have achieved a mere showcase quality (Adams & Rustemova, 2009; Anceschi, 2019; Engvall, 2015; Ismailbekova, 2021; Lemon & Antonov, 2020; Polese & Horák, 2015). International indicators of the rule of law and a state’s capacity, such as the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index (WJP, 2022), Freedom House’s Democracy Index (Freedom House, 2023), and Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (TI, 2022), consistently portray Central Asian states as some of the most corrupt and authoritarian states in the world.

The above tendencies become acutely visible when we analyse Central Asia’s business environments and legal cultures. In 2012, Uppdrag Granskning, one of Sweden’s leading investigative journalism television shows, presented some highly contentious revelations about the involvement of TeliaFootnote 1 in unethical business practices in Central Asia (Uppdrag granskning, 2012). Telia, the Swedish telecom giant, has been conducting business in Central Asia since 2007, with a large portion of its operations situated in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. These revelations illustrated how Telia intentionally or unintentionally contributed to the attempts of authoritarian regimes in Central Asia to intercept the communications of human rights activists and opposition figures (Schoultz & Flyghed, 2020). The culmination of these revelations was the so-called ‘Uzbekistan affair’—the 3G-licencing process in Uzbekistan, which provided solid evidence of how Telia, in an attempt to acquire a 3G license in Uzbekistan, made extensive monetary transfers (over €200 million) to an offshore company, Takilant, which was nominally owned by an assistant to Gulnara Karimova,Footnote 2 daughter of the late Uzbek President Islam Karimov (Lasslett et al., 2017). This high-level corruption scandal sent shockwaves across Sweden, the EU, the United States, and Uzbekistan, eventually leading to criminal charges against the former Telia CEO and two other senior officials for their involvement in a bribery scheme. As a result of legal proceedings against the company, Telia paid a US$965 million fine to resolve charges relating to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Schoultz & Flyghed, 2021).

Telia’s ‘Uzbekistan affair’ was not the only case in which EU-based business actors were involved in corruption scandals in Central Asia. Similarly, VimpelCom, the Amsterdam-based telecom company, also faced criminal charges for paying massive bribes to Gulnara Karimova in order to enter the Uzbek telecommunications market; as a result, the company agreed to pay US$835 million to settle US and Dutch charges (The Guardian, 2016). More recently, the Pandora Papers—the largest corruption investigation on record, released by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists—revealed that, whilst corruption is ubiquitous globally, political elites in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus appear surrounded by particularly leaky circles of friends and brokers (Heathershaw & Cooley, 2015; RFE/RL, 2021).

The abovementioned corruption scandals appear indicative of two parallel and contradictory tendencies regarding the legal cultures and business environments in Central Asia:

First, the Central Asian region is a key prospective market for EU-based economic actors given its rich natural resources, growing middle-class population, and progressive opening up to the outside world. Over the last two decades, political and economic relationships and interdependence between EU and Central Asian countries have expanded, and the presence of the EU’s development aid programmes and educational and business initiatives in the region has grown significantly (Axyonova & Bossuyt, 2016; Bossuyt & Davletova, 2022; Dzhuraev, 2022; Korneev & Kluczewska, 2022; Schuster, 2011; Yildiz, 2022). Diplomatic and political relations have rapidly evolved, including in the fields of development, cooperation, and research, with a desire to further business relations.Footnote 3 However, apart from political declarations and official statistics,Footnote 4 little knowledge or few strategic documents have been produced on dealing with Central Asian markets in terms of access, business development, cultural adaptation, business ethics, and corporate responsibility. Recent events and developments following the Russian invasion of Ukraine (e.g., EU–Central Asia: 19th Ministerial Meeting, held in Luxembourg on 23 October 2023)Footnote 5 clearly indicate that exchanges will intensify rapidly and likely expand. The waiving of visas for EU citizens travelling to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan represents only one item in a long list of measures taken after local leaders realised the potential benefits of intensifying relations with the EU (Boonstra & Panella, 2018). These measures represent important steps for opening up such recently unexploited markets, characterised by a growing middle class. Uzbekistan is of particular interest, a country with a heavily closed authoritarian regime which remained nearly inaccessible until 2016 and only recently opened up to the outside world, offering the largest market in the region thanks to a population of 36 million people.

Second, the Central Asian region remains a challenging environment when it comes to navigating and understanding its legal cultures and business and economic contexts. Little is known about how the environment can be navigated. On the one hand, the region’s state of relative economic underdevelopment (when compared to the EU or US) offers very high rates of return compared with other regions. On the other hand, inconsistent business ethics standards—and the peculiar and arbitrary way in which the rule of law is interpreted and applied in the region, also called ‘the local way of doing business’—have hindered and limited the role of foreign companies in the region. Companies operating in the region have adopted a trial-and-error approach, often keeping the results of their experiences to themselves and making it difficult for newcomers to gather information quickly on how to operate. Hence, potential investors are faced with at least two challenges: First, the risks associated with entering Central Asian markets and running business activities are much higher and involve informal and semi-legal relations with state officials as well as fierce competition with local business elites already connected to the higher echelons of the government. A series of investigative reports by Kristian Lasslett published on the Open Democracy website serve as good examples of how the state and private sectors intertwine in Uzbekistan (Lasslett, 2019, 2020). Second, a difference in legal cultures, often resulting in a different understanding of business ethics, leads to a conflict between (a) what is considered moral, socially acceptable, or even legal in the region; and (b) what is considered good practice and in line with international law and standards.

Accordingly, the analysis of the above processes indicates that understanding the role and the rule of law in fluid and uncertain legal contexts such as Central Asia entails not only an analysis of ‘law-in-books’ (Pound, 1910)—that is, formal, written laws, regulations, and policies—but also an examination of ‘living law’ (Ehrlich, 1912)—that is, informal rules and extra-legal practices that permeate everyday life in both state-level and nonstate arenas. Hence, there is a need for a sociolegal analysis of how the state law and nonstate forms of normative ordering engage in mutually transforming interactions, thereby, shaping the legal landscape in the region. Based on these considerations, we position this volume as an attempt to examine interconnections between law, society, and governance in the Central Asian region from a law and society perspective, an approach allowing us to look under the hood of Central Asian law.

The Volume and Structure

The twelve chapters included in this volume focus on various legal and governance challenges in the region. Contributors, drawing from rich empirical data and in-depth analysis of legal developments, present intriguing narratives of how national and international laws, norms, and (written and unwritten) rules ultimately shape the legal and business environments and governance in five Central Asian countries. In doing so, they discuss why some rules and laws are complied with, whilst ignoring or avoiding others, and why some rules are bent or violated in support of personal objectives and benefits. They also compare visible and ‘invisible’ practices, both official and unofficial, explaining why and how a law is adopted and written on paper, how it is interpreted, applied in practice, and translated into practical recommendations, and how a target group responds to new provisions generated by a new law. In doing so, the volume brings together twelve chapters that cover diverse sociolegal topics in the context of Central Asia, examining the nexus between international norms and the domestic legal environment, as well as meso-level actors and ‘informal legal orders’ operating at the bottom of society. Reflecting these themes, this volume is organised into three sections, each of which focuses on one of three interlinked levels or orders of legal and social relations: (a) international norms and actors, (b) domestic institutions and legal environments, and (c) meso- and micro-level business actors, informal institutions, and norms. The three sections overlap in terms of their contents; however, we emphasize the multi-level orders of law and society relations in Central Asia, which cut across the chapters included in this volume.

Part I: International Norms and Actors

In the first part of this volume, we examine the role and influence of international and regional actors on institutional, legal, and business environments in the Central Asian region. To do so, we explore and compare the ways in which international organisations and regional actors interested in the region have attempted to influence the legal and institutional frameworks currently used to regulate business and economic relations in the region.

Tolibjon Mustafoev begins this examination by focusing on the role of the international anticorruption agenda, particularly Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), in shaping the business climate and legal developments in Uzbekistan. In undertaking this task, Mustafoev reviews Uzbekistan’s anticorruption legal framework and explores how domestic institutions and actors perceive, interpret, negotiate, and challenge global anticorruption norms. The zeal to improve Uzbekistan’s position vis-à-vis global indicators can be explained by the Uzbek authorities’ attempts to attract foreign direct investment into the country. TI’s CPI seems extremely popular amongst investors when considering investment choices and destinations. Although since 2017 Uzbekistan has progressively opened up to the outside world and proclaimed its strong commitment to providing favourable conditions to foreign investors, numerous obstacles persist. One poignant example lies in the persistence of ‘legal corruption’—that is, exclusions and provisions to legal acts benefiting only certain groups of people or businesses, exemplified by recent reports showing the close links several high-level state officials had to corrupt schemes or businesses owned which engaged in such schemes (Lasslett, 2019, 2020).

The prevalence of ‘legal corruption’ in post-socialist economies such as Uzbekistan indicates that we cannot confine corruption merely to the public sector. In post-socialist economies with partial market reforms and weak rule-of-law systems, the boundaries between public and private sectors are often blurred (Ledeneva, 2013; Morris, 2016; Polese, 2008; Urinboyev & Svensson, 2013). At the level of international law, extensive legal efforts aim to criminalise corruption and bribery in the private sector, namely efforts imposed by the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC, 2004, Article 26), the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (OECD, 2020), and the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD, 1997, Article 2). However, in the context of Central Asia, these international legal provisions are subject to controversy given vested interests and widespread kleptocratic practices amongst high-level state officials. Reflecting on these global legal developments, Dildora Karimova and Uygun Nigmadjanov explore the possibilities of introducing corporate criminal liability (CCL) for bribery in Uzbekistan, where criminal liability has largely been levied against individuals. This is a timely question given the increasing number of businesses, the cultural specificities of excessive gratitude and hospitality, and the rapid growth in various industries that call for more sophisticated anticorruption legislation, specifically those combating bribery. Karimova and Nigmadjanov conclude that, by addressing corruption and promoting a culture of integrity, Uzbekistan can create a level playing field for all market participants, attract investments, and build a robust and transparent business environment.

Next, Deniz Genç focuses on the role of international organisations in shaping the legal landscape of Central Asian countries, known as the ‘norm diffusion process’. The legal landscape of Central Asia has undergone significant transformations following the collapse of the Soviet Union. While the Soviet legacy and centuries-old pre-Soviet cultural patterns persist, since 1991 international and regional organisations, multinational companies, and nongovernmental organisations have emerged as norm entrepreneurs. In exploring these norm diffusion processes, Genç focuses on the role of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in facilitating Central Asian countries’ compliance with UN conventions and protocols. However, as Genç states in her chapter, UNODC’s efforts in promoting (Western-centric) liberal norms are challenged and contested by regional organisations such as the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which promotes alternative norms, akin to authoritarian legal harmonisation efforts observed in other studies (Lemon & Antonov, 2020; Russo & Gawrich, 2017).

Dilaver Khamzaev continues the discussion on the role of regional organisations by focusing on the Eurasian Group on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (EAG), a regional body of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) acting as an intermediary between the FATF and its member-states. EAG’s primary role is to harmonise national legislations across Central Asia to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism, aligning them with international standards (that is, FATF standards). In this regard, compliance with FATF standards remains crucial to attracting foreign direct investment. As Khamzaev notes, the inclusion of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in FATF’s scrutiny and their subsequent listing as uncooperative and/or high-risk jurisdictions have directly impacted the countries’ investment potential. Furthermore, membership in the FATF or similar regional groups is considered a criterion for exclusion from such lists. The existing FATF mechanism motivates states to join these groups. This implies that joining EAG as a regional group similar to FATF, was a logical step for Central Asian countries seeking to avoid FATF sanctions. However, membership in EAG has also been a double-edged sword, compromising the sovereignty of Central Asian republics. This stems from the imbalance of power relations within EAG, particularly the dominance of Russian citizens in EAG’s governance structure and mutual evaluation practices, resulting in the imposition of minority interests onto the majority. EAG is thus instrumentally used by the Russian Federation to exert and maintain its geopolitical influence on Central Asia.

Part II: Domestic Institutions and Legal Environments

The second part of this volume explores the interplay between the legal environment, domestic regulatory institutions, and actual governance practices. This exploration entails examining the synergies between external influences and domestic institutions as well as the actual regulatory practices (‘living law’) to understand the degree to which the approaches, ideas, and principles (i.e., international investment law provisions, good governance principles, and business ethics) proposed by international and transnational actors are received, understood, and possibly applied at the domestic level in the region.

In international investment law, the obligation to provide ‘fair and equitable treatment’ is often viewed, along with other standards, as essential to protecting foreign investors’ rights in host countries. Implementing these international investment legal provisions is rather timely and significant, given the efforts of Central Asian governments to attract foreign direct investment. More specifically, given that the Russian invasion of Ukraine forced many Western companies to withdraw from the Russian market, Central Asian countries may now serve as an alternative destination for foreign investments. However, foreign investors seeking to enter Central Asian markets must deal with a weak rule of law, an unfavourable legal environment, and widespread informality. The chapter by Khasan Sayfutdinov examines the reception, interpretation, and implementation of international investment legal standards concerning fair and equitable treatment (FET) in the domestic legal context of Uzbekistan. In undertaking this examination, Sayfutdinov analyses the FET provisions in Uzbek bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and assesses the strength of local investment law and regulations in establishing legitimate expectations. The findings indicate that Uzbekistan’s current FET clauses remain rather outdated, and only provide unqualified FET provisions. Moreover, domestic FET provisions are thus insufficiently linked to customary international law in the new BIT model. Foreign investors rely heavily on a country’s direct assurance and representations before investing. However, a gap persists between the assurance policy and regulations in practice. This implies that a state’s commitments must be written into law, largely because investors and other business participants prefer written agreements to oral promises made during fora or official meetings.

Accordingly, the absence of clearly formulated FET provisions deters foreign investors from investing in the host country. We can also observe the discrepancy between ‘law-in-books’ and ‘law-in-action’ when analysing the mechanisms of domestic regulatory institutions in Central Asia. Adham Khudaykulov examines the nexus of state regulation and economic performance in Central Asian countries since gaining independence in the early 1990s. In all five Central Asian republics, many regulatory initiatives, institutions, and tools have already been put into place to facilitate the transition from centrally planned to market economies. However, due to ineffective regulatory compliance and enforcement regimes, established regulatory frameworks have not proved effective in boosting the immunity of the economies. Based on a review of policy documents and interviews with current and former policymakers, business leaders, experts, and scholars, Khudaykulov shows that the top–down decision-making approach is one of the primary factors driving poor regulatory implementation in Central Asian countries. Specifically, decision-making remains heavily concentrated in the hands of those officials at the very top. Another factor contributing to poor compliance is a non-independent and biased judiciary and an unrestrained law enforcement system. Prosecutor’s offices (prokuratura) enjoy unprecedented power in exercising the highest level of supervision in terms of observing and applying laws at the national level by all institutions, irrespective of forms of ownership. Furthermore, the existence of wide discretionary power and supervisory functions often leads to prosecutorial dominance, carrying significant repercussions for the general business climate and governance mode in the region.

Notwithstanding these tendencies, legal mobilisation patterns and the legal culture of ordinary citizens are shifting in the region. These processes are described by Evgeniy Kolenko, Muzaffar Dostqoriev, and Nasimbek Azizov in their sociolegal study of the legal consciousness (legal culture) of legal practitioners, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens in Uzbekistan, based on an analysis of court cases regarding economic disputes among business actors. On average, more than one million economic agreements are concluded in Uzbekistan annually, indicative of ever-increasing business activities in the country. From a legal standpoint, these developments may lead to numerous business disputes, since one of the parties may refuse or be unable to fulfil contractual obligations. Given the prevalence of informal law in Uzbekistan, it is highly likely that parties will attempt to resolve their disputes through informal, extra-legal means. However, since Uzbekistan launched legal reforms in 2018, specifically emphasising increasing access to courts, recent reforms in economic law, public law, and legal procedures have had measurable effects on legal consciousness in Uzbekistan. Such effects are visible, primarily in the patterns of legal mobilisation and the legal culture, reflected in changing attitudes toward the courts and in changing patterns of dispute resolution. This demonstrates the broader process of legal formalisation in Uzbekistan, which gained momentum through recent reforms. Based on their findings, Kolenko et al. argue that a considerable shift is taking place within society toward the use of formal law, showing that patterns of legal culture and mobilisation are changing in Uzbekistan.

The rapid proliferation of digital businesses and transactions is a huge challenge for regulatory and tax authorities in Central Asia. Recognising this, Alisher Pulatov’s chapter explores the interplay between digitalisation and regulatory challenges in Uzbekistan, asking to what extent Uzbekistan’s legal and regulatory framework can accommodate digital economy taxation. This issue has important repercussions for Uzbekistan’s legal system, business environment, investment climate, societal change, and governance. Currently, IT businesses and local startups may be at risk of insolvency, given the presence of large multinational IT enterprises operating on local markets. Multinational IT enterprises avoid paying local taxes because of the permanent establishment (PE) rule in tax law. Pulatov’s findings demonstrate that the current legal framework cannot accurately determine who is subject to taxation and which digital services should be taxed. This limitation arises due to a lack of expertise and IT capacity within specific countries. Insufficient technical knowledge and resources hinder the effective identification and classification of digital transactions for tax purposes. Furthermore, a notable shortcoming identified in this research is the absence of an enforcement mechanism for digital economy taxation. Thus, even if suitable legislation is in place, without proper enforcement, it becomes challenging to ensure compliance and collect the appropriate taxes from digital service providers.

Part III: Meso- and Micro-Level Business Actors, Informal Institutions, and Norms

The last part of this volume investigates business actors’ and micro-level entrepreneurs’ everyday experiences with state law and informal norms and practices enforced by nonstate actors. Investigating these processes entails considering the following questions: What kinds of social control are offered or enforced informally? And, how are morality and business ethics shaped, lived, and developed by citizens in their daily lives and transactions?

Doing business in uncertain and fluid legal contexts such as Central Asia requires business actors to adapt to or manoeuvre around both state law and informal norms and practices. Daniya Nurmukhankyzy’s chapter focuses on the everyday experiences of entrepreneurs operating in the food service industry in the city of Taldykorgan, Kazakhstan. As Nurmukhankyzy shows, while the state encourages small and medium businesses (SMEs) to operate by offering various grants, subsidies, and tax exemptions as well as a moratorium on inspections of SMEs, entrepreneurs must still navigate complex and cumbersome legal and bureaucratic procedures, an endeavour which often requires the use of informal and extra-legal methods and solutions. Through interviews with gastronomic entrepreneurs in Taldykorgan, Nurmukhankyzy found that no single entrepreneur received a grant or a preferential loan specifically for a restaurant business. Based on her findings, she argues that many businesses fail due to bureaucratic and legal uncertainties, whereby only those businesses with informal connections and networks have a better chance of succeeding.

A similar pattern can also be observed in Uzbekistan, where business actors with limited political connections and networks struggle to gain access to bank credits. Kobil Ruziev investigates the impact of interpersonal connections on the inequitable distribution of formal financing in Uzbekistan. He argues that, in countries like Uzbekistan, where market mechanisms remain weak and the institutions responsible for upholding the rule of law lack credibility, political connectedness—interpersonal and exclusive in nature—plays a crucial role in matters concerning resource allocation, including the allocation of bank financing. This system, in turn, enables a small number of strategically well-connected entrepreneurs to seize a disproportionately large share of scarce resources and opportunities, resulting in the inequitable distribution of formal financing. As a result, entrepreneurs with limited political connections face challenges in gaining access to formal financing.

In addition to legal, bureaucratic, and financial challenges, business actors must also cope with political uncertainty and various criminal groups often linked to high-level state officials. In her chapter, Aksana Ismailbekova investigates the multifaceted landscape of Kyrgyzstan’s business environment under a precarious political situation, exploring the strategies, ethics, and morality employed by businessmen in both the Kyrgyz and Uzbek communities. In exploring how business actors adapt to changing political circumstances, Ismailbekova examines the state of business affairs in the pre-Japarov era and the period following Japarov’s ascent to power. Her findings show that, before the advent of the Japarov era, small businessmen found it advantageous to establish co-optation with criminal networks due to their distrust of the state. Conversely, with the onset of Japarov’s rule in Kyrgyzstan, ‘the state was being brought back in’ through the government’s aggressive anticorruption policy under the umbrella of ‘kusturizatsia’ (vomiting), which primarily targets corrupt state officials and businessmen. Under this practice, corrupt individuals can repay a fraction of stolen proceeds to the state and, then, go about their business. However, as Ismailbekova concludes, this informal anticorruption policy has a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, it aims to force corrupt individuals to provide some of their ill-begotten gains back to the state, theoretically benefiting the public. However, the implementation of this policy remains rather opaque, leading to secretive negotiations behind closed doors, of which the public is unaware.

Gender norms and identity are also salient factors in everyday business life in Central Asia. In the last chapter in this volume, Binazirbonu Yusupova explores the lived experiences of women traders in bazaars in Uzbekistan, revealing the complex and multifaceted ways in which they challenge, renegotiate, and reconstruct prevailing patriarchal norms and gender roles. Women traders often face a dual burden as they endeavour to secure both their economic survival and personal autonomy within the confines of bazaars. This dual struggle underscores the resilience and determination exhibited by these women as they navigate the challenging terrain of economic sustenance and personal emancipation. Through an analysis of the rich tapestry of narratives and experiences of women traders, Yusupova argues that entering bazaars is not merely a transactional act, but can also be viewed as an act of resistance countering dominant patriarchal norms and social hierarchies. She, thus, concludes that bazaars may act as catalysts for broader social change in Uzbekistan.

As can be seen from the short chapter outlines above, this book examines the political economy of Central Asian law from a law and society perspective. Rather than employing a standard legal positivistic approach that provides an internal perspective on law, the twelve chapters included in this book explore the social life of law and legal institutions in Central Asia in broader terms that encompass not only the (state) legal system and traditional legal institutions but also various informal (non-legal) forms of normative ordering. By combining internal and external perspectives in the analysis of Central Asian law, our ambition is to show that the legal landscape of Central Asian countries should not be viewed from a “black-and-white” perspective. Rather, there is a need for a comprehensive account of how the state law and non-state forms of normative ordering engage in mutually transforming interactions.