Екінші дүниежүзілік соғыс аяқталғаннан бері экономикалық даму саласында экономикалық модельдер дамудың экономикалық емес түсіндірмелерін маргиналдырды
жүктеу/скачать 0,54 Mb.
|
Discussion and conclusionThis paper attempts to generalize economic and cultural factors leading to systemic corruption in FSU countries with Kazakhstan taken as a case-study. Here I highlight the noneconomic factors of corruption growth in Kazakhstan. I used the tripartite theoretical framework by Van Roy (1970) to identify these factors. Van Roy offered three theoretical factors: the evolutionist approach, the functionalist approach, and the ethnocentric approach. I discovered all three factors in Kazakhstan in the period from 1991 to 2012: the first is economic transition (the evolutionist approach), the second is the functional utility of corruption (the functionalist approach), and the third is the clan cohesive culture (the ethnocentric approach). I argue that purely economic transformation model was not sufficient for the successful transformation of the economy in Kazakhstan, where corruption skyrocketed in the process. The analysis of the empirical data from Kazakhstan supports the relevance of the Van Roy’s ethnographic and cultural approaches. The transitory and cultural conditions converged to establish a well-developed and fully functional corrupt system that stumbled market development. I argue in this article that the integrated economic, cultural, and evolutionist approaches are necessary to correct for the deficiencies of purely economic models. This research is relevant to other countries in transition. Arguably, the non-economic factors may slow down the economic transition, but may also reduce the opportunities for corruption and unjust inequality. In the global world, to develop the integrated economic-cultural models, scholars from different fields of knowledge need to conceptualize multidisciplinary approaches to economic and ideological transitions. Earnestly, I can propose common suggestions on how to eliminate corruption in Kazakhstan – the change of leadership will stop corruption, fair economic and privatization practices will inspire public trust and economic justice, modern equal opportunity traditions will replace parochial clan conspiracy in public offices, new community values will replace current self-indulgence practices. Yet, realistically speaking, I ought to admit that 20 years of transition have left a deep trace in the life of Kazakhstani people. Old traditions, culture, and new market-inspired factors are already deeply embedded in everyday life. Given the persistence of market ideology on a global scale and the lack of any sound alternative models, the current state of affairs in Kazakhstan is not going to change until modern economic paradigm persists. Kazakhstani citizens perceive that money has become the measure and the symbol of success; its functionality in achieving material goals cannot be denied. Godkin writes about the lure of material success: “… the practice of these old-fashioned virtues will not bring success now as it once did. In the present state of society, a man who relies on them solely, as his ancestors did, is pretty sure to be left behind in the race” (1868, p. 250). Kazakhstan today is no different from the rest of the world. The president of Kazakhstan is a popular political leader, who tolerates no rivals, and who positions himself as a nation builder. His authority will help the family to uphold the system of individual power and preserve the status quo. Traditional clan culture is getting stronger under the conditions of constant competition for resources. The country is very unlikely to peacefully change its trajectory of economic and ideological development any time soon. Realistically speaking, Kazakhstan is most likely to preserve the current state of affairs and systemic corruption because no internal or external forces exist that may change the way business and politics are made in Kazakhstan. жүктеу/скачать 0,54 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|