Social Capital and Liberal Democracy

  • Sabina Insebayeva
Part of the Politics and History in Central Asia book series (PSPSCA)


This chapter suggests that the institution of the mahalla in Uzbekistan is, to a great extent, an alternative concept when compared with the traditional Western notion of civil society. It is therefore not to be conceptualized as an autonomous body with administrative independence that functions as a resistant force to the government. In post-Soviet Uzbekistan, the mahalla is instead a socializing agency.The chapter maintains that the dense network of self-governance bodies does not necessarily would lead to democracy, but it equally might be used to sustain a strong apparatus and autocracy. The outcome largely depends on the nature of norms and values that are promoted by these social-capital based institutions.


European Union Social Capital Civil Society Liberal Democracy Democratic Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Acharya, A. (2011). Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders: Sovereignty, Regionalism and Rule-Making in the Third World. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azizkhonov, A., & Efimova, L. (2005). Teoriya I praktika stroitelstva demokraticheskogo obshestva v Uzbekistane: uchebnoe posobie (p. 371). Nacionalnyi universitet Uzbekistana im. Mirzo Ulugbeka.Google Scholar
  3. Carothers, T. (1992). Empirical Perspectives on the Emerging Norm of Democracy in International Law. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society Of International Law), 86, 261–267. Retrieved from
  4. Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(s1), S95–S120. doi: 10.1086/228943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, K. (2003). The Political Role of Clans in Central Asia. Comparative Politics, 35(2), 171–190. doi: 10.2307/4150150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (1992). Tashkent.Google Scholar
  7. Cousins, N. (1987). The Pathology of Power. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  8. Dadabaev, T. (2013). Community Life, Memory and a Changing Nature of Mahalla Identity in Uzbekistan. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 4(2), 181–196. doi: 10.1016/j.euras.2013.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest. Retrieved from
  10. Gallie, W. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198. Retrieved from
  11. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gill, G. (2002). Democracy and Post-communism: Political Change in the Post-communist World. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huntington, S. (1984). Will More Countries Become Democratic. Political Science Quarterly, 99, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huntingon, S. (1991). Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 12–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  16. Independent Institute for Monitoring the Formation of Civil Society. (2015). Development of Civil Society Institutions in Uzbekistan: Facts and Figures. Retrieved from
  17. Kadyrov, B. (2012). Nekotorye faktory razvitiya grazhdanskogo obshestva v Uzbekistane. Teoreticheskii Jurnal “Credo”. Retrieved from
  18. Kamp, M. (2004). Between women and the state: Mahalla committees and social welfare in Uzbekistan. In P. J. Luong (Ed.), The transformation of central Asia: States and societies from Soviet rule to Independence (pp. 29–58). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kandiyoti, D. (2007). Post-Soviet Institutional Design and the Paradoxes of the ‘Uzbek path’. Central Asian Survey, 26(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kandiyoti, D., & Azimova, N. (2004). The Communal and the Sacred: Women’s Worlds of Ritual in Uzbekistan. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10(2), 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karimov, I. (1998). Uzbekistan on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kennan, G. F. (1977). The cloud of danger. p. 41–43. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  23. Koroteyeva, V., & Makarova, E. (1998). Money and Social Connections in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Uzbek City. Central Asian Survey, 17(4), 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laidi, Z. (2008). EU Foreign Policy in a Globalized World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2005). International linkage and democratization. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2006). Linkage versus leverage. Rethinking the international dimension of regime change. Comparative Politics, 38(4), 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lunch, D. (2007). Envisioning China’s Political Figure: Elite Responses to Democracy as a Global Constitute Norm. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 701–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McFaul, M. (2004). Democracy and Democracy Promotion as International Norms. Retrieved from Inter-natonal Norm-WQ-92004.pdf
  29. Nadia, G. (1996). How Different are Postcommunist Transitions. Journal of Democracy, 7(4), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noori, N. (2006). Expanding State Authority, Cutting Back Local Services: Decentralization and Its Contradictions in Uzbekistan. Central Asian Survey Special Issue: Social Policy in Central Asia, 25(4).Google Scholar
  31. Omelicheva, M. (2013). Central Asian Conceptions of “Democracy”: Ideological Resistance to International Democratization. In R. Vanderhill & M. Aleprete (Eds.), The International Dimensions of Authoritarian Perspective in the Former Soviet Union (1st ed., pp. 81–104). Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.Google Scholar
  32. Paxton, P. (2002). Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277. doi: 10.2307/3088895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schlesinger, A. (1992). The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (p. 127). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  35. Sharifkhodzhaev, M., & Akunova, G. (2005). Mahalla kak institute mestnogo samoupravleniya (p. 201). Tashkentskii finansovyi institute, Tashkent.Google Scholar
  36. Sievers, E. W. (2002). Uzbekistan’s Mahalla: From Soviet to absolutist residential community associations. The Journal of International and Comparative Law at Chicago-Kent, 2, 91–158.Google Scholar
  37. Simes, D. (2003). America’s imperial dilemma. Foreign Affairs, 82(6), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The Declaration of Independence. (1776).Google Scholar
  39. Tocqueville, A. (1863). Democracy in America. Cambridge: Sever and Francis.Google Scholar
  40. Troschke, M. (2012). Social Capital and the Formation of a Market Economy: The Case of Uzbekistan. In J. Ahrens & H. Hoen (Eds.), Institutional Reform in Central Asia Politico-Economic Challenges (1st ed., pp. 43–62). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Urinboyev, R. (2014). Is There an Islamic Public Administration Legacy in Post-Soviet Central Asia? An Ethnographic Study of Everyday Mahalla Life in Rural Ferghana, Uzbekistan. Administrative Culture, 15(2), 157–178.Google Scholar
  42. World Values Survey. (2011). Wave 6 (2010–2014). Madrid, Spain: World Values Survey Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabina Insebayeva
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations