LAND COMMISSIONS IN KAZAKHSTAN: THE PROBLEM OF CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN LAND GOVERNANCE

Abstract

Since Land Commissions (LCs) with civil society engagement functioning under local municipalities (akimats) is a recent phenomenon in Kazakhstan (2018), except for media reports, little to no attention is paid in academic literature to the work of present institutions. The research analyzes the following research questions why Land Commissions were created and whether they produced the expected results that form a transparent, accountable, and inclusive land granting policy subsystem. The research thesis, in addition, seeks to analyze the question: what conditions facilitated the success or failure (underperformance) of these newly introduced institutions in Kazakhstan? The work applies two theoretical models: "A Subsystem Adjustment Model of Policy Change" (Howlett & Ramesh, 2002) and "A Strategic Interaction Model of Institutional Change" (Pelizzo & Stapenhurst, 2011). The research applies qualitative research methods, such as a revelatory cross-sectional multiple case study, considering the work of Land Commissions in four regions of Kazakhstan: East Kazakhstan, West Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, and Pavlodar regions at the district levels. Also, the study uses non-participant observation of Land Commission sessions in selected case regions. Furthermore, the paper applies in-depth semi-structured expert interviews with national interviewees, namely, senior officials (Heads of Land Departments of local municipalities, Directors of regional offices of the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs, and civil society representatives). Moreover, the author conducted interviews with international experts working for such international organizations as UN-HABITAT, CADASTA International, OXFAM, and other organizations to study the international experience of civil society component inclusion in land governance. The full interview transcripts with international experts are coded and analyzed using the NVIVO software program. Additionally, the paper applies critical discourse analysis of textual (written) texts, spoken texts, and visual materials (e.g., posters, photos) to study how LCs' work is portrayed in official state documents and media. Considering that this topic is understudied, it is anticipated that the analysis of the work of Land Commissions in Kazakhstan might have both academic and practical relevance. Namely, it could be potentially interesting for the broader audience of scholars interested in institutional/policy change studies and the problems of civil society engagement in land governance in the broader Central Asian/Eurasian context.