Framing ethnic minority mobilisation in Central Asia: The cases of Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

This article seeks to understand why, although widely predicted, very little ethnically motivated political mobilisation has occurred in post-Soviet Central Asia. Building on the contribution of frame analysis, the article examines the case of Uzbek communities in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Different frames have been articulated by the elites and have been used to mobilise and demobilise the community. The more successful ones (those that resonated) were less confrontational, and ultimately led the Uzbek communities towards a non-confrontational path with the authorities. The article concludes that frame analysis sheds important insights on the process of the mobilisation of ethnic minorities in Central Asia, and also contributes to the literature on ethnic mobilisation.     

Social contention,authoritarian resilience,and political change

This article takes stock of recent advances in the field of comparative authoritarianism. The four books reviewed shed light on the effects of social activism, claim-making and social protests on authoritarian resilience. Taken as a whole, they intervene in the scholarly debates that examine the rise of collective, often contentious action under authoritarian rule. In so doing they account both for how states tolerate or even encourage collective action and the extent to which, in turn, protests by distinct social groups re-shape the political system. As authoritarian institutions, democratic-looking or otherwise, have received considerable attention of late, this article calls for greater attention to the economic and ideational dimensions of authoritarianism and, more generally, a broader research agenda.     

BRICS,the southern model,and the evolving landscape of development assistance: Toward a new taxonomy

In recent years, there has been an explosion of categories and labels to account for the expansion of forms of cooperation beyond the membership of the Development Assistance Committee. Such hype has led to the construction of the so‐called southern model as the archetype of development cooperation coming from non‐Development Assistance Committee countries that are somehow committed to the principles of the South–South cooperation. The present article challenges the idea of a southern model by providing an analysis of drivers, tools, and modality of development assistance.