• KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%
  • KGS/USD = 0.01143 0%
  • KZT/USD = 0.00188 0%
  • TJS/USD = 0.10390 -0.86%
  • UZS/USD = 0.00008 0%
  • TMT/USD = 0.28575 0%

Viewing results 1 - 6 of 4

Cuts to USAID Leave Central Asia Facing Development Challenges

When American President Donald Trump announced a freeze and overhaul of his country's foreign aid in early 2025, the move sparked concern across Central Asia. For more than three decades, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had been a key contributor to development in the region, supporting education, healthcare, agriculture, and environmental protection. Support for Weaker Economies USAID’s role was particularly critical in economically vulnerable countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Its sudden withdrawal now leaves local governments scrambling to compensate with limited domestic resources. The cuts have not been uniform, but the overall impact has been profound. According to the Center for Global Development, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan lost 78 percent and 69 percent of their USAID-backed programs, respectively. In Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, nearly all aid programs were discontinued. Foreign aid to the region has often reflected shifting geopolitical dynamics. In Uzbekistan, for example, support surged from $6 million to $40 million in 2016 following President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s rise to power. Kyrgyzstan received $75 million in 2010 amid negotiations over the U.S. military base there. In contrast, aid to Turkmenistan fell to just $2.8 million by 2024. Limited Time to Adjust While Kazakhstan’s more robust economy allowed for a gradual reduction in U.S. assistance, American companies remain active in its vital oil sector. Yet the abrupt nature of the broader aid pullback has disrupted numerous projects with little warning. Health and education initiatives were halted, as were efforts to bolster trade and cross-border infrastructure, critical for Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as they seek to deepen global economic ties. Environmental initiatives also suffered. With Central Asia especially vulnerable to climate change, USAID had funded resilience-building programs focused on water access and renewable energy. These efforts have largely ceased, raising concerns among farmers and local communities who had come to rely on them. Civil Society Under Strain Some governments in the region may quietly welcome the cuts, particularly those wary of foreign-backed NGOs. USAID frequently partnered with local civil society organizations and media outlets, entities that Central Asian authorities often view with suspicion. The loss of U.S. support has left these groups increasingly exposed to state pressure. Tajikistan offers a telling case. In 2020, USAID partnered with the Aga Khan Foundation during the COVID-19 pandemic. But two years later, following unrest in the country's Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region, the government launched a crackdown on the foundation. This underscores how some aid programs, especially those linked to civil society, are perceived as threats. Although USAID did not operate programs directly, its funding empowered local partners. With that backing gone, and less pressure from Washington, several Central Asian governments have tightened their control over independent organizations. Seeking Alternatives Replacing USAID’s role will not be easy. The European Union and countries such as France and Germany have long supported development in Central Asia, but their resources are stretched, especially with increased attention and funding directed toward Ukraine. Despite EU pledges of investment via the Global Gateway initiative, support for democracy, civil society, and human rights...

Cuts to USAID Leave Central Asia Facing Development Challenges

When American President Donald Trump announced a freeze and overhaul of his country's foreign aid in early 2025, the move sparked concern across Central Asia. For more than three decades, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had been a key contributor to development in the region, supporting education, healthcare, agriculture, and environmental protection. Support for Weaker Economies USAID’s role was particularly critical in economically vulnerable countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Its sudden withdrawal now leaves local governments scrambling to compensate with limited domestic resources. The cuts have not been uniform, but the overall impact has been profound. According to the Center for Global Development, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan lost 78 percent and 69 percent of their USAID-backed programs, respectively. In Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, nearly all aid programs were discontinued. Foreign aid to the region has often reflected shifting geopolitical dynamics. In Uzbekistan, for example, support surged from $6 million to $40 million in 2016 following President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s rise to power. Kyrgyzstan received $75 million in 2010 amid negotiations over the U.S. military base there. In contrast, aid to Turkmenistan fell to just $2.8 million by 2024. Limited Time to Adjust While Kazakhstan’s more robust economy allowed for a gradual reduction in U.S. assistance, American companies remain active in its vital oil sector. Yet the abrupt nature of the broader aid pullback has disrupted numerous projects with little warning. Health and education initiatives were halted, as were efforts to bolster trade and cross-border infrastructure, critical for Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as they seek to deepen global economic ties. Environmental initiatives also suffered. With Central Asia especially vulnerable to climate change, USAID had funded resilience-building programs focused on water access and renewable energy. These efforts have largely ceased, raising concerns among farmers and local communities who had come to rely on them. Civil Society Under Strain Some governments in the region may quietly welcome the cuts, particularly those wary of foreign-backed NGOs. USAID frequently partnered with local civil society organizations and media outlets, entities that Central Asian authorities often view with suspicion. The loss of U.S. support has left these groups increasingly exposed to state pressure. Tajikistan offers a telling case. In 2020, USAID partnered with the Aga Khan Foundation during the COVID-19 pandemic. But two years later, following unrest in the country's Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region, the government launched a crackdown on the foundation. This underscores how some aid programs, especially those linked to civil society, are perceived as threats. Although USAID did not operate programs directly, its funding empowered local partners. With that backing gone, and less pressure from Washington, several Central Asian governments have tightened their control over independent organizations. Seeking Alternatives Replacing USAID’s role will not be easy. The European Union and countries such as France and Germany have long supported development in Central Asia, but their resources are stretched, especially with increased attention and funding directed toward Ukraine. Despite EU pledges of investment via the Global Gateway initiative, support for democracy, civil society, and human rights...

Kazakhstan Invests in Science, But Economic Impact Remains Low

Over the past five years, Kazakhstan has nearly tripled its research and development (R&D) spending, reaching $430 million in 2024. Despite this, science's contribution to the national economy remains minimal, just 0.16% of GDP. This figure is among the lowest for countries striving toward technological advancement, according to analysts at Ranking.kz. Almaty: Kazakhstan’s Scientific Hub Nearly half of last year’s R&D spending was concentrated in Almaty, which accounted for 43.1% of total investment, equivalent to $186 million. Astana followed with 20.4% ($88 million), while other regions lagged significantly. In the Ulytau region, for instance, only $67,000 was allocated to scientific endeavors. Almaty retains its status as the country’s scientific capital thanks to its concentration of research institutions. Of the 423 organizations engaged in R&D nationwide, 142 are based in the city. Almaty hosts major institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences, the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, the Institute of Seismology, and the Kazakh Institute of Oncology. Human Capital and Scientist Salaries Kazakhstan’s researchers are the backbone of its scientific sector. In 2024, spending on salaries for scientific personnel rose to $226 million, marking a 32.1% increase. Almaty employed 10,600 of the country’s 27,100 researchers, representing 39.2% of the national total. This figure has grown by 20% over the past five years. A key metric of scientific engagement is the number of researchers per 10,000 employed persons. In OECD countries, this figure ranges from 40 to 238. In Kazakhstan, it stands at just 23.7. Almaty leads domestically with 83.2 researchers per 10,000 employed, underscoring its pivotal role. State Dependency and Business Apathy One of the major challenges facing Kazakh science is its overwhelming dependence on public funding. More than 77% of research financing in Kazakhstan comes from the state; in Almaty, this figure is 87.5%. In contrast, government contributions in developed countries average around 40%. This imbalance limits commercialization potential, dampens private sector interest, and constrains technological progress. As noted in a national report on science, “knowledge and innovation in Kazakhstan are separated from the economy. The state’s task is to ensure that R&D results are incorporated into the real sector, to create demand for research, and to stimulate private investment in science”. Alatau: A New Frontier for Scientific Growth One proposed solution lies in the development of Alatau, a newly emerging scientific and innovation hub. Plans are underway to build a "science city" equipped with facilities for start-ups, technology parks, and manufacturing based on R&D. The area will form part of a special economic zone offering tax incentives and large-scale investment opportunities. Combining Almaty's intellectual capital with Alatau’s potential could catalyze the development of a knowledge-based economy and position Kazakhstan competitively in the global technology race.

Despite Ceasefire India-Pakistan Conflict Sends Ripples Through Central Asia

Despite a recent ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan, renewed hostilities remain a looming threat. The latest clashes between the two nuclear-armed neighbors have direct and potentially lasting repercussions for Central Asia’s political stability and economic development. Ceasefire Amid Escalation Armed conflict erupted on May 7, when New Delhi launched “Operation Sindoor,” targeting what it described as terrorist infrastructure within Pakistan. The move followed a deadly terrorist attack on April 22 in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 people. India accused Pakistan of complicity, a charge Islamabad rejected, condemning the airstrikes as an “act of war.” Full-scale hostilities ensued for several days, raising alarms across the broader region. By May 11, a ceasefire was brokered, though both sides warned that fighting could resume if provoked. Given the eight-decade-long volatility along their shared border, the risk of future escalations remains significant. Whilst Pakistan credited the U.S. for facilitating the ceasefire, specifically highlighting Senator Rubio and what it described as direct intervention by President Trump, India maintained that the agreement was a result of direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs). In a formal televised address, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri emphasized that the ceasefire was a "bilateral" decision reached via military hotlines, omitting any mention of Trump or Rubio. “Both sides agreed to cease all firing and military actions on land,” Misri stated firmly, reiterating India’s stance that no third party played a role in its interactions with Pakistan. Disruption to Tourism Flows One immediate economic impact of the conflict has been felt in Central Asia’s tourism sector. In recent years, Kazakhstan, especially Almaty, has become an increasingly popular destination for Indian travelers, aided by a visa-free regime that permits 14-day stays. The country also hosts large numbers of Indian and Pakistani students, along with medical tourists and business travelers. Many Indian visitors rely on budget carriers such as IndiGo, which previously operated routes from Delhi to Almaty and Tashkent using airspace over Pakistan. The closure of this airspace led to increased costs and logistical complications. IndiGo suspended flights to both cities on April 27 and 28, respectively. Should hostilities resume, these suspensions could be extended, potentially setting back Central Asia’s still-fragile tourism recovery. Infrastructure and Trade at Risk The geopolitical instability also jeopardizes key infrastructure projects and trade routes. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have both enhanced connectivity with Pakistan through distinct strategies, with Kazakhstan integrating into multilateral frameworks like the Middle Corridor and QTTA, and Uzbekistan focusing on tactical bilateral projects such as the Termez–Karachi transport corridor and Trans-Afghan Railway. Both countries aim to reduce their reliance on Russian-controlled routes while leveraging Pakistan’s ports to boost regional trade. Political analyst Zhanat Momynkulov warns that the conflict could disrupt supply chains and raise the cost of goods across South and Central Asia. The rerouting of flights due to Pakistani airspace closures is already affecting logistics and regional connectivity. Kazakhstan, a central player in both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is particularly vulnerable. Projects...