From Stabilization to Marketization: The Political Economy of Reforms in Azerbaijan

Demokratizatsiya, Spring 2008 by Aliyev, Fuad

Abstract: The author analyzes the process of reform started in post-Soviet Azerbaijan from the political economy perspective. He reviews the literature on the political economy of transition and presents the political-economic history of transition in Azerbaijan in three stages based on political developments. The author introduces and applies relevant indexes to evaluate the progress of different dimensions of reforms throughout the specified period's indexes. Although centralization of power was helpful in one dimension of reforms, it has impeded others. Further progress is impossible without democratization and institutional development, offering a broader approach to understanding, designing, and implementing reform-oriented public policies.

Keywords: Azerbaijan, democratization, institutional development, market reforms, stabilization, transition

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)

Introduction

Since gaining its independence in 1991, Azerbaijan has started to implement marketoriented reform policies. The transition to the new political-economic order has not been smooth, but instead accompanied by political cataclysms and military conflicts. The World Bank classified Azerbaijan as a war-torn country with a semidemocratic political regime.1

The literature on the political economy of transition has grown considerably in the last decade because of the reality of the problem and uncertainty about the future of market reforms throughout the former Soviet states. Various concepts of interconnection between politics and economic reforms have been developed and regional and country explanations of the transition of post-Communist countries.

The first question I discuss in this article is: What does "market reform" mean? Because of Shafiqul Islam's clear explanation of the market-reform process, I will follow his theory, which claims there are four interlocking wheels in the transition vehicle: macroeconomic stabilization, liberalization, privatization of the economy, and development of marketsupporting institutional infrastructure.2 The last three wheels he grouped together under the label of "marketization." He also discusses other concepts and theories of political economy of post-Communist transition.

However, I focus on how political changes have affected the reform process in Azerbaijan during transition. The trajectory of the post-Communist transition in Azerbaijan can be roughly divided into three stages: (1) first years of independence (1991-94), the state of nature; (2) powerful autocratic regime and stabilization (1994-2003), the state of Heydar Aliyev; and (3) Heydar Aliyev's death and the election of his son Ýlham Aliyev as the new president (post-2003), the post-Heydar Aliyev state. I review all three stages of political development in Azerbaijan and their effects on market reforms, particularly the marketization process. Measures of nominal political stability and market reforms are obtained using the mix of qualitative and quantitative methods and then analyzed. In the end, I show how the centralization of power was helpful in one dimension of reforms-stabilization-but has been an impediment for the other dimension-marketization. Moreover, this article claims that once centralized, it is extremely difficult for a political-economic system in transition to undergo decentralization.

Finally, I propose and discuss further public policy steps and examine the "three I's" approach to addressing issues of a post-Communist transition.

The Political Economy of Post-Communist Transition

First, we must define "market reform" and "transition." According to Adam Przeworski, market-oriented reforms are reforms that aim "to organize an economy that rationally allocates resources and in which the state is financially solvent."3 Islam highlights four "interlocking wheels" of market-oriented reforms: macroeconomic stabilization, liberalization, privatization, and institutional reforms.4

Joan Nelson has examined an unprecedented case of "simultaneous economic and political transformation" that has characterized transitional reforms.5 All newborn countries have had to pass through this dual transformation, but each has chosen various policies and has had different results. In short, economic reforms progressed successfully in countries where wealth was distributed more or less equally and there was political consolidation within the society.6

These issues have to do with the role of ex ante and ex post political constraints in the transition experience. If the former deals with the feasibility and acceptability of reforms, the latter refers to the danger of backlash and reversal after decisions are made and outcomes are observed.7 Joel Hellman argues that although post-Communist countries have not suffered from the standard ex ante and ex post constraints to reform, "they have faced an equally difficult set of challenges from an unexpected source;" the political obstacles were the most challenging.8

Another important issue in academic discussion is the question of what type of regime is best suited for the implementation of radical economic reform. According to Nelson, authoritarian governments were assumed to be the most advantageous for reforms at first. However, later studies largely discredit this simple assumption and focused on such issues as electoral cycles and institutional arrangements that give key economic officials substantial authority while insulating them from direct political pressures.9 In light of elections in a majority of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries-which were reportedly always partly free but never fair-and considering the various measures applied by their governments to suppress the opposition, this aspect of reforms gains special importance. In making the choice between authoritarianism and democratic consolidation, an understanding of the "Aristotle-Lipset hypothesis" may be helpful. The hypothesis states that if authoritarian regimes succeed in economic reforms, they eventually become victims of their own success, generating social forces that no longer need protection or are willing to suffer the constraints of authoritarian rule.10