Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung, Department of Political and Cultural Change
(ZEFa)
Coping with Post-Soviet Agriculture
Knowledge and Local Governance in Horticultural Production in
Tajikistan
Andreas Mandler
20 March 2011
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
Inhalt
1.
Title .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.
Relevance and Context of Research ............................................................................................................ 3
3.
Problem Definition of the Intended Research............................................................................................. 5
4.
Central Research Question .......................................................................................................................... 5
5.
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................................... 5
Social Order ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Institutions....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Local Governance ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Knowledge and Agricultural Knowledge Systems ........................................................................................... 8
Innovations ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Tajik Agricultural Knowledge ........................................................................................................................... 9
Knowledge and Governance.......................................................................................................................... 10
Regimes of Knowledge .................................................................................................................................. 10
6.
Intended Research Sites ............................................................................................................................ 12
7.
Sub-questions for Research ....................................................................................................................... 12
8.
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 13
9.
Time schedule............................................................................................................................................ 14
10.
Budget ................................................................................................................................................... 15
11.
Annex ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
12.
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 15
2
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
1. Title
Making a Livelihood from Post-soviet Agriculture: Knowledge and Local Governance in Horticultural
Production in Tajikistan.
2. Relevance and Context of Research
Agriculture plays a pivotal role for both, economy and livelihood of people in Tajikistan. At present
time, the agricultural sector employs more than 70% of the countries workforce while its revenues
count for almost one third of the Tajik GDP. However, the chosen political strategy to cope with
transition, suggests that the country sticks to a rather centralized agricultural policy, exercising
considerable control over farmer. Since political independence in 1991, Tajikistan is undergoing an
economic transition process that is oriented towards a market economy. A series of land reforms
(Bliss, 2010a, Bliss, 2010b, DWHH, 2010, Robinson et al., 2008, Spoor, 2007) produced a vast
number of new agriculturalists with heterogeneous access to natural resources as e.g. land and
water. Great deals of these new farmer possess only limited knowledge about farming (Eshchanov
et al., 2007, Wall, 2006a). Due to Soviet ideology that requested specialization and division of
labour within the kolkhoz/sovkhoz system, many of today’s farmers are rarely able to run a farm in a
private market system. “A consequence is that agricultural extension and other forms of adult
education have a more important role to play in [former communist] countries than elsewhere in the
world.” (Ban, 1999:121). This points to general upheavals of the agricultural knowledge systems in
these countries.
Given the significance of agricultural production in Tajikistan, the high attention and influence from
state representatives and elite figures – from national to local level – comes as no surprise.
Tajikistan’s political culture has been described as authoritarian and neo-patrimonial (Sehring, 2006,
Wiegmann, 2009), where patrons use private and public resources to secure the loyalty of their
clients. Informal patron – client relationships are prevalent, possibly reaching from very high up in
state structures down to small villages. Tajikistan is perceived as hybrid state, which is not equally
present in rural areas (Koehler and Zürcher, 2004, Zürcher, 2005). That does not mean that
Tajikistan is a weak state. In selected areas as security, internal politics or economy (e.g. the cotton
industry), the state is a considerably strong player. However, in other fields, as education, health or
other social services, much of its competencies are delegated to other agencies and actors. It
seems that political stability derives at the expenses of social development, concretely the everdecreasing of state benefits. Instead, the state appears even as vehicle to ensure primarily the
interests of its own representatives or their clients, that is other elite figures (Christophe, 2005,
Schetter, 2006). The deliberate creation of uncertainty belongs to the practices of power in post-
3
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
soviet societies, which provides for the representatives of the state and their clients ways to gain
additional income (Christophe, 2005, Christophe, 2006, Trevisani, 2011). In order to profit from this
system, it is not necessary that the state is present itself. Since state agencies act often
ambiguously, e.g. businessmen are coerced to arrange protection through political actors that are
powerful enough to remove ever-imminent administrative obstacles (Christophe, 2006). However,
even powerful elites are not outside of a locally established system of social order, which eventually
provides legitimacy (Mielke et al., 2010).
Against this background, arrangements between state and elites take fundamental influence on
local decision-making processes and its enforcement (Trevisani, 2011, Wiegmann, 2009). On local
level, a multitude of state and other actors – as representatives of NGO, international organizations,
administration or resident elites – steer affairs through institutions as Mahalla, Jamoat and other
institutions. The outcomes of such decision-making processes impact on agricultural matters, as
they regulate for instance the distribution and use of resources. Unlike Uzbekistan, local decisionmaking in Tajikistan seems less state regulated (Oberkircher, 2010). Nevertheless, decisions are
often far away from balancing the interests of various actors. The exorbitant abscondence of Tajik
migrants to Russia and elsewhere, totaling to more than 1/6 of the national population, indicates
that economic development in Tajikistan faces principle difficulties. In fact, despite officially
completed land reform and granted “freedom to farm” (Bliss, 2010a), incentives for farmers to
increase production are rather low – a great deal of farmers has either the option nor the desire to
strive for private farmland. Instead, the rural population follows a mixed livelihood strategy based on
subsistence farming on the household plot.
Economic and livelihood reports indicate (UNDP, 2009, WFP, 2005) that farmers from the various
districts in Tajikistan manage differently to cope with the above mentioned obstacles. Insights on
knowledge in rural areas and its function within local governance processes in Central Asia is rather
scarce. Recent works on Uzbekistan displayed structural difficulties farmers encounter when dealing
with knowledge to enhance production (Eshchanov et al., 2007, Hornidge, 2010, Oberkircher et al.,
2010, Wall, 2006a). Farmer developed at the same time strategies to cope with these impediments
(Herbers, 2006a, Trevisani, 2011). Still, very little is known on functional interrelations of local
governance and agricultural knowledge management, particularly in Tajikistan. Although the role of
state administration is well documented (Bliss, 2010a, Herbers, 2003, Robinson et al., 2008, Rowe,
2010, Šaripov, 2007), many decisions in the agricultural sector are made on local level and abscond
from decision making power of the central state (Boboyorov, 2009, Herbers, 2006a, Wiegmann,
2007).
In order to support agricultural development in Tajikistan, the task of the present research is to
inquire how knowledge and local governance arrangements take influence on agricultural
production. For this purpose I take the horticultural sector as example and compare two different
4
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
production sites in Tajikistan. The significance of horticultural production in Tajikistan is rapidly
growing (Livinets, 2007). Its products are exempt from taxation and allowed for direct marketing
(AVRDC, 2005, Livinets, 2007). Hence, horticultural area under crop is constantly enlarged – a fact
that underlines the economic dynamics and incentives for farmers (FAO, 2008, Lerman and Sedik,
2009a).
3. Problem Definition of the Intended Research
Although Tajikistan is primarily an agrarian country, benefits of local farmers from agricultural
production vary strongly throughout the different districts. Focusing on the handling of knowledge in
horticultural production, it is unknown why, for example, agrarian innovation (e.g. post harvest
procedures, international export schemes) is in use in one place (Pendžikent), while being virtually
absent in other areas (Šachrtuz). It is assumed that deviant sub-regional developments emanate
from specific arrangements of agricultural-relevant knowledge and the enabling or constraining role
local governance plays. The present research inquires into this interdependent relationship taking
the example of Tajik horticulture production.
4. Central Research Question
How do local governance arrangements enable and constrain farmers handling (access, usage,
creation and amplification, dissemination) of knowledge in horticultural production in two distinct
agricultural districts of Tajikistan since 1991?
5. Conceptual Framework
Tajik farmers everyday life and working environment are shaped by worldviews (North, 1994, North
et al., 2009) that stem from regional cultural traditions, late soviet politics, a civil war in the 90´s and
the ongoing transition process since then. During post-soviet transition many – not all –
arrangements of how people steer every days life were changed. This research is therefore based
on a set of closely interrelated key terms, which form together the conceptual framework for the
present study:

Social Order

Innovations

Institutions

Tajik Agricultural Knowledge

Local Governance

Knowledge and Governance

Knowledge and Agricultural
Knowledge Systems

Regimes of Knowledge
5
Taking into account the hybrid condition of the Tajik state, aspects and outcomes of governance
and administration vary strongly among sub-regions.
Social Order
The term social order encompasses the particular constellation of institutions and agencies or
actors, not necessarily at state level (North et al., 2009), that can be found in one locality in a
certain moment of time (Mielke et al., 2010). It describes an underlying system of flexible norms
that is obligatory to all members of the community and which has been relevant even in times of
the complete absence of state (Mielke et al., 2007, Schetter, 2009).
Institutions
Institutions, famously described by North (1990) as “rules of the game”, are framing not only
political processes (governance), but enable or constrain social live and activities in general.
Institutions are related to certain ideas of values and norms, which reflect dominant identities,
legitimacies and worldviews (Boboyorov, 2009, Mielke and Schetter, 2007, North, 1994). Being
intrinsically interlinked, its status varies with regard to power or visibility, as, for example legal
laws, codified rules, informal rules (Hodgson, 2006). A few examples of institutions that influence
agricultural production in Tajikistan, illustrate this:

Behaviour structured by patron–client relations
Farmers hardly ever pose own decisions or statements against elite or experts´ opinions. Due to
the lack of rule of law, the support of authorities (e.g. former Kolkhoz nomenclature) is needed to
solve any farming issue (Herbers, 2006b).

Regulations regarding access to arable land and water
The distribution of land plots to private owners or leaseholder represents a hierarchical ranking
within the village (Herbers, 2006a).

Conditions for the access to networks
Networks are key sources of knowledge, therefore its access is regulated. For the process of
decision making, relevant networks exist around kinship, migrants, neighbors or classmates (Roy,
1999).

Regulations regarding the access to markets
Although farmer might possess knowledge about markets and business opportunities,
administrative barriers are imposed that regulate any regional exchange (Wiegmann 2009). On the
basis of a mix of outdated Soviet laws and newly invented institutions, agriculturalists have to stick
to soviet economic procedures, face difficulties to direct-market own produce, buy technical input,
request machineries or to use transport capacities (Boboyorov, 2009). Economic opportunities
depend therefore very much on linkages to elite figures (ICG, 2005, ICG, 2011).
In Tajik rural areas however, institutions are modified according contextual requirements, providing
ad hoc interpretative models and determinations – just in order to avoid clearness and
unambiguousness (Christophe, 2006). Due to `functional overlapping´ of different institutions
(institutional bricolage) their area of application is flexibly used – according to actual needs in a
given decision-making process (Cleaver, 2002, Sehring, 2006). The same way, parallel decision-
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
making processes occur, as official rules may contain contradictions, or being thwarted by statedirectives or more “powerful” institutions. The flexibility how institutions are applied, signals the
potential to what extend powerful actors exercise influence (Lauth and Liebert, 1999). Their
outreach expands often times on more than one institution. Moreover, actors often hide the logic of
their operations, instead relying on the efficiency of informal arrangements (Koehler and Zürcher,
2004, Wiegmann, 2007).
It is social order that forms the overarching framework for institutional arrangements in which rural
organizations as Mahallas (neighborhood associations), Jamoats (administrative divisions, similar
to communes or municipalities), professional associations and kinship groups are included. Also
collective communal decision-making and activities are being mobilized through this network.1
Based on its „long duré“ and embeddedness in social order, institutions create reliability of
expectations. Between institutions and local moral concepts exist dynamic bonds that are
incorporated into the process of decision-making and which, thus, co-author the social order in
place.
Local Governance
Governance describes a rational social situation, embedded in a territorial, temporal, political or
ideological context2. General conceptions of governance indicate that the term comprises various
aspects and dimensions. It may be understood as structure or process (Pierre and Peter, 2000),
whereat it refers to detectable structures (as institutions, partnerships, networks, hierarchies etc.)
or it deals with processes of interaction among the various structures, which eventually lead to
decisions. Michael Chibba (2009:79) captures governance as two dimensional: “The first refers to
all aspects of the way a nation is governed, including its institutions, policies, laws, regulations,
processes and oversight mechanisms. The second dimension is its cultural and ideological setting,
for governance is perceived and shaped by values, culture, traditions and ideology.” Such a
definition of governance attempts to overcome a long dominant focus on the state and
administrative units (cf. various definitions by WB, USAID, IMF, DFID in Grindle (2007).
Recognizing failures and shortcomings of state-centered governance concepts, especially in the
context of serial state crises after the collapse of the eastern bloc in 1989; broader research
interest was shifted to forms of governance, which are not or not exclusively attached to the state.
One of the new perspectives developed was a broader understanding of local governance. In this
sense, here with special regard to recent EU politics of decentralization, “[the term] `local
governance is what the council does´ has to be replaced by a conception in which it is conceded
that public decision-making concerning local issues increasingly involves multi-agency working,
partnerships and policy networks, which cut across organizational boundaries – in essence
governance.” (Leach and Percy-Smith, 2001). Accordingly, it appears that governance is driven by
1
Institutions, that are possibly mobilized for collective action are: hashar – common harvesting; sadaqa – collection of charity;
qars – tax to support marriages, sickness, travel expenses; uschr, hums – tax to finance common goods. Conclusion of such
collective efforts is not per se assured, it depends on the local context.
2 Leaning on Bailey´s semi-syllogism “Politics is a competitive game: Games are orderly ” see: VINCENT, J. (2002) The anthropology
of politics : a reader in ethnography, theory, and critique, Malden, Mass., Blackwell Publishers.
7
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
a multitude of actors, thus captured as collective arrangement of social issues (Risse, 2007). Local
governance in Tajikistan, given the hybrid character of the state, takes place with the state as only
one actor among others (Bliss, 2010a, Wiegmann, 2009). Here, local governance stems basically
from the social order in place, it appears as negotiation of overlapping institutions, mechanisms
and processes, through which actors and agencies formulate their interests, settle conflicts or
comply with rights and duties (Mielke et al., 2010, Boboyorov, 2009). At the same time, it is very
much influenced by powerful actors that not only interfere in decision-making processes, but
enable or avert enforcement of decisions.
Knowledge and Agricultural Knowledge Systems
Knowledge has been defined as capacity for social action, based on cognitive digestion of data
and information (Gerke and Evers, 2006). In a more applied sense it appears as "the sum total of
'what everybody knows' about a social world" (Berger and Luckmann, 1984:16). Often knowledge
is categorized by its application to thematic sectors or groups (e.g. horticultural knowledge, women
knowledge), by its qualities (e.g. theoretical or expert knowledge) or it is grouped into systems.
Wall (2006a), for example, refers in his study on knowledge management in rural Uzbekistan on
three different knowledge systems (peasant KS, expert KS and post-Socialist KS). Similarly, the
agricultural knowledge system – also called Agriculture Knowledge and Information System (AKIS)
– incorporates all knowledge and experiences about agricultural production, post harvesting,
storage, marketing and so forth. It also captures knowledge on agricultural resources, foodstuff
and alimentation, as well as influences of nature on agriculture and vice versa (BLW, 2008). All
knowledge that is made relevant to agricultural topics is eligible, as there is no formal steering in
place (Aenis, 1997, Lemma, 2007). However, agricultural actors rely heavily on interlinked
networks and channels that provide access to knowledge. A powerful agriculture is considered to
be well connected with many different sources: Experts, fellow practitioners, agricultural advisory
services, research institutes and others (Hoffmann et al., 2009). At the same time local knowledge
has an important complementary role of linking local agriculturalists through manifold adaptation
processes to global knowledge and thus new practices (Evers et al., 2006a, Gerke and Evers,
2006, Wall, 2006b). The knowledge systems perspective is useful to describe the landscape of
knowledge and to group certain assets of knowledge from a particular perspective, as e.g. postsoviet knowledge. However, the conceptualization of knowledge systems tends to be additive and
difficult to delimit. Despite its descriptive advantages, it is hardly possible deducing explicit rules or
actions. Only by external factors (public demand, knowledge governance, cf. Wall, 2006a) the
knowledge captured in a system is evaluated.
Innovations
Availability of knowledge and possibility to freely deal with it, is considered a precondition for
innovation. “Innovation depends on many processes of knowledge production that are distributed
over various institutional settings.” (Rammert, 2004:1). More specifically, agricultural innovation
systems are considered as networks of different players that are transient and emerge around
specific challenges and tasks at particular points in time (cf. Klerkx et al., 2009). Since innovations
8
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
are closely linked to the access, usage, creation, amplification and dissemination of knowledge; a
clear understanding is necessary to identify them. With reference to Klerkx et al. (2009) innovation
in the agricultural sector is roughly conceptualized as “a successful combination of ‘hardware’ (i.e.,
new technical devices and practices), ‘software’ (i.e., new knowledge and modes of thinking) and
‘orgware’ (i.e., new social institutions and forms of organisation)”. Knowledge and practises that
enable action are highly relevant when unfolding such features of innovations, allowing rural
communities e.g. to learn to cope with change and uncertainty. In this regard, innovations form the
interface between knowledge and local governance, indicating previous negotiations and
interaction.
Tajik Agricultural Knowledge
Currently, agriculture specific knowledge creation in Tajikistan, is to a great deal neglected. Prior
to transition, agricultural expert knowledge was integrated in Soviet research structures, however,
these resources are partly lost or became outdated (Evers and Wall, 2006b, Morgounov and
Zuidema, 2001). The remains of this knowledge form the basis of current cultivation praxis that
often times did not change much. That is especially true for the cotton industry, where Soviet
praxis and the respective knowledge was until recently deliberately preserved (Atta, 2008, Bliss,
2010a, ICG, 2005). In general, conditions to exchange agricultural knowledge in Tajikistan are
rather low.3
Nevertheless, the horticultural sector is quite excluded from this, as it appears as `emerging
market´ with exclusive business rights and expanding knowledge (CACAARI, 2009) + (CACAARI
2007, 2009). That is also due to a broad variety of actors involved, as former Kolkhoz
nomenclature, newcomer like NGO and Jamoat, women farmer or returning labor migrants that
insert new knowledge. Horticultural production is deeply rooted in Tajik agriculture, both as
subsistence crop or as export produce, thus making a very substantial contribution to peoples
livelihood.
3
There are several impediments to further spread of agricultural knowledge:
1. Lack of farmers economic self-determination.
2. Problems to adapt to traditional agricultural knowledge due to soviet ideology and industrial division of labour DWHH
(2010) Landreform in Tadschikistan- Eine Übersicht [Internal Report]. Bonn, Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V.
3. Deterioration of infrastructure since 1991 brought information flow between the regions to halt. Currently there is no
common informational space in the country.
4. Media has limited freedom to report and is hardly present in rural areas BENSMANN, M. (2007) Viel Zensur, Wenig
Freiheit. Medien in Zentralasien. Osteuropa, 57, 517-531, LOERSCH, A. & GRIGORIAN, M. (2000) Report on the Media
Situation in Tajikistan. Geneva, Switzerland, CIMERA, NANSMIT (2009) Media Monitoring. Dushanbe, Tajikistan,
NANSMIT, National Association of Independent Media in Tajikistan.
5. The very few and thematically limited agricultural research and advisory services have little outreach to rural areas.
CACAARI (2009) Current Agricultural Information System in Tajikistan. IN KARIMOVA, G. (Ed.), Central Asia and the
Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions CACAARI, MANDLER, A. (2010) Social and political context of
agriculture advisory services in the Republic of Tajikistan. IN LABAR, K., PETRICK, M. & BUCHENRIEDER, G. (Eds.)
Challenges of Education and Innovation for Agricultural Development. Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in
Central and Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 4th MACE Green Week Scientific Conference 2010. Halle (Saale), Leibniz
Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, IAMO, WASON, A. (2002) Az Dekhon ba Dekhon
(Farmer to Farmer): A Participatory Radio Series for Private Farmers in Tajikistan. Communication for Development Case
Study 18. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FAO.
6. Cooption of farmer lobby groups and associations (Herbers, 2006a).
However, mobile telephones are increasingly in use in rural areas.
9
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
Knowledge and Governance
Rural actors commune through the agricultural knowledge system in order to release innovation or
solve problems (Leeuwis and Ban, 2004) what eventually serves to boost business. There is much
evidence for the delicacy of agricultural production regarding limitations of communication and
information (Foss, 2007, Lemma, 2007, Wall, 2006a); at the same time production is stimulated by
incentives for education and knowledge exchange (Evers, 2008, Evers et al., 2006a, Roeling and
Wagemakers, 1998, Röling, 1994). A growing number of scientific research deals with function
and impact of knowledge management in rural areas by addressing cross-cutting problems as
livelihoods (Allison and Badjeck, 2004), knowledge and gender (Inhetveen et al., 2004, TeheraniKrönner et al., 2000) or the distribution and use of knowledge (El-Berr, 2009, Neef, 2001).
Knowledge appears as determinant of both, power and economic growth. Hoang et al. (2006)
shows how – by means of local networks and traditional hierarchies – agricultural advisory
services in Vietnam serve exclusively interests and prosperity of a small elite. In the Tajik context
of scarce agricultural resources and intransparent governance, knowledge forms a strategic asset,
useful to achieve benefits and competitive advantages (Gerke and Ehlert, 2009, Nissen, 2004).
Not surprisingly, there is manifold interference in the relation between actors and knowledge. In
order to ensure governance domains, exponents of local power structures regulate access and
use of information and knowledge through physical or legal barriers. In contrast to the collective
approach established during Soviet agriculture, today one´s individual relationship to power
structures, as administration or local elites, defines the relationship to knowledge (Herbers, 2006a,
Wall, 2006a).
Regimes of Knowledge
From the perspective of agricultural actors, the handling of knowledge in rural areas can be
described through regimes, reflecting the flexibility of actors towards assets of knowledge or
knowledge systems. Regimes may be imposed by the state, may be used by groups to include or
exclude others, but describe also the way how knowledge is generally dealt with. Rural
communities in Central Asia find various regimes of knowledge in place, crosscutting the
knowledge systems.
Partly stemming from Soviet ideological practice, regimes of truth (a term borrowed from Foucault,
1978) exercise a great influence on farmers. Taking examples from farmers in Uzbekistan, the
governmental knowledge system (Trevisani, 2011, Wall, 2006a) enforces not only agricultural
production (e.g. cotton, wheat), but it dictates also the discourse of how farmers speak about
business. This refers also on limited vocabulary or no public space available for certain agricultural
discourses. For instance insist Uzbek power structures on national-independence-wealthrhetoric’s, which make it for farmers impossible to even express needs abstaining from cotton
production (Veldwisch, 2008, Trevisani, 2007).
This kind of limitations originate from local arrangements, e.g. described by Lachemann (1994) as
`Systeme des Nichtwissens´ or Wall (2006a) `Knowledge governance´, that neglect certain
domains of knowledge by denying validity and application within the community. Such negative
10
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
regimes clearly derive from the political set up and constellations of power. In this regard, the
concept of knowledge regime refers to a “constellation of political power, legal normativity, and
scientific knowledge. The latter gives such a regime supplementary institutional characteristics
beyond the political and the legal: its identity is also determined by the forms of knowledge
predominant in the political institution.” (Rammert, 2004). In this perspective the term knowledge
regime is exclusively attached to the predominant ideology and worldview.
Parting from the above definition of knowledge as socially constructed (Berger and Luckmann,
1984) it becomes clear that value and significance of knowledge are `localized´ (Jasanoff, 2004,
Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998) and thus subject to local power structures and the social order in
place. At this point, the concept of knowledge regimes seems particularly helpful to describe local
rules, that refer e.g. to the way how knowledge in various systems is handled among groups of
actors. In her important study on exchange of favors in Russia, Lebedeva uses “the idea of
`regimes´ for the analysis of reciprocity to avoid the assumptions implied in the usage of the terms
`kinship´, `friendship´, `acquaintance´.” (1998:143). A knowledge regime describes the dynamics
of how actors approach knowledge, as well as the purposes attached to such efforts.
In Tajikistan, privatization of agricultural land took place mostly in favor of state representatives or
other elites, as kolkhoz staff or religious dignitaries. Due to proximity to local power structures
these actors were able to generate more knowledge on future developments, prepare themselves
earlier on upcoming policies, what consequentially allowed this group to have more options open
(“Handlungsmacht” Herbers, 2006a, 2006b). As Herbers (2006a) showed, advantage in options,
not necessarily access to power or financial resources, enhanced the standing certain actors in
local governance processes.
Given the above mentioned scarcity of knowledge and information in rural areas, all opportunities
to exchange knowledge are important to farmers, as knowledge has actively to be “procured”. This
requests from Tajik farmers „cleverness“ and „viel Lauferei“ [much running about] (Herbers, 2006a:
172), in order to obtain the necessary insights. Especially Dehkon farmer (Tajik private farmer)
need to dedicate themselves to endless personal conversations and visits of administration, which
are vital for running private farms (Herbers, 2006a: 172f.).
Similarly, another potential regime in use to cope with restrictions to farming has been described
as discursive practices (Oberkircher et al., 2010). It referes to verbal strategies that camouflage
deviant or illegal behavior. Farmers denial of illegal practices may also stem from the lack of
adequate language and discourses (e.g. as explained above) – in a sense that there are no
adequate expressions for potential confession. It seems that such practices derive from common
soviet history, they are, beside Uzbekistan, also in place in Tajikistan. However, for the later, it
remains to be seen to what extend such practices are meant to bypass strategically (local)
governance decisions or if they are more used as ad hoc excuse.
The present conceptualization of knowledge and local governance in Tajikistan is trying to capture
roughly the environment and mechanisms in which decision-making takes place. It helps to
11
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
understand specific local arrangements, and thus, motivations and limitations of agricultural actors
in their everyday activities.
6. Intended Research Sites
Throughout Tajikistan farmers achieve different benefits from horticulture. From a general
perspective, horticulture production appears to be a major source of income in Pendžikent district
(Sughd province), while it contributes only little to that in Šachrtuz district (Khatlon province).
Different horticultural production and marketing schemes are in place in the two sub regions. It has
been noted that horticulture farmers in Pendžikent apply other approaches towards knowledge and
innovations (e.g. in commercialization, cultivation practices) than their colleagues in Šachrtuz do
(GAA, 2006, MEDA, 2006). This different set up is underpinned by deviant experiences of
agricultural advisory services in both provinces (Livinets, 2007, Mašrabovič, 2008). For instance,
farmers in the south reported frequent interferences in cropping decisions by the authorities (WFP,
2005), while experiences in the northern province Sughd display a positive ground for advisory
services (WHH, 2010). Throughout the district of Šachrtuz (Khatlon) cotton has been the
dominating crop for the last decades. Assumably, this cultivation practice had through various
channels a strong influence on local farmers (Wall, 2006). Constraints to advisory services in
Khatlon province derived from state interferences in media, advisory services or farmers
associations (Mandler, 2010). Similarly, cases are reported of farmers prohibited to apply new
production practises, difficulties to commercialize produce or delayed land reform (ICG, 2005,
Porteous, 2005, Robinson et al., 2008, Wason, 2002).
7. Sub-questions for Research
1st research hypothesis regarding local governance in Tajikistan: Rural actors are influenced by
both, local and national governance. However, specific decisions as e.g. the distribution of natural
resources may only be explained by the local context. Decision making processes are embedded
in a system of local social order, with often times more bounding force than orders coming from
national political level. Therefore farmers in the Tajik sub-regions manage differently to enforce
their interests.
Guiding question: From the perspective of farmers, to what extend differ processes of local
governance in Tajik sub-regions?
Sub-questions:

What are indicators for different impact of central and local governance in Pendžikent and
Šachrtuz?

Who are the drivers of local governance processes?

How is social order and local governance interrelated?
12
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03

19/3/2011
Which possibilities to participate in local governance do exist for smallholder farmers,
especially women-farmer?
2nd research hypothesis regarding the relation of knowledge and local government: Within the
realm of local governance processes, local farming knowledge and expertise converges with e.g.
industrial concepts of farming. The pluralistic, horizontal approach to knowledge of individual
farmers contradicts the unidirectional implementation of knowledge in large-scale production.
Especially in cotton growing regions (Šachrtuz) agricultural knowledge is focused towards the
mainstream of cotton production. This industrialized logic takes effect on small-scale horticultural
production. Indices for such a situation are the sluggish privatization of land or continued control of
land use. In contrast, it seems that a more individual approach to knowledge is characteristic for
traditional horticultural areas along the Zarafšon River in Pendžikent (Sogd). Local governance
appears to be the arena where the discrepancy between formal or informal assumptions, with
regard to agricultural production, is negotiated.
Guiding question: To what extend is the handling of horticultural knowledge enabled or
constrained by local governance arrangements in Tajikistan?
Sub-questions:

Through which channels (e.g. ICT, media, agricultural advisory systems, farmers
associations) do local (women-)farmers approach and exchange knowledge?

Which knowledge regimes exist and what are they used for? Which path-dependencies
appear in handling knowledge?

To what extend can generalized patterns of the relation between local governance and
knowledge management be drawn from the two case studies?
8. Methodology
The present research project follows an interdisciplinary, actors centered approach, which entails
sociological, political, ethnological and agro-economic methods of collection, analyzing and
evaluating of data. The following methodological setting has been developed:
 Study of literature and critical assessment of sources: Besides an in depth analysis of
scientific literature and governmental publications the corpus of “grey literature”, e.g.
documents of national and international NGO, are of high relevance for the present
research, as they provide timely information from sub regions or governmental activities.
 Participant observation: By participating in everyday life it is intended to observe and
document social networks, decision making processes and important other procedures.
Therefore a period of 9 months of fieldwork is scheduled, in order to capture the full circle
of agricultural labor.
13
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
 Semi-structured interviews/ Questionnaire: Semi-structured interviews and a basic
questionnaire will reveal information from the two selected sub regions that is also
statistically comparable. The questionnaire is discussed with other research groups at ZEF
and will be evaluated statistically (SPSS). It is aimed to develop a basic set of statistically
relevant data of the population in the area of research. As interview partners especially
representatives from the various groups of actors (heads of Dehkon farms, male and
female heads of households, representatives of collective farms) are scheduled. The
interviews will be held beforehand the questionnaire.
 Background-interviews: In order to gain knowledge about the general
context and
specific correlations, background-interviews (along guidelines) will be conducted. These
talks are aiming at local experts and representatives of elites. Both interviews, background
and semi-structured interviews may be carried out with the help of a female research
assistant, due to the fact that many households in rural areas are headed by women
farmers.
 Social Network Analysis: to map out some findings and underpin the results in 2
research areas, a basic SNA will be conducted. Data is collected on the basis of
information gathered through the questionnaire and the interviews. That will also reveal
concentrations of power and adjacent relations.
Obviously the design of the methodology is flexible and will be adjusted to possible changes
that occur during the research.
9. Time schedule
Activity
Conceptual phase, Literature
Time
Results
Until 03/2011
Finished research proposal
1. Field research (4 months)
04 – 07/2011
Collection of field data
Analysis of field data, further
11/ 2011 – 01/2012
Analysis of field research data
review
conceptualization of research
Literature review
2. Field research (5 months)
03 – 07/ 2012
Collection of field data
Writing of thesis
08/ 2012 - 05/2013
Finish thesis
14
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
10. Budget
tbc
11. Annex
Structure of Questionnaire [ SPSS]

personal
background/
household
features (personal
education,
how became
a
horticulturalist?)

horticultural knowledge (access, media, knots, barriers, etc)

application of knowledge/ innovations (what did you learn, how you make use of it? who to
ask ? SNA mapping)
Preliminary starting or narrative question to ask in background interview

How did you learn to be a horticulturalist/ being a private farmer/ cope with market
economy?

Please share with me all your experiences that you encountered as a farmer since 1991?
12. Bibliography
AENIS, T. (1997) Das Wissenssystem der Schafhaltung in Brandenburg: Eine Analyse von
Kommunikationsbeziehungen der beteiligten Institutionen und Organisationen aus Produktion,
Forschung und Beratung, Weikersheim, Margraf Publishers.
ALLISON, E. & BADJECK, M.-C. (2004) Livelihoods, Local Knowledge and the Integration of Economic
Development and Conservation Concerns in the Lower Tana River Basin. Hydrobiologia, 527, 19-23.
ATTA, D. V. (2008) King Cotton Freezes Tajikistan. Central Asia - Caucasus Institute Analyst, 10, 3-5.
AVRDC (2005) Vegetable Production in Central Asia: Status and Perspectives. IN KALB, T. J. &
MAVLYANOVA, R. F. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop 13–14 June 2003, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Shanhua, Taiwan, The World Vegetable Centre AVRDC.
BAN, A. V. D. (1999) Problems of Agricultural Extension in Developing and former Communist Countries. IN
HANSRA, B. S. (Ed.) Globalising Indian Agriculture: Policies and Strategies. New Delhi, Classical
Publishing Company.
BENSMANN, M. (2007) Viel Zensur, Wenig Freiheit. Medien in Zentralasien. Osteuropa, 57, 517-531.
BERGER, P. L. & LUCKMANN, T. (1984) The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of
knowledge, London, Penguin Books.
BLISS, F. (2010a) Poverty, Governance and Participation: The Example of Tajikistan. Projekt Working Paper
Nr. 1 (”Participation and Development in Central Asia”). Duisburg, Institute for Development and
Peace.
BLISS, F. (2010b) Partizipation in der nationalen Entwicklungsplanung und -implementierung in
Tadschikistan. Projekt Working Paper Nr. 2 (”Participation and Development in Central Asia”).
Duisburg, Institute for Development and Peace.
BLW (2008) Strategische Weiterentwicklung des Landwirtschaftlichen Wissenssystem. Bern,
Schweizerisches Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft BLW.
BOBOYOROV, H. (2009) The Role of Collective Identities in Shaping Local Governance Institutions in
Southern Khatlon of Tajikistan. ESCAS XI Conference 2009 on ‘Studying Central Asia: in Quest for
New Paths and Concepts?’ Budapest, Hungary, [Conference Paper].
15
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
CACAARI (2009) Current Agricultural Information System in Tajikistan. IN KARIMOVA, G. (Ed.), Central Asia
and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions CACAARI.
CHIBBA, M. (2009) Governance and Development. The current role of theory, policy and practice. World
Economics, 10, 79-108.
CHRISTOPHE, B. (2005) Metamorphosen des Leviathan in einer post-sozialistischen Gesellschaft: Georgiens
Provinz zwischen Fassaden der Anarchie und regulativer Allmacht, Bielefeld, Transcript-Verlag.
CHRISTOPHE, B. (2006) Metamorphosen des Leviathan. Strategien des State-Building in Georgien. Vortrag
gehalten im Rahmen der „Silk Road Lecture“ am Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF) am 7.
März 2006. Bonn.
CLEAVER, F. (2002) Reinventing Institutions: Bricolage and the social Embeddedness of Natural Resource
Management. The European Journal of Development Research, 14, 11-30.
DWHH (2010) Landreform in Tadschikistan- Eine Übersicht [Internal Report]. Bonn, Deutsche
Welthungerhilfe e.V.
EL-BERR, S. (2009) Wer sind hier die Experten? Lokales Wissen und interkulturelle Kommunikation in
Entwicklungsprojekten mit Indigenen Ecuadors, Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität.
ESHCHANOV, R., KAN, E., KHAMZINA, A. & LAMERS, J. P. A. (2007) Farmer’s Knowledge and Perceptions
about Multipurpose Trees and Tree Intercropping Systems in Post-independence Private Farming
Systems in Uzbekistan ZEF Work Papers for Sustainable Development in Central Asia 10. Bonn, ZEF.
EVERS, H.-D. (2008) Knowledge Hubs and Knowledge Clusters: Designing a Knowledge Architecture for
Development. ZEF Working Paper Series 27. Bonn, ZEF.
EVERS, H.-D., GERKE, S. & MENKHOFF, T. (2006a) Wissen und Entwicklung - Strategien für den Aufbau einer
Wissensgesellschaft. ZEF Policy Brief 6. Bonn, ZEF.
EVERS, H.-D. & WALL, C. (2006b) Knowledge Loss: Managing Local Knowledge in Rural Uzbekistan. ZEF
Working Papers Series 15. Bonn, ZEF.
FAO (2008) The Economic Effects of Land Reform in Tajikistan. IN LERMAN, Z. & SEDIK, D. J. (Eds.) EC/FAO
Food Security Programme. Phase II Food Security Information for Action. Rome, Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FAO.
FOSS, N. J. (2007) The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and Characteristics.
Organization, 14, 29–52.
FOUCAULT, M. (1978) Dispositive der Macht : Michel Foucault über Sexualität, Wissen und Wahrheit,
Berlin, Merve Verlag.
GAA (2006) Mid Term Evaluation, Final Report “Support to the Land Reform in Northern Tajikistan through
Local Extension and Support Services”. IN ZERHUSEN, D. G. (Ed.) Bonn, German Agro Action/
Deutsche Welt Hunger Hilfe.
GERKE, S. & EHLERT, J. (2009) Local Knowledge as Strategic Resource: Fishery in the Seasonal Floodplains of
the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. ZEF Working Paper Series 50. Bonn, ZEF.
GERKE, S. & EVERS, H.-D. (2006) Globalizing Local Knowledge: Social Science Research on Southeast Asia,
1970 - 2000. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 21, 1 -21.
GRINDLE, M. S. (2007) Going local : decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance
/ Merilee S. Grindle, Princeton, N.J. :, Princeton University Press.
HERBERS, H. (2003) Die postsowjetische Neuordnung der Landnutzung im Pamir: Beeindruckender Erfolg
mit kaum lösbaren Defiziten. Wandel und Persistenz in der Landnutzung Tadschikistans seit der
Unabhängigkeit. IN BRECKLE, S.-W. (Ed.) Bielefelder Ökologische Beiträge. Bielefeld: [Conference
Proceedings] Abteilung Ökologie/ZiF/Universität Bielefeld & GTZ CCD-Projekt/Bonn.
HERBERS, H. (2006a) Landreform und Existenzsicherung in Tadschikistan. Die Handlungsmacht der Akteure
im Kontext der postsowjetischen Transformation, Erlangen, Selbstverlag der Fränkischen
Geographischen Gesellschaft.
HERBERS, H. (2006b) Handlungsmacht und Handlungsvermögen im Transformationsprozess. Erfahrungen
aus Tadschikistan. Geographica Helvetica 61, 13-20.
HOANG, L. A., CASTELLA, J.-C. & NOVOSAD, P. (2006) Social Networks and Information Access: Implications
for agricultural Extension in a Rice Farming Community in northern Vietnam. Agriculture and
Human Values, 23, 513-527.
HODGSON, G. M. (2006) What Are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, XL, 1-25.
16
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
HOFFMANN, V., GERSTER-BENTAYA, M., CHRISTINCK, A. & LEMMA, M. (Eds.) (2009) Rural Extension. Vol. 1:
Basic Issues and Concept. Vol. 2. Examples and Background Materials Vol. 3. Training Concepts and
Tools, Weikersheim, Wageningen, Margraf Publishers & CTA.
HORNIDGE, A.-K. (2010) Transdisciplinary Innovation Research in Uzbekistan – one year of ‘Following The
Innovation’. Development in Practice.
ICG (2005) The Curse of Cotton: Central Asia's Destructive Monoculture. Asia Report N°93. Brussels,
Bishkek, International Crisis Group ICG.
ICG (2011) Central Asia: Decay and Decline. Asia Report N°201. Brussels, Bishkek, International Crisis Group
ICG.
INHETVEEN, H., SPIEKER, I., SCHMITT, M. & SCHLUDE, U. (2004) Hat Agrarwissen ein Geschlecht? Göttinger
Studien zur Agrarwissenschaftsgeschichte aus einer Gender and Science-Perspektive. Zeitschrift für
Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 98-103.
JASANOFF, S. (Ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, London,
Routledge.
JASANOFF, S. & WYNNE, B. (1998) Science and Decisionmaking. IN RAYNER, S. & MALONE, E. L. (Eds.)
Human Choice and Climate Change: the Societal Framework. Columbus, Ohio, USA, Batelle Press.
KLERKX, L., HALL, A. & LEEUWIS, C. (2009) Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation
Brokers the Answer? Working Paper Series 2009-019. Maastricht, United Nations University Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology.
KOEHLER, J. & ZÜRCHER, C. (2004) Der Staat und sein Schatten. Zur Institutionalisierung hybrider
Staatlichkeit im Süd-Kaukasus. WeltTrends, 12, 84 - 96.
LACHENMANN, G. (1994) Systeme des Nichtwissens. Alltagsverstand und Expertenbewusstsein im
Kulturvergleich. IN HITZLER, R., HONER, A. & MAEDER, C. (Eds.) Expertenwissen. Die institutionelle
Kompetenz zur Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag.
LAUTH, H.-J. & LIEBERT, U. (Eds.) (1999) Im Schatten demokratischer Legitimität. Informelle Institutionen
und politische Partizipation im interkulturellen Demokratien-Vergleich, Opladen, Westdeutscher
Verlag.
LEACH, R. & PERCY-SMITH, J. (2001) Local governance in Britain, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New
York, Palgrave.
LEBEDEVA, A. (1998) Russia’s economy of favours, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
LEEUWIS, C. & BAN, A. V. D. (2004) Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension,
Oxford, Blackwell Science
LEMMA, M. (2007) The Agricultural Knowledge System in Tigray, Ethiopia: Recent History and Actual
Effectiveness, Weikersheim, Margraf Publishers.
LERMAN, Z. & SEDIK, D. J. (2009a) Sources of agricultural Productivity Growth in Central Asia. Agricultural &
Applied Economics Association 2009 AAEA & ACCI Joint Annual Meeting. Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
[Conference Paper].
LIVINETS, S. (2007) Report on Republic of Tajikistan for FAO Assistance. Rome, Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations FAO.
LOERSCH, A. & GRIGORIAN, M. (2000) Report on the Media Situation in Tajikistan. Geneva, Switzerland,
CIMERA.
MANDLER, A. (2010) Social and political context of agriculture advisory services in the Republic of
Tajikistan. IN LABAR, K., PETRICK, M. & BUCHENRIEDER, G. (Eds.) Challenges of Education and
Innovation for Agricultural Development. Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and
Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 4th MACE Green Week Scientific Conference 2010. Halle (Saale),
Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, IAMO.
MAŠRABOVIČ, D. B. (2008) Osobennosti formirovanija i funkcionirovanija dechkanskich (fermerskich)
chozjajstv v usovijach maloseml’nogo regiona (na primere Respubliki Tadžikistan). [Besonderheiten
bei der Bildung und Funktionsweise privater Dehkan Betriebe unter den Bedingungen geringer
Verfügbarkeit von Land (Am Beispiel der Republik Tadschikistan)], Dušanbe.
MEDA (2006) Pro-Poor Agricultural Development in Northern Tajikistan. 4th Semi-Annual Report October 1,
2005 – March 31, 2006. Waterloo, Canada, Mennonite Economic Development Associates MEDA.
MIELKE, K. & SCHETTER, C. (2007) "Where is the Village?" Local Perceptions and Development Approaches
in Kunduz Province. ASIEN, 71-87.
17
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
MIELKE, K., SCHETTER, C. & GLASSNER, R. (2007) Local Governance in Farkhar and Warsaj Districts of
Takhar Province in Northeastern Afghanistan ZEF Amudarya Research Series Paper. Integrated
Development, Environment and Sustainability Paper 7. Bonn, ZEF.
MIELKE, K., SCHETTER, C. & WILDE, A. (2010) Social Order beyond the State. ZEF Working Paper Series.
Bonn, ZEF [forthcoming].
MORGOUNOV, A. & ZUIDEMA, L. (2001) The Legacy of the Soviet Agricultural Research System for the
Republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus. ISNAR Research Report 20. The Hague, ISNAR.
NANSMIT (2009) Media Monitoring. Dushanbe, Tajikistan, NANSMIT, National Association of Independent
Media in Tajikistan.
NEEF, A. (2001) Land Tenure and Soil Conservation Practises - Evidence from West Africa and South East
Asia. IN D.E. SCOTT, R. H. M., G.C. STEINHARDT (Ed.) Sustaining the Global Farm, 10th International
Soil Conservation Meeting. Purdue University and the USDA ARS National Soil Erosion Research
Laboratory.
NISSEN, S. W. (2004) Tajiks’ Promised Land: A Farm of one’s Own. OSCE Magazine, 1, 4-7.
NORTH, D. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
NORTH, D. C. (1994) Economic Performance Through Time. The American Economic Review, 84, 359-368.
NORTH, D. C., WALLIS, J. J. & WEINGAST, B. R. (2009) Violence and social orders : a conceptual framework
for interpreting recorded human history, Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press.
OBERKIRCHER, L. (2010) Water-Saving in the Landscapes and Lifeworlds of Khorezmian Farmers,
Uzbekistan. Fachbreich Geowissenschaften. Münster, Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
OBERKIRCHER, L., TISCHBEIN, B., HORNIDGE, A.-K., SCHORCHT, G., BHADURI, A., AWAN, U. K. &
MANSCHADI, A. M. (2010) Rethinking Water Management in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Concepts and
Recommendations. ZEF Working Paper Series 54. Bonn, Center for Development; Research
Department of Political and Cultural Change.
PIERRE, J. & PETER, G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, London, Macmillian.
PORTEOUS, O. C. (2005) Land Reform in Tajikistan. Field Exchange, 3-12.
RAMMERT, W. (2004) Two Styles of Knowing and Knowledge Regimes: Between ‘Explicitation’ and
‘Exploration’ under Conditions of ‘Functional Specialization’ or ‘Fragmental Distribution’. Technical
University Technology Studies Working Papers. TU Berlin, Institute of Sociology.
RISSE, T. (2007) Regieren in Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit. Zur "Reisefähigkeit" des GovernanceKonzeptes. SFB-Governance Working Paper Series Nr.5. Berlin.
ROBINSON, S., HIGGINBOTHAM, I., GUENTHER, T. & GERMAIN, A. (2008) Land Reform in Tajikistan:
Consequences for Tenure Security, Agricultural Productivity and Land Management Practices. IN
BEHNKE, R. (Ed.) The Socio-economic Causes and Consequences of Desertification in Central Asia.
NATO Science Series. Heidelberg, Springer.
ROELING, N. G. & WAGEMAKERS, M. A. E. (1998) Facilitating sustainable agriculture : participatory learning
and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty, Cambridge, U.K; New York,
Cambridge University Press.
RÖLING, N. G. (1994) Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems. IN BLACKBURN, D. J. (Ed.) Extension
Handbook: Processes and Practices. 2nd ed ed. Toronto, Thompson Educational.
ROWE, W. C. (2010) Agrarian adaptations in Tajikistan: land reform, water and law. Central Asian Survey,
29, 189 - 204.
ROY, O. (1999) Kolkhoz and Civil Society in the Independent States of Central Asia. IN RUFFIN, M. H. &
D.WAUGH (Eds.) Civil Society in Central Asia. Washington, Center for Civil Society International.
ŠARIPOV, A. F. (2007) Zemel’naja reforma v Respublike Tadžikistan [Bodenreform in der Republik
Tadschikistan], Dušanbe, Nacional’naja associacija dechkanskich (fermerskich) chozjajstv (NADFCh).
SCHETTER, C. (2006) Why do States Collapse, and What Exactly Happens? agriculture & rural development,
2006, 30-32.
SCHETTER, C. (2009) Local Politics in Afghanistan. From a State-oriented Approach to Social Order. Concept
Paper for the Symposium “Beyond the State - Local Politics in Afghanistan”. Center for
Development Research (ZEF), Bonn, [Conference Paper].
SEHRING, J. (2006) The Politics of Water Institutional Reform. A comparative Analysis of Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan. Conference on Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Berlin: Freie
Universität, [Conference Paper].
18
Andreas Mandler, ZEF Research Proposal 03
19/3/2011
SPOOR, M. (2007) Rural Poverty, Agrarian Reform and the Role of the State in Rural Growth and Poverty
Reduction in Central Eurasia. Ten Propositions regarding Agricultural Development and Rural
Poverty Reduction. Technical Consultation Meeting. FAO Regional Office for Central Asia
(FAO/SEC), Ankara [unpublished].
TEHERANI-KRÖNNER, P., SCHMITT, M. & HOFFMANN-ALTMANN, U. (Eds.) (2000) Wissen, Bildung und
Beratung für Frauen im ländlichen Raum, Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.
TREVISANI, T. (2007) After the Kolkhoz: rural elites in competition. Central Asian Survey, 26, 85-104.
TREVISANI, T. (2011) Land and Power in Khorezm: Farmers, Communities and the State in Uzbekistan's
Decollectivisation Process, Berlin, Lit Verlag.
UNDP (2009) Human Development Report. New York, United Nations Development Programme UNDP.
VELDWISCH, G. J. A. (2008) Cotton, Rice & Water. The Transformation of Agrarian Relations, Irrigation
Technology and Water Distribution in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Bonn, Rheinischen Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität.
VINCENT, J. (2002) The anthropology of politics : a reader in ethnography, theory, and critique, Malden,
Mass., Blackwell Publishers.
WALL, C. (2006a) Knowledge Management in Rural Uzbekistan: Peasant, Project and Post-Socialist
perspectives in Khorezm, Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität.
WALL, C. (2006b) Knowledge for Development: Local and External Knowledge in Development Research.
ZEF Working Paper Series 12. Bonn, ZEF.
WASON, A. (2002) Az Dekhon ba Dekhon (Farmer to Farmer): A Participatory Radio Series for Private
Farmers in Tajikistan. Communication for Development Case Study 18. Rome, Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations FAO.
WFP (2005) Household Food Security and Vulnerability Survey in Rural Tajikistan. ODAV (VAM) – WFP.
Rome, World Food Programme WFP.
WHH (2010) Landreform in Tadschikistan - Eine Übersicht. Bonn, Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V.
WIEGMANN, G. (2007) Staatszerfall und -aufbau in Tadschikistan. Lokales Regieren nach dem Bürgerkrieg.
Osteuropa, 57, 209-224.
WIEGMANN, G. (2009) Socio-political change in Tajikistan: The development process, its challenges since
the civil war and the silence before the new storm?, Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek
Carl von Ossietzky.
ZÜRCHER, C. (2005) Gewollte Schwäche. Internationale Politik, 13-24.
19