Current debate about land and agrarian reform in the post-Soviet Central Asian republics tends to be couched in terms of stark choices between state, collective and private ownership. There is little discussion of the full range of potential tenure arrangements in the ‘middle ground’ between private and state ownership.
This paper outlines an approach to distinguishing modes of operation of groups in society. Case studies from Kyrghyzstan and Uzbekistan shed light on the institutional challenges faced in the contemporary process of land and agrarian reform and illustrate how the lack of social capital currently presents a major obstacle to successful economic transition.
