Publications
Surveys

Prospects and barriers to integration in Central Asia

2025-07-23 16:14
Analytical Review Based on the Results of a Closed Expert Survey Astana Open Dialogue "Prospects and barriers to integration in Central Asia"

The closed survey was conducted from June 9 to 16, 2025. More than 50 experts took part in the study, representing the fields of political science, economics, public administration, international relations, sociology, education, medicine, and infrastructure development. Among the respondents were representatives of academic and analytical centers, government agencies, universities, public foundations, and the private sector, including the Public Opinion Research Center, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the "Respublica" party, Kazakh-British Technical University, Surbana Jurong Group, Forest Hero, Kazakhstan Market Research Group, Cronos.asia portal, Civic Alliance of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the "International Institute of Sociology and Politics" public fund, the Center for Current Research "Alternativa", and others.

The survey methodology combined rating scales, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended comments. Experts were asked to assess the prospects for the integration of Central Asian countries over the next 10 years, the stability of interstate relations, the degree of infrastructure compatibility, and to identify key barriers, drivers of rapprochement, and possible areas for economic cooperation. Rating scale questions were evaluated from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated no potential or extremely weak positioning, and 5 indicated high potential and pronounced stability. Participants were also asked to forecast the most likely scenario for regional development by 2035 and to provide recommendations for strengthening regional subjectivity and humanitarian cooperation.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND CONTEXT

Most experts see moderate to high prospects for Central Asian integration over the next 10 years. Thus, 32% of respondents gave a score of 4 out of 5, and another 16% gave the maximum score of 5, which together accounts for 48% of the total. Another 10% assessed the prospects at level 3. Only 2% believe that integration has virtually no future, giving it a score of 2; no zero or minimal ratings were recorded.

The assessment of the stability of interstate relations also demonstrates cautious optimism: 56% of experts consider them "relatively stable but with elements of competition". At the same time, 2% noted that they are subject to frequent fluctuations, and another 2% described them as "fragile, dependent on external influence". These findings point to the region's continuing sensitivity to foreign policy factors.
Less importance is attributed to humanitarian initiatives: youth exchanges and initiatives were mentioned by only 4% of experts. Among the historically unresolved issues hindering the rapprochement of Central Asian countries, the leading ones are:

ECONOMY, LOGISTICS, AND RESOURCES

The most realistic directions of economic integration over the next 5–10 years, according to experts, are the unification of transport corridors (52%) and energy cooperation (48%). The ideas of agro-industrial partnership (32%) and trade liberalization, including the creation of free trade zones (20%), also received significant support. Financial integration through payment systems (14%) and joint investment funds (12%) proved to be less popular. Education (22%) and technology (18%) were also partially mentioned. Metallurgy is weakly represented (2%), which may indicate its limited regional cooperation capacity.
Assessments of the current level of infrastructure compatibility between countries in the region demonstrate a cautious stance. Only 8% consider compatibility to be high. The majority (40%) defined it as moderate, another 10% — as fragmented and competitive, and 2% consider it low. These assessments indicate the need for coordinated infrastructure investments.

INSTITUTIONS, POLITICS, AND EXTERNAL FACTORS

Expert assessments regarding the role of external players in the integration processes in Central Asia revealed a mixed perception. Only 43.5% of respondents believe that external platforms primarily contribute to regional stability and connectivity. At the same time, 23.5% think they divert resources and distort priorities, and another 23% point to a restraining effect, especially from the EAEU and CSTO. 10% of experts expressed the opinion that this influence is neutral or inconsistent.
Expert evaluations of the influence of international actors on regional integration processes in Central Asia demonstrate a contradictory picture. In response to the question of which international blocs compete with the idea of independent regional integration, more than half of the respondents (50%) named the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Other structures frequently mentioned as restraining the development of an autonomous regional agenda included the CSTO (30%), the Turkic World (18%), as well as the SCO, CIS, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and even the EU. This indicates that, from the point of view of a significant part of the expert community, Kazakhstan is already embedded in a rather dense network of foreign policy commitments, which, according to respondents, often divert political and institutional attention needed to launch an independent integration architecture within Central Asia.

Interestingly, external blocs and powers are seen by experts as both supporting and restraining regional processes, depending on context and objectives. Among the factors promoting integration, the EU, China, Turkey, and Russia are often mentioned. One respondent emphasizes:
“The support for integration in Central Asia is influenced by: China through infrastructure projects (Belt and Road Initiative); Russia through the EAEU and CSTO; the EU through sustainable development and regional cooperation programs; Turkey through the cultural and political platform of Turkic states. All of them pursue strategic interests and strengthen their positions in the region”
Shorter responses also note support from the EU, structures like the SCO and EAEU, and highlight the role of China and Uzbekistan. Thus, even participation in multilateral formats with external players can have a stimulating effect on integration, provided it is aimed at strengthening ties within the region itself.

Nevertheless, in responses to the question about factors restraining integration, assessments related to external influence again dominate. Russia and China are mentioned more often than others as competing powers whose strategic rivalry weakens regional coordination.
“The decline in integration in Central Asia is influenced by China and Russia, which compete for influence, weakening regional unity. Internal differences between countries of the region — political regimes, levels of economic development, water and border disputes — also hinder integration. External actors increase fragmentation by relying on different interests and applying strategic pressure”.
In addition, respondents note the influence of the USA, the Organization of Turkic States, and the existence of formats outside Central Asia (China–Pakistan–Afghanistan) Russia–Iran–India (INSTC, Trans-Caspian routes bypassing Uzbekistan). The mention of these connections reflects expert concerns about the Central Asian region’s dependence on external powers.

Finally, the perception of special foreign policy formats — such as the EU+CA, US+CA summits and similar platforms — is generally positive. 73.3% of respondents assessed their impact as “rather positive”, 23.3% as “neutral”, and only 3.3% as “rather negative”. This confirms that institutionalized, predictable formats of interaction with external players are perceived as a resource, especially if they are aimed at facilitating dialogue, infrastructure projects and investments, rather than strategic dominance. However, the presence of competition and overlapping strategies remains a factor limiting the formation of full-fledged regional agency.

In response to the question about which formats could strengthen the regional agency of Central Asia on the international stage, experts expressed relatively clear opinions. The most supported format was the Council of Heads of State of Central Asia — it was named by 63.3% of participants. The Economic bloc modeled on ASEAN received almost equal support (60%). More than half of the respondents — 53.3% — support the idea of creating a Permanent Coordination Secretariat, indicating a need for a stable administrative resource to ensure continuity and alignment of positions. Additionally, 36.7% spoke in favor of introducing special regional representatives, and 20% for a diplomatic platform at the level of MFA. Thus, respondents consider it necessary to strengthen the institutional foundations and representativeness of the region on international platforms, with an emphasis on regional cooperation.
86.7% of respondents to the question about the Kazakhstan’s role in integration processes believe that Kazakhstan can play the role of a leading moderator if political will and trust from partners are ensured. The remaining 13.3% stated that the country could partially perform this role — primarily in the areas of economy and logistics, where there is an institutional and infrastructural foundation. None of the experts rejected this possibility entirely. Kazakhstan is seen as the most suitable candidate for the role of regional facilitator with the potential to coordinate interests and shape the agenda at the interstate level. However, the further realization of this role, as emphasized by the experts, depends on trust, inclusivity, and the rejection of dominance in the region.

SOCIOCULTURAL AND HUMANITARIAN FOUNDATION

Expert opinion demonstrates a clear understanding of the importance of the humanitarian dimension in the process of regional integration. Nearly every respondent believes that joint educational programs and exchanges are the most effective tools for fostering closer ties. This reflects a high level of trust in educational diplomacy as a mechanism for shaping shared values and building horizontal connections among younger generations. The second most frequently mentioned priority (66.7%) is the mutual recognition of diplomas and qualifications, confirming the need to reduce administrative barriers and to acknowledge the mobility of specialists within the region. Half of the respondents emphasize the role of a common information space. To a lesser extent, but still notably, a unified cultural calendar and festivals, as well as youth leadership programs, are mentioned.
Assessments of cultural compatibility among countries in the region vary, but the overall attitude is generally positive. 40% of respondents consider it very high, and another 46.7% describe it as moderate with elements of cultural drift — meaning they acknowledge existing differences but do not view them as critical. Only 13.3% believe that compatibility is decreasing due to political and linguistic divides. This indicates the presence of a foundation for cultural rapprochement, which requires efforts in language and media policy, as well as recognition of shared historical and cultural roots.

On the question of the possibility of forming a single regional identity, the so-called “Central Asian community”, opinions were divided, but realistic and optimistic assessments prevailed. 40% of experts believe consolidation is entirely achievable with an active humanitarian policy, and an equal share view it as possible in the long term. Only 20% believe that national differences prevail, making the idea of a shared self-awareness unlikely. This distribution reflects a strategic understanding that identity is not a fixed structure but the result of deliberate cultural and institutional efforts, and its success depends on political will, open dialogue, and investment in a shared humanitarian space.

CONCLUSION

The results of the survey revealed several key directions for strengthening regional integration. Most frequently, responses emphasized transport and logistics initiatives, particularly the development of infrastructure, removal of barriers, and the improvement of connectivity with neighboring countries.
“First, enhance transport and logistics connectivity with neighboring countries by developing joint infrastructure projects. Second, promote economic cooperation through the creation of common markets and the elimination of trade barriers within the region”.
The second prominent cluster of recommendations relates to the humanitarian sphere: cultural projects, educational exchanges, and the strengthening of soft power. Some respondents emphasized the importance of a humanitarian foundation as a necessary condition for sustainable cooperation.
“Kazakhstan should take the lead in launching joint projects on equal terms to avoid suspicions of dominance. Real infrastructure and humanitarian initiatives can be especially effective, as they build trust and a practical basis for regional unity more quickly than political declarations alone”.
“After the collapse of the USSR, the Central Asian countries inherited integration models but then scattered in different directions, trying to distance themselves from the Soviet past. Now that the euphoria of freedom has passed, both leaders and people understand the importance of integration. The bond will always be strong, given our shared language, culture, and geography. States simply need to structure it and gain win-win benefits”.
Some experts highlighted the diplomatic and institutional aspects, emphasizing the need for focused efforts on Central Asian cooperation outside of broader multilateral blocs, as well as the strengthening of Kazakhstan’s diplomatic corps in neighboring countries.
“Strengthen engagement on the Central Asian track, not within broader organizations (such as the OTS and others), but with a targeted focus specifically on Central Asian countries. Strengthen the diplomatic corps in CA states and intensify work through diplomatic channels”.
Technological proposals were also mentioned: the development of energy capacities, participation in the unified energy system, digitalization of procedures.
“Create a major energy surplus within its part of the Unified Energy System of Central Asia. Expand the throughput capacity of international transport corridors on its territory to the maximum, linking Central Asia with third countries”.
Finally, some experts noted that Kazakhstan is already making substantial contributions to regional integration, but should pay greater attention to soft political instruments:
“Kazakhstan is taking many important steps; perhaps it only needs to strengthen informal communication among heads of state.”
Overall, respondents demonstrated a clear and consistent understanding that the success of regional integration depends on a combination of infrastructure readiness, cultural proximity, diplomatic engagement, and a pragmatic approach to the interests of neighboring countries. According to experts, Kazakhstan already possesses part of the necessary resources and reputation, and the next step is to strengthen a systemic, flexible, and proactive regional strategy.

Regarding the key steps needed to bridge the gap between political declarations and actual economic actions in the integration process, respondents’ opinions were distributed across several categories:
The category of institutional mechanisms and implementation of decisions was noted in 26.4% of responses. Experts emphasize the need to establish a stable system for enforcing agreements, including roadmaps, coordination mechanisms, and regular monitoring. The second most mentioned area (13.2%) is the reduction of barriers and harmonization of trade conditions. Simplification of customs and technical procedures, unification of standards and elimination of non-tariff barriers are considered the most important steps to launch real integration.

Next comes the category of political will and trust among regional countries (9.4%). Respondents stress that even with technical and economic solutions in place, integration is not possible without a foundation of mutual trust and genuine political will. One respondent noted: “Increase the number of in-person events so that economists, politicians, and students from Central Asia can exchange views instead of remaining isolated”.
“Authoritarian regimes need to make a serious effort to build even moderately functional institutions. In fact, ASEAN was created by authoritarian states as a response to China’s policy. Central Asia has more in common than ASEAN countries”.
Experts identified three categories for 3.8%: regional stability, economic integration, common interests and common goals.
“Strengthen the presence of Kazakhstani banks in the region, including the Development Bank of Kazakhstan and the Sunkar payment system.”
Despite their importance in other sections of the survey, infrastructure and logistics were mentioned in only 1.9% of responses. Meanwhile, 5.7% of suggestions were more original and did not fit into existing categories:
Develop a regional tourism cluster by promoting the historical role of Central Asian countries and their shared heritage”.
“Each country in Central Asia, based on its national interests, should acknowledge the reality of a division of labor in the region and apply it in practice, as EU countries do”.
“Simplify border-crossing procedures for freight vehicles from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, initiate the creation of a Business Council with participation from relevant government agencies and entrepreneurs from Central Asian countries, and mutually increase investment in each other’s economies”.
Survey results indicate that experts tend to view the near future of Central Asia through the prism of pragmatism and regional interests, rather than ideological models. The most likely scenario, according to respondents, is integration based on pragmatic economics. Half of the experts surveyed believe that, over the next decade, cooperation among Central Asian countries will be driven primarily by economic interests — transportation, trade, resources, and logistics — and built on mutual benefit rather than deep political integration.
The second most popular scenario, selected by 33.3% of respondents, is that of alliances of interest without a shared institution. This model suggests the absence of a centralized decision-making or coordinating body, but allows for temporary and flexible formats of cooperation depending on current priorities and conditions.
“Alliances of interest without a shared institution are already partially in place (e.g., Turkmenistan remains outside most formats), but since the 2020s, the trend has been toward convergence, particularly among Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Everything beyond that is unlikely”.
The scenario of competition and bloc fragmentation was supported by 10%, while a return to dominance of external players received 6.7% support. This demonstrates that while the risks of external dependence and geopolitical turbulence are acknowledged, experts generally believe the region will develop towards greater independence and internal pragmatism. Respondents also stressed that the region’s countries must avoid competing for external investors and should pay attention to coordinated monetary policy.

Thus, according to the majority of experts, by 2035 Central Asian integration will likely not be institutionally deep, but will be economically meaningful — based on shared interests, flexibility, and common sense.

DOWNLOAD THE FILE