Managing policy expertise through think tank–state relations in Kazakhstan

Abstract

The interconnections among expertise, politics, and policy making remain of persistent scholarly interest, yet they are still insufficiently examined outside consolidated liberal democracies. Addressing this gap, this article analyses think tank–state relations in Kazakhstan, approached here as a case of soft authoritarianism – a political system that imposes systematic restrictions on political rights and civic freedoms while retaining formal democratic institutions and relying more on citizen persuasion, agenda management, and depoliticization than on overt coercion. The study examines how soft authoritarianism shapes the conditions under which think tanks operate and how these conditions evolve during complex crises that heighten the demand for expertise. Empirically, it focuses on Kazakhstan over the period 2010–25. Drawing on original expert interviews, the analysis shows that think tanks in Kazakhstan operate within a selectively pluralistic yet tightly managed policy environment characterized by resource dependence, co-optation, and personalized access to decision-making. Rather than excluding or eliminating independent expertise altogether, the state strategically incorporates and manages it through informal networks, selective funding, and bounded participation in policy consultations. The findings further demonstrate that major crises create temporary openings for expert engagement and role redefinition, but do not fundamentally transform underlying power relations. By examining how expertise is incorporated, constrained, and instrumentalized under soft authoritarianism, while drawing comparisons with both de-democratizing and more restrictive authoritarian contexts, the article contributes to advancing comparative debates on think tanks and policy expertise beyond democratic environments.