In Central Asia, we see a much stronger case and one squarely consistent with the theory. For one, the separation between the selection of leaders and the selection of economic ideas is starker than anywhere else in the former Soviet Union. This is true for the simple reason that four of the five leaders were appointed while the Soviet Union was still in existence. Yet despite the fact that these leaders were not selected for their economic views, the ideas of those individual leaders came to be of particular importance because the extent of personal control over the state apparatus was so considerable. As a result, if the chapter tends more toward Kremlinology, drawing on the attributes of individual leaders, it is with good reason. The supreme power of the executive office in these countries renders the ideas, personal background, experience, and patronage ties of these leaders an important element of the explanation.

To capture this contingency, I describe how each leader came to power in order to make the case that the principles of selection had little to do with economic views. I then identify changes in the leaders' economic ideas over time and show the extent to which these ideas manifest in international institutional choice and economic policy.

UZBEKISTAN

Uzbekistan exhibits no changes in leadership and only one major shift in economic ideas during the decade, a turn from integralism to a form of mercantilism that occurs approximately at the end of 1993.