Volume 4, issue 8, 2025
97
THE CURRENT STATE OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN CENTRAL ASIAN
COUNTRIES: ANALYSES AND CHALLENGES
Boboqulova Mohina G’ofur qizi
Master’s student at the University of World
Economy and Diplomacy
Email: mokhinababakulova@gmail.com
Abstract:
This study analyzes the current state of regional integration in Central Asia through
classical and modern integration theories. Using Balassa’s stages of integration, Tinbergen’s
functionalism, and neofunctionalism, the research evaluates progress in trade, transport
connectivity, and institutional cooperation. While initiatives such as the Samarkand European
Union–Central Asia Connectivity Summit and the China-Central Asia Summit highlight growing
economic and political ties, challenges remain in terms of infrastructure gaps, water resource
disputes, and political diversity. Intra-regional trade has increased significantly, yet uneven
economic development and security concerns hinder deeper integration. The findings suggest
that Central Asia stands at a critical juncture, where sectoral cooperation and institutional
strengthening could pave the way toward more sustainable and institutionalized integration.
Keywords:
Central Asia, regional integration, trade, transport connectivity, economic
cooperation, Balassa theory
INTRODUCTION
Regional integration in Central Asia can be analyzed through a combination of classical and
contemporary integration theories. Balassa’s (1961) stages of economic integration, ranging from
preferential trade agreements to full economic union, offer a developmental framework for
assessing the region’s progress.
Tinbergen’s (1965) functionalist approach emphasizes
designing cooperative arrangements in high-utility sectors to generate momentum for broader
integration.
Neofunctionalism further suggests that integration in one functional area (e.g.,
transport infrastructure) can trigger “spillover effects” into other areas (Haas, 1958).
Liberal
intergovernmentalism highlights the bargaining role of states in steering integration (Moravcsik,
1998),
while Regional Security Complex Theory (Buzan & Wæver, 2003) underscores the
interdependence between stability and economic cooperation.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
From a Balassa perspective, Central Asia remains in the early-to-intermediate stages of
integration, with preferential trade arrangements and partial customs harmonization but lacking
deep institutionalization comparable to the EU or ASEAN. Tinbergen’s logic is evident in the
region’s focus on high-benefit sectors such as transport connectivity, which offers tangible
economic returns without requiring full political integration.
1
Balassa, B. (1961).
The theory of economic integration
. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
2
Tinbergen, J. (1965).
International economic integration
. Elsevier.
3
Haas, E. B. (1958).
The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–1957
. Stanford
University Press.
4
Moravcsik, A. (1998).
The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to
Maastricht
. Cornell University Press.
5
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003).
Regions and powers: The structure of international security
.
Cambridge University Press
Volume 4, issue 8, 2025
98
Transport connectivity initiatives have emerged as both drivers and reflections of integration.
Summits such as the Samarkand EU–Central Asia Connectivity Summit (2025), which
introduced the €12 billion Gateway Investment Package (European Commission, 2025)
, and the
China–Central Asia Summit in Astana (2025), which produced the Treaty of Permanent Good-
Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, 2025),
illustrate how infrastructure agreements are used to deepen cooperation
. Multilateral
frameworks like the Ashgabat Agreement and Lapis Lazuli Corridor link Central Asia to wider
markets in the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe, facilitating trade and fostering regulatory
convergence.
Neofunctionalist theory predicts that such transport corridor projects can produce spillover
effects, encouraging harmonization of customs procedures, digital freight tracking, and logistics
policies. This has been observed in recent regional discussions on standardized border-crossing
procedures and coordinated transit tariffs.
Historically, unresolved border disputes have impeded trade and integration in Central Asia.
Recent agreements, such as the 2022 settlement of the Barak enclave and Kempir-Abad reservoir
disputes, and the 2025 Khujand Treaty, have addressed these issues through joint water
management, land swaps, and trilateral negotiation formats. These developments align with
RSCT’s proposition that security cooperation is a prerequisite for sustainable economic
integration.
The Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia, commonly referred to as the
Presidents’ Council, has operated since 2018 as an informal but increasingly important
intergovernmental forum. It addresses strategic issues including transport policy, water
management, trade facilitation, and regional identity-building. From a liberal
intergovernmentalist perspective, the Council’s value lies in its facilitation of repeated
bargaining and trust-building among sovereign states without requiring supranational authority
(Moravcsik, 1998).
A notable strategic development in recent years is the adoption of the regional vision “Central
Asia – 2040”
,
which aims to deepen integration in trade, energy, transport, digital connectivity,
and cultural exchange. In support of this agenda, intra-regional trade increased by over
250%
,
reaching $11 billion by 2024, while cross-border tourism nearly doubled
,
strengthening societal
ties. Institutional progress includes the establishment of a Council of National Coordinators to
enhance day-to-day cooperation. Uzbekistan has prioritized integration in industry, energy, and
digital infrastructure, and has proposed further formalization of regional governance
mechanisms.
6
European Commission. (2025).
EU–Central Asia connectivity summit: Gateway Investment Package
.
European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu
7
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China. (2025).
Treaty of Permanent Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly
Cooperation
.
8
CAREC Institute. (2024).
Regional transport and trade facilitation in Central Asia
. CAREC Institute.
https://www.carecinstitute.org
9
Moravcsik, A. (1998).
The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to
Maastricht
. Cornell University Press.
10
Vakhobov J., A new Central Asia emerging: Opportunities and Challenges
, 25.07.2025,
https://cacianalyst.org/resources/230725_FT_Vakhabov_edditted.pdf
Volume 4, issue 8, 2025
99
Balassa’s model suggests that while Central Asia’s integration remains partial, it has the
potential to progress toward deeper institutionalization through sectoral policy alignment.
Tinbergen’s approach underlines the importance of focusing on high-benefit, low-politics sectors
such as transport and customs modernization to build trust incrementally. Neofunctionalist
spillovers are visible in how transport agreements have led to discussions on regulatory
harmonization, while RSCT stresses that continued stability is essential for sustaining these gains.
Policy recommendations include maximizing spillover potential by linking transport initiatives to
harmonized regulations and digital infrastructure, strengthening coordination mechanisms like
the Presidents’ Council, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing in external infrastructure
agreements. The convergence of functional cooperation, border normalization, and high-level
summitry positions Central Asia at a critical juncture, where pragmatic, project-based
cooperation could evolve into a more robust, institutionalized regional integration framework.
Despite numerous agreements and investments, Central Asia’s regional trade faces multiple
structural and policy challenges. These obstacles stem from geography, weak infrastructure,
diverse policies, and political tensions. The main impediments to deeper trade integration in the
region can be summarized as follows:
From Balassa’s perspective, the persistence of logistical inefficiencies reflects incomplete
“negative integration”, the insufficient removal of physical and administrative barriers that
impede market access. While transnational corridors have been built, varying infrastructure
standards, maintenance quality, and customs processes prevent the seamless flow of goods.
Resource management disputes, especially over shared rivers such as the Amu Darya and Syr
Darya, further illustrate the political dimension of integration. Shared basins such as the Amu
Darya and Syr Darya are subject to competing demands between upstream hydropower
aspirations and downstream irrigation needs.
Competing demands for irrigation and
hydropower mirror Tinbergen’s emphasis on the role of political cooperation in sustaining
economic agreements. Recent bilateral and multilateral understandings have eased some tensions,
but without institutionalized dispute-resolution mechanisms, progress remains fragile.
Political and ethnic diversity within the region adds another layer of complexity. Differing
governance models, divergent foreign policy orientations, and unresolved interethnic sensitivities
often make consensus difficult to achieve. In Tinbergen’s terms, this indicates insufficient
11
Seitalieva, G. A. (2024).
Conflicts over water and energy resources in Central Asia and their impact on
women’s rights
. In
BIO Web of Conferences
, 107.
Volume 4, issue 8, 2025
100
political integration, which can undermine economic cooperation by eroding trust between
member states.
Security concerns, both domestic and transnational, present an additional barrier. Border-related
incidents that have been resolved in recent years show that cooperation is possible; however,
instability can easily redirect government attention from economic initiatives to immediate
defense priorities. This dynamic aligns with Balassa’s observation that integration cannot
advance without a stable environment that allows for consistent policy execution.
Economic disparities between Central Asian states, in GDP levels, industrial bases, and export
profiles, also challenge integration. Such asymmetries can lead to uneven benefits from trade,
fostering reluctance among less-developed partners. According to Balassa, achieving later stages
of integration requires not only the elimination of trade barriers but also policy measures that
promote convergence in economic performance. Without addressing this imbalance, the
perceived inequities of integration may outweigh its benefits for certain states.
CONCLUSION
The Central Asian integration process is constrained by the interplay of geographic,
infrastructural, political, and economic factors. Balassa’s framework underscores that the region
has yet to transition from partial “negative integration” toward deeper “positive integration,”
while Tinbergen’s theory highlights the necessity of political trust and institutional coordination
to complement economic measures. Overcoming these challenges requires a balanced strategy:
investing in shared infrastructure, harmonizing regulatory standards, ensuring equitable
distribution of integration gains, and institutionalizing conflict-resolution mechanisms. Without
addressing these interconnected obstacles, the potential of regional integration will remain
underutilized despite the historical, cultural, and economic complementarities of the Central
Asian states.
REFERENCES:
1.
Balassa, B. (1961). The theory of economic integration. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin.
2.
Tinbergen, J. (1965). International economic integration. Elsevier.
3.
Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–
1957. Stanford University Press.
4.
Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from
Messina to Maastricht. Cornell University Press.
5.
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international
security. Cambridge University Press.
6.
European Commission. (2025). EU–Central Asia connectivity summit: Gateway
Investment Package. European Commission.
7.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China. (2025). Treaty of Permanent Good-
Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation.
8.
CAREC Institute. (2024). Regional transport and trade facilitation in Central Asia.
CAREC Institute.
https://www.carecinstitute.org
9.
Vakhobov J., A new Central Asia emerging: Opportunities and Challenges
https://cacianalyst.org/resources/230725_FT_Vakhabov_edditted.pdf
10.
Seitalieva, G. A. (2024). Conflicts over water and energy resources in Central Asia and
their
impact
on
women’s
rights.
In
BIO
Web
of
Conferences,
107.
