Sovjetunionens oppløsning førte blant annet til at de sentralasiatiske sovjetrepublikkene ble uavhengige stater, deriblant Kasakhstan og Usbekistan. Hvordan har den språkhistoriske utviklingen i disse landene vært? Hvordan påvirker språklovene situasjonen for det russiske språket etter selvstendigheten? Er dagens språkpolitikk noe nytt i regionen, eller er de politiske grep idag gammelt nytt fra sovjettiden?Dette er noen av de sentrale spørsmålene i denne oppgaven.Jeg anvender meg av komparativ metode når jeg ser på de kasakhiske og usbekiske språklovene fra både før og etter uavhengigheten. Dette anser jeg som hensiktsmessig da jeg er interessert i to ting; å finne likheter og ulikeheter mellom landene i språkspørsmålet, samt å finne likheter og ulikheter i tidsperiode, altså før og etter selvstendigheten.Som definition på hva språkpolitikk er, går jeg ut ifra en bred definisjon som gjenfinnes hos Schlyter ( Language Policy in Independent Uzbekistan s.8). Språkpolitikk er de virkemidler som offentlige myndigheter har for å påvirke språks utvikling.Takk til Per Arne Bodin, min veileder ved slaviske institusjonen. Takk til Birgit Schlyter ved institusjonen for orientaliske språk for hjelp i fremskaffing av litteratur og hvis forskning har gjort denne oppgaven mulig.

<p>Den här uppsatsen har skrivits inom ramen för centralasiatisk säkerhetspolitik ur ett europeiskt perspektiv. Jag har begränsat uppsatsen till att fokusera på narkotika, som på senare år har blivit en kärnfråga i säkerhetspolitiska diskussioner, framförallt i Europa och i USA. Genom att tillämpa ett vidare perspektiv har jag försökt överskrida den eurocentrism, evolutionism, passivisering och viktimisering som finns i litteraturen och de artiklar som jag har studerat. Med den beskrivande tesen: Narkotikans roll i kampen om den globala hegemonin och drömmen om kalifatet, har jag velat belysa narkotikans roll i båda dessa strävanden mot en ny värld. Narkotikans roll som ett maktobjekt kan inte förminskas, varken i européernas kamp om den globala hegemonin eller i de islamistiska extremistgruppernas dröm om kalifatet. Narkotikan har haft en betydande och stimulerande roll i historien, i nutiden och kommer även att ha det i framtiden.</p>

Den här uppsatsen har skrivits inom ramen för centralasiatisk säkerhetspolitik ur ett europeiskt perspektiv. Jag har begränsat uppsatsen till att fokusera på narkotika, som på senare år har blivit en kärnfråga i säkerhetspolitiska diskussioner, framförallt i Europa och i USA. Genom att tillämpa ett vidare perspektiv har jag försökt överskrida den eurocentrism, evolutionism, passivisering och viktimisering som finns i litteraturen och de artiklar som jag har studerat. Med den beskrivande tesen: Narkotikans roll i kampen om den globala hegemonin och drömmen om kalifatet, har jag velat belysa narkotikans roll i båda dessa strävanden mot en ny värld. Narkotikans roll som ett maktobjekt kan inte förminskas, varken i européernas kamp om den globala hegemonin eller i de islamistiska extremistgruppernas dröm om kalifatet. Narkotikan har haft en betydande och stimulerande roll i historien, i nutiden och kommer även att ha det i framtiden.

<p>The economic development and industrialization that has taken place in many parts of the world during the past century has brought about a huge increase in economic welfare. During this process, it has repeatedly been debated whether the gains from economic development are shared by everyone or just a few. In the field of economics, vast research has been conducted on this particular subject ever since the 1950’s. The most famous contribution might be said to be Simon Kuznets article, Growth and Income Inequality from 1955 and the ”inverted U”-hypothesis that was formulated on the basis of that article. The essence of the hypothesis is that a country, during its development, moves from agricultural to industrial production. At first, income inequality increases and then, at the end of the process, decreases.</p><p>The aim of this paper has been to investigate the relationship between income distribution and economic development in a particular region, namely the countries of the former Soviet Union, during 1992-2003. Also, we have tested whether Kuznets theory and the “inverted U”-hypothesis hold true for our sample. The investigations method is a survey, which uses secondary data collected from the World Bank’s database of World Development Indicators. Regression-analysis has been employed to conduct cross-sections between 20 countries over 4 periods in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The number of observations equals to 62. The variables that we use are: the Gini index, GDP per capita and the agricultural sector’s share of GDP.</p><p>The results of the regression do not indicate any resemblance to the pattern of the “inverted U”-hypothesis. The curve we get is that of a “positive U”. Countries with high GDP per capita as well as countries with low GDP per capita have high income inequality. Countries with mediate GDP per capita levels have low income inequality. Our analysis concludes that the countries in our sample might have had a very unique economic development following the fall of the Soviet Union. Only 7 countries partly follow the Kuznets theory if tested individually. Since these seven countries seem to have a reversed development with increasing agricultural sector and the remainder of the countries show increasing income inequality, we reject the “inverted U”-hypothesis and question the ability of Kuznets’ theory to explain income distribution for our sample.</p>

The economic development and industrialization that has taken place in many parts of the world during the past century has brought about a huge increase in economic welfare. During this process, it has repeatedly been debated whether the gains from economic development are shared by everyone or just a few. In the field of economics, vast research has been conducted on this particular subject ever since the 1950’s. The most famous contribution might be said to be Simon Kuznets article, Growth and Income Inequality from 1955 and the ”inverted U”-hypothesis that was formulated on the basis of that article. The essence of the hypothesis is that a country, during its development, moves from agricultural to industrial production. At first, income inequality increases and then, at the end of the process, decreases. The aim of this paper has been to investigate the relationship between income distribution and economic development in a particular region, namely the countries of the former Soviet Union, during 1992-2003. Also, we have tested whether Kuznets theory and the “inverted U”-hypothesis hold true for our sample. The investigations method is a survey, which uses secondary data collected from the World Bank’s database of World Development Indicators. Regression-analysis has been employed to conduct cross-sections between 20 countries over 4 periods in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The number of observations equals to 62. The variables that we use are: the Gini index, GDP per capita and the agricultural sector’s share of GDP. The results of the regression do not indicate any resemblance to the pattern of the “inverted U”-hypothesis. The curve we get is that of a “positive U”. Countries with high GDP per capita as well as countries with low GDP per capita have high income inequality. Countries with mediate GDP per capita levels have low income inequality. Our analysis concludes that the countries in our sample might have had a very unique economic development following the fall of the Soviet Union. Only 7 countries partly follow the Kuznets theory if tested individually. Since these seven countries seem to have a reversed development with increasing agricultural sector and the remainder of the countries show increasing income inequality, we reject the “inverted U”-hypothesis and question the ability of Kuznets’ theory to explain income distribution for our sample.