Regionalism in Central Asia is often identified with the dominance of tribal affiliations in politics. This classification, however, is problematic because it neglects the extent of social change under the Soviet rule. In Soviet Turkmenistan state structures were relatively strong. However, personal relations within the Communist party had preserved patrimonial elements within the state. The dissolution of the Soviet Union led to a stronger patrimonialization of authority relations. In Turkmenistan, this process led to an extreme form of a neo-patrimonial state due to the personal and arbitrary rule of its president Nijazov.

Taking into account historical as well as sociological differences, the author distinguishes between different modes of socialism. On the periphery of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the combination of modern and traditional elements led to the establishment of hybrid political forms. They could be characterized as bureaucratic-patrimonial and associated with a specific type of state: the "peripheral socialist state".

Taking into account historical as well as sociological differences, the author distinguishes between different modes of socialism. On the periphery of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the combination of modern and traditional elements led to the establishment of hybrid political forms. They could be characterized as bureaucratic-patrimonial and associated with a specific type of state: the „peripheral socialist state“.

No description available.

In this article the authors highlight the promotion of private sector participation in infrastructure development for the provision of public services, through joint actiondesigned for the private and public sector instruments. Under that context, they take asa starting point the figure of corporate governance, as an efficient state action, because itinvolves a change in the conception of the state and non-state roles in investment in publicservices, considering the actors public and private, as a cooperating conjunction with theformulation and implementation of public policies.In this context, the authors develop and analyze pending tasks in the exercise of regulatoryauthority and its relation to the patrimonial liability of the State, which in their view must also be taken into account for the effectiveness of corporate governance. / En el presente artículo, se destaca el fomento de la participación del sector privado en el desarrollo de infraestructura para la prestación de servicios públicos, a través de instrumentos ideados para una actuación conjunta de los sectores privado y público. Bajo ese contexto, toman como punto de partida a la gobernanza corporativa como una actuación eficiente del Estado, en tanto implica una variación de la concepción de los roles estatales y no estatales en materia de inversión en la prestación de servicios públicos, considerando a los actores públicos y privados como una conjunción cooperante con la formulación y la ejecución de políticas públicas.En ese contexto, los autores desarrollan y analizan tareas pendientes en materia del ejercicio de la potestad reguladora y su relación con la responsabilidad patrimonial del Estado que, desde su perspectiva, deben también tenerse en cuenta para la efectividad de la gobernanza corporativa.