Kyrgyz Economic Strategy in the Age of Information

On June 9, 2015, the Congress Hall of the State Residence Ala-Archa in Bishkek hosted a national conference organized by the National Institute for Strategic Research (NISI) of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. The occasion was the Year of Strengthening the National Economy — a government-declared thematic year — and the programme brought together ministers, academics, international organization representatives, and independent experts to address what the Kyrgyz economy needed to do to remain viable through a period of structural global change. Aziz Soltobaev presented in Session 3 as a NISI expert, in the 16:35 slot alongside AUCA President Andrew Wachtel and a panel of researchers and government analysts focused on industrial and technological innovation.

The session framing question was pointed: does Kyrgyzstan position itself as a premium agricultural producer, a tourism destination, or a supplier of cheap labor to the CIS? The answer implicit in the presentation was that none of those three positions was adequate for an economy navigating the information age — and that the country needed a different kind of strategic vocabulary altogether.

What the Information Age Actually Means

The presentation opened with a structural observation: by 2012, knowledge-based flows — data, communication, intellectual property, research — had reached 50% of all global economic flows, and were growing faster than every other category. The distribution of those flows was uneven: the majority remained concentrated in developed economies, with China as the leading exception among emerging markets. For a country like Kyrgyzstan, the implication was not abstract. The global economy was reorganizing itself around something Kyrgyzstan was not systematically producing or attracting.

A single comparison clarified the scale of the gap: Apple market capitalization in 2015 was roughly one hundred times the GDP of the Kyrgyz Republic. That is not a technology company versus a country — it is a demonstration of how radically the value equation of the information age differs from the frameworks industrial-era economies were built around. The point was not to suggest Kyrgyzstan could replicate Apple, but to establish that the distance between where knowledge value is created and where Kyrgyzstan sits in the global economy is not a matter of degree but of kind.

Five Requirements — and Where Kyrgyzstan Stood

The presentation used a World Economic Forum framework from March 2015 to organize the argument: five conditions that determine whether a country can participate meaningfully in the information-age economy. Each one mapped to a specific gap visible in Kyrgyzstan at the time.

Requirement	Kyrgyzstan context (2015)
1. Political agenda	No national digital strategy; policy reactive — bitcoin restricted without technical understanding; drone regulation absent
2. Information (open data)	No open data law; large unmet demand for Kyrgyz-language online content; e-government early-stage; remote health and education services underdeveloped
3. Skills	IT market estimated at $10M; curricula not aligned to digital economy; remittances = 29% of GDP, reflecting large-scale labor export over local value creation
4. Infrastructure	Coverage and capacity gaps; transition from internet of people to internet of things not yet planned; smart city infrastructure absent
5. Legislation	Restrictive rather than enabling: technology bans without understanding; no open data bill; no visa facilitation for Central Asian creative class; IP protections outdated

Remittances, Skills, and the 29% Problem

The skills section rested on a number that cuts to the center of Kyrgyzstan structural economic challenge: migrant remittances represented 29% of GDP. That figure — one of the highest remittance-to-GDP ratios in the world at the time — is not evidence of economic strength. It is evidence that a country most productive working-age population is generating value elsewhere. The question for the information age is whether the same dynamic extends to digital skills: are Kyrgyz developers, designers, and data workers building value for the local economy, or exporting it through remote work and emigration to markets that pay more?

The IT market figure — $10 million — suggested the domestic economy was not yet large enough to retain skilled workers at competitive rates. The gap between the skills Kyrgyzstan needed to develop and the absorptive capacity of the local market to employ those skills was, in 2015, still wide.

What the Session Said About the Room

The conference programme placed Aziz Soltobaev slot directly after Ermek Niazov NISI ICT overview — titled “One Step Forward and Two Back? Overview of the situation and development paths in the ICT sphere.” The sequencing was not incidental: a frank assessment of where Kyrgyzstan ICT sector stood, followed by a framework for how to think about where it needed to go. Andrew Wachtel, then President of AUCA, presented in the same session — one of the few venues in Bishkek in 2015 where a foreign university president, a government minister, ADB representatives, NAN Kyrgyzstan academicians, and independent technology experts were in the same room for a substantive conversation about the digital economy.

That the conversation happened at Ala-Archa — a venue with its own signal weight in Kyrgyz institutional life — and that NISI chose to include technology as a full session in a national economic conference was itself a marker of something shifting in how the policy establishment thought about innovation. Whether the frameworks discussed that afternoon moved into policy is a different question. That they were on the conference agenda at all was a beginning.

---