Article

Methodology for assessing the impact of integration diplomacy on transparency, accountability and the effectiveness of public administration in small states

Nadira Dzhumadylova
Abstract

 This study is relevant as integration associations are increasingly becoming a driving force of transformation in public administration systems of states that want to optimise administrative resources and improve the resilience of state institutions by collective mechanisms of cooperation. The study aimed to identify the mechanisms of transformation of the participation of the small state in multilateral integration formats into measurable changes in the quality of public administration and to develop a reproducible set of tools for their assessment, using the Kyrgyz Republic as a case study. The methodology included a conceptual method for operationalising governance categories, the author’s framework of four channels of influence transmission, a case study of three empirical cases, and a matrix analysis of constraints. The findings revealed that the impact of integration diplomacy on the quality of public governance is differentiated and context-dependent. The channel of regulatory harmonisation primarily affects transparency and efficiency, whereas the channel of external monitoring primarily fosters intergovernmental rather than civic accountability. A case study of migration policy, the digital agenda and a foreign trade agreement showed that integration diplomacy creates necessary but not sufficient conditions for improving the quality of governance: the realisation of each channel’s potential depends on the presence of complementary domestic reforms and sufficient administrative capacity on the part of the state. It was found that the systemic asymmetry in the coverage of governance categories, and the persistent gap between the high measurability of effects in the sphere of effectiveness and the low verifiability of effects in the sphere of accountability, is determined by the closed nature of security platforms. Particular attention is paid to how integration diplomacy indirectly strengthens the political security of a small state by enhancing the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of public administration. The practical significance of the study lies in the possibility of using the developed methodological framework to assess the governance effects of integration diplomacy in other small states with similar structural characteristics

Keywords

regulatory harmonisation; monitoring; asymmetry; institutional learning; indicator

Download article

Received 16.01.2026, Revised 10.04.2026, Accepted 28.05.2026 Published 25.06.2026

Retrieved from Volume 19, No. 1, 2026

Suggested citation

Dzhumadylova, N. (2026). Methodology for assessing the impact of integration diplomacy on transparency, accountability and the effectiveness of public administration in small states. Democratic Governance, 19(1), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.56318/dg/1.2026.70

https://doi.org/10.56318/dg/1.2026.70

Pages 70-83

References

  1. Agreement on Cooperation in Ensuring International Information Security between the Member States of the SCO. (2009, June). Retrieved from https://eng.sectsco.org/20090616/207486.html.
  2. Arynov, Z. (2022). Opportunity and threat perceptions of the EU in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Central Asian Survey, 41(4), 734-751. doi: 10.1080/02634937.2021.1917516.
  3. Barbera, C., Ferry, L., Hyndman, N., Liguori, M., McCandless, S., & Midgley, H.C. (2025). Governance and accountability in reshaping public services: Open challenges and wicked problems of the 21st century. Public Administration, 103(3), 677-692. doi: 10.1111/padm.70012.
  4. Becker, P. (2024). Conditionality as an instrument of European governance – cases, characteristics and types. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 63(2), 402-419. doi: 10.1111/jcms.13580.
  5. Bekbolotova, S., Djanibekov, N., & Herzfeld, T. (2025). How does regional economic integration impact trade in small economies? Evidence from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan’s EAEU accession. Eurasian Geography and Economics. doi: 10.1080/15387216.2025.2475904.
  6. Cerqua, A., Montalbano, P., & Temerbulatova, Z. (2024). A decade of Eurasian integration: An ex-post non-parametric assessment of the Eurasian economic union. International Economics, 178, article number 100506. doi: 10.1016/j.inteco.2024.100506.
  7. Chynybaeva, N., Kubatbekova, A., Ormonova, A., Koombaev, A., & Askarbekov, D. (2024). Constitutional and legal responsibility of state bodies and senior officials. Social Legal Studios, 7(3), 27-35. doi: 10.32518/sals3.2024.27.
  8. Cieślik, A., & Gurshev, O. (2022). Friends with or without benefits? An empirical evaluation of bilateral trade and economic integration between some of the post-Soviet economies. Eurasian Economic Review, 12, 769-795. doi: 10.1007/s40822-022-00213-9.
  9. Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2021, May). Retrieved from https://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/1-2/edition/1202952/kg.
  10. Convention of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on Countering Extremism. (2021, July). Retrieved from https://www.mps.gov.cn/n2255079/n6865805/n7355748/n7913217/c8012755/content.html.
  11. Desai, A., & Manoharan, A.P. (2024). Digital transformation and public administration: The impacts of India’s digital public infrastructure. International Journal of Public Administration, 47(9), 575-578. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2024.2350762.
  12. Ege, J., Bauer, M.W., & Wagner, N. (2021). How do international bureaucrats affect policy outputs? Studying administrative influence strategies in international organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 87(4), 737-754. doi: 10.1177/00208523211000109.
  13. Eurasian Economic Union. (2025). EAEU and Indonesia signed a Free Trade Agreement. Retrieved from https://eec.eaeunion.org/en/news/soglashenie-o-svobodnoy-torgovle-podpisano-mezhdu-eaes-i-indoneziey/.
  14. Furtana, T.E., Abdieva, R., & Baigonushova, D. (2025). Public perceptions of the Eurasian Economic Union: A survey-based analysis of socioeconomic impacts in Kyrgyzstan. Ege University Journal of Turkic World Studies, 25(2), 445-471. doi: 10.32449/egetdid.1730868.
  15. Hartmann, S., Lindner, T., Müllner, J., & Puck, J. (2022). Beyond the nation-state: Anchoring supranational institutions in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(6), 1282-1306. doi: 10.1057/s41267-022-00537-3.
  16. Haug, N., Dan, S., & Mergel, I. (2024). Digitally induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963-1987. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917.
  17. Hedling, E. (2025). Coping with digitalisation in diplomacy: Autonomy and discretion at the digital frontlines. European Journal of International Relations. doi: 10.1177/13540661251343006.
  18. Hönig, A.-L., & Tumenbaeva, S. (2022). Democratic decline in the EU and its effect on democracy promotion in Central Asia. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 35(4), 424-458. doi: 10.1080/09557571.2022.2078685.
  19. Honig, D., Lall, R., & Parks, B.C. (2023). When does transparency improve institutional performance? Evidence from 20,000 projects in 183 countries. American Journal of Political Science, 67(4), 1096-1116. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12698.
  20. Ji, Y., Beksultanov, A.A., Cui, X., Fu, D., & Wang, Z. (2026). Economic reforms in taxation, trade, and finance: A case study of the Kyrgyz Republic. International Journal of Advances in Signal and Image Sciences, 12(1), 323-334. doi: 10.29284/wmzcfm76.
  21. Jipa‐Muşat, I., & Piper, N. (2026). Dynamics of transnational labour migration revisited from a crisis complex perspective. Development and Change, 57(2), 261-288. doi: 10.1111/dech.70048.
  22. Kahyaoğlu, S.B., Abdieva, R., & Baigonushova, D. (2024). Citizen perception and participation in local government in post-Soviet countries: Case of Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 16(2), 261-274. doi: 10.1177/18793665241283476.
  23. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2024). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and 2024 update. Washington: World Bank Group.
  24. Knox, C., & Sharipova, D. (2023). Public sector reforms in developing countries: A preliminary review. Public Administration and Development, 43(5), 368-380. doi: 10.1002/pad.2030.
  25. Kolnberger, T., & Koff, H. (2021). Addressing seeming paradoxes by embracing them: Small state theory and the integration of migrants. Comparative Migration Studies, 9(1), article number 14. doi: 10.1186/s40878-021-00222-8.
  26. Komendantova, N., Rovenskaya, E., Strelkovskii, N., & Rodriguez, F.S. (2022). Impacts of various connectivity processes in central asia on sustainable development of Kyrgyzstan. Sustainability, 14(12), article number 6998. doi: 10.3390/su14126998.
  27. Lall, R. (2025). Making global governance accountable: Civil society, states, and the politics of reform. American Journal of Political Science, 69(1), 96-117. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12824.
  28. Lundgren, M., Tallberg, J., & Wasserfallen, F. (2024). Differentiated influence by supranational institutions: Evidence from the European Union. European Journal of Political Research, 63(3), 839-861. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12620.
  29. Mancheva, I., Pihlajamäki, M., & Keskinen, M. (2024). Institutional accountability: The differentiated implementation of collaborative governance in two EU states. West European Politics, 47(3), 619-644. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2022.2158639.
  30. Open Government Partnership. (2023). Independent reporting mechanism accountability report (2023). Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/independent-reporting-mechanism-accountability-report-2023/.
  31. Open Government Partnership. (n.d.). OGP national handbook: Ensuring accountability and learning through the IRM. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/national-handbook/independent-reporting-mechanism/.
  32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). The principles of public administration. doi: 10.1787/7f5ec453-en.
  33. Panke, D., & Stapel, S. (2022). Towards increasing regime complexity? Why member states drive overlaps between international organisations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 25(4), 633-654. doi: 10.1177/13691481221115937.
  34. Papadopoulos, Y. (2025). From public to transnational administration: A system-level perspective on accountability beyond state borders. Public Performance & Management Review, 49(3), 604-634. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2025.2491402.
  35. Pérez-Durán, I. (2023). Twenty-five years of accountability research in public administration: Authorship, themes, methods, and future trends. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(3), 546-562. doi: 10.1177/00208523231211751.
  36. Roth, J., Sant’Anna, P.H.C., Bilinski, A., & Poe, J. (2023). What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235(2), 2218-2244. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.03.008.
  37. Sandholtz, W. (2024). Integration, supranational authority, and human rights. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(10), 3465-3485. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2024.2356740.
  38. Treaty on the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union. (2017, April). Retrieved from https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/sites/default/files/Treaty%20of%20the%20Customs%20Code%20of%20the%20Eurasian%20Economic%20Union%20%28EN%29.pdf.
  39. Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union. (2011, November). Retrieved from https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/natlex2/files/download/117541/INT-117541.pdf.
  40. Tsourdi, E. & Zardo, F. (2025). Migration governance through funding: Theoretical, normative, and empirical perspectives. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 23(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2024.2407584.
  41. United Nations. (2024a). E-Government survey 2024: Technical appendix. Retrieved from https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2024-09/Technical%20Appendix%20(Web%20version)%201292024.pdf.
  42. United Nations. (2024b). Global trends in E-Government. In E-Government survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development (pp. 35-90). New York: United Nations.
  43. World Bank. (2025). The Worldwide governance indicators: Revised methodology for measuring governance using perception data. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/govindicators/doc/The%20Worldwide%20Governance%20Indicators%202025%20Methodology%20Revision.pdf.