CONNECTIVITY GOVERNANCE AND PRAGMATIC SOFT POWER IN CENTRAL ASIA: KAZAKHSTAN, TÜRKIYE, AND COMPARATIVE LESSONS FOR LATIN AMERICA

This review article examines how soft power operates in Central Asia when cultural attraction is combined with institutions, regional agency, and operational forms of connectivity. Responding to debates on conceptual overstretch, the article distinguishes soft power from public diplomacy, geoeconomics, infrastructure diplomacy, and a more specific category proposed here: connectivity governance. Connectivity governance is defined as the set of institutional, regulatory, and reputational practices that make cross-border corridors credible, predictable, and politically useful. The argument is not that transport infrastructure is itself soft power, but that reliable corridor governance can produce reputational effects when partner societies, firms, and governments experience cooperation as useful. Methodologically, the article uses a qualitative comparative case study combining document analysis, critical scholarly literature, and selected empirical indicators drawn from foreign policy concepts, Organization of Turkic States materials, TURKSOY, World Bank and Asian Development Bank reports, and ECLAC studies on Latin American integration. The findings are fivefold. First, Kazakhstan’s soft power is anchored in multi-vector diplomacy, regional convening, and reputational moderation, but it remains vulnerable to credibility gaps produced by domestic governance and logistical bottlenecks. Second, Türkiye’s role in Central Asia combines cultural affinity with institutionalized cooperation, yet it must be read critically through debates on Pan-Turkism, neo-Ottomanism, asymmetrical influence, and the AKP-era transformation of Turkish foreign policy. Third, the Middle Corridor illustrates a hybrid zone where reputation, logistical reliability, and institutional coordination intersect. Fourth, Central Asian agency is diverse: Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan complicate any generalization based only on Kazakhstan. Fifth, Latin America can draw selective rather than mechanical lessons: cultural diplomacy becomes more consequential when linked to trade facilitation, education, corridor governance, and non-polarized regional cooperation.