Despite having an underdeveloped supporting infrastructure and limited resources, Kazakhstan was the first CIS country to require IFRS in 2004 for banks, and in 2005 for all public companies. What were the economic consequences of this important reform? In the 1990s, Kazakhstans capital market reforms mirrored those of Russia due to the two countries cooperating mode driven by a high level of resource interdependence and environmental uncertainty, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet, by 2003, dependence on external donors (IMF, World Bank) took precedence over interdependence with Russia. As a result, Kazakhstan unilaterally proceeded with adoption of IFRS, while Russia backed up from this initiative. This study reports that Kazakhstans inflow of Foreign Direct Investments was the greatest among the CIS nations following the adoption of IFRS. In addition, in 200511, Kazakhstani public firms reporting quality was higher than that of the Russian public firms operating in a similar environment but exempt from the IFRS reporting requirement. Kazakhstan was the first CIS nation to repay its external debt ahead of schedule and to receive an investment grade from Moodys rating agency. The book concludes that Western-style capital market reformsin this emerging market with a not-so-distant communist pasthad significantly positive outcomes.

Despite increasing attention towards Russias economy and capital market, corporate governance norms of Russian public firms are rarely analyzed. This project presents and interprets evidence regarding various governance practices followed by Russian firms covering almost the entire period of the existence of the Russian stock market. Its findings run counter to some widely held beliefs according to which Russia is a country with high resistance to corporate innovations due to socialist imprints. Part one of this two-volume study focuses on the role that boards of directors play in reducing intra-corporate agency conflicts. Russian companies have adopted progressive governance mechanisms including director independence, nationality and gender diversity on the board, dismissal of poorly performing CEOs, and cross-listing of companies on foreign markets with stringent reporting obligations. Some of these innovations have had notably positive impact on firms performances and market valuation. Others, such as nationality diversity on boards of directors, enhanced the image of Russian companies but made little contribution towards improving internal governance. Unresolved issues impeding further progress include limited liability of directors towards shareholders due to imperfections of the Russian legal system, a taboo on disclosures of executives compensations, and generally high risks of conducting business in Russia. Despite impressive improvements in internal practices, Russian firms still have a long way to go to achieve the governance levels of their peers in developed countries.