SYSTEMIC EFFECTS OF QUASI-PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM IN KAZAKHSTAN: AN ANALYTICAL MODEL OF MULTIPLIER IMPACT ON SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH, INDUSTRY AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Reform of the quasi-public sector is a key direction of structural transformation in Kazakhstan, where state-owned and state-controlled organizations dominate the mining, energy, transport, and infrastructure sectors. Existing assessments of the reform focus on the number of privatized assets and budget revenues and do not capture its systemic impact on sustainable economic growth, industrial development, and the quality of institutions. This study develops and applies an analytical model to assess the systemic effects of reforming the quasi-public sector in Kazakhstan and to determine the potential for its multiplier impact across economic sectors. The study employs official annual time-series data of Kazakhstan's Bureau of National Statistics for 2018–2024 on gross value added (GVA), GDP share, labour productivity and enterprise-size structure, analyzed through structural-dynamic analysis, the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI), an integrated index of reform effectiveness (IQSR) and Leontief inter-sectoral analysis. The results show that sectoral GVA grew by 87.1% while its share of GDP declined from 16.15% to 13.67%, labour productivity of large enterprises rose by 59.3%, the share of large organizations in sectoral GVA fell by 6.37 percentage points and that of medium-sized organizations rose by 6.23 percentage points, the HHI decreased from 0.7352 to 0.6447, and the IQSR increased from 0.033 to 1.000. The findings suggest that the reform is accompanied by a gradual decentralization of economic activity and productivity gains that support decent work and economic growth. At the same time, state participation remains concentrated in strategic industries, so the reform's effectiveness depends on the quality of governance and institutions rather than on the scale of privatization alone.
JEL Classification Codes: C43, D73, H82, L32, P35.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Ahmed, R. R., Akbar, W., Aijaz, M., Channar, Z. A., Ahmed, F., & Parmar, V. (2023). The role of green innovation on environmental and organizational performance: Moderation of human resource practices and management commitment. Heliyon, 9(1), e12679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12679
Aldaz Odriozola, M., & Álvarez Etxeberria, I. (2021). Determinants of corporate anti-corruption disclosure: The case of the emerging economics. Sustainability, 13(6), 3462. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063462
Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., Beasley, M. S., & Hogan, C. E. (2016). Auditing and assurance services (16th ed.). Pearson.
Branstetter, L. G., Li, G., & Ren, M. (2023). Picking winners? Government subsidies and firm productivity in China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 51(4), 1186–1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2023.06.004
Bureau of National Statistics of the Agency for Strategic Planning and Reforms of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2025). Official statistical information: Quasi-public sector. Retrieved from http://www.stat.gov.kz
Ceschel, F., Hinna, A., & Homberg, F. (2022). Public sector strategies in curbing corruption: A review of the literature. Public Organization Review, 22(3), 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00639-4
Dreshpak, V. M., Kovalov, V. G., Kritenko, O. O., Shevchenko, N. I., & Babachenko, N. V. (2022). Communication of EU public servants in the digital environment during the Covid-19 pandemic. Amazonia Investiga, 11(51), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.51.03.16
Elaev, M. I. (2024). The concept of anti-corruption culture and tools for its formation in the organization. Izvestiya of the Kabardino-Balkarian Scientific Center of the RAS, 26(5), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.35330/1991-6639-2024-26-5-206-213
ElKelish, W., Hussain, A., Al Mahameed, M., & Irsyadillah, I. (2025). Exploring the impact of organizational culture on governance transparency in audit firms: Evidence from the United Arab Emirates emerging market. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 26(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2023-0170
Eom, S. J., & Lee, J. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101690
Ferry, L., & Midgley, H. (2022). Democracy, accountability and audit: The creation of the UK NAO as a defence of liberty. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(2), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2020-4985
Fleron, B., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2021). Digital organizational resilience: A history of Denmark as a most digitalized country. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2400–2409. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/70907/0236.pdf
Kamara, A. K. (2023). The study on effectiveness of internal audit on the performance of the public sector in Sierra Leone: A case study of the National Social Security Insurance Trust. Open Access Library Journal, 10(8), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1110431
Kashyap, S., & Iveroth, E. (2021). Transparency and accountability influences of regulation on risk control: The case of a Swedish bank. Journal of Management and Governance, 25(2), 475–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09550-w
Mugellini, G., Della Bella, S., Colagrossi, M., Isenring, G. L., & Killias, M. (2021). Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1173
OECD. (2025). Transparent and inclusive stakeholder participation through public councils in Kazakhstan. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/
Passaro, R., Quinto, I., Scandurra, G., & Thomas, A. (2023). The drivers of eco-innovations in small and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic literature review and research directions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1432–1450. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3197
Pertiwi, K. (2018). Contextualizing corruption: A cross-disciplinary approach to studying corruption in organizations. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020012
Ramsetty, A., & Adams, C. (2020). Impact of the digital divide in the age of COVID-19. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(7), 1147–1148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa078
Royer, C. (2023). Valuing diversity without illusions: The anti-utopian agonism of Karl Popper's "The open society and its enemies". The European Legacy, 28(5), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770.2023.2184758
Sagandykova, G., Akhmetkaliyev, K., Ayaganova, S., & Sagandykova, N. (2026). Perception of anti-corruption compliance in Kazakhstan's quasi-public sector: An empirical study on organizational hierarchies and trust factors. Cogent Social Sciences, 12(1), 2683321. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2026.2683321
Shi, Y., & Wang, X. (2025). The impact of streamlining administration and delegating powers on urban entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment of administrative approval system reform. China Journal of Economics, 12(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.26599/CJE.2025.9300311
Sutopo, B., Wulandari, T. R., Adiati, A. K., & Saputra, D. A. (2017). E-government, audit opinion, and performance of local government administration in Indonesia. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 11(4), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v11i4.2
Transparency International. (2022). Corruption perceptions index 2022. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
Zharov, E. (2022). Approaches to assessing the effectiveness of the anti-corruption compliance system: Foreign experience and Kazakhstani practice. Memlekettik Basqaru Zhane Memlekettik Qyzmet [Public Administration and Civil Service], 3(82), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.52123/1994-2370-2022-912