Institutional, economic, and social determinants of income inequality in Kazakhstan
-
Author(s)Aksaule ZhanbozovaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7143-5680
,
Aksana PanzabekovaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-9637
,
Erkin SadykovLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4319-4242
,
Azimkhan SatybaldinLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7421-4472
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.24(1).2026.04
-
Article InfoVolume 24 2026, Issue #1, pp. 43-56
- 14 Views
-
1 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Income inequality remains a key socio-economic challenge in Kazakhstan, where persistent disparities reflect institutional weaknesses, structural imbalances, and limited effectiveness of redistribution mechanisms. This study aims to assess the influence of institutional quality, economic structure, and social policy on income inequality in Kazakhstan. The analysis is based on annual national and international statistical data for 2001–2023, covering indicators of governance quality, investment activity, labor market dynamics, and social protection. Methodologically, the study uses Spearman’s rank correlation analysis to identify statistically significant associations between the Gini coefficient and selected explanatory variables, without assuming linear relationships. The robustness of results is verified through significance testing at multiple confidence levels. The findings indicate that stricter rule of law and lower corruption are associated with reduced inequality (Spearman’s ρ ≈ –0.44 to –0.50, p < 0.05), while a higher share of state-owned enterprises correlates with greater disparities (ρ ≈ +0.47, p < 0.05). Investment per capita and household expenditures exert a moderate equalizing effect (each ρ ≈ –0.47, p < 0.05), whereas growth in real incomes and an expanding manufacturing sector are linked to wider gaps. Manufacturing share shows a strong positive association with inequality (ρ ≈ +0.80, p < 0.001), and overall income growth correlates positively as well (ρ ≈ +0.72, p < 0.001). Social transfers and pensions operate primarily as reactive measures, smoothing short-term fluctuations rather than achieving sustained redistribution. The findings provide guidance for public policy aimed at reducing income inequality and indicate that the strongest equalizing effects are associated with improvements in the rule of law, reductions in corruption, and higher investment activity, while growth in real household incomes and existing social transfers are largely reactive and do not ensure sustained redistribution.
Acknowledgment
This paper was prepared within the framework of the scientific and technical program IRN BR28713593 “Sustainable devel-opment of Kazakhstan’s economy in the context of new challenges: foresight, strategies and scenarios of modernization, institutions.”
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)D31, D63, H53, O15
-
References52
-
Tables3
-
Figures2
-
- Figure 1. Institutional indicators and Gini coefficient trends in Kazakhstan, 2001–2023
- Figure 2. Trends in economic indicators and income inequality in Kazakhstan, 2001–2023
-
- Table 1. Analytical indicators and primary data sources
- Table 2. Spearman’s correlation between income inequality and institutional, economic, and social indicators (Kazakhstan, 2001–2023)
- Table 3. Descriptive trends in social policy indicators in Kazakhstan, 2001–2023
-
- Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 3-30.
- Alesina, A., & Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive politics and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(2), 465-490.
- Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2013). The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2121-2168.
- Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2003). Inequality and growth: What can the data say? Journal of Economic Growth, 8(3), 267-299.
- Barro, R. J. (2000). Inequality and growth in a panel of countries. Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1), 5-32.
- Bourguignon, F., & Morrisson, C. (2002). Inequality among world citizens: 1820–1992. American Economic Review, 92(4), 727-744.
- Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakh-stan. (2024a). National accounts statistics.
- Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakh-stan. (2024b). Investment statistics.
- Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakh-stan. (2024c). Labour market statistics.
- Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakh-stan. (2024d). Household income and expenditure sta-tistics.
- Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2024e). Education statistics.
- Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2024f). Social protection statistics.
- Card, D., & DiNardo, J. E. (2002). Skill-biased technological change and rising wage inequality: Some problems and puzzles. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(4), 733-783.
- Chulanova, Z., Brimbetova, N., Satybaldin, A., & Dzhanegizova, A. (2024). Poverty in the Kazakhstan regions: Assessing the influence of key indicators on differences in its level. Sustainability, 16(16), 6752.
- Clarke, G. R. G. (1995). More evidence on income distribution and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 47(2), 403-427.
- Cornia, G. A. (Ed.). (2004). Inequality, growth, and poverty in an era of liberalization and globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Deininger, K., & Squire, L. (1998). New ways of looking at old issues: Inequality and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 57(2), 259-287.
- Forbes, K. J. (2000). A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth. American Economic Review, 90(4), 869-887.
- Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Harvard University Press.
- Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Economics of Governance, 3(1), 23-45.
- Howie, P., & Atakhanova, Z. (2014). Resource boom and inequality: Kazakhstan as a case study. Resources Policy, 39, 71-79.
- International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2015). Causes and consequences of income inequality: A global perspective (IMF Staff Discussion Note 15/13). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
- Kalyuzhnova, Y., & Nygaard, C. (2011). Special vehicles of state intervention in Russia and Kazakhstan. Comparative Economic Studies, 53(1), 57-77.
- Kanbur, R., & Lustig, N. (1999). Why is inequality back on the agenda? (Department of Applied Economics and Management Working Paper No. 127690). Cornell University.
- Kireyeva, A. A., Nurbatsin, A. S., & Khalitova, M. M. (2023). Assessing inequality of income distribution and education in the regions of Kazakhstan. Economy of Regions, 19(3), 741-752.
- Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
- Li, H., & Zou, H. F. (1998). Income inequality is not harmful for growth: Theory and evidence. Review of Development Economics, 2(3), 318-334.
- Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.
- Milanovic, B. (2019). Capitalism, alone: The future of the system that rules the world. Harvard University Press.
- OECD. (2015). In it together: Why less inequality benefits all. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD. (2018). Reforming Kazakhstan: Progress, challenges and opportunities. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD. (2021). The digital transformation of SMEs. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD. (2023). OECD Regional Outlook 2023: The Longstanding Geography of Inequalities. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Ostry, J. D., Berg, A., & Tsangarides, C. G. (2014). Redistribution, inequality, and growth (IMF Staff Discussion Note 14/02). International Monetary Fund.
- Parcero, O. J., & Papyrakis, E. (2016). Income inequality and the oil resource curse. Resource and Energy Economics, 45, 159-177.
- Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Pomfret, R. (2019). The Central Asian economies in the twenty-first century: Paving a new silk road. Princeton University Press.
- Rodríguez-Pose, A., Bartalucci, F., Kurmanov, B., Rau, G., & Nigmetov, K. (2024). Assessing regional inequalities in Kazakhstan through well-being. Asian Development Review, 41(1), 301-333.
- Sanghera, B., & Satybaldieva, E. (2023). Rentier capitalism and global economic imaginaries in Central Asia. Globalizations.
- Sawadogo, R., & Ouoba, Y. (2024). Do natural resources rents reduce income inequality? A finite mixture-of-regressions approach. Resources Policy, 91, Article 104870.
- Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Harvard University Press.
- Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). The great divide: Unequal societies and what we can do about them. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Temerbulatova, Z., Mukhamediyev, B., Zhidebekkyzy, A., & Bilan, S. (2024). Regional disparities and dual dynamics: Economic growth and income inequality in Kazakhstan. Economics and Sociology, 17(2), 241-255.
- Transparency International. (2022). Corruption perceptions index 2022.
- UNDP. (2020). Human development report 2020: The next frontier – Human development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development Programme.
- Uskelenova, A. T., & Nikiforova, N. (2024). Regional development of Kazakhstan: Theoretical premises and reality. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(3), Article e12616.
- Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane.
- World Bank. (2024a). Worldwide Governance Indicators.
- World Bank. (2024b). Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP). World Development Indicators.
- World Bank. (2025). Kazakhstan Poverty and Equity Assessment 2024.
-
Impact on poverty and income inequality in Malaysia’s economic growth
Rabiul Islam ,
Ahmad Bashawir Abdul Ghani ,
Irwanshah Zainal Abidin ,
Jeya Malar Rayaiappan
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.05
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017 Issue #1 pp. 55-62 Views: 14064 Downloads: 6375 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯPoverty and income inequality are extreme issues that still exist in Malaysia. Any rise in poverty and income inequality definitely affect economic growth. There are many great efforts taken by the government of Malaysia to eradicate poverty and to reduce the gap of income inequality which occurs since 1970’s. The incidence of poverty and income inequality is higher in rural areas compared to urban areas. This paper is mainly to study the level of poverty and income inequality in Malaysia together with government intervention to develop Malaysia’s economic growth. The research is focused among the working people at Ipoh, Perak. In this paper, questionnaire forms are being distributed to get information regarding the issue of poverty and income inequality. It also looks into the strategies taken by the government of Malaysia to eradicate poverty and income inequality. Few recommendations are given in terms of education policy, financial aid and assistance from government and non-government organization (NGO) to upgrade the standard and quality of living among the poor and lower-income group of people.
-
Industrial development in Saudi Arabia: disparity in growth and development
Anis Ali
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(2).2020.03
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020 Issue #2 pp. 23-35 Views: 4271 Downloads: 1561 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯIndustrial development in any nation plays a vital role in the strengthening of the economy and employs human resources as per specifications and directly towards the mainstream of the nation. In Saudi Arabia, there was rapid industrialization for four decades. Some manufacturing industries performed well, while some internal and external business environment factors influenced the others’ performance. The study focuses on historical development, as well as recent trends of well-performing and poor-performing industries of Saudi Arabia. Small manufacturing industries in Saudi Arabia are underdeveloped and need more attention to attain sustainable and progressive growth rate in the form of the number of establishments to enjoy the potential. Manufacture of tobacco, computer, electronics and optics, pharmaceuticals and transport equipment are the deprived and underdeveloped industries of the manufacturing sector. There should be some easy credit schemes for the development of deprived or underdeveloped manufacturing industries. To attain sustainable growth and development of the manufacturing sector, a positive attitude of the government towards underdeveloped manufacturing industries, favorable labor laws, and entrepreneurial awareness, technical and financial assistance are necessary. The growth and development of the manufacturing sector of Saudi Arabia will be helpful in the attainment of goals of Vision 2030.
-
An application of Altman Z-score model to analyze the bankruptcy risk: cases of multidisciplinary enterprises in Vietnam
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 16, 2019 Issue #4 pp. 181-191 Views: 3411 Downloads: 3144 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study applied Altman Z-score model to assess the bankruptcy risk of a set of multidisciplinary enterprises of various types, mainly small and medium enterprises, with data taken from official financial reports of 180 enterprises in Soc Trang province. The binary logistic regression was employed to assess the impact of non-financial and financial factors on the bankruptcy risk of enterprises. The research findings showed that both the non-financial factors such as business area, types and size of the business, the educational level of managers and executors and other characteristics, and the financial factors (indicators) such as earnings before tax, net profit/equity ratio, earnings before interest and tax/total assets ratio, equity/total debt ratio, affect the bankruptcy risk of enterprises. Predicting the bankruptcy risk and measuring its determinants play an important role not only as an effective managing tool of the business, but also as evidence for policymakers to support the sustainable development of business.
