The Weakness of the Bureaucracy as the Key Problem of Public Administration in Kazakhstan

One of Kazakhstan's most acute problems is a weak bureaucracy that fails to perform the function of filtering initiatives put forward by political figures. In a well-functioning system of public administration, there is a clear division between political appointees (ministers, akims, vice-ministers, deputy akims, the senior leadership of the government) and the bureaucratic apparatus of ministries and agencies. Political posts are subject to frequent rotation, whereas the core body of civil servants is supposed to ensure stability and consistency in the implementation of strategies.

In developed countries, any initiative proposed by a political figure undergoes thorough analysis by the bureaucracy. Specialists run the numbers, assess the consequences, and hold internal discussions and consultations. The result is a document that has been substantially refined and properly substantiated. In Kazakhstan, this mechanism barely works. The bureaucracy has no institutional strength, and many initiatives are adopted without proper analysis, which often leads to negative consequences.

Examples of failed initiatives

The history of independent Kazakhstan offers many examples of ill-considered decisions that damaged the economy and other spheres. Consider a few of them:

The ban on interest accrual on current accounts

As a result of this decision, second-tier banks (commercial banks) earned around KZT 3 trillion, while individuals and legal entities incurred potential losses. The decision was taken without any assessment of its impact on the financial sector or the interests of depositors.

The retail tax and the high VAT threshold after the pandemic

These measures led to a rise in tax evasion schemes. Tax revenues did not increase, and the authorities are now forced to address the problem through "voluntary-compulsory" measures, undermining the investment climate and entrepreneurs' trust.

The use of pension savings for housing and medical treatment

At first, the initiative looked like a socially oriented measure, but in practice it drove up real estate prices and inflation and led to a higher base rate. This made the banking sector more profitable, but hurt the availability of credit for the real sector of the economy.

Handing out benefits and preferences under pressure from lobbying groups is not the hardest task. But the absence of a strong bureaucracy capable of filtering and evaluating initiatives leads to systemic failures.

What should be done?

To improve the system of public administration, the bureaucratic apparatus itself must be reformed and made professional and independent. This requires the following steps:

Strengthening an independent bureaucracy — creating a professional layer of civil servants who are protected from political pressure.

Introducing mandatory Regulatory Impact Assessment — any initiative should undergo thorough economic, legal and social review.

Engaging independent experts and research centers to provide an objective assessment of proposed decisions.

Raising salaries and tightening requirements for civil servants — this would attract competent specialists into the apparatus rather than people who got their posts through connections.

Transparency in decision-making — publishing forecasts, risk assessments and implementation mechanisms before initiatives are adopted.

Without reform of the civil service, any changes in economic or social policy will remain chaotic and unpredictable. Kazakhstan needs to build a system in which political decisions undergo rigorous scrutiny rather than being made under the influence of emotion, populism or the interests of narrow groups. Only then can long-term, sustainable development of the country be ensured.