Poverty in the Kazakhstan Regions: Assessing the Influence of Key Indicators on Differences in Its Level

Abstract

Modern Kazakhstan is characterized by significant regional socioeconomic differences due to climatic conditions, natural resources, migration, and regional specialization. The persistence of these regional differences can lead to increased stratification of society, social tension, and disruption of the country’s economic stability. These issues have intensified under the influence of Industry 4.0 trends and geopolitical processes in the region. Among the various sources of social inequality, we have chosen to focus on the problem of population poverty in our study. Addressing this problem is crucial for taking a comprehensive approach to addressing regional disparities in social development. The purpose of our study is to determine and assess the features of poverty in the regions of Kazakhstan. Our research methodology is based on evaluating the integral poverty index using four indicators: the share of the population with incomes below the subsistence level, the population under 60 years of age, youth aged 15–17 who are not working or studying, and the unemployment rate in the regions of Kazakhstan. Based on these indicators, we grouped the regions according to their poverty level, identified and compared regional differences, and identified the most vulnerable areas in need of intervention. This approach has enabled us to propose appropriate instruments of state support for different territories and promote inclusive regional development to overcome social imbalances.

1. Introduction

Of great importance for a country and its region’s development is the social component, which determines the sufficient livelihood of the population and significantly affects labor and economic processes in general. However, the presence of regional differences in social development requires a search for real opportunities for regions to smooth out or level out disparities and identify the sources of their occurrence. In this context, it is important to formulate relatively correctly the nature of regional differences, the ways of their cognition and regulation. Such an approach will make it possible to develop specific mechanisms to overcome social imbalances that will ensure inclusive regional development.

Despite the positive results in reducing poverty, a significant part of the population has low incomes and risks of falling into the category of poor. According to the Bureau of National Statistics, the regional differentiation of poverty, which began to manifest itself in the 2000s, is intensified in the post-pandemic period in the conditions of economic downturn. Especially, the depth of poverty is pronounced in rural areas (this is 43% of the country’s population).

Today, it is very relevant to identify and assess the level of poverty, since ensuring the sustainable development of the regions does not allow for ignoring social inequalities in society. It turns out that the most painful point in such a social phenomenon as inequality is the presence of poverty.

Therefore, the need to study territorial inequalities and their features and identify factors that minimize regional differences comes to the forefront of theory and practice. In this regard, we consider it important to substantiate a differentiated approach to solving socioeconomic issues, depending on the capabilities and features of each region.

This study aimed to determine and assess the features of poverty in the regions of Kazakhstan.

The research methodology is based on the population poverty index according to the recommendations of the UNDP according to four indicators. Based on these indicators, the calculation of the integral poverty index of the population and the grouping of regions of Kazakhstan is made. This approach will make it possible to introduce adequate tools for state support of various territories.

2. Literature Review

The problem of poverty and regional differences in social development is one of the main aspects of the economy. Poverty is a multifaceted concept, so there are many interpretations, approaches, and classifications of it [1,2,3]. The poverty threshold is a legally defined minimum level of monetary income for an individual or family for a certain period necessary for physical survival [4]. The general conclusion of the study of the problem of poverty and its overcoming was the recognition of the regularity of poverty’s existence in society. The difference lies in the recognition or denial of the need for state intervention in solving the problem of poverty and the scale of such an intervention.

The problems of poverty have interested scientists since ancient times. Among the researchers whose works are devoted to the problem of poverty, there are works from the XVIII to the first half of the XX century by Smith [5], Malthus [6], Marx [7], Spencer [8], and others. This period was characterized by a scientific search to identify the causes of poverty and establish its features, in particular, the concepts of primary and secondary poverty were introduced, and attempts were made to distinguish poverty from its extreme state—destitution.

The studies of the second half of the XX century were characterized by a pronounced focus on establishing an objective poverty line and finding ways to overcome poverty. With the developments of researchers, close attention is beginning to be paid to the problem of social isolation of the population [9,10,11,12]. Of great importance is the study of the definition and measurement of poverty [13,14].

In the 21st century, poverty issues remain relevant for many countries, both developing and developed. Various aspects of the emergence and reduction of poverty characteristic of the countries under study are studied in many works around the world. In particular, the studies of Betti et al. [15], Leventi et al. [16], and Chauhan et al. [17] can be noted. Ballas et al. [18] noted the spatial heterogeneity of poverty, which determines the need to develop appropriate models and use appropriate mechanisms for reducing poverty. The issues of poverty are actively investigated in connection with the problems of inequality. Krueger and Perry [19] studied poverty in relation to consumption growth. Piketty and Saez [20], Jaumotte and Buitron [21], and Kopchuk [22] included these issues in the income and wage aspects. Milanovic explored the issues of inequality in the context of globalization [23]. Studies of living standards and the formation of a welfare society are also of great importance for the study of poverty. Bowlus and Robin [24], Turchin [25], and Sablonniere [26] were notable authors in this area, among others.

Among the studies on methods of poverty reduction, several main directions were identified. Many studies cited economic growth as the main factor in poverty reduction [27]. Economic downturns, unemployment, and underemployment are the main drivers of poverty. Research shows that economic policies that do not promote inclusive growth exacerbate income inequality and poverty [28]. Much attention has been paid to ways to reduce poverty through entrepreneurship and new business creation [29] and the impact of growth-promoting policies [30]. However, Atkinson et al. [31] concluded that the redistribution of both current income and income gains is more effective in reducing poverty for most countries than growth alone.

Hofmarcher [32] recognized education as a powerful tool for reducing poverty. Investments in primary, secondary, and tertiary education improve people’s skills and employability, leading to better job opportunities and higher incomes. Vocational training and lifelong learning programs are also critical in equipping people with the skills needed in the evolving labor market [33]. Improving access to healthcare is essential for reducing poverty. Health problems can trap individuals and families in a vicious cycle of poverty due to high medical costs and loss of income. Universal health coverage and targeted health interventions such as vaccination programs and maternal health services can significantly reduce poverty-related health inequalities. The approach to measuring poverty has been influenced by the research of Atkinson [34], who examined the manifestations of poverty in 60 countries. The research of this scientist, who considered both the financial aspects of poverty and other indicators, was used by experts at the World Bank to measure poverty. Rahman and Westley [35] noted that agricultural development is crucial for poverty reduction, especially in rural areas, where agriculture is the main source of livelihood. Increasing agricultural productivity through better technology, infrastructure, and access to markets can improve food security and increase the incomes of small farmers.

In the Soviet period, there was no concept of poverty in the country, and all studies were “closed”. The accumulated material on poverty research was available only to a narrow circle of specialists. Only in the last decades have scientists begun to openly talk about the problem of poverty, as evidenced by the works of Bobkov [36], Inozemtsev [37], Rzhanitsina [38], Rimashevskaya [39], and Radaev [40]. Of particular note is the study of Sycheva [41]. This is one of the few works in which the main milestones in the study of poverty are highlighted and the initial theories and concepts are systematized. However, in this paper, B.C. Sycheva focused mainly on the theoretical aspect of budget surveys and their role in poverty studies.

Varvus [42] examined poverty concerning the level of economic development. The extent of poverty varies depending on the factors of economic development. The downside of poverty is the deepening polarization of society. Therefore, to reduce poverty, it is necessary to assess the impact of the economic factors on it.

In subsequent years, the focus has been on measuring the poverty level, the transition from absolute to relative indicators, and the structure of poverty and the factors that determine it [43]. Among the most common examples of the definition of poverty is the formulation of ECOSOC [44], according to which, the poor include persons, a family, or a group of persons whose resources are so limited that they do not allow them to lead a minimally acceptable lifestyle in the states in which they live.

In Kazakhstan, there are practically no studies devoted to measuring the level of poverty, particularly in these regions. However, the publication by Chulanova [45] examined various aspects of material inequality among the citizens of Kazakhstan based on a study of living standards, income, and their distribution. The author highlighted that Kazakhstan is currently reevaluating the 30-year process of market reforms. The economic development of Kazakhstan is highly contradictory. In the 1990s, during a profound transformation crisis, poverty, inequality, and unemployment increased. In 2000, 47% of the population had incomes below the subsistence level. By 2012, this figure decreased to 3.8%, and in subsequent years, it stabilized at 2.9%. However, during the pandemic, the share of this group increased again to 5.5%, which was double the indicators of poverty depth and severity.

Today, there is a significant need to study and measure the problems of poverty in the republic, as well as to work towards overcoming it.

3. Methods

In many studies, the approach to the problem of poverty is formed based on the point of view of income and consumption level, thereby narrowing the real vision of the negative aspects of this phenomenon.

Poverty, as a multidimensional phenomenon, covers not only low income but also other forms of deprivation.

Receipts of monetary income by the population is only a tool for accessing material goods and services. Differences in the well-being of the population increase depending on the state and development of the social sphere, the level of unemployment, and the degree of accessibility of the most important social goods and services. This implies a structural analysis of the causes of poverty.

The research methodology is based on the calculation of the poverty index of the population according to UNDP recommendations [46] according to four indicators:

-

the share of the population that does not live to age 60;

-

the share of 15–17-year-old youth not enrolled in education;

-

the share of the population with income (based on consumption) below the subsistence level;

-

the unemployment rate.

Based on previous studies [47], these indicators most clearly reflect the main problems characteristic of Kazakhstan and its regions. Among the important indicators, along with the share of the population with incomes below the subsistence level, are the availability of work (unemployment rate), the availability of education (the share of young people aged 15–17 who have no education or work), and the ability to receive quality medical care (survival to 60 years). Based on these indicators, the integral poverty index of the population (the arithmetic mean of four indicators) was calculated, and the regions of Kazakhstan were grouped. This approach made it possible to develop specific mechanisms to overcome social disparities and ensure inclusive regional development.

To calculate the index of the proportion of the population not living to age 60, the mortality rate in this period was calculated using the overall mortality rate, life expectancy, and population size for the region. The analysis of the situation for this indicator was made based on the method of grouping regions and identifying relatively prosperous, average, and worst regions. Thus, the use of methods of dynamic static indicators, grouping, and comparisons made it possible to develop tools for regulating the quality of life in these regions.

A grouping of the regions of Kazakhstan was made according to the indices of the share of youth aged 15–17 years who do not study or work; the results were recommended to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Kazakhstan and local governments.

Calculating the share of the population with incomes below the subsistence level made it possible to identify the depth and severity of poverty and group regions accordingly, which is a scientific method for studying the situation in the territory.

Unemployment and lack of opportunity to earn income are one of the main generators of poverty.

The calculations based on these indicators made it possible to identify regional differences, compare them, and identify the most vulnerable areas that require correction.

To calculate the index of the population share who do not live to 60 years, the mortality rate in this period is calculated using the total mortality rate, life expectancy, and population size for the region.

The coefficient was calculated using the following formula:

Mx = Dx/Rx

(1)

where Mx is the observed mortality rate; Dx is the number of deaths at the age of x years; Rx is the average annual population at the age of x years.

The data from the Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan were used.

This indicator analysis is based on the method of grouping regions by identifying those relatively prosperous, average, and worst among them. Thus, the use of methods of grouping and comparison allowed us to develop tools for regulating the quality of life in the regions.

Determining the share of the population with incomes below the subsistence minimum allowed us to identify the depth and severity of poverty and group regions according to these indicators, which is a new approach to studying the regions of Kazakhstan.

The regions of Kazakhstan are also grouped according to the unemployment rate indices and the share of young people aged 15–17 who do not study and do not work.

The resulting integral poverty index made it possible to compile a matrix of acute problems that cause poverty in the territory of Kazakhstan and to provide recommendations on them for the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan and local governments.

4. Results and Discussion

Before calculating the poverty indices of the population, we will provide some characteristics of its condition.

The share of Kazakhstanis with incomes below the subsistence minimum (poverty level) in 2022 was 5.1%, decreasing by 0.1% compared to 2021 (Figure 1). Currently, approximately 111 thousand families (more than 500 thousand people) live below the poverty line in the country. They receive an income below 70% of the subsistence minimum or less than 28 thousand.

According to the Bureau of National Statistics, the poorest Kazakhstanis spend an average of 14,127 tenges (Tenge is the currency of Kazakhstan (450 tenges = 1 USD)) per month on food for one person, while the rich spend 70,306 tenges. For non-food products, the average Kazakhstani from the poor layer spends 4597 tenges per month, and from the rich, 36,845 tenges. To use paid services, representatives of the middle stratum of the population spend 4232 tenges per person per month, and from the most affluent group, 23,707 tenges per month.

Speaking about poverty in Kazakhstan, it should be noted that the results of a previously conducted sociological survey [47] Institute of Economics, 2022) divided the population into three groups:

-

average—this includes the population (40.5%) with average incomes;

-

problematic, which consists of 26% of the population. This includes those who have financial problems;

-

the poor, which, in turn, is divided into two subgroups:

(1)

those who only have enough money for food and find it difficult to purchase clothing (17.5% of them);

(2)

those who do not have enough money even for food. These are beggars—4.6%.

This indicates that poverty as a phenomenon in Kazakhstan has not been eliminated; it must be taken into account, and its level must be measured, including identifying regional differences in the modern development of society.

An analysis of the poverty situation by region of the country (Figure 2) shows that the highest poverty level remains in the Turkestan region—191.7 thousand people (−6.6%), or 8.7% of the total population of the region. Next comes the Mangistau region—7.3% (86 thousand people, −11.6%), Zhetisu—7.0% (54.4 thousand people, +42.5%), Abay 6.7% (48.7 thousand people, +34.3%) and Shymkent city—6.2% (78.7 thousand people, +0.2%). The lowest poverty level was recorded in Astana—2.4% of the city’s total population (34.2 thousand people, +36%), Karaganda region—2.8% (33.5 thousand people, −21.5%), and Atyrau region—2.9% (18.4 thousand people, −19.4%).

In Kazakhstan, socioeconomic inequality between regions of the country is very pronounced. For example, in other large countries such as Canada, the USA, and Australia, the difference between regions with the highest and lowest incomes is no more than twice as much. Whereas, in Kazakhstan, in 2022, in the region with the highest indicators (Atyrau region), the average income was 3.5 times higher than in the region with the lowest income (Turkestan region). The presence of regional differences in social development requires a search for real opportunities for regions to smooth out or level out disproportions and to identify the sources of their occurrence. Such an approach will allow the introduction of adequate instruments for state support in various territories.

4.1. Calculation and Assessment of the Population Poverty Index

Berg-Schlosser [48] noted that poverty will always be a relative concept, depending on the overall level of income distribution between different categories of the population, but in the modern concept, the concept of poverty depends on fairly broad standards of living in society and the right to a decent, non-discriminatory way of life, including its non-material and material aspects. Accordingly, just as freedom from poverty cannot be expressed in any specific human right, no specific indicator can fully and exhaustively describe poverty [49].

P. Spicker noted that poverty is a complex multidimensional set of phenomena that are understood differently at different times [50]. The most important aspect is whether a person has a job or access to education and medicine [51]. Lister defined social exclusion that accompanies poverty in terms of the right to work, the right to healthcare, and the right to education [52]. This determines the choice of the following indicators.

4.1.1. Share of the Population That Does Not Live to Age 60

The indicators characterizing life expectancy often act as indicators of population health. Their dynamics objectively reflect the changes occurring in the healthcare system and access to medical services [53].

According to statistics, approximately 30% of the population in the republic does not live to the age of 60. This is due to the still low life expectancy at birth, which is an indicator that characterizes the state of health, quality of life, and efficiency of the healthcare sector. The dynamics of life expectancy in Kazakhstan have been relatively changeable: in 1980, it was 66.9 years; in 1990, it was 68.7 years; in 2018, it was 73.2 years; and in 2020, as a result of the pandemic, it was 71.4 years.

Before calculating the index of the share of the population who do not live to 60 years, we calculated the mortality rate in this age group using the total mortality rate, life expectancy at birth, and the population by regions of Kazakhstan.

The calculation of mortality rates among the population under 60 years of age is the basis for determining the poverty indices of the population. To analyze the situation for this indicator, a grouping of regions was carried out, representing the positions of the regions and cities of Kazakhstan (

Table 1. Grouping of regions of Kazakhstan according to the index of the share of the population not surviving up to 60 years.

NN	Indices of the Share of the Population Not Surviving Up to 60 Years	Distribution of Regions of Kazakhstan	Number of Regions in the Group
		2015
1	0.57–0.80	Mangistau, Turkestan, Kyzylorda regions, Astana and Almaty cities	5
2	0.81–0.94	Atyrau, Aktobe, Almaty, Zhambyl regions	4
3	0.95–1.08	-	0
4	1.09 and higher	West-Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, Karaganda, East-Kazakhstan, Akmola, Kostanay, North-Kazakhstan regions	7
		2019
1	0.53–0.66	Mangistau region, Astana and Shymkent cities	3
2	0.67–0.80	Turkestan, Kyzylorda, Atyrau regions	3
3	0.81–0.94	Almaty-city, Aktobe, Zhambyl, Almaty regions	4
4	0.95 and higher	West-Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Pavlodar, Akmola, Kostanay, East-Kazakhstan, North-Kazakhstan regions	7
		2022
1	0.60–0.75	Astana and Shymkent cities, Mangistau and Turkestan regions	4
2	0.76–0.91	Almaty-city, Atyrau, Kyzylorda, Almaty regions	4
3	0.92–1.07	Aktobe, Zhambyl regions	2
4	1.08 and higher	West-Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Pavlodar, Akmola, East-Kazakhstan, Kostanay, North-Kazakhstan regions	7

Note: Calculated based on data from the “Demographic Yearbook of Kazakhstan”. Bureau of National Statistics Agency for Strategic Planning and Reforms of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Astana, 2023.

).

In general, at the national level, the mortality rate of the population under 60 tended to decrease (from 6.1% to 5.9%), except for 2020 (7.2%), when the coronavirus pandemic was at its peak. In the regional context, the range of values for this indicator was three times (minimum and maximum), which significantly distinguished the positions of the regions in terms of life expectancy, quality of life, and health development.

Grouping the regions of Kazakhstan according to the index of the proportion of the population who do not live up to 60 years made it possible to visualize the situation of regions and cities of republican significance using just one indicator. Since we are analyzing and evaluating an essentially negative indicator, we should probably talk about the relatively prosperous, average, and worse states of the Kazakh regions. Therefore, for the entire study period from 2015 to 2022, Astana City and the Mangistau and Turkestan regions are considered to be prosperous regions. Due to the high population density in Almaty, the situation is unstable, although the quantitative value of the index is not so high.

The indices in the Atyrau, Aktobe, Almaty, Zhambyl, and Kyzylorda regions are considered to be at an average level but positively stable. With high population density, such trends favor getting out of poverty.

The negative stability of the share of the population under 60 years of age in the West Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Pavlodar, and Akmola; East Kazakhstan and Kostanay; and North Kazakhstan regions means that these regions have significant prerequisites for the development of poverty among the population, primarily due to poor health and the quality of life.

The industrial specialization of these regions (oil and gas production, production of non-ferrous and ferrous metals, and development of mechanical engineering) and the environmental consequences of the nuclear explosions of 1949 at the Semipalatinsk test site determined the state of public health as chronically negative. These circumstances directly affected the duration and quality of life.

When making decisions on poverty elimination, state and local authorities should consider the current trends of almost 30% of the population living to 60 years of age.

It is gratifying to note that, against the background of critically high levels of under-survival indices of the population under 60 in seven regions, Astana City, Mangistau, and Turkestan are territories of a relatively favorable situation. Thus, we consider that the index of the share of the population who do not live to be 60 years old is an integral part of the poverty index. Accordingly, it is a tool for regulating the life quality of the population in the territory.

4.1.2. The Share of 16-Year-Olds Not Enrolled in Education

Sen argued that the deprivations people often experience are entangled (poor education, limited employment opportunities, etc.), which, in turn, lead to a reduction in their income [54].

The results of the 2009 census showed that, despite the general increase in the literacy rate of the population to 99.8% and an increase in the number of people with higher education, there was an increase in the proportion of people who do not receive secondary general education.

According to the UNDP methodology, the share of 16 year olds not enrolled in education is supposed to be studied. The aim is to identify the reasons behind the low literacy rate of the population, which ultimately affects the poverty level. The statistics of Kazakhstan have expanded the scope of this indicator to include 15–17 year olds who do not study or work. However, there are some doubts about the accuracy of this approach, since teenagers at this age do not officially work. Despite this, the index was calculated for 2015–2022 (

Table 2. Index of the share of youth aged 15–17 who do not study or work by regions of Kazakhstan.

Regions of Kazakhstan	2015		2017		2019		2020		2022
	Share *	Index	Share *	Index	Share *	Index	Share *	Index	Share *	Index
The Republic of Kazakhstan	1.9		1.7		2.8		2.0		0.9
Akmola	2.7	1.42	1.6	0.94	1.6	0.57	1.3	0.65	2.5	2.77
Aktobe	0.3	0.05	-	-	0.2	0.07	0.3	0.15	0.9	1.00
Almaty	2.4	1.26	2.2	1.29	1.0	0.36	0.2	0.10	0.1	0.11
Atyrau	0.7	0.36	0.5	0.29	0.6	0.21	1.5	0.75	0.9	1.00
West Kazakhstan	0.1	0.05	0.1	0.05	0.3	0.11	0.1	0.05	0.1	0.11
Zhambyl	1.5	0.79	1.6	0.94	3.2	1.14	1.4	0.70	0.9	1.00
Karaganda	2.7	1.42	1.3	0.76	2.7	0.96	1.8	0.90	1.7	1.88
Kostanay	0.4	0.21	1.1	0.65	1.2	0.43	1.3	0.65	0.8	0.88
Kyzylorda	0.5	0.26	0.4	0.24	-	-	1.3	0.65	1.5	1.66
Mangistau	0.9	0.47	0.3	0.18	1.0	0.36	0.7	0.35	0.1	0.11
South Kazakhstan	3.1	1.68	4.3	2.53	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pavlodar	5.2	2.74	2.6	1.53	4.6	1.64	2.3	1.15	1.3	1.44
North Kazakhstan	1.2	0.63	2.7	1.59	1.6	0.57	1.4	0.70	1.5	1.66
Turkestan	-	-	-	-	10.6	3.79	11.0	5.50	0.2	0.22
East Kazakhstan	0.9	0.47	1.2	0.71	0.8	0.29	0.3	0.15	0.7	0.77
Astana city	1.8	0.95	-	-	0.2	0.07	-	-	0.3	0.33
Almaty city	1.8	0.95	0.2	0.12	0.2	0.07	-	-	0.3	0.33
Shymkent city	-	-			7.4	2.64	2.5	1.25	0.7	0.77

Note: Calculated by the authors; *—the value of the index of the proportion of the population not living to the age of 60 above one indicates a negative situation in the life of the population under 60 years of age.

).

The data in

Table 3. Grouping of regions of Kazakhstan by the index of the share of youth aged 15–17 years who do not study or work.

Indices of the Share of Youth Aged 15–17 Years Not Studying or Working	Region Distribution	Number of Regions in the Group
	2015
0.05–0.30	West Kazakhstan, Aktobe, Kostanay, Kyzylorda	4
0.31–0.56	Atyrau, Mangistau, East Kazakhstan	3
0.57–0.83	Zhambyl, North Kazakhstan	2
0.84+	Astana-city, Almaty-city, Almaty, Akmola, Karaganda, South Kazakhstan, Pavlodar	7
	2019
0.07–0.32	Almaty-city, Astana-city, Aktobe, West Kazakhstan, Atyrau, East Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda	7
0.33–0.58	Almaty, Mangistau, Kostanay, Akmola, North Kazakhstan	5
0.59–0.84	-
0.85+	Karaganda, Zhambyl, Pavlodar, Shymkent, Turkestan	5
	2022
0.11–0.36	Almaty, West Kazakhstan, Mangistau,	6
0.37–0.62	Turkestan, Astana-city, Almaty-city	-
0.63–0.88	East Kazakhstan, Shymkent-city, Kostanay	3
0.89+	Atyrau, Aktobe, Zhambyl, Pavlodar, Kyzylorda, North Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Akmola	8

Note: Calculated by the authors.

indicate that the percentage of young people aged 15–17 who do not work or study is characterized by instability due to the high birth rate in 2002–2003, which had a positive impact on the child population. However, at the same time, at the beginning of the 2018–2019 school year, the situation with obtaining a secondary general education began to noticeably deteriorate, which influenced the increase in the index value. In particular, in 2019, compared to 2018, it doubled in the Aktobe and Atyrau regions; in the Kyzylorda and Turkestan regions, it tripled. During the coronavirus pandemic, the situation in obtaining secondary education further worsened in the Akmola, Karaganda, North Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda, Pavlodar, Zhambyl, Aktobe, and Atyrau regions, which, in the future, will affect the quality of the working population in 10 years.

An increase in the number of regions where there is still a large proportion of young people who do not receive general secondary education should draw the attention of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the administrations of the relevant regions to the fact that this situation is a clear prerequisite for the formation of poverty in society. If this problem is not solved now, poverty elimination will take many years. Illiteracy is not evident in the country, but the presence of an uneducated part of the population, which shapes the future of the region where they live, causes alarm and the need to take urgent measures. In our opinion, this negative situation is associated with the economic level of development of the region—in particular, with the income of the population and the quality of life. In this regard, the situation of the population with incomes below the subsistence level should be studied.

4.1.3. Share of the Population with Incomes below the Subsistence Level

Despite the progress achieved in reducing poverty, a significant part of the republic’s population has low incomes and risks ending up in the category of poor people. At the same time, the regional differentiation of poverty remains, with a more pronounced picture of rural poverty in all regions. Thus, the share of the poor population in the republic has increased from 2.5% in 2015 to 5.3% in 2022. The values of this indicator vary greatly across regions. The share of the poor population in the Akmola, Aktobe, Almaty, Karaganda, Kyzylorda, Mangistau, Pavlodar, and North Kazakhstan regions has doubled and increased three to four times in the Turkestan and East Kazakhstan regions and the cities of Almaty and Shymkent. In fact, 80% of the population has incomes that do not exceed twice the subsistence level, half of whom are vulnerable to the risk of ending up in the poor category.

In regional terms, the differentiation of this indicator is very significant. The most disadvantaged populations in terms of income are in the Zhambyl (5.8%), Kyzylorda (5.8%), Akmola (5.9%), North Kazakhstan (6.5%), and Turkestan regions (12.2%). Only in Astana City, the value of this indicator is the lowest (0.5%).

One of the characteristics of population poverty is household income used for consumption in urban and rural areas. Data analysis for 2015–2022 shows that relatively high household incomes on average per capita per month were in the urban areas of the Almaty (85,894 tenges), East Kazakhstan (78,375 tenges), and Karaganda (78,374 tenges) regions. In rural areas, household incomes used for consumption on average per capita are relatively high in the Almaty (65,621 tenge), Karaganda (64,251 tenge), and North Kazakhstan regions, meaning that villagers live well there.

The worst situation for this indicator in urban areas is in the Turkestan (40,961), Kyzylorda (51,030 tenges), and Zhambyl (53,167 tenges) regions, and in rural areas, it is also in the Turkestan (39,178 tenges), Zhambyl (44,482 tenges), and Kyzylorda (46,419 tenges) regions.

In general, there is a positive growth trend in household income used for consumption. However, this trend loses its positivity when inflation is high in the consumer market, which increases poverty among the population.

To obtain more accurate characteristics of the poor population, indicators of the depth and severity of poverty are used. The depth of poverty reflects the average amount of income of the poor that falls short of the poverty level, calculated for the entire country’s population. If the depth of poverty in the republic in 2015 was 0.4%, then, in 2022, it increased to 0.8%. The situations in the regions are sharply differentiated; in particular, they can be divided according to the depth of poverty into three groups:

-

the average republican level (0.2–0.4%): Atyrau, Astana City, Almaty, West Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, Zhambyl, and Karaganda regions;

-

the worst level (0.44–0.56%): Almaty City; Aktobe, Kyzylorda, Kostanay, and Akmola regions; and Shymkent City;

-

the worst level (0.8–1.27%): East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan, Mangystau, and Turkestan regions.

This grouping is based on the arithmetic average values of the depth of poverty for 5 years by region. The indicator of the depth of poverty almost clarifies the situation and targets specific solutions. However, before that, it is necessary to assess the situation of the regions by the severity of poverty, which shows inequality among the poor—the degree of dispersion of the incomes from their average value. The severity of poverty shows how “poor” the poorest person in society is—that is, it characterizes inequality among the poor. The severity of poverty across the country decreased from 0.3% to 0.2%, and a decrease also occurred in eleven regions. Low rates of poverty reduction are observed in the East Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, North Kazakhstan, and Almaty regions. The selection method based on the severity of poverty made it possible to identify the poorest among the poor—these are the Turkestan and Mangistau regions.

Based on the characteristics and analysis of the share of the population with incomes below the subsistence level, indices were calculated, and the regions of Kazakhstan were grouped for 2015, 2019, and 2022 (

Table 4. Grouping of regions of Kazakhstan by the share of the population with incomes below the subsistence level.

Indices of the Share of the Population with Incomes below the Subsistence Level	Region Distribution	Number of Regions in the Group
2015
1. 0.20–0.60	Shymkent-city, Astana-city, Almaty-city, Karaganda	4
2. 0.61–1.01	Aktobe, Pavlodar, East Kazakhstan, Almaty	4
3. 1.02–1.42	Kostanay, West Kazakhstan, Mangistau, Kyzylorda, Atyrau, Akmola, Zhambyl, North Kazakhstan	8
4. 1.43 and above	Turkestan	1
2019
1. 0.21–0.61	Astana-city, Karaganda, Atyrau, Shymkent-city	4
2. 0.62–1.02	Almaty-city, Aktobe, Pavlodar, West Kazakhstan, Almaty, Kostanay, Akmola	7
3. 1.03–1.43	Zhambyl, North Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda, Mangistau	4
4. 1.44 and above	East Kazakhstan, Turkestan	2
2022
1. 0.28–0.68	Astana-city, Atyrau, Karaganda, Aktobe, Kostanay	5
2. 0.69–1.19	West Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, Almaty, Almaty, Shymkent, Mangistau, Zhambyl, Kyzylorda	8
3. 1.20–1.60	Akmola, East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan	3
4. 1.61 and above	Turkestan	1

Note: Calculated by the authors.

), which is a scientific method of studying the situation according to a certain indicator of the situation in the territory.

Analysis of the regions’ grouping shows:

-

The number of regions where the poverty level is low increased by 2020 due to an improvement in the situations in the Aktobe and Kostanay regions.

-

In the Atyrau and Kostanay regions, the proportion of the population with incomes below the subsistence level has significantly decreased. By 2022, they took a position in the first group. In the West Kazakhstan region, problems with poverty began to be solved, as evidenced by its transition from group III to group II.

-

In Almaty, the income poverty index increased almost three times (in 2016—0.32; 2020—0.92) due to an increase in the internal migration balance. In the East Kazakhstan region, the income poverty index by 2022 was 1.23 or 1.5 times more than in 2015. The situations of these regions require a differentiated solution.

-

Only the Turkestan region occupies a stably poor position, having the highest poverty indices (2.30).

Thus, regional differences in income poverty levels are accompanied by differences in territorial location (urban and rural). In the country as a whole, rural poverty continues to be almost twice as high as urban poverty.

The picture of rural poverty is determined by the following factors and problems:

-

The relatively large number of children in rural families and, as a consequence, the high dependency load.

-

Migration of the population (especially young people) from rural areas to large cities, caused by a lack of employment opportunities and low wages, as well as access to the vocational training system.

-

Underdeveloped private sector in rural areas, aggravated by weak infrastructure and difficult access to markets and finance.

-

Ineffective implementation of the “Auyl—El Besigi” (“The village is the cradle of the Earth”) project. Out of 6293 rural settlements, only 665 villages (instead of 3500) saw intended changes over three years, and most of the problems were not resolved. The project aimed to modernize territories in 3500 villages, with 206 billion tenge allocated for the modernization of housing and communal services facilities, social infrastructure facilities, and transport infrastructure.

The second problem is the misuse of Republican budget funds. For example, funds allocated for the renovation of the district hospital were used for other facilities to cover a large number of projects.

Another problem is the formal approach to selecting villages for project financing. For instance, villages with relatively good economic potential were not included in the project, despite also facing development difficulties. When allocating budget funds by region, a subjective approach was taken in calculating the finances per capita for rural residents.

Lastly, the issue of self-employed individuals in rural areas remains unresolved; their number of 1.2 million people contributes to the increase in the unemployment rate. All these situations in rural areas directly exacerbate the poverty among the population. To fully address the issues of poverty in rural areas, in our opinion, the mechanism of the local self-government should be implemented.

4.2. Unemployment Rate

The key to reducing poverty and achieving economic prosperity is the ability to engage in productive work. The situation in the labor market is mainly determined by two groups of indicators: employment and unemployment, which include job availability and wage indicators.

An axiom in economics is that the lower the unemployment rate, calculated from the results of a household survey, the higher the employment rate, which has a positive effect on the unemployment index.

In the country as a whole, the unemployment rate has stabilized at 4.9% since 2015. A favorable situation, meaning a decrease in the unemployment rate is observed in the Almaty, Karaganda, and Mangistau regions, as well as in Astana. The worst situation in terms of this indicator occurs in the city of Shymkent, the Turkestan region, and Almaty City.

Thus, in most regions (nine regions), the level of employment tends to increase, despite the negative impact of the pandemic on the country’s economy as a whole, particularly on the development of small- and medium-sized businesses, individual entrepreneurship, and self-employed citizens.

The most vulnerable category of the employed population is self-employed citizens, who account for more than 30% of the working age population [55]. The largest share of the self-employed population is still observed in the southeastern regions. Low productivity and income from this form of employment increase the risk of poverty for the self-employed population, leaving them outside the system of pensions, social security, and workers’ rights protection. Self-employed people in rural areas are at a high risk of poverty, as subsidiary farming is their main source of income and depriving them of the right to receive targeted social assistance. In this regard, the presence of a self-employed population creates certain difficulties in implementing the idea of inclusive social development in the territory, thus exacerbating poverty.

The next vulnerable category of the population at a high risk of poverty includes households with a large number of dependents, such as children, the unemployed, pensioners, people with disabilities, and students. According to the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan, more than 60% of the targeted assistance received is allocated to children, while about 10% goes to unemployed citizens.

Calculations of the unemployment index in the regions of Kazakhstan allow as to group regions and cities of republican significance. The problems of unemployment and employment have proven to be solvable in the Nur-Sultan, Karaganda, Aktobe, Almaty, and Pavlodar regions. In regions with the highest population density, where the share of population income is below the subsistence level, the level of employment is the lowest (Shymkent, Turkestan region, and Almaty) (

Table 5. Grouping of Kazakhstan regions by unemployment index.

Unemployment Index	Region Distribution	Number of Regions in the Group
2015
1. 0.92–0.96	Astana-city, Aktobe, Almaty, Pavlodar	4
2. 0.97–1.01	Akmola, Atyrau, West Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Kostanay, Kyzylorda, East Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Mangistau, North Kazakhstan	10
3. 1.02–1.06	South Kazakhstan, Almaty-city	2
2019
1. 0.94–0.98	Astana-city, Almaty, Akmola, Aktobe, Karaganda, Kostanay, Kyzylorda, Pavlodar, East Kazakhstan	9
2. 0.99–1.03	Atyrau, West Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Mangistau, North Kazakhstan	5
3. 1.04–1.08	Shymkent-city, Turkestan, Almaty-city	3
2022
1. 0.94–0.98	Astana-city, Karaganda, Aktobe, Almaty, Pavlodar	5
2. 0.99–1.03	Akmola, Atyrau, West Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Kostanay, Kyzylorda Mangistau, East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan	9
3. 1.04–1.08	Shymkent, Turkestan, Almaty-city	3

Note: Calculated by the authors.

).

Therefore, for the cities of Almaty and Shymkent, unemployment poses a specific problem in social development and serves as a source of poverty.

4.3. Integral Poverty Index by Regions of Kazakhstan

The key point in assessing regional differences in the level and dynamics of social development is the calculation of the integral poverty index based on four indicators. This index shows the resulting differences between regions in dynamics and their current situation. The methodological approach to determining the integral index was verified during previous grant research and used in this project (which is the arithmetic mean of four partial indices,

Table 6. Integral poverty indices by region of Kazakhstan.

Regions	2015	2017	2019	2020	2022
Akmola	1.25	1.11	0.99	1.01	1.57
Aktobe	0.69	0.85	0.66	0.69	0.89
Almaty	1.01	1.02	0.78	0.66	0.69
Atyrau	0.86	0.78	0.65	0.78	0.86
West Kazakhstan	0.84	0.81	0.77	0.78	0.76
Zhambyl	1.00	1.04	1.03	0.94	1.00
Karaganda	1.08	0.92	0.95	0.94	1.18
Kostanay	0.92	0.98	0.95	0.97	0.99
Kyzylorda	0.38	0.78	0.92	0.64	1.16
Mangistau	0.80	0.75	0.79	0.74	0.64
South Kazakhstan	1.44	1.13	1.19	1.10	0.95
Pavlodar	1.17	1.38	1.09	1.19	1.39
North Kazakhstan	1.42	1.44	2.00	2.45	1.08
Turkestan *	0.92	0.95	1.06	1.01	1.11
East Kazakhstan	0.68	0.59	0.43	0.56	0.54
Astana-city	0.78	0.60	0.67	0.88	0.79
Almaty-city	-	-	1.23	0.90	0.88

Note: Calculated and compiled by the authors. *—Until 2018, the Turkestan region was the South Kazakhstan region.

).

The integral poverty index by region was more clearly expressed when regions and cities of republican significance were grouped. So, in 2016, the Kyzylorda region and Nur-Sultan were relatively prosperous according to the poverty index. Being in the second group was also not bad, as seven regions found themselves in this situation (Aktobe, Almaty, West Kazakhstan, Mangistau, Atyrau, East Kazakhstan, and Kostanay). This means that, in nine regions, the integral poverty index was relatively low, and there was the possibility of getting out of a difficult situation. The third group of regions included the Zhambyl, Almaty, Karaganda, North Kazakhstan, and Akmola regions. In the third group, the worst situation was in the North Kazakhstan and Akmola regions. By 2020, the situation in these regions had not changed; the integral indices here were the highest, due to the actions of all four indicators simultaneously. This means that ensuring inclusive social development in these regions is particularly difficult without strong government support (

Table 7. Grouping of regions of Kazakhstan by integral poverty indices.

Integral Poverty Indices	Region Distribution	Number of Regions in the Group
2015
1. 0.38–0.68	Kyzylorda, Astana-city	2
2. 0.69–0.99	Aktobe, Almaty-city, West Kazakhstan, Mangistau, Atyrau, East Kazakhstan, Kostanay	7
3. 1.00–1.30	Zhambyl, Almaty, Karaganda, North Kazakhstan, Akmol	5
4. 1.31 and higher	Turkestan, Pavlodar	2
2019
1. 0.43–0.73	Astana-city, Atyrau, Aktobe, Almaty-city	4
2. 0.74–1.04	West Kazakhstan, Almaty, Mangistau, Kyzylorda, Karaganda, Kostanay, Akmola, Zhambyl	8
3. 1.05–1.35	East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan, Pavlodar, Shymkent-city	4
4. 1.36 and higher	Turkestan	1
2022
1. 0.54–0.84	Astaana-city, Mangistau, Almaty, West Kazakhstan, Almaty-city	5
2. 0.85–1.15	Atyrau, Shymkent-city, Aktobe, Pavlodar, Kostanay, Zhambyl, Turkestan, East Kazakhstan	8
3.1.16–1.46	Kyzylorda, Karaganda, North Kazakhstan	3
4. 1.47 and higher	Akmola	1

Note: Calculated by the authors.

).

A comforting moment in the dynamics of the integral poverty index is that the relatively favorable first group over the past five years includes Mangistau (with the acute problem of unemployment), Almaty (with high unemployment), West Kazakhstan (where there is a high proportion of the population not living to be 60 years old), and Almaty (with high unemployment). However, the Kyzylorda region in 2016 was not relatively deprived, but by 2022, problems arose, with an increase in the number of young people under 16 years old not enrolled in education and with an increase in the unemployment rate, which intensified the situation with poverty.

After 2018, when the Turkestan region received the status of an independent region and the city of Shymkent separated as an agglomeration, the quantitative values of the integral poverty index sharply worsened.

To clearly show the movement of regions by poverty groups, it is necessary to construct a matrix of acute problems that cause deprivation of the population. Such problems are in no way compatible with industrial-innovative development and technological modernization in the economy (

Table 8. Matrix of acute problems causing poverty by region of Kazakhstan in 2022.

Regions	Share of the Population Not Living to Age 60	Share of 15–17-Year-Old Youth Not Enrolled in Education	Share of the Population with Incomes below the Subsistence Level	Unemployment Rate
Akmola	+	+	+	+
Aktobe		+
Almaty				+
Atyrau		+		+
West Kazakhstan	+			+
Zhambyl		+		+
Karaganda	+
Kostanay	+			+
Kyzylorda		+		+
Mangistau				+
South Kazakhstan	+	+
Pavlodar	+	+	+	+
North Kazakhstan			+	+
Turkestan	+		+	+
East Kazakhstan
Astana-city				+
Almaty-city				+

Note: Compiled by the author based on developed tables.

). This means that, to ensure a decent social life initially, it is necessary to eradicate poverty in society, although it occurs in a civilized and developed world.

5. Recommendations

To relatively overcome regional poverty, it is necessary to:

-

For the Akmola, North Kazakhstan, and East Kazakhstan regions, there is a need to radically revise the strategy for socioeconomic development. This includes assessing social disparities within the regions, comparing the pace of economic and social development (such as healthcare and education), realistically determining the degree and volume of state financial support, and developing separate plans for the development of urban and rural areas, as well as border areas. These regions currently have the most severe poverty situations.

-

For the Atyrau, West Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Kostanay, Kyzylorda, Pavlodar, and Turkestan regions (in urban and rural settlements), it is important to ensure the employment of the population through the creation of new industries or diversification of the local real sector. Additionally, investment in healthcare should be strengthened to improve the potential of the working population, which is already sufficient in these regions. These regions are experiencing a moderate level of poverty.

-

In other regions, only one indicator negatively affects poverty. Consequently, measures to overcome poverty will be differentiated:

(1)

For the Aktobe region, it is crucial to pay close attention to 15–16-year-old youth, taking into account the factor of adolescence, in terms of attracting them to study and creating conditions for their professional orientation. Similar measures should also be taken to eliminate the threat of youth illiteracy in the Akmola, Atyrau, Zhambyl, Kyzylorda, Pavlodar, and North Kazakhstan regions.

(2)

For the Almaty, Karaganda, and Mangistau regions, as well as the cities of Almaty and Shymkent, the critical issue contributing to increased poverty is unemployment, especially among young people. The increase in the unemployment rate in Almaty is linked to the active migration of the population from the Almaty region. The recent territorial division resulting in the emergence of the Zhetysu region will address the employment problem. Regarding Shymkent, where there is a high population density and a significant proportion of the population with incomes below the subsistence level, the priority task is to restructure the system of the regional management of production, social affairs, and infrastructure. Otherwise, the existing regional management system will hinder the efficient use of the available production, personnel, and financial potential. The focus should be on utilizing existing human resources intensively to ensure inclusive social development.

(3)

In the Mangistau region, the density of rural settlements is the lowest in the country (0.35 people/km²), resulting in migration of the rural population to cities due to low social attractiveness. Ultimately, this situation leads to an increase in the unemployment rate in the region as a whole. In this regard, the elimination of poverty is directly related to the revival of production in two small towns, which will ensure inclusive social development.

(4)

The deterioration of the economic situation in small and single-industry towns of the Karaganda region has led to an increase in unemployment, especially among young people, thereby creating the preconditions for deepening poverty in the region, which creates certain difficulties in inclusive social development.

Thus, poverty as a vice has affected the economy of all regions except Nur-Sultan, so the regions should not be free of this situation separately. In this context, a national program for poverty fighting is needed, differentiated by region.

6. Conclusions

When making decisions to eliminate poverty, state and local authorities should take into account the current trends of almost 30% of the population not surviving under 60 years of age when constructing regional policies. It is gratifying to note that, against the backdrop of seven critically high levels of indices of the population not surviving to 60 years of age, there are territories with a relatively prosperous situation. Thus, the index of the share of the population not living to age 60 is a component of the poverty index. Improving this aspect is an important tool for regulating the quality of life of the population in the territory.

An increase in the number of regions where there is still a large proportion of young people who do not receive general secondary education should draw the attention of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the local administrations of the relevant regions to the fact that this situation is a clear prerequisite for the formation of poverty in society. If this problem is not solved now, the elimination of poverty will take many years. In the country, illiteracy does not manifest itself absolutely, but the presence of an uneducated part of the population, which shapes the future of the region where they live, causes alarm and the need to take urgent measures.

The well-being of the country’s population depends on various factors but primarily depends on the socioeconomic policy of the state, the main directions of which are a set of measures to improve the level and quality of life, creating favorable conditions for increasing people’s life expectancy.

The transition to inclusive development is all the more important, which will reduce the risk of deepening the inequality between different segments of the population, quickly restore economic growth and aggregate demand, and avoid social upheaval.

It is important to ensure inclusive development from a regional perspective. This economic growth should cover not only all sectors of the economy but also, as much as possible, all territories of the country.

Based on the results of the research, we can propose a model of the level of the quality of life of the population, which includes the following criteria:

• Provision of high-quality and affordable food and clothing.
• The presence of intangible aspects of the standard of living, which include affordable education, quality healthcare, and adequate rest.
• Development of the consumer sector of the economy, whose role is to produce services and benefits for the population: housing construction, car production, etc.
• State protection of the interests of the middle class as the driving force of the economy in the form of curbing inflation and creating jobs, which will solve the problem of employment, etc.
• Development and creation of various social programs to support various segments of the population: increased pensions, one-time financial assistance, targeted social assistance, subsidies, benefits, etc.
• Applications in various sectors of the economy of the modernization process, which consists of updating the main production and technological processes, bringing them closer to the international quality standards.
• Development and improvement of priority innovative areas in various sectors of the economy.
• Support and development of the social sphere, reducing poverty levels, etc.

In conclusion, it can be noted that, only by applying a set of measures and main factors: economic, socioeconomic, environmental, and others is it possible to increase the level of quality and life expectancy of the population.

The proposed conclusions and recommendations can be useful in the development and implementation of comprehensive programs to solve the problems of the socioeconomic policy of the country and regions.