Kazakhstan has ambitious plans to become one of the top 30 developed countries in the world by 2050. Its most recent route map to achieve this is the Plan for the Nation: 100 Concrete Steps, announced by the president in May 2015. A key pillar in this reform agenda is the development of a professional civil service. This article considers whether civil service reforms to date and those envisaged under the new plan offer a trajectory to the 2050 stated goal. It finds that despite significant political endorsement at the highest level, reforms have focused on institutional, structural and legal changes without the necessary attention to how these will impact on the quality of public services provision. The article highlights the interdependence between civil service reforms and an outcomes-based approach and adapts the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Better Life framework for Kazakhstan as a way of making this connection.
Points for practitioners
Moving to an outcomes-based approach in a developing country challenges practitioners to focus on the impact of their work and to be judicious and context-specific in the selection of results indicators.
Baimenov A (2000) Civil Service. International Experience: Kazakh Model. Astana: Akmola Polygraph (in Russian).
2.
BhuiyanSHAmagohF (2011) Public sector reform in Kazakhstan: Issues and perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management24(3): 227–249.
3.
Boarini R, Kolev A and McGregor A (2014) Measuring Well-being and Progress in Countries at Different Stages of Development: Towards a More Universal Conceptual Framework. OECD Development Centre Working Paper 325. Paris: OECD.
4.
BrinkerhoffDWBrinkerhoffJM (2015) Public sector management reform in developing countries: Perspectives beyond NPM orthodoxy. Public Administration and Development35: 222–237.
5.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Emrich-BakenovaS (2009) Trajectory of civil service development in Kazakhstan: Nexus of politics and administration. Governance22(4): 717–745.
7.
Evans A (2008) Civil service and administrative reform: Thematic paper. In: Independent Evaluation Group (ed.) Public Sector Reform: What Works and Why? An IEG Evaluation of World Bank Support. Washington, DC: World Bank.
8.
Hall J and Rickard L (2013) People, Progress and Participation: How Initiatives Measuring Social Progress Yield Benefits Beyond Better Metrics. Global Choices. Berlin: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
9.
Independent Evaluation Group (ed.) (2009) Public Sector Reform: What Works and Why? Washington, DC: World Bank.
10.
IsaacsR (2013) Nur Otan, informal networks and the countering of elite instability in Kazakhstan: Bringing the ‘formal’ back in. Europe-Asia Studies65(6): 1055–1079.
11.
Janenova S (2017) Integrating public service delivery through one stop shop model: The case of Kazakhstan. UNDP/Regional Hub of Civil Service in Astana, Kazakhstan. Available at: http://www.regionalhub.org/library/5102 (accessed 21 January 2017).
12.
JanenovaSKimPS (2016) Innovating public service delivery in transitional countries: The case of one stop shops in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Public Administration39(4): 323–333.
13.
JunisbaiB (2010) A tale of two Kazakhstans: Sources of political cleavage and conflict in post-Soviet period. Europe-Asia Studies62(2): 235–269.
14.
Kaufmann D, Kraay A and Mastruzzi M (2010) The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5430. Washington, DC: World Bank.
15.
KnoxC (2008) Kazakhstan: Modernizing government in the context of political inertia. International Review of Administrative Sciences74(3): 477–496.
16.
KnoxCYessimovaS (2015) State–society relations: Non-government organisations in Kazakhstan. Journal of Civil Society11(3): 300–316.
17.
KrauseP (2013) of Institutions and Butterflies: Is Isomorphism in Developing Countries Necessarily a Bad Thing? Background Note, London: Overseas Development Institute.
18.
ManningN (2001) The legacy of the New Public Management in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences67(2): 297–312.
19.
MonobayevaAHowardC (2015) Are post-Soviet republics ready for the New Public Management? The case of educational modernization in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Public Sector Management28(2): 150–164.
20.
Nazarbayev N (2015) Kazakhstan: 100 steps toward a new nation. 20 May. Available at: http://www.government.kz/en/.
21.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2014) Kazakhstan: Review of the Central Administration. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.
22.
OECD (2017) Towards a More Effective, Strategic and Accountable State in Kazakhstan. Paris: OECD Publishing.
23.
OleinikAYermekovMKuatbekovZ (2015) Power distance, sub-ethnic groups and teams of civil servants: Overlooked factors of administrative reform in Kazakhstan. Public Policy and Administration30(2): 182–205.
24.
PeyrouseS (2012) The Kazakh neopatrimonial regime: Balancing uncertainties among ‘family’ oligarchs and technocrats. Demokratizatizatsiya, Washington20(4): 345–370.
25.
PolidanoC (2001) Why civil service reforms fail. Public Management Review3(3): 345–361.
26.
PollittC (2013) Back in the OECD… an oblique comment on the World Bank’s better results from public sector institutions. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(3): 406–412.
27.
Salvaris M and Woolcock G (2009) Changing society's DNA codes: Democracy and the global movement for community progress measures. Australian Journal of Social Issues 44(3): 25–40.
28.
ScottZ (2011) Evaluation of Public Sector Governance Reforms 2001–2011: Literature Review, Oxford: Oxford Policy Management.
29.
Scrivens K and Iasiello B (2010) Indicators of Societal Progress: Lessons from International Experiences. OECD Statistics Directorate Working Paper No. 33. Paris: OECD.
30.
StarrSFEngvallJCornellSE (2016) Kazakhstan 2014: The Next Twenty-five Years, Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University.
Trewin D and Hall J (2010) Developing Societal Progress Indicators: A Practical Guide. OECD Statistics Working Paper No. 35. Paris: OECD.
33.
WimbushE (2011) Implementing an outcomes approach to public management and accountability in the UK – are we learning the lessons?Public Money and Management31(3): 211–218.
