Regional Social and Economic Imbalances: Evidence from Data Envelopment Analysis in Kazakhstan

The problem of territorial socio-economic imbalances remains one of the key issues in Kazakhstan's regional policy, as differences between the economic potential of regions and the achieved social results persist even with sustained economic growth. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the transformation of economic and infrastructural resources of the regions of Kazakhstan into social results, primarily in reducing poverty and unemployment. The methodological basis of the study is the nonparametric method of Data Envelope Analysis (DEA), which makes it possible to assess the relative effectiveness of regions as decision-making units in converting resources into social outcomes. The results of the DEA analysis showed that 13 of the 20 regions achieved full efficiency, while 7 regions demonstrated relative inefficiency, including Almaty с. (0.8087), Mangystau (0.8840) and Pavlodar (0.9327) regions. At the same time, a territorial differentiation of social indicators was revealed: the depth of poverty varies from 0.3 to 1.6, and the proportion of the population with incomes below the subsistence level ranges from less than 3% to more than 8%. The results showed that a high level of economic development in the region does not guarantee proportionately high social efficiency, and territorial imbalances are associated with differences in management efficiency and resource use. A promising area of further research is to expand the time coverage of the analysis through the use of panel data, which will allow us to assess the dynamics of the relative effectiveness of regions and identify trends in the transformation of economic resources into social outcomes.

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.

2. Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1990). Economic growth and convergence across the United States (NBER Working Paper No. 3419). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://ssrn.com/abstract=226678

3. Bruni, M. E., Guerriero, F., & Patitucci, V. (2011). Benchmarking sustainable development via Data Envelopment Analysis: An Italian case study. International Journal of Environmental Research, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.22059/IJER.2010.290

4. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8

5. Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions, and international trade. MIT Press.

6. Gavurova, B., Kocisova, K., & Sopko, J. (2021). Health system efficiency in OECD countries: Dynamic network DEA approach. Health Economics Review, 11, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-021-00337-9

7. Hirschman, A. O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press.

8. Ianchovichina, E., & Lundström, S. (2009). Inclusive growth analytics: Framework and application (Policy Research Working Paper No. 4851). World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/4047

9. Jackson, W. A. (2020). Cumulative causation. In International encyclopedia of human geography (2nd ed., pp. 131– 134). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10038-1

10. Kireyeva, A., Nurlanova, N., Nurbatsin, A., Saparbek, N., & Alzhanova, F. (2022). Assessing the differences in the levels and dynamics of economic development of Kazakhstani regions. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(3), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(3).2022.45

11. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1086/261763

12. Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 407–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118477

13. Manić, E., & Mitrović, Đ. (2021). Unbalanced development: Regional disparity analysis in Serbia. Economic Themes, 59(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.2478/ethemes-2021-0003

14. McCann, P. (2020). Perceptions of regional inequality and the geography of discontent. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1619928

15. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and under-developed regions. Gerald Duckworth.

16. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

17. Nurlanova, N.K., Satybaldin, A.A., Brimbetova, N.Z., & Kireyeva, A.A. (2019). Reduction of Economic Disparities in the Regions of Kazakhstan Based on Inclusive Development. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business. 1 https://doi.org/0.13106/JAFEB.2019.VOL6.NO2.299

18. Nurlanova, N., Alzhanova, F., Saparbek, N., & Dnishev, F. (2023). Inclusive development: Assessment of regional inequality in Kazakhstan and measures to reduce it. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 21(2), 734– 743. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.21(2).2023.65

19. Nurlanova, N., Alzhanova, F., & Dnishev, F. (2024). Methods and practice of assessing the level of inclusive regional development of Kazakhstan. Economics: The Strategy and Practice, 18(4), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.51176/1997-9967-2023-4-109-126

20. Pakhomova, O. A., Dubrovina, O. A., Lukishin, A. V., & Khazov, A. Y. (2021). Problems of spatial-economic and socialdemographic imbalance (On the example of the Volga Federal District). Fundamental Research, 4, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.17513/fr.43003

21. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024

22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0116110524500033

23. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725

24. Sermagambet, U., Satpayeva, Z., Smagulova, G., Urban, W., & Yessenzhigitova, R. (2022). Socio-economic inequality in Kazakhstani regions: Assessment and impact on regional development management. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(3), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(3).2022.39

25. Slijepcevic, S. (2019). Measuring efficiency at the regional level: A Data Envelopment Analysis approach. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 17(3), 679–696. https://doi.org/10.4335/17.3.679-696(2019)

26. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884513

27. Stanković, J. J., Marjanović, I., & Stojković, N. (2020). DEA assessment of socio-economic development of European countries. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.7595/management.fon.2020.0012

28. Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), 334–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.1956.tb00434.x

29. Tumanjants, K. A., & Sesina, Y. E. (2018). Assessment of the effectiveness of social expenditures of Russian regions using the DEA method. Regional Economics: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.21686/2413-2829-2023-38-49

30. Uskelenova, A. T., & Nikiforova, N. (2024). Regional development of Kazakhstan: Theoretical premises and reality. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(3), 12616. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12616