Performance Evaluation of the Government Agencies of Kazakhstan

Open access


Performance evaluation of the government agencies seems to be one of the most important issues in modern public administration. The countries with developed economies introduced various performance evaluation models. Th e developing countries also implement instruments to evaluate the government agencies performance. Unlike countries with developed institutional environments, the developing ones very often import evaluation models that have been proven in other countries. In that context, our research aimed to understand how the performance evaluation models work in countries with a developing institutional environment. The fact is that the performance evaluation of the government agencies shows certain results which present it in a positive way to the public. Unfortunately, these survey results do not adequately cover difficulties and obstacles that appear in the performance evaluation introduction process. In this regard, the perception of the evaluation system by the first-hand (civil servants), as well as the end entities (NGO representatives) of how the introduction of the evaluation institute contributes to improving the effectiveness of government agencies need to be analyzed. This article presents an analysis of the impact performance evaluation on performance in government agencies of Kazakhstan through interviews with civil servants (insiders), as they are aware of administrative changes, and representatives of NGO that closely interact with government agencies, so they can really assess the effect of changes. Data collected by quantitative and qualitive methods, such as legislative analysis, mass survey, in-depth interviews of civil servants and NGOs, and focus groups. The authors took into account all the limitations that are typical for surveys of civil servants in countries with a developing institutional environment (e.g. Nemec et al. 2011). In general, the research results provide a wider understanding of the effectiveness of institutional changes when embedding NPM tools into the administrative reforms through a “top-down approach” in emerging economies. The results show that the implementation of a new institution (performance evaluation) into the existing structure of formal institutions of the government agencies was accomplished. It was found that implanting a new institution caused, to some extent, a short-term “shock” to the government agencies, as there since previously there were no objective criteria for evaluating their activity. At the same time, performance evaluation is still not unincorporated into the internal management system in government agencies. It is perceived as a redundant imputed data transfer function for external evaluators. For this reason, top management of government agencies does not involve all staff in the process of evaluating and discussing its results. However, employees show interest in participating in these processes. All this once again confirms that the post-Soviet countries are still in networks of past heritage, namely they preserve a centralized bureaucratic system controlled from above.

Andersen, Lotte B., Andreas A. Boesen and Lene H. Pedersen. 2016. “Performance in Public Organizations: Clarifying the Conceptual Space.” Public Administration Review 7(6), 852 - 862.

Bemelmans-Videc, Maria, Jeremy Lonsdale and Burt Perrin. 2017. Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit. NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bischoff , Ivo and Frederic Blaeschke. 2016. “Performance Budgeting: Incentives and Social Waste from Window Dressing.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(2), 344 - 358.

BTI 2018. Kazakhstan Country Report. Available at (last accessed 10. August 2018).

Conway, Byron. 2018. Game Changing Performance Management Trends. Available at (last accessed 15. October 2018).

Curristine, Teresa, Zsuzsanna Lontiand and Isabelle Joumard. 2007. “Improving Public Sector Efficiency.” Challenges and Opportunities OECD Journal on Budgeting 7(1), 1 - 42.

Decree 2010. About the System of annual evaluations of the eff ectiveness of the activities of central state and local executive bodies of regions, cities of republican signifi cance, the capital (last accessed 10. June 2016).

Decree 2015. Th e Register of the civil service positions. (last accessed 10. August 2017).

Dobrolyubova E. 2017. “Evaluating Performance of Government Inspection Bodies: A Possible Approach.” Th e NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 10(2), 49 - 72.

Dooren, Wouter V., Geert Bouckaert and John Halligan. 2010. Performance Management in the Public Sector. 1st edn. Abingdon: Routledge.

Dubnick, Melvin. 2005. “Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms.” Public Performance & Management Review 28(3), 376 - 417.

Fernandez, Sergjio and Hal G. Rainey. 2006. “Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector.” Public Administration Review 66(2), 168 - 174.

Gerrish, Ed. 2016. “Th e Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: A Meta-Analysis.” Public Administration Review 76(1), 48 - 66.

Hajnal, Gyorgy. 2015. “Use and Utilization of Performance Information in Hungary: Exemplary Cases from the Local-Government and the Higher Education Sectors.” Th e NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 8(2). DOI, 10.11515 / nispa-2015-0007.

Hansen, Morten B. 2017. “Performance Management and Evaluation.” In B. Greve (ed.). Handbook of Social Policy Evaluation. London: Edward Elgar, 223 - 241. Available at (last accessed 20 May 2017).

Helden, Jan van and Shahzad Uddin. 2016. “Public Sector Management Accounting in Emerging Economies: A Literature Review.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 41(C). (last accessed 10 January 2018).

IER [ИЭИ]. 2016. Assessment of the Eff ectiveness of Government Agencies 2016 [Сборник по ≪Оценке эффективности деятельности государственныхорганов≫ за 2016 год]. Report. Available at (last accessed 16 January 2018).

IER. 2017. Establishment and Development [Создание и развитие]. Available at (last accessed 15 October 2017).

IMD. 2017. World Competitiveness Yearbook 2017 Results. Available at (last accessed 16 January 2018).

Iacovino, Nicola Mario, Barsanti Sara and Cinquini Lino. 2017 Public Organizations Between Old Pu blic Administration, New Public Management and Public Governance: the Case of the Tuscany Region. Public Organization Review, 17: 61 - 82.

Jakobsen, Mads L. F. and Peter B. Mortensen. 2016. “Rules and Doctrine of Performance Management.” Public Administration Review 76(2), 302 - 312.

Leeuw, Frans L. 2000. “Unintended Side Eff ects of Auditing: Th e Relationship between Performance Auditing and Performance Improvement and the Role of Trust.” In W. Raub and J. Weesie (eds). Th e Management of Durable Relations. Amsterdam: Th elathesis, 153.

Leoveanu, Andy. 2016. “Performance Evaluation Systems in the Public Sector.” Curentul Juridic - Juridical Current 66(3), 26 - 38.

Makhasheva, M. 2016. State Audit in Kazakhstan: New Challenge of Modern Economics [Gosudarstvenyyi audit v Kazakhstane: novyi vazov sovremennoy economiki]. Available at (last accessed 10. May 2017).

Mendez, Carlos and John Bachtler. 2011. “Administrative Reform and Unintended Consequences: An Assessment of the EU Cohesion Policy ‘Audit Explosion’.” Journal of European Public Policy 18(5), 746 - 765.

MNE. 2016. State Body Effi ciency Evaluation System of the Republic of Kazakhstan [MNE. 2016. Systeme osenki eff ectivnosti deyatelnosty gosydarstvennykh organov v Respublike Kazakhstan]. Astana: Report, 42.

Nemec, Juraj, Beata Merickova and Marketa Sumpikova Fantova. 2011. “Is the Estonian Municipal Benchmarking Really Better ?” Public Management Review 10.1080 / 14719037.2010.525036.

OECD. 1996. Performance Auditing and the Modernization of Government. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Press (last accessed April 2016).

OECD. 2014. Kazakhstan: Review of the Central Administration. Astana, Kazakhstan: OECD.

OECD. 2017a. Multi-Dimensional Review of Kazakhstan. Vol. 2: In-Depth Analysis and Recommendations. Available at (last accessed 20 October 2017).

OECD. 2017b. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Towards an Open Government in Kazakhstan. Available at URL (last accessed 20 October 2017).

OECD. 2017c. “Towards a More Eff ective, Strategic and Accountable State in Kazakhstan.” (last accessed 10 January 2018).

OECD. 2018. Benchmarking Civil Service Reform in Kazakhstan, 164 (last accessed March 2018).

Primashev, Nurzada et al. 2013 Determination of Eff ective Regulatory Legal, Methodological and Organizational Measures Aimed at Improving the Quality of Work Organization and Management in Government Agencies [Opredelenye effectivnykh normatyvnykh, methodichiskykh i organizatstyonnykh mer, napravlennykh na povyshenye kachestva organizatsyi tryda i menedgmenta v gosudarstvennykh organakh]. Astana: Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Pollitt, Christopher and Greet Bouckaert. 2011. _Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis - New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Salem, Hanine. 2003. Organizational Performance Management and Measurement. Beirut: Th e Lebanese Experience.

Sek, Oleg. 2017. “A New Model for Assessing the Eff ectiveness of Government Agencies” [Novaya model ostenki eff ektivnosty deyatelnosti gosudarstvennykh organov]. In Suleimenova G. - Eds. Th e Institutionalization of the Performance Evaluation System of Government Agencies in the Republic of Kazakhstan: Modern Conditions and Prospects of Development [Institusionalyzatsya systemy ostenki eff ektivnosty deyatelnosti gosudarstvennykh organov v Respublike Kazakhstan: sovremennoe sostoyanie I perspektivy razvitya]. Astana: Academy of Public Administration under the President of Republic of Kazakhstan, 80 - 87.

Suleimenova, Gulimzhan, Evgeny Kapogusov, Nurbek Kabizhan and Margarita Kadyrova. 2017. “Performance Evaluation System of Government Agencies in the Republic of Kazakhstan: Modern Conditions and Prospects of Development.” Paper presented at the 25th NISPAcee Annual Conference Innovation Governance in the Public Sector, 18 - 20 May, Kazan, Russia.

Talbot, Colin. 2010. Th eories of Performance: Organizational and Service Improvement in the Public Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, Jeannette. 2011. “Factors Infl uencing the Use of Performance Information for Decision Making in Australian State Agencies.” Public Administration 89(4), 1316 - 1334.

Thiel, Sandra van and France L. Leeuw. 2002. “Th e Performance Paradox in the Public Sector.” Public Performance & Management Review 25(3), 267 - 281. Available at (last accessed 20. June 2016).

Tomaževič, Nina, Metka Tekavčič and Darja Peljhan. 2015. “Towards Excellence in Public Administration: Organisation Th eory-Based Performance Management Model.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 28(5 - 6), 578 - 599.

Van der Wal, Zeger and Mussagulova Assel. 2017. Motivation of Public Servants in Kazakhstan. Final Report. Astana: ACSH. GCPSE. UNDP.

WB. 2005. Strategic Note: Reform of the Wage System in the Public Sector [Strategicheskaya zapiska: reformirovanie oplaty truda: v gosudarstvennom sectore]. Washington: Th e World Bank.

WB. 2015. World Governance Indicator. Government Eff ectiveness. Available at (last accessed 16 January 2018).

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.60

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.234
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.285


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 167 167 44
PDF Downloads 123 123 36