Efficiency of Agriculture Subsidies in Kazakhstan

Siximbayeva, Gaukhar; Shayakhmetova, Kulshariya; Yernazarova, Urkhiya; Ruzanov, Rashid

doi:10.2478/cejpp-2025-0003

Figures & Tables

Specific weight of subsidies for crop production by their types.Source: Compiled by the author based on Digital platform archive qoldau.kz

Forecast trends in the growth of crop production in Kazakhstan with stable financing and subsidies for the 2023–2028 period.Source: Authors’ calculations on JSC ACC Annual report and Bureau of National Statistics Kazakhstan

Scenarios for forecasting the growth of gross value added (GVA) per employee until 2033.Source: Authors’ calculations on Kazakhstan Bureau of National Statistics

Multiregression analysis_

Regression statistic
Multiple R	0,9999
R-square	0,9999
Norm. R-square	0,9992
Standard error	34,6577
Observations	13
Analysis of variance
	df	SS	MS	F	Significance F
Regression	10	18935533,97	1893553,397	1576,44	0,0006341
Remains	2	2402,315668	1201,157834
Total	12	18937936,28
	Coefficients	Standard error	t-statistic	P-Meaning	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Lower 95,0%	Upper 95,0%
Y	-13 318,03	4112,355095	-3,238540458	0,083568	-31012,0642	4376,008	-31012,06	4376,008
X 1	0,000396749	7,45194E-05	5,324108546	0,033515	7,6118E-05	0,000717	7,612E-05	0,000717
X 2	0,598541574	0,176372321	3,393625318	0,076943	-0,16032727	1,35741	-0,160327	1,35741
X 3	-0,008687662	0,006647951	-1,306817982	0,32133	-0,03729149	0,019916	-0,037291	0,019916
X 4	-0,003868786	0,000579461	-6,676523742	0,021706	-0,00636201	-0,00138	-0,006362	-0,00138
X 5	0,002930681	0,001104753	2,652792914	0,117563	-0,00182269	0,007684	-0,001823	0,007684
X 6	0,002518243	0,000440601	5,715474046	0,029275	0,00062249	0,004414	0,0006225	0,004414
X 7	0,00562555	0,003129979	1,79731234	0,214115	-0,00784166	0,019093	-0,007842	0,019093
X 8	-0,638121689	0,07840068	-8,139236632	0,014762	-0,97545259	-0,30079	-0,975453	-0,30079
X 9	0,004794798	0,013465634	0,356076639	0,755836	-0,05314315	0,062733	-0,053143	0,062733
X 10	-0,000955655	0,000357012	-2,676816961	0,115813	-0,00249175	0,00058	-0,002492	0,00058

The structure of respondents provided (continuation)_

Hectares	Number	%	Legal form	Number	%
≤ 100	30	11%	Farm	178	64%
101–1000	100	36%	Private person	17	6%
1001–5000	101	36%	LLP	82	29%
≤5 000	48	17%	Cooperatives	2	1%
Total	279	100%	Total	279	100%

The authors’ survey results_

General perception	1) A vast majority of farmers (87%) view subsidies as an effective tool for supporting the agricultural industry 2) 86.4% of respondents are direct recipients of subsidies, highlighting the program’s extensive reach
Demographic factors influencing perception	1) Farmers over the age of 36 with over 10 years of experience in agriculture expressed greater satisfaction with subsidies 2) Larger farms (operating over 100 hectares) reported higher perceived benefits, likely due to better economies of scale and resource allocation
Key challenges	1) Complexity of processes: 74% of respondents reported difficulties with automated systems (kezekte.kz, gosagro.kz)^* 2) Insufficient budget: Nearly half of farmers (48%) expressed dissatisfaction with the limited subsidy funds 3) Corruption and bureaucracy: 13% of farmers identified these issues as barriers to equitable access
Demanded subsidies	1) The most popular subsidies include those for loan interest reimbursement and agricultural machinery leasing, with 222 respondents favoring these 2) Investment subsidies (50% cost reimbursement) and subsidies for fertilizers and pesticides were also highly demanded, cited by 166 and 155 farmers, respectively 3) Subsidies for water supply services and insurance are less prioritized, with only 29 farmers viewing these as critical, possibly due to reliance on natural irrigation systems
Moderate impact on profitability	1) Despite widespread use, only 21% of farmers rate subsidies as having a “very high” or “high” impact on profitability 2) 42% perceive the impact as moderate, while 37% view it as low This suggests that while subsidies are appreciated, their actual financial effectiveness may require optimization
Level of satisfaction	1) Only 12% of respondents are highly satisfied with the volume of subsidies 2) 43% are moderately satisfied, and 45% express dissatisfaction, indicating room for improvement in allocation and coverage

Main indicators of financial and economic activities of Kazakhstan farmers 2019–2021 billion tenge

Indicator	2019	2020	2021	Absolute deviation 2021/2019	Relative deviation 2021/2019
Income, including:	607 251	672 950	758 736	151 485	25%
Crop production	332 163	391 713	442 922	110 759	33%
Cost price	484 889	529 561	604 297	119 407	25%
Gross profit	122 361	143 389	154 439	32 077	26%
Income from financing	10 421	10 381	12 848	2 426	23%
Other income, including:	97 290	138 722	129 498	32 208	33%
Subsidies*	62 937	86 303	55 900	−7 037	−11%
Product sales expenses	13 174	19 412	20 913	7 739	59%
Administrative expenses	45 977	46 932	54 092	8 115	18%
Financing expenses	22 020	21 623	26 639	4 618	21%
Other expenses, including:	43 383	58 021	54 729	11 346	26%
Maintenance of the subsidy portal	371	443	510	138	37%
Profit before taxation	105 517	146 503	140 411	34 893	33%
Income tax	4 081	5 652	6 650	2 569	63%
Profitability	17%	22%	19%

Information for calculating Pearson correlation coefficient_

Period	GDP, million tenge	Acreage, thousand hectares	Gross harvest, thousand tons	Investments, million tenge	Income, million tenge	Gross value added per employee	Loans to agro, million tenge	Number of registered farmers	Jobs, thousand people	Taxes, other payments, million tenge	Subsidies, million tenge
PCC	PCC-1	PCC-2	PCC-3	PCC-4	PCC-5	PCC-6	PCC-7	PCC-8	PCC-9	PCC-10	PCC-11
2010	895 425	21 439	19 691	83 586	274 180	429	228 266	186 351	2 295	25 950	41 800
2011	1 654 429	21 083	35 914	109 424	358 261	642	220 313	200 076	2 196	28 780	54 869
2012	1 241 517	21 191	22 231	133 945	405 649	612	188 289	189 481	2 173	38 034	51 550
2013	1 683 851	21 271	28 665	139 627	399 963	782	181 743	189 168	2 074	36 964	55 996
2014	1 739 436	21 245	28 055	173 281	409 527	1 070	212 353	192 038	1 605	35 651	72 922
2015	1 825 237	21 023	30 102	163 907	377 562	1 242	328 500	189 038	1 363	39 517	180 800
2016	2 047 581	21 474	33 049	253 691	450 255	1 402	338 000	184 608	1 386	40 940	196 050
2017	2 249 167	21 840	33 746	348 481	524 512	1 736	384 900	185 754	1 319	46 163	228 580
2018	2 411 487	21 899	34 351	365 001	533 748	2 077	461 600	194 828	1 228	46 572	198 970
2019	2 817 661	22 136	31 986	494 976	607 251	2 466	537 800	203 037	1 184	54 914	206 300
2020	3 687 310	22 582	34 955	565 369	672 951	3 005	583 900	219 449	1 175	56 678	384 800
2021	4 387 237	22 926	31 749	772 475	758 737	3 351	704 700	225 030	1 176	67 841	372 500
2022	5 808 260	23 162	36 821	850 346	977 475	4 608	768 300	230 247	1 108	84 868	451 100

The structure of respondents provided_

Age	Number	%	Education	Number	%	Experience	Number	%
≤35	51	18%	Secondary	31	11%	Less 5 years	39	14%
36–50	115	41%	Technical	57	20%	5–10 years	66	24%
≤51	113	41%	Higher	191	68%	Over 10 years	174	62%
Total	279	100%	Total	279	100%	Total	279	100%

Efficiency of Agriculture Subsidies in Kazakhstan

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1:

Fig.2:

Fig.3:

Multiregression analysis_

The structure of respondents provided (continuation)_

The authors’ survey results_

Main indicators of financial and economic activities of Kazakhstan farmers 2019–2021 billion tenge

Information for calculating Pearson correlation coefficient_

The structure of respondents provided_

Paradigm

My account