The Green Economy in Market-Oriented Countries: The Case of Kazakhstan

  • Kuralay Orazgalievna NURGALIYEVA University of International Business, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
  • Ainur Uyizbaevna AMIROVA Almaty Management University, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
  • Akbayan Serikovna NURTAZINOVA Zhezkazgan University O.A. Baikonurov, Zhezkazgan, Republic of Kazakhstan


A social market economy is predicated on the principle that sustainable development is possible only if there is a solid focus on key economic, social, and environmental issues. The purpose of the research reported in this paper is to explore the outcomes of market reforms related to the shift to a green economy in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The findings from the authors’ study indicate that today the Kazakh economy is one of the world’s most energy-intensive economies, which is due to the use of outmoded infrastructure, technology, and standards, most of which were inherited from as early as the Soviet period. As a result of its market reforms, Kazakhstan has experienced tangible economic growth, but the nation’s environmental indicators remain a serious concern in relation to the health of its citizens. In the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), Kazakhstan has fallen far behind not only most developed market-oriented countries but some of the developing nations that used to be part of the former Soviet Union as well, like Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, and others.

To galvanize the process of shifting to a “green” economy in the Republic of Kazakhstan, it may help to implement some of the new instruments that have been employed as part of environmental policy in certain market-oriented countries and have proven to be efficient. These instruments and approaches include environmental taxes and levies, permit trading systems, deposit return systems, environmentally motivated subsidies, and organizations and enterprises displaying a willing, voluntary attitude toward improving their environmental performance.


[1] 2018 EPI Results. 2018. Available at:
[2] Aly, E. A., and Managi, S. 2018. Energy infrastructure and their impacts on societies’ capital assets: A hybrid simulation approach to inclusive wealth. Energy Policy, 121: 1–12.
[3] Anfinogentova, A. A., Dudin, M. N., Lyasnikov, N. V., and Protsenko, O. D. 2017. Metodika otsenki kachestva deyatel''nosti predpriyatii APK na osnove ekologicheski otvetstvennogo podkhoda [A methodology for assessing the quality of activity by enterprises within the agro-industrial complex based on the environmentally responsible approach]. Ekonomika Regiona, 13(2): 579–590.
[4] D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Toppinen, A. December 1, 2017. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues, Journal of Cleaner Production, 168: 716–734.
[5] Enerdata. 2018. Dannye statisticheskogo ezhegodnika mirovoi energetiki 2018 [2018 World Energy Statistics Yearbook Data]. Available at:
[6] Gbededo, M. A., and Liyanage, K. 2018. Identification and alignment of the social aspects of sustainable manufacturing with the theory of motivation. Sustainability, 10(3): 852.
[7] Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., and Hultink, E. 2017. The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143(1): 757–768.
[8] Hu, A.-G., and Zhou, S.-J. 2014. Green development: Functional definition, mechanism analysis and development strategy. China Population, Resources and Environment, 24(1): 14–20.
[9] Ishak, I., Jamaludin, R., and Abu, N. H. 2017. Green technology concept and implementation: A brief review of current development. Advanced Science Letters, 23(9): 8558–8561.
[10] Ivanescu, I. M., and Sorlescu, M. 2016. The green economy: EU vision for competitive and sustainable development. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 10(1): 45–54.
[11] Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., and Hekkert, M. December 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127: 221–232.
[12] López, T. G. 2018. From the ‘polluter pays’ principle to the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle: New economic instruments for environmental protection. Veredas do Direito, 15(31): 37–66.
[13] Neimark, B. D., and Vermeylen, S. 2017. A human right to science? Precarious labor and basic rights in science and bioprospecting. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(1): 167–182.
[14] Nhamo, G. 2014. FirstRand’s responsible financing and the green economy. In G. Nhamo (Ed.), Breakthrough: Corporate South Africa in a green economy. Pretoria, South Africa: Africa Institute of South Africa, 153–169.
[15] Onyusheva, I., Ushakov, D., and Van, H. T. 2018. The eco-problems and green economy development in Kazakhstan: An analytical survey. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(2): 148–153.
[16] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2017. Green Growth Indicators 2017. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
[17] Orihuela, J. C. 2017. Assembling participatory Tambopata: Environmentality entrepreneurs and the political economy of nature. Forest Policy and Economics, 80: 52–62.
[18] Pearce, D., Markandya, A., and Barbier, E. B. 1989. Blueprint for a green economy. London, UK: Earthscan.
[19] Pomponi, F., and Moncaster, A. 2017. Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143: 710–718.
[20] Postanovlenie Pravitel'stva Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 26 dekabrya 2017 goda № 873 “Ob utverzhdenii Natsional'nogo plana raspredeleniya kvot na vybrosy parnikovykh gazov na 2018–2020 gody” [Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 873 ‘On Signing into Law the National Plan for the Allocation of Quotas for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2018–2020’ of December 26, 2017]. Available at:
[21] Sergazina, G, Tanayev, E, and Baigunakova, D. 2013. Kazakhstan’s National Emission Trading Scheme. Available at:
[22] Stoever, J., and Weche, J. P. 2018. Environmental regulation and sustainable competitiveness: Evaluating the role of firm-level green investments in the context of the Porter hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 70(2): 429–455.
[23] Teimouri, R., and Yigitcanlar, T. 2018. An approach towards effective ecological planning: Quantitative analysis of urban green space characteristics. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 4(2): 195–206.
[24] Timur Kulibaev: Ekologicheskie platezhi dolzhny stat' tselenapravlennymi [Timur Kulibaev: Environmental payments must become purposeful]. May 28, 2018. Available at:
[25] Tsui, R., Wu, S.-W., and Siu, A. 2015. Holistic approach to shape future cities. In S. Rassia & P. M. Pardalos (Eds.), Future city architecture for optimal living. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 117–140.
[26] United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.). About green economy. Available at:
[27] United Nations Environment Programme. 2011. Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication: A synthesis for policy makers. Available at:
[28] Wanda, E. M. M., et al. 2017. Green analytical techniques: Novel and aboriginal perspectives on sustainable development. In R. Singh & S. Kumar (Eds.), Green technologies and environmental sustainability. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 365–394.
[29] Whitehouse, A. 2017. Common economic oversights in green infrastructure valuation. Landscape Research, 42(2): 230–234.
How to Cite
NURGALIYEVA, Kuralay Orazgalievna; AMIROVA, Ainur Uyizbaevna; NURTAZINOVA, Akbayan Serikovna. The Green Economy in Market-Oriented Countries: The Case of Kazakhstan. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 5, p. 1019-1029, jan. 2019. ISSN 2068-7729. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 20 jan. 2019. doi: