We doubt that the Kazakh authorities are going to read the World Bank 2017 report “Governance and the Law”*. And this is critical since we all know the wisdom – “forewarned is forearmed”.

 The report is written in English, it is quite big in its size and complex in its comprehension. These, however, are not the reasons why the Kazakhs will not read it. First, Akorda and its inhabitants do not find it necessary and, second, as oppose to its neighbor, Russia, Kazakhstan does not have a system of academic communities that function as “think tanks”. Therefore, no alternative (to the state) channel of receiving, processing, and discussing such information exists in the country.

Thus, let us cite certain passages from the aforementioned report.

“Eventually, to solve the problems the developing countries are facing today (subpar services, violence, economic slowdown, corruption, the recourse “curse”, and many others), it is necessary to rethink the way the state and non-state subjects interact with each other on the matter of policy making”.

“The practices of many countries demonstrate that the resource “curse” (an economic paradox when the countries possessing rich natural resources experience a slower growth than those lacking natural resources) can be lifted. To do so, it is necessary to implement an effective economic and fiscal policy”.

“During the last four decades, the economic growth of China has been measured in double digits. Thanks to it, more than 700 mln people in this country have been freed from poverty. At the same time, judging by many other indicators, the institutional environment in China has remained unchanged.

Does it mean institutions are not important for economic growth? No, it does not. Rather, a more attentive research of the Chinese development shows what these indicators do not reflect. It is the fact that the adaptiveness of the political decisions and the increase of the state potential (the key factors to the Chinese economic successes) were largely determined by the cardinal changes in the reporting relationships mechanisms and the collective management. The Chinese case proves conclusively that it is necessary to pay more attention to functioning of the institutions and less – to the forms they assume.

Meanwhile, the Chinese economic growth is slowing down. To support the high growth rates, China needs the political stimuli to adapt a new growth model based on supporting new businesses, competitiveness, and innovations. In many countries with a medium income level, such reforms are blocked by those who had benefited from the earlier stages of the growth and are not motivated to participate in coalitions propagating new reforms. To move forward, these state governance problems must be solved”.

“There is a demand for better quality services in Brazil. In 2013, the world witnessed how, on the eve of the World Cup, protesters dissatisfied with the quality of the public services – transport, education, and health took to the streets of the Brazilian cities. During the period of 12 years, Brazil has been experiencing a steady and inclusive economic growth that has helped more than 30 mln out of poverty and strengthened the middle class. And now, that same middle class that pays taxes to support the existence of the state services demands increasing their quality and scale (including implementing the FIFA standard in schools).

Why has the situation changed? Historically speaking, the social contract has always been unsolid and fragmented in Brazil. The poor received the low quality social services whereas the higher levels of the society employed the private services, consequently, not desiring to fill the budget with their taxes. The formation of a more large-scale middle class and the reduction of the scale of the poverty have paradoxically aggravated the sense of unfairness in Brazil since the new middle class is now prepared to receive something more than the low-quality social services in exchange for its taxes”.

Thus, based on the consolidated opinion of the WB experts that has been echoed by many independent academic centers, communities, and professionals, we can state the following.

1. The problems Kazakhstan is facing today are endemic to many developing countries.
2. As WB suggests, to solve these problems, the state and non-state agencies must rethink the way they interact on the matter of the state policy making. In other words, the state governance model must be changed.
3. The resource “curse” from which Kazakhstan suffers greatly could be lifted. To do so, the state must implement an effective economic and fiscal policy.
4. The adaptiveness of the political decisions and the increase of the state potential (the key factors to the economic growth in China) were largely determined by the crucial changes in the reporting relationships mechanisms and the collective management.
5. The formation of a more large-scale middle class and the reduction of the scale of the poverty have paradoxically aggravated the sense of unfairness in Brazil since the new middle class is now prepared to receive something more than the low-quality social services in exchange for its taxes.

We can also infer some individual conclusions that will perhaps be found unpleasant by many. These conclusions, however, must be discussed publicly.

• The crucial changes in the reporting relationships mechanisms and the collective management are the required preliminary conditions for increasing the adaptiveness of the political decisions.
• At the same time, it is not necessary to convert the supra-presidential republic into the parliamentary one.
• The successes in the country’s economic development that are bound to be accompanied by improving of the social climate and increasing of the quality of life will paradoxically lead to the growth of the protest sentiments and, consequently, to the aggravation of the political situation inside the country.

Since the WB report is not a single person’s subjective opinion but, rather, a conclusion of the world academic community, we suggest that Akorda’s officials read it – if for nothing else than the fact that it is much more effective to prevent problems and solve them systematically on the large scale. To tackle issues as they arise (which seems to be Akorda’s normal practice) is counter-productive, to say the least.

*World Bank, 2017. “Governance and the Law”. Overview. WB, Washington, D.C. Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO