Evaluating Kazakhstan’s Comprehensive Plans: A Critical Analysis

We’ve counted around 50 “comprehensive plans” currently in effect across Kazakhstan. That’s not an exaggeration — these documents cover everything from individual cities like Balkhash, Zhanatas, and Ridder, to large urban zones, entire industries, and broad social issues.

•  Some plans target the development of regions and urban agglomerations;

•  Others focus on sectors like gas, engineering, pharmaceuticals, and water;

•  Some address themes like anti-drug policies, anti-corruption, promoting chess, or instilling a “work ethic ideology”.

But what do all these plans actually have in common — besides the word “comprehensive” in their titles?

One all-time favorite activity: “working on the issue.” This phrase can mean anything — a meeting, an information request, a letter, a discussion… or often, absolutely nothing. It’s vague, flexible, and mostly ineffective.

Formalism as an outcome. Many plans end not with measurable outcomes, but with a vague line like “Information submitted to the Government and/or relevant state bodies.” What kind of information? What conclusions? What next? — No one really knows. Too often, this phrase replaces real work with symbolic checkboxes.

A real comprehensive plan can be a useful tool — if:

•  it’s tied to an actual strategy and funding,

•  it’s integrated into a monitoring system,

•  it includes clear indicators and reporting mechanisms.

Otherwise, it’s just another redundant layer, repeating existing documents and distracting from real action.

Maybe it’s time to launch a Comprehensive Plan to Eliminate Redundant Comprehensive Plans?

Still, we hold out hope that 2025, when most of these plans expire, will mark a turning point — from paper-heavy planning to result-driven execution.