This study looked at how both market participants and consumers see the pharmaceutical labeling system in practice. It covered people who deal with labeling every day, as well as users who judge it based on availability, safety, and prices. The sample included pharmacy representatives (172), medical organizations (50), distributors and wholesalers (15), and pharmaceutical manufacturers (10). A separate group of citizens and patients (900) was surveyed as end consumers.
The survey is strongly urban. Almaty accounts for 50.1% of responses, Astana for 23.8%. That means almost three quarters of the sample comes from the two largest cities. Other regions are much smaller: Karaganda region 3.8%, Almaty region 3.1%, Akmola region 2.9%, Zhambyl region 2.8%, Kostanay region 2.7%. Overall, 85.6% of responses are from cities and 14.4% from rural areas. So the results mainly reflect large urban markets, where digitalization, pharmacy density, and drug turnover are higher.
Understanding of labeling goals
There is a clear split between groups. Among the population, 43.9% say they do not understand the purpose of labeling at all. Another 9.8% gave it a score of 2. In total, 53.7% show low understanding. At the same time, 31.7% rated their understanding at the highest level. Overall, awareness is weak.
Business performs slightly better, but the gap remains. 35.8% gave the lowest score, another 11.9% gave 2. That means 47.7% show low understanding. At the same time, 35.5% rated it at 5, and 41.8% gave high scores overall. Even among professionals, there is no shared understanding of why labeling exists.
Trust in the system
Business is much more skeptical than consumers. Among businesses, 51.7% gave the lowest trust score, and another 12.1% gave 2. In total, 63.8% do not trust the system. Only 20.7% gave high scores. Labeling is not seen as a reliable control tool.
Among the population, the picture is softer but still weak. 53.7% show low trust. At the same time, 39.0% gave high scores, which is higher than business. Some consumers do link labeling to protection from illegal or low-quality products, but many still doubt its effectiveness.
Overall market impact
Business and consumers see things differently. Among businesses, 57.9% say the impact is negative. Only 12.8% see it as positive. Neutral views account for 17.4%, and 11.9% could not answer.
Among the population, the view is more mixed. The most common answer is still negative at 43.9%, but 31.7% see positive effects. Neutral responses are 12.2%, and 12.2% are unsure. The key difference is simple. Business sees labeling as a source of problems. Consumers are more open to its potential benefits. But in both groups, positive views are not dominant.
Observed effects in practice
The gap between business and consumers is most visible here.
For business, labeling means more complexity:
- 78.6% say processes became harder
- 64.1% report technical failures
- 54.0% point to higher costs
- 34.3% mention supply disruptions
- Only 15.5% see better transparency
For business, labeling is about execution problems, not benefits.
For consumers, the picture is more balanced:
- 39.0% see more complexity
- 36.6% see better transparency
- 29.3% mention technical issues and cost growth
- 24.4% report supply issues
- 22.0% saw no real change
Consumers see both drawbacks and potential value. A large share does not feel any impact at all.
Impact on prices
Both groups agree that labeling increases prices.
Among businesses:
- 68.3% say prices increased because of labeling
- 17.4% say it had partial impact
- Total 85.7% link labeling to price growth
Among consumers:
- 51.2% say prices increased
- 29.3% say partially
- Total 80.5% see a connection
Business sees labeling as a direct cost driver. Consumers also see the link, but less sharply.
There is only one area where both groups clearly agree.
Administrative burden has increased.
- Business agreement: 65.8%
- Population agreement: 61.0%
All other claimed benefits are viewed with skepticism.
Transparency:
- Business: 67.8% disagree
- Population: almost no support
Reduction of illegal drugs:
- Business: 63.6% disagree
- Population: more open but still unsure
Supply predictability:
- Business: 68.4% disagree
- Population: 56.1% disagree
Fair competition:
- Business: 71.3% disagree
- Population: 63.4% disagree
Even where labeling should help most, respondents do not see real results.
What if labeling is turned off?
Business is very clear:
- 43.7% say the market would become more stable
- 32.9% say nothing would change
- Only 6.0% expect more chaos
Consumers are less certain:
- 46.3% say nothing would change
- 26.8% expect more chaos
- 19.5% expect more stability
Business judges based on daily experience. Consumers are more neutral.
Who benefits from labeling?
In both groups, the main answer is the state.
Business:
- 39.4% say the state benefits
- 37.0% say no one benefits
- 21.2% say large companies
- Almost no one sees benefits for consumers or small business
Population:
- 36.6% say the state
- 24.4% large companies
- 22.0% no one
- 14.6% consumers
Consumers are more open to the idea that labeling helps them, but this is still not dominant.
Long-term expectations
Both groups lean negative, but business is more pessimistic.
Business:
- 46.5% expect worsening in 3 to 5 years
- 10.0% expect improvement
- 19.2% no change
- 24.4% unsure
Population:
- 36.6% expect worsening
- 26.8% expect improvement
- 22.0% no change
- 14.6% unsure
Consumers still allow for future benefits. Business mostly does not.
Population-specific insights
Awareness is high:
- 68.3% know about labeling well
- 19.5% heard about it
- Total awareness 87.8%
Usage:
- 56.1% have checked medicines via labeling
- 36.6% have not
- 7.3% do not know how
Confidence in quality:
- 43.9% say labeling does not increase confidence
- 41.4% say it does
Friction in purchases:
- 58.6% face delays or difficulties
- 31.7% do not
Price perception:
- 83.0% link labeling to higher prices
Willingness to tolerate inconvenience:
- 56.1% are not willing
- 34.2% are willing
Overall perception:
- 41.5% see labeling as a formal procedure with no real benefit
- 22.0% see it as inconvenience
- Only 29.3% see real value
Manufacturers’ view
Costs increased for everyone:
- 66.7% moderate increase
- 33.3% significant
Cost drivers:
- Equipment 100%
- IT integration 88.9%
- Administrative requirements 77.8%
- Staff 66.7%
- Training 55.6%
- Downtime 44.4%
Production impact:
- 44.4% faced slowdowns
- 22.2% reduced output
- Only 33.3% saw no impact
Technical issues are constant, especially in data transfer (55.6%).
Long-term view:
- 55.6% see labeling as excessive burden
- 44.4% as necessary regulation
Distributors / wholesalers
Labeling slows turnover:
- 63.6% say significantly
- 36.4% slightly
Main problem areas:
- Receiving and shipping 36.4% each
- Returns 18.2%
- Inventory checks 9.1%
Supply stability:
- 72.8% report disruptions or risks
Pharmacies
Service time increased:
- 89.0% significantly
- 5.8% slightly
Scanning issues:
- 90.7% face them often
Costs:
- 78.0% report high cost growth
Availability:
- 82.0% say labeling creates shortages at times
Long-term view:
- 73.3% see labeling as extra burden
- Only 4.7% see it as a control tool
Labeling is already part of the system, but not yet trusted. Business sees costs, delays, and failures. Consumers see both inconvenience and some potential benefit. But in neither group has labeling become a clearly positive or effective tool.
National Bureau of Economic Research specifically for EconomyKZ.org
