Strengthening Anti-Corruption Standards in Kazakhstan

The first element of the methodology is the identification and mitigation of corruption risks. Organizations are required to carry out annual internal analyses using defined risk indicators. Once the assessment is complete, each risk is evaluated along two axes: risk likelihood (from very rare to very often) and risk impact (from minor to severe), scored on a scale from 1 to 5. These dimensions form the basis of the visual risk map illustrated below.

Figure 1. Example of Corruption Risk Map

Source: Methodological recommendations for establishing anti-corruption standards.

This process results in two separate risk maps. The first map focuses on risks associated with legislative frameworks, such as inconsistencies, ambiguous formulations, or gaps that can be exploited. The second map highlights risks embedded in organizational processes and managerial operations (e.g., recruitment, budgeting, and procurement). Including the risk maps supports a more structured and data-driven approach to corruption prevention. It allows institutions to clearly visualize, assess, and prioritize corruption risks, helping them target vulnerabilities more effectively and implement appropriate mitigation strategies.

Recognizing that conflicts of interest are often precursors to corruption, the framework places emphasis on mitigation. It introduces mandatory disclosure of financial interests by public officials, enforces restrictions on certain activities, and sets up conflict management protocols. By ensuring transparency, it safeguards decision-making processes from undue influence.

The methodology also strengthens financial controls by mandating asset and income declarations for public officials, aligning with international standards like those of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Regular audits and financial monitoring are incorporated to detect discrepancies, hold officials accountable, and prevent illicit enrichment.

Sustainable anticorruption efforts require a cultural shift within institutions. The framework advocates for training programs and awareness campaigns to instill transparency, ethics, and accountability as core values across all levels of governance.

Transparency in government operations is promoted through open data initiatives and public consultations. Citizens are encouraged to engage in feedback mechanisms, ensuring that the public can hold government entities accountable. This openness builds trust in governance and reinforces the importance of public participation in decision-making.

The methodology also advocates for merit-based recruitment, promotion, and career advancement within public institutions. Clear criteria for personnel decisions are established to ensure fairness and reduce favoritism. Independent oversight of human resource practices further ensures transparency and accountability in the hiring process.

To address corruption in procurement, the methodology introduces standardized procedures and electronic systems to increase transparency and reduce discretionary decision-making. This approach ensures that procurement contracts are awarded fairly, based on clear criteria, and subject to regular monitoring and oversight.

The framework extends the anticorruption standards to quasi-public and private organizations, encouraging them to adopt compliance programs. These entities are required to implement internal policies promoting transparency, fairness, and accountability. This ensures a unified approach to anticorruption efforts across all sectors, creating a more comprehensive governance system.

Adopted in December 2024, the Methodological Recommendations represent a collaborative, multisectoral approach to anticorruption reform. Government institutions and quasi-public entities are tasked with integrating the methodology into their operations, while Kazakhstan’s Anti-Corruption Agency oversees its implementation. Regular evaluations will ensure its adaptability to emerging challenges.

Stakeholder engagement—through roundtable discussions, workshops, and consultations involving civil society, government officials, and private sector representatives—will be critical in the evaluation process, ensuring continuous refinement and alignment with evolving governance needs.