The research, led by Serik Danyshbayev of Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, examined Kazakhstan’s regional public administration between 2021 and 2025 using a mixed-methods design combining official statistics, indicator normalization, index construction, and directed qualitative content analysis of digital platforms and administrative practices. The team’s central finding is stark: advanced digital service provision does not by itself constitute mature smart governance. Instead, regional maturity depends on connecting digital infrastructure and citizen interaction with managerial analytics, institutional coordination, human-resource capacity, and feedback-based policy adaptation.

Smart governance, as the authors conceptualize it, extends far beyond moving services online. It is a data-informed, adaptive, citizen-centric, and institutionally integrated model of public administration whose effectiveness depends on institutional capacity to use data, feedback, and coordination mechanisms to improve decision quality, responsiveness, transparency, and civic inclusion. The study operationalizes this through five core dimensions: digital-infrastructural readiness, service-administrative maturity, managerial-analytical capacity, citizen-centricity, and institutional-coordination strength. These form a sequential analytical logic in which digital access supports service use, service interaction generates data and feedback, analytics convert these inputs into knowledge, coordination translates knowledge into administrative decisions, and adaptive governance links decisions to changing public needs.

The quantitative evidence reveals persistent territorial asymmetry in the human foundations of digital maturity. In 2024, digital literacy ranged from 97.12 percent in Astana to 82.81 percent in North Kazakhstan Region, a gap of 14.31 percentage points. After normalizing these values to a common 0-to-1 scale, Astana and Almaty formed a clear upper cluster, while Mangystau, West Kazakhstan, and North Kazakhstan Regions remained below 0.17. A limited threshold-sensitivity check confirmed this polarization is robust: when classification boundaries shifted from 0.33/0.67 to 0.30/0.70 and then 0.40/0.60, none of the five explicitly reported regional observations changed their relative maturity segment or rank order.

Crucially, the study shows that Kazakhstan’s territorial divide now concerns digital capability rather than connectivity itself. Household internet access reached 97.1 percent nationally in 2024, up from 87.6 percent in 2018, with average annual growth slowing to 1.74 percent as infrastructure approaches saturation. The infrastructural foundation is largely established, while the human component of digital maturity remains unevenly distributed. This imbalance explains why some regions move quickly toward advanced digital interaction while others remain closer to a model of formal service digitalization, and why identical national platforms generate different governance outcomes across territories.

The citizen-facing metrics tell a story of impressive expansion. Public satisfaction with government services increased from 75.1 percent in 2020 to 92.0 percent in 2024, a rise of 16.9 percentage points. The eOtinish appeals platform, introduced under the Listening State concept to replace fragmented agency-specific reception channels, recorded more than 5 million submissions in 2025, roughly 25 percent more than the estimated 4 million in 2024. Kazakhstan’s E-Participation Index value also increased from 0.8068 in 2022 to 0.8493 in 2024, even as its ranking slipped from 15th to 27th, reflecting faster progress elsewhere rather than absolute decline.

Yet the study’s most striking analytical contribution is a metric the authors call analytical density: the ratio of analytically meaningful interactions to total digital transactions. Comparing the 5 million eOtinish appeals against the cumulative 516 million services delivered through eGov and eGov Mobile yields approximately 0.97 percent. In other words, appeals account for less than 1 percent of total digital service transactions, confirming that Kazakhstan’s digital architecture remains predominantly transactional rather than reflexive. Even if only 10 percent of appeals reflected recurring systemic issues, that would represent more than 500,000 analytically relevant cases annually, an extrapolation the authors offer as evidence of the vast untapped governance data sitting beneath routine service delivery.

The managerial-analytical dimension exposes the institutional bottleneck. Open-access official sources do not provide sufficiently unified regional tables that simultaneously reflect the use of dashboards, key performance indicators, predictive analytics, and appeals data across all regions. The authors treat this absence itself as an important research finding, pointing to an institutional mechanism of uneven transformation: data are increasingly generated at the platform level, but their managerial use is not yet standardized across regional administrations. To capture this dimension, the study developed an AI-Automation Integration Score coded on a five-level ordinal scale from 0 to 4, where level 0 indicates no verifiable evidence of AI or automation in regional workflows and level 4 represents integrated adaptive use in which intelligent tools support forecasting, risk detection, interagency coordination, and policy adjustment accompanied by transparency mechanisms.

Official policy signals confirm that Kazakhstan recognizes these deficits systemically. The Roadmap for the Development of State Statistics for 2024-2026 includes a dedicated direction on strengthening analytical capacity and expanding access to data, with a specific measure to train civil servants through a Dataliteracy program. The 2025 OSPORA initiative, implemented jointly with UNDP, assesses public organizations’ readiness for open-source transition while simultaneously organizing foundational training, a combination the authors interpret as implicit acknowledgment that the institutional environment for fully developed smart governance continues to evolve. OECD assessments similarly identify human-resource management, public-sector innovation, strategic planning, and whole-of-government coordination as priorities for further modernization.

The study’s methodological honesty is notable. The authors specify a complete mathematical architecture for a regional Smart Governance Index aggregating fifteen indicators across five dimensions with equal weights, but they report no complete five-dimensional score for every region because comparable data were unavailable. Doing so would have required imputing missing values, which they argue would reduce rather than improve the index’s transparency. Instead, they triangulate available quantitative anchors with documentary evidence to construct a provisional five-type maturity typology ranging from Constrained Digital Readiness to Ecosystem-Driven Adaptive Smart Governance, and a five-module explanatory model linking digital access, citizen-centered interaction, the data-to-decision core, institutional capacity, and the adaptive governance loop. The framework’s broader relevance extends to emerging digital states where national platform development may outpace subnational managerial and institutional capacity, offering a transferable assessment logic rather than a fixed regional ranking.

Subject of Research: Shaping the concept of smart governance in regional public administration: institutional mechanisms, digital maturity, and citizen-centricity

Article Title: Shaping the concept of smart governance in regional public administration: institutional mechanisms, digital maturity, and citizen-centricity

Article References: Shaping the concept of smart governance in regional public administration: institutional mechanisms, digital maturity, and citizen-centricity. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2026.1950322

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2026.1950322

Keywords: Shaping, concept, smart, governance, regional, public, administration, institutional, mechanisms, digital, maturity, citizen-centricity