Reforming Judicial Administration Funding: Public Finance, Digitalisation, and Institutional Independence in Kazakhstan
-
Dauren MURATBEKOV High Judicial Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
-
Murat ZHAKSYLYKOV Organization of Competitive Selection and Formation of the Personnel Reserve High Judicial Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
-
Kuanysh SALIMZHAN Department for the Assessment of the Status of Judicial Personnel High Judicial Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan
The modernization of Kazakhstan's judicial system requires improvements in judicial administration funding to enhance institutional capacity, public expenditure efficiency, and the sustainability of judicial governance. This study aims to assess long-term trends in justice-sector financing, evaluate the current funding approach from a public finance perspective, and develop a conceptual framework for reforming judicial administration funding.
The study is based on official statistics of the Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Records of the Prosecutor General's Office, and materials of the High Judicial Council for the period 2015–2025. The empirical analysis employs comparative analysis, econometric modelling, time-series forecasting, the Mann–Whitney test, the Durbin–Watson statistic, and regression analysis. Due to the limited availability of official long-term data on judicial administration expenditures, the study uses the volume of investigation and security services as a proxy indicator describing the broader financial environment of the justice sector.
The results indicate a significant nominal increase in this indicator from KZT 165.9 billion in 2015 to KZT 785.3 billion in 2025, reflecting expanding public financial resources allocated to justice-related activities. Trend analysis suggests continued growth; however, diagnostic tests reveal residual autocorrelation and structural changes associated with institutional reforms. The findings suggest that increasing financial resources alone may be insufficient to strengthen judicial administration without corresponding improvements in budget allocation mechanisms. Based on the exploratory findings and literature, the study proposes a conceptual framework for judicial funding reform based on workload, digitalisation, performance indicators, and medium-term budget planning.
The results contribute to the literature on public finance, judicial administration, and institutional economics while acknowledging the limitation associated with the use of proxy indicators instead of direct judicial expenditure data.
Copyright© 2026 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the license CC-BY 4.0., which permits any further distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Article’s history: Received 5th of July, 2026; Revised 26th of August, 2026; Accepted 10th of September, 2026; Available online: 30thof September, 2026. Published as research article in the Volume XXI, Fall, Issue 4(94), 2026.
Muratbekov, D., Zhaksylykov, M., Salimzhan, K., Bakytzhanova, G., & Sisenova, D. (2026). Reforming Judicial Administration Funding: Public Finance, Digitalisation, and Institutional Independence in Kazakhstan. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Volume XXI, Fall, 4(94), 1413 – 1437. https://doi.org/10.57017/jaes.v21.4(94).16
CRediT Authorship Contribution Statement: Muratbekov, D.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Zhaksylykov, M: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Salimzhan, K.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Bakytzhanova, G.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Sisenova, D.: Methodology, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgments/Funding: The authors received no external funding for this research. No additional acknowledgments are applicable.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Data Availability Statement: The study uses publicly available secondary and aggregate data from official sources of the Republic of Kazakhstan, including the Bureau of National Statistics and the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Accounts of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The empirical series analysed cover 2014/2015–2025, depending on the indicator. Source information is provided in the relevant tables and figures. Derived data and calculations are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Ethical Approval Statement: This study relies exclusively on publicly available secondary and aggregate data and does not involve human participants, personal data, animal subjects, or experimental interventions. Therefore, ethical approval was not required.
Belarouci, M., Ferrandino, M., & Falavigna, G. (2023). Measuring judicial conciliation efficiency using a bad-output DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 311(2), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.05.021
Bosio, E. (2023). A survey of judicial effectiveness: The last quarter century of empirical evidence. Policy Research Working Paper No. 10501, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10501
Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., & Alavoine, C. (2022). Data intelligence and analytics: A bibliometric analysis of human–artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making effectiveness. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121201
Falavigna, G., Ippoliti, R., Manello, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2015). Judicial productivity, delay and efficiency: A directional distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(2), 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.014
Falavigna, G., & Ippoliti, R. (2021). The impact of budget constraints on judicial efficiency: Evidence from Italian courts using directional distance functions. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 74, 100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100951
Godfrey, B., Richardson, J. C., & Walklate, S. (2022). The crisis in the courts: Before and beyond Covid. The British Journal of Criminology, 62, 1036–1053. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab110
Jiang, H. (2021). Smart urban governance in the “smart” era: Why is it urgently needed? Cities, 111, 103004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103004
Laptev, V. A., & Feyzrakhmanova, D. R. (2024). Application of artificial intelligence in justice: Current trends and future prospects. Human-Centric Intelligent Systems, 4, 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44230-024-00074-2
Mamak, K., Dudek, J., Koniewski, M., & Kwiatkowski, D. (2022). A failed attempt to radically reduce inter-court sentencing disparities by legislation: Empirical evidence from Poland. European Journal of Criminology, 19(5), 1165–1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820952729
Mathis, B., & Mussard, S. (2025). How information technology contributes to justice efficiency. European Journal of Law and Economics, 60(1), 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-025-09853-z
Mergel, I., Dickinson, H., Stenvall, J., & Gasco, M. (2023). Implementing AI in the public sector. Public Management Review, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2231950
Mohamed, H. M. I. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in enhancing justice: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Social Studies, 30(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.20428/jss.v30i1.2338
Păvăloaia, V.-D., & Necula, S.-C. (2023). Artificial intelligence as a disruptive technology - A systematic literature review. Electronics, 12(5), 1102. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051102
Peyrache, A., & Zago, A. (2016). Evaluating the efficiency of the Italian judicial system: A directional distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 251(2), 633–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.10.056
Peyrache, A., & Zago, A. (2012). Large courts, small justice! The inefficiency and the optimal structure of the Italian justice sector. CEPA Working Paper No. WP062012, School of Economics, University of Queensland.
Quezada-Tavárez, K., Vogiatzoglou, P., & Royer, S. (2021). Legal challenges in bringing AI evidence to the criminal courtroom. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 12(4), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844211057019
Razmetaeva, Y., & Razmetaev, S. (2021). Justice in the digital age: technological solutions, hidden threats and enticing opportunities. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2(10), 104-117. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.2-a000061
Rosselli, A. (2020). Judicial Independence and the Budget: A Taxonomy of Judicial Budgeting Mechanisms. Indiana Journal of Constitutional Design, 5(2), 67–113. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijcd/vol5/iss1/2
Rubin Gomez, A. (2021). Demand Side Justice. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 28(3), 411-436. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2385/?utm_
Schmitz, A. J. (2019). Expanding access to remedies through E-court initiatives. Buffalo Law Review, 67. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol67/iss1/3 .
Sedkaoui, S., & Benaichouba, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in justice systems: Challenges and opportunities for public governance. Information Development, 40(2), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231198240
Spalević, Ž., Milosavljević, S., Dubljanin, D., Popović, G., & Ilić, M. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in judicial systems. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 12(3), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-3-561-569
Shi, C., Sourdin, T., & Li, B. (2021). The smart court - A new pathway to justice in China? International Journal for Court Administration, 12(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367
Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.07.009
Sourdin, T., Li, B., & McNamara, D. M. (2020). Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis. Health Policy and Technology, 9(4), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.020
Viapiana, F. (2018). Pressure on Judges: How the Budgeting System Can Impact on Judge’s Autonomy. Laws, 7(4), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws7040038
Viapiana, F., & Fabri, M. (2019). Administration of justice and courts’ budget: An independence and a managerial issue. Public Sciences & Policies, 5(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.33167/2184-0644.CPP2019.VVN1/pp.53-68
World Bank. (2023). Supporting judicial reforms in Armenia: A forward look. Public Expenditure and Performance Review of the Judiciary in Armenia. World Bank.
Bureau of National Statistics of the Agency for Strategic Planning and Reforms of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (n.d.). Official statistics database. https://stat.gov.kz/
Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Accounts of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (n.d.). Criminal statistics indicators. https://qamqor.gov.kz/crimestat/indicators/criminal