Report No. 20489-KZ Kazakhstan Public Expenditure Review (In Three Volumes) Volume Ill: Annexes and Statistical Appendix June 27, 2000 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit Europe and Central Asia Region Document of the World Bank CURRENCY AND EQUIVALENT UNITS (As of December 31, 1999) Currency Unit: Tenge (T) Exchange Rate: US$1.00 = 0.00724 TI= US$138.20 Average Exchange Rate: Tenge per US$1 1997 1998 1999 75.44 78.30 119.52 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank AEP Agency for Economic Planning AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ASPR Agency for Strategic Planning and Reforms BOP Balance of Payment CHIF Compulsory Health Insurance Fund CHP Central Health Purchasing CIS Community of Independent States CIT Corporate Income Tax CMIF Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund CPC Caspian Petroleum Consortium CPI Consumer Price Index DFID Department for International Development (U.K.) FSU Former Soviet Union GDP Gross Domestic Product GFS Government Finance Statistics (IMF) Vice President Johannes Linn Country Director : Kiyoshi Kodera Sector Director : Pradeep Mitra Sector Leader Sanjay Pradhan Task Team Leader : Jogo C. Oliveira Bank Team Members Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, Kelly Edmiston, Rohit Malhotra, Sulaiman Wasty (Consultants), Aliya Mukhamedyarova, Arup Banerji (ECSPE), Kalanidhi Subbarao(PRMPO), Halil Dundar(ECSHD), Shiyan Chao(AFTH 1). Government Team Members: Zhanat Ertlesova, Elena Bakhmutova, Dinara Shaimardanova, Gulfairus Shaikakova, and Maulin Utengulov HIV Human immunodeficiency Virus IAAP Internationally Accepted Accounting Practices IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IEO International Energy Orgafiizaation (U.S. Dept of Energy) IMF International Monetary Fund INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions MOES Ministry of Education and Science MOF Ministry of Finance MSR Ministry of State Revenue MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework NBK National Bank of Kazakhstan NFC Normalized Fiscal Capacity NSA National Statistical Agency OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OSHF Oil Stabilization and Heritage Fund PAYGO Pay As You Go PEMS Policy and Expenditure Management System PHC Package Health Care PIP Public Investment Program PIT Personal Income Tax PSRMAL Public Sector Resource Management Adjustment Loan REF Regional Equalization Fund SAF State Accumulation Pension Fund SAI Supreme Audit Institution SAP Social Assistance Program SCI State Committee on Investment SEZ Special Economic Zones TIMSS Third International Mathematics Science Study UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund USAID U.S. Agency for International Development VAT Value Added Tax VTE Vocational and Technical Education WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organization  Ill CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................***. *********. *********...................*****vi Acknowledgem ent .................................................................................................................................... vii Annexes .........................................................................................................................................................1 Statistical Appendix................................................................................................................................... 53 u a vi ABSTRACT This is Volume III (Annexes and Statistical Appendix) of the Public Expenditure Review (PER) that has been prepared at the request of the Government of Kazakhstan. This PER builds upon the Bank's previous work on the country's transition experience to a market-oriented economyl and recent public sector reforms. This report aims at identifying key public expenditure issues and suggesting possible strategies and policy options. The PER is part of a capacity building effort to encourage the Government to independently carry out this exercise as a regular undertaking to effectively manage the country's public finances. Kazakhstan is a reforming economy in the process of completing a first generation of structural reforms (by consolidating institutions and policies towards liberalization and financial stabilization), and is on the verge of preparing a second generation of structural reforms aimed at sustainable economic growth. The country has made significant progress on liberalizing and stabilizing the economy, and on implementing important institutional reforms to discipline public expenditures by: a) adopting international classification and standard reporting systems; b) adopting budget ceilings by function, program and program manager; c) incorporating extra-budgetary funds into the budget; d) formalizing intergovernmental relations; e) formalizing a Budget Commission to guide the budget process; d) starting an incipient Public Investment Program; and e) establishing a National Treasury. Current outstanding public expenditure issues identified by the report as deserving particular attention from the Government include: a) persistent underlying fiscal imbalance; b) deficient domestic resource mobilization management; c) lack of reliable mechanisms for effective expenditure prioritization; d) inefficient budgetary execution, weak audit and lack of performance evaluation; e) deficient mechanisms of intergovernmental fiscal relations; f) inefficient public service delivery; and g) large disparities on per capita social expenditures (health, education, and social assistance) across regions. The report points out strategy options and policy reform that can, through programmed deficit reduction, converge the system to fiscal sustainability by: a) rationalizing domestic resource mobilization, mainly oil/gas rents, which preserve domestic savings, capital accumulation and development of non-oil sectors; b) focusing governmental actions only on few areas (of market failure and/or for equity reasons), by prioritizing programs on the basis of output/outcomes, multiyear budgeting, and performance evaluation; c) strengthening intergovernmental relations, by extending the scope and improving central coordination of fiscal decentralization, increasing autonomy and accountability of local managers and authorities, and reforming the tax sharing and transfer mechanisms; and d) increasing efficiency of spending and improving access and quality of public service delivery, by focusing social assistance exclusively on the poor, restructuring service facilities (including selective rehabilitation of basic infrastructures and equipment, and phased implementation of public service reform), and creating conditions for private initiative participation. 1 "Kazakhstan: Transition of the State", World Bank Country Study, 1997; "Kazakhstan: Living Standards During the Transition", World Bank Report no. 17520-KZ, 1998. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Public Expenditure Review is the result of a Bank-Government joint endeavor, where Government officials/staff were actively involved in discussions during Bank missions in June and September 1999, and June 2000. Besides the full support from the Kazakhstan authorities, this work heavily benefited from the direct and effective contribution by the following members of the government team: Zhanat Ertlesova, Elena Bakhmutova, Dinara Shaimardanova, Gulfairus Shaikakova, and Maulin Utengulov. The Bank team comprised Joiio do Carmo Oliveira (team leader), Aliya Mukhamedyarova, Arup Banerji, Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, Kelly Edmiston, Kalanidhi Subbarao, Sulaiman Wasty, Shiyan Chao, Halil Dundar, and Rohit Malhotra. Jariya Hoffman, run the RMSM-X model for the macroeconomic projections. Roman Solodchenko participated in the dissemination discussions and, with Zhanar Abdildina, revised the translation into Russian of the draft report. Ataman Aksoy and Kadir T. Yurukoglu provided substantive advice. Vinaya Swaroop, Jeffrey Hammer, and Roumeen Islam were peer reviewers. This report was written under the general guidance of Kiyoshi Kodera (Country Director), Pradeep Mitra (Sector Director), and Hafez Ghanem (Sector Manager). Valuable inputs and suggestions were received from Deborah Wetzel, Helga Muller, Amitabha Mukherjee, Anwar Shah, Friedrich Konigshofer, Maureen Lewis, Betty Hanan, John Langenbrunner, and Julia Devlin. The report was edited by Usha Rani Khanna and processed by Nancy Davies-Cole. ANNEXES ANNEX 1.1.....................................................................................................................................3 ANNEX 12 ......................................................................................................-......................... 8 ANNEX II ..................................................................................................................................... 20 ANNEX III....................................................................................................................................21 ANNEX IV .................................................................................................................................23 ANNEX IV-2 ................................................................................................................................. 24 ANNEX IV-3 ................................................................................................................................. 30 ANNEX IV 4 ................................................................................................................................. 35 2 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES IN THE ANNEXES FIGURES Figure Al. 1 Real GDP Growth Rates ................................................................................ 9 Figure AI.2 Evolution of the GDP Composition.............................................................. 9 Figure AI.3 D ebt and D ebt Service ......................................................................................11 Figure AI.4 Fiscal Account and Deficit.......................................................................... 13 Figure AI.5 Evolution of Effective Tax Structure............................................................18 TABLES Table AI.1 Structure of Public Expenditures, 1997-99 ...................15 Table AI.2 The Structure of Revenue, 1997-1999 ...................... .....17 Table All. 1 Projected Spending on Social Security and Social Assistance by Program Republican Budget, 1999-2000 .......... ...............20 Table AIII. I Planned vs. Actual Revenue Collections (January 1 - July 31, 1999)....................l... ..........21 Table AIII.2 Arrears of the State Government, 01.01.98 - 01.07.99 .......... ......22 Table AIV.1 Grouping of Oblasts by Indices for Oblast Budget Expenditures.................26 Table AIV.2 Per Capita Expenditure Ratios to the Average Republican Expenditures............................................27 Table AIV.3 Oblast Budget Expenditures in Terms of 1999.....................28 Table AIV.4 New Mechanism for Transfers to/from Oblasts, 1999-2001 ... ............29 Table AIV.5 Option 1: Mending the Current "Fraternal" System........................33 Table AIV.6 Option II: A Regional Equalization Fund (REF) ........... .........34 Table AIV.7 Expenditure Assignment in Kazakhstan in 1999 .......... ......................35 Table AIV.8 Expenditures by Function ........................................36 Table AIV.9 Revised 1999 Budget Expenditure ........................ .....37 Table AIV. 10 Expenditures by Function ............................. ......38 Table AIV. 11 Composition of Local Government Budgets.......................39 Table AIV.12 Per Capita Executed Budget Expenditure by Oblast.................40 Table AIV.13 Local Government Revenue Sharing in Total Collections ..... ........41 Table AIV.14a 1998 Composition of Local Revenues ................... ........42 Table AIV. 14b Composition of Local Revenues, First 6 Months of 1999 ... ..............43 Table AIV. 15 Per Capita Total Tax Revenues by Oblast ........................44 Table AIV.16 Concentration of Local Revenues among Oblasts .....................45 Table AIV.17 Subventions from the Republican Budget to the Oblast Budgets, 1997-2000 .............................................46 Table AIV. 18 Withdrawal from the Local Budgets to the Republican Budget, 1999-2000 ........................................ .....47 Table AIV.19a Local Sources of Financing, 1997.............................48 Table AIV.19b Local Sources of Financing, 1998..................... .........49 Table AIV.20 Source of Financing, Actual for the First 6 Months of 1999 ...... ......50 Table AIV.21 Budget Execution Performance at the Local Level..... ..... ........51 Table AIV.22 Budget Arrears at the Local Level ................. .........52 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 3 ANNEX 1.1 Structural Reforms During Transition 1. Kazakhstan has made important progress towards transforming its economy into a market-oriented system. The size of the government has been significantly reduced, and important economic and institutional reforms have been implemented. This progress, nevertheless, has been intermittent, and economic stability has been weakened by significant underlying fiscal and external imbalances. In fact, the recent international financial crisis (particularly the aftermath of the Russian crisis) and the drop in oil prices seriously affected the country's external imbalances, further aggravated the fiscal stance, and threatened growth prospects. The recent economic performance of the Kazakhstan economy is eloquent evidence of its fiscal weakness and vulnerability to external shocks. The country is in the process of completing its first generation of structural reforms by putting in place institutions and policies for financial stabilization, while preparing for implementation of a second generation of institutional and structural reforms aiming at economic recovery and sustainable development. A successful transition to this new phase will require continuing implementation of consistent reform policies, to avoid delays which can jeopardize sustainable growth. 2. This section takes stock of key structural reforms and policy changes implemented by the government during the transition process in the 1990s. Liberalizing the economy 3. Prices, interest rates and exchange rates. Price liberalization at the national level was practically completed by the mid-1990s. Maximum profit margins were also eliminated completely by 1995. During the second-half of the 1990s, producer price regulations for electricity, natural gas and thermal energy, and consumer prices for gas, electricity and telephone services-which were administered at the national level-and rents, utility fees (heating, water), and local transportation fares-which were administered at the regional (oblast) level-were largely reviewed and/or eliminated. To improve competition for the agricultural sector, the compulsory deliveries under the "state needs" system were removed by 1995, and agricultural product prices (including food) are in, principle, now market-determined. In the late 1990s, interest rates were liberated, and the exchange rate was allowed to float (see below). 4. Trade regime. The trade regime has been liberated, by the elimination of quantitative restrictions and review of the import tariff schedule. After the last tariff structure adjustment (July 1998), the average weighted tariff was lowered to about 9 percent, and tariffs exceeding 20 percent was reduced substantially. Despite these efforts of liberalization during the decade, the balance of payment crisis-which hit the country in late-i 998-ended-up in a sizeable real appreciation of the Tenge and in a setback of trade liberalization. The government conceded to domestic pressures and adopted temporary protectionist measures by re-imposing trade restrictions, including a ban on imports of food products from neighboring countries and high tariffs on food products, spirits, and tobacco. In April 1999, with the devaluation of the Tenge, a Annexes and Statistical Appendix 4 50 percent surrender requirement on export proceeds was also introduced.2 Nevertheless, Kazakhstan has carried on its negotiations on accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). 5. Financial sector. The inherited two-tier Soviet banking system practically disappeared in the years following independence, with a proliferation of new commercial banks. The government, however, maintained control of a number of banks-including the specialized banks for housing, rehabilitation, budget (created in 1996 to play the Treasury role)3, development, and Exim. By 1994, however, the total assets of the banking system were negative, because of non-performing loans, and a number of banks were undercapitalized and insolvent. 6. The banking reform started in the mid-1990s by the restructuring of the existing banks and by developing the legal and regulatory framework for healthy banking operations. The NBK role was restricted to providing temporary lender-of-last resort financing support, and to implementing banking reforms. Since then, NBK has reformed its supervisory practices, and focused on strengthening prudential regulation and improving the legal basis of the system. Also, a standardized reporting format and new chart of accounts for enterprises and commercial banks have been developed, and an Accounting Commission was established to approve and implement acccunting standards in line with Internationally Accepted Accounting Practices (IAAP). Presently, the regulatory role in the financial system has been played by the NBK, the National Securities Commission and the National Pension Agency. 7. In the last few years, Kazakhstan has liberalized and deepened the financial system further, by: (a) increasing the foreign ownership limit to 50 percent, from the initial 25 percent; (b) eliminating foreign exchange surrender requirements for exporters; (c) placing Treasury bills of longer maturity (initially three-months, and now two-year maturity); (d) creating overnight facility for Banks; (e) regulating the new (state and private) pension accumulation funds; (f) splitting the Stock Exchange into the Almaty Financial Instruments Exchange (for foreign currency trading) and the Kazakhstan Stock Exchange (for securities trading). 8. Rezulatory framework. While the general legal framework is still evolving, the basic requirements for the functioning of a market economy have been established and are under implementation. Since 1991, a Law on Competition and a Company Law exist (the latter was revised in 1998 in light of experience). In 1995, a Civil Code was passed clarifying property rights, and decrees concerning land, mortgages and registration of securities interests have been promulgated since then. While enterprise bankruptcy and liquidation in Kazakhstan are still long and arduous processes, since 1997, a Decree establishes creditor rights and procedures for business reorganization and out-of-court settlement. In 1998, amendments were approved extending application of the bankruptcy law to agricultural enterprises, and in 1999, a new draft law on property rights on land was submitted to Parliament. Moreover, aiming at fostering competition, a number of areas where previously service provision were exclusively performed by state entities-such as veterinary practice, industrial and fire safety, architecture and urban 2 The removal of these restrictions became a condition for the IMF Program at end-1999. Replaced later on with the Treasury Department itself. 4 With the assistance of the World Bank's "Financial Sector Adjustment Loan" (1996). Annexes and Statistical Appendix 5 planning, standardization and certification of products and services-were deregulated and opened to the private sector. Streamlining Government 9. State assets. Since independence, small and middle-sized enterprises were largely restructured (including privatization, rehabilitation, liquidation, management contract, strategic partnership). Also, many state entities underwent administrative transformation, especially in the public service delivery area, such as hospitals and clinics.' Moreover, a significant land reform took place by the creation of more than 90,000 private farms out of the 2,500 kolkhozs and sovkhozs. Since 1996, the scope of the state enterprise reform program has been widened by: (a) including in the privatization program strategic areas such as banking, social sectors, energy and metallurgy; and (b) stepping-up the program for restructuring or liquidating remaining loss- making enterprises. 10. Recently, significant progress has been achieved in the divestiture of state assets, except for the "Blue Chip" privatization program (the privatization of the very large enterprises) since end-1998, because of adverse conditions in international financial markets. In 1999, state enterprise ownership was divided into republican and local entities, and privatization responsibility for the latter was assigned to local governments. Notwithstanding the significant progress made in divesting and privatizing state assets so far, it has been estimated that the private sector in Kazakhstan accounts for only about half of the GDP, compared to about three- fourths in more advanced Eastern European and FSU reforming countries. 11. Public administration In 1998, a major restructuring of budgetary organizations took place by removing a series of state entities and transforming them into state or private enterprises. An important result of this transformation was that about 30,000 previously budget- funded employees were removed from the state budget payroll and shifted to the newly-created corporations. The Agency for Civil Service Reforms is currently preparing amendments to the Law on Civil Service, based on principles of: (a) clear separation between political and career appointments; (b) merit-based rules for accession to and progression in the civil service career; and (c) protection of career appointees from summary dismissal. 12. To support the rationalization of the civil service, a civil service census was conducted in 1998 with the results obtained in mid-1999. As a first step in the rationalization process, the number of civil servants (particularly in the central administration) was reduced by 16 percent at early 1999. The next step in the delayed rationalization process should include the subnational government level as well, and should consider a wage scale decompression, without increasing the wage bill, to allow the government to retain skilled personnel and those in managerial positions. 5 This transformation was supposed to provide the institutions with more administrative independence and authority to perform their roles. In reality, for political and bureaucratic reasons, such autonomy never materialized (see Chapters III and V). 6 "Private Sector Development Report", World Bank, forthcoming in 2000. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 6 13. Fiscal system. While challenges are still quite significant, it should be acknowledged that Kazakhstan has been taking important strides in reforming the structure and management of its fiscal system, including reformulation of the institutional setup, and establishment of policies and control instruments.7 The most outstanding reforms already implemented include: (i) putting in place a new tax structure and tax administration system, with the adoption of a modem Tax Code (1995), implementation of VAT (1995), and the establishment of the Ministry of State Revenue (1998) as a revenue coordinating body at the national level; (ii) restructuring the budget formulation process and coverage, involving: the creation of a Budget Department (1995); adoption of a new Budget System Law (1999); initiation of a three-year Public Investment Program (1998); establishment of a formal State Budget Commission (1999); better definition of the intergovernmental relationships (1999); the consolidation of the old PAYGO pension liabilities in the Republican budget and creation of an independent accumulation pension system (1998); elimination of all extra- budgetary funds (1999); adoption of international classification system (GFS/IMF); and changing the allocation approach from budgeting based on expenditure "norms" for the maintenance of public facilities towards an allocation system based on programs (1999); (iii) strengthening budgetary execution and control, by: reformulation of the procurement system (1998); and establishment of a National Treasury (1994), an Accounting Commission, and adoption of Laws on Local Governments and on Debt and Guarantees, which allows for a centralization of state payment/revenue through a single account of the Treasury at the NBK and limitation of fiscal powers of both republican and local governments. 14. Governance. Kazakhstan has made considerable improvements on the prevalence of the rule of law, on increasing transparency, on reducing excessive bureaucracy, and on combating corruption. Moreover, the authorities have acknowledged the need for further progress in this area both in government administration and the economy. The NBK and the Ministry of Finance have started publishing key economic information on a periodical and more regular basis, and important measures have been recently taken to increase transparency of public sector operations, such as: (a) the elimination of extra-budgetary funds and incorporation of the corresponding operations explicitly on budget; (b) adoption of a Budget System Law, a Local State Government Law, and a Law on Debt Guarantees which more clearly define the assignment of revenue sources and expenditure responsibilities between levels of government, and establish rules for public indebtedness. 15. Major areas still deserving improvement in governance include: (a) procedures adopted under the Law on State Support for Direct Investment (which provides fiscal incentives for specific industrial sectors); (b) the structure of contracts with oil/gas companies, including their financial/fiscal relations with Kazakhoil, NBK, and the Budget/Treasury (involving the rules, size and destination of signature bonuses, profit/production shares, royalties, taxation, and profit remittances); (c) the double subordination resulting from the relationship between central tax collectors and local governments, and implications of this on tax collection and accountability; 7 Past reforms and challenges that lie ahead in the fiscal area are identified and analyzed in detail from Chapter II onwards in this report. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 7 (d) the degree of undue interference of local chief executives on the process of issuing and controlling business licenses; and (e) the relationship of the OJSC ASTANA Finance with the local Astana city Budget. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 8 ANNEX 1.2 Recent Economic Developments 1. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union and independence in 1991, Kazakhstan has been characterized as a reform oriented country. The initial impact of reforms was dramatic over the domestic economy. The traditional heavy industries suddenly lost subsidies from and captive exports to the FSU, and were exposed to international market competition. A deliberate market economy strategy became the main thrust for future economic development. Structural and economic changes led to substantial and prolonged contraction in output and employment, and the general price level soared. Between 1990 and 1995, the country's GDP contracted by about 50% in real terms (33% between 1993-95), unemployment steadily increased from less than 1% in 1992 to 12% in 1995, and the inflation rate exceeded three digits between 1993 and 1994. 2. Nevertheless, the economy reacted positively to the stabilization and liberalization policy program introduced by the government in 1994, with inflows of foreign direct investments (mainly in extractive sectors, including hydrocarbon--oil and gas-and other minerals), as well as portfolio investments which rapidly picked up. Since 1996, the GDP growth rate became positive, unemployment has fallen steadily to less than 7 percent in 1998, and one digit inflation was reached in 1998 (from 12 percent in 1995, Table 1.1). 3. However, by late 1997 and early 1998, the previous reform package proved insufficient and the economy was not flexible enough to be able to adjust itself to the new international conditions; particularly to the drop in oil prices, the Russian crisis and the new international financial conditions posed by the difficulties faced by the emerging economies. Moreover, the domestic grain production shortfall compounded these external events, and exports revenues fell significantly in 1998 and 1999. External imbalances were aggravated during this period, with the worsening in the trade balance and current account, while both foreign direct and portfolio investments dwindled. With the sharp deterioration in the overall balance of payment conditions, the country's external debt increased significantly. 4. Notwithstanding these external imbalances, the National Bank of Kazakhstan (NBK) continued, during a period to basically pursue an unsustainable policy of defending the value of the Tenge. As a consequence, the real exchange rate appreciated 30% between 1995 and 1998, in relation to the US$, and the current account deficit steadily increased from 3% in 1995 to more than 5% in 1998. The real GDP growth rate was negative in 1998 (-2.5%). In April 1999, the Tenge was devalued by 30% in terms of foreign currency (dollar) and a floating exchange rate policy was adopted since then. In the meantime, the fiscal deficit continued to be high, being mainly financed by privatization proceeds and external borrowings. As a consequence, the country's external debt/GDP ratio increased to about 50 from 21 in 1995-96. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 9 5. Although the risks are still high, better macroeconomic prospects may be anticipated with the expected recovery of oil prices, which started in the fourth quarter of 1999, and oil production and export prospects for the near future if the opening of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) to the port of Novo-Rossisk on the Black Sea can be concluded as planned until 2001. 6. During transition, the dramatic structural and economic changes had an enormous negative impact on government revenue and on public expenditures, seriously affecting social conditions. Facing the scarcity of resources, and in its effort to transform the socialist system to a market-oriented economy, the government has made important strides towards rationalizing public spending. However, the transition has been arduous, with serious social consequences in many areas. Apparently the costs of adjustment have been unevenly distributed (both personally and regionally), poverty has increased, and the main indicators for health and education have either stagnated or deteriorated. Life expectancy and basic education gross enrollment rates, for instance, have fallen in the last decade (Table 1.1, and Chapter V). The Real Economy 7. A significant change is taking place in the structure of Kazakhstan's real economy and the country is now facing a major issue concerning future sources of growth and the use of resources. During the first half of the 1990s the level of activity of all sectors, except services, shrank drastically as a consequence of restructuring efforts (Tables B. 1 and B.2). Since the mid-1990s, the industrial sector started showing some recovery, partially as a response to the government's privatization program, but also led by an increasing dominance of the extractive sectors (hydrocarbon, and other minerals). Some recovery has occurred in manufacturing, particularly in semi-processed metals. Agriculture, the largest employer, except for the year 1999, had had a systematic collapse since independence. Among the other formal sectors, construction (led by housing and transport, in the period 1997-98) and services (which has rapidly increased its share from about one-fourth of GDP in 1993 to about 40 percent by the end of the decade) have also experienced some recovery recently. Figure Ai.1: Kazakhstan: Real GDP Growth 300 Fgure AL2: Kazakhsta: Evolution of the GOP 250 composum (at norni cod) 200 40 0 I00 t00 r s .150 05 _MO 0'mmo~eQ~~.ifdww 0S~c.£Ow Annexes and Statistical Appendix 10 8. Presently, apart from the oil sector, the most thriving activity in Kazakhstan's economy is the informal sector (estimated to be about one-fourth of the formal GDP), especially in services. Continuing current real economic trends, the country may have to face in the near future the risks of: (a) developing a lopsided economic structure-based on "enclave" sectors with little income and employment multiplying effect to the rest of the economy-while swiftly depleting the country's non-renewable resource basis; (b) accentuating the external vulnerability of the economy for being increasingly dependent on an extractive activity (oil/gas)--exposed to large fluctuations of international prices and with the threat of a "Dutch disease" effect (appreciation of the real exchange rate) disrupting the domestic economic activities, and the creation of employment and income; and (c) allowing the development of a large, widespread informal sector not properly integrated to the tax system, which may jeopardize the financing structure of a reasonable public expenditure program for the maintenance and development of infrastructure and social sectors. The Balance of Payments and Foreign Debt 9. Since the mid-1 990s, oil production has played an increasing role in Kazakhstan's exports and Balance of Payments. It has been the most dynamic export component, and has jumped from 19 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999, and it is being projected to represent about 40 percent in the year 2000 (Table B.5). Despite this performance of oil exports, the country's resource balance has been deteriorating in the past few years; from -0.7 percent of GDP in 1996 to -4.5 percent in 1998. This is explained by the substantial increase in imports, partially because of equipment imports for the oil extracting enterprises themselves (financed by foreign direct investments in oil field development and exploration), and also because imports in general had increased, especially for construction, including for the new capital, Astana. 10. Current account deficit has deteriorated significantly in the second half of the 1990s, from -3.1 percent of GDP in 1995 to -5.4 percent in 1998. Since the early 1990s, increases in interest on foreign debt have also contributed to this increase in current account deficit. In spite of considerable debt relief from Russia in 1996 (about US$1.3 billion), interest on foreign debt increased from 0.1 percent of GDP in 1993 to 1.1 percent in 1998. The capital account has benefited the most from foreign direct investment, reflecting resources from privatization and foreign investment by oil companies. The second important item is medium- and long-term credits, mainly represented by government multilateral loans and, more recently, by direct placement of bonds in the international private capital market at high cost. Portfolio investment was an important source of financing of the BOP for the 1996-98 period, but became a hindrance in 1999. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 11 Figure AI.3: Kazakhstan: Debt and Debt Service 60.0 50.0 . . . . . . . . . ~40.0- 20.0 100 " 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 EAbnate ga - E DeW GDP) Extemal Debt Sery.( ofex) 11. As a consequence of these imbalances-including the continuous external financing of the fiscal deficit and the impact of the 1999 exchange devaluation of 30 percent of the Tenge in April 1999-Kazakhstan's total foreign debt has escalated from only 3 percent of GDP in 1993 to about 50 percent in 1999. This is an indication that fiscal sustainability may be reaching its limit, and the government may consider reverting these trends soon if future economic development is to be preserved. Prices and the Monetary Policy 12. Since the mid-1990s, Kazakhstan has been quite successful in keeping inflation under control. By and large, until the beginning of the Asian financial markets turmoil in late 1997, monetary policy had made progress by stabilizing most of the financial market indicators. The improvement in economic performance, the effective implementation of the privatization policy, the initial financial sector reforms and the improved financial situation of the enterprises, encouraged the banking system to respond to the increased demand for money, and credit to the economy expanded (in 1997 only, 9 percent in real terms). The government also succeeded in placing its short-term Treasury bills in the domestic market and with the issuance of Eurobonds in September/ October 1997. These factors contributed to substantially increasing the net international reserves of the NBK, reducing the interest rates (both the NBK reference rate and the commercial banks'), and steadily reducing inflation from the mid- 1 990s four digits rate to around 11 percent in 1997. 13. From late 1997/early 1998, the spillover effects of the Asian crisis on the Russian Ruble and its devaluation, the drop in the international oil price and the bad agricultural harvest of 1998 adversely affected the country's terms of trade and the balance of payments. The Tenge rapidly appreciated both in relation to the ruble and to the dollar, and the financial situation worsened particularly from the third-quarter of 1998, since the Annexes and Statistical Appendix 12 NBK continued defending the value of the national currency (basically through a downward crawl of the nominal exchange rate) by heavily intervening in the foreign exchange market. Nevertheless, between the last quarter of 1997 and March 1999, the demand for Tenge-denominated assets dropped considerably and the NBK lost about 40 percent of its net international reserve (about US$600 million), and broad money velocity increased substantially. However, as the NBK held a tight monetary policy, the expansion of net domestic assets during 1998 and in 1999 ended up being negative and the interest rates rose,8 leading to an economic contraction in 1998 (-2.5 percent). 14. In April 1999, the NBK announced a shift to a free-floating exchange regime and, after a few days of extreme volatility, the market exchange rate stabilized (to around T145/US$ rate by end 1999, compared to the end-March T88/US$ rate). Notwithstanding an accompanying package of temporary restrictive policies that was initially put in place (on financial assets, foreign exchange surrender, trade restrictions, and price controls), the government of Kazakhstan has displayed its commitment to structural and economic reforms, including financial deepening, while maintaining strict monetary control (see Section A, Chapter I). Consequently, despite significant changes in the monetary policy during 1999, the inflation rate for the year was kept below 8.4 percent (year average). Public Finance 15. Public deficit and indebtedness. Since independence, government spending in Kazakhstan has systematically exceeded revenues, revealing an underlying fiscal deficit between 4 percent and almost 9 percent of GDP, entailing substantial public sector borrowing requirements (Figure 1.3, Chapter I). Until 1994, fiscal deficits had essentially been financed through monetary expansion by the Central Bank, with a highly detrimental effect on the rate of inflation during the period. Since then, the National Bank of Kazakhstan (NBK) has adopted a more independent monetary policy, and fiscal deficits have basically been financed either by the proceeds from privatization of state assets or by foreign loans, since the domestic financial market for Treasury bills is only a recent development, and still quite small (Table B.7). 8 NBK average reference rate for 1998 was 25%, while inflation was 7.3%. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 13 Figure AI.4: Kazakhstan: Fiscal Account and Deficit 350 P e 3o0 c 250 e n 200 0 50 00 D -5.0 -100 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199 1996 1997 1998 199 OTtI. rev. and .Exp.&N.Lend.(incl.exzOverall budget 16. So far, several informal expedients have been used to accommodate a situation of high levels of public deficit, but with a negative impact to the restoration of a healthy public sector and functional market economy. Payment arrears to providers (civil servants and suppliers) have been a temporary, but frequent expedient, that have badly affected the quality of service delivery and the credibility of the social service systems (health, education, and social assistance).9 Accumulated cross-indebtedness among private and state entities (enterprises, autarkies, and central and local public administrations) has also been an issue arising from the excess of government spending over its revenues. Sometimes this issue has been resolved through unplanned, undesirable accounting offsets, practically rolling back prices as a market valuation mechanism.10 17. Therefore, a substantial improvement in the fiscal stance is paramount and urgent, and can be justified on the following grounds: (a) seigniorage is not a relevant source of government financing in Kazakhstan, since demand for money is low, probably because the memory of hyperinflation still present; (b) privatization receipts that have financed about half of the fiscal deficit since 1996 are limited, and their main sources have almost been exhausted; (c) financial domestic savings are also low, and a market for Treasury bills is still under development; and (c) the country's foreign indebtedness is increasing too fast, and soon will represent an unaffordable burden to the government budget, before the country's exclusion from international financial market becomes a reality.' 9 See Chapter V for detailed financial analysis on these sectors. 10 See Chapter III. " Total debt is about 50 percent of GDP, while the public debt alone is about 30% of GDP. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 14 18. Until the mid-1990s the public sector borrowing requirement basically coincided with the government primary deficit (excluding interest on public debt), because the public debt was not high by that time'2. However, as a consequence of persistent deficits and its recent financing structure, interest on public debt has increased its share from the government budget to about 4 percent in 1999, from 2.7 percent in 1997-already approaching some traditionally indebted middle-income countries (Table Al. 1). 19. Expenditure performance. Besides the feedback effect of the debt on the budget, the economic structure of public expenditures has also changed substantially during transition. Particularly in recent years, authorities have made a consistent effort to re- prioritize expenditures and transform the role of the government in the economy.13 As a result of privatization of state assets and enterprise restructuring, the weight of subsidies to loss-making enterprises has been reduced considerably (Table ALI.). On the other hand, the share of transfers in the government budget has increased steadily in the past few years as a consequence of the elimination of extra-budgetary funds, and acknowledgement of the obligations with the old solidarity pension system and special social assistance programs. The latter was a result of the reform of the social protection system (including pensions, healthcare, unemployment, and social assistance). In spite of these transformations, Kazakhstan still compares reasonably well with the international experience on its "subsidies and transfers" spending (about 7 percent of GDP, and 30 percent of the budget). 20. Kazakhstan spends more on "goods and services", and less on "capital" than its comparators. While the monetary salaries of civil servant are quite low, public sector employment is still high (particularly at the local level), absorbing about one-fourth of the total expenditure (which is higher than the international standards), particularly in comparison to middle-income countries. Therefore, in this area, there is a problem with the relative size of the wage bill on the budget, associated to over-employment, coexisting with a low morale of workers who are poorly paid.14 According to official statistics, capital expenditure, however, is much lower than its international comparators, although at least part of "net lending" (which in Kazakhstan is too high) may be state capital expenditures, since it consists of: (a) direct lending to lower level governments and enterprises (including on-lending and re-lending to non-performing agents), supposedly for investment expenditures anyway; and (b) assumption by the state of significant debt service obligations on account of past official guarantees on loans granted to both state and private enterprises' investments. 21. With regard to net lending outlays, recording procedures have not been transparent enough to permit a real evaluation of the nature of financial operations that the state has been involved in. It is not entirely transparent, for example, how public investments and guarantees provided by the state through the now off-budget open joint- company ASTANA FINANCE for the construction of the new capital, Astana, has been 12 Even before the Russian debt relief in 1996 (US$1,3 billion). 13 For a detailed analysis on this, see Chapter II and III. 14 Certainftinge benefits (especially housing) still exist in the Kazakhstan public service. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 15 accounted for.15 While it seems reasonable to accept that public investment during transition was very low, proper accounting and more transparency of the net lending operations is an urgent requirement to improve the understanding of public capital expenditures in Kazakhstan. Table ALI: Kazakhstan: Structure of Public Expenditures, 1997-99 Comparator 1 Comparator 2 Average. M.odle-income High-income 1997 tExec) 1998 _Exec ; 1999 (Budger) 1997-99 Countnes Countr.es GOP "- Exp % GDP 'i Exp -i GDP Exp * GDP % Exp % GDP,, Exp - GDP p Etp Economic Structure 205 1000 21 9 1000 26 1 1000 228 100.0 24 1 100 0 39 1 100 0 Current expenditure i6 7 S8 4 18 1 82 7 226 87 3 19.1 83.8 19 0 78 9 36 2 92 5 Goods ard services 11 2 5A 7 100 45 8 12 5 505 11.2 50.3 8 5 35 ' 18 0 460 Wages and salanse 60 290 53 244 45 165 5.3 23.3 29 122 69 22 Other gooas and ser-zes 53 25 7 47 21 5 79 329 6.0 270 4 1 170 85 2. 8 Interest on debt 0.6 2.7 0.8 3.7 1.1 39 0.8 3.4 1.0 4,3 44 11.2 S.bsawes ana transfers 4,9 24.0 7.3 33.2 9.0 329 7.1 30.0 9,5 39,5 138 35.3 Sabsales 1.3 84 08 3.8 0.3 1.1 0.8 3A Trsfs rom.st nousaenoias 3.5 17.3 64 29.3 87 31.7 6.2 26.1 Other subsides rsfs 0.1 0A 0.0 0.1 00 0.1 00 0.2 CapItaSepena,tures 18 8.7 12 10.0 1,8 67 1. 8.6 4.4 18.1 29 7A f Net lena.ng 19 9,3 1,6 7.2 1.6 6,0 1.7 7.6 0.2 0.8 Adjustments 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 2.2 0.1 Functional Structure 263 100.0 24.6 100.0 26.1 100.0 26.7 100.0 23.9 100.0 391 100,0 Defense and Publ,order 2.8 10.5 2.9 11.8 2.8 10.8 2.8 11.0 1.5 6.5 4.7 12.0 Education 4.4 16.7 40 16.3 443 16.3 4,2 16.4 2.4 10.1 4.9 12.5 Health 28 10,$ 21 8.5 2.9 11,3 2.6 10.1 17 7.0 5.1 13,1 Social security, wetfare and housing 9.0 34A 7.2 29.2 9.8 37A 8.7 33.7 7,0 29.3 11.2 287 Economic services 2.9 10.9 24 9.9 3.5 13.2 2.9 11.3 84 26.7 3.7 9,4 Other government services 4,5 17.0 6.0 24.4 2.9 11.0 4A 17.6 4,9 20,4 9.5 24,3 , .RCE thir ina nceed YWrdBankMsar Tre funtonal CassfiCao C.Onvdei ine coa nghdo ar f sate %I" alce balan Ecei B..ge.irLn Ld" S'CouWL3 EAWr-Bu0s*gear0 F..Ml e istawne i 1 991e *:URU'-a-iE r x,- ,.M.~.E aWM.F4D ioSamm *e , s o 48 1an IM "Aages at *Crier goos ad W4WACe8 . 'r a13 wo 10 oCai ana Servei onAuse tnree co.tres oA of ve tora e.grmeen . irie saroe on naw rows me.:.vreporan Dreaaoo. asrner for *mprna rorence Deieen .ntergo,r0len a ai a ranfer s 22. The functional structure of public expenditures in Kazakhstan has differed from its comparator due to its relatively higher share of the social sectors. The share of government expenditures in social sectors has been relatively protected from cuts and still compares favorably to international standards. As a share of total expenditures, health, education and social security and welfare are actually more similar to high-income countries, than to its middle-income comparator. As a percent of GDP, Kazakhstan's spending in the social sectors is between those of the high- and middle-income countries. Therefore, apparently the problem is not so much a question of inadequate allocation of scarce public resources to the social sectors (i.e., prioritization for health, education, and social assistance) at the aggregate level, but rather a question of policy implementation and efficient use of resources at the level of facilities delivering public services (Chapters V). 23. All in all, during this phase of the transition process, the Kazakhstan government seems to be driving allocation of its spending in directions which deserve special attention: (a) compared to revenue collection, overall spending is too high, which requires some sort of adjustment to eliminate the deficit, since public debt build up has reached its 15 Previously to 1999, ASTANA FUND was a line in the budget. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 16 limits; (b) interest on debt, although not yet alarming, seems to be increasing too fast and may soon be a major problem for macroeconomic stability; (c) the share of the wage bill is too high compared to western standards, due to excessive public employment since wages are low; (d) capital expenditure, which was neglected during transition, should be selectively recovered in order to preserve the existing basic infrastructure to sustain economic recovery and growth; and (e) social expenditures have been relatively protected during transition, and situates between the middle and high income country standards. Overall, on both economic and functional composition, aggregate allocative efficiency of public expenditures is apparently faring well, although it is urgent to proceed with public service reform (including healthcare and education sectors, especially at the subnational government level), and improve intra-sectoral allocation and management in terms of their efficiency and equity aspects at the service delivery level (see Chapters II to V).16 24. Revenue Performance. Like other Eastern European and FSU countries, the government of Kazakhstan has faced serious problems in transforming its financing structure: from the previous system of more direct profit transfer from state enterprises to a new indirect system entirely based on tax payments by the contributor. With the acceleration of the privatization program, state assets have been transferred to the private sector and both enterprises and individuals have quickly become contributors and had to be treated accordingly; as independent taxable entities. At the beginning of the transition process, a considerable amount of tax revenue was lost because activities conducted by the private sector are more difficult to tax. Moreover, the central tax administration is still learning how to manage the right incentives and policies in order to maximize tax collection in a market system, and how to balance revenue assignments between the center and subnational governments to reach proper fiscal vertical and horizontal balances.'7 16 Compared to most Eastern European and FSU countries, Kazakhstan also fares well. The share of public expenditure in GDP in Kazakhstan is not so high, and the structure of public resource allocation is a,pparently less distorted. See Chapter IV. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 17 Table AL2: Kazakhstan: The Structure of Revenue, 1997-1999 (per cent of GDP 19o,, 199 1999 9Ig - _comparators iteculed F Ne..Ild Hud*cr li rate R.Lii..i . P. L.d Total rev & grant% 2. , I v163.3 Total revenue 24 2 21 i 23I Current rr%enur ' 6' 7 19.5 ra%resenue 19' 165 18.3 182 229 JbI 3m1 Iji-income. profis.. cap gin o '0 J. .143 r. Cororate 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.2 43 19 3.1 Social tax e 7.3 4.0 3.7 5.1 6,6 13,6 10.8 Taxs on property L3 13 14 1.3 Dom.taxtsgds&Sv. 5,$ 6.6 7.7 6.6 8'8 110 12.4 V.A.TJsalostaues I5 4,7 5.1 4.4 6.4 7.7 8.1 Excises 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.2 24 3.3 4.3 Use ofnat'resources 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Bus.&proflicemses 0.2 03 05 03 Other 03 - - 0.1 Trade Tax 0,5 06 0.6 0.5 0.7 17 2.6 Other taxes 0.1 00 0.9 0.3 Nontaxrevenue LO L. .9 1.3 Capitai revenued 15 4.0 3,3 3.6 Grants 0.0 0.3 OJ 0.1 FOuRCE Min,%r. of Finane and Wor'd Bank s7aft ensl.cAaea of r-wo Decar. Dagem k-cal D.rtges ar esta->t wgear %uds SOURCE %Vo.a Ecor-.cn ,io IMF Mav 1%8 Saca lax irodiired .n 1999 Before resAources firo- eA1ra-Didgea ery lu,I5 Mainly pvatization proceeds of SOE 25. During the second half of the 1990s, Kazakhstan has made considerable progress in designing and implementing a tax system more appropriate to a market economy. Its Tax Code, adopted in 1995, was at the time considered an outstanding achievement for the region. In substitution for old SOE's profit remittances to the budget and complex turnover taxes, a system now exists of corporate and personal income taxes, value added tax (VAT), excise taxes, and payroll tax, as well as local taxes on property and fees on business (see Chapter IV). However, this system is still under-performing, both because of weak policy incentives and compliance problems. The system is still subject to feeble administration, disciplinary problems (dual subordination of tax inspectors to the center and oblast governments), lack of coordination with customs administration, excessive tax exemptions and privileges. Moreover, the system is not yet entirely transparent, particularly on how the rent associated with natural resources (mainly oil and gas) is appropriated by the state budget (see below). 26. Consequently, although in general nominal tax rates are quite high in Kazakhstan, the effective tax collection is low (Table AI.2), both by international standards and in comparison to other transition countries. Excluding social security contributions (now "social tax", which used to be an off-budget employer's payroll contribution for pension)18 the average tax revenue/GDP ratio for the period 1997-99 was about 13 percent, compared to 16 percent in Russia, 22 percent in Hungary, and 27 percent in Poland. ' The pension system was transformed in 1998-99 into an independent capitalization system, and the previous 31 percent payroll contribution was transformed into 10 percent workers' contribution to the new independent (non-budget) system, and 21 percent employers' payroll contribution ("social tax") to the budget (assigned to local budgets). The implementation of pension reform started in 1998, with amendments in early 1999. In late 1999, the employer's payroll tax was also modified by an additional 5 percent rate on the employer's payroll tax, but the latter assigned to the republican budget. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 18 Figure AI.5: Kazakhstan: Evolution of Effective Tax Structure 100% 50% 20% 10% 0% 1907 1998 199 U Ixv- prots cap gam 0 Soca tax 0 Taxes on property E3 Dor tBxeqds84v 0 Trade Tax 0 Or taxes 27. The tax revenue in the consolidated bud et (including extra-budgetary funds) has shown a declining trend in the last three years. Nevertheless, despite the expansion of the informal sector in the economy, the performance of domestic taxes (particularly VAT and Excises) has been improving. Nonetheless, this improvement in VAT and excise performance has not been sufficient to compensate for the losses in other taxation areas. As a percentage of GDP, the consolidated budget lost half of the social tax revenue, and one-fifth of the income tax revenue (both corporate and individual), mainly as a result of the recent pension reform, and low tax compliance, respectively. Trade tax has been low and stagnated, because of the difficulties in controlling the extensive and porous borders of the country. "Other taxes" (mainly tax arrears receipts) have fluctuated with tax collection efforts, but have also been small. 28. Apart from efficiency aspects and moral hazard incentives that this performance establishes, tax incentives and tax holidays have been a constant factor seriously affecting the overall performance of tax revenue in Kazakhstan. For every tax revenue item shown in Table AI.2, Kazakhstan's effective collection compares much lower than the comparators, which is an indication that considerable room exists for better resource mobilization in the country, especially by broadening the tax base and improving tax administration. 29. Non-tax revenue has increased during the last three years, but apparently rent of state properties does not seem significant, although state properties are still large. Finally, a fairly significant source of public sector financing in Kazakhstan has been privatization proceeds (3.6 percent of GDP in "capital revenue", Table AI.2). This is, '9 In 1998, it fell in nominal terms to T285 billion, from T330 billion in 1997. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 19 nevertheless, a temporary source of financing, and should be considered by the government as the result of a mere public asset restructuring rather than a regular revenue source that could be freely spent on current public needs. Moreover, as public investment has been much lower than privatization receipts, one can conclude that privatization receipts have indeed been financing current expenditures. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 20 ANNEX II TABLE All.1 Projected Spending on Social Security and Social Assistance by Program Republican Budget, 1999-2000 % Change 1999 1999 2000 1999-2000 Projected Annualized Planned Annualized Social Security 139,883,498 142,887,008 137,749,946 (3.6) Pensions 102,271,404 102,271,404 100,489,617 (1.7) Social Benefits 27,186,045 27,186,045 21,887,077 (19.5) Special State Benefits 9,010,531 12,014,041 13,862,475 15.4 olw miners and other workers retired from hard labor conditions - - 300,000 Other 1,415,518 1,415,518 1.510,777 6.7 Social Assistance 494,500 494,500 16,924 (96.6) Social Security and Social 869,833 869,833 1,639,031 88.4 Assistance Service TOTAL 141,247,831 144,251,341 139,405,901 (3.4) *Special State Benefits were funded by the Local Budgets during the first three months of 1999. SOURCE: Ministry of Finance, 2000 Budget Annexes and Statistical Appendix 21 ANNEX III Table AIII.1 Planned vs Actual Revenue Collections (January I - uly 31, 1999) Planned Actual Difference Actual as% of Planned Tax Revenues 195,753 182,770 (12,983) 93.4 Income Taxes 44,899 46,511 1,612 103.6 Corporate income tax 22,450 26,818 4,368 119.5 Individual income tax 22,449 19,694 (2,755) 87.7 Social Tax 40,722 40,722 - - Property Taxes 17,208 17,257 49 100.3 Domestic Taxes on Goods and Services 79,681 70,286 (9,395) 882 VAT 56,242 51,146 (5,096) 90.9 Excises 17,138 10,330 (6,808) 60.3 Receipts from use of natural resources 202 4,480 4,278 2217.8 Business and professional licenses 6,100 3,992 (2,108) 65.4 Road tax 337 337 Taxes on International Trade and Transactions 6,784 6,289 (495) 92.7 Other Taxes 6,339 1,308 (5,031) 20.6 Non-Tax Revenues 22,636 12,379 (10,257) 54.7 Revenues from Capital Transactions 2,820 29,447 26,627 1044.2 Total 221,209 224,596 3,387 101.5 Total Excluding Capital Transactions 218,389 195,149 (23,240) 89.4 SOURCE: U.S. Agency for International Development Annexes and Statistical Appendix 22 TABLE Alll.2 Arrears of the State Government, 01.01.98 - 01.07.99 (mil Teng) January I January 1 July 1 1999 % Change % Change 1998 1999 1/98 - 7/99 1/99 - 7/99 Local Budgets 28,917 31,672 33,731 16.6 6.5 o/w salaries 3,447 1,829 2,382 (30.9) 30.2 Republican Budget 8,088 12,748 29,292 262.2 129.8 o/w pensions - - 10,519 o/w social benefits - - 7,412 Former Extra-Budgetary Funds 7,136 11,543 11,543 61.8 - Social Insurance Fund 4,606 6,534 6,534 41.9 - Employment Fund 1,953 3,209 3,209 64.3 - Road Fund 578 1,800 1,800 211.4 - Other* 664 664 State Total 44,141 56,627 75,231 70.4 32.9 * Sanatorium and Rehabilitation due to Ministry of Internal Affairs SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 23 ANNEX IV.1 The 1999 Law on Local State Government20 1. This law regulates relations within local governments and determines competence, organization, and procedures for the activities of the executive bodies of local governments, the Akimats, and the legislative bodies, the Maslikhats. The head of the executive (or Akimats) is the Akim who is the representative of the President. 2. The President of the Republic appoints the Akim of the oblast upon nomination by the Prime Minister. Akims can be removed only by the President and they serve until a new President is elected. The Akim appoints and dismisses the deputy Akim on agreement with the central government. He also appoints and dismisses the heads of departments and divisions of the Akimat. The Akims of rayons and towns are appointed and removed according to the procedures established by the President. Until now, they have been appointed by the Oblast's Akim. 3. The Maslikhats are elected by secret ballot for a period of four years. Their function is mainly to approve local budgets. Draft resolutions providing for the reduction of revenues or increase in expenditures of local budgets can be submitted for consideration of the Maslikhat only after there is no objection by the Akimat. 4. Maslikhats can pass a vote of no-confidence on the Akim by a two-thirds majority vote. This vote raises a question to the President (or higher Akim) about the dismissal of the Akim. The no-confidence vote on the Akim has to be preceded by the non-approval twice of reports on the local budgets or other local matters presented by the Akimat. 5. This Law requires that all decisions at the subnational level must be "market- preserving:" In particular, they should not "...obstruct the formation of a single labor market, capital and financial markets, and the free exchange of goods and services within the Republic of Kazakstan." 20 There is the draft Law under review in the parliament, which proposes regulating the relationships and functions of the fourth tier of government involving local communities such as villages (auls) and settlements. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 24 ANNEX IV.2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER RESOLUTION No. 529/99 METHODOLOGY 1. The actual working of the government's proposed methodology contained in its Resolution 529 of May 4, 1999 consists of the following steps. In the first step, oblasts are grouped into three categories which can be interpreted as having different expenditure needs.21 This is done by taking into account natural and climatic conditions (temperature, level of desertification and salinization) but also other factors such as the incidence of highly contagious diseases, length of roads, and so on. Oblasts in each category are given an index value. The majority of oblasts with typical natural and climatic conditions (seven oblasts plus Almaty city) were put in the first group with an index value of 1.0. The second group, those oblasts with harsher conditions, were assigned an index value over 1.0 (Akmola oblast, Atyurau and Mangystau with an index value of 1.15, and Kzyl- Orda, 1.10). The third group, those oblasts with relatively more favorable natural and climatic conditions, were assigned an index value below 1.0 (Almaty oblast and Zhambyl with an index value of 0.90, and South Kazakstan 0.85) (Table AIV.1). The critical function for the index values is to fix the long-term divergence in expenditures per capita to be achieved at the end of a period of three years.22 The goal is not complete equalization of expenditures per capita. Instead, expenditures per capita are allowed to differ to reflect differences in expenditure needs arising from natural and climatic conditions and the other factors considered. 2. The second step consists of deriving a matrix of coefficients to be applied in the computation of expenditures and subventions and withdrawals (Table AIV.2). The rows of the matrix are the oblasts. In the first column of the matrix are the ratio of per capita expenditure in the oblast budget to the average per capita for all oblasts combined for 1999.23 The first column, therefore, describes the current structure of per capita expenditures on which the transfer mechanism is based. The third column is the approximate value of the index values in step one so that they have an average value equal to 1. This third column reflects the target structure of per capita expenditures that the transfer mechanism intends to reach in three years or the desired level of equalization for 2001. The second column in the matrix is the average value of the first and third columns. This implies that the targeted level of equalization for 2001 be achieved half way in 2000. 3. The third step applies the matrix of coefficients in step two to arrive at the expenditures by oblast for 2000 and 2001. This step assumes that total local expenditures 21 Astana city is not included in the equalization mechanism. It enjoys the status of a special economic zone. 22 But this aspect of the Resolution was not implemented. 23 The idea had been to use 1998 as the base year for these ratios. But given the abnormality of budget patterns in 1998, it was decided to use projected expenditures for 1999 as the base year. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 25 for 1999 remain fixed in real terms for 2000 and 2001 (Table AIV.3). Finally the fourth step, computes the values of the subventions and withdrawals for 1999 based on the estimated revenues for 1999, and also the subventions and withdrawals for 2000 and 2001 implied by the targeted expenditures by oblast set in step three (Table AIV.4). Annexes and Statistical Appendix 26 Table AIV.1: Grouping of Oblasts by Indices for Oblast Budget Expenditures Group ] Aktyubinskaya 1.0 East Kazakstan 1.0 West Kazakstan 1.0 Karagandinskaya 1.0 Kostanaiskaya 1.0 Pavlodarskaya 1.0 North Kazakstan 1.0 Almaty city 1.0 Group 2 Akmolinskaya 1.15 Atyrauskaya 1.15 Kzlordinskaya 1.10 Mangistauskaya 1.15 Group 3 Almatinskaya 0.90 Zhambylskaya 0.90 South Kazakstan 0.85 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 27 Table AIV.2: Per Capita Expenditure Ratios to the Average Republican Expenditures Oblast 1999 2000 2001 Akmolinskaya 1.22 1.20 1.17 Aktyubinskaya 0.90 0.96 1.02 Almatinskaya 0.83 0.87 0.92 Atyrauskaya 1.17 1.17 1.17 East Kazakstan 1.12 1.07 1.02 Zhambylskaya 0.78 0.85 0.92 West Kazakstan 1.09 1.06 1.02 Karagandinskaya 1.03 1.02 1.02 Kzylordinskaya 1.41 1.27 1.12 Kostanaiskaya 1.01 1.02 1.02 Mangistauskaya 1.20 1.19 1.17 Pavlodarskaya 1.10 1.06 1.02 North Kazakstan 1.04 1.03 1.02 South Kazakstan 0.72 0.79 0.87 Almaty city 1.16 1.09 1.02 Total I I I Annexes and Statistical Appendix 28 Table AIV.3: Oblast Budget Expenditures in Terms of 1999 (in thousand tenge) Oblast 1999 2000 2001 Akmolinskaya 6,647,034 6,510,023 6,373,012 Aktyubinskaya 6,177,275 6,578,171 6,979,068 Almatinskaya 12,874,543 13,602,138 14,329,733 Atyrauskaya 5,149,582 5,156,443 5,163,304 East Kazakstan 17,174,816 16,381,229 15,587,641 Zhambylskaya 7,722,229 8,383,146 9,004,062 West Kazakstan 6,701,139 6,478,218 6,255,298 Karagandinskaya 14,507,339 14,467,349 14,427,360 Kzylordinskaya 8,573,022 7,694,876 6,816,731 Kostanaiskaya 10,319,822 10,357,666 10,395,509 Mangistauskaya 3,811,522 3,767,936 3,724,350 Pavlodarskaya 8,996,967 8,687,764 8,378,562 North Kazakstan 10,715,567 10,629,653 10,543,739 South Kazakstan 14,221,267 15,695,695 17,170,122 Almaty city 12,985,527 12,187,344 11,389,160 Total 146,577,651 146,577,651 146,577,651 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 29 Table AIV.4: New Mechanism for Transfers to/from Oblasts, 1999-2001 (in 1999, thousand tenge) Subventions (+) and Withdrawals (-) Local Budget Revenues for Oblast 1999 1999 2000 2001 Akmolinskaya 3,380,900 3,266,134 3,129,123 2,992,112 Aktyubinskaya 7,823,043 -1,645,768 -1,244,872 -843,975 Almatinskaya 6,827,196 6,047,347 6,774,942 7,502.537 Atyrauskaya 11,915,498 -6,765,916 -6,759,055 -6,752,194 East Kazakstan 16,892,364 282,452 -511,135 -1,304,723 Zhambylskaya 5,375,442 2,346,787 3,007,704 3,668,620 West Kazakstan 6,357,050 344,089 121,168 -101,752 Karagandinskaya 18,891,654 -4,384,315 -4,424,305 -4,464,294 Kzylordinskaya 5,320,323 3,252,699 2,374,553 1,496,408 Kostanaiskaya 10,682,341 -362,519 -324,675 -286,832 Mangistauskaya 8,655,787 -4,844,265 -4,887,851 -4,031,437 Pavlodarskaya 12,737,289 -3,740,322 -4,049,525 -4,358,727 North Kazakstan 6,900,300 3,815,267 3,729,353 3,643,439 South Kazakstan 8,104,256 6,117,011 7,591,439 9,065,866 Almaty city 29,147,371 -16,161,844 -16,960,027 -17,758,211 Total 159,010,814 -12,433,163 -12,433,163 -12,433,163 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 30 ANNEX IV.3 OPTIONS FOR EQUALIZATION TRANSFER MECHANISM 1. This section describes options I and II presented in the text (Chapter IV, Section D) for reforming the fiscal equalization mechanism for Kazakhstan. The concrete features of the alternative equalization approaches can be modified and adapted to specific objectives for the equalization of fiscal capacity and expenditure needs. Each feature may demand different set of data, which are not always available. As better data become available, the equalization mechanism can be refined and improved. 2. Option I basically keeps the present system of "withdrawals" and "subventions", but refine the "expenditure needs index" and introduce the "index of fiscal capacity" explicitly in the system. Option II combines a restructuring of the revenue sharing system, with the elimination of "withdrawals" and creates a Regional Equalization Fund (REF) to be distributed on the basis of objective expenditure needs and revenue capacity indexes. OPTION I 3. Option I does not change the basic principle on which the current "fraternal" equalization system is based, i.e., the equalization funds are financed horizontally, by the oblasts themselves, through the "withdrawals" mechanism. 4. This option first computes a needs index with one or various components for each local (oblast) government (Table AIV.5). Each of the components in the needs index is given a weight and the sum of these weights adds up to one. By construction, the needs index value for each oblast (Ki) indicates that oblast's share of total subnational expenditure needs. The sum of the needs index (Ki) across oblasts adds to one. Thus, the needs index (Ki) measures relative expenditure needs across oblasts.24 This is a flexible formulation. For example, the needs index could incorporate the needs criteria used in the methodology in Government Resolution no. 529 of 1999, which basically included natural and climatic conditions and the presence of infectious diseases. Other measures of needs criteria can be used including population, cost of living, unemployment, relative incidence of poverty, and relative presence of retired or school-age population. The more needs criteria used, the more complex but also the more accurate computations will be. The importance of each needs criteria in the needs index will depend on the weight attached to the needs criteria. These weights should be explicitly defined and their sum 24 For example, if only one needs factor is used for poverty, and a region has 10 percent of the national poor population, then its index of need would equal Ki=0. 10. In general, Ki=0. 10 means that this region has 10 percent of all fiscal need in the country. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 31 should add to one. Although the determination of weights may be arbitrary, their values should reflect their relative notional impact on local government budgets. 5. However, the equalization mechanism also requires a good measure of fiscal capacity (FCj) for each oblast government. Oblasts with the same needs index but different fiscal capacity should rank differently as candidates for equalization transfers. This is an important component of the equalization mechanism that the current "fraternal" formula of Resolution no. 529/99 misses. The best measure of fiscal capacity is the base of all taxes accruing to the government in the region. But, information on tax bases is often not available, and using actual collections as a proxy for fiscal capacity is not a good choice because it would discourage tax effort by providing regions with an incentive to collect less revenue.25 An option is simply to use real gross regional product or regional value-added, as a proxy for the capacity of the population to pay taxes and ultimately to be able to afford a standard basket of public goods. The two components of the equalization formula-the needs index and the fiscal capacity index-would be finally amalgamated by normalizing the former by the latter index. On the one hand, local contribution both for the reduction of the vertical imbalance as well as to the equalization fund (i.e., the size of "withdrawals") would be determined as a proportion of the divergence (upwards) of the oblast's specific normalized fiscal capacity from the national average. On the other hand, equalization payments (i.e., "subventions") would be made for those oblasts below the national average of the normalized index (Table AIV.5). OPTION II 6. Option II considers a vertically-financed equalization fund. This approach would eliminate "withdrawals" as an instrument for vertical imbalance compensation. Implementation of Option II would therefore require a change in the current assignment of revenues. As discussed in the text, good candidates for this reassignment at the central level to finance the equalization fund would be the corporate income tax (CIT) and the progressive component of the personal income tax (PIT). The scheme is to form a pool of resources fed directly by a proportion of specific tax sources (in this case, CIT and PIT nationally collected), whose initial amount could correspond to the current "subventions" plus the net balance of the reassigned taxes (the local shares of CIT and PIT) and the "withdrawals". 7. Thus, at least for the time being, the total amount of funds to be used for the Regional Equalization Fund (REF) can be assumed to be pre-determined but, subsequently, funds may vary with the level of equalization desired. The design of the mechanism is also based on equalization of fiscal capacity and expenditure needs, very much in the same fashion as that of Option I. Oblasts having the same fiscal capacity 25 Even though the Ministry of Revenues is a national organization, as discussed in the revenue assignment section, there seems to exist defacto dual subordination of tax administration officials to regional authorities and the latter can exercise considerable influence on the collection of tax revenues. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 32 (tax bases) may still differ in their expenditure needs. Thus, equalization of expenditure needs has to take into account factors explaining differential needs among oblasts (Table AIV.6); but, it is important to select indicators that are transparent, reliable, and that cannot be manipulated by either interested party. The pre-determined amount of transfers is distributed according to the per capita index of fiscal capacity normalized by the per capita index of relative expenditure needs, after adjustment by the oblast population, as a scale factor (Table AIV.6, steps 5 and 6). Oblast's participation in the REF would be inversely proportional to the divergence of its individual normalized fiscal capacity from the national average normalized fiscal capacity. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 33 Table AIV.5: Option I: Mending the Current "Fraternal" System Step 1: The size of payments into the fund by local governments (Wi, i.e., withdrawals) will be determined by the payment rules. By assumption, the total withdrawals may be exogenous, i.e., a given amount We W = Ej i Step 2: Produce forecasts of potential revenue collections usingfiscal capacity measures (i.e., local tax base, or local value added) for all oblasts to arrive at FC; Step 3:a Determine the per capita Index (K) ofRelative Expenditure Needs (H) for each oblast: Ki = Yj=l,, Pj*(Hij/Ei Hij) where i represents an oblast, H represents a measure of expenditure needs j, and t represents the number of expenditures needs indexes used in the formula. Step 4: For each oblast, determine the Normalized Fiscal Capacity: NFC, = FC, / K,, Which measures fiscal capacity per unit of need. Step 5:b Per capita payments into the system [i.e. per capita withdrawal, (W,)] are determined as: wi = (NFCj - a*NFC)*Ki*p , if NFC > a NFC4 > wi > 0 Otherwise w; = 0, and where NFC4 is the average normalized per capita fiscal capacity. Oblast i withdrawals will be Wi t wjeNj , where Ni is the local population, and total withdrawals will be W = Ei Wi and ca 1. But also W = S + V, where S-total subventions and V= total vertical imbalance. Thus, if W=Wo, p is endogenously determined, i.e., p = p*. Step 6:c Per capita payments for equalization [i.e., per capita subventions, (S;)] are allocated to oblasts: Si = (NFC" - NFCi)*Ki*7x , if NFC4 > NFCj a si > 0; Otherwise s,=O. Oblast i subvention is Si=si*Ni. Note that S = Y S, and if S=S* So a is endogenously determined n=iT*. Notes: 'The needs index uses as measures of fiscal need (H). Each measure is weighted by Pj, and Y3 =1. Measures of fiscal need may include climate, unemployment, incidence of poverty, incidence of infectious diseases, demographic factors and others. bNote that the I Ki should equal 1. Alpha is a threshold parameter, should be > 1. A value of 1.1, for example, would mean that the oblast would only pay on the revenue in excess of 110 percent average. Rho is the payment rate, which can be set at values between (for example) 1 percent and 99 percent. c Pi (n) is the equalizing rate (0 < t <1), determining how much of the difference between average NFC and actual NFC gets equalized. As in Step 5, the difference between fiscal capacity per unit of need (NFCi) and average fiscal capacity per unit of needs is multiplied by the number of units of needs (Ki) to establish the actual money transfer, if any. Ni is the size of oblast i population. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 34 Table AIV.6: Option II: A Regional Equalization Fund (REF) Step 1: By assumption, the size of the Equalization Fund is initially fixed (for the time being, the same size of the "subvention" in the 2000 budget, i.e. T27 billion). Thus, I Si = So, where Si is the subvention level to be determined for each oblast. Step 2: Determine the fixed share, 4, of PIT and CIT, which should directly flow to the REF in order to satisfy (PIT + CIT) * = So Step 3: Produce forecasts for potential revenue collections using fiscal capacity measures (i.e., local tax base, or local value added) for every oblast to arrive at FCj Step 4: Determine the per capita Index (ki) of relative expenditure needs (h) for each oblast: where i represents an oblast, hj represents a measure of expenditure needs j , and s represents the number of expenditure needs indexes used in the formula. Step 5: For each oblast determine the normalized fiscal capacity NFC, = FC, / k; , Which measures fiscal capacity per unit of need. Step 6: Determine the amount of equalization transfer for each oblast si= (NFC4 - NFCi)*Ki*Tn , if NFC* > NFCI -> si > 0; Otherwise s,=O. Oblast i subvention is Sj=sj*Nj. Note S = I S,, and if S=So ex 7c is endogenously determined n=7T*. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 35 ANNEX IV.4 Table AIV.7: Expenditure Assignment in Kazakhstan in 19991 Expenditure Federal Local (Oblast/Rayons)2 Defense - Almost 100 percent - Registration and enrollment - Some local facilities and benefits Justice/Internal Security -Almost 100 percent Foreign Economic Relations - 100 percent Education - All university and research institute - All operations, wages and maintenance of expenditures pre-school, primary, and secondary schools - Some Technical Schools - Most vocational schools - De facto all building construction - Schools for orphans and the handicapped Culture and Parks - National museum - Some museums with local significance, - National theater zoos, sports and park facilities, public - De facto all capital infrastructure performances and building Health - Special programs in health care - Free medical services - Specialized Hospitals and Medical - Special Medical Programs Research Institutes - Some Tertiary hospitals, psychiatric - De facto all capital expenditures hospitals, and diagnostic centers Roads - Construction of all roads - Construction and maintenance of roads and - Maintenance of state roads streets Public Transportation - Highways, air, and rail transport - Some public transportation facilities - Subsidies for other facilities Fire Protection and Safety - -Most fire protection services -Rescue activities Libraries -National libraries and museums - Police Services - National militia - Local enforcement Water and Sewage - Infrastructure investment - Operation and maintenance Public Utilities (gas, electricity, heating) - De facto capital investments - Shared subsidies to users Housing D - Housing programs Welfare Compensation - PAYGO Pensions - Employment programs and assistance to - State social welfare benefits the unemployed - State special benefits - Housing allowances n- Childbirth and funeral benefits - S- Targeted social assistance a- Orphanages and retirement homes Environment - National environmental issues - Local environmental issues 'As reformed in the Budget System Law of 1999. 2-The Budget System Law does not specify separate assignment for oblasts and rayons. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 36 Table AIV.8: Expenditures by Function Executed Budget, 1998 In Millions of Tenpe In Percentages of Total FUNCTION Republican Local %Republican %Local EXPENDITURES 237,745 155,068 60.5 39.5 General Public Services 24,998 6,679 78.9 21.1 Defense 16,284 2,678 85.9 14.1 Public Order 23,334 7,799 74.9 25.1 Education 15,198 54,264 21.9 78.1 Pre-primary, Primary, and Secondary 1,643 46,210 3.4 96.6 Tertiary 11,232 6 99.9 0.1 Other 2,323 8,045 22.4 77.6 Health 7,728 18,296 29.7 70.3 Hospitals 5,368 12,599 29.9 70.1 Clinics and Medical, Dental, and Paramedical Practitioners 89 487 15.4 84.6 Medicaments, Prostheses, Medical Equipment, and Appliances 0 0 0.0 0.0 Other 2,271 5,210 30.4 69.6 Social Security and Welfare 8,797 44,821 16.4 83.6 Social Security 7,852 40,007 16.4 83.6 Welfare 753 3,835 16.4 83.6 Other 192 979 16.4 83.6 Housing and Community Amenities (including water supply) 0 4,325 0.0 100.0 Recreation, Culture, Religious Affairs and Services 6,487 5,284 55.1 44.9 Fuel and Energy (including mining for fuel, excluding water supply) 463 0 100.0 0.0 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 4,829 1,100 81.5 18.5 Mining, Manufacturing, and Construction (excluding mining for fuel) 581 1,339 30.3 69.7 Transport and Communications 225 0 100.0 0.0 Other Economic Affairs and Services 128,821 8,484 93.8 6.2 Lending minus Repayment 28,278 948 96.8 3.2 TOTAL EXPENDITURE + LENDING-REPAYMENT 266,022 156,150 63.0 37.0 SOURCE: Kazakh Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 37 Table AIV.9: Revised 1999 Budget Expenditure Republican Local EXPENDITURES 325,687,515 221,215,232 General Public Services 23,571,699 8,948,127 Defense 14,807,504 3,156,326 Public Order and Security 25,506,633 8,185,881 Education 13,871,506 64,759,511 Health Care 8,938,759 43,939,391 Social Insurance and Security 141,313,816 19,788,878 Housing and Utilities 3,684,565 8,935,759 Culture and Sports Agriculture, Water Resources, Forestry, Fishery, 7,223,936 1,642,176 Hunting and Nature Protection 3,166,244 268,759 Industry, Construction, and Mining 8,274,992 9,117,468 Transport and Communication 75,326,861 47,531,810 Other Economic Affairs and Miscellaneous 28,335,763 2,486,357 LENDING 354,023,278 223,701,589 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND LENDING SOURCE: Ministry of Finance. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 38 Table AIV.10: Expenditures by Function Executed Budget First 6 Months of 1999 In Millions of Tenge In Percentages of Total Function Republican Local %Republican %Local EXPENDITURES 98,894 78,387 55.8 44.2 General Public Services 7,269 2,979 70.9 29.1 Defense 4,510 1,138 79.9 20.1 Public Order and Security 7,245 3,032 70.5 29.5 Education 4,052 27,957 12.7 87.3 Health Care 1,951 11,523 14.5 85.5 Social Insurance and Security 50,883 6,327 88.9 11.1 Housing and Utilities 0 1,232 0.0 100.0 Culture and Sports 1,089 2,255 32.6 67.4 Fuel and Energy Complex 0 0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture, Water Resources, Forestry, Fishery, Hunting and Nature Protection 1,356 331 80.4 19.6 Industry, Construction, and Mining 381 62 86.0 14.0 Transport and Communications 401 1,717 18.9 81.1 Others 855 2,432 26.0 74.0 Debt Servicing 10,133 41 99.6 0.4 Official Transfers 8,769 17,363 33.6 66.4 LENDING 6,842 163 97.7 2.3 TOTAL EXPENDITURE AND LENDING 105,736 78,550 57.4 42.6 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 39 Table AIV.11: Composition of Local Government Budgets (as Percent of Total Expenditures) 1998 1999 executed budgeted General Public Services 4.3 4.0 Defense 1.7 1.4 Public Order and Security 5.0 3.7 Education 35.0 29.3 Health Care 11.8 19.9 Social Insurance and Security 28.9 8.9 Housing and Utilities 2.8 2.2 Culture and Sports 3.4 4.0 Fuel and Energy 0.0 Agriculture, Water Resources, Forestry, Fishery, Hunting and Nature Protection 0.7 0.7 Industry, Construction, and Mining 0.9 0.1 Transport and Communications 0.0 4.1 Other Economic Affairs and Miscellaneous 5.5 21.5 Total 100.0 100.0 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance and IMF. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 40 Table AIV.12: Per Capita Executed Budget Expenditures by Oblast (1998 and First 6 Months of 1999) Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 1998 1999 (first 6 months) Oblast Tenge % of Mean Tenge % of Mean Akmola 7,625 64.4 3,773 60.8 Aktobe 8,013 67.7 5,455 87.9 Almaty 9,204 77.7 3,331 53.7 Atyrau 11,090 93.7 14,681 236.7 East Kazakhstan 10,684 90.3 4,932 79.5 Zhambyl 7,586 64.1 2,703 43.6 West Kazakhstan 9,144 77.2 3,383 54.5 Karaganda 9,143 77.2 5,132 82.7 Kzylorda 10,359 87.5 4,717 76.0 Kostanai 15,557 131.4 4,375 70.5 Mangistau 10,274 86.8 9,417 151.8 Pavlodar 11,112 93.9 5,696 91.8 North Kazakhstan 13,963 118.0 3,855 62.1 South Kazakhstan 8,372 70.7 2,436 39.3 Almaty City 12,447 105.2 12,230 197.1 Astana City 34,826 294.2 13,138 211.8 Mean 11,837.4 100.0 6,203.3 100.0 Maximum 34.826 294.2 14,681.0 236.7 Minimum 7,586 64.1 2,436.0 39.3 Coef. of Variation 0.55 0.63 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 41 Table AIV.13: Local Government Revenue Sharing in Total Collections 1998 99 REVISED BUDGET Revenue Sharing Effective Effective According to Local Rate of Local Rate of Budget Budgets Sharing BudgetS2 Sharing System Law Tax Revenues, of which: 97,569,437 34.7 168,291,153 50.7 CIT 20,682,924 53.9 19,358,677 52.3 50.0 PIT 25,349,229 84.1 36,061,236 97.4 100.0 Social tax 64,804,903 97.8 100.0 Property taxes 14,625,302 100.0 15,527,800 98.3 100.0 Land tax 5,013,074 100.0 4,856,150 97.0 100.0 Vehicle tax 2,543,063 100.0 4,361,220 98.0 100.0 VAT' 11,448,837 14.2 8,749,726 9.4 Excise on Alcoholic Drinks 6,086,191 100.0 4,960,265 49.6 50.0 Business and Sales Fees, of which: 4,393,374 100.0 17,131,823 39.1 Fees for Registration of Individuals and 141,203 100.0 176,826 98.1 Entrepreneurs Fees for the Right to Engage in Certain 916,601 100.0 559,746 89.4 Businesses (license fee) Fees for State Registration of Legal 190,801 100.0 190,547 95.4 Entities Other fees 3,144,769 100.0 3,548,542 41.4 Non-tax revenues 13,118,086 69.3 12,656,162 37.0 Total Revenues, Pre-transfers 110,687,523 36.8 184,423,405 42.7 (excl. grants from abroad) Transfer from the Republican Budget 40,336,489 32,066,403 (subvention) Transfer to Republican Budget 37,904,949 (withdrawals) Total Revenues, post-transfers 151,024,012 50.1 178,584,859 35.9 (excl. grants from abroad) SOURCE: Ministry of Finance and IMF. 'The effective rate of sharing in VAT during 1998 reflects the existence of special economic zones which were allowed to retain 50 percent of all taxes collected, including VAT. In 1999, there is only one special economic zone left in Astana: it is estimated to retain 8,054,350 thousand Tenge from VAT collections (9.4% of total VAT collections). 2 Including the Ministry of Finance Accounts. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 42 Table AIV.14a: 1998 Composition of Local Revenues (as Percent of Total Local Revenues after Transfers) Oblast Tax CIT PIT Social Property Other Non-Tax Other Official Receipts Tax VAT Excises Taxes' Taxes2 Receipts Receipts' Transfers Akmolinskaya 95.0 13.5 14.9 0.0 44.3 4.7 13.5 4.1 5.9 (0.9) 0.0 Aktyubinskaya 81.0 12.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 9.4 29.6 3.7 18.6 0.4 0.0 Almatinskaya 22.1 2.7 6.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 9.1 1.5 4.4 0.1 73.4 Atyrauskaya 84.4 13.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 10.2 46.8 2.3 15.2 0.4 0.0 East Kazakhstan 62.0 22.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 10.7 3.4 7.9 0.2 29.9 Zhambylskaya 37.4 3.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 12.0 1.6 4.5 0.7 57.3 West Kazakhstan 82.4 35.6 31.2 0.0 0.0 3.4 9.9 2.3 6.8 1.4 9.4 Karagandinskaya 89.6 38.6 22.0 0.0 1.4 2.9 21.1 3.5 9.1 0.3 1.1 Kzylordinskaya 87.0 13.4 22.2 0.0 11.7 14.7 19.7 5.3 12.7 0.2 0.0 Kostanaiskaya 62.8 13.6 9.0 0.0 25.7 2.1 3.8 8.5 2.0 0.1 35.1 Mangistauskaya 88.9 7.8 39.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 35.8 4.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Pavlodarskaya 73.2 7.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 21.6 5.0 26.4 0.4 0.0 North Kazakhstan 32.0 3.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 11.0 3.1 5.3 1.3 61.3 South Kazakhstan 37.8 14.3 8.7 0.0 0.0 7.0 6.2 1.7 3.8 0.6 57.7 Almaty city 83.9 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 21.6 21.8 9.5 15.7 0.5 0.0 Astana city 95.7 15.9 9.4 0.0 55.8 6.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 0.4 0.0 Mean 69.7 13.5 18.5 0.0 8.7 7.7 17.3 3.9 9.6 0.4 20.3 Maximum 95.7 38.6 39.7 0.0 55.8 21.6 46.8 9.5 26.4 1.4 73.4 Minimum 22.1 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.8 1.5 2.0 (0.9) 0.0 Coef. of Variation 0.4 0.8 0.6 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.4 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance 'Including property taxes on legal entities and physical persons, as well as the land tax and tax on transport vehicles. 2 Includes license and registration fees and revenues from capital operations. ' Includes revenues from capital operations and the repayments of loans. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 43 Table AIV.14b: Composition of Local Revenues, First 6 Months of 1999 (as Percent of Total Revenues after Transfers ) Tax Social Property Other Non-Tax Other Official Oblast Receipts CIT PIT Tax VAT Excises TaxesI Taxes2 Receipts Receipts3 Transfers Akmolinskaya 57.8 2.4 7.7 27.1 0.0 2.8 15.8 2.0 3.6 0.2 38.4 Aktyubinskaya 90.6 8.5 15.8 41.7 0.0 3.4 18.6 2.6 7.2 2.3 Almatinskaya 55.4 2.0 9.1 28.1 0.0 1.7 12.5 2.2 6.2 0.9 37.5 Atyrauskaya 97.3 27.1 26.4 21.7 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.7 2.5 0.2 East Kazakstan 80.9 7.3 15.4 39.6 0.0 1.6 14.3 2.7 6.6 0.6 11.9 Zhambylskaya 67.5 2.0 8.2 30.9 0.0 6.9 17.4 2.1 4.6 1.5 26.4 West Kazakhstan 83.1 14.1 18.7 36.1 0.0 0.3 9.7 4.1 5.7 1.1 10.1 Karagandinskaya 94.5 7.1 17.3 50.6 0.2 0.2 17.3 2.0 5.2 0.3 Kzylordinskaya 90.8 4.1 9.3 50.5 1.1 6.9 17.4 2.6 9.1 0.1 Kostanaiskaya 61.2 2.2 15.0 32.7 3.3 0.6 8.0 2.6 3.9 0.4 34.5 Mangistauskaya 93.7 11.2 23.8 35.6 0,0 0.0 20.9 2.2 6.3 0.0 Pavlodarskaya 80.1 14.4 12.2 35.7 0.0 1.0 13.8 2.9 18.5 1.1 0.3 North Kazakhstan 62.4 2.4 9.5 32.5 0.0 0.4 14.1 3.6 4.4 1.2 32.0 South Kazakstan 56.4 5.3 9.1 31.2 0.0 0.7 7.9 2.3 4.4 1.2 37.9 Almaty city 93.9 17.3 24.5 34.5 0.0 0.8 13.5 3.3 5.8 0.2 0.1 Astana city 97.5 14.1 6.9 14.9 49.1 1.2 6.4 4.9 2.4 0.2 Mean 78.9 8.8 14.3 34.0 3.1 1.8 14.3 2.7 6.0 0.7 14.3 Maximum 97.5 27.1 26.4 50.6 49.1 6.9 21.4 4.9 18.5 2.3 38.4 Minimum 55.4 2.0 6.9 14.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.7 2.4 0.0 Coef. of Variation 0.2 0.8 0.45 0.27 4.00 1.24 0.32 0.36 0.63 0.89 1.17 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance I The withdrawals are not accounted for. 2 Includes license and registration fees and revenues from capital operations. 3 Includes revenues from capital operations and the repayments of loans. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 44 Table AIV.15: Per Capita Total Tax Revenues by Oblast (Execution for 1997, 1998 and First 6 Months of 1999; planned for 1999 and 2000) 1997 1998 1999 (first 6 months) 1999 (revised) 2000 Tenge % of Mean Tenge % of Mean Tenge % of Mean Tenge % of Mean Tenge % of Mean Akmola 13,807 193.4 6,340 77.4 2,223 39.1 6,018 40.0 6,705 42.4 Aktobe 6,931 97.1 5,910 72.2 5,103 89.8 10,982 72.9 11,799 74.7 Almaty 1,960 27.5 2,100 25.6 1,748 30.8 3,559 23.6 4,067 25.7 Atyrau 9,233 129.3 9,329 113.9 16,170 284.5 35,370 234,8 33,181 210.0 EastKazakhstan 7,541 105.6 6,428 78.5 4,172 73.4 10,281 68.3 11,067 70.1 Zhambyl 3,226 45.2 2,856 34.9 1,856 32.7 4,719 31.3 5,226 33.1 West Kazakhstan 7,547 105.7 6,628 80.9 2,734 48.1 11,407 75.7 9,798 62.0 Karaganda 7,023 98.4 8,518 104.0 5,053 88.9 12,258 81.4 13,945 88.3 Kzylorda 8,055 112.8 6,196 75.7 7,229 127.2 16,512 109.6 17,076 108.1 Kostanai 10,777 150.9 11,428 139.6 1,723 30.3 4,902 32.5 5,105 32.3 Mangistau 7,852 110.0 9,026 110.2 8,961 157.7 31,709 210.5 24,408 154.5 Pavlodar 7,254 101.6 6,906 84.3 4,778 84.1 14,358 95.3 14,708 93.1 North Kazakhstan 4,260 59.7 4,482 54.7 2,494 43.9 6,034 40.1 5,613 35.5 South Kazakhstan 3,064 42.9 3,166 10,210 38.7 1,414 12,442 24.9 3,733 24.8 3,870 24.5 Almaty City 8,579 120.1 31,498 124.7 12,825 218.9 24,201 160.7 29,127 184.4 Astana City 384.6 225.7 44,950 298.4 57,080 361.3 Mean 7,140.7 100.0 8,188.8 100.05,682.8 16,170.1 100.0 15,062.1 100.0 15,798.5 100.0 Maximum 13,807.4 193.4 31,498.1 384.6 1,413.6 0.81 284.5 44,950.0 298.4 57,079.6 361.3 Minimum 1,960.2 27.5 2,100.0 25.6 24.9 3,559.0 23.6 3, 870.2 24.5 Coef. Of Variation 0.43 0.82 0.83 0.90 Without Astana City Mean 7,140.7 100.0 6,634.9 81.05,206.7 16,170.1 91.6 13,069.5 86.8 13,046.4 82.6 Maximum 13,807.4 193.4 11,427.9 139.6 1,413.6 0.83 284.5 35,370.4 234.8 33181.4 210.0 Minimum 1,960.2 27.5 2,100.0 25.6 24.9 3,559.0 23.6 3,870.2 24.5 Coef. Of Variation 0.43 0.41 0.77 0.71 Without Astana and Almaty Cities Mean 7,037.9 98.6 6,379.5 77.9 4,689.9 82.5 12,274.4 81.5 11,897.8 75.3 Maximum 13,807.4 193.4 11,427.9 139.6 16,170.1 284.5 35,370.4 234.8 33,181.4 210.0 Minimum 1,960.2 27.5 2,100.0 25.6 1,413.6 24.9 3,559.0 23.6 3,870.2 24.5 Coef. Of Variation 0.45 0.41 0.85 0.81 0.71 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 45 Table AIV.16: Concentration of Local Revenues among Oblasts (as Percent of Total Local Revenues Represented by Some Regions) First 6 months 1990 2000 1997 1998 of 1999 (revised) (revised) Two Highest Collection Oblasts 21.23 21.46 27.91 23.07 25.38 Five Highest Collection Oblasts 46.27 49.31 52.07 47.58 49.34 Two Lowest Collection Oblasts 5.62 5.31 5.78 7.13 6.52 Five Lowest Collection Oblasts 19.06 15.72 16.53 18.76 17.69 Memo Item: Number of Jurisdictions 15 16 16 16 16 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 46 Table AIV.17: Subventions from the Republican Budget to the Oblast Budgets, 1997-2000 (in thousand of Tenge) 1997a 1998a 1999C 2000c Akmola 104,295 4,548,618 4,153,028 Aktobe 137,524 Almaty 7,103,483 10,913,917 6,067,347 6,808,567 Atyrau 80,000 East Kazakhstan 3,612,458 4,796,816 332,452 Zhambyl 3,009,825 4,321,902 2,366,787 3,158,324 West Kazakhstan 1,429,305 472,518 344.089 254,410 Karaganda 638,398 152,226 10,000 Kzyl-Orda 715,705 100,000 Kostanai 2,456,339 3,796,247 3,252,699 2,402,675 Pavlodar 49,491 North Kazakhstan 4,572,389 6,363,521 3,049,683 3,192,003 South Kazakhstan 5,105,156 9,519,342 6,175,818 7,901,931 Almaty City 100,000 Astana City 5,451,895 Total 28,747,353b 40,336,489 32,066,403 27,870,938 as % of Total Expenditures 20.08 25.85 15.08 11.80 as % of Total Tax and Non- 25.58 36.44 15.13 14.50 Tax Revenues as % of GDP 1.72 2.31 1.76 1.31 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance a For both 1997 and 1998 actual transfers were exactly 100 percent of those in the Republican budget b The amounts of the subventions allocated to the oblasts do not include additional fund allocated from the Republican budget in December of 1997. Planned figures for the entire year. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 47 Table AIV.18: Withdrawal from the Local Budgets to the Republican Budget, 1999-2000 (in thousand of Tenge) 1999a 2000a % of Tax and % of Tax and Non-Tax % of % of Non-Tax % of % of Oblast Amount Revenue Expenditures GDP Amount Revenue Expenditures GDP Aktyubinskya 1,645,768 0.78 0.77 0.09 1,829,846 0.95 0.77 0.09 Atyrauskaya 6,765,916 3.19 3.18 0.37 9,727,269 5.06 4.12 0.46 East Kazakhstan 1,278,802 0.67 0.54 0.06 Karagandinskaya 4,384,315 2.07 2.06 0.24 5,819,902 3.03 2.46 0.27 Kostanaiskaya 362,519 0.17 0.17 0.02 592,786 0.31 0.25 0.03 Mangistauskaya 4,844,265 2.29 2.28 0.27 4,262,126 2.22 1.80 0.20 Pavlodarskaya 3,740,322 1.76 1.76 0.21 4,881,316 2.54 2.07 0.23 Almaty City 16,161,844 7.62 7.60 0.89 22,619,915 11.77 9.58 1.06 TOTAL 37,904,949 17.88 17.83 2.08 51,011,962 26.54 21.60 2.40 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance aplanned figures for the entire year. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 48 Table AIV.19a: Local Sources of Financing, 1997 (Execution of Revenues and Expenditures Per Capita, in Tenge) (1) (2) (3) (4) Local Revenues Local Revenues Total Gross Before Transfers After Transfers Expenditures Regional per capita per capita per capita Value Added per capita Akmolinskaya 14,503.6 14,622.5 14,232.1 82,091.9 Aktyubinskaya 7,567.2 7,567.2 7,725.7 78,879.2 Almatinskaya 2,398.6 6,752.0 6,738.1 98,442.6 Atyrauskaya 10,457.5 10,457.5 10,662.2 112,727.6 East Kazakhstan 8,268.6 10,481.1 10,349.8 161,923.6 Zhambylskaya 3,699.8 6,702.4 6,742.2 45,948.0 West Kazakhstan 8,364.9 10,572.0 10,630.3 55,225.5 Karagandinskaya 7,804.7 8,220.1 9,183.1 183,389.2 Kzylordinskaya 8,648.9 9,288.2 8,234.8 40,186.3 Kostanaiskaya 11,038.5 15,033.2 17,549.7 134,088.3 Mangistauskaya 9,133.4 9,133.4 9,219.0 69,315.3 Pavlodarskaya 9,502.1 9,502.1 10,399.6 98,300.2 North Kazakhstan 4,733.3 8,835.2 9,017.5 82,562.7 South Kazakhstan 3,298.4 5,848.2 5,815.8 97,402.7 Almaty City 10,422.6 10,422.6 9,983.9 260,674.4 Mean 7,989.5 9,562.5 9,765.6 106,743.8 Maximum 14,503.6 15,033.2 17,549.7 260,674.4 Minimum 2,398.6 5,848.2 5,815.8 40,186.3 Coef. of Variation 0.41 0.27 0.31 0.55 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 49 Table AIV.19b: Local Sources of Financing, 1998 (Execution of Revenues and Expenditures Per Capita, in Tenge) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Gross Total Total Regional National Tax Local Revenues Local Revenues Expenditures Value Oblast Collections, before Transfers, after Transfers, and Lending, Added, per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita (1997) Akmolinskaya 3,249.9 6,735.5 6,735.5 7,597.3 48,344.7 Aktyubinskaya 11,592.7 7,269.8 7,269.8 8,004.4 84,240.7 Almatinskaya 4,203.2 2,516.6 9,493.4 9,187.0 90,599.3 Atyrauskaya 45,713.5 11,011.5 11,011.5 11,042.7 93,282.9 East Kazakhstan 9,773.4 7,250.0 10,350.1 10,631.1 175,764.4 Zhambylskaya 4,355.6 3,202.3 7,581.1 7,479.1 42,452.1 West Kazakhstan 7,999.2 7,172.6 7,930.0 9,103.6 55,347.8 Karagandinskaya 8,543.2 9,378.9 9,484.8 9,113.0 178,255.6 Kzylordinskaya 10,022.4 7,101.5 7,101.5 10,092.5 34,940.0 Kostanaiskaya 8,593.4 11,790.1 18,181.1 15,497.3 116,911.8 Mangistauskaya 38,453.0 10,153.9 10,153.9 10,273.8 54,512.9 Pavlodarskaya 10,720.5 9,397.6 9,397.6 11,112.0 193,059.8 North Kazakhstan 4,931.1 5,222.9 13,801.4 13,962.5 58,237.4 South Kazakstan 4,853.6 3,488.3 8,320.4 8,176.8 90,868.6 Almaty City 55,672.8 12,118.2 12,118.2 12,402.4 261,718.3 Astana City 48,925.0 32,807.5 32,807.5 34,826.4 45,592.2 Mean 17,350.2 9,163.6 11,358.6 11,781.4 101,508.0 Maximum 55,672.8 32,807.5 32,807.5 34,826.4 261,718.3 Minimum 3,249.9 2,516.6 6,735.5 7,479.1 34,940.0 Coef. Of Variation 1.05 0.76 0.57 0.56 0.66 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance and mission computations. NA: not available. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 50 Table AIV.20: Source of Financing, Actual for the First 6 Months of 1999 (in Tenge) Local Revenues Local Revenues before Official After Official Total Gross Regional Transfers, Transfers, per Expenditures , Value Added, Oblast per capita capita per capita per capita (1998) Akmolinskaya 2,360.3 3,836.7 3,772.6 48,344.7 Aktyubinskaya 5,505.6 5,505.6 5,454.9 84,240.7 Almatinskaya 1,943.1 3,125.1 3,330.5 90,599.3 Atyrauskaya 16,577.7 16,577.7 14,671.4 93,282.9 East Kazakhstan 4,511.1 5,126.6 4,928.7 175,764.4 Zhambylskaya 1,982.0 2,708.9 2,681.5 42,452.1 West Kazakhstan 2,922.4 3,254.1 3,383.4 55,347.8 Karagandinskaya 5,329.2 5,329.2 5,131.9 178,255.6 Kzylordinskaya 7,953.0 7,953.0 4,654.3 34,940.0 Kostanaiskaya 1,833.3 2,805.2 4,349.3 116,911.8 Mangistauskaya 9,568.2 9,568.2 9,416.8 54,512.9 Pavlodarskaya 5,881.5 5,896.9 5,696.3 193,059.8 North Kazakhstan 2,669.2 3,948.9 3,854.5 58,237.4 South Kazakstan 1,524.7 2,474.3 2,406.1 90,868.6 Almaty City 13,211.7 13,229.4 12,220.8 261,718.3 Astana City 13,134.3 13,134.3 13,137.9 45,592.2 Mean 6,056.7 6,529.6 6,193.2 101,508.0 Maximum 16,577.7 16,577.7 14,671.4 261,718.3 Minimum 1,524.7 2,474.3 2,406.1 34,940.0 Coef. of Variation 0.78 0.67 0.63 0.66 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 51 Table AIV.21: Budget Execution Performance at the Local Level (Actual Expenditure as Percentage of Budgeted) 1997 1998 Local Local General Public Services 96.2 87.4 Defense 98.9 83.7 Law and order 93.1 90.4 Education 100.0 90.6 Health 86.1 86.1 Social assistance 80.8 76.8 Housing and utilities 100.2 90.4 Culture and sports 94.2 88.3 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 95.4 56.7 Research and Development 82.3 82.6 Transport and communication 99.7 91.2 Other economic affairs 86.2 84.8 Miscellaneous 260.3 63.4 Total 92.5 84.6 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance and IMF. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 52 Table AIV.22: Budget Arrears at the Local Level (in thousand of Tenge) As of Jan. 1, As of Jan. 1, As of July 1, Oblast 1998 1999 1999 Akmolinskaya 255,308 563,038 1,451,880 Aktyubinskaya 879,280 2,116,508 2,649,863 Almatinskaya 1,797,186 682,694 834,577 Atyrauskaya 896,283 1,610,651 1,943,956 East Kazakhstan 1,084,070 3,026,740 3,224,651 Zhambylskaya 1,080,501 1,562,238 1,469,354 West Kazakhstan 784,275 2,744,372 3,769,828 Karagandinskaya 8,182,727 3,825,812 3,014,577 Kzylordinskaya 508,059 543,106 1,062,985 Kostanaiskaya 2,591,804 4,507,291 3,287,586 Mangistauskaya 1,088,317 2,743,421 3,687,813 Pavlodarskaya 2,211,672 3,314,912 2,773,184 North Kazakhstan 1,678,497 1,308,645 883,672 South Kazakhstan 2,368,904 1,252,161 1,204,896 Almaty City 13,797 6,806 1,981 Astana City 48,781 34,057 88,543 Total arrears on local budgets, wages excluded 25,469,461 29,842,452 31,349,345 Wage arrears in local budgets 3,447,112 1,829,405 2,381,821 Grand Total of arrears for local budgets 28,916,573 31,671,857 33,731,166 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance STATISTICAL APPENDIX Annexes and Statistical Appendix 54 LIST OF TABLES IN THE STATISTICAL APPENDIX Table B.1 National Accounts, 1991-2000(Part A)...........................55 Table B.1 National Accounts, 1991-1998(Part B) ..................... ......56 Table B.2 Composition of GDP (at factor cost), 1991-2000 .......................57 Table B.3 Consumer Price Index, Inflation, Exchange and Interest Rates, 1991-2000 ...................................... ........58 Table B.4 Monetary Survey, 1991-2000 ....................... ..........59 Table B.5 Balance of Payments, 1991-2000(Part A..........................60 Table B.5 Balance of Payments, 1991-2000(Part B) .........................61 Table B.6 External Debt, 1991-1999(Part A) .................................62 Table B.6 External Debt, 1991-1999(Part B) .................................63 Table B.7 Government Budget Operations, 1990-1999(Part A) ..................64 Table B.7 Government Budget Operations, 1990-1999(Part B) . ....... ...........65 Table B.7 Government Budget Operations, 1990-1999(Part C)..................66 Table B.7 Government Budget Operations, 1990-1999(Part D)............. .....67 Table B.8 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast.......................68 Table B.8 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast(continued) ...... .......69 Table B.8 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast(continued) .............70 Table B.8 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast(continued) ...... .......71 Table B.9 1999 (1s" 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures and Lending................72 Table B.9 1999 (1s" 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast (continued) ..............................................73 Table B.9 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures and Lending (continued) ..................................... .........74 Table B.9 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures and Lending................75 Table B.10 1998 Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast .......... .............76 Table B.10 1998 Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast(continued)......... .............77 Table B.10 1998 Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast(continued) ...... .........78 Table B. 11 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast .... .............79 Table B. 11 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast (continued) ....................... ................80 Table B. 11 1999 (Is' 6 months) Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast (continued ..............................................81 Table B.12 Regional Economic Indicators for 1997............. ..............82 Table B.13 Distribution of Population by Major Age Cohorts Across Oblast as of Jan.1, 1998............................................83 Table B.14 Size and Structure of the RK Administrative Territorial Units as of the Beginning of 1998 ......................................84 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 55 Table B.1: Kazakhstan: National Accounts, 1991-2000 Part A (in million Tenges) Discrimination 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 GDP at market prices 29423 423469 1014190 1415750 1672143 1733264 1824100 2128000 Net indirect taxes 1797 13839 44334 70408 76885 103671 GDP at factor cost 27626 409630 969857 1345341 1595257 1629593 0 0 Agriculture 4837 63298 125134 172090 190738 147773 Industry 10884 163877 304234 362259 428175 497521 olw Construction 2440 40600 65501 62301 70723 85579 Services 11906 182455 540489 810993 976345 984299 Resource balance -2602 -42568 -46396 -10419 -35503 -78270 0 0 Exports of Gds. & Serv. 11150 156958 395269 499318 589165 525945 Imports of Gds. & Serv. 13752 199526 441665 509737 624668 604215 Domestic absorption 30834 495634 1095330 1360097 1642551 1728936 0 0 Total consumption (etc.) 24942 374081 858823 1131502 1381726 1431244 Govern. consumption 4089 45234 137693 178712 202581 187787 Private consumption (etc.) 20853 328847 721130 952790 1179145 1243457 0 0 Gross investment 5892 121553 236506 228595 260824 297692 Fixed investment 8211 110655 233812 243876 271765 296205 Changes in stocks -2319 10898 2695 -15281 -10941 1487 0 0 Gross domestic savings 4481 49388 155367 284248 290416 302019 1824100 2128000 Net income from abroad -71 -2171 -9110 -12276 -15605 -23329 Net c/ trsfs. from abroad 342 7364 7884 9813 7964 6114 Gross national savings 4752 54580 154140 281785 282775 284804 1824100 2128000 GDP (current thous.dollar) 11426 11895 16645 21036 22165 22136 15329 13554 Population (thousand) 16479 16297 16066 15921 15751 15642 14953 14953 Per capita GDP (cur dollar) 693 730 1036 1321 1407 1415 1025 906 T/US$ (budget av.) 2.6 35.6 60.9 67.3 75.4 78.3 119 157 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMF/World Bank estimates Annexes and Statistical Appendix 56 Table B.1: Kazakhstan: National Accounts, 1991-1998 Part B 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 GDP at market prices 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Net indirect taxes 6.1 3.3 4.4 5.0 4.6 6.0 GDP at factor cost 93.9 96.7 95.6 95.0 95.4 94.0 Agriculture 16.4 14.9 12.3 12.2 11.4 8.5 Industry(incl.constr.) 37.0 38.7 30.0 25.6 25.6 28.7 o/w Construction 8.3 9.6 6.5 4.4 4.2 4.9 Services & Others 40.5 43.1 53.3 57.3 58.4 56.8 Resource balance -8.8 -10.1 -4.6 -0.7 -2.1 -4.5 Exports of Gds. & Serv. 37.9 37.1 39.0 35.3 35.2 30.3 Imports of Gds. & Serv. 46.7 47.1 43.5 36.0 37.4 34.9 Domestic absorption 104.8 117.0 108.0 96.1 98.2 99.8 Total consumption (etc.) 84.8 88.3 84.7 79.9 82.6 82.6 Govern. consumption 13.9 10.7 13.6 12.6 12.1 10.8 Private consumption (etc.) 70.9 77.7 71.1 67.3 70.5 71.7 Gross investment 20.0 28.7 23.3 16.1 15.6 17.2 Fixed investment 27.9 26.1 23.1 17.2 16.3 17.1 Changes in stocks -7.9 2.6 0.3 -1.1 -0.7 0.1 Gross domestic savings 15.2 11.7 15.3 20.1 17.4 17.4 Net income from abroad -0.2 -0.5 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -1.3 Net c/ trsfs. from abroad 1.2 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 Gross national savings 16.2 12.9 15.2 19.9 16.9 16.4 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMF/World Bank estimates Annexes and Statistical Appendix 57 Table B.2: Kazakhstan: Composition of GDP (at factor cost), 1991-2000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000* (GDP, in 1993 million Tenges) GDP at factor cost 29423 25716 23607 23725 24128 23670 24025 Industry 8444 6122 5595 5612 5842 5702 5730 Agriculture 4837 3821 2889 2744 2722 2208 2815 Construction 2440 2045 1268 991 1071 1231 1207 Transport and communicatio 2937 2163 1894 1925 1992 1974 1994 Trade and catering 3051 2520 2674 2960 3049 2951 2860 Others (mainly services) 7715 9045 9287 9493 9453 9604 9420 (Real GDP, percentage change from previous year) GDP at factor cost -9.2 -12.6 -8.2 0.6 1.7 -2.5 1.5 3.0 Industry -14.0 -27.5 -8.6 0.3 4.1 -2.1 0.5 3.0 Agriculture -6.9 -21.0 -24.4 -5.0 -0.8 -18.9 27.5 5.4 Construction -25.9 -16.2 -38.0 -21.8 8.0 11.0 -2.0 Transport and communicatio -14.4 -26.3 -12.4 1.6 3.5 2.0 1.0 Trade and catering -6.3 -17.4 6.1 10.7 3.0 -3.2 -3.1 Others (mainly services) 1.5 17.2 2.7 2.2 -0.4 1.6 -1.9 (share of GDP, in percentage) GDP at factor cost 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Industry 28.7 23.8 23.7 23.7 24.2 24.1 23.9 Agriculture 16.4 14.9 12.2 11.6 11.3 9.3 11.7 Construction 8.3 8.0 5.4 4.2 4.4 5.2 5.0 Transport and communicatio 10.0 8.4 8.0 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.3 Trade and catering 10.4 9.8 11.3 12.5 12.6 12.5 11.9 Others (mainly services) 26.2 35.2 39.3 40.0 39.2 40.6 39.2 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMFANorld Bank estimates *Program Annexes and Statistical Appendix 58 Table B.3: Kazakhstan: Consumer Price Index, Inflation, Exchange and Interest Rates 1991-2000 Assets/Liabilities 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999(b) 2000(c) End of twenve month period Prices Consumer price index (1990=100) 147 4502 101980 1283217 2056996 2647354 2943858 2999791 3449760 3995743 Inflation rate 147.1 2960.8 2165.0 1158.3 60.3 28.7 11.2 1.9 15.0 9.0 Exchanae rates (a) Per US dollar 6.3 54.3 64.0 73.3 75.6 83.8 140.0 165.0 Per Deutsche mark 35.0 44.5 47.7 44.2 50.2 Per Russian Ruble 4.6 16.2 13.8 13.3 13.0 4.3 Interest rates NBK reference rate 170.0 230.0 52.5 35.0 18.5 25.0 Commercial Bnks (short-term) 91.1 30.5 11.8 15.4 Period Average Prices Consumer price index (1990 =100) 91 1468 25811 510381 1409673 1963675 2305354 2469035 2711000 3637574 Inflation rate 90.9 1514.8 1658.4 1877.4 176.2 39.3 17.4 7.1 9.8 15.0 Exchange rates (a) Per US dollar 2.2 35.5 61.0 67.3 75.4 78.3 119.0 157.0 Per Deutsche mark 31.7 43.0 45.2 43.9 41.1 Per Russian Ruble 4.1 16.1 13.5 13.5 13.5 10.4 Real Eff.Exch.Rate* (US$1T;1995=100) 100.0 111.6 119.4 131.7 106.8* Interest rates NBK reference rate Commercial Bnks (short-term) SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMFNVorld Bank estimates (a) interbank currency exchange rates (KICEX) auction rates; (b) estimate; (c) programmed * INS methodology, including shuttle trade; M Iay 1999 Index Annexes and Statistical Appendix 59 Table B.4: Kazakhstan: Monetary Survey, 1991-2000 (in million Tenges, end-period stocks) 1999 2UUU AssetslLiabilities 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Estimate Program Net Foreign Assets 1293 40368 93229 117041 139720 196828 191975 229625 Foreing assets 2668 79988 132963 162683 181922 294562 267138 305838 Foreing liabilities 1375 39620 39734 45642 42202 97734 75163 76213 Net Domestic Assets 7266 16730 24467 16905 31168 -116353 -102562 -98627 Domestic credit 14590 124469 96448 84523 105685 23849 25838 29773 Net claims on government 83 10831 24514 20851 28231 26963 22454 31454 Av outstanding stock of gov.papers 20774 Net claims on the economy 14507 113538 71934 63672 77454 -3114 3384 -1681 Av credits denominated in convertible currencies 25363 Other items (net) -7335 -107739 -71981 -67618 -74517 -139202 -128400 -128400 Liabilities 8548 57098 117696 133946 170888 81475 89413 130998 Currency in circulation out banks 2273 20255 47999 62812 92796 72982 81873 118262 Deposits 6275 36751 67795 71040 78056 8493 7540 12736 Nonbank institutions n/a 26724 45206 39024 50436 0 0 0 Tenge 12291 19077 16285 38690 Convertible foreign exchange 13818 25195 22079 11052 Nonconvertible foreign exchange 515 934 660 694 Households nla 10027 22589 32016 27620 0 0 0 Tenge 9064 19079 26001 20748 Convertible foreign exchange 963 3509 6000 6860 Nonconvertible foreign exchange 0 1 15 12 Bonds/promissory notes of banks 92 1902 94 36 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMF/World Bank estimates Annexes and Statistical Appendix 60 Table B.5: Kazakhstan: Balance of Payments, 1991-2000 Part A (in million of US$) 1999 2000 Item 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Estimate Program Trade balance -1121 -1204 -920 -222 -325 -277 -750 110 232 Exports (fob) 3562 3324 3285 5164 6292 6899 5839 5651 6302 My oil 638 907 1342 1671 1650 1927 2474 Imports (fob) 4683 4528 4205 5386 6617 7176 6589 5541 6070 Services balance -410 -490.4 -35 -208 -254 -282 -231 -139 -202 Credits 427 535 675 842 896 Debts 462 743 929 1124 1127 Factor income (net) -175 -20 -47 -147 -220 -319 -298 -306 -320 Employee Compensation, net -7 -18 -23 -30 Investment income (inter.& profits), net -175 -20 -47 -140 -202 -296 -268 -306 -320 My total interest due 7-5 32.6 101.7 98.6 169.9 238 Current transfers (net) 52 73 97 59 50 75 78 70 70 General Government, net 52 73 97 73 52 73 84 Other transfers, net -14 -2 2 -6 Current account balance -1654 -1641.4 -906 -518 -749 -803 -1201 -265 -220 M&L term loans and credits, net 245 1834 559 462 334 714 743 276 321 Government and govem.guaranteed 245 1762 696 444 261 460 Central government 0 0 332 331 339 310 Drawings 332 331 339 315 Repayments 0 0 5 Govemment guaranteed 0 0 364 113 -78 150 Drawings 425 242 143 317 Repayments 61 129 221 167 Commercial banks, net 0 4 37 Other private sectors, net 72 -137 18 69 217 Foreign direct investment, net 100 228 635 964 1137 1320 1149 975 950 Portfolio investment, net 0 7 224 404 62 -113 0 Short-term and other capital, net -304 -495 -485 -475 -450 -475 Capitaltransfers, net -275 -381 -316 -440 -369 -325 -325 Erros and omissions 785 248 8 -75 -80 -220 -332 -117 0 Overal balance 799 -668.6 -297 -155 -55 -490 423 19 -251 Financing -147.8 -354 -297 -155 -55 -490 423 19 -251 Net internatl. reserv. of the NBK -253 -334 -176 -232 -55 -490 423 19 -251 Monetary Gold Foreign exchange reserve, net (increase-) -253 -334 -176 -232 -55 -490 423 19 -251 oAv IMF credit (net purchase +) 192 142 135 -6 112 -140 7 Exceptional financing 105.2 -20 -121 77 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMFIWorld Bank estimates GDP(currentthous.dollar) 0 11426 11895 16645 21036 22165 22136 15329 13554 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 61 Table B.5: Kazakhstan: Balance of Payments, 1991-2000 Part B (in percent of GDP) 1999 2000 Item 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Estimate Program Trade balance -10.5 -7.7 -1.3 -1.5 -1.2 -3.4 0.7 1.7 Exports (fob) 29.1 27.6 31.0 29.9 31.1 26.4 36.9 46.5 oAv oil 0.0 5.4 5.4 6.4 7.5 7.5 12.6 18.3 Imports (fob) 39.6 35.4 32.4 31.5 32.4 29.8 36.1 44.8 Services balance -4.3 -0.3 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.0 -0.9 -1.5 Credits 0.0 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 Debts 0.0 3.9 4.5 4.4 5.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 Factor income (net) -0.2 -0.4 -0.9 -1.0 -1.4 -1-3 -2.0 -2.4 Employee Compensation, net 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Investment income (inter.& profits), net -0.2 -0.4 -0.8 -1.0 -1.3 -1.2 -2.0 -2.4 o1v total interest due 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 Current transfers (net) 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 04 0.5 0.5 General Government, net 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 Other transfers, net 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Current account balance -14.4 -7.6 -3.1 -3.6 -3.6 -5.4 -1.7 -1.6 M&L term loans and credits, net 16.1 4.7 2.8 1.6 3.2 3.4 1.8 2.4 Government and govern.guaranteed 15.4 5.9 2.7 1.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Central government 0.0 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Drawings 0.0 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Repayments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Government guaranteed 0 0 3 1 0.7 -0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 Drawings 0.0 3.6 1.5 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Repayments 0.0 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Commercial banks, net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other private sectors, net 0.6 -1.2 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Foreign direct investment, net 2.0 5.3 5.8 5.4 6.0 5.2 6.4 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Portfolio investment, net 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.8 0.3 -0.7 0.0 Short-term and other capital, net 0.0 0.0 -1.8 -2.4 -2.2 -2.1 -2.9 -3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capital transfers, net 0.0 0.0 -2.3 -1.5 -2.0 -1.7 -2.1 -2.4 Erros and omissions 2.2 0.1 -0.5 -0.4 -1.0 -1.5 -0.8 0.0 Overal balance -5.9 -2.5 -0.9 -0.3 -2.2 1.9 0.1 -1.9 Financing -3.1 -2.5 -0.9 -0.3 -2.2 1.9 0.1 -1.9 Net internatl. reserv. of the NBK -2.9 -1.5 -1.4 -0.3 -2.2 1.9 0.1 -1.9 Monetary Gold 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Foreign exchange reserve, net (increase-) -2.9 -1.5 -1.4 -0.3 -2.2 1.9 0.1 -1.9 o/WIMFcredit(netpurchase+) 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.5 -0.9 0.1 Exceptional financing -0.2 -1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMF/Norld Bank estimates Annexes and Statistical Appendix 62 Table B.6: Kazakhstan: External Debt, 1991-1999 Part A (in million of US$) Item 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total debt outstanding 111 356 3240 3431 4201 5946 7589 7532 M & L terms public and publicly guaranteed 111 356 2671 2005 2602 3285 3995 3773 Multilateral creditors 470 806 1200 1439 1909 1804 IMF 287 430 551 514 651 508 World Bank 182 289 516 716 927 937 EBRD 2 23 37 42 36 48 ADB 64 96 168 295 301 IDB 10 Bilateral creditors 1413 243 401 360 677 682 Russia 1 () 1250 Russia 1l (") 68 Turkemenistan 8 8 Germany 4 4 4 4 Japan (JEXIM) 87 227 271 238 262 238 Austria 5 5 4 5 4 Sweden 3 3 3 3 3 OECF 0 25 124 147 Others (1) 117 87 280 287 M & L term trade credits 111 356 789 955 802 936 859 737 Eurobonds 200 550 550 550 Non-guaranteed external debts 569 1426 1599 2662 3594 3759 M & L term credits and loans 227 668 1499 Short-term liabilities 569 1426 1372 1994 2094 Commercial banks 115 97 Enterprises 26 455 470 668 724 Inter-enterprise credits 543 971 902 1211 1273 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorites, and IMFWorld Bank estimates (" Debt resulting from conversion of 1992-93 corresponding account balances (") Debt resulting from dawings under the 150 billion Russian Ruble technical credit. () Debt guaranteed and assumed as govemment debt as of the beginning of 1997, plus debt of commercial banks and firms not included elsewhere. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 63 Table B.6: Kazakhstan: External Debt, 1991-1999 Part B (percent of GDP) Item 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total debt outstanding 3.12 27.24 20.62 19.97 26.83 34.28 49.13 M & L terms public and publicly guaranteed 3.12 22.46 12.05 12.37 14.82 18.05 24.61 Multilateral creditors 3.95 4.84 5.70 6.49 8.62 11.77 IMF 2.41 2.59 2.62 2.32 2.94 3.31 World Bank 1.53 1.74 2.45 3.23 4.19 6.11 EBRD 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.31 ADB 0.38 0.46 0.76 1.33 1.97 IDB 0.06 Bilateral creditors 11.88 1.46 1.90 1.62 3.06 4.45 Russia I (*) 10.51 Russia 1l () 0.57 Turkemenistan 0.07 0.05 Germany 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Japan (JEXIM) 0.73 1.37 1.29 1.07 1.18 1.55 Austria 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Sweden 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 OECF 0.00 0.11 0.56 0.96 Others (*) 0.56 0.39 1.26 1.87 M & L term trade credits 3.12 6.63 5.74 3.81 4.22 3.88 4.81 Eurobonds 0.95 2.48 2.48 3.59 Non-guaranteed external debts 4.78 8.57 7.60 12.01 16.23 24.52 M & L term credits and loans 1.08 3.01 6.77 Short-term liabilities 4.78 8.57 6.52 9.00 9.46 Commercial banks 0.52 0.44 Enterprises 0.22 2.74 2.23 3.01 3.27 Inter-enterprise credits 4.56 5.83 4.29 5.46 5.75 SOURCE: Kazakhstan authorities, and IMFNVorld Bank estimates () Debt resulting from conversion of 1992-93 corresponding account balances. (") Debt resulting from drawings under the 150 billion Russian Ruble technical credit (-) Debt guaranteed and assumed as govemment debt as of the beginning of 1997, plus debt of commercial banks and firms not included elsewhere. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 64 Table B.7: Kazakhstan: Government Budget Operations, 1990-1999 (Part A) (in billion rubles) (in billion tenge) (in bilion tenge) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ttl. rev. and grants 16.6 23.5 297.5 6.2 78.2 171.2 187.2 326.9 315.2 329.7 Total revenue 11.5 19.3 276.8 6.2 78.1 171.2 187.2 326.2 302.5 3270 Current revenue 11.5 19.3 276.8 6.2 78.1 171.2 187.2 321.4 299- 324.8 Tax revenue 11.1 17.7 261.0 4.9 52.2 131.6 160.6 303.7 280.8 2978 Tx income,prof.,cap. Gains 4.2 9.9 91.6 2.0 22.9 58.8 64.5 81.6 68.5 68.2 Dom.Tx. on goods & serv.* 4.9 6.6 88.1 1.4 13.4 39.7 75.0 588 80.8 87 8 Tx.on international Trade- 28.5 0.5 6.4 12.8 9.0 Social Tax 1.8 90.0 56.1 65.1 Othertaxes 0.2 1.2 52.8 1.1 9.6 20.3 12.1 3.3 5.4 6.7 Nontax revenue 0.4 1.6 15.8 1.3 25.8 39.6 26.6 17.7 18.9 270 Capital revenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 2.8 2.2 Total grants 5.1 4.2 20.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 7 12.- 2.7 Expenditure and net lending 16.0 309 387.4 7.4 77.9 211.2 262.8 474.9 447.6 393.0 Expenditure 16.0 30.9 387.4 7.4 77.9 191.2 245.7 451.2 415.5 3-2.2 General gov. services 25.4 31.6 Defense 23.7 0.7 3.5 10.8 15.0 Public order and security 5.8 15.8 23.6 Education 3.0 6.3 47.1 1.2 11.9 45.6 48.7 73.0 68.5 69.0 Health 1.5 3.0 26.0 0.7 8.4 30.5 39.7 43.7 33.8 S5.1 Soc.insur&social secur. 2.0 4.3 16.6 0.3 2.8 7.8 43.3 138.0 92.2 169.9 Recriation and culture 0.6 7.2 0.2 1.6 5.6 13.1 Fuel energy 1.1 1.4 Agr.,foretry& environm. 7.2 9.3 Mining/mineral,proc.&constr. 3.6 5.1 Transport.& commnications 0.1 0.1 10.3 11.2 19 Other 9.5 16.7 266.8 4.3 44.0 37.7 13.8 186.2 209.8 58.5 Net Lending 20.0 17.1 23. 32.1 20.8 Regular budget balance 0.6 -7.4 -89.9 -1.2 0.2 -40.0 -75.6 -148.0 -132.4 -63.3 Quasi-fiscal operat. (surplus+) -32.9 6.0 Extra-budget. Funds (surplus+) 1.0 1.7 Overall budget balance 0,6 -7.4 -89.9 -1.2 -31.7 -32.3 -75.6 -148.0 -132.4 -63.3 Statistical discrepancy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.5 -8.8 -32.7 1.8 52.3 Arrears 52.7 0.0 Financing -0.6 7.4 37.2 1.2 31.7 27.8 66.8 115.3 134.2 115.6 Domestic, net -0.6 7.4 18.3 0.4 21.9 0.4 -1.7 163 32.4 27.6 Banking system 14.6 9.7 -3.7 14.9 5.1 126 Nonbank 7.3 -9.3 2.0 1.4 7.3 15.0 Foreign, net 18.3 0.1 8.5 20.2 37.4 44.4 46.8 43.8 Privatization receipts 0.6 0.8 1.3 7.2 31.1 54.6 5.0 44.2 GDP 51.0 94.0 1213.6 29.4 423.5 1014.2 1415.8 1672.1 1720.9 1894.8 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance, IMF(Recent Economic Development reports), Bank staff estimates * from 1997 onwards only VAT "from 1997 onwards included in "Other taxes" Annexes and Statistical Appendix 65 Table B.7: Kazakhstan: Government Budget Operations, 1990-1999 (Part B) (in percent of GDP) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ttl. rev. and grants 32.5 25.0 24.5 21.2 18.5 16.9 13.2 19.5 18.3 17.4 Total revenue 22.5 20.5 228 21.2 18.4 16.9 13.2 19.5 17 6 17.3 Current revenue 22.5 20.5 22.8 21.2 18.4 16.9 132 19.2 17 4 /1I Tax revenue 21.8 18.8 21 5 16.7 12.3 13.0 113 18.2 16.3 15.7 Tx income,prof.,cap. Gains 8.2 10.5 7,5 6.8 5.4 5.8 4.6 4.9 4.0 3.6 Dom.Tx. on goods & serv. 9.6 7.0 7,3 4.7 3.2 3.9 5.3 3.5 4.7 4.6 Tx.on international Trade 2.3 1.6 15 1.3 0.6 Social Tax 3.5 5.4 3.3 3.4 Other taxes 0.4 1.3 4.4 3.6 2.3 2.0 0.9 4.4 4.4 4.0 Nontax revenue 0.8 1.7 13 4.5 6.1 3.9 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.4 Capital revenue 0.3 0.2 0.1 Total grants 10.0 4,5 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 Exp.&N.Lend.(incl.ex-bdgt) 31.4 32.9 31.9 25.2 25.9 20.1 18.6 26.4 26.0 20.7 Expend.&net lend. 31.4 32.9 319 252 18.4 20.8 18.6 28.4 26.0 20.7 Expenditure 31.4 32.9 31.9 25.2 18.4 18.9 17.4 270 24.1 19.6 General gov. services 2.5 22 Defense 2.0 2.5 068 1.1 1.1 Public order and security 1.4 1.6 1.7 Education 5.9 6.7 3.9 4.2 2.8 4.5 3.4 4.4 4.0 3.6 Health (% GDP) 2.9 3.2 2.1 2.3 2.0 30 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.9 Soc.insur,&soc.secur 3.9 4.6 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.8 3.1 8.3 5.4 9.0 Recriation and culture 0.6 06 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.9 Fuel energy 0.1 0.1 Agr.,foretry,& environm. 0.7 0.7 Mining/mineral,proc &constr. 0.4 0.4 Transport& conimncations 00 0.0 0.6 0.7 1.0 Other 18.6 17.8 22.0 14.6 10.4 3.7 1.0 11.1 12.2 3.1 Nat Lending 2.0 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.1 Regular budget balance 1.2 -79 -7.4 -4.0 0.0 -3.9 -5.3 -8.9 -717 -3.3 Quasi-fiscal operat. (surplus+) -7.8 0.6 Extra-budget. Funds (surplus+) 0.2 0.2 Overall budget balance 1.2 -7.9 -7.4 -40 -7.5 -3.2 -5.3 -8.9 -77 -3.3 Statistical discrepancy 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.6 -2.0 0.1 2.8 Arrears 4.3 -01 Financing -1.2 7.9 3.1 4.1 7.5 2.7 4.7 6.9 7.8 6.I Domestic, net -1.2 7.9 1.5 1.2 5.2 0.0 -01 1.0 0.7 1.5 Banking system 3.4 1.0 -0.3 0.9 0.3 0.7 Nonbank 1.7 -0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 Foreign, net 1.5 0.2 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.3 Privatization receipts 0.0 27 0.3 07 2.2 3.3 4.4 2.3 GDP 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1000 100.0 100.0 100.0 Annexes and Statistical Appendix 66 Table B.7: Kazakhstan: Government Budget Operations, 1990-1999 (Part C) (in percent of total) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 TtI. rev. and grants 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1000 100.0 Total revenue 69.3 82.1 93.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 99.8 96.0 99.2 Current revenue 69.3 82.1 93.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 98.3 95.1 98.5 Taxrevenue 66.9 75.3 87.7 78.8 66.9 76.9 85.8 92.9 89.1 90.3 Tx income,prof.,cap. Gains 25.3 42.1 30.8 31.9 29.3 34.3 34.5 25.0 21.7 20. Dom.Tx. on goods & serv. 29.5 28.1 29.6 22.2 17.2 23.2 40.1 18.0 25.6 26.6 Tx.on international Trade 9.6 7.6 8.2 7.5 4.8 Social Tax 10.8 275 11.8 19.7 Othertaxes 1.2 5.1 17.7 17.0 12.2 11.9 6.5 22.4 23.9 23.3 Nontax revenue 2.4 6.8 5.3 21.2 33.1 23.1 14.2 5.4 6.0 8.2 Capital revenue 1.5 0 9 0 7 Total grants 30.7 17.9 7.0 0.1 0.2 4.0 0.8 Expenditure and net lending 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Expenditure 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.5 93.5 95.0 92.8 94.- General gov. services 12.0 12.0 Defense 6.1 10.0 4.5 5.1 5.7 Public order and security 7.4 7.5 9.0 Education 18.8 20.4 12.2 16.5 15.3 21.6 18.5 15.4 15.3 176 Health (% Publ.Exp.) 9.4 9.7 6.7 9.3 10.8 14.4 15.1 9.2 7.6 14.0 Soc.insur.&social secur. 12.5 13.9 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 16.5 29.1 20.6 43.2 Recriation and culture 1.9 1.9 2.6 2.0 2.7 5.0 Fuel energy 0.5 0.5 Agr.,foretry,& environim. 3.4 3.5 Mining/mineral,proc.&constr. 1.7 2.3 Transport.& commnications 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.5 5.0 Other 59.4 54.0 68.9 57.9 56.4 17.9 5.3 39.2 46.9 14.9 Net Lending 9.5 6.5 5.0 7.2 5.3 Regular budget balance 3.8 -23.9 -23.2 -15.8 0.3 -18.9 -28.8 -31.2 -29.6 -16.1 Quasi-fiscal operat. (surplus+) -42.2 2.8 Extra-budget. Funds (surplus+) 1.2 0.8 Overall budget balance 3.8 -23.9 -23.2 -15.8 -40.7 -15.3 -28.8 -31.2 -29.6 -16.1 Statistical discrepancy 0.0 0.3 0.0 -2.1 -3.3 -6.9 0.4 13.3 Arrears 13.6 -0.3 Financing -3.8 23.9 9.6 16.3 40.7 13.2 25.4 24.3 30.0 29.4 Domestic, net -3.8 23.9 4.7 4.8 28.1 0.2 -0.6 3.4 2.8 .0 Banking system 18.7 4.6 -1.4 3.1 1I 3.2 Nonbank 9.4 -4.4 08 0.3 1.6 3.8 Foreign, net 4.7 0.9 10.9 9.6 14.2 9.3 10.5 111 Privatization receipts 0.2 10.6 1.7 3.4 11.8 11.5 16.8 11.2 GDP 51.0 94.0 1213.6 29.4 423.5 1014.2 1415.8 1672.1 1720.9 1894.8 SOURCE: Ministry of Finance, IMF, Bank staff estimates Annexes and Statistical Appendix 67 Table B.7:. Kazadstan Gemmwert Budget Operations, 1990-1999 (Pat D) (percent of GP) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ependture and ret lendng 31.4 32.9 31.9 25.2 184 20,8 18.6 20.4 222 26.0 Edcabion 5.9 6.7 3.9 4.2 2.8 4.5 3.4 4.4 4.0 3.7 Health 2.9 3.2 21 2.3 2.0 30 2.8 21 1.5 29 SocinsLr8eai secux 3.9 4.6 1.4 0.9 0.7 08 3.1 1.6 3.1 9.0 SOURCE Tade B7 (Part A) Annexes and Statistical Appendix 68 Table B.8: 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast Expenditures Total Expenditures General Public and Lending Total Services Defense Public Order % of % of % of % of % of Oblast Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Akmolinskaya 7,626 64.4 7,598 64.5 367 77.3 121 66.7 249 42.5 Aktyubinskaya 8,013 67.7 8,004 67.9 409 86.2 135 74.3 408 69.6 Almatinskaya 9,203 77.7 9,187 78.0 442 93.1 85 46.8 320 54.6 Atyrauskaya 11,090 93.7 11,042 93.7 499 105.1 146 80.3 424 72.3 East Kazakhstan 10,684 90.3 10,631 90.2 469 98.8 304 167.1 510 87.0 Zhambylskaya 7,586 64.1 7,479 63.5 295 62.1 85 46.8 331 56.5 West Kazakhstan 9,144 77.2 9,104 77.3 407 85.7 191 104.9 511 87.2 Karagandinskaya 9,143 77.2 9,113 77.4 323 68.0 202 111.0 617 105.3 Kzylordinskaya 10,358 87.5 10,092 85.7 587 123.6 121 66.6 254 43.4 Kostanaiskaya 15,557 131.4 15,497 131.5 739 155.6 305 167.6 803 137.0 Mangistauskaya 10,273 86.8 10,273 87.2 441 92.8 155 85.4 561 95.7 Pavlodarskaya 11,112 93.9 11,112 94.3 509 107.2 242 133.1 646 110.1 North Kazakhstan 13,963 118.0 13,962 118.5 690 145.3 266 146.1 678 115.7 South Kazakhstan 8,372 70.7 8,177 69.4 255 53.8 121 66.5 339 57.8 Almaty City 12,447 105.1 12,402 105.3 571 120.2 253 138.9 1,085 185.1 Astana City 34,827 294.2 34,827 295.6 596 125.4 178 97.9 1,642 280.1 Kazakhstan 10,448 88.3 10,376 88.1 444 93.5 178 98.1 519 88.5 Mean 11,837.4 100.0 11,781.2 100.0 475.0 100.0 181.8 100.0 586.2 100.0 Maximum 34,827.5 294.2 34,827.5 295.6 739.1 155.6 304.7 167.6 1,641.8 280.1 Minimum 7,585.6 64.1 7,479.2 63.5 255.3 53.8 85.0 46.8 249.3 42.5 Coef. Of Var. 0.55 0.56 0.29 0.40 0.61 * WFFE Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 69 Table B.8: (continued): 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast Expenditures Social Security & Housing & Culture, Sports, & Education Health Welfare Amenities Information % of % of % of % of % of Oblast Tenge mean- Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge _mean Tenge mean Akmolinskaya 2,621 69.9 1,081 87.7 2,049 67.4 27 6.6 299 73.1 Aktyubinskaya 3,667 97.8 839 68.1 1,796 59.0 195 47.7 340 82.9 Almatinskaya 3,464 92.4 1,708 138.6 2,774 91.2 27 6.6 210 51.3 Atyrauskaya 4,444 118.5 996 80.9 3,112 102.3 399 97.9 431 105.2 East Kazakhstan 3,856 102.8 1,154 93.6 3,278 107.8 344 84.5 441 107.6 Zhambylskaya 2,645 70.5 1,017 82.6 2,793 91.8 69 16.9 144 35.1 West Kazakhstan 3,436 91.6 950 77.1 2,940 96.7 123 30.3 396 96.6 Karagandinskaya 3,301 88.0 1,162 94.3 2,467 81.1 371 91.0 412 100.5 Kzylordinskaya 2,631 70.2 827 67.1 4,037 132.7 453 111.0 270 65.8 Kostanaiskaya 6,146 163.9 1,618 131.3 3,407 112.0 310 76.0 572 139.7 Mangistauskaya 4,111 109.6 1,429 116.0 2,719 89.4 101 24.9 412 100.6 Pavlodarskaya 4,660 124.3 853 69.3 2,881 94.7 332 81.4 515 125.8 North Kazakhstan 5,620 149.9 1,961 159.2 3,961 130.2 182 44.6 352 85.9 South Kazakhstan 3,142 83.8 810 65.7 2,544 83.6 190 46.6 256 62.6 Almaty City 3,570 95.2 1,985 161.1 3,885 127.7 389 95.5 300 73.1 Astana City 2,684 71.6 1,322 107.3 4,017 132.1 3,011 738.6 1,206 294.3 Kazakhstan 3,608 96.2 1,217 98.7 2,980 98.0 288 70.5 351 85.7 Mean 3,749.9 100.0 1,232.1 100.0 3,041.2 100.0 407.7 100.0 409.8 100.0 Maximum 6,146.5 163.9 1,985.4 161.1 4,036.6 132.7 3,011.3 738.6 1,206.0 294.3 Minimum 2,621.5 69.9 809.6 65.7 1,795.6 59.0 26.8 6.6 143.9 35.1 Coef.Of Var. 0.28 0.32 0.23 1.74 0.58 * WFFE = Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 70 Table B.8 (continued): 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast Expenditures Fuel & Energy Agriculture & Industry, Constr., Complex WFFE* Mining -_Transp. & Comm. __ Others % of % of % of % of % of Oblast. Tenge mean-_ Tenge mean Tenge _mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Akmolinskaya - 0.0 58 72.8 1 1.7 - 0.0 148 10.6 Aktyubinskaya - 0.0 64 79.9 15 21.5 - 0.0 132 9.5 Almatinskaya - 0.0 46 57.6 58 86.0 - 0.0 43 3.1 Atyrauskaya - 0.0 249 310.8 214 316.9 - 0.0 130 9.3 East Kazakhstan - 0.0 134 167.3 29 43.0 - 0.0 111 7.9 Zhambylskaya - 0.0 48 59.5 - 0.0 - 0.0 52 3.7 West Kazakhstan - 0.0 50 62.1 - 0.0 - 0.0 91 6.6 Karagandinskaya - 0.0 38 47.0 35 51.4 - 0.0 178 12.8 Kzylordinskaya - 0.0 52 65.5 - 0.0 - 0.0 861 61.9 Kostanaiskaya - 0.0 99 124.2 111 164.3 - 0.0 1,384 99.4 Mangistauskaya - 0.0 54 67.4 29 42.2 - 0.0 263 18.9 Pavlodarskaya - 0.0 197 246.3 21 30.6 - 0.0 135 9.7 North Kazakhstan - 0.0 89 111.3 - 0.0 - 0.0 158 11.3 South Kazakhstan - 0.0 32 40.0 390 576.4 - 0.0 98 7.1 Almaty City - 0.0 52 65.6 162 239.3 - 0.0 91 6.5 Astana City - 0.0 18 22.7 18 26.9 - 0.0 18,398 1321.6 Kazakhstan - 0.0 73 91.5 89 131.5 - 0.0 550 39.5 Mean - 0.0 80.0 100.0 67.6 100.0 - 0.0 1,392.1 100.0 Maximum - 0.0 248.5 310.8 389.8 576.4 - 0.0 18,398.1 1321.6 Minimum - 0.0 18.2 22.7 - 0.0 - 0.0 43.5 3.1 Coef. Of Var. - 0.79 1.58 - 3.27 S* WFFE = Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 71 Table B.8 (continued): 1998 Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast - ELcpenditures Debt Servicing Official Transfers Lending Budget Deficit % of % of %of %of Oblast Tenge __mean Tenge mean Tenge mean mean Akmolinskaya 576 363.0 - 0.0 28 49.8 (395) 90.0 Aktyubinskaya 4 2.7 - 0.0 9 15.5 (714) 162.8 Almatinskaya 10 6.0 - 0.0 17 29.6 298 -67.9 Atyrauskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 48 85.2 (32) 7.3 East Kazakhstan 1 0.8 - 0.0 53 94.3 (313) 71.4 Zhambylskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 107 191.1 51 -11.5 West Kazakhstan 8 5.1 - 0.0 40 71.3 (1,100) 250.6 Karagandinskaya 9 5.7 - 0.0 30 53.2 369 -84.0 Kzylordinskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 266 473.1 (55) 12.6 Kostanaiskaya 3 2.1 - 0.0 61 107.8 (2,980) 679.1 Mangistauskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (120) 27.4 Pavlodarskaya 123 77.4 - 0.0 0.0 (1,675) 381.8 North Kazakhstan 3 1.7 - 0.0 0.4 0.7 27 -6.1 South Kazakhstan - 0.0 - 0.0 195 347.7 3 -0.6 Almaty City 60 38.1 - 0.0 45 80.7 (274) 62.4 Astana City 1,740 1097.3 - 0.0 0.0 (109) 24.8 Kazakhstan 79 49.6 - 0.0 72 128.3 (301) 68.6 Mean 158.6 100.0 - 0.0 56.2 100.0 (438.8) 100.0 Maximum 1,739.9 1097.3 - 0.0 265.9 473.1 368.7 679.1 Minimum - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (2,979.8) -84.0 Coef. Of Var. 2.81 1.33-.94) __ * WFFE = Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 72 Table B.9: 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures and Lending Expenditures Total Expenditures General Public and Lending Total Services Defense Public Order % of % of % of % of % of Oblast Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Akmolinskaya 3,772 60.8 3,772 60.9 312 144.9 42 52.2 124 54.1 Aktyubinskaya 5,454 87.9 5,454 88.1 218 101.2 66 82.2 236 102.5 Almatinskaya 3,330 53.7 3,330 53.8 198 91.9 31 38.4 117 50.7 Atyrauskaya 14,681 236.7 14,672 236.9 168 78.0 91 113.4 202 87.9 East Kazakhstan 4,932 79.5 4,929 79.6 206 95.5 175 218.3 221 96.0 Zhambylskaya 2,703 43.6 2,682 43.3 126 58.5 36 44.3 162 70.2 West Kazakhstan 3,384 54.5 3,384 54.6 142 66.1 78 96.9 212 92.2 Karagandinskaya 5,131 82.7 5,131 82.9 233 108.1 82 102.4 261 113.3 Kzylordinskaya 4,717 76.0 4,655 75.2 164 76.2 79 98.3 143 61.9 Kostanaiskaya 4,375 70.5 4,350 70.2 230 106.9 77 96.6 190 82.7 Mangistauskaya 9,416 151.8 9,416 152.0 464 215.3 69 86.6 287 124.8 Paviodarskaya 5,697 91.8 5,697 92.0 256 118.6 83 103.6 185 80.3 North Kazakhstan 3,855 62.1 3,855 62.2 215 99.7 117 146.0 187 81.4 South Kazakhstan 2,436 39.3 2,406 38.8 127 58.9 42 52.3 132 57.2 Almaty City 12,230 197.2 12,221 197.3 141 65.3 62 77.2 322 140.0 Astana City 13,138 211.8 13,138 212.1 247 114.8 153 191.3 702 304.9 Kazakhstan 5,253 84.7 5,242 84.6 199 92.5 76 94.8 203 88.2 Mean 6,203.1 100.0 6,193.19 100.0 215.5 100.0 80.2 100.0 230.1 100.0 Maximum 14,680.6 236.7 14,671.5 236.9 464.0 215.3 175.1 218.3 701.5 304.9 Minimum 2,435.9 39.3 2,406.0 38.8 126.0 58.5 30.8 38.4 116.7 50.7 Coef. Of Var. 0.63 0.63 0.39 0.50 0.60 * WFFE = Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 73 Table B.9 (continued): 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures by Oblast Expenditures Social Security & Housing & Culture, Sports, & Education Health Welfare - _ Amenities Information % of % of % of % of % of Oblast Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tege mean Tenge mean Akmolinskaya 1,679 87.2 917 111.6 467 101.7 22 17.6 153 87.9 Aktyubinskaya 2,843 147.7 641 78.1 463 100.9 114 93.4 189 108.4 Almatinskaya 2,018 104.9 514 62.6 273 59.4 26 21.5 53 30.2 Atyrauskaya 2,682 139.4 973 118.4 614 133.8 98 79.9 205 117.4 East Kazakhstan 2,063 107.2 857 104.3 496 108.2 89 73.2 172 99.0 Zhambylskaya 1,264 65.7 600 73.0 396 86.4 16 13.3 60 34.4 West Kazakhstan 1,818 94.5 646 78.6 270 58.9 21 17.2 160 92.0 Karagandinskaya 1,731 89.9 839 102.2 440 95.9 59 48.1 186 106.9 Kzylordinskaya 2,142 111.3 1,088 132.5 652 142.2 97 79.5 196 112.6 Kostanaiskaya 2,244 116.6 883 107.4 248 54.1 37 30.5 179 103.0 Mangistauskaya 1,910 99.2 698 84.9 417 90.8 22 18.1 193 110.5 Pavlodarskaya 2,060 107.0 783 95.3 489 106.5 136 111.6 199 113.9 North Kazakhstan 1,642 85.3 1,015 123.6 413 90.1 17 13.5 109 62.5 South Kazakhstan 1,377 71.5 302 36.7 258 56.2 32 26.5 106 60.7 Almaty City 1,869 97.1 1,368 166.5 679 147.9 173 141.8 162 92.9 Astana City 1,450 75.3 1,021 124.3 767 167.2 996 814.3 467 267.8 Kazakhstan 1,870 97.2 771 93.8 423 92.2 82 67.4 151 86.5 Mean 1,924.4 100.0 821.5 100.0 458.9 100.0 122.3 100.0 174.3 100.0 Maximum 2,842.7 147.7 1,368.0 166.5 767.3 167.2 995.9 814.3 466.6 267.8 Minimum 1,264.4 65.7 301.5 36.7 248.1 54.1 16.3 13.3 52.6 30.2 Coef. Of Var. 0.22 0.31 0.34 1.95 0.53 * WFFE = Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 74 Table B.9 (continued): 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures and Lending Expenditures Fuel & Energy Agriculture & Industry, Constr., Complex WFFE* Mining Transp. & Comm. Others % of % of % of % of % of Oblast Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge _mean_ Tenge mean Tenge mean Akmolinskaya 20 82.0 - 0.0 34.70 30.8 2 0.5 Aktyubinskaya 22 88.5 - 0.0 7.32 6.5 2 0.6 Almatinskaya - 19 74.9 19 633.3 16.67 14.8 46 10.3 Atyrauskaya - 41 164.9 - 0.0 365.99 324.4 2 0.5 East Kazakhstan - 38 152.6 7 222.5 599.03 530.9 6 1.3 Zhambylskaya - 13 53.2 - 0.0 6.10 5.4 5 1.2 West Kazakhstan - 13 52.2 3 110.3 16.19 14.3 2 0.4 Karagandinskaya - 14 57.1 0 9.7 24.79 22.0 32 7.1 Kzylordinskaya - 32 128.4 - 0.0 33.54 29.7 27 6.0 Kostanaiskaya - 47 189.7 - 0.0 35.31 31.3 16 3.5 Mangistauskaya - 28 114.5 1 21.5 - 0.0 6 1.4 Pavlodarskaya - 42 170.0 - 0.0 55.84 49.5 6 1.4 North Kazakhstan - 29 116.6 - 0.0 99.19 87.9 14 3.1 South Kazakhstan - 3 10.2 - 0.0 22.77 20.2 6 1.4 Almaty City 5 19.3 18 602.8 190.25 168.6 - 0.0 Astana City - 31 126.2 - 0.0 297.53 263.7 7,006 1561.5 Kazakhstan - 22 88.8 4 140.3 115 101.8 163 36.3 Mean - 24.8 100.0 2.9 100.0 112.8 100.0 448.7 100.0 Maximum - 47.1 189.7 18.6 633.3 599.0 530.9 7,006.0 1561.5 Minimum - 2.5 10.2 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 Coef. Of Var. 0.54 2.11 1.50 3.90 * WFFE = Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 75 Table B.9 (continued): 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Expenditures and Lending Expenditures Debt Servicing Official Transfers _ Lending _ Budget Deficit % of %of %of %of Oblast Tenge_ __mean__ Tenge mean Tenge _ mean__ Tenge__ mean Akmolinskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 72 25.8 Aktyubinskaya 1 50.3 652 41.4 - 0.0 177 63.7 Almatinskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 (177) -63.6 Atyrauskaya - 0.0 9,234 586.4 9 60.2 1,930 694.1 East Kazakhstan - 0.0 - 0.0 3 21.6 223 80.4 Zhambylskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 21 141.3 49 17.5 West Kazakhstan - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 (94) -33.8 Karagandinskaya 4 121.6 1,227 77.9 - 0.0 214 76.9 Kzylordinskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 62 410.7 101 36.2 Kostanaiskaya 7 235.6 155 9.8 26 168.8 282 101.6 Mangistauskaya - 0.0 5,325 338.2 - 0.0 152 54.5 Pavlodarskaya 35 1192.5 1,367 86.8 - 0.0 264 95.1 North Kazakhstan - 0.0 - 0.0 81.3 538.0 145 52.0 South Kazakhstan - 0.0 - 0.0 30 200.9 68 24.6 Almaty City - 0.0 7,235 459.4 9 58.6 1,024 368.2 Astana City - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 19 6.8 Kazakhstan 3 94.1 1,161 73.7 15 98.3 227 81.8 Mean 2.9 100.0 1,574.7 100.0 15.1 100.0 278.0 100.0 Maximum 34.7 1192.5 9,233.9 586.4 81.3 538.0 1,930.0 694.1 Minimum - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 (177.0) -63.6 Coef. Of Var. 2.98 1.87 1.62 1.84 *WFFE = Water, Forestry, Fishing and Environmental Protection SOURCE: Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 76 Table B.10: 1998 Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast Tax Receipts Revenues Income Tax from Income Tax from Total Collections (tax and non-tax) Total legal entities physical persons Oblast Tenge_ % of mean Tenge % of mean Tenge % of mean Tenge % of mean Tenge % of mean Akmolinskaya 6,673 58.5 6,736 73.5 6,340 77.4 898 59.0 994 51.7 Aktyubinskaya 7,300 64.0 7,270 79.3 5,910 72.2 877 57.6 1,917 99.6 Almatinskaya 9,501 83.3 2,517 27.5 2,100 25.6 260 17.1 617 32.0 Atyrauskaya 11,057 97.0 11,011 120.2 9,329 113.9 1,435 94.3 1,341 69.7 East Kazakhstan 10,370 90.9 7,250 79.1 6,428 78.5 2,283 150.1 1,803 93.7 Zhambylskaya 7,636 67.0 3,202 34.9 2,856 34.9 230 15.1 612 31.8 West Kazakhstan 8,045 70.5 7,173 78.3 6,628 80.9 2,861 188.1 2,510 130.4 Karagandinskaya 9,512 83.4 9,379 102.4 8,518 104.0 3,675 241.6 2,096 103.9 Kzylordinskaya 7,119 62.4 7,101 77.5 6,196 75.7 953 62.6 1,583 82.3 Kostanaiskaya 18,203 159.6 11,790 128.7 11,428 139.6 2,482 163.2 1,636 85.1 Mangistauskaya 10,154 89.0 10,154 110.8 9,026 110.2 796 52.3 4,027 209.3 Pavlodarskaya 9,437 82.7 9,398 102.6 6,906 84.3 664 43.7 2,738 142.3 North Kazakhstan 13,990 122.7 5,223 57.0 4,482 54.7 500 32.8 1,315 68.4 South Kazakhstan 8,375 73.4 3,488 38.1 3,166 38.7 1,199 78.8 725 37.7 Almaty City 12,174 106.7 12,118 132.2 10,210 124.7 - 0.0 3,767 195.8 Astana City 32,924 288.7 32,807 358.0 31,498 384.6 5,231 343.8 3,101 161.2 Kazakhstan 10,082 88.4 7,360 80.3 6,488 79.2 1,375 90.4 1,686 87.6 Mean 11,404.4 100.0 9,163.6 100.0 8,188.8 100.0 1,521.5 100.0 1,923.9 100.0 Maximum 32,924.0 288.7 32,807.5 358.0 31,498.1 384.6 5,230.7 343.8 4,026.9 209.3 Minimum 6,672.9 58.5 2,516.6 27.5 2,100.0 25.6 - - 612.0 31.8 Coef. Of Var. 0.56 0.76 0.82 0.94 0.55 SOURCE: Statistical bulletin, Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 77 Table B.10: 1998 Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast (continued) Non-Tax Receipts Tax Receipts Capital Revenues Social Tax VAT Excises Total Total from privatization % of % of %of %of Tenge mean Tenge % of mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge -mean Tenge % of mean Akmolinskaya - - 2,959 175.4 315 38.1 396 40.6 10 24.7 9 31.4 Aktyubinskaya - - - 0.0 687 83.0 1,359 139.5 12 30.8 10 34.2 Almatinskaya - - - 0.0 218 26.3 417 42.7 8 20.4 8 25.8 Atyrauskaya - - - 0.0 1,130 136.6 1,683 172.6 31 78.5 30 99.9 East Kazakhstan - - - 0.0 884 106.8 822 84.3 15 37.5 14 47.9 Zhambylskaya - - - 0.0 974 117.7 346 35.5 20 50.9 17 58.0 West Kazakhstan - - - 0.0 276 33.4 544 55.8 110 282.5 110 370.2 Karagandinskaya - - 133 7.9 275 33.2 861 88.3 23 58.9 23 77.3 Kzylordinskaya - - 836 49.6 1,044 126.2 905 92.8 2 6.1 2 8.0 Kostanaiskaya - - 4,684 277.7 380 46.0 362 37.2 22 56.7 3 11.3 Mangistauskaya - - - 0.0 161 19.4 1,128 115.7 - 0.0 - 0.0 Pavlodarskaya - - - 0.0 998 120.7 2,492 255.7 39 100.6 39 131.1 North Kazakhstan - - - 0.0 686 82.9 741 76.0 169 434.8 50 168.0 South Kazakhstan - - - 0.0 583 70.5 322 33.1 27 68.5 24 80.4 Almaty City - - - 0.0 2,635 318.5 1,908 195.8 19 49.5 19 64.9 Astana City - - 18,375 1089.4 1,991 240.7 1,309 134.3 117 299.6 116 391.6 Kazakhstan - - 761 45.1 787 95.0 872 89.5 31 79.6 24 82.0 Mean - - 1,686.7 100.0 827.4 100.0 974.7 100.0 38.9 100.0 29.7 100.0 Maximum - - 18,375.3 1089.4 2,635.5 318.5 2,492.1 255.7 169.1 434.8 116.2 391.6 Minimum - - - 0.0 160.7 19.4 322.4 33.1 - - - - Coef. Of Var. - - 2.75 0.81 0.65 1.25 1.19 SOURCE: Statistical bulletin, Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 78 Table B.10: 1998 Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast (continued) Official Transfers Repayments of Loans Budget Deficit Tenge % of mean Tenge % of mean Tenge %of mean Akmolinskaya - 0.0 (72) (1,055.7) (953) 220.0 Aktyubinskaya - 0.0 18 260.8 (713) 164.7 Almatinskaya 6,977 317.8 - 0.0 298 (68.8) Atyrauskaya - 0.0 15 223.9 (33) 7.5 East Kazakhstan 3,100 141.2 6 85.0 (313) 72.3 Zhambylskaya 4,379 199.5 35 515.7 51 (11.7) West Kazakhstan 757 34.5 5 70.4 (1,099) 253.9 Karagandinskaya 106 4.8 4 56.1 369 (85.1) Kzylordinskaya - 0.0 15 222.9 (3,239) 748.0 Kostanaiskaya 6,391 291.2 - 0.0 2,646 (611.0) Mangistauskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 (119) 27.4 Pavlodarskaya - 0.0 - 0.0 (1,676) 386.9 North Kazakhstan 8,578 390.8 20 288.4 27 (6.2) South Kazakhstan 4,832 220.1 28 403.4 3 (0.6) Almaty City - 0.0 36 529.1 (273) 63.1 Astana City - 0.0 - 0.0 (1,903) 439.6 Kazakhstan 2,682 122.2 9 131.3 (366) 84.4 Mean 2,195.0 100.0 6.8 100.0 (433.0) 100.0 Maximum 8,578.5 390.8 36.2 529.1 2,645.9 748.0 Minimum - - (72.2) (1,055.7) (3,239.2) (611.0) Coef.-OfVar. 1.39 3.59 (2.92) 2.92 SOURCE: Statistical bulletin, Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 79 Table B.11: 1999 (1st 6 months Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast Tax Receipts Revenues Income Tax from Income Tax from Total Collections (tax and non-tax)-- Total legal entities physical persons % of % of % of %of Oblast Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge mean Tenge % of mean Akmolinskaya 3,844 58.6 2,360 39.0 2,223 39.1 93 11.4 296 27.4 Aktyubinskaya 5,633 85.8 5,506 90.9 5,103 89.8 480 58.6 888 81.9 Almatinskaya 3,153 48.0 1,943 32.1 1,748 30.8 62 7.5 287 26.5 Atyrauskaya 16,610 253.1 16,578 273.7 16,170 284.5 4,502 549.7 4,377 404.1 East Kazakhstan 5,156 78.6 4,511 74.5 4,172 73.4 376 46.0 792 73.1 Zhambylskaya 2,751 41.9 1,982 32.7 1,856 32.7 55 6.7 224 20.7 West Kazakhstan 3,290 50.1 2,922 48.3 2,734 48.1 463 56.6 616 56.9 Karagandinskaya 5,346 81.5 5,329 88.0 5,053 88.9 382 46.6 925 85.4 Kzylordinskaya 7,964 121.3 7,953 131.3 7,229 127.2 324 39.6 738 68.1 Kostanaiskaya 2,817 42.9 1,833 30.3 1,723 30.3 61 7.5 423 39.0 Mangistauskaya 9,568 145.8 9,568 158.0 8,961 157.7 1,069 130.6 2,277 210.2 Pavlodarskaya 5,961 90.8 5,881 97.1 4,778 84.1 859 104.9 729 67.3 North Kazakhstan 3,998 60.9 2,669 44.1 2,494 43.9 97 11.8 379 35.0 South Kazakhstan 2,504 38.2 1,525 25.2 1,414 24.9 132 16.1 227 20.9 Almaty City 13,254 201.9 13,212 218.1 12,442 218.9 2,293 280.0 3,253 300.3 Astana City 13,158 200.5 13,134 216.9 12,825 225.7 1,856 226.6 904 83.4 Kazakhstan 5,481 83..5 4,862 80.3 4,530 79.7 584 71.4 884 81.6 Mean 6,563.0 100.0 6,056.7 100.0 5,682.8 100.0 818.9 100.0 1,083.4 100.0 Maximum 16,610.3 253.1 16,577.7 273.7 16,170.1 284.5 4,501.7 549.7 4,377.5 404.1 Minimum 2,504.4 38.2 1,524.7 25.2 1,413.6 24.9 54.6 6.7 224.5 20.7 Coef. Of Var. 0.67 0.78 0.81 1.44 1.10 SOURCE: Statistical bulletin, Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 80 Table B.11: 1999_(1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast (continued) Non-Tax Receipts Tax Receipts Capital Revenues Social Tax VAT Excises Total Total from privatizing %of %of %of %of %of %of Tenge -mean Tenge __ mean Tenge mean Tene mean Teng mean Tenge mean Akmolinskaya 1,041.37 49.4 - - 107 109.3 137 36.6 5 24.2 5 24 Aktyubinskaya 2,349.84 111.4 - - 193 196.9 403 107.8 14 65.8 13 66 Almatinskaya 884.83 41.9 - - 53 53.7 195 52.2 28 136.5 28 141.7 Atyrauskaya 3,604.38 170.9 - - 1 1.1 408 109.0 23 109.7 23 113.9 East Kazakhstan 2,043.16 96.9 - - 82 83.9 339 90.7 24 115.5 24 121.1 Zhambylskaya 851.33 40.4 - - 190 193.9 126 33.7 7 33.2 7 35.6 West Kazakhstan 1,187.57 56.3 - - 10 10.1 189 50.4 25 120.9 25 125.5 Karagandinskaya 2,703.48 128.2 - - 12 12.0 276 73.8 17 80.3 16 81.6 Kzylordinskaya 4,025.66 190.8 - - 549 559.2 724 193.7 11 53.4 11 55.4 Kostanaiskaya 921.78 43.7 - - 17 16.9 110 29.5 12 57.2 7 34.4 Mangistauskaya 3,405.93 161.5 - - 3 3.2 607 162.3 0 0.0 - - Pavlodarskaya 2,128.86 100.9 - - 62 62.9 1,104 295.2 64 309.4 64 321.1 North Kazakhstan 1,298.14 61.5 - - 16 16.2 175 46.7 49 236.0 43 213.9 South Kazakhstan 781.19 37.0 - - 18 18.8 111 29.7 14 69.7 14 68.4 Almaty City 4,566.62 216.5 - - 102 104.0 770 205.9 16 74.9 16 79.8 Astana City 1,956.29 92.7 6,462 1,600.0 155 158.0 310 82.8 23 113.3 23 117.6 Kazakhstan 1,896.82 89.9 138 34.2 84 85 332 88.8 21 99.9 20 102.5 Mean 2,109.4 100.0 403.8 100.0 98.2 100.0 373.9 100.0 20.7 100.0 20.0 100.0 Maximum 4,566.6 216.5 6,461.5 1,600.0 549.2 559.2 1,103.8 295.2 64.1 309.4 64.1 321.1 Minimum 781.2 37.0 - - 1.1 1.1 110.2 29.5 0.0 0.0 - - Coef. Of Var. 0.59 4.00 1.39 0.77 0.78 0.79 SOURCE: Statistical bulletin, Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 81 Table B.11: 1999 (1st 6 months) Per Capita Budget Revenues by Oblast (continued) Official Transfers Repayments of Loans Budget Deficit Tege % of mean Tenge % of mean Tenge % of mean Akmolinskaya 1,476 312.2 3 21.4 72 20.0 Aktyubinskaya - - 113 894.5 178 49.4 Almatinskaya 1,182 249.9 0 0.2 (177) (49.2) Atyrauskaya - - 10 77.5 1,929 536.2 East Kazakhstan 615 130.1 5 40.9 224 62.2 Zhambylskaya 727 153.7 36 280.8 49 13.6 West Kazakhstan 332 70.2 11 89.0 (93) (25.8) Karagandinskaya - - 0 0.3 214 59.5 Kzylordinskaya - - - - 3,247 902.5 Kostanaiskaya 972 205.5 0 0.3 (1,558) 433.0 Mangistauskaya - - - - 151 42.1 Pavlodarskaya 15 3.3 - - 265 73.6 North Kazakhstan 1,280 270.6 0 3.5 144 40.0 South Kazakhstan 950 200.8 16 123.2 68 19.0 Almaty City 18 3.7 9 68.4 1,024 284.6 Astana City - - - - 20 5.5 Kazakhstan 586 124.0 12 92.4 227 63.2 Mean 472.9 100.0 12.7 100.0 359.8 100.0 Maximum 1,476.5 312.2 113.5 894.5 3,247.0 902.5 Minimum - - 0.0 - (1,557.7) 433.0 Coef. Of Var. 1.16 2.24 2.87 - 2.87 SOURCE: Statistical bulletin, Ministry of Finance Annexes and Statistical Appendix 82 Table B.12: Regional Economic Indicators for 1997 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Consumer price index Official level of Average (as of end of the unemployment Share of oblast Gross value per worker period, in % to the (end of period, as % Gross value in gross value added per monthly Oblast December of of economically added added capita nominal wage previous year) active population) (in mln. Tenge) (in percentl (th. Tenge) level fTenge) Republic of Kazakhstan 111.2 3.9 1,537,111.2 100.0 97.6 8,541.0 Akmolinskaya 111.1 4.4 53,089.0 3.5 88.3 7,465.6 Aktyubinskaya 109.8 4.5 75,724.0 4.9 104.1 9,455.7 Almatinskaya 109.1 3.7 94,504.9 6.1 57.8 5,235.0 Atyrauskaya 114.0 5.5 108,218.5 7.0 238.1 12,525.9 East Kazakhstan 108.8 5.4 155,446.7 10.1 94.4 9,638.5 Zhambylskaya 110.5 2.3 44,110.1 2.9 43.9 5,788.3 West Kazakhstan 104.8 4.4 53,016.5 3.4 81.5 7,315.5 Karagandinskaya 109.4 2.1 176,053.6 11.5 113.5 9,724.7 Kzylordinskaya 106.7 5.5 38,578.8 2.5 63.0 8,881.3 Kostanaiskaya 111.5 2.7 128,724.8 8.4 112.7 7,865.0 Mangistauskaya 108.5 6.2 66,542.7 4.3 191.7 18,202.7 Pavlodarskaya 112.4 5.4 94,368.2 6.1 106.7 9,584.7 North Kazakhstan 114.1 7.0 79,260.2 5.2 69.4 6,476.6 South Kazakhstan 111.9 3.5 93,506.6 6.1 46.8 5,182.1 Almaty City 118.5 1.4 250,247.4 16.3 235.5 10,836.9 Astana City - 1.9 25,719.2 1.7 - - Mean 110.7 4.1 96,069.5 6.3 109.8 8,945.2 Maximum 118.5 7.0 250,247.4 16.3 238.1 18,202.7 Minimum 104.8 1.4 25,719.2 1.7 43.9 5,182.1 Coef.Of Variation -- 0.03 0.41 0.61 0.61 0.57 0.37 SOURCE: National Statistical Yearbook of Kazakhstan Annexes and Statistical Appendix 83 Table B.13: Distribution of Population by Major Age Cohorts Across Oblast as of Jan.1, 1998 Share of age cohorts in population Including the following age cohorts (in %) Total P male 61 male 61 male and male 16-60 and older male and male 16-60 and older female female 16- female 56 female female 16- female 56 Oblast 0-15 55 - .-and older 0-15 55 __ and older Republic of Kazakhstan 15,641.9 4,885.0 8,911.6 1,845.3 31.2 57.0 11.8 Akmolinskaya 877.5 249.9 515.9 111.7 28.5 58.8 12.7 Aktyubinskaya 724.3 238.5 406.5 79.3 32.9 56.1 11.0 Almatinskaya 1,631.7 534.7 913.1 183.9 32.8 56.0 11.2 Atyrauskaya 455.9 164.8 249.1 42.0 36.2 54.6 9.2 East Kazakhstan 1,632.7 453.0 945.6 234.1 27.8 57.9 14.3 Zhambylskaya 1,002.4 347.8 555.4 99.2 34.7 55.4 9.9 West Kazakhstan 647.6 201.0 363.2 83.4 31.0 56.1 12.9 Karagandinskaya 1,536.7 425.0 921.8 189.9 27.7 60.0 12.3 Kzylordinskaya 1,119.6 309.7 649.4 160.5 27.7 58.0 14.3 Kostanaiskaya 614.9 243.0 329.1 42.8 39.5 53.5 7.0 Mangistauskaya 346.4 116.7 205.1 24.6 33.7 59.2 7.1 Pavlodarskaya 873.9 241.1 521.7 111.1 27.6 59.7 12.7 North Kazakhstan 1,114.7 311.6 635.8 167.3 28.0 57.0 15.0 South Kazakhstan 2,002.2 802.4 1,034.6 165.2 40.1 51.7 8.2 Almaty City 1,061.4 245.8 665.3 150.3 23.2 62.7 14.1 Mean 1,042.8 325.7 594.1 123.0 31.4 57.1 11.5 Maximum 2,002.2 802.4 1,034.6 234.1 40.1 62.7 15.0 Minimum 346.4 116.7 205.1 24.6 23.2 51.7 7.0 Coef. Of Variation 0.46 0.53 0.45 0.50 0.15 0.05 0.23 SOURCE: National Statistical Yearbook of Kazakhstan 'Separate data for Astana City were not available. Annexes and Statistical Appendix 84 Table B.14: Size and Structure of the RK Administrative Territorial Units as of the Beginning of 1998 Area Population Number of Number of S __.___(th. Sq. m.) (th.) _ Rayons Towns Akmolinskaya 121.7 602.2 14 6 Aktyubinskaya 300.6 724.3 12 7 Almatinskaya 224.2 1,631.7 16 10 Atyrauskaya 118.6 455.9 7 1 East Kazakhstan 283.3 1,632.7 13 9 Zhambylskaya 144.3 1,002.4 10 4 West Kazakhstan 151.3 647.6 12 2 Karagandinskaya 428.0 1,536.7 9 9 Kzylordinskaya 226.0 614.9 7 3 Kostanaiskaya 196.0 1,119.6 16 5 Mangistauskaya 165.6 346.4 4 2 Pavlodarskaya 124.8 873.9 10 3 North Kazakhstan 123.2 1,114.7 16 8 South Kazakhstan 117.3 2,002.2 11 8 Almaty City -- 1,061.4 6 1 Astana City -- 275.3 -- 1 TOTAL 2,724.9 15,641.9 163 79 Mean 194.6 977.6 10.9 4.9 Maximum 428.0 2,002.2 16.0 10.0 Minimum 117.3 275.3 4.0 1.0 St. deviation 91.0 509.0 3.8 3.2 SOURCE: Report of the RK Statistical Agency "On the RK population by Oblast, cities, rayons, rayon centers and settlements as of the beginning of 1998."