Poverty and Social Inequality: Which Regions Are Facing the Worst Situation?

In 2025, Kazakhstan’s poverty depth stood at 0.8%, while poverty severity amounted to 0.2%. Both indicators remained unchanged compared to 2024. At the same time, income inequality indicators declined: the Gini coefficient decreased from 0.296 to 0.291, while the funds ratio fell from 6.20 to 5.98 times. At the national level, this points to persistent poverty intensity alongside a slight narrowing of the income gap between population groups.

First, it is important to explain in simple terms what these indicators and coefficients actually mean.
• Poverty depth shows how far the incomes of the poor population fall below the subsistence minimum on average. The indicator reflects the severity of income shortages. The higher the value, the further poor households are from a minimally acceptable standard of living.
• Poverty severity shows the degree of inequality within the poorest segment of the population itself. If some people’s incomes are only slightly below the subsistence minimum while others fall far below it, the indicator will be higher. Thus, poverty severity reflects the concentration of the most acute poverty, and the higher the figure, the worse the situation.
• The Gini coefficient reflects the overall level of income inequality within the population. The closer the figure is to zero, the more evenly incomes are distributed. Growth in the coefficient indicates increasing income stratification and a widening gap between population groups.
• The funds ratio shows how many times the average incomes of the wealthiest 10% of the population exceed those of the poorest 10%. The higher the indicator, the greater the gap between rich and poor.

Turning to the regional picture, the disparities are highly pronounced.

The most difficult situation in 2025 was recorded in Ulytau Region. The region posted the country’s highest poverty depth, at 1.6%, and poverty severity, at 0.7%. Compared to 2024, poverty depth increased by 0.6 percentage points, while poverty severity rose by 0.4 percentage points. At the same time, the Gini coefficient declined from 0.314 to 0.308, while the funds ratio fell from 6.9 to 6.75 times. Nevertheless, the region remained among the territories with high income inequality. In 2025, Ulytau Region became Kazakhstan’s most problematic region in terms of the combined poverty indicators.

Mangystau Region ranked second in terms of poverty depth: the indicator increased from 1.1% to 1.3%. Poverty severity rose from 0.2% to 0.4%. At the same time, the region retained the country’s lowest Gini coefficient, at 0.173, and the lowest funds ratio, at 3.08 times. Compared to 2024, both inequality indicators increased slightly, although they remained the lowest nationwide. This points to poverty levels that are more severe than the national average, despite a comparatively small overall income gap.

Abai Region also remained among the regions with high poverty depth in 2025, at 1.2%, although the indicator had been significantly higher at 1.6% in 2024. Poverty severity declined from 0.5% to 0.3%. At the same time, the Gini coefficient edged up from 0.28 to 0.282, while the funds ratio increased from 5.31 to 5.35 times. Thus, the severity of poverty declined in the region, while income inequality intensified slightly.

In Zhetysu Region and Turkistan Region, poverty depth stood at 1.1% in 2025. In Zhetysu Region, the indicator remained unchanged compared to 2024, while poverty severity also stayed at 0.3%. The Gini coefficient increased from 0.288 to 0.291, while the funds ratio decreased from 6.37 to 5.96 times. In Turkistan Region, poverty depth also remained at 1.1%, poverty severity declined from 0.3% to 0.2%, the Gini coefficient decreased from 0.214 to 0.203, and the funds ratio fell from 3.76 to 3.56 times.

Pavlodar Region and Karaganda Region stand out separately. In 2025, Pavlodar Region became the country’s negative leader in terms of income inequality: the Gini coefficient increased from 0.311 to 0.331, while the funds ratio rose from 6.46 to 7.58 times. Poverty depth remained at 0.7%, while poverty severity increased from 0.1% to 0.2%. In Karaganda Region, deterioration affected all indicators: poverty depth increased from 0.5% to 0.8%, poverty severity from 0.1% to 0.3%, the Gini coefficient from 0.299 to 0.317, and the funds ratio from 6.45 to 7.31 times.

Now let us turn to the country’s major cities.

In Almaty, poverty depth and poverty severity in 2025 remained at the 2024 level, at 0.7% and 0.2%, respectively. At the same time, inequality declined noticeably: the Gini coefficient decreased from 0.315 to 0.289, while the funds ratio fell from 7.27 to 6.32 times.

In Astana, poverty depth increased from 0.5% to 0.6%, while poverty severity rose from 0.1% to 0.2%. However, as in Almaty, inequality indicators declined: the Gini coefficient fell from 0.304 to 0.291, while the funds ratio decreased from 6.63 to 5.8 times.

In Shymkent, poverty depth declined from 1.6% to 1.1%, while poverty severity fell from 0.6% to 0.4%. The improvement was significant, although the city still remains among the territories with elevated poverty intensity. The Gini coefficient increased from 0.2 to 0.211, while the funds ratio decreased from 3.75 to 3.69 times.

The lowest poverty depth indicators in 2025 were recorded in Atyrau Region and Zhambyl Region, both at 0.3%. In Atyrau Region, poverty severity remained at zero, while the Gini coefficient increased from 0.218 to 0.228 and the funds ratio rose from 3.71 to 3.82 times. In Zhambyl Region, poverty depth remained at 0.3%, poverty severity declined from 0.1% to zero, the Gini coefficient decreased from 0.256 to 0.234, and the funds ratio fell from 4.56 to 4.17 times.

It should be noted that the picture was different in 2024 across several key indicators. The highest poverty depth at that time was recorded in Abai Region and Shymkent, both at 1.6%, whereas in 2025 the negative leadership shifted to Ulytau Region. The highest poverty severity in 2024 was observed in Shymkent, at 0.6%, while in 2025 the maximum value was recorded in Ulytau Region, at 0.7%. In terms of inequality, the negative leaders in 2024 included Almaty, Astana, Ulytau Region, and Pavlodar Region, whereas in 2025 the most pronounced income stratification was concentrated in Pavlodar Region, Karaganda Region, and Ulytau Region.

Further details are presented in the tables for 2025 and 2024, while the long-term dynamics are shown in the charts.

Let us now look at what these indicators mean in comparison with global data. It should be noted from the outset that not all coefficients are easily comparable across countries, although some can be compared to a certain extent.

There are relatively clear international benchmarks for the Gini coefficient. The values are generally interpreted as follows:
• below 0.3 — low inequality;
• 0.3–0.4 — moderate inequality;
• above 0.4 — high inequality;
• above 0.5 — very high inequality.

For example, the indicator in Scandinavian countries is usually below 0.3, while in a number of Latin American and Southern African countries it exceeds 0.45–0.6.

Against this backdrop, Kazakhstan’s Gini coefficient of 0.291 in 2025 places the country closer to the group of states with a relatively moderate or even comparatively low level of income inequality. Formally, the indicator appears more favourable than in many developing economies, although regional disparities clearly demonstrate the unevenness of the situation.

The funds ratio is far less standardised globally: there are no relatively established international benchmarks for it comparable to those used for the Gini coefficient. However, the following ranges can generally be outlined:
• around 4–6 times — usually considered a moderate gap;
• above 8–10 times — already regarded as high;
• in countries with strong income stratification, the indicator may exceed 15–20 times.

Accordingly, Kazakhstan’s level of 5.98 times in 2025 remains closer to the moderate range. However, certain regions — such as Pavlodar Region, with 7.58 times, and Karaganda Region, with 7.31 times — are already approaching the zone of elevated inequality.

It is also important to take into account that international poverty comparisons are highly sensitive to methodology. Even the Gini coefficient itself may vary significantly depending on whether calculations are based on income or consumption, whether taxes and transfers are included, and how household samples are formed. As a result, the statistics may reflect primarily formal values, although regional disparities would remain clearly visible under virtually any methodology.