Regional innovation efficiency in Kazakhstan: Evidence from stochastic frontier and cluster analysis

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.21511/ppm.24(3).2026.09
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Type of the article: Research ArticleAbstractInnovative and effective territorial development drives the country’s economic growth and its ability to compete on the world stage. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the effectiveness of regional innovative development and to use cluster analysis to identify typological groups of regions and pinpoint priority points of innovative growth. The study’s statistical database consists of official data from the Bureau of Statistics of Kazakhstan for the period 2003–2024. The study used econometric methods such as panel regression, stochastic, and cluster analysis. The results demonstrate that the innovative development of the regions of Kazakhstan is positively influenced by the human resource factor (β = 1.131, p < 0.001) and socio-economic development (β = 1.894, p < 0.001), and negatively influenced by the level of R&D costs (β = –0.473, p = 0.016). The results of the SFA analysis showed that regions with industrial specialization have the most effective innovative development (Pavlodar TE = 0.764, Kostanay TE = 0.751) in the production of innovative products, and that growth may be driven by investments in fixed assets (SFA (β =1.565, p < 0.001)). Cluster analysis showed that сluster 1 is characterized by a high level of commercialization, whereas сluster 4 demonstrates a high level of innovation activity; cluster 2 has a high level of knowledge intensity and return on science; cluster 3 has a good technological base. The results showed that a high level of financing does not always lead to breakthrough innovation.