Between fiscal returns and social harm: reframing gambling regulation in Kazakhstan through international evidence

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3389/fsoc.2025.1718858
Data confidence 70 medium
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

Background Since 2007, Kazakhstan has gradually modernized gambling regulation and in 2023-2024 enacted major reforms, including the creation of a specialized regulator, tighter advertising rules, expanded exclusion regimes, and stronger criminal enforcement. Objective: To assess how this evolving regulatory model aligns with international practice and to derive evidence-informed policy options, treating gambling law as a sociolegal regime for allocating gambling-related risks and fiscal rents. Methods: We use an exploratory sociolegal mixed-methods design that combines doctrinal and comparative legal analysis with a descriptive synthesis of 2019-2024 official statistics on market size, taxation, enforcement, and harm-reduction proxies. Results Kazakhstan's legal gambling market expanded further in 2024, recorded criminal cases for illegal gambling declined, and coverage of debtor-based and voluntary self-exclusion instruments increased sharply, while a large offshore online segment persisted. Situating these trends within a comparative coding of the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy, we show that Kazakhstan combines strict advertising controls, extensive exclusion tools, and advanced enforcement technologies with a comparatively heavy and complex tax mix and a regulator located within a line ministry. Conclusion A public-health-oriented configuration of instruments appears normatively most consistent with the dual goals of channeling demand into the legal market and mitigating gambling-related harm, but the available data remain descriptive and the post-reform observation window is short. We discuss incremental policy options regarding taxation, regulator autonomy, harm reduction, and cross-border enforcement.