Аңдатпа
The modernization of Kazakhstan's judicial system requires improvements in judicial administration funding to enhance institutional capacity, public expenditure efficiency, and the sustainability of judicial governance. This study aims to assess long-term trends in justice-sector financing, evaluate the current funding approach from a public finance perspective, and develop a conceptual framework for reforming judicial administration funding. The study is based on official statistics of the Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Records of the Prosecutor General's Office, and materials of the High Judicial Council for the period 2015–2025. The empirical analysis employs comparative analysis, econometric modelling, time-series forecasting, the Mann–Whitney test, the Durbin–Watson statistic, and regression analysis. Due to the limited availability of official long-term data on judicial administration expenditures, the study uses the volume of investigation and security services as a proxy indicator describing the broader financial environment of the justice sector.The results indicate a significant nominal increase in this indicator from KZT 165.9 billion in 2015 to KZT 785.3 billion in 2025, reflecting expanding public financial resources allocated to justice-related activities. Trend analysis suggests continued growth; however, diagnostic tests reveal residual autocorrelation and structural changes associated with institutional reforms. The findings suggest that increasing financial resources alone may be insufficient to strengthen judicial administration without corresponding improvements in budget allocation mechanisms. Based on the exploratory findings and literature, the study proposes a conceptual framework for judicial funding reform based on workload, digitalisation, performance indicators, and medium-term budget planning.The results contribute to the literature on public finance, judicial administration, and institutional economics while acknowledging the limitation associated with the use of proxy indicators instead of direct judicial expenditure data.Copyright© 2026 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the license CC-BY 4.0., which permits any further distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Article’s history: Received 5th of July, 2026; Revised 26th of August, 2026; Accepted 10th of September, 2026; Available online: 30thof September, 2026. Published as research article in the Volume XXI, Fall, Issue 4(94), 2026.