This OECD Peer Review assesses the evolution of Kazakhstan’s competition regime over the past decade since its first review in 2016. It examines the legal and institutional reforms undertaken, including six successive antimonopoly packages and the re-establishment of the Agency for the Protection and Development of Competition (AZRK) as an independent authority. The review identifies ongoing challenges such as fragmented legislation, reliance on soft-law tools, limited use of market inquiries and persistent state involvement in the economy. It highlights the need to improve enforcement effectiveness, judicial specialisation, and legal certainty for businesses. The review also explores Kazakhstan’s merger control regime, the regulation of state monopolies and single operators, and the role of competition advocacy. Targeted recommendations are provided to enhance AZRK’s institutional capacity and various aspects of Kazakhstan’s competition regime, including prioritisation mechanisms and the agency’s analytical capabilities, to support the country’s broader efforts in aligning its competition policy with international best practices and foster a more dynamic, transparent and market-oriented economy.
OECD Peer Reviews of Competition Law and Policy: Kazakhstan 2025
Abstract
Executive summary
This report presents the findings of the 2025 OECD Peer Review of Kazakhstan’s competition law and policy. It assesses progress and developments in Kazakhstan’s competition regime during the past decade since the country’s first Peer Review in 2016, and provides key recommendations to enhance the effectiveness, independence and predictability of Kazakhstan’s competition regime. The findings and recommendations were discussed by the OECD Competition Committee on 20 June 2025.
Kazakhstan has undertaken substantial reforms to modernise its competition framework in the decade since 2016. While the primary legal basis remains embedded in the Entrepreneur Code adopted in 2015, a wide range of other legal provisions continue to govern competition matters. Five successive “antimonopoly packages” have introduced numerous substantive and procedural amendments to competition legislation of Kazakhstan.
The Agency for the Protection and Development of Competition (AZRK), re-established in 2020 as an independent authority, has improved its internal structure, regional co-ordination, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms. In addition to enforcement, the Agency plays a leading role in broader policy areas such as privatisation, public procurement, and price monitoring. However, this wide-ranging mandate risks undermining the Agency’s focus on core competition enforcement functions.
The Peer Review identifies several structural and operational challenges that continue to limit the effectiveness of Kazakhstan’s competition enforcement. These include a fragmented legal framework, a reliance on preventive soft-law tools over ex-post enforcement, and limited use of essential instruments such as the leniency programme and effective market inquiries. Procedural formalism in market studies, lack of judicial specialisation, and frequent legislative changes undermine legal certainty for businesses and overburden the judiciary.
Kazakhstan’s economy continues to exhibit high levels of state involvement, with extensive participation of state-owned enterprises across sectors and increased reliance on “single operators” with special or monopoly rights. Price regulation remains widespread, highlighting structural barriers to the transition from a planned to a fully market-based economy. Although reforms such as the Yellow Pages Rule and the establishment of a Privatisation Office aim to reduce state intervention and market dominance, competitive neutrality remains elusive and poorly understood. Recent political and judicial reforms have yet to translate into more consistent enforcement of competition law.
The Agency actively engages in institutional co-operation. Internationally, it participates in regional and global fora such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), UNCTAD, and the OECD, contributing to policy dialogue and aligning its practices with international standards. Domestically, the Agency collaborates with sectoral regulators and government bodies to address competition issues across key sectors of the economy. More systematic and structured engagement with businesses, civil society, academia and the judiciary is needed to raise awareness of competition principles, foster a shared understanding of enforcement goals, and build broader support for the reform agenda. A proactive and well-resourced advocacy strategy would help cultivate a stronger competition culture.
The recommendations in this Peer Review span Kazakhstan’s legal and institutional framework, enforcement practices, merger control, state participation in the economy, market studies, advocacy and judicial oversight. Their implementation would support Kazakhstan in building a more effective, independent and economically grounded competition regime aligned with international best practices —contributing to sustainable diversification and long-term economic growth.
1. Strengthening the Agency’s institutional capacity and resource allocation
In the near term, focus on reinforcing the Agency’s internal structure, human capital and prioritisation mechanisms to improve enforcement capabilities.
Place more focus and allocate appropriate resources to competition enforcement (such as investigations) rather than other non-core competition-related responsibilities.
Consider introducing a process for prioritising cases.
Expand the investigations team with skilled analysts that can perform required tasks, such as data analysts and data scientists, econometricians and other technical staff.
Consider reorganising the Agency according to enforcement area rather than by sector.
Consider and redefine the role of the Analytical Research Centre for Competition Development (ARC) within the structure of the Agency and the possibility of establishing a fully-fledged Chief Economist Office within the Agency.
Ensure that the employees working on competition matters are well trained, including by providing practical trainings and workshops on economic tools for competition analysis.
Continue with the digitalisation efforts within the Agency.
2. Enhancing the effectiveness of antitrust enforcement
The analytical and substantive quality of enforcement actions needs to be enhanced.
Improve the quality of economic analysis for anticompetitive conduct and focus on assessing economic effects, to gradually move away from an over-reliance on structural presumptions.
Prioritise investigating and prosecuting exclusionary abuses over so-called exploitative abuses, such as “monopoly high prices”, especially when these are based solely on the observation of price increases.
The merger control regime should be strengthened to ensure it is more effective and risk-based.
Consider abolishing the ex-post notification regime and require mandatory ex-ante notifications withs suspensory effects for all types of economic concentrations.
Introduced simplified procedures and notification forms for reviewing economic concentrations that do not raise competition concerns.
Make more frequent use of remedies to eliminate adverse effect of an economic concentration on competition.
Improve legal certainty, transparency and the deterrent effect of enforcement.
Consider limiting, or abolishing altogether, the system of notifications.
Ensure that all methodologies used for investigations are updated and published, but make them non-binding upon the Agency. Introduce a system of published guidelines for enforcers and judges.
Consider increasing the magnitude of administrative fines for competition law violations to increase their deterrent effect.
3. Promoting competitive neutrality and market advocacy
Support a level playing field and stronger engagement with stakeholders.
Restrict the establishment of single operators, state and natural monopolies.
Promote competitive neutrality by applying the same rules to SOEs and private firms.
Adopt transparent controls for state support and consider integrating best practices from the EU framework such as clearly defined criteria for state support, provisions on duration, transparency and non-discrimination.
Continue with advocacy efforts to strengthen the understanding of competition and its benefits by market entities and the general public.
Co-operate with state and local bodies, particularly sectoral regulators, on incorporating competition policy into their work.
