Problems of state – science communication in transition to sustainable development (on the example of the Republic of Kazakhstan)

The article examines the problems of communication between the state and the scientific community in the context of the transition to sustainable development in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The sustainability transition requires the alignment of economic, environmental, and social goals. However, in the Kazakhstani case, this process is complicated by the weak institutionalization of the role of science and the fragmented nature of cross-sectoral communication. The theoretical framework of the analysis includes the coevolutionary paradigm, transition theory, and actor-network theory, which allow sustainable development to be interpreted as the outcome of complex interactions among actors and networks. Additionally, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and Multi-Actor Perspective (MAP) approaches are employed, highlighting the need for synchronization of processes across different levels and among various stakeholder groups. The empirical basis of the study includes Kazakhstan’s strategic documents, statistical data, and the results of an expert survey. The findings reveal that science is largely perceived as a data provider, feedback mechanisms remain episodic, and there are no consistent social indicators within the ESG framework. At the same time, positive developments have been observed: the establishment of expert centers, the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into strategic planning, the expansion of ESG practices, and the creation of public–expert councils. The study concludes that the success of Kazakhstan’s sustainability transition depends on the institutionalization of communication between government and science, the adoption of process-oriented models of interaction, and the development of a value-based consensus.

1. Avelino F. (2009). Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects. Policy Sciences. Vol. 42. No. 4. Р. 369-390. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-009-9102-6.

2. Avelino F. (2021). Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation. Journal of Political Power. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 425-448. DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2021.1875307.

3. Avelino F., Wittmayer J.M. (2016). Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multiactor perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. Vol. 18. No. 5. Р. 628-649. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259.

4. Callon M., Latour B. (1981). Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So. In: Knorr-Cetina K., Cicourel A. V. (eds.) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981. P. 277-303 [access mode]: https://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/09-LEVIATHAN-GB.pdf (accessed 18.08.2025).

5. Gafu G.G., Terlikbaeva N.R., Zhanseitova A.K. (2024). Is the higher education system in Kazakhstan aimed at sustainable development? Analysis of national and institutional policies. L.N. Gumilev Eurasian National University. Pedagogy. Psychology. Sociology. No. 2 (147). P. 259-281 (in Kaz.).

6. Geels F.W. (2002). Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-level Perspective and a Case-study. Research Policy. No. 31. Р. 1257-1274. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.

7. Geels F.W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental innovation and societal transitions. Vol. 1. No. 1. Р. 24-40.

8. Kemp R., Loorbach D., Rotmans J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. Vol. 14. No. 1. Р. 78-91. DOI: 10.1080/13504500709469709.

9. Komleva V.V., Sheveleva Yu.R. (2021). The Dutch school of social management of the transition to sustainable development: theoretical and methodological views. Public Administration. Vol. 23. No. 5 (133). P. 67-74 (in Rus.).

10. Kornilov A.A. (2023). The Eurasian vector of foreign policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan: concepts, regional trends, integration projects: diss… CandSc. (Polit.). Nizhny Novgorod (in Rus.).

11. Kuur O.V., Varavin E.V., Kozlova M.V. (2024). Factors of ESG transformation of the economy of Kazakhstan in the context of its sustainable development. Economy: strategy and practice. No. 19 (2). P. 20-40. DOI: 10.51176/1997-9967-2024-2-20-40 (in Rus.).

12. Latour B. (1996). On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications. Soziale Welt. Vol. 47. No. 4. P. 369-381.

13. Latour B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

14. Law J. (1992). Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity. Systems Practice. Vol. 5. No. P. 379-393.

15. Loorbach D. (2007). Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development. Erasmus University Rotterdam.

16. Moiseev N.N. (1988). Man, Nature, and the Future of Civilization. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardia (in Rus.).

17. Moiseev N.N. (1990). Man and the Noosphere. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardia (in Rus.).

18. Nurlanova N.K. Sabdenov O. (2008). Sustainable Development of Kazakhstan in the Context of Globalization: Models, Strategies, Priorities, and Implementation Mechanisms. Institute of Economics, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan [access mode]: https:// scholar.google.be/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=ru&user=-lzt7IMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=lzt7IMAAAAJ:kNdYIx-mwKoC (accessed: 28.08.2025).

19. Tolepov A.E., Aryn A.M., Isaeva B.K., Shayakhmetova L.M. (2024). Assessment of the state of formation of the potential of the knowledge-intensive economy of Kazakhstan. Bulletin of Atyrau University named after Khalel Dosmukhamedov. No. 74(3) P. 206-216. DOI: 10.47649/vau.24.v74. i3.18 (in Kaz.).

20. Tolganbaeva G.A. (2021). Scientific foundations of managing the transition to sustainable development in the Netherlands. Public Administration. Vol. 23. No. 4 (132). P. 43-50. DOI: 10.22394/2070-8378-2021-23-4-43-50 (in Rus.).

21. Tolganbaeva G.A. (2022). The concept of a multi-actor perspective as an analytical tool for studying the transition to sustainable development. Public Administration. Vol. 24. No. 6 (140). P. 64-72. DOI: 10.22394/2070-8378-2022-24-5-64-72 (in Rus.).

22. Tolganbaeva G.A. (2022). The role of researchers in managing the transition to sustainable development: the Dutch model. Ethnosocium and interethnic culture. No. 9(171). P. 70-78 (in Rus.).

23. Torebekova Zh. Academic participation in policy-making in Kazakhstan: diss. thesis. Syracuse University, 2024 [access mode]: https://surface.syr.edu/etd/1859/ (accessed: 03.08.2025).

24. Van Den Bergh J., Stagl S. (2003). Coevolution of economic behaviour and institutions: towards a theory of institutional change. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. Vol. 13. No. 3. Р. 289-317. DOI: 10.1007/s00191-003-0158-8.

25. Vernadsky V.I. (1989). Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon. Moscow: Nauka (in Rus.).

26. Wittmayer J.M., Loorbach D. (2016). Governing transitions in cities: fostering alternative ideas, practices, and social relations through transition management. In: Governance of urban sustainability transitions. Р. 13-32. Tokyo: Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-4-431-55426-4_2.