Migration Impact on the Labour Market and Economic Activity of Kazakhstan





Economy, Migration, Economic Activity, Labour Market, Gross Regional Product, Kazakhstan


This study examines the relationship between migration (M), economic activity (EA), and the labour market (LM) in the Republic of Kazakhstan from 2000 to 2022. The research comprises three stages, namely indicator selection, data analysis, and correlation-regression analysis. The study hypotheses propose that migration has a notably adverse influence on both the labor market and economic activity. Secondary data from the World Bank and the National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan were employed, covering the years 2000 to 2022. The chosen variables encompass migration growth, GDP, labor productivity, investment in fixed assets, real wages, and unemployment rates. The research includes three latent variables: migration (M), economic activity (EA), and the labor market (LM). The measurement models for these variables show acceptable to high reliability, suggesting a sufficient association between the included variables. Regression analysis reveals a significant negative impact of migration on both economic activity and the labour market. Migration can significantly influence economic activity, unemployment rate, and real wages. The findings support the hypotheses, indicating positive economic indicators and the country's socio-economic development trends. These results are valuable for understanding population dynamics and the potential impact of migration on the economy and social processes in Kazakhstan. Overall, the study provides insights into the relationships between migration, economic activity, and the labour market, highlighting the importance of these factors in shaping the country's development.

How to Cite

Iskakova, D., Kurmanalina, A., Iskakova , D., Serikbayeva, S., & Ibrasheva , A. (2023). Migration Impact on the Labour Market and Economic Activity of Kazakhstan. Eurasian Journal of Economic and Business Studies, 67(3), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.47703/ejebs.v3i67.317