Study of Innovative Activity in Kazakhstan: Analysis of Quantitative Values and Commercialization Problems

Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research


2017, Vol. 3. №2

Study of Innovative Activity in Kazakhstan: Analysis of Quantitative Values and Commercialization Problems

For citation: Mamrayeva D. G., Tashenova L. V. 2017. “Study of Innovative Activity in Kazakhstan: Analysis of Quantitative Values and Commercialization Problems”. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 183-199. DOI: 10.21684/2411-7897-2017-3-2-183-199

About the authors:

Dinara G. Mamrayeva, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Associate Professor, Department of Marketing, Karaganda State University named after academician Ye. A. Buketov;

Larisa V. Tashenova, Master Sci. (Econ.), Researcher, Scientific-Research Institute of Regional Development;


The paper studies quantitative values and indices describing the inventive activity in Kazakhstan for the period from 2007 to 2015.

The emphasis is placed on the analysis of the number of patents granted for inventions, industrial prototypes, utility models and trademarks. The paper shows how patent applications are distributed between domestic and foreign applicants by main classes in accordance with the International Patent Classification. The major part of patent applications is accounted for representatives of countries such as USA (28%), Russia (18%) and Germany (18%). According to the International Patent Classification, a significant number of titles of protection is issued in the following areas: Human Necessities (485 patents and innovation patents), Chemistry and Metallurgy (371), Various Process Operations (191), Mechanical Engineering, Lighting, Heating (167), Construction and Mining (137).

There is a progressive trend in the licensed trade in intellectual property in Kazakhstan. Nevertheless, many enterprises are still characterized by low innovative activity that is proved by the fact that only 3 to 6 percent of invention contracts registered in the country find their practical use. The share of innovative products in the Gross Domestic Product accounts for less than 1%. The paper presents findings of an expert survey that revealed problems facing enterprises in the process of their innovative activity and the commercialization of intellectual deliverables. As the survey shows, the major obstacles hindering the innovative activity of enterprises are excess bureaucracy, traditional conservatism of key economic sectors in the region, the lack of innovation culture and managerial personnel. According to respondents, the most effective measures of state support are improvement of higher education, tax incentives, legislation, and investments to create a full-fledged innovation infrastructure.


  1. Vsemirnyy ekonomicheskiy forum: reyting global’noy konkurentosposobnosti 2015-2016 [World Economic Forum: Global Competitiveness Ranking 2015-2016]. Accessed on December 21, 2017.
  2. Bekenov S. E. (ed.). 2016. Godovoy otchet “Natsional’nogo instituta intellektual’noy sobstvennosti” Komiteta po pravam intellektual’noy sobstvennosti Ministerstva yustitsii Respubliki Kazakhstan [The annual report of the “National Intellectual Property Institute” of the Committee on Intellectual Property Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Astana: “Astana”.
  3. Ilyenkova S. D. 1997. Innovatsionnyy menedzhment [Innovation Management]. Moscow: Unity.
  4. Mamraeva D. G., Tashenova L. V. 2015. “Izobretatel’skaya aktivnost’ v Kazakhstane: sostoyanie i problemy” [Inventive Activity in Kazakhstan: Current State and Problems]. Management in Russia and Abroad, no 3, pp. 64-69.
  5. Medynskiy V. G. 2002. Innovatsionnyy menedzhment [Innovation Management]. Moscow: INFRA-M.
  6. Aydapkelov N. S. (ed.). 2016. Nauka i innovatsionnaya deyatel’nost’ Kazakhstana 2011-2015 [Science and Innovation Activity of Kazakhstan in 2011-2015]. Astana: Keremet Baspa.
  7. Shipovalov A. “Mirovye reytingi innovatsionnosti stran razoshlis’ v pokazaniyakh” [World Rankings of the Innovativeness of the Countries Differed in the Testimony]. Accessed on August 28, 2016. http//
  8. Bellucci A., Pennacchio L. 2016. “University Knowledge and Firm Innovation: Evidence from European Countries”. Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 41, no 4, pp. 730-752. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9408-9
  9. Block J. H., Henkel J., Schweisfurth T. G., Stiegler A. 2016. “Commercializing User Innovations by Vertical Diversification: The User-Manufacturer Innovator”. Research Policy, vol. 45, no 1, pp. 244-259. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.007
  10. Brochner J., Lagerqvist O. 2016. “From Ideas to Construction Innovations: Firms and Universities Collaborating”. Construction Economics and Building, vol. 16, no 1, pp. 76-89. DOI: 10.5130/AJCEB.v16i1.4668
  11. Calcagnini G., Favaretto I. 2016. “Models of University Technology Transfer: Analyses and Policies”. Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 41, no 4, pp. 655-660. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9427-6
  12. Calcagnini G., Favaretto I., Giombini G., Perugini F., Rombaldoni R. 2016. “The Role of Universities in the Location of Innovative Start-Ups”. Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 41, no 4, pp. 670-693. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9396-9
  13. Dehghani T. 2015. “Technology Commercialization: From Generating Ideas to Creating Economic Value”. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, vol. 4, no 2, pp. 192-199.
  14. Jamrisko M., Lu W. “These are the World’s Most Innovative Economies”. Accessed on September 15, 2016.
  15. Kanagatova A., Nuketayeva D., Suleimenova Z. 2014. “Public Challenges in Creating an Intellectual Nation in Kazakhstan”. In: Rooney J., Murthy V. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, pp. 259-267. 
  16. Knyazevich A. A. 2015. “Market of Innovations in Composition of the Innovative Infrastructure of Country”. Marketing and Management of Innovations, no 3, pp. 129-139. 
  17. Wozniak J. 2015. “On Commercialization Process of Innovative Training”, pp. 277-284. Strategica: Local Versus Global.