Content uploaded by Muhammad Irfan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Muhammad Irfan on Jun 15, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Zhanbayev, R.; Irfan, M.
Industrial-Innovative Paradigm of
Social Sustainability: Modeling the
Assessment of Demoethical,
Demographic, Democratic, and
Demoeconomic Factors. Sustainability
2022,14, 7280. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14127280
Academic Editor: Luigi Aldieri
Received: 23 April 2022
Accepted: 1 June 2022
Published: 14 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Industrial-Innovative Paradigm of Social Sustainability:
Modeling the Assessment of Demoethical, Demographic,
Democratic, and Demoeconomic Factors
Rinat Zhanbayev 1,2 and Muhammad Irfan 3,4,5,*
1National Engineering Academy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty 050010, Kazakhstan;
zhanbayevrinat@gmail.com
2Limited Liability Partnership “AR-EXPO 2017”, Almaty 050038, Kazakhstan
3School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
4
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
5Department of Business Administration, Ilma University, Karachi 75190, Pakistan
*Correspondence: irfansahar@bit.edu.cn
Abstract:
The article presents an analysis of tools for influencing the sustainable development of
regions, considering their industry specifics, as well as ways to influence socioeconomic growth.
The purpose of the article is to model the assessment of demoetic, demographic, democratic, and
demoeconomical factors as the basis of the industrial and innovative paradigm of social sustainability.
Achieving sustainability is possible only along the vector of harmony through the systemic combina-
tion 4D = “D + 3D”, namely, demoethics and demography, democracy, demoeconomy. Analysis of
the existing processes of development and harmonization of society is implemented in the example
of Kazakhstan. Research methods include integral analysis for ranking regions and correlation and
regression modeling to assess the impact of factors on the process of sustainable development of
society in a particular territory. The article hypothesizes that the creation of conditions for the devel-
opment of the main regional industry will stimulate its sustainable and harmonious socioeconomic
growth and provide the necessary level for the process of social harmonization. The findings show
that the proposed approach made it possible to identify harmonious and disharmonious factors in the
development of the region and to identify tools for influencing the process of sustainable development
of society to increase the level of harmonious socioeconomic development of a particular region.
Keywords:
sustainable development; harmonization of society; socioeconomic development;
demotics; demography; democracy; demoeconomics
1. Introduction
The article presents an analysis of tools, influencing the sustainable development of
regions, considering their industry specifics and ways to influence socioeconomic growth.
The purpose of the article is to model the assessment of demoethic, demographic, demo-
cratic, and demoeconomical factors as the basis of the industrial and innovative paradigm
of social sustainability. Demoethics is the basis since spirituality and morality are basic
for the association of demography, democracy, and demoeconomics. Ethical issues related
to the relationship between what should be and what is, which directly relates to the
behavior of groups that carry out state and public administration, and the perception and
assessment of this behavior by citizens. The modern concept of the development of society
suggests that spirituality is the basis of a new scenario for the development of society and
its relationship with nature, and the integration of demographic and economic components
in system-wide modeling [1–3].
Modern realities make it possible to expand the conceptual apparatus of economic
research. Therefore, in the context of the humanization of society, it is suggested to con-
duct studies of dynamic changes regarding the relations of subjects, in the performance
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127280 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 2 of 26
of their socioeconomic functions. We need to consider the influence of external and inter-
nal factors on the principles of stability and harmonious integrity as two paradigms of
society development.
Sustainability and harmony are complementary characteristics of the proposed as-
sessment of the development of society and the territory as a whole [
4
,
5
]. Sustainable
development and harmonization of society are complementary and interdependent cate-
gories [6,7].
The category of “sustainable development” is the subject of many scientists’ research.
Related concepts that reveal this category are “stability”, “efficiency”, and “balanced socio-
natural development”. The concept of sustainable development should be considered in
parallel with the concept of the harmonious development of society and economy based
on a systematic combination of four “D + 3D”: demoethics, demography, democracy, and
demoeconomy. Sustainable development should lead to the socioeconomic harmonization
of society. The unstable nature of the development of social relations results in disharmony
in all areas of “D + 3D”.
We are based on studies of sustainable development and its economy along the har-
mony vector through the systematic combination of all “D + 3D” (demoethics, demography,
democracy, and demoeconomy) based on spirituality and morality, where each D should be
a harmonious component. The significance of this issue is shown based on the ideas of the
interrelation of the four spheres of social life, functioning synchronously and contributing to
the approximation of society and its economy to social harmony [
8
]:
“D + 3D”—spirituality
,
demography, democratization, and economic activity, we introduce new concepts of “de-
moethics” and “demoeconomy”. Let us reveal their essence: “demoethics” is the moral and
ethical state of society (the population of the territory and the people as a whole at the state
level), and “demoeconomy” is a socially oriented economy that allows the reproduction
of the fundamental values of society (the population of the territory and the people as a
whole at the state level).
Economic growth is a measure of state economic policy. All countries strive to increase
and step up the rate of economic growth by any means, which sometimes leads to dishar-
mony in the development of society and economy. The state policy aimed at the sustainable
development of society should be formed based on the harmonious development of society.
The state policy should consider the tools of influence as the fundamental paradigm of the
quality of life in the framework of the components (demoethics, demography, democracy,
demoeconomy) affecting the efficient use and combination of economic, scientific, technical,
social, and environmental components.
The analysis of the categories “sustainable and harmonious development of society”,
considering the new features of demoethics, demography, democracy, and demoeconomy
is justified by the problem of social inequality and fair distribution of resources in market
conditions to attain a prosperity of the population and meet social needs. Modeling the
assessment of the “D + 3D” factors’ influence on the process of sustainable development of
society allows for solving the most important socioeconomic issues of regional development,
considering their peculiarities, and specifics.
Analysis of the development and harmonization of society is implemented in the
example of Kazakhstan. In 2019, the Address of the Head of the State K. Zh. Tokayev to
the people of Kazakhstan, the section “A new stage of social modernization” noted that
the country’s budget should be focused on sustainable economic development and solving
social problems [
9
]. A new economy is being formed, i.e., industries with a high share of
intangibles, human capital, information, communication technologies, education, science,
and intellectual services (consulting) [
10
–
12
]. The synergetic relationship between technol-
ogy, business practices, and economic policy leads to a rapid increase in productivity, and
income, a decrease in unemployment, and moderate inflation [
13
]. The distinctive features
of the new economy are dynamics, innovations, network economy [
14
], science, and mass
customization. The nature of the upcoming changes is comprehensive [
15
]. Despite this fact,
a sustainable economy is an ideal that countries aspire to. These circumstances determine
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 3 of 26
the significance of this study, which addresses the issues of sustainable development and
harmonization of society.
This article aims to study society with the definition of the process of harmonization
of all its four “D” spheres. To solve this problem, it is proposed to analyze the state of
socioeconomic development of society and provide a justification for the relationship
“D + 3D”
. We examined in detail the area of influence of each component of the four Ds in
different regions of Kazakhstan. Thus, we determine the way and the real possibility of the
harmonious development of society both socially and economically. In this natural way,
disharmony itself is displaced, being replaced by harmony and prosperity for the whole
society and each individual as well.
2. Literature Review
Sustainable development affects the process of social harmonization, as it is oriented
to overcome human activity in disharmony with nature. In this regard, research in the field
of “green economy” [
16
–
18
], ecological culture [
19
–
21
] and economic culture [
22
–
24
], and
rational consumption of resources [25–27] are of particular importance.
The economic development of the region and economic growth are not always able to
harmonize society. As a rule, the economic policy of the regions, accompanied by economic
growth, does not conform to the laws of social harmonious development. Economic, social,
and environmental components should form the concept of the sustainable and harmonious
development of society. Finding the “golden mean” between the harmonization of society
and the level of economic development is a significant and urgent problem.
Today, sustainable development is significant according to the laws of conservation
and self-regulation of the biosphere. This requirement is consistent with the opinion of Kh.A.
Barlybayev, who considers the philosophical issues of sustainable development [
28
,
29
] and
defined sustainability as “the life of mankind as an integral part of the life of the biosphere,
creates a worldview of harmonizing human relations with nature” [30].
The issues of sustainable development of society are considered at all levels of govern-
ment. State policy should be primarily aimed at the sustainable development of society, as
well as the sustainable development of all sectors of the national economy, socioeconomic
development, increasing GDP, achieving full employment of the population, and raising its
standard of living, rational use of resources and provision of public goods to the population.
Currently, the term “sustainable development” is mostly used in the socioeconomic
aspect of public relations development and the purposeful process of managing socioeco-
nomic systems. These systems ensure the stability of ties, elements, and structure of the
system in increasing the quality of life, considering the rational use of resources. These
issues highlighted the relevance of the theory of sustainable development and harmony
between society and the economy [30].
Stable social evolution in the direction of harmony is aimed at saving modern civi-
lization from degradation. We proceed from the assumption that the main conditions for
stable social evolution are the spiritual and moral foundations, the synthesis of spiritual
and scientific knowledge. However, the fulfillment of these conditions without appropriate
research is problematic.
The ideas of sustainable development found their development in the countries of
Western Europe in the 17th century. At that time, industrial production was actively be-
ginning to develop and the issues of rational use of resources and the increasing needs
of society were of particular relevance. The English philosopher John Evelyn pointed out
that forests in England are disappearing and they need to be restored [
31
]. Hans Karl von
Karlowitz put forward the idea of sustainable development in the work “Forest Economy”
and argumentatively showed the need for a “sustainable” type of forest management:
people should not cut more wood than they grow [
32
]. These ideas of resource conserva-
tion, their reasonable use, conservation, and care for them are raised in several modern
studies [33–35].
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 4 of 26
The category of “sustainable development” became widespread in 1987 through
the prism of environmental impact, when the report of the UN World Commission on
Environment and Development “Our Common Future”, known as the Brundtland Report,
was published.
Sustainable development is the subject of scientific research and political discussions.
The current sustainability rules are based on political, social, and scientific interactions.
However, time and social processes adjust this interaction and pose challenges to the con-
cept of sustainability [
36
–
38
]. This investigation is based on the definition of sustainability
proposed by the International Commission on Environment and Development: “Sustain-
able development is the development that meets the needs of society, the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [
39
]. The concept
of “sustainable development” officially gained acceptance in the scientific world in 1992 at
the Summit of Heads of State and the UN Conference on Environment and Development,
held in Rio de Janeiro. The representatives of 179 countries recognized that the world is in
an unstable state.
The Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, academician V.A. Koptyug,
gives the following definition: sustainable development is a model of the social develop-
ment in which the basic vital needs of both the current and all subsequent generations are
met [40].
L.I. Abalkin [
41
] considers the sustainability of the national economic system in its
security, stability, and ability to constantly update and improve itself. N.A. Potekhin [
42
]
believes that the sustainable development of the entire population of a country and civiliza-
tion is possible based on innovative socioeconomic formation. This formation involves the
use of a qualitatively new scientific, methodological basis, and theory of personnel training,
principles of creating tools, means of production, products, food, and services. Innovative
socioeconomic formation based on qualitatively new systems and technological modules-
kinetronic super technologies (KST). The new technology provides multiple growths in
social labor productivity and reduction in costs per unit of production, environmentally
friendly production, a high level of quality of life, and comfortable living conditions for all
members of society during working and free time [42].
A.D. Ursul studied the informatization of society in unity with the socioeconomic
and environmental problems of mankind on the way to a model of civilized development.
Within the framework of this study, A.D. Ursul considered sustainable development as
“a guided systemically balanced socio-natural development which does not destroy the
environment and ensures survival and safe, indefinitely long existence of mankind” [
43
].
Nobel laureate in Economics (2009), Elinor Ostrom, investigated the public regulation
of property for sustainable development of the territory. Elinor Ostrom highlights the
principles that contribute to successful cooperation in resource management, which are
aimed primarily at the collective management of effective and conflict-free economic
entities of collective communities—ranging from communes and villages to small towns
and cooperatives [
44
]. Ostrom considers sustainable economic development, not in the
globalization of the world economy, but human survival and improving the quality of life in
harmony with nature, and the development of direct communication between participants
in the distribution of shared resources in the process of self-organization.
Recently, international researchers of sustainable development have been developing
tendencies to “anthropologize” the characteristics of the economic activity of an enterprise
and a person living according to high spiritual and moral laws. This tendency allows bear-
ing social responsibility in society, which makes it possible to determine the socioeconomic
vector of sustainable harmonious development about future generations.
In 2012, L.M. Semashko and 75 co-authors from 26 countries published the book “The
ABC of Harmony: for World Peace, Harmonious Civilization and Tetratet Thinking” [
45
].
Nonetheless, this book does not contemplate the economic laws of harmony. Harmony and
social well-being are interrelated concepts that characterize both the economic well-being
of individuals and their social well-being [46–48].
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 5 of 26
The following studies are the closest to this study since they regard harmony and
disharmony in a particular structure from different points of view. A. Bryman in the article
“Leadership and Corporate Culture: Harmony and Disharmony” cites the results of research
focused on the study of management, where the idea of “leadership” holds an important
place, a connection with various performance indicators [
49
]. D. Ori recognized harmony
and disharmony as key factors in building coordinated and uncoordinated relationships
in an organization, between businesses. D. Ori believes that the state between these two
factors can be considered either by its presence (the so-called alignment) or by its absence
or deficiencies (the so-called misalignment). Most studies of alignment deal with achieving
alignment, while the problems of misalignment (detection, analysis, and correction) are
underestimated in the literature [
50
]. A. Bryman and D. Ori highlighted the problems at the
local level since the results of the analysis of foreign studies revealed a limited approach
to the topics of “leadership and corporate culture”, and “building relationships between
organizations”. The topic is presented in more detail by Sang Youn Lee, Yong June Kim, and
Ju Won Kim considered how benevolent leadership and moral leadership have a positive
impact on knowledge sharing, group culture, and company development culture [51].
Klaus Schwab argues that the management of the modern enterprise must serve all
multi-stakeholders, acting as their trustee charged with achieving the long-term sustain-
able growth and prosperity of the company [
52
]. The issue of humanity’s existence in
disharmony with nature occurs when society ceases to practice sustainable consumption
of resources within the limits established by ecological capacity [
53
,
54
]. The increased
awareness of this problem by the population in general and decision-makers is the key
to minimizing undesirable consequences for sustainable development in predicting a
particular “bottleneck”.
The key modern concept is regional harmony, recognized as a qualitatively higher
level of balance, which meets socially desirable development standards [
55
,
56
]. This
concept is leading to dividing territories by types of regional development. The results
show that from the aspect of the residents’ distribution, relatively harmonious relations
prevail, whereas from a purely territorial point of view they are mostly disharmonious.
The obtained knowledge corresponds to the hypothesis about the positive impact of the
regional harmony of the business and social environment on the long-term sustainability
of development [
55
]. This circumstance leads to necessary investments in improving the
level of knowledge of the population, media education, innovation, and organization are
of great importance [
57
–
59
]. This policy has a positive impact on the productivity and
efficiency of enterprises, the regulation of labor relations, prevention of potential critical
social situations [60–62].
“Theory of cooperation” by V.M. Polterovich is one of the first works in the field of
analysis of harmonious relations [
63
]. In the terminology of the author himself, on the
philosophy of cooperation between people and social groups. The creator of the theory
of cooperation considers three main mechanisms of interaction of subjects, namely, com-
petition, power, and cooperation. The evolution of society is the result of interdependent
changes in culture, institutions, technological progress, and the level of well-being of the
population. This means that the evolution of society assumes that there is a certain type
of relationship of forces such as competition, power, and cooperation. At the same time,
the types of their development are distinguished, namely, catching up and advancing.
That is, a factor of the rate of formation of these three mechanisms is introduced, which is
determined by the graphical factor.
The direction of scientists’ research in which regional development is considered
primarily from the point of view of ecology and territorial components is of interest. This
very direction in the scientists’ works on the problem of social harmony is currently most
understudied. Chua, Ro Y.J. have strong evidence that the ambient cultural disharmony
decreases the individuals’ effectiveness at connecting ideas from disparate cultures [
64
].
We partially agree with Chua, Roy Y.J. to substantiate the incompatibility of the relationship
between ambient cultural disharmony and creativity. We suggest an alternative mechanism
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 6 of 26
for such a structure that would apply to the conditions of harmony. Overcoming dishar-
mony is linked to the development of education for sustainability [
65
–
67
], and everyday
cultural practices [68–70].
Of great interest are the works of E.V. Balatsky [
71
], where the polycausal general
theory of social development is considered, in which economic growth depends on four
groups of factors: technology, institutions, culture, and welfare. For this purpose, the
consistency principle is introduced, according to which the rates of economic growth
positively are affected by high consistency in the development of the listed four groups
of factors [
72
]. Thus, the fundamental principles of sustainability necessarily involve
discussion of educational issues for sustainability [
73
–
75
]. Diverse forms of formation of a
responsible and critically thinking citizen are the priorities of modern education [
76
,
77
].
The concept of sustainability assumes that state institutions and people have the foresight
of the consequences of their actions and systems of production and consumption. The
economic, environmental, and social consequences of current actions are key to the lives of
near and future generations.
3. Materials and Methods
This article is based on the statistical research methods. The sociological method of
content analysis [
58
,
59
] is most applicable to the study of the harmonious development of
society. Considering the proposed novelty of the research, content analysis was addressed
as a method of processing primary research information related to the perception in the
scientific environment of the issues of studying the harmonious development of society.
We conducted a content analysis [
58
,
59
] to determine the list of factors that have the
greatest impact on the sustainable and harmonious development of society. The content
analysis method allows identifying the most frequently mentioned factors (trends, events)
in scientific sources devoted to the subject area we are studying. The study was carried out
on the example of Kazakhstan. We have built a content analysis matrix in which the factors
noted in the sources are presented vertically, and scientific literary sources are presented
horizontally. The fact of certain factors present in the corresponding source is also marked
in the cells. Table 1shows a summary matrix of content analysis to identify factors affecting
the harmonious development of society.
Table 1. Matrix of content analysis of factors affecting sustainable harmonious development of society.
N Factors
Authors with the Source
A. Sen
[78]
S.A.
Ayvazyan
[79]
A.I.
Subetto
[80]
V.
Tupchiyenko
[81]
N.E.
Soboleva
[82]
O.V.
Kuznetsova
[83]
Total
Number of
Mentions
1
Life expectancy,
education and per
capita income
+ + 2
2
The quality of the
population, the
welfare of the
population, social
security (or the
quality of the social
sector)
+ + 2
3
Material,
sociocultural,
spiritual,
demographic and
environmental
components of life
+ + + 3
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 7 of 26
Table 1. Cont.
N Factors
Authors with the Source
A. Sen
[78]
S.A.
Ayvazyan
[79]
A.I.
Subetto
[80]
V.
Tupchiyenko
[81]
N.E.
Soboleva
[82]
O.V.
Kuznetsova
[83]
Total
Number of
Mentions
4
GDP per capita; the
level of real incomes
of the population;
indicators of the
distribution of the
population by the
level of average per
capita income; the
total level of
consumption of
material goods and
services, etc.
+ + 2
5
Material well-being,
the quality and
range of goods
consumed, equality
of educational
opportunities, social
security
+ + + 3
6Job satisfaction, life
satisfaction + + 2
7
Developed
infrastructure,
creativity of the
population, etc.
+ + 2
Based on the information obtained because of the content analysis, it is meaningful to
combine the factors identified by the authors into appropriate homogeneous groups. We
have applied a method [
58
,
59
] that allows identifying the most important and significant
factors for the sustainable development of society and indicators of development of society
harmonization. Thus, the following groups of factors remain in the study:
D+-demoethics is a group of factors that form the basis and purpose of society’s life;
these are the factors that spiritually enrich individuals, contribute to satisfying the needs
necessary for a harmonious and spiritual life in society, social needs, for persons with
disabilities as well;
D1-demography is a group of factors that determine the dynamics of the population
living in the region, including the results of state policy in the field of demography, which
affect life expectancy, morbidity, and mortality, the level of migration of the population, the
number of populations by age groups and by place of residence (city, rural area);
D2-democracy is a group of factors that show the level of organization of society,
taking into account the real participation of the population in various spheres of public
and political life, the implementation by the population of direct and indirect forms of
democracy, including the participation of the population in the election campaigns of
the authorities;
D3-demoeconomy. This grouping acts as the initial basis for the formation of a cross-
factor model of the influence of the identified factors on the harmonious development of
society, considering the impact of state support measures.
The choice of factors included in the model is conditioned by two main provisions:
(1) the capabilities of the modern statistical apparatus of the national statistics service,
which emphasizes the validity of studying the processes of sustainable development;
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 8 of 26
(2) the
orientation of indicators to reveal the processes of harmonization of society, moral
and ethical characteristics of the condition of people living in this territory. The selected
indicators may have different dimensions since in further calculations we will convert them
into stability coefficients (S ij).
For maximum verification of the cross-factor scoring model (close to real values), the
following conditions must be met:
(1) Generalization of demoethical factors explaining that the preservation and sus-
tainable development of civilization is effectively realized in harmonious societies (the
demoethical component of the harmonious development of society in the region);
(2) Analysis of demographic factors, explaining that the expanded reproduction as
a result of sufficient fertility, reduction in morbidity and mortality, as well as the absence
of artificial termination of pregnancy, rare migration processes possible due to natural
and climatic, family-related reasons (the demographic component of the harmonious
development of society in the region);
(3) Involvement in the analysis of the democratic factor that reveals political processes
in the context of the development of true spirituality, the harmonious combination of
freedoms and responsibilities of citizens, permissible and forbidden, interethnic and inter-
faith harmony, political modernization, strong institutions of civil society (the democratic
component of the harmonious development of society in the region);
(4) Generalization of demoeconomic factors, the meaning of which is that a certain
region should have an opportunity to allocate resources for the harmonious development
of society, which entails significant financial, investment, infrastructure, and other types
of support, including state one (the demoeconomic component of the sustainable and
harmonious development of society in the region).
Thus, the resulting indicator of assessing the level of the sustainable and harmonious
development of society in the region, depending on the affecting factors, will be the integral
indicator I
SHD
. Therefore, a cross-factor scoring model for assessing the impact of the
identified factors on the harmonization of society in the region will have the
following form
:
ISHD =k1×(D+) + k2×D1+k3×D2+k4×D3, (1)
where I
SHD
is an integral indicator of sustainable and harmonious development of society
in the region;
D+-demoethical component of the sustainable and harmonious development of society
in the region;
D
1
-demographic component of the sustainable and harmonious development of society
in the region;
D
2
-democratic component of the sustainable and harmonious development of society
in the region;
D
3
-demoeconomic component of the sustainable and harmonious development of soci-
ety in the region;
k1,k2,k3,k4are the weight coefficients under the relevant indices.
Table 2shows that the calculation of the components involves the estimation of a
synthetic index by standardizing the specific indicators included in each component. It
should be noted that the initial data for the formation of a list of specific indicators are
the results of previous content analysis with their corresponding adaptation to similar
indicators of the Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Economy (KSMNE).
Thus, each of the presented components should be described by a certain set of indicators:
D+-demoethical component {x1−x11};
D1-demographic component {x12 −x21};
D2-democratic component {x22 −x31};
D3-demoeconomic component {x32 −x41}.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 9 of 26
Table 2.
Specific indicators for calculating the impact of a component (factor) on sustainable develop-
ment and harmonization of society.
NComponent of Development
of Society Harmonization Indicators
1D+-demoethics
x1—the number of students of higher and vocational educational institutions
per thousand people
x2—availability of kindergartens and schools
x3—availability of healthcare facilities and doctors
x4—crime rate
x5—provision of the population with comfortable housing
x
6
—availability of cultural institutions for the possibility of self-realization and
talent development
x
7
—availability of institutions for the education of a harmoniously developed
and socially responsible personality based on the moral values of peoples,
historical and national-cultural traditions
x
8
—the total share of education enrollment of the population aged 6–24 years.
x9—comfortable and safe living environment (provision with comfortable
urban environment facilities)
x10—availability of public infrastructure facilities for people with disabilities
x11—the share of households that have improved housing conditions in the
total number of households
2D1-demography
x12—infant mortality
x13—maternal mortality
x14—natural population growth
x15—natural population decline
x16—total fertility rate (per 1 woman)
x17—average life expectancy of the population
x18—the level of population migration
x19—ratio of marriages to divorces
x20—incidence of tuberculosis, oncological diseases, cardiovascular diseases,
coronavirus
x21—the ratio of urban and rural population
3D2-democracy
x22—the share of those satisfied with the democracy processes in society
x23—the share of the real number of voters who came to the polling stations
(including absentee ballots)
x24—electoral activity (from the number of voters)
x
25
—the share of valid ballots in the total number of ballots in the ballot boxes
x26—the share of public associations and organizations in the region
x27—the share of independent media
x28—assessment of the loyalty of population to authorities (from the number
of the surveyed population)
x29—digital maturity of authorities and transparency of their activities (from
the number of the surveyed population)
x30—the level of corruption violations
x31—trends in social mood, stock of patience and protest potential (from the
number of the surveyed population)
4D3-demoeconomy
x32—gross regional product per capita
x33—consumer expenditure
x34—subsistence minimum
x35—employment rate
x36—unemployment rate
x37—poverty rate (the share of citizens with income below the subsistence
minimum)
x38—growth rate of per capita income
x39—growth rate of real average monthly wages
x40—the share of the number of people employed in the sphere of small and
medium-sized entrepreneurship in the total number of people employed in the
economy
x41—growth rate of investments in the economy of the region
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 10 of 26
The obtained based on this approach synthetic (integral) indicator I
SHD
is a positive
value and is in the range from 0 to 1. Its economic interpretation is as follows: the positive
influence of that component on the sustainable and harmonious development of society,
the value of which is closest to one, will be stronger. Formula (1) shows the weight
coefficients for research and model calculation. These coefficients are determined based on
the importance of each component in the harmonious development of society. At the same
time, we use an algorithm for a priori ranking of factors (ARF) based on expert assessments.
The indicators included in each component are of different dimensions, therefore, a
simple algebraic summation of them to obtain a single total value is impossible in this
case. V. Pluta’s method allows standardizing of a set of multi-dimensional parameters [
84
].
As a result, we can compile the entire set of multi-dimensional parameters into a single
synthetic index. The multi-dimensional analysis method of V. Pluta has proven itself since
the mid-70s of the 20th century. In the conditions of information overload contained in
the financial reports of the studied objects, it is problematic to find the most significant
relationships. This method makes it possible to identify cumulative factors, as well as
dominant trends that are shown in a set of heterogeneous features. The advantage of this
approach is also the possibility of comparing heterogeneous indicators by combining them
into synthetic values that combine all the features.
The final value for each component Diis calculated using the formula:
Di=
∑Sij
n(2)
where
i—the number of the component;
j—the number of the factor x(in total 41 factors);
Sij —the stability coefficient of the j-th factor in the i-component.
In turn, each stability coefficient is determined considering the desired trend of the
dynamics of the studied factor. If the desired trend is to increase the indicator value (for
example, availability of kindergartens; average life expectancy; share of independent media;
employment rate), then Sij is determined by the formula:
Sij =
The value of the jindicator −factor in group iin the reporting period
The value of the jindicator −factor in group iin the base −period (3)
If the desired trend is decreasing the indicator value (for example, crime rate; infant
mortality; level of corruption violations; unemployment rate), then
Sij
is determined by
the formula:
Sij =
The value of the jindicator −factor in group iin the base −period
The value of the jindicator −factor in group iin the reporting period (4)
This methodology is employed in assessing the effectiveness of state programs of the
Russian Federation. This practice has a regulatory justification and scientific research based
on it [85,86].
4. Results
If we substitute the obtained indices into formula 1, a cross-factor scoring model for
assessing the impact of the identified factors on the harmonization of society in the region
is the following:
ISHD = 0.30 ×(D+) + 0.24 ×D1+ 0.18 ×D2+ 0.28 ×D3, (5)
The weight of the coefficients is determined based on expert assessments and public
opinion polls, which are published quarterly in the information and analytical bulletin “The
effectiveness of public administration in the estimates of the population”. Monitoring of
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 11 of 26
public opinion has been carried out by the staff of “Vologda Scientific Center of the Russian
Academy of Sciences” under the supervision of Corresponding Member of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, doctor of economic sciences, professor V.I. Ilyin since 1996 [87].
Based on expert assessments and public opinion polls on the values of the indices
obtained, it can be concluded that demoethical factors have the greatest influence on the
level of the harmonious development of society, a combination of demoeconomic factors is
in the second place, demographic has the third place, democratic is in the fourth place.
As in any study, the proposed model is not a dogma, but a flexible formula that can
be used under changing conditions supplemented and refined by specific indicators or
new components. The calculation of the quantitative values of the components and their
introduction into the cross-factor scoring model will help diagnose the conditions of the
harmonious development of society in the regions. The integral indicator of the level of
the sustainable and harmonious development of society obtained using the model (2),
depending on the identified factors, can be in the following range:
0.70
≤
I
SHD ≤
1—favorable conditions for the sustainable and harmonious develop-
ment of society;
0.40
≤
I
SHD ≤
0.69—average level for the sustainable and harmonious development
of society;
0.10
≤
I
SHD ≤
0.39—low level for the sustainable and harmonious development of society;
0.0
≤
I
SHD ≤
0.09—unfavorable conditions for the sustainable and harmonious devel-
opment of society.
The development of public policy directions and measures of targeted support for the
industry needs to consider the needs of a certain territory. Therefore, favorable conditions
for the development of society are necessary for studying. This factor is key in ranking the
harmonization of society, regions, and subjects. Moreover, model (2) makes it possible to
systematically monitor the development of regions, contingent upon the changes in the
identified factors, including the state support measures.
It is advisable to test the developed model on the example of real indicators of the sus-
tainable and harmonious development of society in such territories as Atyrau, Mangystau,
North Kazakhstan regions, and Nur-Sultan city. The input data for constructing a cross-
factor scoring model (2) are the values of the indicators from Table 2in the context of the
regions presented above for 2018. The calculation of indices according to model 2 needs to
aggregate the entire set of multi-dimensional input parameters x
1
–x
41
into single synthetic
components (demoethical, demographic, democratic, and demoeconomic, respectively)
based on multi-dimensional integral analysis. Table 3shows the results of calculations by
an estimate of the conditions of the harmonious development of society under the influence
of demoethical, demographic and democratic, demoeconomic factors.
Table 3.
Assessment of conditions for sustainable and harmonious development of society in the region.
N Region D+Demoethical D1Demographic D2Democratic D3Demoeco-
nomic
ISHD
Integrated
Index
Conditions for the
Development of
Harmonious Society
according to the
Favorability Level
1 Atyrau 0.13 0.03 0.71 0.13 0.210 low level
2 Mangystau 0.02 0.29 0.68 0.05 0.212 low level
3 Turkestan 0.03 0.11 0.84 0.02 0.192 low level
4North
Kazakhstan 0.18 0.02 0.79 0.01 0.204 low level
5Nur-Sultan
city 0.17 0.06 0.68 0.09 0.213 low level
Note: Demoethical indicators have been confirmed by previous studies, which evaluated demoethical indicators
based on expert assessment, and additionally compared other demoethical indicators to strengthen the above-
mentioned indicators.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 12 of 26
Table 3shows the data, which concluded that currently, all analyzed regions corre-
spond to a low level of development of society. This circumstance determines the need to
develop tools to influence the sustainable and harmonious development of society in the
regions, depending on the affecting factors (Table 4).
Table 4.
Tools for influence on the sustainable and harmonious development of society in the regions,
depending on the affecting factors.
N Region
Factors Affecting the
Harmonious
Development of
Society
Nature of the Factors
Influence on the Level
of Society
Harmonization
Tools for Influence on Harmonious Development
of Society
1Atyrau
region
Demoethical Disharmony D
-
The number of students of higher and vocational
educational institutions per thousand people;
- Availability of kindergartens and schools;
- Availability of healthcare facilities and doctors;
- Availability of public infrastructure facilities for
people with disabilities;
- The share of households that have improved
housing conditions in the total number of
households;
- The total share of education enrollment of the
population aged 6–24 years.
Harmony Hcrime rate indicator
Demographic Harmony Hratio of marriages to divorces
Democratic Harmony Hmore than half of population are satisfied with the
democracy development in the country
Demoeconomic Harmony Hshare of GDP, growth rate of per capita nominal
monetary income, subsistence minimum
2
Mangystau
region
Demoethical
Harmony Hcrime rate indicator
Disharmony D
- The number of students of higher and
vocational educational institutions;
- Availability of kindergartens and schools;
- Availability of healthcare facilities and doctors;
- Comfortable and safe living environment
(provision with comfortable urban environment
facilities);
- Provision of the population with comfortable
housing;
- Availability of cultural institutions for the
possibility of self-realization and talent
development;
- The total share of education enrollment of the
population aged 6–24 years.
Demographic Harmony Hnatural population growth; marriage rates; high birth
rate
Democratic Harmony H
high share of public associations and organizations in
the region
Disharmony D
low share of the population who are satisfied with the
processes of democracy in society
Demoeconomic Harmony Hshare of gdp; growth rate of per capita nominal cash
income, growth rate of the subsistence minimum
Disharmony Demployment rate
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 13 of 26
Table 4. Cont.
N Region
Factors Affecting the
Harmonious
Development of
Society
Nature of the Factors
Influence on the Level
of Society
Harmonization
Tools for Influence on Harmonious Development
of Society
3Turkestan
region
Demoethical Disharmony D
- Availability of healthcare facilities and
doctors;
- The number of students of higher and
vocational educational institutions per
thousand people;
- Comfortable and safe living environment
(provision with comfortable urban
environment facilities);
- Availability of cultural institutions for the
possibility of self-realization and talent
development;
-
The total share of education enrollment of the
population aged 6–24 years.
Demographic
Disharmony D
high maternal mortality; intensive migration of the
population
Harmony Hhigh birth rate
Democratic Harmony H
more than half of the population (50.3%) positively
assess the development of democracy in the
country
Demoeconomic Disharmony D
growth rate of per capita nominal cash income,
growth rate of the subsistence minimum, poverty
rate, employment rate
4North
Kazakhstan
Demoethical Disharmony D
- The number of students of higher and
vocational educational institutions per
thousand people;
- Availability of kindergartens and schools;
- Availability of healthcare facilities and
doctors;
- Comfortable and safe living environment
(provision with comfortable urban
environment facilities);
- Availability of public infrastructure facilities
for people with disabilities;
- The share of households that have improved
housing conditions in the total number of
households;
-
The total share of education enrollment of the
population aged 6–24 years.
Demographic
Disharmony Dinfant mortality; marriage rate, divorce rate; low
birth rate
Harmony Hmaternal mortality
Democratic Harmony H
more than half of the population (50.3%) positively
assess the development of democracy in the
country
Demoeconomic Disharmony D- The growth rate of the subsistence minimum,
the share of GDP; poverty rate
Harmony Hemployment rate
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 14 of 26
Table 4. Cont.
N Region
Factors Affecting the
Harmonious
Development of
Society
Nature of the Factors
Influence on the Level
of Society
Harmonization
Tools for Influence on Harmonious Development
of Society
5
Nur-Sultan
city
Demoethical
Harmony Hprovision with comfortable housing
Disharmony D
-
The total share of education enrollment of the
population aged 6–24 years; crime rate,
availability of healthcare facilities and doctors
Demographic Harmony H
infant mortality; natural population growth;
average life expectancy; ratio of marriages to
divorces
Democratic Harmony H
high share of public associations and organizations
in the region;
digital maturity of authorities
Disharmony Dlow share of the population satisfied with the
democracy processes in the society
Demoeconomic Harmony H
share of GDP; growth rate of per capita nominal
monetary income, subsistence minimum, poverty
rate; employment rate; unemployment rate
Disharmony D
the growth rate of consumer expenditure, the
growth rate of the subsistence minimum, the low
growth rate of real average monthly wages
Among the set of the analyzed regions in the Turkestan region, low values of indica-
tors were recorded for the demoethical and demoeconomic component of the level of the
harmonious development of society, which shapes its last position in the ranking. Conse-
quently, in this area, demoethical and demoeconomic factors are disharmonious, which
requires the priority attention of state bodies. For Nur-Sultan city, despite the relatively low
values of the demographic component, democratic and demoethical factors have become
harmonious. We guided by the above logic, as well as dividing the selected factors into
harmony and disharmony. These ideas allow systematizing the instruments of influence
on the harmonious development of society in the regions. The influence is estimated based
on the comparative value of the integral index of each component of the cross-factor model.
The instruments were selected based on the contribution of a specific indicator to the final
integral index of each structural cross-factor model (for harmonious factors (harmony
“H”), the support policy, and disharmony (disharmony “D”)—the policy of reducing their
negative impact on the process of harmonization of society is necessary (Table 4).
Let us review some of the demoethical factors of sustainable development and harmo-
nization of society for 1999–2019 according to the following indicators:
-
The number of students of higher and vocational educational institutions per thousand
people population;
- The total share of education enrollment of the population aged 6–24 years;
- Availability of kindergartens;
- Availability of healthcare facilities and doctors;
- Crime rate;
- Provision of population with comfortable housing.
The total share of education enrollment of the population aged 6–24 years. Dynamics:
for 2017—546.68 people per 10 thousand population; 1999–2009—significant growth 86%;
2009–2017—decrease by 28% in all regions and primarily in Almaty, Nur-Sultan, and
Mangystau region. One of the objective reasons is the decline in the birth rate in the 1990s.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 15 of 26
Availability of kindergartens. In 2018, its value was 105.9 children per 100 places; in
2000–2009—growth by 22.1%; in 2018—it by 21.6%, with the most availability in Almaty,
and the least in Aktobe and Kostanay regions [88].
Availability of doctors. In 2017, there were 72,134 doctors in the republic. The best
indicator for 10 thousand people in Nur-Sultan and Almaty is almost 2 times more than the
national average. The lowest availability of doctors is in Almaty, Kostanay, Atyrau, and
Zhambyl regions.
The provision of housing for the period 1999–2017 increased from 16.4 sq.m per
person to 22, i.e., by 34%. In 2017, relatively high indicators were found in Karaganda,
Aktobe regions, Nur-Sultan, and Almaty, relatively low ones—in Zhambyl and Almaty
regions. Despite the emphasis on the problem, the population’s housing supply does not
yet exceed 21.6 sq. m. per 1 person, which is lower than in many CIS and Eastern European
countries [89].
Crime rate. 118 crimes per 10 thousand population were registered in the Kazakhstan
in 2018. By region, the crime rate is high in Almaty, Nur–Sultan, and Kostanay regions, low
in Pavlodar, Mangystau, Zhambyl, Atyrau, and East Kazakhstan regions. Thus, significant
elements of disharmony in territorial development require deliberate attention from the
state. The current crisis caused by the pandemic has revealed how linked the economies of
different countries have become. Its consequences will also affect Kazakhstan. Specifically,
the state of the economy will depend on the speed of the fight against the pandemic, as
well as the situation in the commodity markets [90].
Demography: analysis of demographic factors of harmonization of the society of the
population for 1999–2019. Key indicators include the following:
- Infant mortality;
- Maternal mortality;
- Natural population growth;
- Average life expectancy of the population;
- Migratory behavior of the population;
- The ratio of marriages to divorces.
According to the Statistics Committee, the population of the Kazakhstan as of 1 August
2019, was 18,528.9 thousand people, urban—58.3%, rural—42.7%. In 2018, the largest size
was in Turkestan, Almaty regions, and Almaty, the smallest was in North Kazakhstan,
Atyrau, and West Kazakhstan. In 2018, the share of the male population was 48.4%,
female—51.6%
. During the period 1999–2018, in general, there was a population growth of
3202.2 thousand people. The population density in 2018 was 6.7 people per 1 sq. m.
Demographic processes significantly affect socioeconomic harmony. In 2018, the birth
rate in the republic increased markedly and amounted to 21.77%. The birth rate is high
in Mangystau, Turkestan, and Nur-Sultan, low—in the North Kazakhstan and Kostanay
regions. In the period 1999 to 2018, mortality rates decreased by 2.66%.
Infant mortality is one of the basic statistical indicators of demography in the integral
estimation of a harmonious society. In 2018, its highest value was noted in the North
Kazakhstan region. The lowest rates are in Pavlodar and Akmola regions and Nur-Sultan.
Maternal mortality in 2017 in the Kazakhstan amounted to 49 cases, including 10 cases in
the Turkestan region, and 6 in Almaty. Indicators of natural population growth in 2018
(14.6%) had risen by 10.2% since 1999. The largest increase was in the Mangystau region
(25.2%) and Nur-Sultan (23.7%).
Life expectancy (LE). Mortality rates and life expectancy of the population are the main
criteria for the level and quality of life. For the period 1999–2018 LE in the Kazakhstan
increased from 65.7 to 73.1 years, having started to increase in 2001 but unevenly across
regions. In general, from 1999 to 2018 the average annual growth rate of life expectancy
was 0.3 years. In 2018 in cities, life expectancy has increased from 66.7 to 72.7 years; in
rural areas life expectancy has increased from 65 to 73.1 years. The highest indicator of
life expectancy is in Aktobe (73.4 years) and Almaty (73.4) regions and Nur-Sultan (76.2),
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 16 of 26
Almaty (75.5). The difference between the life expectancy of men and women in 2018 was
8.2 years (76.9 years for women, 68.7 years for men).
Population migration. In 2018, the negative balance of migration amounted to
29,121 people
.
Most of them left Turkestan and Almaty regions, and the largest quantity of arrivals was
noted in the cities of Nur-Sultan and Almaty. In general, from 1999 to 2018 a positive trend
was recorded: compared with 1999, in 2018 in the Kazakhstan, there were 94,506 fewer
people left.
Marriages and divorces. In 2018, 137.8 thousand people registered for marriage. The
marriage rate was 7.54 per 1000 people against 5.8 in 1999. In recent years, there has been
a negative trend in family and marriage relations in the republic. The divorce rate was
3.0 per 1000 people in 2018 compared with 2.4 in 1999.
The incidence of tuberculosis. On a nationwide scale, from 1999 to 2017, it significantly
decreased: in 1999—141 cases per 100 thousand population, in 2017—52.2.
Coronavirus in Kazakhstan. On 13 March 2020, the first cases of coronavirus infection
were announced in the country. On 26 March, the first fatal outcome was registered. By the
beginning of April, the coronavirus has been registered in all regions. So far, there are no
effective therapeutic agents against coronavirus, except for vaccination. The main problems
requiring attention are the followings: outflow of population, instability of marriages.
Democracy. No single possible, unified set of institutions and rules embodies democ-
racy. Therefore, a specific form of democracy in a particular country depends on socioeco-
nomic conditions, the traditional structure of the state, political culture, and the perception
of power that has developed in a society [91].
We based the data, presented in Figure 1. These data confirm the validity of the appeal
of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev emphasizing that Kazakhstanis are called upon to
fulfill a historical mission—to show by their example how it is necessary and possible,
through a constructive dialogue between the authorities and the people, to overcome any
obstacles [
92
]. The level of satisfaction with the development of democracy in Kazakhstan is
37.3% of the respondents, and 13% of the population is very satisfied with the development
of democratic processes. Nevertheless, 50% of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction
or found it difficult to answer this question. Public authorities need to develop direct
forms of self-governance by the population. Such forms are citizens’ gatherings, public
hearings, referendums, citizens’ law-making initiatives, and other forms, to conduct an
open dialogue with the population, showing the transparency of the authorities’ activities
through the media, the information space, transforming activities of public authorities
through the digitalization of public services.
Demoeconomy: analysis by region for 1999–2019. The key points include the following:
- Gross regional product per capita;
-
The share of short-term consumer expenditure in the total amount of consumer spending;
- The ratio of the average wage to the subsistence minimum;
- Employment;
-
Unemployment and poverty reflect the influence of economic factors on the harmo-
nization of society;
- Average monthly wage.
Figure 2shows the dynamics of the main macroeconomic indicator of economic
development, namely, the size of GDP from 2012 to 2019.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 17 of 26
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26
Marriages and divorces. In 2018, 137.8 thousand people registered for marriage. The
marriage rate was 7.54 per 1000 people against 5.8 in 1999. In recent years, there has been
a negative trend in family and marriage relations in the republic. The divorce rate was 3.0
per 1000 people in 2018 compared with 2.4 in 1999.
The incidence of tuberculosis. On a nationwide scale, from 1999 to 2017, it signifi-
cantly decreased: in 1999—141 cases per 100 thousand population, in 2017—52.2.
Coronavirus in Kazakhstan. On 13 March 2020, the first cases of coronavirus infection
were announced in the country. On 26 March, the first fatal outcome was registered. By
the beginning of April, the coronavirus has been registered in all regions. So far, there are
no effective therapeutic agents against coronavirus, except for vaccination. The main
problems requiring attention are the followings: outflow of population, instability of mar-
riages.
Democracy. No single possible, unified set of institutions and rules embodies democ-
racy. Therefore, a specific form of democracy in a particular country depends on socioec-
onomic conditions, the traditional structure of the state, political culture, and the percep-
tion of power that has developed in a society [91].
We based the data, presented in Figure 1. These data confirm the validity of the ap-
peal of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev emphasizing that Kazakhstanis are called upon
to fulfill a historical mission—to show by their example how it is necessary and possible,
through a constructive dialogue between the authorities and the people, to overcome any
obstacles [92]. The level of satisfaction with the development of democracy in Kazakhstan
is 37.3% of the respondents, and 13% of the population is very satisfied with the develop-
ment of democratic processes. Nevertheless, 50% of the respondents expressed dissatis-
faction or found it difficult to answer this question. Public authorities need to develop
direct forms of self-governance by the population. Such forms are citizens’ gatherings,
public hearings, referendums, citizens’ law-making initiatives, and other forms, to con-
duct an open dialogue with the population, showing the transparency of the authorities’
activities through the media, the information space, transforming activities of public au-
thorities through the digitalization of public services.
Figure 1. Distribution of answers to the question “Are you satisfied with the development of de-
mocracy in Kazakhstan?” (% of respondents).
Demoeconomy: analysis by region for 1999–2019. The key points include the following:
- Gross regional product per capita;
13
37.3
28.9
7.9
0.9
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Not sure
Figure 1.
Distribution of answers to the question “Are you satisfied with the development of
democracy in Kazakhstan?” (% of respondents).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26
- The share of short-term consumer expenditure in the total amount of consumer
spending;
- The ratio of the average wage to the subsistence minimum;
- Employment;
- Unemployment and poverty reflect the influence of economic factors on the harmo-
nization of society;
- Average monthly wage.
Figure 2 shows the dynamics of the main macroeconomic indicator of economic de-
velopment, namely, the size of GDP from 2012 to 2019.
Figure 2. Dynamics of GDP of the Kazakhstan. Note: In preparing the review, the data from the
Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Economy (CSMNE), the National Bank of the
Kazakhstan were used. Changes in the time series of data are possible as they are refined, recalcu-
lated by CS.
Figure 3 shows the assessment of each region’s contribution to the total GDP of Ka-
zakhstan is conducted for determining the economic potential of the regions.
31,015.20
35,999
39,675.80
40,884.10
46,971.20
54,378.90
61,819.50
68,639.50
104.8
106
104.2
101.2 101.1
104.1 104.4 104.5
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
0.00
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
70,000.00
80,000.00
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Years Billion tenge Volume index
20.6
13.2
9.8
5.83 4.2
7.4
4.8 3.424.473.39
5.8
2.8 2.7 4.5 2.8 1.9 2.4
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
The share of GRP in the GDP, %
Regions of Kazakhstan
Figure 2.
Dynamics of GDP of the Kazakhstan. Note: In preparing the review, the data from the
Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Economy (CSMNE), the National Bank of the
Kazakhstan were used. Changes in the time series of data are possible as they are refined, recalculated
by CS.
Figure 3shows the assessment of each region’s contribution to the total GDP of
Kazakhstan is conducted for determining the economic potential of the regions.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 18 of 26
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26
- The share of short-term consumer expenditure in the total amount of consumer
spending;
- The ratio of the average wage to the subsistence minimum;
- Employment;
- Unemployment and poverty reflect the influence of economic factors on the harmo-
nization of society;
- Average monthly wage.
Figure 2 shows the dynamics of the main macroeconomic indicator of economic de-
velopment, namely, the size of GDP from 2012 to 2019.
Figure 2. Dynamics of GDP of the Kazakhstan. Note: In preparing the review, the data from the
Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Economy (CSMNE), the National Bank of the
Kazakhstan were used. Changes in the time series of data are possible as they are refined, recalcu-
lated by CS.
Figure 3 shows the assessment of each region’s contribution to the total GDP of Ka-
zakhstan is conducted for determining the economic potential of the regions.
31,015.20
35,999
39,675.80
40,884.10
46,971.20
54,378.90
61,819.50
68,639.50
104.8
106
104.2
101.2 101.1
104.1 104.4 104.5
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
0.00
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
70,000.00
80,000.00
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Years Billion tenge Volume index
20.6
13.2
9.8
5.83 4.2
7.4
4.8 3.424.473.39
5.8
2.8 2.7 4.5 2.8 1.9 2.4
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
The share of GRP in the GDP, %
Regions of Kazakhstan
Figure 3.
The share of GRP in the GDP of the Kazakhstan, (%). Note: In preparing the review, the
data from the Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Economy (CSMNE), the National
Bank of the Kazakhstan were used. Changes in the time series of data are possible as they are refined,
recalculated by CS.
Analyzing GRP per capita in Kazakhstan, it is worth pointing out that over the
period from 1999 to 2017, the indicator for the republic scaled up nineteen-fold—from
121,500 tenges in 1999 to 2,357,239 tenge in 2017.
The indicators of per capita nominal monetary income, the subsistence minimum from
1999 to 2018 increased thirtyfold. Figure 4shows the per capita nominal monetary income of
the population as of May 2019 amounted to a 97,924 tenges (preliminary data), which is 8.1%
higher than in May 2018, real monetary income for the mentioned period went up by 2.7%.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 26
Figure 3. The share of GRP in the GDP of the Kazakhstan, (%). Note: In preparing the review, the
data from the Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Economy (CSMNE), the Na-
tional Bank of the Kazakhstan were used. Changes in the time series of data are possible as they
are refined, recalculated by CS.
Analyzing GRP per capita in Kazakhstan, it is worth pointing out that over the period
from 1999 to 2017, the indicator for the republic scaled up nineteen-fold—from 121,500
tenges in 1999 to 2,357,239 tenge in 2017.
The indicators of per capita nominal monetary income, the subsistence minimum
from 1999 to 2018 increased thirtyfold. Figure 4 shows the per capita nominal monetary
income of the population as of May 2019 amounted to a 97,924 tenges (preliminary data),
which is 8.1% higher than in May 2018, real monetary income for the mentioned period
went up by 2.7%.
Figure 4. Dynamics of the population of regions with incomes below the subsistence minimum, %.
Consumer expenditure on average per capita in the period 1999–2017 in the republic
rose from 5432 tenges in 1999 to 48,618.5 tenge in 2017. Moreover, noticeably low shares
of spending on education and healthcare attract attention. In education, 2.3% of expendi-
ture in 2001, a slight increase in 2006–2008 (4.3%); in 2018, a reduction to 2.1%. The share
of healthcare expenditure is 1.8 [93].
The subsistence minimum level (SML) on average per capita in the period from 1999 to
2018 escalated eightfold: from 3394 to 27,072 tenge. The highest indicators are in Man-
gystau, East Kazakhstan, Atyrau, and Almaty regions and the cities of Nur–Sultan and
Almaty, and the lowest is in Turkestan, Zhambyl regions.
According to the World Bank estimates, in Kazakhstan, the subsistence minimum
level is 31,982 tenge. The citizens whose income falls under this amount per family mem-
ber are those who live below the poverty line. There were 772,600 such people in the sec-
ond quarter of 2019 or 4.2% of the population.
The poverty rate in the Kazakhstan in 2017 amounted to 0.4% against 7.9% in 1999. The
maximum indicator for 1999–2017 is in the Mangystau region and the minimum is in Al-
maty.
The employment rate of the population increased from 47.2% in 1999 to 50.1% in 2017.
The number of economically active population from 1999 to 2017 grew from 7 million to
9 million people and the employed population—from 6.1 million to 8.5 million people. In
2017 the level of the economically active population was higher than the national average
2.6 3.1
0.9
4.2 3.9 2.5 3.8 3.1 2.7 3.4 4.5
11.2
4.6 3.3 4.7 5.1 5.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Regions of Kazakhstan
The share of the population with incomes below the subsistence
minimum, second quarter, 2019, %
Figure 4. Dynamics of the population of regions with incomes below the subsistence minimum, %.
Consumer expenditure on average per capita in the period 1999–2017 in the republic
rose from 5432 tenges in 1999 to 48,618.5 tenge in 2017. Moreover, noticeably low shares of
spending on education and healthcare attract attention. In education, 2.3% of expenditure
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 19 of 26
in 2001, a slight increase in 2006–2008 (4.3%); in 2018, a reduction to 2.1%. The share of
healthcare expenditure is 1.8 [93].
The subsistence minimum level (SML) on average per capita in the period from 1999 to
2018 escalated eightfold: from 3394 to 27,072 tenge. The highest indicators are in Mangystau,
East Kazakhstan, Atyrau, and Almaty regions and the cities of Nur–Sultan and Almaty,
and the lowest is in Turkestan, Zhambyl regions.
According to the World Bank estimates, in Kazakhstan, the subsistence minimum level
is 31,982 tenge. The citizens whose income falls under this amount per family member
are those who live below the poverty line. There were 772,600 such people in the second
quarter of 2019 or 4.2% of the population.
The poverty rate in the Kazakhstan in 2017 amounted to 0.4% against 7.9% in 1999. The
maximum indicator for 1999–2017 is in the Mangystau region and the minimum is in Almaty.
The employment rate of the population increased from 47.2% in 1999 to 50.1% in 2017.
The number of economically active population from 1999 to 2017 grew from 7 million to
9 million people and the employed population—from 6.1 million to 8.5 million people. In
2017 the level of the economically active population was higher than the national average
in Kostanay, Akmola, North Kazakhstan regions. The lowest values of this indicator from
1999 to 2017 were noted in Turkestan, Kyzylorda, and Mangystau regions.
High economic growth rates and the creation of permanent jobs contributed to a decrease
in the unemployment rate by more than 2.7 times—from 13.5% in 1999 to 4.9% in 2018. In
2017, a high unemployment rate remained in the Turkestan region, and in Almaty, a low
one was observed in Nur-Sultan (4.6%). The number of unemployed people, as of June
2019, was 442.7 thousand people.
In the period 1999–2018, the number of employed people increased from
6105.0 thousand
to 8695.0 thousand people. Among the regions, Turkestan and Almaty regions are tradi-
tionally the leaders in this indicator. The smallest number of employed people is recorded
in Mangystau, Atyrau, West Kazakhstan, and North Kazakhstan regions.
Average monthly nominal wage. In all sectors of the economy from 1999 to 2018, there
was a steady increase in this indicator: from 11,864 to 162,267 tenge. In 2017, for men, it
amounted to 179,575 tenges, for women—121,793 (1.5 times less). The average monthly
nominal wage of one employee, as of June 2019, was 177,963 tenge.
Thus, the key factors of the demoeconomy demonstrate that its development by region
is uneven. Disharmony is evident in Mangystau, Turkestan, and Northern Kazakhstan
regions. A completely different situation is traced in Nur-Sultan city and the Atyrau region.
5. Discussion
According to the studies of the harmonious sphere “D + 3D”, the elements of dishar-
mony appear in the demoethical direction, namely, a decrease in the number of students
in the field of education, and demographic direction. Namely, such phenomena are the
outflow of population, a decrease in the number of marriages and an increase in the number
of divorces, and a decrease in the ratio of marriages to divorces. The revealed facts of
disharmony are interrelated.
In educational migration, the desire to obtain a quality education, to achieve a higher
level of their competitiveness is at work rather than strictly economic factors [
62
,
93
,
94
].
According to a 2018 study, respondents were asked the questions: “If you had the opportu-
nity to leave for another country or stay in your own country, which would you choose?”
and “Are you ready to move to another region or country for an indefinite period?” [
95
].
Tables 5and 6show the following answers, %.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 20 of 26
Table 5.
Distribution of answers to the question: “If you had an opportunity to leave for another
country or stay in your own country, what would you choose?”, %.
N Answer Options Answers, %
1 I would stay in my country 51.3
2I would go to another country for a while, but I would like to
live in my own country 33.8
3 I would like to move to another country permanently 11
4 Cannot say 3.8
Table 6.
Distribution of answers to the question: “Are you ready to move to another region or country
for an indefinite period?”, %.
N Respondent’s Answer Are You Ready to Move to
Another Region? (%)
Are You Ready to Move to
Another Country?” (%)
1 Yes 19.1 23.5
2 No 80.8 76.2
3 Cannot say 0.1 0.2
Kazakhstan is a part of the international community, and it is actively involved in
international processes. As a result, the processes of globalization, and regionalization
expose both latent and potential personnel and resource problems. Therefore, monitoring
and modeling migration is proposed, especially since there is already a struggle for labor
resources between the regions of Kazakhstan. Additionally, in the future, this process
will increase.
Discussion of the whole complex of marriage and divorce problems is of great impor-
tance for sustainability [
96
–
98
]. As reported by the UN Statistics Division, the indicators
are as follows: over 5 years, 733,606 marriages have been concluded in Kazakhstan and
268,504 divorces
have been registered. At the same time, in 2018, the number of divorces
registered was 0.3% more than in 2017. According to the Statistics Committee of the
Ministry of National Economy of the Kazakhstan [
99
], people aged 30 to 34 years who
have been married for more than 5 years most often file for divorce. Divorce is a serious
socio-psychological problem that requires careful consideration.
Research in 2018 confirms that in catching up with the developed countries of the
world, it is important for Kazakhstan not to lose its treasures, namely, unique national val-
ues inherited from previous generations [
100
]. It is essential to form a spiritual foundation
first in the minds of people, and then in real economic activity, for example, to prevent an
increase in divorces. As a result, the formation of harmony in the economy and society is
accelerating, that corresponds [8,30].
Dividing the studied factors into harmonious and disharmonious, this study system-
atizes the tools of influence on the harmonious development of society in the regions and
leads to drawing several fundamental ideas.
The social development of the republic is characterized by an average stable trend,
where a strong differentiation of indicators of a stable and harmonious society by the
regions is traced. The analysis of the studied regions has displayed that the development
corresponds to a low level of social development. This circumstance determines the
necessity to develop tools to influence the sustainable and harmonious development of
society. The main problems requiring the focus of the state are the following: population
migration, the decline in the number of students in the field of education in the regions,
negative trends in family relations, and the level of development of people’s satisfaction
with the development of democracy.
This research shows the assessment of the impact of “D+3D” factors on the level of
sustainable and harmonious socioeconomic development of society. The developed cross-
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 21 of 26
factor model enabled the building of a rating of territories and identifying harmonious
and disharmonious factors, based on which to determine the tools of influence on the
harmonization of society. This approach is adaptive since it allows diagnosing the level
of the harmonious development of society in the regions by introducing indicators of
new research.
For the sustainable and harmonious development of society, targeted practical mea-
sures are needed in all directions. To determine measures to reduce/eliminate the dishar-
mony factors, the choice of research topic was caused by the development of a Digital index
of social harmony is suggested. The digital transformation of society will undoubtedly
affect the favorable modeling of the situation in the country and the spiritual and moral
image of every citizen. Accordingly, disharmony in all spheres of “D + 3D” will decrease,
and harmony will increase. Moreover, in critical situations, the digital index of factors of
harmony and disharmony will serve to make correct and timely decisions. The harmoniza-
tion of society will happen when the state has accurate data on the level of harmonization
of society in general and the regions of the country.
6. Conclusions
The sustainable development of society now of time is one of the main areas of research
set by the United Nations in the form of 17 goals of sustainable development. These goals
are aimed at developing enterprises, businesses, and states to maintain the well-being of
future generations. The contribution of the proposed study can be evaluated by comparing
the proposed work with existing research. In the proposed scientific study, we consider
the goals and individual aspects of sustainable development in their applied value. This
article shows the possibility of creating, combining, and adding elements of sustainable
development in the form of four large components, namely, demoetics, demography,
democracy, and democracy. This concept is indicated by us as 4D = “D + 3D”, in which
4D together combines the concepts close by categories and makes it possible to evaluate
and measure the influence of each set of components on the sustainable development
of the studied object. The application of this study in practice revealed negative results,
namely, the practical facts of the deterioration of some areas of 4D = “D + 3D”, which
are confirmed by the events of early 2022 (protests and riots) in Kazakhstan. The January
events of
2022 (protests and riots)
in Kazakhstan and the global nature of the instability
of the modern stage of socioeconomic development require a change in the accounting of
various factors that affect the sustainable development of society both at the regional and
state levels.
State policy should be formed based on the development of society, considering the
tools of influence as a fundamental paradigm of the quality of life based on components
such as demoetics, demography, democracy, and democracy. They affect the effective use
and combination of economic, scientific, technical, social, and environmental components.
Target consumers of the expected research results are useful for politicians, practition-
ers, and state and regional administrations, deciding on the development of strategic
development goals. Medium and large businesses to find regions that are inherent in the
sustainable nature of development. For sustainable development of society and operational
decision-making, point practical measures are needed in all areas. To determine measures
to reduce/get rid of disharmony factors, the topic of research has been chosen, which
proposes the development of a methodology for sustainable development of society based
on 4D = “D + 3D” (demoetics, demography, democracy, demoneconomics). This concept
may be a new approach to assessing the effective system of sustainable development of
society in the regional and national aspects.
Moreover, the results of the study provide the following effects. The social effect is
the ability to build regions rating and support less sustainably developing regions. The
economic effect is an increase in the investment attractiveness of regions that consider the
effective use and combination of components of the economic, scientific, technical, social,
and environmental components. Scientific and technical effect-expanding the possibilities
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 22 of 26
of economic and mathematical methods and methods of data analysis for predicting and
evaluating the achievement of sustainable development of society. Thus, modeling the
assessment of the influence of “D + 3D” factors on the process of sustainable development
of society allows solving the most important socioeconomic issues of the development of
the regions, considering their characteristics and specifics. This concept will ultimately
develop an effective economic and social development strategy for the country at the
regional and state levels.
Our further research will be carried out considering new conditions in the country, in
connection with amendments and additions to the Constitution [
101
] and the “New refer-
endum on 5 June 2022” aimed at the serious political transformation of our society. These
changes mean the transition of Kazakhstan to a qualitatively new model of the formation
and interaction of institutions of power, rooting a new political culture. In accordance
with the new paradigm, the powers of the president are reduced, the role of parliament
and maslikhats is significantly strengthened, the participation of citizens is significantly
expanded, and the human rights sphere is systematically strengthened. In addition, the
result of the study will be the creation of tools, and therefore the necessary methodol-
ogy aimed at analyzing the situation based on and solving issues of the socioeconomic
development of an individual region and the state in terms of such elements included
in
“D + 3D”
(demoetics, demography, democracy, demoneconomics), as a gross national
product; employment; living wage; migration; the incidence and other elements.
7. Limitations
This study systematizes the instruments of influence on the development of society
in the regions. The concept of the influence of demographic, demographic, democratic,
and demoeconomic factors as the basis of the industrial and innovative paradigm of social
sustainability is presented. This idea corresponds to sustainable development concept.
However, this article focuses on the disclosure of instruments of influence on the devel-
opment of society in the example of Kazakhstan. Therefore, the fundamentally important
conclusions of this article characterize the situation in Kazakhstan from 1999 to 2019. Thus,
the fundamentally important conclusions of this article characterize the situation in Kaza-
khstan in recent decades. In 2022, transformations in the social, political, and economic
spheres are taking place in Kazakhstan, which means changes in the model for the for-
mation and interaction of government institutions in Kazakhstan, and the rooting of the
formation of a new political culture. These circumstances will require further research in
the field of implementing the principles of sustainable development.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, R.Z.; methodology, R.Z.; validation, R.Z.; formal analysis,
R.Z.; investigation, R.Z.; resources, R.Z.; data curation, R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, R.Z.;
writing—review and editing, R.Z. and M.I.; visualization, R.Z. and M.I.; project administration, R.Z.;
funding acquisition, M.I.; Writing—review and editing, R.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This study was funded and supported by the Science Committee of the Ministry of
Education and Science of the Kazakhstan No AP13068164
Development of tools aimed at modeling
socioeconomic systems for sustainable development of society.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank Anna Shutaleva, Irina Yu. Chazova, Inna A.
Mukhina, and anonymous reviewers for their comments, suggestions, and corrections.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 23 of 26
References
1.
Batey, P.W.J.; Hewings, G.J.D. Demo-economic Modeling: Review and Prospects. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev.
2021
,44, 328–362. [CrossRef]
2.
Batey, P.W.J. Input-output Models for Regional Demographic-economic Analysis: Some Structural Comparisons. Environ. Plan. A
1985,17, 73–99. [CrossRef]
3.
Oosterhaven, J.; Dewhurst, J.H.L. A Prototype Demo-economic Model with an Application to Queensland. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev.
1990,13, 51–64. [CrossRef]
4.
Khan, I.; Hou, F.; Zakari, A.; Irfan, M.; Ahmad, M. Links among energy intensity, non-linear financial development, and
environmental sustainability: New evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. J. Clean. Prod.
2022
,330, 129747.
[CrossRef]
5.
Elavarasan, R.M.; Pugazhendhi, R.; Irfan, M.; Mihet-Popa, L.; Campana, P.E.; Khan, I.A. A novel Sustainable Development
Goal
7 composite
index as the paradigm for energy sustainability assessment: A case study from Europe. Appl. Energy
2022
,
307, 118173. [CrossRef]
6.
Shao, L.; Zhang, H.; Irfan, M. How public expenditure in recreational and cultural industry and socioeconomic status caused
environmental sustainability in OECD countries? Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraˇzivanja 2021,6, 1–18. [CrossRef]
7.
Jinru, L.; Changbiao, Z.; Ahmad, B.; Irfan, M.; Nazir, R. How do green financing and green logistics affect the circular economy in
the pandemic situation: Key mediating role of sustainable production. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istra ˇzivanja 2021,7, 1–21. [CrossRef]
8.
Baymuratov, U.B. Harmonious Economy: Paradigm and Prospects. In Proceedings of the MNPK “Transformation of Economic
Systems in the Globalizing World”, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 19–21 May 2010. (In Russian).
9.
The Message of the Head of State Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to the People of Kazakhstan. 2 September 2019. Available on-
line: http://www.akorda.kz/ru/addresses/addresses of president/poslanie-glavy-gosudarstva-kasym- zhomarta-tokaeva-
narodu-kazahstana (accessed on 25 March 2022).
10.
Braga, M.; Checchi, D.; Meschi, E. Institutional Reforms and Educational Attainment in Europe: A Long Run Perspective. IZA
Disc. Paper. 2011,6190, 3. [CrossRef]
11.
Grigoryan, A.L. On the way to the “new economy”: Concepts of innovative development of Russia. State Society
2005
, 82–85.
(In Russian)
12.
Strielkowski, W.; Dvo
ˇ
rák, M.; Rovný, P.; Tarkhanova, E.; Baburina, N. 5G Wireless Networks in the Future Renewable Energy
Systems. Front. Energy Res. 2021,9, 714803. [CrossRef]
13.
Shatalova, N.A. Good look at capital. Inf. Portal.
2003
. Available online: https://All-about-investments.ru/privlechenie-
inostrannih-investicui.html (accessed on 18 March 2022).
14. Porter, M. Strategy and the Internet. Harv. Bus. Review. 2001,79, 62–78.
15.
Kofner, Y.Y. Formation of the New Economy in Russia-Foreign Experience and National Strategy; Lev Gumilyov Center: Moscow, Russia,
2012. (In Russian)
16.
Dorofeev, M.L. Interrelations between Income Inequality and Sustainable Economic Growth: Contradictions of Empirical Research
and New Results. Economies 2022,10, 44. [CrossRef]
17.
Barrera, F.D.L.; Reyes-Paecke, S.; Banzhaf, E. Indicators for green spaces in contrastingurban settings. Ecol. Indic.
2016
,62, 212–219.
[CrossRef]
18.
Valko, D.V. Impact of Renewable Energy and Tax Regulation on Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in OECD Countries:
CS-ARDL Approach. Ekon. Polit. Link Is Disabl. 2021,5, 40–61. [CrossRef]
19.
Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues
2000
,56,
407–424. [CrossRef]
20.
Maloney, M.P.; Ward, M.P. Ecology: Let’s hear from the people: An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes
and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 1973,28, 583–586. [CrossRef]
21.
Xue, W.Y. Research on the application of regional culture in ecological forest garden landscape construction. Fresenius Environ.
Bull. 2020,29, 6584–6590.
22. Moellman, N.; Tarabar, D. Economic freedom reform: Does culture matter? J. Inst. Econ. 2022,18, 139–157. [CrossRef]
23.
Huggins, R.; Thompson, P. Culture and Place-Based Development: A Socio-Economic Analysis. Reg. Stud.
2015
,49, 130–159.
[CrossRef]
24.
Graafland, J.; de Jong, E. The moderating role of culture on the benefits of economic freedom: Cross-country analysis. J. Comp.
Econ. 2022,50, 280–292. [CrossRef]
25.
Oskamp, S. Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. J. Soc. Issues
2000
,56,
373–390. [CrossRef]
26.
Daily, B.F.; Huang, S. Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management,
International. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2001,21, 1539–1552. [CrossRef]
27. Atstaja, D.; Koval, V.; Grasis, J.; Kalina, I.; Kryshtal, H.; Mikhno, I. Sharing Model in Circular Economy towards Rational Use in
Sustainable Production. Energies 2022,15, 939. [CrossRef]
28.
Barlybaev, K.A. Sustainable development: A myth or a call for prudence. Mosc. State For. Univ. Bull. –Lesn. Vestn.
2015
,4, 14–21.
(In Russian)
29.
Barlybaev, K.A. General Theory of Globalization and Sustainable Development; Publication of the State Duma: Moscow, Russia, 2003.
(In Russian)
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 24 of 26
30.
Baymuratov, U.B. Harmonious economy in a society with three ”D”: Paradigm and perspectives of formation. Sat. ISPC Soc.
Econ. Cond. Civiliz. Changes Mod. World: Paradig. Vectors Dev. 2010,6, 360. (In Russian)
31.
McKusick, J.C. John Evelyn: The Forestry of Imagination. Engl. Fac. Publ.
2013
,44, 17. Available online: https://scholarworks.
umt.edu/eng pubs/17 (accessed on 10 March 2022).
32.
von Carlowitz, H. Sylvicultura Oeconomica oder Hauswirthliches Nachricht und Naturm¨assige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum –Zucht. J.F;
Braun Erben: Leipzig, Germany, 1732.
33. Ermakov, A.S.; Ermakov, D.S. What is sustainable development. Chem. Life. 2012,11, 24. (In Russian)
34.
Deli, I.; Ali Kele
s¸
, M. Distance Measures on Trapezoidal Fuzzy Multi-Numbers and Application to Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Problems. Soft Comput. 2021,25, 5979–5992. [CrossRef]
35.
Xiong, S.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gao, M.; Zhao, Y.; Wu, L. Effects of Drought Stress and Rehydration on Physiological and
Biochemical Properties of Four Oak Species in China. Plants 2022,11, 679. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Loginov, A.V. Second-Order Arguments, or Do We Still Need Tolerance in the Public Sphere? Chang. Soc. Personal.
2019
,3,
319–332. [CrossRef]
37.
Kulzhanova, Z.; Kulzhanova, G.; Kerimov, T.; Mukhanbetkaliyev, Y.; Sadykova, T. Assessment of the level of human capital
reproduction in the EAEU countries. Amazon. Investig. 2019,8, 16–27.
38.
Valko, D. Environmental attitudes and contextual stimuli in emerging environmental culture: An empirical study from Russia.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021,27, 2075–2089. [CrossRef]
39.
Our Common Future: Report of the International Commission on Environment and Development. Available online: http://xn--8
0adbkckdfac8cd1ahpld0f.xn--p1ai/files/monographs/OurCommonFuture-introduction.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2022).
40.
Koptyug, V.A. Is it possible to develop a sustainable development strategy for Russia at the present time? Lecture at Novosibirsk
State University, September 25, 1996: “Science on the verge of millennia”. In Proceedings of the Lecture Hall of the Novosibirsk State
University; Issue 1; NSU Publishing House: Novosibirsk, Russia, 1997.
41.
Grishin, V.I. (Ed.) Vectors of change of the economic course: To the 85th anniversary of Academician, L.I. In Abalkin and 109th
Anniversary of the G.V. Plekhanov Russian University of Economics; Publishing House of TSU named after G.R. Derzhavin: Tambov,
Russia, 2015. (In Russian)
42. Potekhin, N.A.; Potekhin, V.N. On the new socio-economic formation. Agro-Food Policy Russ. 2016,1, 90. (In Russian)
43.
Ursul, A.D.; Ursul, T.A. Sustainable Development and Security; Publishing House of the RAGS: Moscow, Russia, 2013. (In Russian)
44.
Cole, D.H.; Ostrom, E. Property in Land and Other Resources; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-55844-228-3.
45.
Semashko, L.M. (Ed.) ABC of Harmony for Global Peace, Harmonious Civilization and Tetrathet of Thinking; Polytechnic University
Press: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2012; Available online: https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en c&key=478 (accessed on 10
March 2022).
46. Weiss-Gal, I.; Gal, J. Social workers’ attitudes towards socialwelfare policy. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 2007,16, 349–357. [CrossRef]
47.
Ahn, S.-H.; Kim, S.-W. Social investment, social service and theeconomic performance of welfare states. Int. J. Soc. Welf.
2015
,24,
109–119. [CrossRef]
48.
Midgley, J.; Tang, K.-L. Social policy, economic growth and developmental welfare. Int. J. Soc. Welf.
2001
,10, 244–252. [CrossRef]
49. Bryman, A. Leadership and Corporate Culture: Harmony and Disharmony. Pers. Review 1984,13, 19–23. [CrossRef]
50.
Ori, D. Misalignment symptom analysis based on enterprise architecture model assessment. Iadis Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst.
2014,9, 146–158.
51.
Lee, S.Y.; Kim, Y.J.; Kim, J.W. The Effects of Chinese Corporation Leadership and Corporate Culture on Inter-Organizational
Knowledge Sharing Performance. J. Mod. China Stud. 2016,18, 165–208. [CrossRef]
52.
Schwab, K. Der Unternehmenspolitiker. In Neue Z¨urcher Zeitung; 29 October 1975; Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/
docs/WEF First40Years Book 2010.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2022).
53.
Co, S.; Chen, L.; Liu, Z. Disharmony between society and environmental carrying capacity: A historical review, with an emphasis
on China. Ambio 2007,36, 409–415. [CrossRef]
54.
Popescu, A.M.; Curea, S.C. About the health of the economy—As a living system integrated in the ecology of our world.
Qual.-Access Success 2016,18, 348–350.
55.
Viturka, M.; Wokoun, R.; Krejcova, N.; Tonev, P.; Zitek, V. The regional relationship between quality of business and social
environment: Harmony or disharmony? E M Ekon. A Manag. 2013,16, 22–40.
56.
Jones, G.E. Economic-growth and regional-development—harmony and disharmony in a differentiation process. Sociol. Rural.
1980,20, 7–12. [CrossRef]
57.
Putilova, E.A.; Shutaleva, A.V. Corporate culture as one of the key factors of effective industrial enterprise development. IOP
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020,966, 012132. [CrossRef]
58.
Khatib, S.F.; Elamer, A.A.; Abdullah, D.F.; Hazaea, S.A. The development of corporate governance literature in Malaysia: A
systematic literature review and research agenda. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2022. [CrossRef]
59.
Khatib, S.F.A.; Abdullah, D.F.; Hendrawaty, E.; Elamer, A.A. A bibliometric analysis of cash holdings literature: Current status,
development, and agenda for future research. Manag. Rev. Q 2021. [CrossRef]
60.
Putilova, E.A.; Shutaleva, A.V. Engineering thinking and its role in modern industry. AIP Conference Proceedings. In Proceedings
of the 16th International Conference on Industrial Manufacturing and Metallurgy(ICIMM), Nizhny Tagil, Russian Federation,
17–19 June 2021. Aip Conf. Proc. 2022,2456, 030033. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 7280 25 of 26
61.
Shutaleva, A.V.; Golysheva, M.V.; Tsiplakova, Y.V.; Dudchik, A.Y. Media education and the formation of the legal culture of
society. Perspekt. Nauk. I Obraz. 2020,45, 10–22. [CrossRef]
62.
Shutaleva, A.; Martyushev, N.; Starostin, A.; Salgiriev, A.; Vlasova, O.; Grinek, A.; Nikonova, Z.; Savchenko, I. Migration Potential
of Students and Development of Human Capital. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 324. [CrossRef]
63.
Polterovich, V.M. Towards a general theory of socio-economic development. Part 1. Geography, institutions, or culture? Vopr.
Ekon. 2018,11, 5–26. (In Russian) [CrossRef]
64.
Chua, R.Y.J. The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts in social environment undermine creativity.
Acad. Manag. J.
2013
,56, 1545–1577. Available online: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb research/3838 (accessed on
10 March 2022). [CrossRef]
65.
Lestari, H.; Ali, M.; Sopandi, W.; Wulan, A.R.; Rahmawati, I. The Impact of the RADEC Learning Model Oriented ESD on
Students’ Sustainability Consciousness in Elementary School. Pegem Egit. Ve Ogretim Derg. 2022,12, 113–122. [CrossRef]
66.
Novgorodtseva, A.N.; Belyaeva, E.A. Internationalization of higher education in Russia: Sociocultural interaction of students
from the BRICS countries (Russia, China). Perspekt. Nauk. I Obraz. 2020,45, 517–526. [CrossRef]
67.
Nicolaou, C. Media Trends and Prospects in Educational Activities and Techniques for Online Learning and Teaching through
Television Content: Technological and Digital Socio-Cultural Environment, Generations, and Audiovisual Media Communications
in Education. Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 685. [CrossRef]
68.
Karapetyan, L.V.; Glotova, G.A. Internal well-being as a complex dynamic system. Perspekt. Nauk. I Obraz.
2021
,51, 404–416.
[CrossRef]
69.
Panov, V.I.; Patrakov, E.V.; Baturina, L.I.; Coman, C.; Frogeri, R.F. Students’ social representations of risks in interacting with the
Internet: Cross-cultural aspect (Russia, Brazil, Romania). Perspekt. Nauk. I Obraz. 2021,51, 10–25. [CrossRef]
70. Bakeeva, E.V.; Biricheva, E.V. “I” and collective responsibility. Vestn. St.-Peterbg. Univ. Filos. I Konfl. 2021,37, 41–52. [CrossRef]
71. Balatskiy, E.V. The principle of consistency in social development theory. Terra Econ. 2021,19, 36–52. (In Russian) [CrossRef]
72. Balatsky, E.V. General theory of social development and cycles of coercion. Soc. Sci. Mod. 2019,5, 156–174. [CrossRef]
73.
Benckendorff, P.; Moscardo, G. Education for sustainability futures. In Education for Sustainability in Tourism; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 271–283.
74.
Kemmis, S.; Mutton, R. Education for sustainability (EfS): Practice and practice architectures.