Intersectoral Linkages in Kazakhstan’s Energy Sector: A Comparative Leontief Analysis
https://doi.org/10.47703/2789-8253-2026-3-111-127
Abstract
The intensive utilization of production resources in Kazakhstan’s energy sector and the increase in interdependence between industries make it particularly important to assess the stability and efficiency of the economic system structure. In particular, the coal, petroleum, natural gas and electric power industries constitute the main energy base of the national economy and reflect the interconnection between industries. Therefore, the analysis of intersectoral relationships and structural transformation in the energy sector has become the main direction of modern economic research. In addition, changes in the flow of resources within the energy system directly affect the long-term stability and efficiency of the economy. The purpose of this research is to use a comparative Leontief input-output analysis to examine changes in intersectoral relationships within Kazakhstan’s energy sector and evaluate structural transformations from 2020 to 2024. The methodological basis of this research is a comparative input-output analysis based on the Leontief inter-industry equilibrium framework. This study uses the official statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2020-2024, including production indicators of the energy sector and intersectoral intermediate consumption data. The analysis is based on a reduced four-sector input-output framework representing the main energy industries of Kazakhstan (coal, oil, natural gas, and electricity), rather than the complete national input-output table. In addition, the intermediate consumption matrix (Zt), the technical coefficient matrix (At), the Leontief inverse matrix ((I − At)−1), and backward linkage (BL) and forward linkage (FL) indicators were calculated. The findings reveal that moderate structural adjustments occurred within Kazakhstan’s energy system during 2020-2024. The electricity sector exhibited the highest multiplier effect, confirming its role as the core sector of the system. The obtained results characterize the changing production interdependencies within the energy system, the restructuring of intersectoral linkages, and the systemic evolution of the energy sector.
About the Authors
B. Tleulina
K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Baglan N. Tleulina – PhD student
Aktobe
A. Tasmaganbetov
K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Aslan B. Tasmaganbetov – PhD, Professor
Aktobe
A. Kurmanalina
K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Aigul A. Kurmanalina – Cand. Sc. (Econ.)
Aktobe
References
1. Bureau of National Statistics. (2025). Official statistical data. Retrieved May 15, 2026 from https://stat.gov.kz/en/
2. Dietzenbacher, E., Chen, Q., & Los, B. (2015). Structural decomposition analyses: The differences between applying the semi-closed and the open input-output model. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 47 (8), 1713-1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15597101
3. Donati, F., Aguilar-Hernandez, G. A., Sigüenza-Sánchez, C. P., de Koning, A., Rodrigues, J. F. D., & Tukker, A. (2020). Modeling the circular economy in environmentally extended input-output tables: Methods, software and case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, 104508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104508
4. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
5. Han, X., & Lakshmanan, T. R. (1994). Structural changes and energy consumption in the Japanese economy 1975-85: An input-output analysis. The Energy Journal, 15(3), 165-188. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol15-No3-9
6. Hertwich, E. G., & Wood, R. (2018). The growing importance of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Environmental Research Letters, 13(10), 104013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae19a
7. IEA. (2024). World energy outlook 2024. Paris: International Energy Agency.
8. ILO. (2023). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2023. International Labour Office.
9. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
10. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
11. Karatayev, M., Hall, S., Kalyuzhnova, Y., & Clarke, M.L. (2016). Renewable energy technology uptake in Kazakhstan: Policy drivers and barriers in a transitional economy. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 66, 120-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.057
12. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2013). Building Eora: A global multi-region input-output database. Economic Systems Research, 25, 20-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2013.769938
13. Leontief, W. (1986). Input-output economics. Oxford University Press.
14. Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
15. Nieto, J., Moyano, P.B., Moyano, D.F., & Miguel, L.J. (2022). Is energy intensity a driver of structural change? Empirical evidence from the global economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27 (1), 283 - 296. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13352
16. Owen Anne, Kate Scott, John Barrett (2018). Identifying critical supply chains and final products: An input-output approach to exploring the energy-water-food nexus. Applied Energy, 210, 632-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.069
17. Steffen, W., Richardson K., Rockstrom J., Cornell E. S., Fetzer I., Bennet M.E., Biggs R., Carpenter R.S., Wim De Vries, A. De Wit C., Folke C., Gerten D., Heinke J., M.Mace G., Persson L., (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development. Science, 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
18. Su, B., & Ang, B.W. (2010). Input–output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: The effects of spatial aggregation. Ecological Economics, 70(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.08.016
19. Tukker, A., & Dietzenbacher, E. (2013). Global multiregional input-output frameworks. Economic Systems Research, 25, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2012.761179
20. Weber, C. L. (2009). Measuring structural change and energy use: Decomposition of the US economy from 1997 to 2002. Energy Policy, 37 (4), 1561–1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.027
21. Wiebe, K. S., Harsdorff, M., Montt, G., Simas, M. S., & Wood, R. (2019). Global circular economy scenario in a multiregional input-output framework. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(11), 6362-6373. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01208
22. Zeng, X., Wei, Y., Zhang, X., & Wang, B. (2017). Development of circular economy in China based on input-output analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.046
Review
For citations:
Tleulina B., Tasmaganbetov A., Kurmanalina A. Intersectoral Linkages in Kazakhstan’s Energy Sector: A Comparative Leontief Analysis. Eurasian Journal of Economic and Business Studies. 2026;70(3):111-127. https://doi.org/10.47703/2789-8253-2026-3-111-127
Views:
11
JATS XML
Email this article 