What do we really think about fairness, and what does it mean in the Kazakhstani context?
Social fairness refers to how people perceive fairness in the distribution of resources, in particular, access to quality education and healthcare, housing, fairness in labor and remuneration, equality before the law and protection of rights, as well as the opportunity for upward social mobility regardless of one’s background, connections, or ethnicity.
In other words, fairness is something every person can feel – even a child in kindergarten can say: “That’s not fair!” We are born with a deep sense of fairness and a sensitivity to when norms are violated. That is why, fairness is not a luxury – it is a social necessity that forms the foundation of trust, social stability, and peaceful coexistence. Unfairness, on the contrary, is a denial of recognition, and as philosophers claim, it is what causes the deepest pain to a human being.
In one of the studies conducted by KazISS, we asked the question: “Do you agree that people who work hard should be rewarded for it?” From an analytical perspective, this statement reflects a normative expectation – an idea of what society ought to be like.
The majority of respondents (66.6%) fully agreed with this statement, 32.0% agreed, 0.8% disagreed, 0.2% strongly disagreed, and 0.3% found it difficult to answer. This question serves as a kind of litmus test: if people agree with the statement, they believe in individual fairness and meritocracy – the idea that if a person works hard, they deserve more and society should ensure that they receive it. Disagreement with the statement, on the other hand, reflects a critique of systemic unfairness: “I try hard, but someone else might get the position because of their connections and that’s not fair.” Thus, analytically, this allows us to understand not only the value of labor in society but also the structure of the society itself – does it truly reward honest effort?
The majority of respondents agree with the idea that hard work should be rewarded – but what if we look a little deeper? Are there hidden divides in our society based on language, age, income, gender, or employment status? Correlation analysis shows that gender (Pearson’s coefficient –0.005), age (–0.003), income (0.055), education (–0.019), employment status (–0.002), and type of settlement (+0.004) do not play a decisive role in shaping the idea of fair compensation for labor. There is no significant correlation between these indicators and the phenomenon of the study. And this reflects a new social reality.
The fact is that for a long time, we sociologists relied on the “big six” – gender, age, education, income, employment, and settlement type. These variables were clear, easy to measure, and seemed like reliable explanations for human social behavior. In other words, when sociologists used to ask about one’s occupation, place of residence, and age, it was often enough to predict how they might think. Today, however, the traditional axes of analysis are losing their explanatory power – especially when it comes to fundamental values. This most likely signals the emergence of a new social reality, where values like hard work and fair reward are perceived as universal and suprastratificational norms shared by broad segments of the population, regardless of their position in the social hierarchy. Sociology’s leading theorists have already taken note of these shifts. Ulrich Beck, in his theory of the “risk society”, shows how traditional class boundaries are weakening while identities and values are becoming increasingly personalized. Manuel Castells, in his theory of the transition to network society, illustrates how classic socio-demographic markers are being replaced by new principles of stratification – primarily based on access to information.
What are some examples of the declining explanatory power of traditional indicators? Take, for instance, women of the same age in Kazakhstan – they can live in completely “parallel worlds.” They speak different languages, watch different TV channels, and follow different bloggers on social media. A 35-year-old woman with a university degree might be a successful career professional in Astana, a housewife in Turkestan, or a business owner in Aktobe. Despite belonging to the same socio-demographic category, which is women born in the same year, their values, worldviews, and needs may be entirely different.
Why is this happening? Rapid modernization, regional disparities, and linguistic differences are fragmenting previously homogeneous and predictable groups. Increasingly, symbolic markers such as media environment, religiosity, or migration experience play a significant role. New explanatory variables are emerging, like experiences of inequality or cultural codes. This likely reflects the growing importance of identity over traditional status positions. These emerging dimensions are becoming the “new keys” to understanding society, while the traditional “big six” can now be compared to an old map that no longer shows the new roads. As a result, belief in hard work and fair reward is no longer just a personal conviction. The value of fair compensation for effort has become so universal and widely shared that it transcends group differences. It’s no longer merely an opinion – it’s part of a broader social consensus.
The declining relevance of socio-demographic markers is an important observation. It suggests that in contemporary Kazakhstan, new lines of meaning are emerging. These lines are no longer shaped by class, place of residence, education, or income, but by other, still not fully understood foundations. We may be witnessing the early signs of a shift in the very logic of the social structure where core ideas and moral values no longer “belong” to specific social groups but begin to unite much broader audiences across traditional boundaries.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that social differences have disappeared. But it does mean that the analytical model sociologists have relied on for decades no longer captures the full picture of what’s happening. And that, in turn, means that sociology itself must evolve to keep pace with a society that is becoming increasingly complex, flexible, and unpredictable.
In our sample, there were also respondents who disagreed with the statement that people who work hard should be rewarded for it: 0.8% disagreed and 0.2% strongly disagreed. What might this disagreement mean? These respondents may believe, for example, that effort doesn’t always determine the outcome due to the influence of corruption or unequal access to resources. This reflects a critical attitude among respondents toward the idea of meritocracy – either viewing it as a cover for systemic inequality, or leaning toward more fatalistic or collectivist perspectives. For example, they may believe that success depends not only on hard work, but also on luck, personal connections, or fate. And what about the 0.3% who found it difficult to answer? It’s possible that they simply don’t believe such fairness is achievable in Kazakhstan, or they may not have a clear opinion on the matter.
In conclusion, our data points to the value ideal of hard work and fair reward as somethingdeeply rooted in the public consciousness. This widespread agreement serves an important moral and compensatory function, as it reflects a collective hope for a social order in which every effort is recognized and rewarded fairly.
The sociological survey was conducted from May 11 to June 22, 2024, commissioned by the KazISS. The sample size consisted of 8,000 respondents. Participants were aged 18 and over and represented all 17 regions of Kazakhstan, as well as the cities of national significance — Astana, Almaty, and Shymkent.
Aigul Zabirova, Doctor of Social Science, Professor, Chief Research Fellow of KazISS under the President of the RK
