Deliverability Is Becoming a Key Resource for Development

Previous publications in the series have shown a steady increase in the complexity of the economic environment.

Global growth remains resilient, but the high cost of energy, capital and adaptation is narrowing the room for policy choices. International investment is recovering, but it is concentrated in a limited number of countries and strategic sectors. The new energy system requires grids, storage, critical minerals and industrial processing. Artificial intelligence is redistributing investment, skills and jobs across companies and territories.

Each of these processes extends beyond a single sector.

A new industrial project depends on electricity, water, transport, personnel, technologies and export routes. A data center requires generation, grid capacity, cooling, connectivity and specialists. The development of critical minerals is linked to geological exploration, processing, chemistry, logistics and long-term demand. The spread of AI affects education, the labor market, competition, regional development and government data.

As a result, the state’s ability to connect interdependent decisions is gradually becoming the central constraint.

Strategy sets the direction. Financing provides resources. Infrastructure makes implementation physically possible. Deliverability turns these elements into results.

This is the final publication in TALAP’s series on the new growth model. It addresses the question that unites the four previous materials: what governance system enables a country to simultaneously carry out energy, industrial, digital, and territorial transitions while maintaining policy coherence and the ability to adjust decisions as the environment changes?

Modern governments deal with a large number of strategic tasks.

Economic growth must be combined with price stability. Energy security — with grid modernization and emissions reduction. Attracting investment — with localization and technology transfer. AI development — with data protection, competition, and workforce training. Regional connectivity — with the financial sustainability of infrastructure projects.

Each task appears justified. The complexity arises when they are implemented simultaneously.

Agencies differ in their sectoral objectives, budget cycles, information systems, performance indicators, planning horizons, risk perceptions, and the interests of subordinate organizations.

The Ministry of Industry is interested in the earliest possible launch of the plant. The energy sector assesses the availability of generation and grids. The water authority takes basin constraints into account. Regional authorities address land and utility infrastructure issues. The financial bloc assesses the budgetary burden. The education system trains specialists within its own cycle.

Each participant is capable of performing their part of the work well. At the same time, the overall project may face a resource shortfall, delays in related infrastructure, or incompatibility of solutions.

In the report Building Centre of Government Capabilities to Steer and Deliver Complex Priorities, the OECD identifies three persistent problems: the fragmentation of strategies, weak linkage between priorities and resources, and a limited hierarchy among government initiatives. The report draws on the experience of Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Poland and Portugal and views the centre of government as the connecting link between policy decisions and the administrative system.

This framing is important for understanding the current governance deficit. The state may have competent ministries, a developed planning system, and a significant number of programs. The weak point emerges in the space between them.

A large project has a clearly defined facility, budget, timeline and implementing organization. It can be described in terms of the construction schedule, procurement and commissioning.

A complex priority is structured differently.

For example, critical-mineral development involves dozens of projects and decisions:

Exploration → extraction → energy and water infrastructure → processing → environmental regulation → transportation → workforce training → attracting a technology partner → a long-term sales market.

Individual elements fall under the purview of different agencies and companies. Their results materialize at different times. Some decisions depend on external investors, international prices, and technologies.

A similar structure is characteristic of AI, the energy transition, transport corridors, water policy, and urban development.

A complex priority has four characteristics.

1. The result emerges across ministries.

A single ministry rarely has all the necessary tools. Therefore, the personal responsibility of the head of a separate agency covers only part of the governance framework.

2. Resources are distributed across different programs.

Electricity, water, transport capacity, budget guarantees and specialists may be planned in separate documents. The project receives formal approval before an overall resource balance is in place.

3. The effect appears later than the administrative result.

Construction of the facility can be completed on time. Building up suppliers, technology transfer, and productivity improvements require a longer period.

4. The initial conditions change during implementation.

The price of raw materials, the cost of capital, technology, demand, and the geopolitical environment can change before the program is completed. The original plan gradually loses relevance.

Therefore, managing complex priorities requires the continuous integration of planning, execution, analysis, and adjustment.

The center of government includes the institutions that directly support the head of state or government: the government apparatus, the administration, the cabinet secretariat, and strategic and analytical units.

Its function lies in the ability to see the system beyond sectoral boundaries.

The OECD views the centre of government as a strategic adviser that helps align the institutional structure, planning processes, and analytical capabilities with government priorities. It connects the political level with the administration and supports cooperation with ministries.

This role includes several tasks.

• First, limit the number of genuinely top-priority areas. When every significant problem is declared a priority, hierarchy disappears.
• Second, link goals to budgets, staffing and infrastructure. A policy decision becomes deliverable once the necessary resources are confirmed.
• Third, establish the interagency architecture. For each outcome, it is necessary to understand who makes decisions, who provides funding, who supplies data and who is responsible for closing gaps.
• Fourth, detect deviations before they become a crisis. The centre of government needs early indicators that reveal capacity shortages, delays in related projects or changes in the external environment.
• Fifth, feed information back into decision-making. Monitoring records deviations. Management uses that information to adjust the plan, budget or mix of instruments.

Thus, the centre of government does not replace line ministries. It ensures the coherence of their actions around a limited number of shared outcomes.

In the report Bridging the Gaps for Sustainable Development, the OECD views water, energy, industry and cities as an interconnected system. Fragmented decisions in these areas slow the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, increase project costs and intensify the conflict between economic, social and environmental objectives.

These linkages become especially visible at the level of a specific territory.

A new industrial cluster increases demand for electricity and water. Additional generation requires grids and land. Urban growth increases utility and transport burdens. Expanding water supply requires energy. Climate constraints affect water availability and the reliability of the energy sector.

With separate planning, each sector can develop an internally coherent strategy. Bringing them together reveals gaps and conflicts.

For example, a region may simultaneously plan a metallurgical complex, a data center, expanded housing construction, new renewable energy facilities, and an increase in irrigated areas.

All initiatives rely on shared infrastructure. Their combined demand for water, energy, land, and personnel can exceed available resources.

A gap emerges between the project portfolio and the territory’s physical capacity.

The OECD links the resolution of such problems to a clear division of roles, coordination of planning, trade-off management, and alignment of decisions across levels of government. Policy coherence becomes a distinct state capability.

Coherence requires choosing between competing objectives.

Interagency coordination is often understood as the exchange of information and the alignment of documents. For complex transitions, this is not enough.

Real coherence begins where choice is required.

Cheap electricity supports industry and household incomes. Rapid modernization of grids and generation requires significant investment and tariff adjustments. Expanding mineral extraction creates export opportunities, but increases pressure on water and infrastructure. The development of data centers strengthens the digital position while also generating substantial additional demand for capacity.

It is impossible to maximize all objectives simultaneously.

The governance system therefore needs a transparent process for handling trade-offs: identify competing objectives, assess the consequences of each option, set the policy priority, distribute costs, explain the decision to affected groups and track the actual outcome.

The absence of an explicit choice does not eliminate the conflict. It is shifted to the implementation stage, where it manifests itself through funding shortfalls, delays, changes in project conditions, or manual intervention.

In this sense, deliverability begins with a realistic policy decision.

Digital platforms, interagency databases, and artificial intelligence can sharply increase process visibility. The state gains the ability to track construction projects, payments, services, procurement, and citizens’ requests almost in real time.

However, the availability of data does not yet create a management cycle.

Digital Government Outlook 2026 shows a characteristic gap. 92% of OECD countries have strategies for the use of AI in the public sector. At the same time, 75% of countries do not assess whether investments in digital technologies and AI are delivering the stated results. Only a quarter of countries systematically evaluate the effectiveness of digital investments.

Most countries have established digital identification, government data strategies, and interagency exchange systems. Widespread practical use of these mechanisms remains less common. The OECD notes that governments are significantly stronger at developing digital strategies than at implementing and monitoring them.

This gap reflects a broader public administration problem.

A digital system can record the number of services delivered, facilities built, or instructions carried out. Assessing development requires different questions: has the outcome for citizens and businesses changed, have costs and timelines been reduced, have new barriers emerged, have target groups used the service, does the effect persist after the project is completed, and have the initial assumptions been borne out?

Therefore, digitalization strengthens state capacity when three elements are connected: data → interpretation → managerial decision.

Without an analytical function, a digital system increases the speed of reporting. With an analytical function, it makes it possible to identify a problem earlier and adjust the course of implementation.

Government programs are easier to monitor through indicators that are easy to collect: the amount of funding, the number of activities and participants, the share of funds utilized, the number of facilities commissioned and the number of digitized services.

These data show administrative activity. Their link to ultimate outcomes may remain weak.

For example, a workforce training program may meet its target for the number of people trained while leaving enterprises with a shortage of specialists. An infrastructure project may be commissioned but fail to achieve sufficient utilization. An investment program may attract a large amount of capital while delivering low localization and weak transfer of capabilities.

Complex priorities require several levels of indicators.

• Inputs. How much funding, how many specialists, and how much land, energy and other resources have been provided?
• Outputs. What facility, service or mechanism has been created?
• Behavioral change. Have enterprises started investing, workers begun mastering new functions, and citizens started using the service?
• Economic or social outcome. Have productivity, incomes, employment, access to services, or system resilience changed?
• Long-term impact. Have new competencies, suppliers, markets and institutional capacity emerged?

This structure helps distinguish the completion of an activity from the achievement of an objective.

Monitoring answers the question: Is the approved plan being implemented?

Evaluation answers a different question: can the plan deliver the stated result under changed conditions?

Both functions are necessary.

Without monitoring and control, the likelihood of delays, misuse of resources and diluted accountability increases. Without evaluation, the state may diligently implement a decision that no longer fits the problem it was intended to solve.

Evaluation is especially important during implementation.

Large-scale strategies are often designed for five to ten years. Over that period, technologies, prices, and the external environment change. Waiting for a final evaluation means that information will arrive after most of the resources have already been spent.

A practical cycle can look like this:

Goal → initial hypothesis → early indicators → implementation data → outcome assessment → adjustment of instruments.

In this framework, changing the program does not mean failure. It shows the state’s ability to learn.

The evaluation of the Central Asia Roadmap for Health and Well-being for 2022–2025 provides an illustrative regional example.

The roadmap was created for joint work by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. It received the support of the heads of state and established a platform for regional dialogue. The evaluation covered more than 50 documents and interviews with 71 representatives of health ministries, WHO offices, and partner organizations.

A high-level political mandate helped launch cooperation; however, a broad agenda, unclear division of roles, and operationalization challenges led to uneven implementation. At the same time, more focused areas (tuberculosis control, digital health pilots, and climate resilience projects) demonstrated the promise of practical cooperation. WHO recommends that, for the next cycle, roles be defined more clearly, funding be allocated, and full implementation plans be prepared.

This experience is applicable beyond the health sector.

A political agreement creates the possibility of joint action. Tangible results require a focused agenda, accountable participants, dedicated resources, a common timeline, measurable indicators, a mechanism for resolving disagreements and regular evaluation.

The broader and more symbolically appealing the initiative, the higher the risk of a gap between the mandate and the operational design.

Comparing the OECD and WHO reports makes it possible to present deliverability as a system of five elements.

1. Prioritization

The state identifies a limited number of outcomes for which a special coordination regime is established.

A priority differs from a general development direction in that it involves a political choice, resources, and a responsible center.

2. Resource alignment

Strategies are aligned with the budget, infrastructure, human resources, and natural constraints.

This is where the portfolio’s physical and financial feasibility is tested.

3. Implementation architecture

The roles of the participants, decision-making points, and the procedure for closing interagency gaps are established.

Each agency understands its own function within the overall result.

4. Analytical feedback loop

The system receives early data, tests the causal logic, and adjusts the instruments.

Monitoring becomes a source of decisions, not just reporting.

5. Public and communications support

Complex transitions redistribute costs and benefits. Tariff reform, changes in employment, infrastructure construction, and environmental constraints affect different groups of the population and businesses.

Information policy becomes one of the elements of implementation. It explains the sequence of decisions, the criteria for choice, the distribution of costs, and the expected effect. Feedback makes it possible to see consequences that are not captured by departmental statistics.

Trust in this framework is tied to predictability: participants understand what is happening, why a particular option was chosen, and how the state will respond if the outcome deviates.

Kazakhstan is simultaneously launching several major transitions.

The country is expanding energy capacity, modernizing utility and transport infrastructure, attracting major investment projects, developing its critical-minerals sector, building computing infrastructure and deploying AI.

In 2026, major projects are being implemented in the energy sector, water management, transport, and utilities. The Government and the Asian Development Bank have agreed on a portfolio of 15 promising projects worth about $5.5 billion for 2026–2029, including regional connectivity, water resources management, disaster resilience, and housing and utilities development.

The Investment Headquarters under the Government reviews projects and removes barriers through direct coordination. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, the headquarters reviewed 44 projects with a total value of $25.5 billion.

At the same time, 2026 has been declared the Year of Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence, and digital and computing infrastructure has been designated as a national priority.

The scale of activity demonstrates the state’s strong mobilization capacity. The next stage is about portfolio coherence.

Projects compete for budgetary and quasi-fiscal financing, state guarantees, electricity and grid capacity, water, transport infrastructure, construction materials, engineering personnel, and the attention of senior officials and the government apparatus.

Therefore, each additional priority increases the value of the shared mechanism for selection and coordination.

The Office of the Government of Kazakhstan already performs coordination, oversight, information and analytical, and institutional functions in support of the Prime Minister and the Government. The task is to develop this function from monitoring individual instructions to managing interconnected transformation portfolios.

Move from a project list to transition portfolios.

• It is advisable to group projects around the final economic outcome.
• For example, the “critical minerals” portfolio includes deposits, processing, energy, water, logistics, technologies, and human resources.
• The “AI economy” portfolio brings together data centers, power generation, connectivity, data, education, applied deployment and regional policy.
• This approach reveals dependencies that are lost in sectoral lists.

Create an integrated resource balance across priorities

For large-scale projects, it is necessary to match demand with availability:

• electricity
• grid capacity
• water
• transport capacity
• specialists
• budgetary funding
• state guarantees

The resource balance will make it possible to identify earlier which projects can be developed simultaneously, where sequencing is needed, and which infrastructure becomes a critical prerequisite.

Separate the political, portfolio, and project levels.

• The political level selects outcomes and acceptable trade-offs.
• The portfolio level aligns sectors, resources, and the sequencing of projects.
• The project level is responsible for the specific facility, procurement and deadline.
• Mixing levels overloads top leadership with operational issues and, at the same time, leaves systemic gaps without an owner.

Introduce early deliverability indicators

• Most problems can be identified before the final deadline is missed.
• Such signals include: the absence of confirmed grid capacity, delays in project documentation, discrepancies between sectoral forecasts, a shortage of specialists, rising costs, the absence of a long-term buyer, weak participation by local suppliers, and changes in technology or market demand.
• Early indicators make it possible to adjust the portfolio before a problem escalates into a crisis.

Integrate monitoring, evaluation, and information policy.

• Monitoring shows the progress of implementation.
• Evaluation assesses the quality of the outcome and the underlying assumptions.
• Information policy explains decisions and gathers feedback from business, workers, regions, and the public.

Combining the three functions creates adaptive governance. The state sees quantitative deviations, understands their cause, and takes into account the actual perception of change.

The first trajectory is built around continuous mobilization.

The number of priorities and projects grows. Emerging barriers are removed through task forces, meetings, and individual directives. This model can quickly advance individual projects and concentrate resources at a critical moment.

Its limitation is related to scale. As the portfolio grows, the number of issues requiring manual coordination increases. Solving one problem does not always change the overall system, so a similar barrier arises in the next project.

The second trajectory uses mobilization mechanisms as a source of institutional learning.

Recurring barriers are classified. Interagency dependencies are built into the standard planning process. Decisions on one project change the rules for the entire portfolio. The centre of government receives data on cascades, resources and outcomes, while reserving top-level intervention for genuinely strategic decision points.

In this model, state capacity accumulates.

Each implemented project leaves behind more accurate data, a tested mechanism, trained specialists, a new coordination rule, and lower barriers for the next initiative.

A new growth model requires a new governance model

The five publications in the series describe one sequence.

• The first article outlined the external environment: global growth remains resilient, while the room for policy choices is narrowing.
• The second revealed the new geography of capital: investments are concentrating in countries and projects capable of offering a ready-made set of conditions.
• The third showed the physical foundation of the new cycle: energy, grids, storage, minerals, and processing are becoming parts of a single industrial architecture.
• The fourth shifted the analysis to people and territories: AI amplifies differences between companies, workers and regions depending on the infrastructure and capabilities available to them.
• The fifth brings all strands back into public governance.

A single cascade emerges:

complex external environment → selective capital flows → concentration of investment in strategic infrastructure → rising demand for energy, materials, technologies and skills → uneven distribution of opportunities → the need to align sectors, regions and resources → deliverability as a key condition for development.

For Kazakhstan, the key choice is no longer about whether projects exist. The country has resources, investment initiatives, infrastructure programs and a political mandate for technological modernization.

The outcome will be determined by whether these elements come together into a coherent whole.

An energy project creates the foundation for industry. An industrial project generates demand for labor and suppliers. The education system prepares specialists for the actual technological chain. Digital infrastructure increases the productivity of enterprises and public services. Regional policy distributes opportunities across territories. The budget and financial institutions support the chosen sequence.

In this logic, deliverability means the state’s ability to see linkages, set priorities, align resources, measure results and adjust instruments as the environment changes.

In the previous model, the main constraint could be money, technology, or infrastructure.

In the new model, these resources remain important; however, their mere availability produces results only under one additional condition: the state system is capable of assembling them into a functioning sequence.

Deliverability becomes a development resource in its own right — and at the same time a central focus of strategic foresight.

The final article draws on three complementary OECD reports on the centre of government, cross-sectoral coherence, and the state’s digital capacity, while the WHO evaluation provides a regional example of the gap between political mandate and operational implementation.

International reports

1. OECD — Building Centre of Government Capabilities to Steer and Deliver Complex Priorities: Synthesis Report

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/building-centre-of-government-capabilities-to-steer-and-deliver-complex-priorities_9899e2fe-en.html

2. OECD — Bridging the Gaps for Sustainable Development

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/bridging-the-gaps-for-sustainable-development_d6b60ea7-en.html

3. OECD — Digital Government Outlook 2026: From Foundations to Transformational Impact

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-government-outlook_0496b2bc-en.html

4. WHO — Roadmap for Health and Well-being in Central Asia 2022–2025: Summary Evaluation Report

https://www.who.int/uzbekistan/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2026-13201-52975-82597

Kazakhstan

5. Government of Kazakhstan — The Government of Kazakhstan and the Asian Development Bank intend to implement 15 new projects worth $5.5 billion

https://primeminister.kz/ru/news/pravitelstvo-kazaxstana-i-aziatskii-bank-razvitiia-namereny-realizovat-15-novyx-proektov-na-55-mlrd-31131

6. Government of Kazakhstan — Meeting on protecting investors’ rights and removing barriers to investment projects

https://primeminister.kz/en/news/olzhas-bektenov-holds-meeting-on-protection-of-investors-rights-in-fulfillment-of-presidents-instructions-31350

7. President of the Republic of Kazakhstan — On the declaration of 2026 as the Year of Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence.

https://www.akorda.kz/ru/ob-obyavlenii-goda-cifrovizacii-i-iskusstvennogo-intellekta-601222

8. Government of Kazakhstan — Office of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan: functions and tasks.

https://primeminister.kz/ru/government/offices