Purpose – Following globalization, Kazakh companies are considered to be among the main economic agents of the country. The influence of Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) on Kazakhstan's economic development is becoming increasingly pronounced. Therefore, limitations and backwardness of legislation regarding regulation of corporate governance must be overcome at the earliest. Research design, data, and methodology – We considered the basis for legislation of corporate governance in Kazakhstan, and the corporate governance models that better describe the situation of being in the organization. Results – Earlier studies have identified several problems, including "transparency" of issuers and markets, and the consequent lack of (undeveloped) external control of managers of the former state-owned enterprises; lack of traditional corporate ethics and culture; and corruption, and other criminal aspects of the problem. This article describes several proposals to improve corporate governance in Kazakhstan to solve these problems. Conclusions – Domestic reformers acting without consideration of local features is a common occurrence today. They often ignore that these features are recommended for reputable international organizations, and therefore should be used carefully.

The authors emphasize that the Republic of Kazakhstan is characterized by significant differences in the level of innovation capacity of regions. This article summarizes that the result of the monitoring of innovation potential of the regions are prerequisites for innovation policy adjustments, make it more dynamic, which ultimately contributes to its effectiveness. So, there are substantial differences in the level of innovation potential of the regions in the Republic of Kazakhstan, meanwhile it is noted that most regions’innovative features and potential can be assessed as average. After analysis of previously used methods, it can be concluded that the ranking of the level of innovation potential of regions takes place in the following order: High level of innovative potential: East Kazakhstan (3 matches), Almaty city (2 matches), Pavlodar (2 matches) and Zhambyl regions (2 matches); Low level of innovative potential: Almaty (2 matches), Mangistau (2 matches), West Kazakhstan (2 matches), Kyzylorda oblast (2 matches). In conclusion, it is emphasized that monitoring of innovative potential of regions creates the preconditions for innovation policy adjustments. These adjustments make the policy more dynamic and contribute to its effectiveness in the long run