Education, institutions, and investment as determinants of economic growth in Central Asia and the Caucasus: A panel data analysis

Tleppaev, A. M.; Zejnolla, C. Ž.; Tyulyubayeva, Dinara; Aben, Assel Article Education, institutions, and investment as determinants of economic growth in Central Asia and the Caucasus: A panel data analysis Economies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Tleppaev, A. M.; Zejnolla, C. Ž.; Tyulyubayeva, Dinara; Aben, Assel (2025) : Education, institutions, and investment as determinants of economic growth in Central Asia and the Caucasus: A panel data analysis, Economies, ISSN 2227-7099, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 13, Iss. 3, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13030078 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329358 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Academic Editor: Hiroyuki Taguchi Received: 5 February 2025 Revised: 4 March 2025 Accepted: 6 March 2025 Published: 17 March 2025 Citation: Tleppayev, A., Zeinolla, S., Tyulyubayeva, D., & Aben, A. (2025). Education, Institutions, and Investment as Determinants of Economic Growth in Central Asia and the Caucasus: A Panel Data Analysis. Economies,13(3), 78. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/economies13030078 Copyright: © 2025 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/). Article Education, Institutions, and Investment as Determinants of Economic Growth in Central Asia and the Caucasus: A Panel Data Analysis Arsen Tleppayev 1,* , Saule Zeinolla 1,*, Dinara Tyulyubayeva 1and Assel Aben 2 1Faculty of Economics and Entrepreneurship, Kazakh-German University, Almaty 050010, Kazakhstan; [email protected] 2Economic Research Department, The Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies Under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana 020000, Kazakhstan; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] (A.T.); [email protected] (S.Z.) Abstract: Economic growth and development are key to societal well-being, yet emerging economies in Central Asia and the Caucasus face challenges such as labor market inefficiencies, uneven capital distribution, and weak institutions. This study examines the impact of education, institutional quality, capital investment, and labor force dynamics on economic growth in the region from 2010 to 2023. Using panel data analysis, including unit root tests, cointegration tests (Pedroni and Kao), and FMOLS/DOLS estimation, the findings reveal that while education and capital investment drive growth, institutional factors show mixed effects. Higher tertiary education enrollment correlates with long-term economic expansion, whereas weak governance and corruption hinder progress. This study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on education and institutional roles in economic performance, offering policy insights for sustainable growth. The results highlight the need for governance reforms, education quality improvements, and labor market adaptability to enhance economic potential. Keywords: human capital; tertiary education enrollment; panel data analysis; FMOLS and DOLS estimation; institutional frameworks; labor market dynamics; capital formation; higher education policy; sustainable economic growth 1. Introduction Higher education is a critical factor for economic development, especially in regions with dynamic economies such as Central Asia and the Caucasus. In the context of global competition and technological progress, investments in education are becoming an integral part of a long-term growth strategy. They help to build human capital, increase labor productivity and create an innovative economy. However, the effectiveness of such investments depends not only on their volume but also on the quality of educational programs, the level of teacher training, and the institutional environment. Research confirms that public investment in higher education can have a significant impact on economic development, but its impact is determined by many factors. For example, Solmon and Fagnano (1993) highlight that human capital growth is a key driver of economic modernization and has a stronger impact on economic growth than physical capital accumulation. The analysis of Arman et al. (2020) shows that regions with high levels of skilled labor show higher rates of economic development. However, simply increasing the number of universities does not lead to significant economic growth unless accompanied by an increase in teacher training and improved educational standards. Economies 2025,13, 78 https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13030078 Economies 2025,13, 78 2 of 19 Global experience also shows that the mechanisms of higher education’s impact on the economy may differ depending on the level of a country’s development and its education policy. For example, Wang (2021), in his study of the Chinese economy, identifies three key mechanisms through which higher education contributes to economic growth: development of science and technology, optimization of human resources, and direct contribution to GDP. In turn, Lobo (2015) analyses the impact of higher education on India’s economic development and concludes that low higher education enrolment rates (GERs) and inadequate teaching quality are impediments to economic growth. Unlike in China, where government support ensured rapid development of universities, in India, the increase in the number of higher education institutions was accompanied by a deterioration in educational standards, which had a negative impact on training. Thus, the study of the impact of investment in higher education on economic development in Central Asia and the Caucasus requires a comprehensive approach. This paper makes a significant contribution by introducing a new perspective on the relationship between education, institutional quality, and economic growth. Unlike previous studies, it highlights the critical role of governance in determining the effectiveness of educational investments. Using advanced econometric techniques (FMOLS/DOLS), this study provides new empirical evidence on the long-term impact of education and institutions, offering previously unexplored insights for optimizing education policy and strengthening economic competitiveness. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2reviews the relevant literature on the relationship between education, institutional quality, and economic growth. Section 3presents an analysis of macroeconomic indicators in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Section 4outlines the research methodology, including the econometric model and data sources. Section 5discusses the empirical findings and their implications. Section 6provides policy recommendations and future research directions. Finally, Section 7concludes the study by summarizing key insights and contributions. 2. Literature Review Educational Investment and Economic Growth Research analysis confirms that strategies aimed at improving the quality of higher education should be aligned with national economic objectives, as emphasized by Baidybekova et al. (2022). Successful reforms, including accreditation, digitalization programs, and the integration of innovative educational technologies, demonstrate that investment in education directly contributes to increased productivity, reduced unemployment, and an improved quality of life. Higher education plays a crucial role in economic development by enhancing labor productivity, fostering innovation, and contributing to overall socio-economic performance. Recent research highlights that institutional changes and higher education reforms are key drivers of long-term economic growth (Volchik et al., 2018). The role and impact of investment in education are significant for both developed and developing countries, but its effectiveness depends on the structure of the education market. Garcia (2014) investigates the relationship between public spending on higher education and economic growth in 50 US states for the period 1989–2006. Using a two-stage least squares (2SLS) model, the author showed that public spending on higher education has a positive impact on economic growth only in states with a small private sector for higher education. Aca-ac et al. (2020), Fahim et al (2023) explore the perception of higher education quality in an emerging economy by analyzing the perspectives of key stakeholders—students, educators, and employers. Their findings highlight that curriculum relevance, graduate employability, and institutional reputation play a critical role in Economies 2025,13, 78 3 of 19 defining education quality. These insights are crucial for understanding how investment in higher education aligns with labor market needs and economic growth in developing economies. Coronel and Díaz-Roldán (2024) investigate the impact of public expenditure on education on labor productivity, wages, and economic growth in European Union countries over the period 2009–2020. The authors applied DOLS and FMOLS estimation techniques to panel data to remove endogeneity and identify long-run relationships between variables. The main findings show that labor productivity and the size of the population with tertiary education have a positive and significant impact on economic growth. However, the relationship between public spending on education and labor productivity is not directly identified. The authors note that this effect is found indirectly through higher levels of education and technological skills. These results emphasize the importance of investing in sectors with a high technological component and the need to further analyze the structure of educational expenditures. In addition, Ambasz et al. (2023) indicate a negative relationship between public spending on higher education and educational attainment. However, this negative effect is partially offset in states with a more developed private education sector. This study emphasizes the complex role of public expenditure in a mixed education market and the need for an integrated approach to education policy design. Education spending and labor force quality have a significant impact on economic development. Clarke et al. (2015) examine the relationship between public education spending, educational attainment, and economic growth at the county level in Georgia for the period 2006–2008. The results show that the number of jobs and economic growth depend more on the educational attainment of the workforce than on schooling expenditures. The authors note that having a bachelor’s degree in the population is positively correlated with job growth, especially in high value-added sectors such as biotechnology. This study confirms that spending on education alone does not guarantee economic growth. The most important factor is the quality of education and the ability of regions to attract and retain highly qualified specialists (Legˇcevi´c,2014). This underlines the need to create a balanced education policy aimed at improving the level of education and adapting the labor force to the requirements of high-tech industries (Narmania et al.,2023). Investment in education has a significant impact on economic development, especially in emerging economies. Abu Alfoul et al. (2024a) emphasize that institutional quality plays a key role in amplifying the effect of education on economic growth. Applying a panel ARDL model for 18 countries in the sub-Saharan Africa region over the period 2000–2020, the authors find that the long-run effect of education on economic growth is insignificant without the presence of institutional support. In particular, factors such as corruption control and political stability reinforce the positive effect of education on economic growth. Fahim et al. (2023) confirm the positive relationship between investment in higher education and economic growth, highlighting that while education contributes to economic expansion, economic growth itself has played a limited role in promoting further investments in higher education. This underscores the need for strategic policy interventions to ensure sustainable educational development. Importantly, investment in education is closely linked to sustainable economic development. Sherry and Zeaiter (2024) investigate the impact of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities on public spending on education in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Using panel data for 1990–2020 and fixed effects models, the authors show that strict IMF lending conditions (so-called binding conditions) boost education spending by freeing up fiscal space and attracting international aid. These results highlight the importance of aligning education priorities with macroeconomic stabilization programs. The Economies 2025,13, 78 4 of 19 authors emphasize that, despite positive effects, potential trade-offs between fiscal stability and social spending can have a dampening effect on long-term investment in human capital. Under conditions of weak governance, the effectiveness of increased educational spending may be limited, which requires a more balanced approach to economic and social policy. There are also studies that have found that investment in digital technology and education has a significant impact on economic development. Abu Alfoul et al. (2024b) emphasize that the use of ICT (information and communication technology) can have a positive impact on economic growth, but this impact depends largely on the level of education of the population. This study, covering 15 countries in the MENA region over the period 2000–2020, finds that higher education enhances the effect of ICT on economic development, while insufficient training and brain drain significantly reduce the effectiveness of digital initiatives. The authors also draw attention to the need to modernize infrastructure and create a favorable institutional environment to improve the interaction between ICTs and the economy. It is interesting that the positive impact of increased spending on education also has a positive effect on the economic growth of the region, maintaining this effect from the transition from the macrolevel to the mesolevel of the economy. Thus, investment in higher education and effective university budget management are of key importance for regional socio-economic development. Chinnakum et al. (2024) investigated the impact of Chiang Mai University on the economy of Northern Thailand using Input–Output (IO) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) models. The results show that the university creates about 700 agricultural jobs, 241 service jobs, and 113 industrial jobs annually over the 2023–2025 period. In addition, every million Thai baht invested in the university generates a significant socio-economic impact. The use of the SROI forecasting model identified key areas for optimizing budget expenditure and offered recommendations for improving the effectiveness of university financial management. This study emphasizes the importance of supporting SDG 4 (quality education) through investment in higher education and regional economic development. Current research shows that quality education and strategic investment in digital technologies can be crucial for economic growth. However, countries with low-quality education and high levels of skilled emigration have seen diminishing returns on investment in technology, highlighting the importance of integrating education policies and digital strategies. In contexts with weak institutions, educational efforts are often ineffective. The results confirm the importance of integrating education policy with broader economic reforms, including greater transparency and better governance. 3. Analysis of Macroeconomic Indicators An Empirical Study Based on Data This section will analyze the impact of educational investment on economic development and offer recommendations for improving the effectiveness of higher education development strategies in Central Asia and the Caucasus. By analyzing GDP growth (annual change in gross domestic product) and the structure of education spending, it is possible to identify the relationship between the long-term development of human capital and the level of economic activity. The development of effective strategies requires a detailed consideration of these factors, taking into account regional specifics and the dynamics of economic indicators. The Figure 1presents an analysis of the dynamics of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (in current US dollars) across eight countries in the region—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—over Economies 2025,13, 78 5 of 19 the period from 2011 to 2023. The data provide insights into the disparities in economic development among these nations and allow for an assessment of the sustainability of their economic growth. Economies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20 Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—over the period from 2011 to 2023. The data provide insights into the disparities in economic development among these nations and allow for an assessment of the sustainability of their economic growth. Figure 1. Dynamics of GDP per capita in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). Kazakhstan exhibits the highest GDP per capita among the analyzed countries, with a steady increase from 2011, peaking in 2014 at over USD 14,000 (Figure 1). Following this peak, a decline is observed, but from 2018 onwards, the trend reverses, leading to a recovery and reaching approximately USD 13,000 by 2023. Azerbaijan, which initially maintained a relatively high GDP per capita, experienced a notable decline after 2014, likely due to its economic dependence on the oil sector and fluctuations in global energy prices. A recovery trend emerges in 2021–2023. Georgia and Mongolia display moderate and relatively stable GDP per capita growth throughout the period, with minor fluctuations. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remain at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of GDP per capita but exhibit slow yet consistent growth, particularly in recent years. Uzbekistan maintains a GDP per capita below the regional average for most of the period; however, a significant upward trend is observed after 2020. Armenia has demonstrated a gradual increase in GDP per capita since 2017, which may be aributed to economic reforms and the expansion of international economic cooperation. Overall, the analysis highlights significant variations in the economic development of the countries in the region and differing degrees of economic growth sustainability, which are shaped by macroeconomic factors, structural characteristics of national economies, and external economic conditions. The dynamics of GDP per capita emphasize the importance of strategies aimed at diversifying the economy, increasing the level of investment in human capital and education. In countries with stable GDP per capita growth and consistent investment in education (e.g., Kazakhstan), economic development measures have shown greater effectiveness in improving overall quality of life. However, sharp fluctuations in Azerbaijan and stability at low levels in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan indicate 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Mongolia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Figure 1. Dynamics of GDP per capita in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). Kazakhstan exhibits the highest GDP per capita among the analyzed countries, with a steady increase from 2011, peaking in 2014 at over USD 14,000 (Figure 1). Following this peak, a decline is observed, but from 2018 onwards, the trend reverses, leading to a recovery and reaching approximately USD 13,000 by 2023. Azerbaijan, which initially maintained a relatively high GDP per capita, experienced a notable decline after 2014, likely due to its economic dependence on the oil sector and fluctuations in global energy prices. A recovery trend emerges in 2021–2023. Georgia and Mongolia display moderate and relatively stable GDP per capita growth throughout the period, with minor fluctuations. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remain at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of GDP per capita but exhibit slow yet consistent growth, particularly in recent years. Uzbekistan maintains a GDP per capita below the regional average for most of the period; however, a significant upward trend is observed after 2020. Armenia has demonstrated a gradual increase in GDP per capita since 2017, which may be attributed to economic reforms and the expansion of international economic cooperation. Overall, the analysis highlights significant variations in the economic development of the countries in the region and differing degrees of economic growth sustainability, which are shaped by macroeconomic factors, structural characteristics of national economies, and external economic conditions. The dynamics of GDP per capita emphasize the importance of strategies aimed at diversifying the economy, increasing the level of investment in human capital and education. In countries with stable GDP per capita growth and consistent investment in education (e.g., Kazakhstan), economic development measures have shown greater effectiveness in improving overall quality of life. However, sharp fluctuations in Azerbaijan and stability at low levels in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan indicate the need to develop long-term economic strategies oriented towards balanced growth and improving the well-being of the population. The Figure 2presents data on the share of public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP across eight countries in the region—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—over the period from Economies 2025,13, 78 6 of 19 2011 to 2023. The data reveal significant differences in how countries finance their education systems and the sustainability of these expenditures, meaning their long-term consistency, reliability, and ability to support education without causing fiscal imbalances or budgetary constraints. Economies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20 the need to develop long-term economic strategies oriented towards balanced growth and improving the well-being of the population. The Figure 2 presents data on the share of public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP across eight countries in the region—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—over the period from 2011 to 2023. The data reveal significant differences in how countries finance their education systems and the sustainability of these expenditures, meaning their long-term consistency, reliability, and ability to support education without causing fiscal imbalances or budgetary constraints. Figure 2. Education expenditure dynamics (% of GDP) in Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). Kyrgyzstan allocates the highest share of public expenditure on education, exceeding 7% of GDP at the beginning of the period. Although a decline is observed by 2023, the values remain above the regional average, indicating a continued commitment to education funding. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan maintain relatively stable expenditures in the range of 5–6% of GDP throughout the period, reflecting permanent governmental support for the education sector. Mongolia exhibits fluctuations within the 4–5% range, with peaks in 2015 and 2020, likely aributable to shifting budgetary priorities. Kazakhstan maintains a stable allocation of approximately 3–4% of GDP, suggesting a balanced and consistent approach to education expenditure. In contrast, Armenia experiences a sharp decline, with public expenditure on education dropping below 1% of GDP by 2023, potentially signaling a reduction in funding or a reallocation of budgetary priorities. Azerbaijan and Georgia demonstrate fluctuations between 2 and 4%, indicating a moderate level of education spending relative to other fiscal demands. The observed differences in the share of education expenditure underscore the variability in national education policies and priorities across the region. The European Training Foundation (ETF, 2011) and Aperyan (2021) examine the impact of lower public allocations to education in Armenia, highlighting their long-term implications for economic growth, human capital development, and the country’s competitiveness and innovation capacity. Similarly, Abasova (2023) highlights the role of increased investments in ICT 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Percentage of GDP (%) Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Mongolia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Figure 2. Education expenditure dynamics (% of GDP) in Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). Kyrgyzstan allocates the highest share of public expenditure on education, exceeding 7% of GDP at the beginning of the period. Although a decline is observed by 2023, the values remain above the regional average, indicating a continued commitment to education funding. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan maintain relatively stable expenditures in the range of 5–6% of GDP throughout the period, reflecting permanent governmental support for the education sector. Mongolia exhibits fluctuations within the 4–5% range, with peaks in 2015 and 2020, likely attributable to shifting budgetary priorities. Kazakhstan maintains a stable allocation of approximately 3–4% of GDP, suggesting a balanced and consistent approach to education expenditure. In contrast, Armenia experiences a sharp decline, with public expenditure on education dropping below 1% of GDP by 2023, potentially signaling a reduction in funding or a reallocation of budgetary priorities. Azerbaijan and Georgia demonstrate fluctuations between 2 and 4%, indicating a moderate level of education spending relative to other fiscal demands. The observed differences in the share of education expenditure underscore the variability in national education policies and priorities across the region. The (European Training Foundation (ETF),2011) and Aperyan (2021) examine the impact of lower public allocations to education in Armenia, highlighting their long-term implications for economic growth, human capital development, and the country’s competitiveness and innovation capacity. Similarly, Abasova (2023) highlights the role of increased investments in ICT techniques in Azerbaijan’s higher education system during the pandemic, emphasizing both opportunities and challenges for sustainable educational development. Additionally, an analysis of gross capital formation as a percentage of GDP provides further insights into the scale and direction of economic policies across these countries. Graphical trends enable the identification of key patterns and inform recommendations aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of investment strategies, ensuring that education financing contributes to sustainable economic development. The Figure 3presents data on the share of gross capital formation in GDP across eight countries in the region—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Economies 2025,13, 78 7 of 19 Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—over the period from 2010 to 2023. The data highlight differences in economic strategies and the sustainability of capital investment across these nations. Economies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20 techniques in Azerbaijan’s higher education system during the pandemic, emphasizing both opportunities and challenges for sustainable educational development. Additionally, an analysis of gross capital formation as a percentage of GDP provides further insights into the scale and direction of economic policies across these countries. Graphical trends enable the identification of key paerns and inform recommendations aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of investment strategies, ensuring that education financing contributes to sustainable economic development. The Figure 3 presents data on the share of gross capital formation in GDP across eight countries in the region—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—over the period from 2010 to 2023. The data highlight differences in economic strategies and the sustainability of capital investment across these nations. Figure 3. Dynamics of gross capital formation (% of GDP) in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). Mongolia initially had the highest investment share at 60% in 2011, declining to around 30% by 2015 and stabilizing thereafter. This suggests a shift in priorities rather than a sharp drop. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan maintained stable investment levels of 25– 30%, while Tajikistan fluctuated, peaking at 40% in 2015 before declining to 33% by 2023, likely due to policy and economic changes. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia showed steady trends within 20–32%, indicating gradual economic development. Overall, some countries pursued aggressive investment strategies, while others maintained stability. Economic shifts, policies, and external factors significantly influenced investment levels. The observed dynamics of gross capital formation emphasize the importance of longterm investment planning for sustainable economic growth. Countries demonstrating relatively stable investment paerns, such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, appear to have established a balance between capital formation, education, and other key economic factors. Mongolia provides an example of rapid increases in capital investment, yet such strategies necessitate further evaluation of their long-term effectiveness. These findings 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Percentage of GDP (%) Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Mongolia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Figure 3. Dynamics of gross capital formation (% of GDP) in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). Mongolia initially had the highest investment share at 60% in 2011, declining to around 30% by 2015 and stabilizing thereafter. This suggests a shift in priorities rather than a sharp drop. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan maintained stable investment levels of 25–30%, while Tajikistan fluctuated, peaking at 40% in 2015 before declining to 33% by 2023, likely due to policy and economic changes. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia showed steady trends within 20–32%, indicating gradual economic development. Overall, some countries pursued aggressive investment strategies, while others maintained stability. Economic shifts, policies, and external factors significantly influenced investment levels. The observed dynamics of gross capital formation emphasize the importance of longterm investment planning for sustainable economic growth. Countries demonstrating relatively stable investment patterns, such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, appear to have established a balance between capital formation, education, and other key economic factors. Mongolia provides an example of rapid increases in capital investment, yet such strategies necessitate further evaluation of their long-term effectiveness. These findings underscore the need for a balanced approach to education funding and capital investment to maximize long-term benefits for the region. Additionally, the Figure 4below presents data on the total labor force in Central Asian and Caucasus countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) over the period from 2011 to 2023. The data illustrate variations in labor force size and growth patterns, offering further insights into regional economic trends and workforce dynamics. Uzbekistan has the largest labor force among the analyzed countries, exhibiting stable and significant growth throughout the period. By 2023, the labor force will surpass 14 million, reflecting continuous demographic expansion and workforce participation. Kazakhstan ranks second in terms of labor force size, also demonstrating steady growth, with the number exceeding 9 million by the end of the period. Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan exhibit moderate labor force growth characterized by gradual increases over time. In contrast, Economies 2025,13, 78 8 of 19 Georgia, Mongolia, and Tajikistan display relative stability with minimal changes, which is likely attributed to their smaller populations and demographic constraints. Armenia has the smallest labor force among the countries analyzed, with only a marginal increase by 2023. Economies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20 underscore the need for a balanced approach to education funding and capital investment to maximize long-term benefits for the region. Additionally, the Figure 4 below presents data on the total labor force in Central Asian and Caucasus countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) over the period from 2011 to 2023. The data illustrate variations in labor force size and growth paerns, offering further insights into regional economic trends and workforce dynamics. Figure 4. Labor force dynamics in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). Uzbekistan has the largest labor force among the analyzed countries, exhibiting stable and significant growth throughout the period. By 2023, the labor force will surpass 14 million, reflecting continuous demographic expansion and workforce participation. Kazakhstan ranks second in terms of labor force size, also demonstrating steady growth, with the number exceeding 9 million by the end of the period. Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan exhibit moderate labor force growth characterized by gradual increases over time. In contrast, Georgia, Mongolia, and Tajikistan display relative stability with minimal changes, which is likely aributed to their smaller populations and demographic constraints. Armenia has the smallest labor force among the countries analyzed, with only a marginal increase by 2023. The observed labor force growth in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan may be linked to favorable demographic trends and an increasing share of the working-age population. In contrast, the more stable figures in other countries suggest an absence of significant population shifts or structural changes in labor market dynamics. According to the World Bank (2018), countries experiencing labor force expansion, such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, have the potential to enhance economic productivity and efficiency by equipping their workforce with the necessary skills and investing in education. A crucial determinant of the impact of educational investment on economic growth is the quality of higher education. One of the significant indicators is tertiary education enrollment, which measures participation rates in higher education. This metric provides insights into the accessibility of education for the population and the extent of youth engagement in the educational process. ,, 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Labor force, total Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Mongolia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Figure 4. Labor force dynamics in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus (prepared by the authors using World Bank data). The observed labor force growth in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan may be linked to favorable demographic trends and an increasing share of the working-age population. In contrast, the more stable figures in other countries suggest an absence of significant population shifts or structural changes in labor market dynamics. According to the World Bank (2018), countries experiencing labor force expansion, such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, have the potential to enhance economic productivity and efficiency by equipping their workforce with the necessary skills and investing in education. A crucial determinant of the impact of educational investment on economic growth is the quality of higher education. One of the significant indicators is tertiary education enrollment, which measures participation rates in higher education. This metric provides insights into the accessibility of education for the population and the extent of youth engagement in the educational process. The Figure 5presents the dynamics of higher education enrollment in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus from 2000 to 2022 demonstrate the following trends. The growth leaders are Armenia, where the indicator reached 60% by 2022, and Georgia, which reached 55%. Steady growth is observed in Kazakhstan (35% by 2022) and Kyrgyzstan (30%). Despite the positive dynamics, the indicators in Uzbekistan (20%) and Tajikistan (15%) remain relatively low. Overall, the region is showing positive changes in the development of higher education, but differences between countries remain significant. The effectiveness of public administration in education depends on organization and control, ensuring resource efficiency, accountability, and systematic management. Corruption control reflects transparency in financial flows, preventing the misuse of funds and fostering public trust, which is crucial for sustainable development. Political stability creates favorable conditions for educational institutions, enabling long-term planning, consistent policy implementation, and institutional security. The quality of regulation determines how effectively educational reforms are designed and enforced, ensuring that policies lead to real improvements rather than remaining theoretical. A strong legal system protects property rights, enforces laws, and ensures fairness, stability, and integrity Economies 2025,13, 78 15 of 19 long term through FMOLS and DOLS, respectively. On the other hand, the improvement of institutional factors has a negative impact on economic growth (by 0.87 and 1%, respectively), which requires consideration in future models. The FMOLS model also shows the impact of capital growth—economic growth increases by 0.21%, but the DOLS model does not have this effect. The influence of the government expenditure on education variable, measured as a percentage of GDP, is weakly significant only in the FMOLS model (it causes a decrease in growth by 0.87%). The size of the workforce does not affect the variables, requiring consideration in future models. 6. Policy Implications and Future Directions Based on the results of data analysis and regression model based on FMOLS and DOLS methods, it is recommended to pay attention to the following conclusions. Education priority: due to the consistent positive impact of education coverage on economic growth, government policy should be aimed at increasing the proportion of the educated population (Khitarishvili,2010;Kumar et al.,2020). This may include investments in educational infrastructure, improving the quality of education at all levels, creating conditions for access to education for all segments of the population, and developing professional retraining and advanced training programs. Reassessment of the role of institutions and public spending on education: Due to differences in the assessment of the impact of these factors using FMOLS and DOLS methods, additional analysis is needed to clarify their role. Perhaps institutional factors require a rethink of measurement methods or are related to specific aspects of the institutional environment that need to be improved. With regard to expenditures, it is important to evaluate their effectiveness and identify priority investment areas to maximize their impact on economic growth. The state’s spending directions should be analyzed here but should also take into account their low share of the budget. Given the specificity of the sample and the limited sample size, it should be borne in mind that FMOLS and DOLS results may differ. In this case, FMOLS may be preferable for analyzing long-term relationships, whereas DOLS may be useful for studying short-term dynamics. It is recommended to check the stability of the results using alternative methods, such as FE, RE, or ARDL, and choose the method that best suits the properties of the data and the objectives of this study. The negative impact of institutional factors requires further study. It is essential to determine the specific mechanisms through which these factors influence economic growth and to develop measures for improving institutional quality. Additionally, the weaknesses of institutions, the underdevelopment of civil society, and the impact of corruption must be considered. The effectiveness of educational investment depends not only on the volume of funding but also on governance quality, institutional frameworks, and alignment with labor market demands. This finding aligns with European studies on the modernization of higher education, which emphasize the importance of institutional reforms and academic mobility (van der Hijden,2014). It is also necessary to take into account the limitations of this study related to the sample size, the choice of analysis methods, and possible problems with measuring institutional factors. This will avoid misinterpretation of the results and highlight the need for further research in this area. In general, the government is recommended to focus on policies aimed at increasing the share of education coverage and rethinking the role of institutions and the qualitative allocation of public spending, taking into account the specifics of the sample and analysis methods. It is important to note that this study of the countries under consideration is Economies 2025,13, 78 16 of 19 debatable and primary in nature and requires further in-depth study in order to develop more accurate and informed policy recommendations. 7. Conclusions This study examined the impact of investments in higher education on the economic development of Central Asian and Caucasus countries, emphasizing the interplay between education quality, institutional frameworks, and macroeconomic indicators. The findings provide strong evidence that strategic investment in education significantly contributes to long-term economic growth by enhancing workforce productivity and fostering innovation. However, the effectiveness of such investments is contingent upon the strength of national institutions and governance mechanisms. A key insight from this analysis is that while increased funding for higher education correlates with economic expansion, financial allocation alone is insufficient to drive sustainable growth. Instead, the quality of education—measured through institutional effectiveness, governance, and accessibility—plays a decisive role in shaping economic outcomes. Countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which have maintained relatively stable investment patterns in education and capital formation, demonstrate stronger economic performance compared to nations with inconsistent or declining education expenditures. Conversely, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan allocate a higher percentage of GDP to education, yet their economic impact remains constrained due to weaker institutional structures and lower enrollment rates in higher education. This study also highlights contrasting dynamics in the Caucasus region. Armenia boasts the highest tertiary education enrollment (~60%), yet economic challenges persist due to political instability and limited capital formation. In contrast, Georgia has successfully leveraged education investments alongside institutional improvements, resulting in a more dynamic labor market and enhanced innovation potential. Similarly, Azerbaijan and Mongolia present unique cases where fluctuating education spending—often influenced by external economic factors such as natural resource revenues—affects the sustainability of education-driven economic benefits. Moreover, this study underscores the critical role of institutional factors—such as government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and control of corruption—in translating educational investments into tangible economic benefits. Weak institutional environments hinder the efficient utilization of public spending on education, preventing proportional improvements in human capital development. Addressing these governance challenges requires comprehensive reforms to strengthen education management, enhance financial transparency, and align educational policies with labor market demands. Disparities in higher education enrollment across the region further reinforce the need for targeted policy interventions. Armenia and Georgia lead in participation rates, whereas Uzbekistan and Tajikistan lag behind, limiting their ability to cultivate a skilled workforce for technological advancement and economic diversification. To bridge this gap, governments must focus on expanding access to tertiary education, modernizing curricula to meet industry demands, and investing in digital learning infrastructure. From an economic perspective, the findings affirm the necessity of balancing investments in education with broader economic policies, particularly in gross capital formation and labor market development. Countries experiencing labor force expansion, such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, have a unique opportunity to maximize economic efficiency by equipping their workforce with advanced skills and fostering knowledge-based industries. However, realizing this potential requires sustained investments in human capital, policies that incentivize innovation and entrepreneurship, and a commitment to long-term institutional strengthening. Economies 2025,13, 78 17 of 19 Ultimately, this study underscores that higher education is not merely an expenditure but a strategic investment in national development. The economic benefits of education are maximized when coupled with effective governance, institutional stability, and policies that foster an innovative and skilled workforce. Future research should further explore the interplay between education policies, labor market dynamics, and technological advancements to develop a comprehensive framework for sustainable economic growth in the region. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.Z. and A.T.; methodology, S.Z.; software, A.T..; validation, S.Z., A.T. and D.T.; formal analysis, S.Z.; investigation, A.A.; resources, A.A.; data curation, A.T.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, S.Z.; visualization, S.Z.; supervision, S.Z.; project administration, D.T.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan grant number IRN BR21882434 on the topic “A systematic approach to monitoring, analysis and assessment of the quality of higher education in Kazakhstan”. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data reported in this work are available at https://databank.worldbank .org/source/world-development-indicators. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results. References Abasova, S. H. Q. (2023). ICT techniques in higher education: Azerbaijan experience in pandemic. Bulletin of Alfred Nobel University. Series: Pedagogy and Psychology,1(25), 174–182. [CrossRef] Abu Alfoul, M. N., Bazhair, A. H., Khatatbeh, I. N., Arian, A. G., & Abu Al-Foul, M. N. (2024a). The effect of education on economic growth in Sub-Saharan African countries: Do institutions matter? Economies,12(11), 300. [CrossRef] Abu Alfoul, M. N., Khatatbeh, I. N., & Bazhair, A. H. (2024b). The effect of ICT usage on economic growth in the MENA region: Does the level of education matter? Economies,12(10), 267. [CrossRef] Aca-ac, F. S., Jr., Baes, I. S. M., Balbuena, A. G., Cañon, D. G., Justiniani, R. P., Laoagan, I. J., & Tan, T. A. (2020). Defining quality higher education in an emerging economy: A case of Cebu, Philippines. The Normal Lights,14(1), 1–24. [CrossRef] Ambasz, D., Nikolaev, D., Malinovskiy, S., Olszak-Olszewski, A., Zavalina, P., & Botero Álvarez, J. (2023). Towards higher education excellence in Central Asia: A roadmap for improving the quality of education and research through regional integration. World Bank. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/40502 (accessed on 25 January 2025). Aperyan, Y. (2021). The Internationalization of Higher Education in Armenia. Sociology of Education,12(1), 79–87. [CrossRef] Arman, A., Purwandaya, B., & Saefuddin, A. (2020). The impact of quality of education and higher education on economic growth. Journal of Economic Education and Curriculum,9(1), 15–30. [CrossRef] Baidybekova, S. K., Sauranbay, S. B., & Yermekbayeva, D. (2022). Investment in education as a factor of economic growth of the country. Eurasian Journal of Economic and Business Studies,66(4), 105–114. [CrossRef] Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Chinnakum, W., Intapan, C., Singvejsakul, J., Wongsirikajorn, M., Thongkaw, B., Eakkapun, P., & Chaiboonsri, C. (2024). The Socio-Economic Impact of University in Thailand: Evidence from Chiang Mai University. Economies,12(12), 339. [CrossRef] Clarke, W., Jones, A. T., & Lacy, B. (2015). Education spending and workforce quality as determinants of economic growth. The Journal of Rural and Community Development,10(4), 24–35. Available online: https://journals.brandonu.ca/jrcd/article/view/1110 (accessed on 20 January 2025). Coronel, V. J., & Díaz-Roldán, C. (2024). Government expenditure, education, and productivity in the european union: Effects on economic growth. Economics,18, 20220081. [CrossRef] European Training Foundation (ETF). (2011). Armenia: Human capital and employability report. European Training Foundation. Available online: https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/m/D576C419A544F50FC12579C9003A8C29 _ NOTE6MAEBZ.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2025). Economies 2025,13, 78 18 of 19 Fahim, A., Tan, Q., Bhatti, U. A., & Xu, L. (2023). The nexus between higher education and economic growth in Morocco: An empirical investigation using VaR model and VECM. Multimedia Tools and Applications,82(5), 5709–5723. [CrossRef] Garcia, C. (2014). Public higher education spending and economic growth: The role of the private market for higher education and the mediating effect of educational attainment [Master’s thesis, California State University]. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10211.9/2310 (accessed on 20 January 2025). Hamit-Haggar, M. (2012). Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: A Panel Cointegration Analysis From Canadian Industrial Sector Perspective. Energy Economics,34(1), 358–364. [CrossRef] Hsiao, C. (2014). Analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] Kao, C. (1999). Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics,90(1), 1–44. [CrossRef] Kao, C., & Chen, B. (1995). On the estimation and inference for cointegration in panel data when the cross section and time series dimensions are comparable. Centre for Policy Research, Syracuse University. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers ?referenceid=2933765 (accessed on 25 January 2025). Kao, C., & Chiang, M.-H. (2001). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data//nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (B. H. Baltagi, T. B. Fomby, & R. Carter Hill, Eds.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [CrossRef] Khan, M. W. A., Panigrahi, S. K., Almuniri, K. S. N., Soomro, M. I., Mirjat, N. H., & Alqaydi, E. S. (2019). Investigating the Dynamic Impact of CO 2 Emissions and Economic Growth on Renewable Energy Production: Evidence From FMOLS and DOLS Tests. Processes,7(8), 496. [CrossRef] Khitarishvili, T. (2010). Assessing the returns to education in Georgia (Working Paper No. 608). Levy Economics Institute. [CrossRef] Kumar, P., Shukla, B., & Passey, D. (2020). Impact of accreditation on quality and excellence of higher education institutions. Investigacion Operacional,41(2), 151–167. Available online: http://rev-inv-ope.pantheonsorbonne.fr/sites/default/files/inline-files/41220-01 .pdf (accessed on 20 January 2025). Legˇcevi´c, J. (2014). Linking higher education and economy as a role for regional development. Semantic Scholar. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/12348196/LINKING_ HIGHER _ EDUCATION _ AND _ ECONOMY _ AS _ A _ ROLE _ FOR _REGIONAL_DEVELOPMENT (accessed on 28 January 2025). Lobo, R. (2015). Nexus between quality of higher education and economic development: The Indian story. International Journal of Higher Education Management,1(2), 72–80. [CrossRef] McCoskey, S., & Kao, C. (1998). A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econometric Reviews,17(1), 57–84. [CrossRef] Narmania, D., Kharkheli, M., Vardiashvili, N., & Makasara/shvili, M. (2023). The role of education in the growth of the Georgian economy. The Business and Management Review,14(1), 88–95. Available online: https://cberuk.com/cdn/conference _ proceedings/ 2023-05-23-23-11-40-PM.pdf?utm_source (accessed on 28 January 2025). [CrossRef] Othman, A. N., & Masih, M. (2015). Do profit and loss sharing (Pls) deposits also affect pls financing? Evidence from Malaysia based on dols, fmols and system gmm techniques. MPRA Paper No 65224. Available online: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65224/1/ MPRA_paper_65224.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2025). Otieno, D. O. (2016). Role of educational investment on economic growth and development in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(22), 68–79. Available online: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/33088 (accessed on 25 January 2025). Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,61(S1), 653–670. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653 (accessed on 28 January 2025). [CrossRef] Pedroni, P. (2001). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In B. H. Baltagi, T. B. Fomby, & R. Carter Hill (Eds.), Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (advances in econometrics) (Vol. 15, pp. 93–130). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [CrossRef] Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests With an Application to the PPP Hypothesis. Econometric Theory,20(3), 597–625. [CrossRef] Sherry, H., & Zeaiter, H. (2024). IMF conditionality and government education spending: The case of 10 MENA countries. Economies, 12(9), 234. [CrossRef] Solmon, L. C., & Fagnano, C. L. (1993). Quality of higher education and economic growth in the United States. In W. E. Becker, & D. R. Lewis (Eds.), Higher education and economic growth (pp. 145–160). Springer. [CrossRef] Tleppayev, A. M., Zeinolla, S. Z., Azhibayeva, A. A., & Tyulyubayeva, D. M. (2024). Strategies for increasing the quality of higher education and its impact on the economy of Kazakhstan. Statistics, Accounting, and Audit,3(94), 17–27. [CrossRef] van der Hijden, P. (2014). Modernising higher education: The emergence of European public goods. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 2(1), 19–29. [CrossRef] Vasilevska, M., & Tomovska-Misoska, A. (2024). The role of quality higher education institutions for higher economic development. International May Conference on Strategic Management,20(2), 94–102. [CrossRef] Economies 2025,13, 78 19 of 19 Volchik, V., Oganesyan, A., & Olejarz, T. (2018). Higher education as a factor of socio-economic performance and development. Journal of International Studies,11(4), 326–340. [CrossRef] Wang, Z. (2021). The relationship between higher education and economic growth in China. Academic Journal of Business & Management, 3(9), 77–81. Available online: https://francis-press.com/papers/5107 (accessed on 25 January 2025). World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. World Bank Group. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28340 (accessed on 25 January 2025). Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.