Gender Pricing and Tax Policy in Kazakhstan: Does a “Pink Tax” Exist?
Women often pay more for everyday goods, from hygiene products to personal care services. In public discourse in Kazakhstan, this phenomenon is often referred to as the “pink tax.” But does such a tax exist, or are these differences the result of market pricing strategies?
Is a “Pink Tax” Recognized Under Kazakhstan’s Tax Code?
If understood literally as a separate levy established in the Tax Code, the so-called “pink tax” does not exist in Kazakhstan. The country’s tax system includes corporate and individual income taxes, value-added tax (VAT), excise duties, social tax, property taxes, and other mandatory payments. There is no gender-based category.
In Kazakhstan, the term is generally used to describe a potential “gender markup,” where products marketed to women are priced higher than comparable versions aimed at men, even when their features are largely the same.
These differences are most often observed in items such as razors, shower gels, and other personal care products, where variation may be limited to packaging or branding. However, Kazakhstan lacks large-scale, representative studies on the issue. Most claims are based on retail observations and isolated price comparisons rather than comprehensive market research.
How Tax Policy Affects Essential Hygiene Products: VAT and the “Tampon Tax”
Public debate increasingly uses the term “tampon tax” to describe situations where menstrual hygiene products are subject to the standard VAT rate rather than a reduced rate applied to essential goods.
Starting January 1, 2026, Kazakhstan’s base VAT rate increased to 16%. Reduced VAT rates of 5% (from 2026) and 10% (from 2027), apply only to goods and services, including specific medicines and medical devices that meet established criteria. These benefits do not apply broadly to all health-related goods, only to items included in officially approved lists.
If sanitary pads, tampons, and other menstrual hygiene products are not included in the approved lists, they are subject to the standard VAT rate, like most other consumer goods. The law does not treat “women’s” products as a separate taxable category. As a result, Kazakhstan does not levy a distinct “pink tax” but applies uniform VAT rules. The broader policy debate centers on whether menstrual products should be classified as essential goods for tax purposes.
The social dimension is significant. According to the World Bank and UNFPA, menstrual poverty refers to limited access to hygiene products and related services such as water, sanitation, healthcare, and education. A survey conducted in Kazakhstan by Umai Cup and SOAS (2,116 participants) found that 25% of respondents had no access to hygiene products during their first menstruation, 66% used improvised materials, and 10% missed school due to an inability to purchase sanitary pads.
When a recurring monthly product is taxed at the full VAT rate and rises in price along with inflation, the financial burden falls disproportionately on low-income women. For students, single mothers, and mothers of large families, this may translate into restricted access to basic hygiene.
Why the “Pink Tax” Has a Greater Impact at Lower Income Levels
Even without normative judgments, the economic sensitivity of gender-based price differences increases in the context of income inequality. The issue is not only whether a markup exists, but whose budget it affects.
According to the Bureau of National Statistics of Kazakhstan, the gender wage gap remains persistent. The gap stood at 25.0% in 2020, 21.7% in 2021, 25.2% in 2022, and 25.7% in 2023. Preliminary data for 2025 indicates that the gap remains significant. In the first quarter, the average salary for men was approximately 468,914 tenge ($934), while women earned an average of 344,496 tenge ($686), a difference of roughly 26.5% in favor of men.
These figures are central to understanding the economic implications of gender-based markups. Even small price differences may appear negligible in a single transaction. However, when income levels are systematically lower, recurring additional costs, whether for hygiene products, care goods, or services, represent a larger share of household budgets.
In this sense, the debate extends beyond pricing alone. If one demographic group consistently earns less, then identical tax rates and uniform VAT policies can still translate into unequal financial pressure.
Everyday Experience
The “pink tax” often manifests through product labeling, packaging, and pricing structures. Interviews with young women in Kazakhstan reflect recurring perceptions of gender-based pricing differences.
Samira Olzhakhanova, 18, a student from Almaty, says she has noticed price differences in basic goods: “Disposable razors, face creams, shower gels, if the packaging is pink or labeled ‘for women,’ the price is almost always higher. At first, the difference seems minor, 200-300 tenge, but when it repeats every month, it becomes noticeable.”
Alua Zhanetova, 26, an SMM manager from Taraz, observed similar patterns in children’s retail sections: “Items ‘for girls’ are often slightly more expensive, even though the fabric and quality are the same as in the ‘boys’ section. The difference is small but systematic.”
Valeria Kuznetsova, 22, a programmer from Astana, points to service pricing: “Even if I request only a trim without washing or styling, the price is still higher than for a man’s haircut, though the workload may be similar.”
These accounts illustrate perception rather than statistical confirmation. Without comprehensive market research, it is difficult to determine whether such cases represent systematic pricing strategies or isolated examples.
Taxation is formally gender-neutral, and VAT applies without distinction. However, given the persistence of the gender wage gap, even modest recurring price differences can carry disproportionate weight. In this sense, the “pink tax” debate in Kazakhstan is less about formal taxation policy and more about pricing practices and their economic impact.
