Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.uz) — High positions in Uzbekistan’s regional economic rankings do not necessarily correspond to higher salaries, according to data from the Centre for Progressive Reforms and the National Statistics Committee.
Bukhara Region ranked third with 80.63 points, while its average monthly nominal salary stood at 5.62 million soums. In Tashkent, which topped the ranking, the figure reached 12.013 million soums.
The economic component accounts for 15.8% of each region’s overall score and comprises nine indicators. Two measure the business environment, five assess the labour market, and two reflect overall economic growth. The ranking therefore provides a multi-dimensional assessment rather than a direct measure of a region’s economic output or GDP growth rate.
In 2026, Tashkent ranked first with 98.78 points, followed by Navoi Region with 86.73 points, Bukhara Region with 80.63, Tashkent Region with 80.01 and Khorezm Region with 79.69.
Andijan Region ranked last with 72.28 points. The gap between the capital and the lowest-ranked region was 26.50 points. This reflects differences in scores on a common scale, not differences in the size of regional economies.
Salary data for January-June 2026 present a different picture. According to the National Statistics Committee, average monthly nominal salaries reached 12.013 million soums in Tashkent, 8.722 million soums in Navoi Region and 6.675 million soums in Tashkent Region. The national average was 7.091 million soums.
The average salary in the capital was therefore about 69% above the national average, while the figure for Navoi Region was 23% higher.
Khorezm Region’s fifth-place position in the economic ranking was not matched by a comparable salary level: its average monthly wage stood at 5.499 million soums. In Kashkadarya Region, the economic score was 74.69 points, while the average salary was 4.864 million soums, the lowest among the regions included in the analysis.
The authors note that these differences do not necessarily indicate that the ranking fails to reflect economic conditions. Its methodology takes into account not only wages but also the business environment, employment and growth indicators.
At the same time, nominal salaries alone are insufficient to provide a comprehensive picture of household welfare. Such an assessment would also require data on price levels, informal employment and income distribution.
Comparisons across several years also require caution. Tashkent’s economic score rose from 96.20 points in 2024 to 98.21 in 2025 and 98.78 in 2026. In Navoi Region, the score initially fell from 78.34 to 71.02 points before rising to 86.73.
However, the 15.71-point increase in Navoi Region over the past year should not be interpreted as an equivalent increase in real economic output.
According to an analytical report by the Centre for Progressive Reforms, the economic component placed greater emphasis on wages, economic activity, employment and unemployment indicators in 2025-2026. The set of indicators is also updated annually, meaning that changes in scores between 2024 and 2026 do not directly measure economic growth.
The analysis also highlights differences between economic and infrastructure scores. In Navoi Region, the economic score was 86.73 points, compared with 59.13 for infrastructure. The corresponding figures were 79.69 and 52.31 in Khorezm Region, 78.71 and 47.46 in Karakalpakstan, and 74.69 and 40.75 in Kashkadarya Region.
The authors consider these gaps a reason to examine further whether infrastructure constraints affect economic activity.
However, differences between the scores do not directly measure infrastructure shortages or the volume of GDP that may have been lost. The economic and infrastructure components are based on different indicators and normalisation methods. More precise conclusions would require additional data, including information on power outages in industrial zones, logistics times, water supply and production capacity utilisation.
The authors associate Tashkent’s leading position with the possible role of the services sector, the concentration of skilled workers and the presence of companies. Among the potential factors behind Navoi Region’s performance, they cite major industrial enterprises and high wages in certain types of economic activity.
Testing these explanations would require an analysis of employment, productivity and value added across industries.
The authors conclude that a single ranking result is not sufficient to assess the competitiveness of the regions.
They identify the creation of conditions in which economic activity is accompanied by growth in productive employment and real household incomes as an important priority for regional policy.
