Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.uz) — Tashkent ranked first in Uzbekistan’s regional infrastructure ranking for 2026, scoring 95.49 points.
Kashkadarya Region took last place with 40.75 points. The gap between the highest and lowest scores reached 54.74 points, the widest disparity among the ranking’s seven categories, according to the Centre for Progressive Reforms.
The infrastructure component accounts for 13.7% of the overall regional score and comprises eight indicators. Four relate to housing, while the remaining four cover transport and communications. The assessment therefore considers not only road infrastructure but also conditions affecting everyday life and economic activity.
The unweighted average score across the 14 regions was 56.15 points, while the median was 53.59. Only three regions scored above 60 points, while five received fewer than 50. Excluding Tashkent, the average score for the other 13 regions was 53.13 points.
Tashkent Region followed the capital with 73.54 points. Ferghana Region ranked third with 60.04 points, followed by Navoi Region with 59.13, Bukhara Region with 57.59, Samarkand Region with 54.99, Namangan Region with 54.30, Syrdarya Region with 52.88 and Khorezm Region with 52.31.
Scores below 50 were recorded in Andijan Region (48.55), the Republic of Karakalpakstan (47.46), Jizzakh Region (45.76), Surkhandarya Region (43.34) and Kashkadarya Region (40.75). The difference between Ferghana and Navoi regions, which ranked third and fourth respectively, was just 0.91 points.
According to the analysis, infrastructure shows the widest variation among the ranking’s seven categories.
For comparison, the gaps between the highest and lowest scores were 45.69 points in the “Crime and Criminal Justice” category, 37.21 in the natural environment assessment, 27.35 in education, 26.50 in the economy, 25.97 in the “Opportunities” category and 14.05 in healthcare.
A comparison of results for 2024-2026 shows that Tashkent retained its leading position throughout the period, scoring 93.53 points in 2024, 93.21 in 2025 and 95.49 in 2026. Ferghana Region recorded 60.57, 62.07 and 60.04 points, respectively.
Jizzakh Region improved its score from 39.93 to 45.76 points over the same period, a gain of 5.83 points. However, it remains among the regions with the lowest infrastructure scores. Ferghana Region’s strong performance in the infrastructure category does not translate into a similarly high position in the overall ranking: the analysis places it 14th.
The authors also highlight differences between the economic and infrastructure assessments. In Navoi Region, the economic score stands at 86.73 points, compared with 59.13 for infrastructure. The corresponding figures are 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 widest gap between the two categories was recorded in Kashkadarya Region at 33.94 points. It stood at 31.25 points in Karakalpakstan and 30.94 in Surkhandarya Region.
The analysis authors say these differences require further examination of infrastructure availability and quality, including the reliability of electricity supply, transport accessibility, logistics and housing services.
However, differences between ranking scores do not represent a monetary estimate of infrastructure shortages or lost economic output.
Regional disparities are also evident in internet subscription figures. According to 2025 data from the National Statistics Committee, there were 67.7 internet subscriptions per 100 residents in Kashkadarya Region, 67.9 in Surkhandarya Region, 107.3 in Navoi Region and 96.9 in Syrdarya Region. The national average was 94.7 subscriptions per 100 residents.
The number of subscriptions does not correspond directly to the share of the population using the internet, as one person may have multiple subscriptions.
The statistics for Tashkent also include the activities of certain operators that operate in Tashkent Region. The authors note that, without access to the primary methodology, it is not possible to determine how much weight these data carry in the ranking.
The analysis also cites recommendations made by the World Bank in its 2025 Country Economic Memorandum for Uzbekistan.
The report recommends modernising energy and transport infrastructure, improving road connections along the Tashkent-Samarkand-Navoi route, and strengthening railway links between Karakalpakstan and Khorezm and the country’s central regions.
These recommendations are not presented as a direct explanation for the ranking results but may be taken into account when setting investment priorities.
For a more detailed assessment, the authors propose preparing infrastructure profiles for districts and cities based on the ranking’s eight indicators.
This would help identify which specific indicators are lowering the scores of Kashkadarya, Surkhandarya and Jizzakh regions, as well as examine in greater detail the gap between economic and infrastructure performance in Navoi Region, Khorezm and Karakalpakstan.
Additional indicators proposed for regular monitoring include the duration of power outages, continuity of water supply and the time required to reach public transport.
These measures are not part of the ranking’s current set of eight infrastructure indicators. However, the authors say they could help assess changes in everyday living conditions and the operating environment for businesses.
