According to data from the Center for Progressive Reforms, the difference between the best and worst scores in the regional infrastructure rating of Uzbekistan has reached 54.74 points. This figure is the widest among the seven rating categories.
In the 2026 rating, Tashkent ranked first, scoring 95.49 points. Kashkadarya region was last with 40.75 points. The infrastructure component accounts for 13.7% of the total regional score and includes eight indicators: four relate to housing, and the other four relate to transport and communications.
The assessment takes into account not only the condition of the road network but also conditions affecting daily life and economic activity. The weighted average score across all 14 regions was 56.15 points, while the median was 53.59. Only three regions scored over 60 points, whereas five scored less than 50 points. Excluding Tashkent, the average score of the remaining 13 regions was 53.13 points.
After the capital, Tashkent region came in second place with 73.54 points. Fergana region took third place with 60.04 points, followed by Navoi region (59.13), Bukhara region (57.59), Samarkand region (54.99), Namangan region (54.30), Syrdarya region (52.88), and Khorezm region (52.31).
The lowest scores (below 50 points) were recorded in Andijan region (48.55), Karakalpakstan Republic (47.46), Jizzakh region (45.76), Surkhandarya region (43.34), and Kashkadarya region (40.75). The difference between Fergana and Navoi regions, which ranked third and fourth respectively, was only 0.91 points.
The analysis showed that infrastructure demonstrates the greatest variability among the seven rating categories. For comparison, the gap between the highest and lowest scores was 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 the 2024–2026 period shows that Tashkent maintained its leading position, scoring 93.53 points in 2024, 93.21 in 2025, and 95.49 in 2026. Fergana region showed results of 60.57, 62.07, and 60.04 points, respectively. Jizzakh region improved its indicator from 39.93 to 45.76 points over the same period, an increase of 5.83 points, but it remains among the regions with the lowest infrastructure indicators. The strong performance of Fergana region in the infrastructure category is not reflected in such a high position in the overall rating, as the analysis places it in 14th place.
The authors also drew attention to the differences between economic and infrastructure assessments. In Navoi region, the economic score is 86.73 points compared to 59.13 points for infrastructure. Corresponding figures in Khorezm region are 79.69 and 52.31; in Karakalpakstan—78.71 and 47.46; and in Kashkadarya region—74.69 and 40.75. The largest gap between these two categories was recorded in Kashkadarya region—33.94 points. In Karakalpakstan, this gap was 31.25 points, and in Surkhandarya region—30.94 points.
The analysis authors believe that such discrepancies require more detailed study of infrastructure availability and quality, including electricity supply reliability, transport accessibility, logistics, and housing services. Nevertheless, they emphasize that differences in rating scores do not constitute a monetary assessment of infrastructure deficit or lost economic volume.
Regional disparities are also visible in internet subscription rates. According to data from the National Statistical Committee for 2025, Kashkadarya region had 67.7 internet subscriptions per 100 residents, Surkhandarya region had 67.9, Navoi region had 107.3, and Syrdarya region had 96.9. The national average was 94.7 subscriptions per 100 residents. The number of subscriptions does not directly correspond to the proportion of the population using the internet, as one person may have multiple subscriptions.
Statistics for Tashkent also take into account the activities of certain operators working in Tashkent region. The authors note that without access to the main methodology, it is impossible to determine what weight these data have in the rating.
The analysis also refers to recommendations from the World Bank in its Economic Memorandum on Uzbekistan for 2025. The report recommends modernizing energy and transport infrastructure, improving road connections along the Tashkent-Samarkand-Navoi route, and strengthening railway links between Karakalpakstan, Khorezm, and the central regions of the country. These recommendations are not presented as a direct explanation of the rating results but may be taken into account when determining investment priorities.
For a deeper assessment, the authors propose developing infrastructure profiles for districts and cities based on the eight rating indicators. This will help identify specific indicators lowering the scores of Kashkadarya, Surkhandarya, and Jizzakh regions, and allow for a more detailed study of the gap between economic and infrastructure indicators in Navoi region, Khorezm, and Karakalpakstan. Additional indicators proposed for regular monitoring include power outage duration, water supply continuity, and time required to reach public transport. These measures are not included in the current set of eight infrastructure rating indicators, but the authors believe they could help assess changes in daily living conditions and the operational environment for business.
