High regional rankings do not guarantee higher wages, according to analysis

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.

An OBC candidate residing in Tripura became eligible to take the examination for recruitment of constables for CAPF, NIA, Secretariat Security Force, and rifleman in Assam Rifles after utilizing the age concession available to candidates from reserved categories. However, despite scoring higher than the selected general category candidate, he was not chosen.

The center reported that the minimum score for OBC candidates was 60, which is higher than for general category candidates. This is attributed to the limited number of vacancies in the OBC category. Furthermore, it was noted that once the OBC candidate utilized the age concession to gain eligibility, he could not switch from the reserved category to the general one.

As a result, the OBC candidate, Jayant Debnath, was not selected despite scoring 55.1 in the 2018 exam. Meanwhile, the general category candidate, Sagar Debnath, was selected with a score of 46.26.

The High Courts of Tripura, comprising a single judge and a deliberative bench, simultaneously ruled that Jayant should be considered for selection as a constable.

Appealing against the High Court's decisions, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bati approached the Supreme Court bench chaired by Chief Justice Surya Kant and judges Joymalya Bagchi and Vi Mohana on Monday. She stated that the recruitment rules clearly stipulate that once a candidate utilizes the age concession based on belonging to a reserved category, they are prohibited from transitioning from the reserved category to the general one.

The bench agreed to examine the validity of the High Court's decision, which asserted that there is no legal principle prohibiting candidates from reserved categories from applying for unreserved vacancies solely because they utilized concessions applicable to reserved categories.

The center emphasized: 'This case concerns a candidate who acknowledged utilizing the age concession exclusively available to OBC candidates, thereby becoming eligible to participate in the recruitment process only within the reserved category.'

It stressed that in such cases, switching from the reserved to the general category is strictly forbidden by the recruitment rules.

The center also warned that 'the challenged decision would have far-reaching consequences for recruitments conducted by SSC and other recruiting agencies across the country. It would allow candidates who utilized reservation-specific concessions to claim transfer to unreserved vacancies contrary to recruitment rules, thereby undermining completed selections, distorting merit determination by category, harming the rights of unreserved candidates, and causing widespread administrative uncertainty in public employment.'

An initiative is being considered in Uzbekistan to change the rules of the national rating of higher education institutions, which involves linking financial revenues to state universities with the results of this rating. According to the draft order, universities will be divided into three tiers depending on the number of points scored. This new system could potentially take effect from January 1, 2027.

The proposed distribution structure includes assigning 20% of universities with the best performance to the first category, the next 40% to the second, and the remaining 40% to the third. The amount of funds allocated to a university will directly depend on its category. For institutions that have financial independence, the payment calculation will be based on the amount the state allocates per student under the state order or grant.

For other state universities, the size of the funding will be determined based on the volume of budget funds intended to cover their expenses. After the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Innovation publishes the rating results, it is obliged to transfer the corresponding funds to the treasury accounts of the universities within fifteen working days, while the universities retain the right to independently dispose of the received money.

Changes to evaluation criteria

The draft also provides for modifying the criteria for evaluating universities. Instead of using three separate metrics—graduate employment rate, job search duration, and average income—the introduction of a unified graduate quality index is planned. This index will be assessed in a range of 20 to 40 points, depending on the university's category.

Furthermore, it is proposed to adjust the deadlines for providing data for participation in the rating: the data submission date is moved from February 1st to June 1st. Universities will have to upload information for the past reporting period to a specialized platform, after which the agency will verify the data and calculate the final scores.

For educational institutions in Uzbekistan that are included in the top thousand international rankings, such as THE, QS, and ARWU, the creation of a separate national rating is provided for. In this case, results from narrow subject areas will not be taken into account. Universities that have been operating for at least three years and have already graduated undergraduates can participate in the national rating. Starting in 2027, the calculation of faculty staff numbers will be based on the sum of full-time equivalents.

These changes are currently in the stage of a draft order from the National Agency for Quality Assurance in Education and will only come into force after official approval and publication of this document. It was previously reported that the development of a Graduate Quality Index for universities in Uzbekistan was underway, which should consider parameters such as employment level, employment stability, income level, and assigned job category.