According to data from the Center for Progressive Reforms and the National Statistical Committee, high positions in the economic rankings of Uzbekistan's regions do not always correlate with an increase in the level of wages.
Specifically, Bukhara region ranked third in the rating, scoring 80.63 points, while the average nominal monthly salary there was 5.62 million UZS. In Tashkent, which topped the ranking, this figure reached 12.013 million UZS.
The economic component accounts for 15.8% of each region's total score and includes nine indicators: two assess the business environment, five relate to the labor market, and two reflect overall economic growth. Thus, the ranking is a multidimensional assessment, not a direct measure of the region's economic volume or GDP growth rate.
In 2026, Tashkent took first place with a score of 98.78 points, followed by Navoi region (86.73 points), Bukhara region (80.63 points), Tashkent region (80.01 points), and Khorezm region (79.69 points). Andijan region came last with 72.28 points. The difference between the capital and the region with the lowest ranking was 26.50 points, reflecting differences in the overall scale scores, not the size of the regional economies.
However, wage data for the period from January to June 2026 shows a different picture. According to the National Statistical Committee, the average nominal monthly salary in Tashkent reached 12.013 million UZS, in Navoi region—8.722 million UZS, and in Tashkent region—6.675 million UZS. The national average stood at 7.091 million UZS. Consequently, the average salary in the capital was approximately 69% higher than the national average, while in Navoi region it exceeded the average by 23%.
Khorezm region's fifth place in the economic ranking was not accompanied by a comparable level of pay: the average monthly salary there was 5.499 million UZS. In Kashkadarya region, the economic score reached 74.69 points, and the average salary was 4.864 million UZS, the lowest among the analyzed regions.
The authors note that these discrepancies do not necessarily mean the ranking fails to reflect economic conditions, as the methodology considers not only wages but also indicators of the business environment, employment, and growth. Nevertheless, nominal wages are insufficient for a comprehensive picture of household welfare; such an assessment also requires data on prices, informal employment, and income distribution.
Caution must be exercised when comparing data over several years. Tashkent's economic score increased from 96.20 points in 2024 to 98.21 in 2025 and 98.78 in 2026. Navoi region's score initially dropped from 78.34 to 71.02, and then rose to 86.73. However, the increase of 15.71 points in Navoi region over the last year cannot be interpreted as an equivalent growth in real economic production.
According to the analytical report of the Center for Progressive Reforms, in 2025–2026, the economic component placed greater emphasis on indicators such as wages, economic activity, employment, and unemployment. Since the set of indicators is updated annually, changes in scores between 2024 and 2026 are not a direct measure of economic growth.
The analysis also reveals differences between economic and infrastructure indicators. In Navoi region, the economic score was 86.73 points compared to 59.13 points for infrastructure. Similar figures in Khorezm region were 79.69 and 52.31; in Karakalpakstan—78.71 and 47.46; and in Kashkadarya region—74.69 and 40.75. The authors consider these discrepancies a reason for further study into the impact of infrastructural limitations on economic activity.
Nevertheless, the difference in scores does not directly measure infrastructure deficit or lost GDP volume, as the economic and infrastructure components are based on different indicators and normalization methods. More accurate conclusions would require additional data, including information on power outages in industrial zones, logistics time, water supply, and utilization of production capacity.
The authors attribute Tashkent's leading position to the possible role of the service sector, concentration of skilled workers, and the presence of companies. Among potential success factors, the authors cite large industrial enterprises and high wages in certain types of economic activities in Navoi region. Verifying these explanations will require analyzing employment, productivity, and added value across various industries.
In conclusion, the authors argue that a single ranking result is insufficient to assess the competitiveness of regions. They define creating conditions where economic activity is accompanied by growth in productive employment and real incomes of the population as a priority task of regional policy.
