Narrow Your Choices

Refine By Topic

Refine By Series

Refine By Language

Refine By Date

—

Refine By IMF Taxonomy

Refine By JEL Taxonomy

Refine by LOC Taxonomy

Refine By THEMA Taxonomy

  • Print
  • Save

Middle East and Central Asia > Uzbekistan, Republic of

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Type: Journal Issue x
  • Public investments x
Clear All Modify Search
Cover IMF How To Notes
How to Improve Public Investment Management in Low-Income Countries
Khaled Eltokhy
,
Nicoletta Feruglio
,
Kezhou Miao
,
Arturo Navarro
, and
Eivind Tandberg
This How to Note discusses how low-income developing countries (LIDCs) can strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of their public investment. The note draws on Public Investment Management Assessments and focuses on eight institutions that are likely to be key reform priorities in many LIDCs: project appraisal, multi-year budgeting, maintenance, project selection, procurement, availability of funding, project management, and monitoring of public assets. For each of these, the note discusses basic practices, which should be realistic initial reform objectives for low-capacity countries, as well as medium practices that may be relevant objectives for medium-term reforms. The note also discusses how to overcome reform implementation challenges and consolidate the reforms and provides examples of action plans to implement the different reforms.
Keywords:
Public investment management; public financial management (PFM); low-income developing countries; public investment management assessment (PIMA); public investment efficiency; reform agenda; management bottleneck; management priority; efficiency frontier; management reform; Public investment spending; Budget planning and preparation; Government cash forecasting
Cover IMF Working Papers
Output Decline and Recovery in Uzbekistan: Past Performance and Future Prospects
Mr. Jeromin Zettelmeyer
and
Mr. Günther Taube
What explains Uzbekistan’s unusually mild “transformational recession” and its moderate recovery during 1996-97? We examine potential biases in output measurement, the role of “special factors”—including initial production structure, natural resources, and public investment policies—and sectoral output developments. The main findings are (i) Uzbekistan’s relatively favorable output record is not an artifact of measurement alone; (ii) public investment has had no significant effects on growth; (iii) the mildness of Uzbekistan’s transitional recession can be accounted for by its favorable initial production structure and its self-sufficiency in energy; (iv) unless reforms are significantly accelerated, medium-term growth prospects are mediocre.
Keywords:
WP; Uzbek experience; output performance; reform policy; private sector; Uzbek growth path; Uzbekistan; Transition; Growth; Output; Sustainability; unmeasured Uzbekistan effect; Uzbek authorities; Uzbek growth experience; consumer goods; Agricultural commodities; Structural reforms; Agricultural sector; Public investment spending; Baltics
Cover IMF Working Papers
The Uzbek Growth Puzzle
Mr. Jeromin Zettelmeyer
After the break-up of the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan’s output fell less than in any other former Soviet Republic, and growth turned positive in 1996/97. Given the country’s hesitant and idiosyncratic approach to reforms, this record has suprised many observers. This paper first shows that a standard panel model of growth in transition systematically underpredicts Uzbek growth from 1992-1996, confirming the view that Uzbekistan’s performance consitutes a puzzle. It then attempts to resolve the puzzle by appropriately extending the model. The main result is that Uzbekistan’s output performance was driven by a combination of low initial industrialization, its cotton production, and its self-sufficiency in energy.
Keywords:
WP; Uzbek growth puzzle; Uzbek output path; Uzbek experience; Uzbek growth experience; Uzbek transition experience; Uzbekistan; Transition; Growth; Output; Public Investment; Cotton; Energy; Uzbekistan country dummy variable; Agricultural commodities; Public investment spending; Structural reforms; Natural resources; Capital spending; Eastern Europe; Central Asia; Baltics