Republic of Uzbekistan: 2021 Article IV Consultation—Press Release; and Staff Report
Author:
International Monetary Fund. Middle East and Central Asia Dept.
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund. Middle East and Central Asia Dept. in
Current site
Google Scholar Close
Publication Date:
26 Apr 2021
eISBN:
9781513572918
Language:
English
Keywords:
PPG debt; government debt guarantee; dynamics equation; debt indicator; debt ratio; Government debt management; Debt sustainability; Global
Download PDF (545.8 KB)

Uzbekistan embarked on an ambitious reform path in 2017, starting to liberalize its economy after years of state control. Incomes are still relatively low compared to other emerging economies. Uzbekistan entered the COVID-19 crisis with relatively strong macro-economic fundamentals.

Abstract

Uzbekistan embarked on an ambitious reform path in 2017, starting to liberalize its economy after years of state control. Incomes are still relatively low compared to other emerging economies. Uzbekistan entered the COVID-19 crisis with relatively strong macro-economic fundamentals.

REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

STAFF REPORT FOR THE 2021 ARTICLE IV CONSULTATION—DEBT SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS

April 6, 2021

Approved By

Thanos Arvanitis and Uma Ramakrishnan (IMF) and Marcello Estevão (IDA)

Prepared by the International Monetary Fund and the International Development Association

Uzbekistan: Debt Sustainability Analysis

article image

Under the baseline scenario, the path of public and publicly guaranteed (PPG) external debt is expected to remain around 40 percent of GDP over the medium term. 1 This is about 7 percentage points of GDP higher than under the previous DSA of May 2020. Due to the COVID-19 shock, the government’s overall fiscal deficit and disbursements of guaranteed debt are expected to be higher and GDP lower over the next five years. Uzbekistan’s total and PPG external debt are projected to peak at 64 and 43 percent of GDP, respectively, in 2022 before declining modestly out to 2026 and then stabilizing.

Staff assesses that Uzbekistan remains at a low risk of external debt distress.2 Under the baseline scenario, PPG external debt indicators remain well below relevant thresholds. Under the most extreme scenario (worse-than-expected exports), the debt service-to-exports ratio would breach its threshold. This is discounted as it occurs in only one year (2024) due to repayment of a Eurobond, then the ratio returns and remains below the threshold thereafter. Shock scenarios with higher primary deficits or higher contingent liabilities arising from state enterprise debt would raise risk indicators modestly. The probability of these risks being realized is about the same as in the May 2020 DSA.

Under the authorities’ plans, which include an annual limit on PPG debt commitments and a limit on the overall PPG debt stock, the PPG debt-to-GDP ratio will remain around 40 percent of GDP over the medium term. Strong foreign exchange reserves and low rollover risk (due to the long-term maturity of debt), mitigate the potential risk of debt distress. To limit risks to its strong external position, the government should continue to carefully manage public and external borrowing, improve public investment management and coordination, and be cautious on granting government debt guarantees.

Background

A. Public Debt Coverage

1. Public debt coverage is broad (see text table 1). Coverage includes debt of the central government, state and local governments, the pension fund, extra-budgetary funds, and debt of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) guaranteed by the government. Public debt does not include non-guaranteed debt of SOEs and joint ventures (about 6 percent of GDP in 2020 down from 7 percent in 2019). The authorities are improving coverage and have made steady progress over the last few years with technical support from the IMF and World Bank. The government established a Debt Management Office (DMO) in the Ministry of Finance and has been implementing Debt Management Financial Analysis System (DMFAS) software from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Private external debt is primarily comprised of borrowing by state owned banks and by joint ventures of SOEs.

Text Table 1.

Debt Coverage

article image

2. Contingency stress tests are based on standard parameters (see Text Table 2). For the financial market shock, staff used the default value of 5 percent of GDP. But for a shock to SOE debt, staff raised the value from 2 to 7 percent of GDP. This reflects the large share of SOEs in economic activity and the potential for contingent liabilities to be realized in the future due to the rapid rise in credit growth over the last few years. Currently, liabilities arising from Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects are not large, although the government has put in place a legal framework and plans to scale up PPPs significantly over the medium-term.

Text Table 2.

Magnitude of Contingent Liability Shock

article image

B. Background on Debt and Short-Term Developments

3. Uzbekistan’s public and external debt levels have risen rapidly in recent years from low levels in the past. Total PPG debt rose from US$ 9.9 billion (20.3 percent of GDP) at end-2018 to US$ 21.0 billion (37.8 percent of GDP) at end-2020. Similarly, total external debt (the sum of public and private external debt) rose from US$ 17.0 billion (34.3 percent of GDP) at end-2018 to US$ 32.9 billion (58.4 percent of GDP) at end-2020. These increases were primarily due to higher PPG external debt, which makes up almost two-thirds of external debt and 98 percent of total PPG debt.

  • In 2019, public external borrowing was driven by project financing. PPG external debt disbursements were US$ 6.3 billion (11.0 percent of GDP). US$ 4.4 billion (ab o ut 8 percent of GDP and 70 percent of total disbursements) financed projects and US$ 1.8 billion (about 3 percent of GDP and 30 percent of total disbursements) was used as budget support. This included proceeds from Uzbekistan’s first issuance of Eurobonds, worth US$ 1 billion. Recognizing that this level of disbursement would be difficult to sustain, the government instituted an annual limit on PPG external debt commitments of US$ 4 billion.

  • In 2020, to address the COVID crisis, the government increased expenditures for healthcare, social assistance, investment, and other support to the economy. The annual limit on PPG external debt commitments was eased, and disbursements were US$ 5.3 billion. The overall fiscal deficit increased modestly, from 4 percent of GDP in 2019 to 4½ percent of GDP in 2020. The share of external borrowing used as budget support rose to about 50 percent. In late 2020, the government successfully placed about US$ 750 million in sovereign bonds. This included a US$555 million, 10-year Eurobond and an UZS 2 trillion (US$ 192 million), 3-year somdenominated bond. The US dollar Eurobond was issued at a 3.7 percent interest rate. In early February 2021, it was trading with a yield of 3.6 percent, about 240 basis points above US Treasuries. The somdenominated bond was issued at 14.5 percent interest rate and was trading at about 14 percent in early February 2021.

4. Most of Uzbekistan’s public debt has been provided by multilateral and official bilateral creditors and has been used to fund infrastructure projects and government deficits (see Text Figure 1).

  • Multilateral and bilateral creditors have each provided about 40 percent of Uzbekistan’s PPG debt financing. Among multilateral institutions, the Asian Development Bank and World Bank are the largest creditors. Among bilateral donors, China and Japan are the largest. Two thirds of PPG debt is comprised of public debt, while one third is publicly guaranteed debt.

  • In terms of use, about a quarter of external financing has been used as general budget support. The remainder has financed infrastructure projects. With substantial reserves of natural gas and oil, the energy sector has received about a quarter. But significant financing has also gone to projects in the agriculture, housing, and transportation sectors.

  • Domestic public debt is comprised of government bills and bonds. As of end-2020, domestic debt securities amounted to US$ 340 million (0.6 percent of GDP). Seventy percent was comprised of short-term bills with maturities of one year or less. At end-2020, outstanding government bonds had original maturities ranging from 1½ to 3 years, with average maturity of 2.2 years.

Text Figure 1.
Text Figure 1.

Composition of Public and Publicly Guaranteed Debt, end-2020

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2021, 085; 10.5089/9781513572918.002.A004

Source: Debt Management Office of the Ministry of Finance and IMF staff calculations.

5. Private external debt has also risen significantly over the last few years. With trade and foreign exchange liberalization in 2017, many firms increased purchases of capital goods, which jumped by US$ 3 billion in 2018 and US$ 2 billion in 2019, some of which was financed by state banks that borrowed abroad. In 2020, private external debt rose by US$3.7 billion (6½ percent of GDP) and stood at US$ 12.2 billion (21 percent of GDP) at end-2020. State banks significantly expanded external borrowing in 2020 to finance do mes tic credit expansion as the government reduced policy lending.

Underlying Assumptions and Country Classification

A. Assumptions for the Macroeconomic Forecast

6. Compared to the May 2020 DSA, macroeconomic conditions have moderately worsened due to a more prolonged COVID crisis. The weaker outlook is expected to persist in 2021. In particular:

  • Growth and Inflation: Real GDP growth in 2020 was 1.6 percent, about the same as forecast in May 2020. Projections for 2021 and 2022 are now about 1½ and half percent lower, respectively, than forecast in May 2020 as the COVID pandemic is expected to affect growth further into 2021 and 2022. For 2021–2026, the average growth projection remains about 5.5 percent, then declines to 5 percent for 2027–2041. Consumer price inflation is projected to remain around 10 percent with an increase in public wages in 2021 and increases in administrative energy prices in 2022. Thereafter, central bank policies are projected to bring consumer price inflation close to their medium-term target of 5 percent

  • Fiscal outlook: The government’s overall fiscal deficit was 4.4 percent of GDP in 2020 somewhat smaller than forecast in May 2020. Overall revenues were stronger than expected, due in part to higher gold prices which boosted mining profits. Overall expenditures were about as forecast and included additional spending on healthcare, social protection, investment, and support to businesses during the COVID crisis. Staff projects that the overall fiscal deficit will be higher in 2021 as some spending is carried over from 2020 and over the medium-term as consolidation is pushed back. In particular, the overall fiscal deficit is projected to rise to 5½ percent of GDP in 2021, before returning to the government’s target of 2 percent of GDP over the medium-term, as revenues increase modestly and policy lending decreases.

  • External outlook: The current account in 2020 improved to a deficit of 5.4 percent of GDP, compared to 5.8 percent of GDP in 2019 and staff’s May 2020 forecast of a deficit of 9.6 percent of GDP. While exports and remittances fell compared to 2019, this was more than offset by the decline in imports. A decline in natural gas exports was partially offset by a higher price of gold, Uzbekistan’s largest export. The current account deficit is projected to widen in 2021 as imports rebound. Over the medium term, the current account deficit is projected to improve to 5 percent of GDP in 2026 due to a recovery in goods and services exports.

  • Financing Strategy: In the near-term, international creditors are expected to continue to provide the majority of financing. Financing from external bond issuance and the Fund for Reconstruction and Development will remain at about the same level as in 2020. External budget support (primarily from International Financial Institutions) is expected to decline. Going forward, the government plans increase the annual limit on debt commitments to about US$ 5 billion in 2021 and US$ 5.5 billion over the medium term but will include gross domestic debt issuance in the limit. Disbursements are assumed to be comprised of 30 percent multilateral, 25 percent bilateral, 20 percent sovereign, and 25 percent domestic debt. Domestic debt issuance is assumed to be about one-half government bills and one-half bonds, rising to 2¼ percent of GDP by 2026. Over the long-term, as the local bond market develops, the share of financing from domestic securities is assumed to gradually increase to 5½ percent of GDP by 2041.

Text Table 3.

Comparison of Key Macroeconomic Assumptions

article image
Source: Authorities’ data and IMF and World Bank staff estimates

B. Realism Tools

7. Realism tools suggest Uzbekistan is an outlier relative to peers, reflecting the rapid

increase in debt, impact of the COVID crisis, and the authorities’ reforms.

  • Forecast errors. The growth of Uzbekistan’s public and external debt is above the 75th percentile for low income countries (see Figure 3). For PPG external debt, the largest contribution has come from prices and the exchange rate. This is not surprising as the opening of the trade and foreign exchange regimes in 2017 was accompanied by a 50 percent depreciation of the official exchange rate. For overall PPG debt, the largest contributions have come from primary deficits and other debt creating flows (i.e. public external borrowing for projects). In both cases, the increase in debt creating flows is expected to drop from close to 30 percent of GDP over the last 5 years to about 5 percent over the next five years. This reflects a stabilization of the exchange rate and a return to growth following the pandemic.

  • Fiscal adjustment. The realism tools suggest that the projected fiscal adjustment over the next three years is feasible as Uzbekistan’s adjustment is not far from the mean for adjustments in other countries (see Figure 4). While history suggests fiscal consolidation could lower growth, previous experience may provide less guidance given the special features of the COVID shock. In particular, as the crisis subsides global and domestic growth are expected to rebound. With greater external demand, the negative impact of fiscal consolidation on growth is likely to be less than in more normal times.

  • Investment and growth. For 2020, government investment was modestly higher and private investment modestly lower than projected in May 2020. This reflects additional government stimulus spending and the poorer outlook for private investment as the pandemic continued longer than previously expected. Over the medium-term, staffs current projections for government and private investment are similar to those in May. Government investment is expected to level off as a share of GDP, while economic reforms provide incentives for private firms to raise investment.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Uzbekistan: Indicators of Public and Publicly Guaranteed External Debt under Alternatives Scenarios, 2021–2031

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2021, 085; 10.5089/9781513572918.002.A004

Sources: Country authorities; and staff estimates and projections.1/ The most extreme stress test is the test that yields the highest ratio in or before 2031. Stress tests with one-off breaches are also presented (if any), while these one-off breaches are deemed away for mechanical signals. When a stress test with a one-off breach happens to be the most exterme shock even after disregarding the one off breach, only that stress test (with a one-off breach) would be presented.2/ The magnitude of shocks used for the commodity price shock stress test are based on the commodity prices outlook prepared by the IMF research department.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Uzbekistan: Indicators of Public Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2021–2031

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2021, 085; 10.5089/9781513572918.002.A004

Sources: Country authorities; and staff estimates and projections.1/ The most extreme stress test is the test that yields the highest ratio in or before 2031. The stress test with a one-off breach is also presented (if any), while the one-off breach is deemed away for mechanical signals. When a stress test with a one-off breach happens to be the most exterme shock even after disregarding the one-off breach, only that stress test (with a one-off breach) would be presented.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Uzbekistan: Drivers of Debt Dynamics—Baseline Scenario

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2021, 085; 10.5089/9781513572918.002.A004

1/ Difference between anticipated and actual contributions on debt ratios.2/ Distribution across LICs for which LIC DSAs were produced.3/ Given the relatively low private external debt for average low-income countries, a ppt change in PPG external debt should be largely explained by the drivers of the external debt dynamics equation.Source: IMF staff estimates.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Uzbekistan: Realism Tools

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2021, 085; 10.5089/9781513572918.002.A004

C. Country Classification and Scenario Stress Tests

8. Uzbekistan’s debt-carrying capacity is assessed as strong (see Text Table 4). Uzbekistan’s Composite Indicator (CI) score is 3.16.3 The strong CI score reflects high average international reserves (about 60 percent of the 10-year average of imports) and high average Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) ratings. It represents a modest decline from Uzbekistan’s CI score of 3.21 at the time of the May 2020 DSA. The decline was primarily caused by lower projected global growth due to the more prolonged impact of the COVID pandemic. Remittances and scores for domestic components of the CPIA rose. Uzbekistan’s CPIA score rose due to improvements in the business environment, revenue mobilization, public sector transparency, and equitable use of public resources. In May 2020, staff projected remittances would fall significantly in 2020 as the pandemic prevented Uzbekistan workers from travelling abroad to work. However, remittances were higher than expected and staff has revised the projections upwards.

Text Table 4.

Composite Indicator of Debt Carrying Capacity

article image
Text Figure 2.
Text Figure 2.

Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, 2009–2019

(Score out of 6)

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2021, 085; 10.5089/9781513572918.002.A004

Source: World Bank.

External DSA

9. Staff assesses Uzbekistan’s risk of external debt distress as low. From 2020 to 2022, PPG external debt is projected to rise from 37 to 43 percent of GDP, before gradually declining over the medium-term (see Table 1). Total external debt is driven by PPG external debt (about two-thirds of the total) and is projected to peak at about 64 percent of GDP in 2022. Under the baseline scenario, sustainability indicators stay well below risk thresholds.

Table 1.

Uzbekistan: External Debt Sustainability Framework, Baseline Scenario, 2020–2041

(In percent of GDP, unless otherwise indicated)

article image
Sources: Country authorities; and staff estimates and projections. 1/ Includes both public and private sector external debt. 2/ Derived as [r – g – ρ(1 +g) + Ɛα(1 +r)]/(1 + g + ρ+gρ) times previous period debt ratio, with r = nominal interest rate; g = real GDP growth rate, ρ = growth rate of GDP deflator in U.S. dollar terms, Ɛ=nominal appreciation of the local currency, and α = share of local currency-denominated external debt in total external debt. 3/ Includes exceptional financing (i.e., changes in arrears and debt relief); changes in gross foreign assets; and valuation adjustments. For projections also includes contribution from price and exchange rate changes. 4/ Current-year interest payments divided by previous period debt stock. 5/ Defined as grants, concessional loans, and debt relief. 6/ Grant-equivalent financing includes grants provided directly to the government and through new borrowing (difference between the face value and the PV of new debt). 7/ Assumes that PV of private sector debt is equivalent to its face value. 8/ Historical averages are generally derived over the past 10 years, subject to data availability, whereas projections averages are over the first year of projection and the next 10 years. 9/ Residual in 2019 is a result of large errors and ommisions, reserve accumulation, and other outflows (mostly households’ FX accumulation), while the residual in 2020 is attributed to the use of reserves finance external financing needs.

10. PPG external debt is most vulnerable to a shock to exports (see Figure 1 and Table 3). Under a one standard deviation shock to exports, the debt service-to -exports ratio would breach its threshold in 2024 as a US$ 500 million Eurobond issued in 2019 comes due. As a temporary breach, it is discounted from the risk ratings. The most significant other stress scenarios are: (i) a combination of shocks and (ii) a decline in remittances and FDI. But compared to an export shock, these scenarios would have much less of an impact and debt indicators would remain below risk thresholds. Under the market financing scenario, debt indicators would rise slightly above the baseline (see Tables 3 and 4) and indicators suggest gross financing need and spreads would remain well below thresholds (see Figure 5).

Table 2.

Uzbekistan: Public Sector Debt Sustainability Framework, Baseline Scenario, 2020–2041

(In percent of GDP, unless otherwise indicated)

article image
Sources: Country authorities; and staff estimates and projections. 1/ Coverage of debt: The general government, and government-guaranteed debt. Definition of external debt is Residency-based. 2/ The underlying PV of external debt-to-GDP ratio under the public DSA differs from the external DSA with the size of differences depending on exchange rates projections. 3/ Debt service is defined as the sum of interest and amortization of medium and long-term, and short-term debt. 4/ Gross financing need is defined as the primary deficit plus debt service plus the stock of short-term debt at the end of the last period and other debt creating/reducing flows. 5/ Defined as a primary deficit minus a change in the public debt-to-GDP ratio ((-): a primary surplus), which would stabilizes the debt ratio only in the year in question. 6/ Historical averages are generally derived over the past 10 years, subject to data availability, whereas projections averages are over the first year of projection and the next 10 years.
Table 3.

Uzbekistan: Sensitivity Analysis for Key Indicators of Public and Publicly Guaranteed External Debt, 2021–2031

(In percent)

article image
Sources: Country authorities; and staff estimates and projections.

A bold value indicates a breach of the threshold.

Variables include real GDP growth, GDP deflator (in U.S. dollar terms), non-interest current account in percent of GDP, and non-debt creating flows.

Includes official and private transfers and FDI.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Uzbekistan: Market-Financing Risk Indicators

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2021, 085; 10.5089/9781513572918.002.A004

Sources: Country authorities; and staff estimates and projections.

Overall Risk of Public Debt Distress

11. Staff assesses Uzbekistan’s overall risk of public debt distress as low. Overall PPG debt is projected to rise from 38 percent of GDP in 2020 to 44 percent of GDP in 2022, before gradually declining out to 2026 and then stabilizing around 40 percent of GDP (see Table 2). This is line with the government’s plan to implement fiscal rules, including a debt to GDP limit of 60 percent of GDP. While the overall PPG debt ratio is projected to remain stable, the composition would shift, with domestic securities gradually rising to about 5½ percent of GDP in 2041. PPG external debt would correspondingly decline modestly as a share of GDP. Multilateral and official bilateral creditors are expected to provide the majority of financing over the medium term, although the share of budget support should decline.

12. Stress tests suggest Uzbekistan’s PPG debt ratios are robust to a wide range of shocks (see Figure 2 and Table 4). Even under the most extreme scenario (a decline in exports), the PV of debt-to-GDP ratio remains more than 20 percent of GDP below the public debt benchmark. Greater use of domestic debt would reduce the risk of reliance on foreign currency external debt. The authorities will need to carefully manage the maturity structure and currency composition of public debt to mitigate the burden of debt service. The stress test results in this DSA are similar to those of the May 2020 DSA.

Table 4.

Uzbekistan: Sensitivity Analysis for Key Indicators of Public Debt, 2021–2031

(In percent)

article image
Sources: Country authorities; and staff estimates and projections.

A bold value indicates a breach of the benchmark.

Variables include real GDP growth, GDP deflator and primary deficit in percent of GDP.

Includes official and private transfers and FDI.

Risk Rating and Vulnerabilities

13. Uzbekistan is at low risk of debt distress, but a rapid increase in debt in recent years underlines the need to carefully manage both external and public debt and act if indicators worsen significantly. Uzbekistan needs significant investment to achieve its development goals. These include raising growth, creating high quality jobs, upgrading infrastructure, and improving social support systems. At the same time, a continuation of the rapid increase in debt that has occurred over the last several years could quickly exhaust Uzbekistan’s fiscal space and raise vulnerabilities. The authorities have already taken steps to limit a further rapid increase in debt. They have implemented annual limits on new commitments of PPG debt and are drafting a public debt law which will limit overall PPG debt to 60 percent of GDP. Staff’s analysis indicates that with the annual limits on PPG debt, debt ratios will peak in 2022 and subsequently decline. Strong FX reserves and low rollover risk, due to the long-term maturity of debt, mitigate the risk of debt distress. To limit risks to its strong external position, the government should continue to carefully manage public and external borrowing, improve public investment management and coordination, and be cautious about granting government debt guarantees. The government is also encouraged to include non-guaranteed debt of state enterprises in the coverage of public debt, as the state enterprise sector comprises a significant share of the economy.

Authorities’ Views

14. The authorities generally agreed with the outlook and emphasized their commitment to maintain sustainable public and external debt. They noted substantial progress in improving debt statistics, including via the DMFAS system. The Ministry of Finance’s Debt Management Office has provided better tracking, analysis, and management of domestic and external debt. Nonetheless, they are cognizant of the potential risks arising from the increase in public debt, as well as from contingent liabilities. To address these issues, they noted they had recently undergone an assessment of their public investment management system with a view to improving project selection and monitoring and enhancing intra-governmental coordination on investment and debt management. They emphasized their commitment to ensure debt sustainability and pointed to concrete policy actions, including the implementation of annual limits on PPG debt commitments and the preparation of a debt law that would introduce a cap on PPG debt as a share of GDP.

1

This DSA was prepared jointly by IMF and World Bank staff and is based on the Joint Bank-Fund Low-Income Country Debt Sustainability Analysis (LIC-DSA) methodology.

2

Uzbekistan’s Composite Indicator score is 3.16 based on the October 2020 WEO and 2019 CPIA indicating a strong debt carrying capacity (see Text Table 4).

3

The CI is based on the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (WEO) of October 2020 and the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) for 2019. The DSA-LIC framework uses the CI to capture factors affecting a country’s debt carrying capacity. The CI is calculated using a weighted average of a country’s CPIA score, real GDP growth, remittances, foreign exchange reserves, and global growth averaged over 5 years of historical data and 5 years of projections.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover IMF Staff Country Reports
Republic of Uzbekistan: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Author:
International Monetary Fund. Middle East and Central Asia Dept.
Volume/Issue:
Volume 2021: Issue 085
Publisher:
International Monetary Fund
ISBN:
9781513572918
ISSN:
1934-7685
Pages:
84
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513572918.002
  • <sup><xref rid="RA004fig01" ref-type="fig">Text Figure 1.</xref></sup>
    View in gallery
    Text Figure 1.

    Composition of Public and Publicly Guaranteed Debt, end-2020

  • Figure 1.
    View in gallery
    Figure 1.

    Uzbekistan: Indicators of Public and Publicly Guaranteed External Debt under Alternatives Scenarios, 2021–2031

  • <sup><xref rid="RA004fig04" ref-type="fig">Figure 2.</xref></sup>
    View in gallery
    Figure 2.

    Uzbekistan: Indicators of Public Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2021–2031

  • <sup><xref rid="RA004fig05" ref-type="fig">Figure 3.</xref></sup>
    View in gallery
    Figure 3.

    Uzbekistan: Drivers of Debt Dynamics—Baseline Scenario

  • <sup><xref rid="RA004fig06" ref-type="fig">Figure 4.</xref></sup>
    View in gallery
    Figure 4.

    Uzbekistan: Realism Tools

  • Text Figure 2.
    View in gallery
    Text Figure 2.

    Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, 2009–2019

    (Score out of 6)

  • <sup><xref rid="RA004fig07" ref-type="fig">Figure 5.</xref></sup>
    View in gallery
    Figure 5.

    Uzbekistan: Market-Financing Risk Indicators

Text Figure 1.

Composition of Public and Publicly Guaranteed Debt, end-2020
Figure 1.

Uzbekistan: Indicators of Public and Publicly Guaranteed External Debt under Alternatives Scenarios, 2021–2031
Figure 2.

Uzbekistan: Indicators of Public Debt Under Alternative Scenarios, 2021–2031
Figure 3.

Uzbekistan: Drivers of Debt Dynamics—Baseline Scenario
Figure 4.

Uzbekistan: Realism Tools
Text Figure 2.

Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, 2009–2019

(Score out of 6)
Figure 5.

Uzbekistan: Market-Financing Risk Indicators