Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Uzbekistan has expanded sovereign borrowing while maintaining rapid economic growth and gradually changing the composition of public debt. This paper evaluates whether the historical relationship between public debt and growth is stable over time and whether portfolio structure changes the interpretation of aggregate debt indicators. The empirical analysis uses annual data for 2000–2023 and combines descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, a parsimonious ordinary least squares model, Newey–West robust inference, unit-root diagnostics and subperiod comparison. Official debt data for 2023 and 2025 are used to assess currency, interest-rate and maturity exposures. Public debt is negatively associated with real GDP growth over the full historical sample, but the relationship differs sharply across subperiods; formal stability tests do not establish 2017 as a definitive structural break. The portfolio analysis shows continued reliance on external and foreign-currency borrowing, alongside long maturities and a growing local-currency component in domestic debt. The results indicate that debt sustainability in Uzbekistan is better assessed through a combination of debt level, financing structure, debt-service capacity and contingent fiscal risks than through the debt-to-GDP ratio alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sayfutdinov Xasanboy Dilshodovich (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: