INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 679
IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL INDICATORS OF POPULATION WELL-
BEING ASSESSMENT IN UZBEKISTAN
Tashkent State University of Economics Independent researcher of the Department of
“Macroeconomic Policy and Forecasting”
Norkobilov Nusratilla Norsaitovich
nusrat.1977@.mail.ru.
orcid: 0009-0006-5045-1194
tel.998-99- 410-15-58
Annotation:
The article analyzes the issues of improving the system of national indicators for
assessing the well-being of the population in the Republic of Uzbekistan. In particular, a
comparative analysis of the suitability of existing statistical indicators to modern socio-economic
conditions, indicators used in international practice, and proposals for further improving the
system of national indicators are developed.
Keywords:
population well-being, national indicators, assessment system, quality of life, digital
statistics, international experience, sustainable development, regional analysis.
Introduction.
Ensuring and constantly increasing the well-being of the population is one of the
most priority areas in the socio-economic policy of any state. The reforms implemented in
Uzbekistan in recent years are aimed precisely at the human factor, serving to increase the well-
being of citizens by improving their quality and standard of living. However, the concept of well-
being is complex and multifaceted, and individual economic indicators are insufficient for a
comprehensive assessment. Therefore, a comprehensive system of indicators reflecting the real
standard of living of the population, including social, economic, health, education, environmental
and subjective satisfaction, is becoming necessary.
From this point of view, the existing system of national indicators in Uzbekistan needs to be
adapted to these best practices and improved based on local socio-economic conditions.
Analysis of literature on the topic
The issue of assessing the well-being of the population has been widely discussed by many
scientists and international organizations worldwide. Traditional economic growth indicators, such
as gross domestic product (GDP) and per capita income, have been used as the main assessment
criteria for many years. However, since this approach does not fully capture the complexity of
human life, scientists are proposing to switch to multi-indicator systems for assessing well-being.
In particular, the concept of the “capability approach” developed by Amartya Sen proposes to
assess the well-being of the population not only on the basis of income, but also on the basis of
opportunities, freedom of choice and access to social institutions [1].
This theoretical approach later served as the methodological basis for the Human Development
Index (HDI) and was formalized by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) [2].
The “Better Life Index” indicator system developed by the OECD also promotes a multi-factor
approach to assessing well-being. This system uses 11 key indicators, including income,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 680
employment, education, health, environment, social ties, civic participation, safety, and life
satisfaction [3].
Chinese researcher Huan Zhang pays special attention to regional differences in assessing well-
being in his study. He found that social inequality and differences in opportunities between regions
directly affect the standard of living of the population. According to Zhang, it is important to
differentiate the indicator system, since centralized statistical approaches cannot reflect local
differences [4].
Scandinavian scientists pay special attention to subjective assessment methods in measuring well-
being. For example, Norwegian economist Erik Angner substantiated the importance of subjective
indicators such as life satisfaction, happiness, and psychological well-being in measuring well-
being [5].
Russian scientist N.V. Zubarevich emphasizes in his research that socio-economic differences
between regions are important in assessing well-being. The “four Russias” model he developed
suggests taking into account not only macroeconomic indicators, but also population density,
economic activity, and social infrastructure when assessing the well-being of the population [6].
This approach is also relevant in the conditions of Uzbekistan, especially in areas where there are
regional disparities in development.
In his research, Kazakh economist M. Kussainov focuses on the harmonization of international
experience and national characteristics in developing national welfare indicators. Using the
example of his country, he attempts to develop a welfare index based on economic, environmental,
and social indicators [7].
Such an approach is also suitable for Uzbekistan and is useful in creating a modern national model.
Among Uzbek scientists, A.M. Mullajonov considers the development of human capital as the
main indicator in assessing welfare. In his opinion, the quality of education, healthcare, and social
protection systems are important factors determining the level of welfare [8]. This approach is
consistent with the modern concept of welfare and can serve as an important theoretical basis for
forming a system of complex indicators.
Thus, the formation of a multi-component, systematic, and international standard-compliant
indicator base for a more in-depth and fair assessment of the well-being of the population in
Uzbekistan is an urgent task.
Research methodology
The research used methods of comparative analysis, logical analysis, systematic analysis,
statistical grouping, synthesis, induction, and deduction.
Analysis and results
Assessment of the well-being of the population is one of the priority areas of modern socio-
economic policy, and scientific views on this issue are also actively developing in the former
Soviet Union. Scientific research conducted in foreign countries and the CIS countries shows the
need to take into account social and subjective factors in assessing well-being, in addition to
traditional statistical indicators. Uzbek researchers pay special attention to the issues of adapting
this approach to national conditions and forming a comprehensive system of indicators (Table 1).
Structure of existing well-being indicators in Uzbekistan
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 681
(based on official statistics) 1-table
Indicator group
Indicator name
Unit of
measurement
Source of
information
Economic
GDP per capita
million soums
UzStat
Social
Employment rate
%
UzStat, Ministry of
Finance
Health
Birth rate, life
expectancy
‰, age
SSV
Education
Share of population
with higher education
%
Agency of Higher
Education of the
Republic of
Uzbekistan
Subjective
Population
satisfaction with life
points (survey)
Sociological research
Table 1 presents the main structure of indicators representing well-being in Uzbekistan,
which are divided into five main groups: economic, social, health, education and subjective
indicators. The volume of gross domestic product per capita (in million soums) was chosen
as the main criterion for assessing economic well-being (source: UzStat).
In the social sphere, the level of employment of the population is assessed through the
employment rate (%) (UzStat, Ministry of Finance). The state of the health care system is
measured by indicators such as the birth rate (‰) and life expectancy (age) (based on SSV
data).
In the education sphere, the share of the population with higher education in the total
population is taken as the main indicator (Higher Education Agency). The level of subjective
well-being is determined based on the results of a questionnaire in the form of a score
expressing the level of satisfaction with life of the population (based on sociological research).
This system of indicators allows for a comprehensive assessment of well-being (Table 2).
Comparison of international and national indicators (comparison table)
2-table
Indicator type
International
indicator
(UNDP/OECD)
National analogue
(in Uzbekistan)
Difference/
Comment
Human Development
Index (HDI)
HDI: life expectancy,
education, income
Not considered
official
Not fully
implemented
Better Life Index
11 areas
Only 4–5 directions
covered
Limited coverage
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 682
Subjective well-being
Happiness index
None (exists in an
uncertain form)
Not official, only
requests
Table 2 provides a comparison of international and national well-being indicators. Although
the Human Development Index (HDI), which is widely used in international practice, is
based on factors such as life expectancy, education level, and income, this index is not
officially calculated in Uzbekistan, that is, it has not been fully implemented.
Also, the Better Life Index developed by the OECD includes 11 areas, and in Uzbekistan,
data are available only for some, namely 4-5, areas of this index, and its coverage is limited.
Although the Happiness Index, which measures subjective well-being, is an important
indicator internationally, only some sociological surveys are conducted in Uzbekistan in this
regard and they are not included in official statistics.
In general, national indicators are not fully integrated into international systems, which
limits the possibilities of comparing well-being internationally ( Table 3)
Table of current
national well-being indicators (situation analysis)
1
3-table
Indicator name
Direction
Calculation
method
Source
Analysis
GDP per capita
Economic
Official statistics
UzStat
Adequate, but
general
Employment rate
Labor market
In %
UzStat
Adequate
Life expectancy
Healthcare
In annual terms
SSV
Insufficient
Education level of
the population
Education
% (with higher
education)
Agency for
Higher
Education
Adequate
Housing
availability
Social
infrastructure
Sq.m / person
Ministry of
Construction
Insufficient
Table 3 analyzes the state of existing national welfare indicators in Uzbekistan. GDP per capita is
an important criterion for expressing economic well-being, determined on the basis of official
statistics, but this indicator is general and does not fully reflect the real income level of the
population.
1
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Reports.
https://hdr.undp.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 683
The employment rate of the population sufficiently reflects the state of the labor market, and data
on this indicator are available. In the field of health, life expectancy is taken as the main indicator,
but the available data on this indicator are insufficient. In the field of education, the level of higher
education of the population provides relatively accurate and sufficient information. In assessing
social infrastructure, the level of housing provision is considered the main indicator, but statistical
data on this subject are limited and insufficient for analysis. In general, although there is sufficient
data on some indicators, the health and indicators in the areas of social infrastructure are not fully
formed (Table 4).
Comparative table with international indicators (identifying differences)
2
4-table
Well-being
International
indicator
(UNDP/OECD)
National indicator
(Uzbekistan)
Difference/
Comment
Health
Life expectancy,
healthy years
Life expectancy only
Diseases are not
considered
Education
Education duration,
quality
Level (amount) only
Quality is not
considered
Ecology
Air quality, green zone
No official indicator
Not implemented
Subjective
assessment
Life satisfaction,
happiness index
Non-existent
(abnormal)
To be added based on
requests
Table 4 analyzes the main differences between international and national well-being
indicators. In the health direction, international practice takes into account not only life
expectancy, but also healthy years (health years), while in Uzbekistan only life expectancy is
taken into account, which does not fully reflect the real health status of the population.
Although international indicators on education include factors such as the duration of study
and the quality of education, in Uzbek statistics there is an assessment only based on the level
obtained (the share of the population with higher education), and the quality of education is
not taken into account.
2
UNDP, OECD, World Bank, WHO tomonidan taklif qilingan indikator metodologiyalari.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 684
In the environmental direction, indicators such as air quality and the share of green areas
occupy an important place among international indicators, while official indicators in this
regard have not yet been formed in national statistics.
Although the happiness index and life satisfaction level are widely used at the international
level in subjective assessments, in Uzbekistan these indicators are not included in official
statistics, but are determined only through some sociological surveys. These differences
indicate the need to further improve the national indicator system (Table 5).
New indicators that can be used to assess well-being
3
5-table
Direction
Name of the
proposed indicator
Calculation method
source
Reason for
Justification
Subjective
assessment
Happiness index
Based on sociological
surveys
Deeply demonstrates
well-being
Social trust
Level of trust in
society
Survey or public
opinion analysis
Important for social
stability
Digital equality
Level of internet
connectivity
STS, Uzkom data
Necessary for digital
development
Environmental
conditions
Air quality index,
amount of waste
Ecological
Committee
Quality of life factor
Gender equality
Share of women in
employment
Employment
statistics
Criterion of social
justice
Table 5 proposes new indicators that can be used to assess well-being. The introduction of the
Happiness Index as a subjective assessment allows for a deeper understanding of the level of well-
being of the population, which is determined through sociological surveys. In the area of social
trust, measuring the level of trust in society is an important factor in ensuring social stability.
To assess digital equality, indicators such as the level of Internet access indicate the level of digital
development based on STS and Uzkom data. The introduction of indicators such as the air quality
index and the amount of waste in assessing environmental conditions is directly related to the
quality of life (Table 6).
3
UNDP, OECD, World Bank, WHO tomonidan taklif qilingan indikator metodologiyalari
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 685
Well-being Indicators by Region (2024)
4
6-table
№
Region
GDP
per
capita
(million
soums)
Average
life
expectancy
(years)
Employment
rate (%)
Education
percentage
(%)
Subjective
assessment
(score)
1
Republic of
Karakalpakstan
41.5
72.6
74.1
17.6
7.8
2
Andijan region
28.4
70.4
62.7
10.4
6.5
3
Bukhara region
24.4
73.5
72.3
15.9
6.3
4
Jizzakh region
59.5
73.3
66.8
9.7
8.5
5
Kashkadarya
region
53.3
74.5
68.7
16.5
7.2
6
Navoi region
53.7
74.8
71.6
14.4
7.5
7
Namangan
region
25.9
72.5
71.1
14.7
6.5
8
Samarkand
region
40.9
72.3
62.4
15.7
5.9
9
Surkhandarya
region
27.0
74.3
68.2
10.1
7.9
10
Syrdarya region
38.3
71.9
67.6
17.8
7.2
11
Tashkent region
46.5
73.2
73.5
15.0
6.9
12
Fergana region
58.8
74.0
72.6
11.7
7.8
13
Khorezm
24.3
73.4
70.0
11.3
5.6
14
Tashkent city
53.1
73.4
73.8
10.3
7.7
Analysis of well-being indicators by region based on Table 6 As of 2024, there are significant
differences in the level of well-being by region. The highest GDP per capita is recorded in Jizzakh
(59.5 million soums) and Fergana (58.8 million soums) regions, while the lowest indicators are
observed in Khorezm (24.3 million soums) and Bukhara (24.4 million soums) regions. The leading
regions in terms of average life expectancy are Navoi (74.8 years) and Kashkadarya (74.5 years).
The highest employment rate is observed in Tashkent city (73.8%) and Tashkent region (73.5%),
which is associated with a large number of economic opportunities. Syrdarya (17.8%) and
4
O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Davlat statistika qo‘mitasi ma’lumotlari asosida (O‘zStat). Muallif
ishlanmasi.https://stat.uz.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 686
Karakalpakstan (17.6%) are the leaders in the share of education, which indicates that these regions
pay high attention to education.
In terms of subjective assessment (level of satisfaction with well-being of the population), Jizzakh
(8.5 points) and Surkhandarya (7.9 points) regions are ahead. On the contrary, this indicator is
lower in Khorezm (5.6 points) and Samarkand (5.9 points) regions, which indicates less
satisfaction with well-being of the population (Table 7).
Uzbekistan is gradually improving the following indicators
5
7-table
Stage
Work to be done
Responsible
organizations
Expected result
Stage 1 (analysis)
Assessment of
existing indicator
base
UzStat, Ministry of
Economy
Status is determined
Stage 2 (adaptation)
Comparison with
international
indicators
Higher scientific
institutions
Differences are
identified
Stage 3
(implementation)
Integration of new
indicators into the
official system
Ministry, Scientific
institutes
New indicators are
developed
Stage 4 (monitoring)
Annual evaluation
and reporting
UzStat, Presidential
AAK
Become the basis for
the state strategy
Analysis of the stages of improving indicators based on Table 7. In order to correctly assess the
level of well-being and development in Uzbekistan, the system of indicators is being improved
step by step.
At stage 1, the existing indicator base is analyzed by the UzStat and the Ministry of Economy, and
the current situation is determined. At the 2nd stage, indicators are compared with international
standards with the participation of higher scientific institutions and differences are identified.
At the 3rd stage, new indicators are developed by ministries and scientific institutions and
integrated into the official statistical system.
At the 4th stage, annual monitoring and reporting are carried out by UzStat and the Presidential
Statistical Committee, which serves as the basis for the formation of state strategies.
Conclusion and suggestions
5
O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Davlat statistika qo‘mitasi ma’lumotlari asosida (O‘zStat). Muallif
ishlanmasi.https://stat.uz.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 687
Our analysis shows that the current official statistical system in Uzbekistan relies more on
economic indicators, but a multi-component system that fully reflects well-being has not yet been
formed.
Therefore, taking into account the above foreign experiences, it is proposed to improve the system
of national indicators as follows:
– it is necessary to add indicators such as health, education, environmental status, civic
participation, and security to the system of indicators;
– it is necessary to introduce a system of assessing well-being at the territorial level;
– it is necessary to form subjective satisfaction indicators based on sociological surveys;
– it is necessary to harmonize the national system with the methodologies used by international
organizations;
– it is necessary to form a system of multi-component indicators that are consistent with the socio-
economic characteristics of Uzbekistan, based on international experiences (HDI, OECD Better
Life Index, Gross National Happiness);
– it is necessary to create a system for assessing indicators such as the level of satisfaction of the
population with their lives, sense of security, psychological state, and level of participation in
society through regular sociological surveys;
– it is necessary to develop a system of indicators at the level of regions, districts, and cities to
achieve a separate assessment of the level of well-being in each region;
– it is necessary to create the possibility of real-time monitoring by digitizing the collection and
analysis of indicators;– it is important to introduce the practice of making decisions based on
indicators in the fields of state budget, social policy, healthcare, education and ecology.
Implementing these recommendations will provide a more accurate, equitable, and comprehensive
assessment of the population's well-being in Uzbekistan, as well as to manage social policy
through scientifically based indicators.
References
1. You A. Razvitie kak svoboda. M.: Logos, 2004. 360 p.
2. Human Development Report 2020. The Next Frontier: Human Development and the
Anthropocene. New York: UNDP, 2020. 412 p.
3. OECD. How's Life. Measuring Well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020. 284 p.
4. Zhang H. Regional Inequality and Subjective Well-being in China // Social Indicators Research.
2018. Vol. 137, No. 3. P. 1081-1103.
5. Angner E. Subjective Well-Being: Philosophical Dimensions // Journal of Happiness Studies.
2010. Vol. 11, No. 6. P. 705–721.
6. Zubarevich N.V. Chetyre Rossii: spatial inequality in the social sphere and administrative
reform // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost. 2005. No. 3. S. 15–28.
7. Kusainov M.T. National indicators of prosperity: opyt Kazakhstan and prospects // Economics
and statistics. 2021. #2. S. 78–85.
8. Mullajanov A.M. Development of human capital is the basis of a prosperous society // Economy
and education. 2020. #1. B. 22–27.
