Executive
Board
Calendar |
Board Discussions
on the Republic of Uzbekistan:
Previous:
February 22, 2013
August 30, 2010
July 14, 2008
February 12, 2007
May 16, 2005
|
Article IV Staff Reports
|
Projected % Change
|
|
|
2013
|
2014
|
|
Real GDP
|
7.0
|
6.5
|
|
Consumer Prices
|
10.9
|
11.0
|
Source: World Economic Outlook (April 2013)
Please refer to more recent PIN/Staff reports on this country for possible revisions.
|
Republic of Uzbekistan: Financial Position in the Fund
Transactions with the Fund
You may contact us about Republic of Uzbekistan and the IMF at Contact Us
Free Email Notification
Receive emails when we post new
items of interest to you.
Subscribe or
Modify your profile
|
|
Republic of Uzbekistan and the IMF
Updated April 20, 2013
|
Show all items sorted by date
Show all items sorted by type
|
| Staff Papers |
| December 11, 2001 -- IMF Staff Papers - Dezember 2001 - Welfare Effects of Uzbekistan’s Foreign Exchange Regime By Christoph B. Rosenberg and Maarten de Zeeuw
In addition to transferring about 16 percent of GDP from exporters to importers, Uzbekistan’s quasi-fiscal multiple exchange rate regime generates identifiable welfare losses of 2-8 percent of GDP on import markets and up to 15 percent on export markets.
|
| June 01, 1999 -- IMF Staff Papers - September/December 1999 - The Uzbek Growth Puzzle, by Jeromin Zettelmeyer
After the breakup 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 surprised 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 constitutes a puzzle. It then attempts to resolve the puzzle by extending the model in a way that encompasses competing hypotheses of what makes Uzbekistan's output path unusual. The main result is that Uzbekistan's performance can be accounted for by a combination of low initial industrialization, its cotton production, and its self-sufficiency in energy.
|
|
|
