THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
26
ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED
BUDGETING (PBB) IN UZBEKISTAN
Xushmurotov Zoyir Bektemirovich
Chief Specialist of the Department for Implementation of Program-Targeted
Budget Planning Methods and Evaluation of Budget Expenditure Efficiency,
Department of the State Budget, Ministry of Economy and Finance of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, PhD in Economics.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15797593
Abstract
This thesis outlines the implementation process, practical
experience, and challenges of performance-based budgeting (PBB) in
Uzbekistan. It also includes a comparative analysis of international practices,
along with an evaluation of the legal, institutional, and strategic framework
necessary for improving the PBB system.
Keywords
: performance-based budgeting, program budgeting, indicators,
monitoring, efficiency, reporting, international practice
Introduction
in accordance with Resolution No. 506 of the Cabinet of
Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated August 24, 2020, "On approval of
the Strategy for Improving the Public Finance Management System of the
Republic of Uzbekistan for 2020–2024", a new performance-based (program)
budgeting system was introduced to ensure a strategic approach to fiscal and
budget policy planning.
According to Presidential Decree PQ-4555 dated December 30, 2019, the
budgets of the Ministry of Public Education, Ministry of Health, the Committee
for Roads, and the Ministry of Water Resources were to be formed for 2021
based on qualitative and quantitative indicators within the PBB framework.
This decree also mandated the establishment of a Department for the
Implementation of Program-Targeted Budget Planning Methods and Evaluation
of Budget Expenditure Efficiency within the Ministry of Economy and Finance,
consisting of five staff positions.
According to Presidential Decree PQ-422 dated December 25, 2023, target
indicators were approved for 37 ministries and agencies.
Example
Ministry
of
Preschool
and
School
Education:
Final result indicator
: Share of graduates from Presidential schools achieving
high (A–C) scores in the international A-LEVEL certification (as a percentage of
total graduates).
Indicator values
: 70% in 2024, 77% in 2025 and 2026.
On January 4, 2024, the Cabinet of Ministers approved Resolution No. 4 "On
the procedure for developing, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
27
budget programs by budget administrators within the framework of the
implementation of program budgeting."
According to Presidential Decree PQ-455 dated December 25, 2024, target
indicators were approved for 44 ministries and agencies.
Example
Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation:
Final result indicator
: Number of higher education institutions offering
internationally accredited programs.
Indicator values
: 5 in 2025, 4 in 2026,
2 in 2027.
In the “Uzbekistan – 2030” Strategy, the implementation of the PBB system
is recognized under Goal 46 as a key reform for ensuring fiscal sustainability and
efficient management of state obligations.
Public Administration Reforms and the Role of Core Institutions
As of January 1, 2023, the structure of the government was reformed:
The number of ministries was reduced from 25 to 21;
he number of independent executive bodies was reduced from 61 to 28.
Key institutions involved in the PBB process:
Cabinet of Ministers – provides political leadership and coordination;
Agency for Strategic Reforms – monitors implementation of the “Uzbekistan
– 2030” Strategy;
Ministry of Economy and Finance – main coordinator of the PBB system and
developer of the annual cycle and methodology.
Comparative Analysis of PBB Practices in Developed Countries Based
on 6 Key Aspects
for each aspect, 2–3 countries are selected and compared
with the case of Uzbekistan:
1. Performance indicators for budget programs
United Kingdom: Indicators are submitted to Parliament in annual reports
and linked to specific programs.
Netherlands: Indicators are coordinated with the Statistics Agency and
include financial impact.
Singapore: Indicators are formed via the “Outcome Budget” model and
assigned to responsible agencies.
Uzbekistan: Indicators exist, but lack standardized metrics and evaluation
methods; regular reporting is absent.
2. Alignment of administrative and program structures
Australia: Ministries are fully responsible for their programs; a strict
program-subprogram-activity hierarchy is in place.
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
28
Netherlands: Programs are aligned with administrative structures;
specialized services and bodies are assigned.
Uzbekistan: Integration between administrative and program structures
remains weak; responsibilities are not fully defined.
3. Involvement of Tier 1 and Tier 2 organizations
Netherlands: Subprograms involve specialized agencies, each assessed by
results.
Uzbekistan: Tier 2 agencies are not fully engaged; some pilot integration
exists, but not system-wide.
4. Structure of sectoral programs
South Africa: Specific KPIs and subprograms exist for water and education
sectors.
Georgia: PBB introduced to enhance higher education quality and improve
global rankings.
Uzbekistan: Strategic documents exist for water and higher education
sectors, but not fully integrated into the PBB system; sectoral indicators are
planned for 2025.
5. Annual performance reporting
Netherlands: Each budget program includes a separate performance report.
United Kingdom: Annual “Report and Accounts” submitted to Parliament.
Uzbekistan: Reporting templates exist, but submission is limited; since
2023, reports are sent to the Ministry of Finance, but not disclosed to Parliament
or the public.
6. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems
Netherlands: Independent auditors and statistical services monitor
indicators.
South Korea: Each ministry is evaluated through a Performance Evaluation
Committee.
Uzbekistan: Internal audit services conduct evaluations, but criteria are
limited; independent external evaluations are not yet implemented.
List of References
1.Decree No. PQ-4555 of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan
(30.12.2019)
2.Decree No. PQ-422 of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan (25.12.2023)
3.Decree No. PQ-455 of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan (25.12.2024)
4.Resolution No. 4 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan
(04.01.2024)
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
29
5.“Uzbekistan – 2030” Strategy (12.09.2023)
6.OECD (2022). Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
7.IMF (2018). Fiscal Transparency Handbook. Washington, D.C.: International
Monetary Fund.
8.World Bank (2020). Public Financial Management Reform in the Middle East
and North Africa: An Overview of Regional Experience. Washington, D.C.
