DAVLAT MOLIYAVIY BOSHQARUVI SAMARADORLIGINING IJTIMOIY ADOLATGA TA’SIRINING PEFA VA CEQ METODOLOGIYALARI ORQALI TAHLILI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19006109Keywords:
Davlat moliyaviy boshqaruvi, PEFA, CEQ, ijtimoiy tenglik, fiskal boshqaruv, o‘tish davri iqtisodiyoti.Abstract
Maqolada budjet boshqaruvining takomillashishi ijtimoiy adolat natijalariga qanday ta’sir qilishini o‘rganish
uchun Davlat xarajatlari va moliyaviy hisobdorlik (PEFA) tizimini Adolatga sodiqlik (CEQ) metodologiyasi bilan integratsiya
qilish tadqiq qilindi. Bunda, O‘zbekiston davlat moliyasini boshqarish samaradorligining PEFAga asoslangan ko‘rsatkichlarini
CEQga asoslangan daromadlar tengsizligi va kambag‘allik o‘lchovlari bilan birlashtiruvchi integratsiyalashgan empirik
bazani ishlab chiqildi. Shuningdek, milliy statistika manbalaridan olingan ochiq ma’lumotlarga tayangan holda, davlat
moliyasini boshqarishning kompozit indeksi tuzildi va uning 2010-2024 yillar oralig‘idagi ijtimoiy adolat natijalari bilan
bog‘liqligi baholandi. Regression tahlil orqali davlat moliyasini boshqarishdagi ijobiy o‘zgarishlar daromadlar tengsizligi va
kambag‘allikning kamayishi bilan sezilarli darajada bog‘liqligi asoslandi.
References
1. Pomfret, R. (2019). The Central Asian economies in the twenty-first century: Paving a new Silk Road. Princeton
University Press.
2. World Bank. (2021). Uzbekistan: Social protection and equity review. World Bank Report No. 151237-UZ.
3. IMF. (2022). Republic of Uzbekistan: 2022 Article IV consultation. IMF Country Report No. 22/156.
4. Ministry of Finance of Uzbekistan. (2024). Public financial management reform strategy 2025-2030. Tashkent.
5. State Committee on Statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2023). Statistical yearbook of Uzbekistan 2022. Tashkent.
6. UNDP. (2022). Human development report 2021/2022: Uncertain times, unsettled lives. United Nations Development
Programme.
7. Andrews, M. (2010). How far have public financial management reforms come in Africa? Faculty Research Working
Paper Series, Harvard Kennedy School, RWP10-018.
8. Inchauste, G., & Lustig, N. (Eds.). (2017). The distributional impact of taxes and transfers: Evidence from eight low-and
middle-income countries. World Bank.
9. Rajkumar, A. S., & Swaroop, V. (2008). Public spending and outcomes: Does governance matter? Journal of
Development Economics, 86(1), 96-111.
10. Grigoli, F., & Ley, E. (2012). Quality of government and living standards: Adjusting for the efficiency of public spending.
IMF Working Paper, WP/12/182.
11. Barroy, H., Sparkes, S., Dale, E., & Mathonnat, J. (2018). Can low-and middle-income countries increase domestic
fiscal space for health? A mixed-methods approach to assess possible sources of expansion. Health Systems &
Reform, 4(3), 214-226.
12. Gonguet, F., Hellwig, K. P., & Jewell, A. (2019). Budget institutions and fiscal performance in the Western Balkans. IMF
Working Paper, WP/19/193.
13. IMF. (2015). Current challenges in revenue mobilization: Improving tax compliance. International Monetary Fund Fiscal
Affairs Department.
14. PEFA Secretariat. (2019). Republic of Uzbekistan: PEFA assessment report. Public Expenditure and Financial
Accountability Secretariat.
15. World Bank. (2021). Uzbekistan: Social protection and equity review. World Bank Report No. 151237-UZ.
16. Gómez-Sabaini, J. C., & Morán, D. (2016). Tax policy in Latin America: Assessment and guidelines for a second
generation of reforms. Macroeconomics of Development Series, No. 133, ECLAC.
17. PEFA Secretariat. (2019). Republic of Uzbekistan: PEFA assessment report. Public Expenditure and Financial
Accountability Secretariat.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 GREEN ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.