В Узбекистане выявили разницу в эффективности кредитов для борьбы с бедностью: в одном районе на человека тратят в 6 раз больше, чем в другом

BAKU, Azerbaijan, September 3. Uzbekistan has compared the effectiveness of credit resources allocated to different districts, highlighting significant differences in the amount of financing required to lift residents out of poverty. This was reported on the official channel of the Press Secretary to the President of Uzbekistan, following a video conference on poverty reduction and income growth chaired by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev. During a meeting, officials conducted a comparative analysis of the results of credit programs across districts. Sharof Rashidov and Qarshi districts each received 2.3 trillion soums (about $194.8 million) in credit resources during the period under review. In Sharof Rashidov district, the funding helped lift 30,000 people out of poverty, with an average of 78 million soums (around $6,608) allocated per person. In Qarshi district, conditions improved for 13,000 people in need, with an average of 176 million soums (approx. $14,911) spent per person. A similar disparity was recorded in Qamashi and Piskent districts, which each received 1.1 trillion soums (about $93.1 million) in credit resources. In Qamashi, the financing helped 28,000 people move out of poverty, while in Piskent, the figure stood at only 4,500 people. The comparison means that the same amount of credit generated significantly different results. Based on the reported figures, the average financing per person lifted out of poverty was approximately 39 million soums (around $3,304) in Qamashi, compared with about 244 million soums (around $20,673) in Piskent. Officials said similar differences were observed in Guzor, Nishon, Mubarak, Yangikurgan, Toyloq, Boysun, Oltinsoy, Bandikhon and Beshariq districts, as well as Fergana district and the cities of Nurafshon, Bekobod and Yangiyul. In Piskent, officials said, as much as 250 million soums (approx. $21,181) in credit is being allocated per person to help them move out of poverty. The meeting highlighted the need to assess not only the volume of credit allocated but also the economic return and social impact generated by those resources. The comparison suggests that improving the efficiency of poverty-reduction financing could allow the same pool of credit to benefit substantially more households. Officials also pointed to cases where comparable funding could instead be used to create permanent, higher-income jobs in the industrial sector. The findings underscore the importance of directing credit toward projects capable of generating sustainable employment and income rather than relying solely on the volume of financing provided.