Uzbekistan Quality Job Creation as a Cornerstone for Sustainable Economic Growth

Uzbekistan Quality Job Creation as a Cornerstone for Sustainable Economic Growth
Migration has led to a loss of skilled workers and, while it has helped 
families escape poverty, the majority of remittances are used for 
unproductive spending. 
If the remittances were to be invested, they would 
support long-term economic growth, rather than just short-term expenditure. 
Studies suggest that workers’ migration can create both positive and negative 
impacts (Table 3.8). Remittances of migrant Uzbek workers contribute to 
the country’s overall economic development by boosting expenditure and 
improving the housing and living conditions of remaining families. However, 
recent work suggests that migrants’ remittances are most often spent on 
household improvements, which are seen to increase the social status of a 
family, rather than on productive investments or their children’s education, 
which would have a greater effect on longer-term growth (Ahunov et al. 2015).
Table 3.8: Positive and Negative Outcomes of Migration
Positive
Negative
• Remittances stimulate consumption 
spending on health, durable goods, 
weddings, and home improvements.
• Remittances may improve household 
welfare and human capital, and 
reduce poverty;
• Remittances may improve household 
food security and nutrition (especially 
for poor households).
• Remittances may promote financial 
sector development.
• Migrant workers in receiving countries 
spur economic growth by filling 
vacant jobs and addressing labor 
shortages.
• Migrant workers may learn new skills.
• Migration may ease the burden on 
public transfer programs.
• Loss of labor force (e.g., negative 
effect on crop income).
• Socio-psychological problems (e.g., 
deterioration of the family, depression, 
broken families, etc.).
• Abuse (forced labor, low wage 
compared to locals) and lack of access 
to social security measures and free 
medical services.
• Greater exposure to sexually 
transmitted and other diseases.
• Reduced labor supply of family 
members left behind.
• Remittances may not improve the 
human capital of children left behind.
• Strong remittance inflows may cause 
appreciation of the real exchange rate 
and damage the competitiveness of 
sectors producing tradables such as 
manufactures.
• Large swings in remittance inflows 
may bring macroeconomic volatility.
• Remittances may reduce the 
government’s incentive to stay fiscally 
healthy and increase public debt.
Sources: Malyuchenko (2015); Somach and Rubin (2010); Smolak, et al. (2015); Ahunov, et al. (2015); Danzer and 
Ivaschenko (2010); Betti and Lundgren (2012); Justino and Shemyakina (2012); Kroeger and Anderson (2014); 
Chakraborty, Mirkasimov, and Steiner (2014); Atamanov and Van den Berg (2012).

---

123