Experts say IMF’s proposed pension model misfits Uzbekistan, warn against raising retirement age without public dialogue

In Uzbekistan, discussions are ongoing about a possible change to the retirement age. While no final decision has been made, the government has assured the public that it will not act without consultation. Still, recommendations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other international organizations – along with officials not ruling out the possibility – have sparked widespread debate.

{Yii::t(}

Skip in 6s

Skip in

Kun.uz invited representatives from the relevant government bodies to join a discussion on the topic, but they declined. As a result, the studio discussion took place with public activists only, who unanimously voiced concerns about raising the retirement age.

Umida Yakubova, a women’s rights activist, argued that increasing the retirement age for women beyond the current 55 would only lead to greater stress and anxiety. In Uzbekistan’s conditions, she said, women are already exhausted by the age of 55, and many might not even live long enough to reach retirement at 60.

“My neighbors, especially teachers, are deeply worried by this talk. They say, ‘We’ve been waiting our whole lives just to reach retirement. Can’t we at least rest then?’ Everyone wants to retire. Just look at the state of our environment. Uzbek women already live under stress – if they raise the age to 60, does that mean we’ll receive our pensions in our coffins?” said Yakubova.

According to economist Shukhrat Rasul, the IMF’s recommendation does not align with Uzbekistan’s current socioeconomic reality. Based on the very criteria set by the IMF, Uzbekistan is still classified as a poor country, with a GDP per capita of around $3,100 – making the recommendation questionable.

“In countries where the retirement age is 60–65, GDP per capita is $20,000–30,000. Why are we even comparing ourselves? In those developed countries, people can afford healthcare. Moreover, life expectancy is much higher – take Japan, for instance, where men live to 83 and women to 86. They can retire and still receive a pension for 20–25 years. Copying their model and bringing it here, as the IMF suggests, is highly debatable,” said Rasul.

Sociologist Mahmud Yuldoshev acknowledged that an increase in the retirement age could become an objective necessity when considering the ratio of retirees to working citizens and the limitations of the state budget. However, he stressed that any decision should be grounded in thorough analysis and must take potential public backlash into account.

Yuldoshev also criticized another IMF recommendation: calculating pensions based on the average wage throughout a person’s entire career, rather than on the current system, which uses the highest-earning five years. This change, he warned, could significantly reduce pension amounts.

“That five-year system was well thought out and widely accepted by the people. If we follow the IMF’s suggestion and include salaries from the Soviet era, we’ll dig ourselves into a deep hole.

“Just think about how many people in Uzbekistan are officially employed and actually eligible for pensions. How much are they contributing to the pension fund? There are those who have never worked, farmers, and others who live off their children – will they receive pensions too?” Yuldoshev questioned.

All participants in the discussion agreed that the issue of pensions – a topic with serious social importance and direct emotional impact on people – should be approached with great caution. The full interview is available on Kun.uz’s YouTube channel.