Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan: Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Latest (2019)
2 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
20th
of 185 countries
All-time high
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019
Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Uzbekistan, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Uzbekistan stood at 2 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Uzbekistan ranks 20th of 185 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Countries ranked near Uzbekistan
- 19 India 2.53 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bangladesh 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Indonesia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Nigeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Pakistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 United States of America 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mexico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Japan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Albania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Algeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Armenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Austria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Azerbaijan, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bahamas 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bahrain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Belarus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Belgium 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bhutan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Botswana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Brunei Darussalam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bulgaria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Burkina Faso 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cape Verde 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cambodia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cameroon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Chad 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Chile 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Côte d'Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Croatia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cyprus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Ethiopia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Germany 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Ghana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Greece 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Hungary 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Israel 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Italy 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kazakhstan, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Republic of Korea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lao People's Democratic Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Latvia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lithuania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Malaysia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Malta 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mauritius 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Republic of Moldova 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Montenegro 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mozambique 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Myanmar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Nepal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 North Macedonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Poland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Portugal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Romania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 San Marino 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sao Tome and Principe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Senegal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Serbia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Slovakia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Slovenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Spain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 St. Kitts and Nevis 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Saint Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Switzerland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Taiwan, China 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tanzania, United Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tonga 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tunisia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Türkiye 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Uganda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Ukraine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Uruguay 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Viet Nam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Palestine, State of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Zimbabwe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for Uzbekistan
- Merchandise trade 44.5% (2025)
- Food imports 12.4% (2024)
- Manufactures imports 71.9% (2024)
- Merchandise imports 41.75 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 11.4% (2024)
- Manufactures exports 29.0% (2024)
- Merchandise exports 23.65 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 638.38 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.1609 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 20.08 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Uzbekistan?
- Dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Uzbekistan was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest dealing with construction permits: quality control during recorded in Uzbekistan?
- The highest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control during recorded in Uzbekistan?
- The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Uzbekistan rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control during?
- Uzbekistan ranks 20th out of 185 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: quality control during rising or falling in Uzbekistan?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Uzbekistan data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during construction index (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
The quality control during construction index evaluates quality control during the construction process. It has two components: (i) whether inspections are mandated by law during the construction process; (ii) whether inspections during construction are implemented in practice. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.