Comparative Economic Studies

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 721–755 | Cite as

Urban Public Transport in Post-Communist Transition: The Case of Tashkent, Uzbekistan

  • Alexandr Akimov
  • David Banister
Regular Article


The post-communist transition of urban public transport in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is examined in this paper through the unique case of transport development in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The paper discusses legislative changes and changes in governance, and the evolution of the major modes of transport in terms of ownership, scale and reliability. Political economy constraints and socio-economic considerations have played an important role in how the reforms were approached and enforced both in early stages and later as a response to negative spillover effects from earlier reforms. Policy recommendations are made concerning the problems of transition to a post-independence urban transport system in Tashkent.


Urban transport municipal transport Tashkent post-communist countries transition Uzbekistan 

JEL Classifications

P21 P25 L91 L98 



Alexandr Akimov would like to acknowledge the financial support of Griffith University International Travel Fellowship. We would like to thank the editor and anonymous referees for their useful comments. The views expressed in the paper are the authors. They do not necessary represent any views by public transport officials in Tashkent or elsewhere.


  1. Akimov, A and Dollery, B . 2008: Financial policy in transition economies: Architecture, pace and sequencing. Problems of Economic Transition 50 (9): 6–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akimov, A and Dollery, B . 2009: Financial development policies in Uzbekistan: An analysis of achievements and failures. Economic Change and Restructuring 42 (4): 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argenbright, R . 2008: Avtomobilshchina: Driven to the brink in Moscow. Urban Geography 29 (7): 683–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baigabulova, Z . 2010: The transport policy in London: Lessons for Almaty. Working paper 1050, Transport Studies Unit, Oxford University: Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Banister, D . 2003: Critical pragmatism and congestion charging in London. International Social Science Journal 55 (2): 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan. 1996: Resolution #291 ‘On measures for significant improvement of passenger transportation services for residents of the city of Tashkent’. enacted 19.08.1996.Google Scholar
  7. Estache, A and Gomez-Lobo, A . 2005: Limits to competition in urban bus services in developing countries. Transport Reviews 25 (2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fayzullaev, R . 2001: Shahar transporti. bozor iqtisodiyoti sharoitida (in Uzbek). Mehnat: Tashkent.Google Scholar
  9. GorElectroTrans. 2010: Trolleybus of Tashkent (in Russian),, accessed 14 January 2010.
  10. Hall, D . 2010: Transport geography and new European realities: A critique. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karimov, I . 1993: Uzbekistan – An own model of transition to market relations. Sharq: Tashkent.Google Scholar
  12. Karimov, I . 1995: Uzbekistan on the way of deepening of economic reforms. Sharq: Tashkent.Google Scholar
  13. Krymzalov, V . 2008: ToshShaharTransXizmat: A step to the third millennium. An interview with Z. Abrorov (in Russian) Chastnaya Sobstvennost. Available from, accessed 19 January 2010.
  14. Library of Congress. 1989: A country study: Soviet Union (A Former),, accessed 24 January 2010.
  15. Merzlov, D . 2009: Tashkentskomu tramvayu 100 let. Available from, accessed 25 January 2010.
  16. National Committee for Nature Protection. 2005a: Quality of air (in Russian). Available from, accessed 19 February 2011.
  17. National Committee for Nature Protection. 2005b: Impact of mobile sources of pollution on air (in Russian). Available from, accessed 19 February 2011.
  18. Pucher, J and Buehler, R . 2005: Transport policy in post-communist Europe. In: Hensher, D and Button, K (eds). Transport Strategies, Policies and Institutions. Elsevier: Oxford, pp. 725–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pucher, J, Peng, Z-R, Mittal, N, Zhu, Y and Korattyswaroopam, N . 2007: Urban transport trends and policies in China and India: Impacts of rapid economic growth. Transport Reviews 27 (4): 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rodrik, D . 1993: The positive economics of policy reform. American Economic Review 83 (2): 356–361.Google Scholar
  21. Sharahmedov, D and Gulyamov, S . 2006: Transport of Tashkent (in Russian). O’zbekistan Milliy Entsiklopediyasi: Tashkent.Google Scholar
  22. Tashkent City Council. 2010: About Tashkent. Tashkent City Council. Available from, accessed 8 May 2010.
  23. Taylor, Z and Ciechanski, A . 2008: What happened to the national road carrier in a post-communist country? The case of Poland’s state road transport. Transport Reviews 28 (5): 619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Viknyanskaya, N, Golender, B, Shokirov, Q and Alimov, A . 2001: Tashkent tramvayi yuz yoshda (in Uzbek). O’zbekistan Milliy Entsiklopediyasi: Tashkent.Google Scholar
  25. 2011: Tashkent is getting rid of private taxi drivers (in Russian). Available from, accessed 20 February 2011.

Copyright information

© Association for Comparative Economics 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandr Akimov
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Banister
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AccountingFinance and Economics, Griffith UniversitySouthportAustralia
  2. 2.Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations