For most citizens, the state is not first encountered through laws, strategies or official speeches. It is encountered in practical moments of need: registering a birth, obtaining a passport, opening a business, receiving a certificate, applying for social support, connecting to utilities or correcting an administrative error. These ordinary interactions shape whether people see the administration as predictable or arbitrary, helpful or humiliating, accessible or distant.

In Uzbekistan, this everyday relationship between citizens and the state has changed significantly since 2017. Public service reform has been one of the most visible parts of the country’s broader modernization agenda. Public Service Centers, online portals, digitized records and simplified procedures have made many interactions faster and less burdensome. According to the Ministry of Justice data used in a recent UNDP-supported analysis, Uzbekistan now has 1,040 public services in its Unified Register, of which 780 are delivered through the Unified Interactive Public Services Portal, 507 through Public Service Centers, and more than 150 licenses and permits through the “License” information system. The number of services available through Public Service Centers has increased almost fourteen-fold since 2017, while more than 60 million civil registry records have been digitized.

These are not marginal changes. They reflect a real shift away from the older model in which citizens often had to move from one office to another, carrying documents between agencies, seeking information from officials and navigating unclear procedures. In the Uzbek context, where bureaucratic discretion has long affected both citizens and entrepreneurs, public service reform has an importance that goes beyond administrative convenience. It touches trust in institutions, the business climate, corruption risks and the state’s ability to use digital transformation for public benefit.

Read more on Novastan: Uzbekistan to invest in its digital infrastructure

Yet Uzbekistan’s reform story is now entering a more difficult phase. The country has already modernized much of the visible “front office” of the state: the counters, portals, kiosks and service centers through which people interact with public administration. The harder challenge lies behind the counter. It concerns the digital, legal and institutional infrastructure that allows agencies to exchange data securely, recognize electronic decisions, reduce unnecessary paperwork, protect personal information and make administrative action accountable.

In other words, the next stage of Uzbekistan’s public service reform will be decided less by the number of services available online than by the quality of the digital state behind them.

From paperwork to platforms

The first phase of reform focused on access. Public Service Centers created a recognizable front door to the state, while the national portal offered citizens and businesses a way to access services online. Requirements to submit many types of certificates and documents have been abolished. Some services have been simplified under the “three-step” principle. Birth-related procedures have been bundled, while some utility-related services have become proactive, meaning that citizens no longer need to initiate every administrative step themselves.

This matters because public services are among the few areas where state reform becomes immediately tangible. A citizen may not read a public administration strategy, but he or she will notice whether a birth certificate can be obtained more quickly, whether a passport can be delivered, whether a license can be requested online or whether a business can be registered without visiting multiple offices.

For businesses, the same logic applies. The quality of the business climate is not determined only by tax rates or investment laws. It is also shaped by routine interactions with the administration: permits, licenses, inspections, utility connections, property registration, tax administration and access to official information. The old World Bank Doing Business ranking may no longer exist in its previous form, but the underlying question remains central: can entrepreneurs rely on predictable, transparent and timely administrative procedures?

In this sense, public service reform is also business-climate reform. When licensing procedures are digital, deadlines are clear and documents are not repeatedly requested, businesses face fewer informal costs. When application status is traceable, officials have less room to delay or bargain. When data can be verified directly between agencies, citizens and entrepreneurs no longer have to act as messengers inside the state.

But digitalization alone does not solve the problem. It can also reproduce old bureaucracy in a new form. A paper form can become an online form without the procedure itself becoming simpler. A citizen may still be asked for information that another agency already holds. A business may still face delays if the back-office systems of the responsible institutions are not connected. The real reform, therefore, is not simply to put services online. It is to redesign the relationship between citizens, data, agencies and responsibility.

The invisible infrastructure of reform

One of the most important ideas in modern public service reform is the “once-only” principle: citizens and businesses should not be required to provide information that the state already possesses. In practical terms, this means that if a person’s identity, residence, family status, property record or business registration data already exist in a public registry, another agency should be able to verify that information lawfully and securely.

This sounds simple. In reality, it is one of the most difficult parts of digital government. It requires reliable registries, shared technical standards, secure data exchange, legal rules for data reuse, clear institutional mandates and staff who trust digital verification. It also requires cybersecurity. The more the state relies on digital identity, automated services and inter-agency data exchange, the more public service delivery becomes part of national digital resilience.

In the old bureaucracy, citizens carried paper between agencies. In the digital bureaucracy, data must move instead – securely, lawfully and with accountability.

This is where Uzbekistan’s reform agenda becomes more complex and more interesting. The country has already built many of the visible elements of a modern service system, including Public Service Centers, an expanding online portal, digitized civil registry data and early proactive services. But the next phase, as the UNDP-supported report argues, is about consolidation and depth: clarifying legal and institutional foundations, deepening interoperability and lawful data reuse, simplifying high-volume services, embedding accountability and ensuring that digital progress does not widen gaps for people with limited connectivity, digital skills or documentation.

That is a very different reform agenda from simply launching another platform. It is about who controls data, who is responsible when data are wrong, who can access which records, whether electronic decisions are legally valid, how citizens can appeal mistakes and whether agencies are obliged to rely on shared systems rather than maintaining their own isolated channels.

Why comparison matters

Uzbekistan is not alone in facing this transition. Estonia and Denmark show that digital public services only become transformative when the state treats digital identity, secure data exchange and authoritative registries as core public infrastructure. Georgia and Kazakhstan, closer to Uzbekistan in administrative heritage, demonstrate the political value of one-stop service centers: they make reform visible, reduce face-to-face discretion and create a clearer front door to the state. France offers a different lesson: digitalization must be balanced with physical access points and assisted services, especially for rural areas and citizens who cannot easily navigate online procedures. Singapore and South Korea, meanwhile, show how mature digital states use service data, feedback systems and cross-agency platforms not only to deliver services, but to manage performance and detect bottlenecks.

These examples matter not because they offer models to copy, but because they clarify the choices Uzbekistan now faces. The countries that have modernized public services most successfully did not do so only by introducing new technologies. They also rethought the rules, institutions and incentives behind every counter and every online form. Their reforms became sustainable when they combined digital access with service standards, feedback channels, legal recognition of electronic decisions and visible mechanisms for redress.

For Uzbekistan, the comparison is especially useful because the country is not starting from zero. It has already built public-facing infrastructure and achieved meaningful simplification. The more difficult question is whether it can now create the institutional discipline needed for genuine interoperability. Agencies must be willing, or required, to share data through common systems. Ministries must accept common service standards. Digital and legal reform must move together. Cybersecurity, data protection and administrative accountability must be treated as part of the same reform ecosystem.

Corruption moves, it does not disappear

Public service reform also has a direct anti-corruption dimension. In paper-heavy systems, corruption often thrives at the point of contact between citizen and official: unclear fees, unpredictable deadlines, unnecessary certificates, repeated visits and discretionary refusals. One-stop shops and online procedures can reduce these risks by standardizing processes, limiting face-to-face interactions and making cases easier to track.

This is one reason why Public Service Centers have been politically powerful in several post-Soviet states. They offer a visible break with the image of the fragmented, discretionary administration. Clear counters, queue management, published fees and predictable timelines send a message: the citizen should not have to know someone inside the system to obtain a routine service.

But digitalization does not automatically eliminate corruption. It can change where discretion sits. Instead of the desk officer, discretion may move to the database, the algorithm, the access right, the procurement contract or the agency that controls the platform. If digital systems are opaque, poorly audited or controlled by institutions with weak oversight, new forms of manipulation become possible.

This is why cybersecurity, data privacy and anti-corruption cannot be treated as separate agendas. A service platform that is not secure can be manipulated. A database without audit trails can be abused. A system that allows officials to access personal data without clear justification can undermine trust. An automated decision without explanation can reproduce arbitrariness under a digital label.

For citizens, the promise of digital government is not simply speed. It is predictability, traceability and the ability to challenge mistakes. For businesses, the promise is not only convenience. It is a more reliable operating environment in which permits, licenses and registrations do not depend on informal negotiation. For the state, the promise is a more efficient administration that can detect bottlenecks, reduce duplication and allocate resources more intelligently.

The remaining bottlenecks

Uzbekistan’s progress is significant, but the system remains uneven. Ninety-seven agencies and organizations still provide public services, often under their own procedures and information systems. More than 220 services remain paper-based, and more than 180 are delivered through isolated internal platforms. Many processes still require excessive documents and multiple steps, while only around 100 services have been fully simplified under the “three-step” principle.

These figures are important because they show that the problem is no longer only access to a front office. It is the fragmentation of the back office. If agencies maintain parallel systems, citizens will continue to face repeated documentation requests. If registries are incomplete or not treated as authoritative, officials will continue to rely on paper. If legal deadlines are unrealistic, digital platforms will not prevent delays. If staff lack digital skills or fear responsibility for electronic verification, they may continue to reproduce old procedures.

Monitoring data cited in the report also show persistent performance problems in several sectors. Uzsuvta’minot alone registered more than 175,000 violations, mainly related to delays in connecting customers to water networks or replacing meters. The Cadastre Agency recorded more than 50,000 violations, while other agencies reported tens of thousands of cases, many linked to delays and, in some cases, unjustified refusals.

This does not mean that reform has failed. It means that public service delivery is entering the stage where the easy improvements have already been made and the harder institutional problems are becoming more visible. The first wave could reduce queues and digitize records. The next wave must address mandates, data quality, staff capacity, cybersecurity, appeal mechanisms and the incentives that shape agency behavior.

Data privacy and the citizen

The same interoperability that makes services faster also creates new risks. When agencies exchange more data, the state can reduce paperwork and improve service quality. But it also gains a more complete picture of citizens’ lives. Civil status, property, residence, business activity, education, benefits, utilities and health-related administrative data can become increasingly connected.

This is not a reason to reject digital government. It is a reason to govern it carefully.

A trustworthy service state needs privacy safeguards, access controls, audit trails, correction rights and clear rules on who can use which data for which purpose. Citizens should know when data are being reused, how decisions are made and what they can do when information is incorrect. The more services become proactive or automated, the more important it becomes to ensure that people can challenge errors and that vulnerable groups are not excluded by inaccurate records or inaccessible digital channels.

This is also where inclusion matters. “Digital by default” should not become “digital only.” Rural residents, elderly people, persons with disabilities, low-income households and people with limited digital skills may benefit greatly from simplified services, but only if assisted channels remain available. Public Service Centers, kiosks, mobile units, postal delivery and community-based support are not leftovers from the pre-digital era. They are part of an inclusive digital state.

France’s experience is useful here: even a highly centralized and digitally advanced administration has had to invest in physical access points and assisted services to address territorial inequality and digital exclusion. For Uzbekistan, with its regional disparities and uneven administrative capacity, this lesson is particularly relevant.

A Law on Public Services as a test

Uzbekistan’s forthcoming Law on Public Services could become the cornerstone of the next reform phase. Its importance will depend on whether it is conceived narrowly or strategically.

A narrow law would simply list existing services and formalize current arrangements. A more ambitious law would define what citizens and businesses can expect from the administration: clear deadlines, transparent fees, valid electronic decisions, fewer unnecessary documents, access through several channels, secure data reuse, protection of personal information, and meaningful remedies when the system fails.

The law could also clarify who does what. The Ministry of Justice already plays a central role in legal reform, service standards and Public Service Centers. The Ministry of Digital Technologies leads on digital infrastructure, interoperability and cybersecurity. Line ministries remain responsible for the substance of decisions in their sectors. The challenge is to align these roles so that public service delivery becomes a coherent system rather than a collection of institutional islands.

This is not only a legal issue. It is a governance issue. If Uzbekistan wants citizens to stop carrying paper between agencies, then agencies must be required to trust shared data. If the state wants businesses to rely on digital licensing, then electronic procedures must be legally valid and technically resilient. If public services are to reduce corruption, then deadlines, refusals, complaints and appeals must be traceable. If digital government is to build trust, then cybersecurity and data privacy must be visible parts of the reform, not hidden technical details.

From administrative simplification to a service state

Uzbekistan’s public service reforms are therefore more than an administrative modernization story. They are a window into the country’s broader transformation: how the state organizes information, manages discretion, interacts with citizens and creates conditions for economic activity.

The next test will not be whether Uzbekistan can launch more portals or add more services to existing platforms. It will be whether the state can connect its institutions in a secure and accountable way, so that public services become faster without becoming opaque, more digital without becoming exclusionary, and more efficient without weakening rights.

The most important reform may be the least visible one. It will take place not at the counter, but in the connections between agencies; not in the app, but in the rules governing data; not in the number of services online, but in whether citizens and businesses can trust the digital state behind them.

If Uzbekistan succeeds, public service delivery could become one of the clearest indicators of a new phase in the country’s modernization: a move from paperwork to platforms, and from administrative simplification to a more predictable, secure and citizen-centered service state.

Mathieu Lemoine, Editor-in-Chief for Novastan-English