Assessing The Value of Citizenship in Central Asian Countries

In recent years, the global landscape has been marked by sustained turbulence, with overlapping economic shocks, geopolitical rivalries, and the lingering consequences of global health crises. The sense of stability in international relations has been steadily lost, creating more uncertainty for both states and individuals. Consequently, individuals look to mobility as a way to protect themselves, choosing places that offer greater security and more opportunities. Citizenship, in this sense, is no longer perceived solely as a legal status, but as a form of strategic capital that can shape life trajectories across borders. For many, the ability to relocate, diversify residential options, and safeguard personal and professional opportunities has become as essential as financial assets. This shift explains why citizenship is now a key topic in both academic and policy discussions.

In this climate of uncertainty, countries that actively invest in increasing the value of their citizenship stand to benefit disproportionately. By providing stronger guarantees of mobility, legal protections, and economic opportunity, such states can position themselves as attractive destinations for globally mobile individuals. These individuals often bring with them intellectual capital, entrepreneurial skills, and creative capacities that contribute directly to national development. The talent competition is no longer confined to traditional economic powerhouses; smaller and mid-sized states are increasingly able to position themselves as credible alternatives. Citizenship, in this sense, functions not only as a legal bond but also as a magnet for human potential. Nations that recognize this fact can transform global volatility into an opportunity for long-term growth and prosperity. 

In this context, it is particularly relevant to examine the countries of Central Asia and the wider post-Soviet space, which remain focal points of contemporary geopolitical turbulence. These states occupy a complex position: while historically viewed as sources of migration, they have more recently become destinations for significant flows of people, particularly following the Russia-Ukraine war. The sudden arrival of professionals, students, and entrepreneurs revealed both opportunities for economic dynamism and challenges of absorption. The degree to which Central Asian countries can enhance the value of their citizenship will shape not only their domestic resilience but also their standing within the broader post-Soviet region. This process highlights how the global revaluation of citizenship plays out in regions marked by both volatility and strategic opportunity.

The World Citizenship Report [WCR], published by CS Global Partners (2025), evaluates 188 countries, measuring how well citizenship delivers in times of global uncertainty. The Report is built on five motivators: Safety & Security, Economic Opportunity, Quality of Life, Global Mobility, and Financial Freedom, each weighted according to its importance in global surveys, with Safety & Security and Quality of Life receiving the greatest emphasis. Methodologically, the ranking combines quantitative indicators with qualitative inputs from experts and high-net-worth individuals, producing a multidimensional picture of citizenship value. For example, Safety & Security covers governance, stability, and crime rates, while Financial Freedom assesses regulatory environments, asset protection, and fiscal stability. Unlike conventional passport rankings, the WCR thus reflects not only travel access but also the broader capacity of citizenship to secure safety, opportunity, and prosperity.

Currently, the countries of the Central Asian region form the following ranking, based on their positions in the general rating:

• Kazakhstan - 78th place 
• Uzbekistan - 97th place
• Turkmenistan - 115th place
• Kyrgyzstan - 119th place
• Tajikistan - 123rd place

At first glance, it might seem that the countries in the rating are placed based on their economic profiles. While that is mainly true, one significant regional outlier is Uzbekistan, which scores higher than Turkmenistan despite its GDP per capita being 2.5 times smaller (World Bank, n.d.). This means that while a country can lack some departments, it also has a chance to offset its shortcomings by demonstrating strengths in other domains. This can be observed better on a larger scale - if we take a broader look at the post-Soviet region in general, the picture changes to the following:

• Estonia - 25th place
• Lithuania - 29th place
• Latvia - 32nd place
• Georgia - 61st place
• Moldova - 70th place
• Kazakhstan - 78th place
• Armenia - 79th place
• Russia - 95th place
• Ukraine - 96th place
• Belarus - 97th place
• Uzbekistan - 97th place
• Turkmenistan - 115th place
• Azerbaijan - 118th place
• Kyrgyzstan - 119th place
• Tajikistan - 123rd place

It can be observed that while more economically and institutionally developed countries, such as the Baltic nations, have a clear and undeniable advantage, some smaller states, which lack the economic backing of abundant natural resources, still manage to demonstrate remarkable outcomes in terms of their attractiveness to potential residents and investors. These include Georgia, Moldova, and Armenia, whose progress illustrates that attractiveness to residents and investors can be built on factors beyond mere natural resource abundance.

 To better understand the logic behind the ranking, it is necessary to take a closer look at each of the 5 motivators and how they shape the general rating results for each of the countries of the region. To begin with, one of the two most significant criteria, the Safety and Security domain, accounts for 25% of the overall score. This pillar mainly measures stability and quality of governance in each country, based on such datasets as theThe Global Peace Index [GPI] and the Worldwide Governance Indicators [WGI] (Institute for Economics & Peace, 2024). While peace in a country or its surroundings might not always depend on the will of people or even the government of this country, such internal factors as the rule of law, political stability, and governmental accountability are well within the internal control of nations. Thus, countries that do their best to promote peace within and around them, keep their governments in check, and do not suppress the freedoms of their people, which score higher in the rating, and are seen as much more attractive to an outside viewer. The Central Asian republics occupy the following positions in the Safety and Security domain:

• Kazakhstan - 99th place
• Uzbekistan - 110th place
• Kyrgyzstan - 121st place
• Turkmenistan - 131st place
• Tajikistan - 134th place

 There are numerous conclusions that can be drawn from this ranking. Firstly, it is apparent that all the countries of the region scored worse in the Safety and Security ranking than in the general one, meaning that this domain drives the scores of the whole region down. This might be the result of both geopolitical and economic tensions within and outside the region, such as the war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Fergana Valley (Current Time, 2025). In this context, efforts by regional governments aimed at further harmonizing relations, completing border demarcation, and concluding new water-sharing agreements are widely welcomed and may provide a solid foundation for improving peace and stability in Central Asia (Fergana News, 2025). However, a more decisive factor that has shown little positive movement in recent years is the quality of internal relations between societies and their governments. Most countries in the region have instead displayed a steady consolidation of power by ruling elites, with limited space for independent civil society or political pluralism. If this trajectory continues, it is likely to further diminish the perceived value of Central Asian citizenship, both in the eyes of foreign observers and of the citizens themselves, negatively affecting economic and societal prospects of the republics. Moreover, it is crucial to note that Kazakhstan’s score in the Safety and Security category is the furthest from the general ranking across the region, meaning that the republic has to pay special attention to the issues.

 The second most important pillar of the rating is Quality of Life, which also represents 25% of the composite score. This dimension is primarily based on the Human Development Index [HDI], a widely used measure that evaluates well-being through life expectancy, educational attainment, and income levels (United Nations Development Programme, n.d.). In other words, it captures how healthy, educated, and materially secure the population of a given country is. To complement these human-centered metrics, the authors of the World Citizenship Report also integrate the Environmental Performance Index [EPI], reflecting the view that a truly prosperous society balancesis one that balances advances in human development with environmental responsibility (Yale University, 2024). The positions of the Central Asian republics in this pillar are as follows:

• Kazakhstan - 54th place
• Turkmenistan - 80th place
• Uzbekistan - 85th place
• Kyrgyzstan - 94th place
• Tajikistan - 103rd place

 All the regional countries score higher on the Quality of Life ranking than in the general one, meaning that the Central Asian countries are more advanced in terms of quality of life than some of the richer or more economically active countries. For instance, Kazakhstan, with its rather high placing in this ranking, overtakes China, while other Central Asian countries score higher than such an economic giant as India. This probably reflects a more socially oriented model of governance employed in post-Soviet countries, which includes more schooling, more healthcare infrastructure, and broader social coverage than the world average for the same economic levels. It is important for the Central Asian republics to preserve and build upon their achievements, yet stay financially prudent, especially in the context of a developing global economic turmoil. 

 The third key pillar of the rating is Economic Opportunity - in simple terms, it is a comprehensive assessment of how attractive a country is for work, investments, and business development for potential citizens. The assessment draws on indicators such as real GDP, GDP per capita, real GDP growth, labor market performance, and inflation. The standings of the Central Asian states in this dimension are:

• Kazakhstan - 34th place
• Turkmenistan - 36th place
• Uzbekistan - 38th place
• Tajikistan - 61st place
• Kyrgyzstan - 99th place

 It is immediately apparent that this pillar is the strongest for all the Central Asian countries, as the region in general demonstrates high rates of growth in recent years (Kazinform, 2025). This is a positive trend that has a very complex set of underlying reasons, including the redirection of regional investments, increased governmental investments, and international remittances. Hopefully, this growth trend will continue into the medium and long term, providing a stable foundation for sustainable development across the region. Yet, it is worth highlighting that Kyrgyzstan is an outlier in the ranking, as the country lags significantly behind its neighbors in terms of economic opportunities, which means that the government of the country ought to prioritize addressing the issue to close the aforementioned gap.

 Turning to the Financial Freedom pillar, which carries 15% of the weight, we see a different set of indicators shaping the evaluation. The assessment of Financial Freedom in the rating draws on a range of data sources that reflect the quality of economic policy, regulatory transparency, and the level of investor confidence. Among the key references are the Corruption Perceptions Index [CPI] and the Index of Economic Freedom. The Central Asian countries’ respective scores within this pillar are distributed as follows:

• Kazakhstan - 74th place
• Uzbekistan - 98th place
• Kyrgyzstan - 121st place
• Tajikistan - 138th place
• Turkmenistan - 145th place

 Financial Freedom is the first pillar where the Central Asian republics do not follow a uniform trend: while in earlier pillars all countries either outperformed or underperformed their general rankings, here Kazakhstan stands alone in ranking higher, with the others placed lower. There are multiple possible reasons for this divergence, which include the development of a more advanced financial sector and the creation of the special economic zone with a separate court system in Kazakhstan, or even an overall trend in the CPI (InfoCity, 2025). For instance, Kazakhstan’s position in the CPI has been relatively stable in the recent 5-year period, with a minor growth from the score of 38 to 40 (Transparency International, 2025). Overall increase for Uzbekistan has been higher, from the score of 26 in 2020 to 32 in 2024, yet between the years of 2023 and 2024, the country’s score has decreased by 1 point, which is a worrying fact. All other countries in the region have gone in the opposite direction, with Turkmenistan’s, Kyrgyzstan’s, and Tajikistan’s scores decreasing from 19 to 17, from 31 to 25, and from 25 to 19, respectively. This separation paints a clear picture of priorities for the governments of Central Asian republics and presents them with the consequences of their chosen development paths.

 Finally, there is the pillar of Global Mobility, which also constitutes 15% of the total country score and measures the level of travel freedom and visa-free access for the citizens of a given country. Central Asian countries are ranked as follows:

• Kazakhstan - 80th place
• Kyrgyzstan - 111th place
• Uzbekistan - 115th place
• Tajikistan - 119th place
• Turkmenistan - 124th place

 In this case, the trend of uniformity breaks once again as Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan outperform their general rankings, while their neighbors underperform. Overall, it can be observed clearly that Central Asian countries’ citizens still lack easy tourist or business access to many of the most developed countries in the world, which decreases the number of opportunities people possess and reduces the potential value of the countries’ passports.

 In general, while the value of citizenship is not an obvious measure of a country’s success by any means, it can provide an interested observer with numerous insights into the overall state of affairs shaping its society, economy, and governance. Such knowledge should be analyzed, discussed, and used for the betterment of national and regional trajectories. And on that path, a country oriented towards progress is going to attract many talented individuals who will enrich its human capital and drive further innovation.

References:

 CS Global Partners (2025). 2025 World Citizenship Report. Retrieved from https://csglobalpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CSGP_WCR_2025_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 12.09.2025.  

 Current Time (2025). Uzbek border guards shot two Kyrgyz citizens at the border. Villagers say they were looking for livestock. Retrieved from https://www.currenttime.tv/a/uzbekistanskie-pogranichniki-zastrelili-na-granitse-dvuh-kyrgyzstantsev-odnoselchane-govoryat-chto-oni-hodili-iskat-skot/33518574.html  Accessed on 16.09.2025.  

Fergana News (2025). Presidents of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan signed an agreement on the tripoint of their borders. Retrieved from https://fergana.agency/news/137220/. Accessed on 16.09.2025.  

 InfoCity (2025). Astana Hub reviews the results of 2024: record achievements and prospects for the future. Retrieved from https://infocity.tech/2025/01/astana-hub-podvodit-itogi-2024-goda-rekordnye-dostizhenija-i-perspektivy-dlja-buduschego/. Accessed on 16.09.2025. 

 Institute for Economics & Peace (2024). Global Peace Index 2024. Retrieved from https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-web.pdf. Accessed on 14.09.2025.  

 Kazinform (2025). In 2025, Central Asia's economic growth will reach 5% – forecast. Retrieved from https://www.inform.kz/ru/v-2025-godu-rost-ekonomiki-tsentralnoy-azii-sostavit-5-prognoz-b5f683. Accessed on 16.09.2025. 

 Transparency International (2025). Corruption Perceptions Index 2024. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024/

 United Nations Development Program (n.d.). Human Development Index (HDI). Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI,  Accessed on 16.09.2025. 

 World Bank (n.d.). GDP per capita (current US$) - Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan. The World Bank. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=TM-UZ.  Accessed on 17.09.2025. 

 Yale University (2024). 2024 Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved from https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/2024-epi-report-20250106.pdf.  Accessed on 16.09.2025. 

Note: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the Institute’s editorial policy.