CA-TPU Quarterly Report (Q1 2026)

Executive Summary

In Q1 2026, the CA-TPU Index averaged 166.34, up 44.9% from the previous quarter (Q4 2025: 114.78) and 74.1% year-on-year (Q1 2025: 95.56), marking the highest quarterly uncertainty level since records began in 2013. All three months exceeded 120, with January (175.43) and March (183.48) recording the fourth- and second-highest monthly readings in history. A total of 32,437 news articles were collected with 913 AND hits — both all-time quarterly records. Central Asian trade policy uncertainty has comprehensively entered historical highs under the dual pressure of US tariff implementation and ongoing secondary sanctions risks.

1. Index Overview

1.1 Quarterly Comparison

1.2 Monthly Trend Within Quarter

The quarterly trajectory forms a pronounced “N-pattern”: a sharp January surge triggered by US tariff implementation, a brief February pullback during the policy digestion phase, and a March re-escalation to even higher levels driven by tariff expansion and secondary sanctions. Notably, February’s “low” (140.11) still exceeded every month in the previous quarter, indicating an upward shift in the index’s operating center.

2. Weekly Trend and Shock Rhythm

Data from 13 complete weeks within the quarter reveals the micro-rhythm of uncertainty shocks:

Uncertainty exhibits a clear “double-peak” structure within the quarter. The first wave concentrated in early January (f_ratio peak 0.0723), representing the direct reaction to tariff activation; after digestion through February, a second wave emerged in March with f_ratio recovering from 0.047 to 0.060, demonstrating that uncertainty operates as a recurring oscillation under sustained policy fermentation, not a one-time pulse.

3. In-Depth News Data Analysis

3.1 Quarterly Totals

The sharp increase in total news volume reflects two overlapping factors: genuinely increased media coverage density on trade policy topics across Central Asia, and continued optimization of data collection coverage (particularly for Kazakhstani sources from Q4 2025 onwards). The more meaningful metric is the aggregate f_ratio: rising from 0.0383 (Q1 2025) to 0.0541 (Q1 2026, +41.3%), this confirms that TPU-relevant reporting concentration is increasing significantly even against the backdrop of an expanding news base.

3.2 Country-Level Quarterly Comparison

Year-on-year changes diverge sharply across countries. Uzbekistan experienced the most dramatic shift: AND hits surged from 26 to 244 (+838.5%) and f_ratio from 0.0188 to 0.0917 (+387.8%), meaning its media discourse intensity on trade policy uncertainty nearly quintupled within one year, rising from lowest to highest among the four countries.

Kazakhstan presents a “volume up, ratio down” paradox: AND hits rose from 133 to 384 (+188.7%), yet f_ratio fell from 0.1144 to 0.0591 (-48.3%) because total news volume exploded from 1,226 to 11,095 articles (+805%), with OR growth outpacing AND growth.

Tajikistan showed the most moderate change (AND +28.0%), consistent with its relatively closed trade structure and limited direct US tariff exposure.

3.3 Intra-Quarter Monthly f_ratio Evolution

Intra-quarter trajectories diverge clearly. Kazakhstan’s f_ratio declined from 0.0702 to 0.0493 month by month, indicating the direct tariff shock concentrated in January and gradually dissipated. Uzbekistan exhibited a V-shaped rebound, with March f_ratio surging back to 0.1056 (highest of the quarter). Kyrgyzstan remained stable (0.027–0.034). Tajikistan’s March f_ratio (0.0929) doubled from January–February levels (0.045), representing the most notable anomaly signal at quarter-end and warranting continued monitoring.

4. Media Source Analysis

4.1 TPU Contribution by Outlet

uza.uz (Uzbekistan’s state news agency) and forbes.kz (Kazakhstan’s business media) have nearly identical f_ratios (0.1275 vs 0.1271), each contributing over 21% of all AND hits. That two institutionally disparate outlets — one a government voice, the other a financial specialist publication — achieve virtually identical TPU reporting concentration reflects how deeply uncertainty has penetrated from policy communication to market analysis.

The top three outlets collectively contributed 579 of 913 AND hits (63.4%).

5. Keyword Analysis

5.1 Top Keywords This Quarter

T (Trade) TOP5: торговля/trade (1,283), соглашение/agreement (771), экспорт/export (589), санкции/sanctions (460), договор/treaty (371). P (Policy) TOP5: решение/decision (1,266), политика/policy (1,045), закон/law (1,028), правительство/government (920), министерство/ministry (602). U (Uncertainty) TOP5: риск/risk (1,099), напряжённость/tension (183), кризис/crisis (146), неопределённость/uncertainty (98), нестабильность/instability (67).

5.2 Cross-Country Topic Differentiation

Country keyword profiles reveal four distinct thematic structures. Kazakhstan’s top P-keyword is “law” (закон, 544 mentions), far exceeding other countries, with “tariff” (130) leading T-keywords and “risk” (558) highest in U-category — reflecting its focus on legal frameworks, tariff response, and risk assessment as the direct target of US tariffs.

Uzbekistan’s T-category is dominated by “agreement” (434) and “trade” (412), reflecting its active role in regional trade arrangements; its U-category shows elevated “tension” (156) and “crisis” (131) totaling 287 mentions, indicating stronger crisis perception.

Kyrgyzstan’s “sanctions” (68) holds a disproportionately high share of T-keywords (18%), pointing to sanctions spillover as a core concern. Tajikistan’s U-category uniquely shows “instability” (41) tied with “crisis” (41), while all other countries are overwhelmingly led by “risk” — suggesting TJ faces more structural instability rather than event-driven risk.

5.3 Year-over-Year Keyword Changes (Q1 2026 vs Q1 2025)

Among the top 10 fastest-growing keywords, P-category (policy) accounts for 6, with growth rates generally exceeding T and U categories — notably “law” (+491%) and “ministry” (+389%). This reveals an important structural shift: uncertainty drivers have moved beyond “trade shock + uncertain sentiment” toward policy response uncertainty — how governments respond, what measures they adopt, and how legal frameworks adjust have become the core sources of uncertainty. “Risk” (+234%), despite lower percentage growth, ranks second in absolute frequency (1,099), pervading the vast majority of TPU-relevant reporting.

6. Long-Cycle Positioning (2024–2026)

6.1 8-Quarter f_ratio Trajectory

Over the two-year horizon, Uzbekistan experienced the most dramatic transformation: f_ratio rose from ~0.02 (2024) to 0.0917 (Q1 2026) — nearly a 4-fold increase, shifting from the least trade-policy-sensitive country to the most impacted in the current uncertainty cycle.

Kazakhstan’s f_ratio actually declined from 0.1166 to 0.0591, though this does not indicate weakening uncertainty — AND counts rose from 142 to 384 (+170%), with the decline driven by explosive news volume growth diluting the ratio.

Cross-country f_ratio dispersion has converged: the gap between KZ (0.088) and KG (0.018) was 4.9× in 2024-Q1, narrowing to 1.9× by 2026-Q1 (KZ 0.059 vs KG 0.031), indicating that trade policy uncertainty is evolving from “primarily affecting KZ” to “region-wide diffusion.”

7. Trend Assessment

Q1 2026 data reveals several noteworthy trend signals. First, the persistence of uncertainty has exceeded expectations: the quarter’s lowest month (February, 140.11) still far exceeds the previous quarter’s highest (October, 124.98), confirming a step-change upward in the index’s operating level, with MA3 reaching an all-time high of 166.34. Second, uncertainty is transforming from a “one-time shock” into “sustained pressure”: weekly data shows a double-peak structure with renewed March escalation following February’s digestion phase. Third, regional diffusion is evident: sharp March f_ratio increases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan show uncertainty spilling over from KZ (the direct tariff target) to neighboring countries, corroborated by cross-country f_ratio convergence. Fourth, policy response itself is becoming a new uncertainty source: P-category keywords grew fastest year-on-year (“law” +491%, “ministry” +389% vs “trade” +183%), meaning governments’ tariff response measures, legal adjustments, and negotiation processes are themselves generating new uncertainty. Future quarter trajectories will depend on the evolution of US tariff policies, substantive progress in Kazakhstan’s exemption negotiations, and the effectiveness of Central Asian countries’ trade diversification and regional integration efforts.

8. Data Appendix

CA-TPU Index — Last 12 Months

About the CA-TPU Index

The CA-TPU (Central Asia Trade Policy Uncertainty Index) is developed by Prof. Zhang Lijie’s team at the School of Economics and Management, Xinjiang University, based on Baker, Bloom & Davis (2016). It covers Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. For details, see catpu.caiees.cn

Data Analysis Methodology and Audit Support

The quantitative analysis in this report is based on 8 structured SQL queries covering quarterly overviews, monthly and weekly trends, media source contributions, keyword frequencies, cross-country topic differentiation, year-on-year keyword changes, and 8-quarter longitudinal trends. All queries were executed directly on the PostgreSQL database with CSV output. The accompanying “CA TPU Q1 2026 Data Audit Package” contains the complete methodology document and all 8 raw CSV datasets, enabling any third party with SQL execution capability to independently reproduce all analytical results presented in this report.

Published by the CA-TPU Index Project Team.

This index is for academic research and informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice.