Azerbaijan officials’ salaries quadruple: What do income inequality figures show?

Officials’ salaries in Azerbaijan rise

A presidential decree signed on 19 March and effective from 1 January this year has led to a sharp increase in official salaries for senior officials in Azerbaijan.

According to official documents, new monthly salaries have been set for the prime minister, ministers and a number of senior executive officials. The same package also предусматривает salary increases for certain leadership positions in the прокуратура and the election administration.

The scale of the increase for the speaker of parliament and several other top positions has drawn particular attention.

Under amendments to the law “On the Status of Deputies of the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan”, the monthly salary of the parliamentary speaker has been raised from 3,550 manats (about $2,100) to 17,000 manats (about $10,000). The same changes set the monthly salary of ordinary MPs at around 9,000 manats (about $5,300).

In this context, the officially stated key figures are as follows:

• Speaker of the Milli Majlis – 17,000 manats (about $10,000),
• Prime Minister – 17,160 manats (about $10,100),
• Ministers – 13,750 manats (about $8,100),
• Ordinary MPs – about 9,000 manats (about $5,300),
• Minimum wage – 400 manats (about $235), in effect since 1 January 2025 and unchanged at the start of 2026,
• Average monthly nominal salary – 1,102.9 manats (about $649), according to official data for 2025.

The relationship between these figures has become a subject of debate. The parliamentary speaker’s salary is about 15.4 times higher than the average wage and 42.5 times higher than the minimum wage.

The issue of wealth inequality is also frequently raised in discussions. According to the World Inequality Report, around 10% of Azerbaijan’s population holds approximately 56% of the country’s total wealth.

While the decision is presented as a move towards a more unified and stable wage system, it has also raised concerns over a widening income gap.

Salaries before and after increase

Argument in favour of a unified system

Sahib Mammadov, head of the Citizens’ Labour Rights Protection League, says that salaries in the civil service were previously based on a model of “base pay + allowances + bonuses”, whereas the new approach changes these mechanisms. He describes it as more transparent and more incentive-based.

“Allowances largely depended on length of service and authority, and did not apply to all civil servants, but only to certain categories of officials. As a result of legislative changes, some gaps are being eliminated, the wage system is being optimised, and there is a transition to a more stable pay structure.

Under the amendments, bonuses and allowances are being replaced by higher base salaries. In future, all civil servants will receive fixed pay. The main goal of the reform is to ensure that future increases apply to all public sector employees. This is also a fairer approach, as newer employees had less experience.

This contradiction will therefore be removed. It should also increase young people’s interest in public service. There were sectors where salaries were low. For example, court clerks and judicial assistants earned less than other civil servants. This gap will now be eliminated.”

This position is often framed as follows: salaries for senior officials should be competitive in order to attract professionals to public administration and reduce “hidden incentives” such as informal sources of income.

“High salaries to attract talent”: the Singapore analogy

During a previous round of salary increases in 2022, lawyer Akram Hasanov referred to the “Singapore model”. The idea is to move away from a system marked by corruption and lack of transparency by raising officials’ salaries while simultaneously introducing strict oversight mechanisms. In this view, higher pay can help attract the most qualified specialists to public service.

“In Azerbaijan, the salaries of officials, MPs, judges — in fact, all public sector employees — should be high. In that case, there will be no corruption.

However, salary increases must be accompanied by other measures. All public officials — including MPs — should declare their income and expenditure. They should do so annually, including information about family members. Financial data on officials, their spending and acquisitions should be openly available on the websites of state institutions.

Let MPs earn 15,000 or even 20,000, but we must see how this money is spent. Otherwise, it may turn out that their assets and expenses do not match their declared income. This would indicate either corruption or незаконная предпринимательская деятельность. This applies not only to MPs, but to all public officials.

Everyone knows that 99% of officials do not live on their salaries alone. Sometimes the cost of their suits exceeds their annual official income, not to mention their cars, houses, holiday homes, family assets and foreign travel. Where does all this come from?

It is obvious that they either take bribes or engage in illegal business. This also creates monopolies in the country. Why should a public official be involved in business activity? By using their position, they create monopolies. Therefore, let their salaries be high, so that they have fewer incentives to seek unofficial income. I also believe that responsibility in this area should be strict. In Azerbaijan, corruption should be punishable by life imprisonment.”

What is the main issue?

Public dissatisfaction is driven less by the absolute figures than by the scale of the gap and a sense of unfairness in the context of everyday life. In a country where the average monthly salary is 1,102.9 manats, the parliamentary speaker’s salary of 17,000 manats far exceeds both average and minimum wage levels.

Are there international comparisons?

For example, the study Members’ Pay: An International Comparison, published in February 2025, compares MPs’ salaries across different parliaments. It finds that:

• In Germany’s Bundestag, annual income is €134,726.
• In Norway’s Storting, annual salary is 1,171,000 Norwegian kroner.

These figures suggest that high salaries for lawmakers are common in some countries. However, the key difference lies not only in pay levels, but also in factors such as tax burdens, mandatory income declarations, conflict-of-interest regulation and the effectiveness of public oversight.

What sets Azerbaijan apart?

The main difference lies above all in the ratio between high official salaries and the country’s average wage.

The question of whether this level corresponds to “global standards” becomes secondary. The central issue is how it affects the country’s socio-economic balance.

The World Inequality Report makes the debate over salary increases for officials and MPs even more sensitive.

As a result, a key question remains: if high salaries in Azerbaijan are indeed seen as a tool to retain qualified personnel and improve governance, why is this step not accompanied by the introduction of income declarations, independent audits and mechanisms of public accountability?

Officials’ salaries in Azerbaijan rise