Sector Assistance Program Evaluation on Education in Uzbekistan

Figure 1: Total Value of Loans to Uzbekistan (1996–2009), by Sector 
 
Transport, and 
Information and 
Communication 
Technology
21%
Health and 
Social 
Protection
3%
Energy
5%
Finance
2%
Industry and 
Trade
4%
Public Sector 
Management
2%
Water and 
Other Municipal 
Infrastructure 
and Services
15%
Agriculture and 
Natural 
Resources
27%
Education
23%
 
Source: Loan, TA, grant and equity approvals database (as of 31 December 2009). 
B. 
Evaluation Framework and Methodology 
3. 
The SAPE uses top–down (strategic and institutional) and bottom–up (operational) 
assessments based on the CAPE guidelines of ADB Independent Evaluation Department 
1
There was a 1997 interim operational strategy, followed by 2000 country operation strategy, county strategy and 
program (CSP) update 2003–2005, and CSP update 2005–2006. It is noteworthy that the emphasis laid on 
education was consistent throughout. See Table 2 in the 2006 CAPE, p. 21. 

---

2 
(IED).
2
The top–down assessment examines the positioning of ADB's assistance, its 
contribution to overall development results, and ADB's institutional performance. The bottom–up 
assessment includes an appraisal of ADB's assistance in terms of relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, sustainability, and impact (Appendix 2). The SAPE also describes links to other 
programs supported by other development partners (Appendix 4).
4. 
The SAPE draws on project documents, available evaluation reports, and information 
generated by fieldwork. It identifies the main trends in ADB’s assistance to the sector, and lays 
the ground for identifying lessons for future operations. Two SAPE missions were fielded (1–7 
December 2009 and 2–23 March 2010) for consultation with the government agencies and 
collection of necessary data. At the end of the main mission, a workshop was conducted to 
discuss the findings and implications of the SAPE.