Sector Assistance Program Evaluation on Education in Uzbekistan

partners 
Bottom-Up Assessment (Program/Projects) 
Relevance 
15. Were ADB's strategies 
in the education sector 
relevant for the evolving 
circumstances in 
Uzbekistan? 
16. Did ADB interventions 
support realistic and 
relevant sector policy 
reforms? 
17. Did ADB projects 
respond to government 
strategies and policies? 
18. What is the extent to 
which ADB considered 
lessons and experience 
from previous projects, 
including diagnostic 
analysis done, to identify 
specific needs? 
19. Were ADB projects 
harmonized with or 
complementary to the 
support by development 
partners? 
20. Were the projects 
designed effectively to 
achieve the intended 
results? 
• Assessment 
of 
policies and 
management of the 
education sector 
• 
Alignment of ADB 
program/projects to 
country goals 
• Effectiveness 
of 
project design and 
TAs 
• Coordination 
with 
activities and 
strategies of other 
development 
partners 
• Education 
statistics 
• Annual 
monitoring 
reports 
• 
Progress reports on 
MDGs 
• Documents 
and 
reports by UNDP 
and World Bank 
• 
ADB reports such 
as CSPs, CSPUs, 
RRPs, PCRs 
• Government 
laws 
and programs on 
education sector
• Development 
partners and 
government 
• National 
Program 
for Personnel 
Training 1997 
• National 
Program 
for Basic Education 
Development 2004 
• Welfare 
Improvement 
Strategy Paper 
2007 
• Desk 
review 
of relevant 
documents 
• Interviews 
with ADB 
staff and/or 
project 
officers 
• Key 
informant 
interviews 
with 
government 
officials and 
other 
stakeholders 
• Focus 
group 
discussions 
Effectiveness 
21. Were ADB projects 
effective in achieving the 
intended outcomes? 
• Achievement 
of 
program and 
project outputs and 
their contribution to
• 
Findings of the 
CAPE, PCRs, 
BTORs, and other 
ADB reports 
Same as above 

---

Appendix 
2 
39
Evaluation 
Criteria 
Areas of Evaluation 
Major Areas of 
Consideration 
Sources of Information 
Data Collection 
Methods 
outcomes 
• 
Midterm review by 
ADB and executing 
agencies 
• Feedback 
from 
stakeholders 
including parents, 
teachers, and 
community 
Efficiency 
22. Were the projects 
implemented within the 
time schedule and 
without delay? 
23. Were contracts awarded 
in accordance with 
efficient processes and 
regulations? 
24. Have government, 
project implementation 
officers, and others 
involved in project 
implementation 
performed according to 
project design and 
schedule? 
• 
Timeliness of inter-
action and 
counterpart funding 
• Cost 
effectiveness 
in generating 
outputs 
• Procurement 
and 
implementation 
issues 
• 
Findings of the 
CAPE, PCRs, 
BTORs, and other 
reports 
• Government 
reports 
Same as above 
Sustainability 
25. Were the outputs 
obtained sustainable or 
likely to be sustained 
beyond the life of the 
projects? 
26. Were interventions 
provided to develop 
management or financial 
capacity? 
27. What innovative 
mechanisms were 
employed to address 
sustainability of outputs 
and outcomes?
• Analysis 
of 
institutional 
capacity to 
implement projects 
in a sustainable 
manner 
• Adequacy 
of 
human, material, 
and financial 
resources for 
management and 
operations 
• Ownership 
and 
commitment of 
government, both 
national and local, 
to the 
implementation of 
reforms 
• Government 
reports 
• 
ADB reports (PCRs, 
CAPE) 
Same as above 
Impact
28. How did the projects 
contribute to the 
realization of goals such 
as poverty reduction, 
improvement of the 
quality of education, and 
a broad-based 
education system 
supportive of a transition 
economy? 
• 
Analysis of project 
impacts 
• 
Analysis of the 
sector 
• Government 
reports 
• Social 
and 
poverty 
indicators of the 
country 
• Same 
as 
above 
ADB = Asian Development Bank, BTOR = back-to-office report, CAPE = country assessment program evaluation, CBO = 
community-based organization, CSP = country strategy and program, CSPU = country strategy and program update, MDG 
= Millennium Development Goal, MOPE = Ministry of Public Education, MOHSSE = Ministry of Higher and Secondary 
Specialized Education, NGO = nongovernment organization, PCR = project/program completion report, RRP = report and 
recommendation of the President, SWAp = sector-wide approach, UNDP = United Nations Development Programme. 
Source: Independent Evaluation Department. 

---

40 
Appe
ndix 3
SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC DATA IN UZBEKISTAN 
Table A3.1: Population, Labor and Employment Indicators, 1998–2008 
Indicators 
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Population
Total population, thousand; as of 1 July 
24,034 
24,375 
24,724 
25,083 
25,452 25,828 26,209 26,593 26,981 27,372 27,772 
Population density, per square kilometer 
56.5 57.3 58.1 59.0 59.8 60.7 61.6 62.5 63.4 64.3 65.3 
Population annual change, % 
1.5 
1.4 
1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 
Urban population, % of total population 37.6 37.4 37.2 37.0 36.7 36.5 36.3 36.1 36.7 36.8 ... 
Labor Force, 
thousand; calendar year 
8,833 8,924 9,018 9,174 9,368 9,621 9,946 
10,224 
10,493 10,759 11,052 
Labor force, % change 
1.42 
1.03 
1.05 
1.72 2.12 2.70 3.38 2.80 2.63 2.54 2.73 
Labor force, % of total population 
36.8 
36.6 36.5 36.6 36.8 37.3 37.9 38.4 38.9 39.3 39.8 
 
Employment 
Total employed, thousand 
8,800 
8,885 
8,983 
9,136 9,333 9,589 9,911 
10,196 10,467 10,735 11,035 
Employment, % change 
1.36 
0.96 
1.09 
1.67 2.11 2.67 3.25 2.80 2.59 2.50 2.72 
Unemployed
a
33 39 35 38 35 32 35 28 26 23 17 
Unemployment rate, % 
0.4 
0.4 
0.4 
0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 
Employment 
by 
sector, 
thousand 
`
Agriculture
3,467 
3,220 
3,093 3,062 3,046 3,063 3,068 2,970 
... 
... 
... 
Industry 
1,114 
1,124 
1,145 1,160 1,186 1,223 1,284 1,348 
... 
... 
... 
Others 
4,219 
4,541 
4,745 
4,914 5,101 5,303 5,559 5,879 
... 
... 
... 
Employment 
by 
sector, 
% 
share 
Agriculture
39.4 
36.2 
34.4 33.5 32.6 31.9 31.0 29.1 ... ... ... 
Industry 
12.7 
12.7 
12.7 12.7 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.2 ... ... ... 
Others 
47.9 
51.1 
52.8 
53.8 54.7 55.3 56.1 57.7 ... ... ... 
Employment by age group, % share 
Under 16 years 
... 
... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ... 
... 
16–24
... 
... 
14.9 
14.5 
14.6 
13.8 
14.0 
13.4 
12.4 
... ... 
24–29 
... 
... 
21.4 
20.8 
21.0 
20.2 
20.9 
20.4 
19.4 
... ... 
30–39 
... 
... 
30.1 
29.1 
28.7 
31.1 
28.6 
28.9 
28.6 
... ... 
40–49 
... 
... 
23.3 
24.7 
24.6 
24.3 
25.0 
25.0 
25.8 
... ... 
50–54 
... 
... 
6.9 
7.5 
7.7 
7.5 
8.2 
8.8 
9.9 
... ... 
55 and over 
... 
... 
3.3 
3.3 
3.3 
3.1 
3.3 
3.5 
3.9 
... ... 
... = not available. 
a
Refers to officially registered only. 
Source: ADB Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2009, United Nations Development Programme, and Uzbekistan in figures.
 

---

Appe
ndix 
3
41
Table A3.2: Selected Socioeconomic Indicators in Uzbekistan, 1998–2008 
 
Indicator 
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Economy
GDP (at current prices), billion, 
UZS 
141.6
212.8
325.5
492.5
745.0
983.7
1,218.9
1,521.0
2,075.9
2,430.2
3,683.9
GDP growth rate, % 
4.3
4.3
3.8
4.2
4.0
4.2
7.4
7.0
7.5
9.5
9.5
GDP per capita, UZS 
58,886.0 87,216.0 131,562.0 196,543.0 293,699.0 383,592.0 472,312.0 606,325.0 780,990.0 908,160.0 977,180.0
Structure of output, percent of GDP 
at current factor cost 
Agriculture 31.3 
33.5 
34.4 
34.0 34.5 33.1 31.1 28.1 26.5 24.0 ... 
Industry 26.2 
24.3 
23.1 22.6 22.2 23.5 25.2 28.8 30.0 32.6 ... 
Services 42.5 
42.2 
42.5 
43.4 
43.4 43.4 43.7 43.1 43.5 43.4 ... 
Public budget expenses (% of 
GDP) 
33.0
31.0
29.0
27.0
26.1
24.6
22.9
22.5
20.2
20.7
... 
Public consumption (% of GDP) 
20.5
20.6
18.7
18.5
18.0
17.4
16.2
15.9
15.3
16.7
... 
Exchange rate, UZS/USD 
109.4
139.4
325.0
688.0
970.0
979.4
1,058.0
1,180.0
1,240.0
1,290.0
... 
Private consumption (% of GDP) 
58.7
61.1
60.9
60.6
59.3
54.5
50.9
47.4
48.3
47.1
... 
Expenses and savings of 
population, billion UZS 
89.0
143.9
228.4
349.8
524.8
621.2
760.4
953.3
1,268.0
1,687.7
... 
Tax revenues (% of GDP) 
27.9
25.9
23.3
23.6
23.0
23.1
27.4
26.3
27.2
27.1
28.2
Budget deficit, % of GDP 
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.5
1.1
... 
Consumer Price Index, % 
29.0
29.1
24.9
27.4
27.6
10.3
1.6
6.4
8.7
6.1
7.3
Unemployment rate, % 
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
...