- Key Facts
- Board of Governors
- Board of Directors
- Departments and Offices
- Policies and Strategies
- Annual Meetings
- Independent Evaluation
- Public Sector (Sovereign) Financing
- Private Sector (Nonsovereign) Financing
- Funds and Resources
- Asian Development Fund
- ASEAN Infrastructure Fund
- Investor Information[日本語]
- Business Opportunities
- Consulting Services
- ADB-Japan Scholarship Program
- News & Events
- Data & Research
- Industry and Trade
- Information and Communication Technology
- Public Sector Management
- Social Protection
- Capacity Development
- Climate Change
- Environmental Sustainability
- Gender and Development
- Poverty Reduction
- Private Sector Development
- Regional Cooperation and Integration
- Social Development
- Urban Development
- Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA)
- Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC)
- Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS)
- Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT)
- South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC)
- European Representative Office
- Japanese Representative Office [日本語]
- North American Representative Office
- Pacific Liaison and Coordination Office
- Pacific Subregional Office
Countries with Operations
- China, People's Republic of [中文]
- Cook Islands
- Indonesia [Bahasa Indonesia]
- Kyrgyz Republic
- Lao PDR
- Marshall Islands
- Micronesia, Federated States of
- Papua New Guinea
Country Assistance Program Evaluation for Uzbekistan (2006)
ADB administration and governance; Evaluation
|Series:||Country Assistance Program Evaluations|
The Asian Development Bank's (ADB) operations in Uzbekistan began with an interim operational strategy prepared in 1996. A full country operational strategy (COS) followed in 2000, and thereafter supplemented by country strategy and program updates (CSPUs).
As the portfolio is not mature, it is generally too soon to be able to state confidently what the program's impacts are and how sustainable ADB operations will be. Information available indicates, despite a level of uncertainty, the program has encouraged the case for reform in some areas; achieved impacts in basic education and transport; and that ADB has been an effective apolitical player that has built up a degree of trust with the Government.
The CAPE methodology followed the conventional Operations Evaluation Department (OED) approach of document examination: preliminary issue formulation; data collection in the field through surveys, questionnaires, interviews, focus group sessions; and inspections of project implementation.
Issues and lessons
The country strategies contained in the interim and full country operational strategies were assessed as being between satisfactory and highly satisfactory. The overall program was rated satisfactory based on the criteria of relevance and efficacy.
Some issues and lessons that came out from the evaluation were
- Strengthen the link between the strategy and the program. While there were strengths in the Uzbekistan country strategies, there were also weaknesses, one of which was the implementation of the strategy, in particular inconsistencies between the strategy and ADB's operational program.
- Greater sector focus and selectivity. As a general proposition, it is likely that ADB would have a better quality portfolio if it focuses on those sectors in which it has a proven track record of achieving development results. A sector focus is needed to complement thematic focuses in country strategy and programs (CSPs). This will help to prevent a drift away from the strategy during its implementation.
Build synergies in ADB's operations. Three study findings illustrate this issue:
- lack of geographic focus
- failure to address strategic themes across operations systematically, which could have been addressed by identifying such themes in CSPUs
- greater partnerships with other donors that include common arrangements for implementation and identification of a lead donor for a particular sector, program, action, or task leading to harmonization of their actions, thus increasing transparency and collectively effectiveness
- Develop a governance strategy. Given that governance is a broad and sensitive topic, ADB needs to select a strategic governance agenda in Uzbekistan carefully, based on an open and frank discussion with Government.
- Improve the management of the technical assistance (TA) program and the results achieved. TA is likely to play a key role in supporting ADB's activities in the area of governance. There is evidence of client satisfaction and positive outcomes under some TA projects. However, weaknesses were also identified, raising questions about the usefulness, impact, and sustainability of some outputs.
- Strategy formulation and program management need to be improved.
- The next CSP should identify niches where the Government would welcome ADB playing a lead role in helping the transition to a market economy by strengthening the governance system.
- ADB should improve the management of the TA program and the results achieved.
- ADB should become a better development partner by avoiding the imposition of ADB-driven conditions and taking a long-term view of Uzbekistan's transition to a market economy.
- The CSP should define a larger role for the Uzbekistan Resident Mission (URM), building on its proven strengths, and revise the balance of resources between the URM and ADB headquarters so that the URM is adequately resourced.
- Executive Summary
- Context for Country Strategy
- Country Strategy and Program
- Assessment of Strategy and Program
- Issues, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations