Public Administration in Armenia 2025

The Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Armenia,1 signed in November 2017 and fully in force since March 2021, identifies public administration reform and the development of a professional, accountable and transparent civil service as priority areas. Armenia adopted a CEPA implementation roadmap in 2019,2 which was revised in 2021.3 The government’s five-year programme, approved in August 2021,4 references the CEPA as a strategic framework guiding reforms in democratic governance, anti-corruption, justice and the rule of law. After the European Council called for enhanced co‑operation in October 2023, the fifth EU-Armenia Partnership Council, in February 2024, reviewed CEPA implementation and agreed to launch a new, more ambitious Partnership Agenda. These developments were further underscored by the National Assembly’s adoption of a bill in February 2025 calling for the launch of Armenia’s EU accession process.5

This report assesses the state of Armenia’s public administration system against the Principles of Public Administration with the aim of guiding reform efforts in this fundamental area of the enlargement process and identifying key challenges to be addressed.

Overall, Armenia has made progress in improving the functioning of its public administration, although aspects requiring significant further development remain across all areas of public administration reform (PAR). In 2022, the Government adopted its first PAR Strategy, marking a step toward a more structured reform agenda. Critical areas such as public financial management (PFM) are covered neither by the PAR Strategy nor by a separate strategy, although the revised Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Government adopted in September 2025 introduce measures to address this gap. Implementation of the PAR Strategy is hindered by ad hoc political steering and unclear co-ordination responsibilities. A revised regulatory framework for strategic planning, also adopted in September 2025, tackles these issues but has yet to be applied. There have been substantial advancements in PFM, despite the absence of an updated strategic framework, particularly in budget management, maintaining fiscal discipline and strengthening the independence of the Audit Chamber. Armenia has also made notable progress in the digitalisation of public services, although certain limitations remain, such as insufficient alignment with key EU standards on electronic identification and interoperability and the absence of proactive features such as automatic renewals and notifications. The adoption of the fifth Anti-Corruption Strategy in 2023 demonstrates continued commitment to fostering public integrity.

Advancements are scarce in other core PAR areas. Despite assigned institutional responsibilities for key centre-of-government (CoG) functions and availability of regulatory and methodological frameworks, Armenia has seen little progress in improving policy development and co-ordination. Some core elements for a well-functioning public service and human resource management (HRM) system are in place, but further development is constrained by a fragmented legal framework, weak meritocratic standards, low attractiveness of civil service jobs and a top public management function (TPM) that is too narrowly defined. This negatively affects professional capacities across all public administration bodies. The widespread delegation of administrative functions to legal entities of private law severely undermines the cohesion of public administration and the efforts to enhance professionalism, integrity and accountability. Transparency and access to information are hindered owing to shortcomings in the legislative and institutional framework, and the effectiveness of independent institutions in scrutinising public administration, despite broad legal mandates, is limited in practice. The quality and accessibility of in-person administrative services deserves thorough analysis and improvement. Public procurement legislation generally reflects EU public procurement principles and is moderately aligned with EU Directives, but there are still several gaps. A comprehensive and updated policy framework to guide further reform in this area and support implementation is not yet in place. A new public procurement review system was established in 2022 with the introduction of court jurisdiction over complaints. However, the inclusion of economic operators on the list of ineligible bidders, which is not aligned with EU law requirements, is generating significant burdens for the review system. The legal basis for multi-level governance is relatively strong and largely in line with EU standards, and the fiscal equalisation system adopted in 2023 has had a tangible impact on mitigating inequalities. Nevertheless, progress in strengthening the competences, capacities and resources of local governments after the 2015 territorial reform is still modest. Consultation between central and local governments is not institutionalised, and audit and oversight mechanisms are insufficiently developed.

The legal framework for a well-functioning public administration is largely established across all areas. However, several critical limitations remain in adopting and aligning legal frameworks with EU standards and ensuring their comprehensiveness in key PAR areas such as public internal financial control, public procurement, access to public information, some elements of corruption prevention and digital government. Legislation on the public service and the organisation of public administration allows for numerous exceptions from general rules on recruitment, salaries and integrity.

Strategies to guide reforms exist for policy development, digital governance and digital service delivery, institutional modernisation, public service and countering corruption. Critical PAR areas such as PFM (including public procurement), transparency of public administration, in-person service delivery and local government development are not yet covered by any updated strategies.

The institutional set-up, including political responsibilities and co-ordination, is mostly in place for policy development, digital services and digital governance, PFM and countering corruption. However, there are no functioning mechanisms for overall co-ordination of PAR at either the political or administrative level. Institutional responsibilities have an insufficient scope in public service and human resource management, and they are critically lacking in other core PAR areas such as the organisation of public administration, in-person service delivery and access to public information. Independent oversight by the Ombudsperson and the Audit Chamber is in place, although they have insufficient monitoring capacities.

Human and technological capital to support reforms need further development. There is no structured approach to attract, develop and retain talent in critical sectors. Robust information systems exist in some horizontal areas, such as PFM, public procurement, and PSHRM. But they call for substantial refinement to support full digitalisation allowing for efficient management, systematic monitoring and public accountability.

The gap between legislation and strategies, on the one hand, and actual practices and outcomes, on the other, can at least partly be attributed to the fact that formal rules are easier to modify than to embed in organisational culture and match with the necessary capacities to ensure implementation and tangible results. Overall, there is progress in financial management practices, as well as promising advancements in digitalisation of public services, but many challenges still remain for effective implementation of evidence-based policy development, meritocratic public service, organisation, transparency and accountability of public administration, public procurement and multi-level governance. Addressing these gaps also requires the development of effective co-ordination among ministries and government bodies and across different levels of government to ensure coherence and drive reform forward. Equally important is strengthening the engagement of civil society and other non-state stakeholders, which remains weak in many reform areas, to boost transparency and accountability.

PAR features as a priority in political and national documents, but its framework will expire in 2025. Systematic political steering, co-ordination and monitoring are needed to enhance implementation.

The PAR Strategy and its Roadmap for 2023-2025, adopted in 2022, guide reforms in strategic planning and policy development, institutional modernisation, public service and human resource management, and service delivery. However, the framework lacks coverage of some key areas, such as public financial management, which is excluded due to the expiration of the PFM Strategy in 2023. Recent regulatory changes foresee the development of a comprehensive seven-year PAR strategy, covering all core reform areas, but the process has not yet begun, raising concerns about continuity. The PAR Strategy is aligned with major national strategies, including the Government Programme 2021-2026 and the Armenia Transformation Strategy 2050. Despite this, 88% of its funding relies on external donors, calling into question its sustainability and ownership. The PAR Strategy document itself has limitations, including a weak situational analysis, incomplete cost estimates and missing outcome-level indicators. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation mechanisms are largely absent. No progress reports were produced in 2022 or 2023, and the delayed 2024 report is mostly administrative in nature. Political-level co-ordination of PAR is only sporadic. The revised strategic planning system envisages a working group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, but this mechanism is yet to be established. Political responsibility is fragmented, with unclear accountability. Civil society engagement is limited to ad hoc meetings, and there is no systematic public communication of results. This leads to low citizens’ awareness of PAR initiatives, below levels in Western Balkan administrations. These gaps hinder transparency, evidence-informed decision making and reform momentum.

The work of the Government and the Parliament is transparent. Policy development is constrained by limited use of evidence-based tools, insufficient quality assurance and stakeholder engagement.

Government decision-making is commendably transparent. The Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice perform most of the CoG functions, but co-ordination among them for better policy outcomes remains insufficient. The quality control of draft submissions to the Government is established but inconsistently applied. Armenia has improved co-ordination of European integration efforts through the Inter-Agency Commission chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, which oversees CEPA implementation and related EU programmes. A European Integration Department was recently established in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, although its mandate and division of responsibilities vis-à-vis the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are unclear. Work is ongoing to develop an updated CEPA roadmap and the first implementation report. Although guidelines exist, the transposition of EU law is insufficiently regulated and organised. Key tools and procedures for effective approximation of legislation with EU laws are not institutionalised and implemented.

Regulatory reforms in September 2025 sought to align sectoral, political, and financial planning, but the supporting guidelines are still under preparation. Government policy planning lacks focus on policy outcomes and robust costing. Monitoring and reporting are output-oriented and fail to explain progress toward objectives or outcomes. RIA is formally required, but rarely applied, and when it is used, the quality is low, limiting its usage and influence on the Government’s decision-making. Most of the draft laws are initiated and approved by the Government outside formal government plans. Public and interministerial consultations are well regulated and effectively implemented, but early stakeholder engagement and consultation tools are rarely used. Transparency and access to legislation are exemplary. Policy implementation and ex post evaluation are underdeveloped, with weak follow-up on sector strategies. The Parliament has well-defined procedures to oversee government work. The use of non-standard adoption of government bills has declined since the last assessment and is lower than in Western Balkan administrations. However, supporting analytical documents are not effectively used by the legislature. The work of the Parliament is commendably transparent.

Some foundations and potential for a sound public service and HRM are in place, but further progress is inhibited by a fragmented legal framework and weak merit safeguards and capacities.

Progress toward a modern and effective HRM system has been limited. The 2018 Civil Service Law covers the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, but it permits exceptions that significantly narrow the scope of civil service. Regulations applicable to key groups of public servants and other public employees performing administrative functions are not fully aligned with public service principles. Policy direction and co-ordination of implementation efforts are primarily focused on the civil service and not on the broader public service, as is the case with the central Human Resource Management Information System. The TPM function is unclearly defined and, in the ministries, only includes secretaries general. While TPM roles demonstrate reasonable levels of attractiveness and stability, access to these positions is not fully based on merit. Gender balance in senior roles remains far from being achieved and is below the average in EU Member States.

The methodologies for job descriptions, evaluation and classification offer a reasonable basis for sound HRM, but this potential remains largely unrealised. Workforce planning and strategic approaches to recruitment and professional development are absent. Overall, recruitment to civil service jobs is competitive, non-discriminatory and transparent, and the CSO has improved information to potential candidates on its website. However, the attractiveness of civil service jobs below the TPM level is low, with only 35% of externally advertised vacancies filled in 2024, significantly lower than in Western Balkan administrations. Selection methods continue to rely heavily on knowledge-based testing, and political appointees – ministers, deputy ministers or political advisors – can sit on selection panels. Although the salary structure is clearly defined, exceptions to general rules on additional pay and the wide variety of bonuses result in remarkable disparities in remuneration across public bodies. Most respondents to the SIGMA Survey of Public Servants on the functioning of the public administration in Armenia, conducted in March-April 2025, would recommend their organisation as a good place to work. Nevertheless, initiatives to promote public servants’ well-being are virtually absent, as is the case of social dialogue with staff representatives in the central government administration.

While advancements in integrity and administrative justice have been achieved, structural weaknesses persist in administrative organisation, oversight and transparency to ensure accountable public administration.

Armenia has achieved improvements in the areas of public integrity and administrative justice. The adoption of a strategic anti-corruption framework demonstrates political commitment and offers a solid base for advancing transparency and ethical standards. The codification of procedural rights within administrative procedures and the broad scope of judicial review contribute to upholding the right to good administration. Oversight institutions, such as the Ombudsperson Institution and the Supreme Audit Institution, benefit from formal guarantees of independence and extensive investigatory powers.

Nevertheless, there are systemic challenges that hinder institutional coherence and performance. The absence of a clear policy direction and insufficient implementation capacity for reforming the organisational structure of public administration results in a fragmented and inconsistent institutional landscape. The widespread delegation of administrative functions to state-controlled entities governed by private law severely undermines the cohesion of public administration and enables evasion from core public sector rules on integrity, recruitment and remuneration transparency. This obstructs efforts to professionalise the public service and establish a unified accountability regime. Transparency and access to public information remain mostly aspirational due to persistent legislative and institutional weaknesses, including the absence of an open data portal, the lack of regulation on data re-use and, critically, a lack of effective oversight mechanisms. The effectiveness of independent institutions in scrutinising public administration remains limited in the absence of comprehensive mechanisms to monitor the implementation of their recommendations. There is no central monitoring of efficiency and quality of administrative decision-making. Data on efficiency in handling cases by the Administrative Court of Appeal are increasingly worrying.

There are notable developments in digital service delivery, but challenges remain in over-the-counter services, administrative burden reduction, service monitoring and accessibility.

Armenia has made significant progress in advancing its public service digitalisation agenda. The Digital Transformation Strategy 2021-2025 and the PAR Strategy 2023-2025 provide a solid foundation with clear goals and responsibilities. However, offline service delivery is not comprehensively addressed and lacks a designated co-ordinating institution.

Digital transformation is progressing well, with 81% of assessed services digitalised to some extent. However, this remains below the EU average (93%), and many services are still primarily accessed in person. The user-centric approach is gaining traction through life-event redesigns of key services, supported by innovative tools and user journey mapping piloted by the Information Systems Agency of Armenia (ISAA). Despite these advancements, there are several challenges for streamlined, high-quality and accessible online and offline services. Reducing administrative burden is not a standard regulatory requirement, and ISAA’s methodology for analysing economic and social impacts of digitalising services has yet to be adopted across ministries. Several key dimensions of online service usability are still below the EU average, and proactive service features, such as automatic renewals and notifications, are not yet implemented, limiting the responsiveness of digital services. The digital signature system is functional and free of charge, but underused, and the legal framework is not fully aligned with EU standards. Cybersecurity is covered in the Digital Strategy, but the Law on Cybersecurity is yet to be adopted. There is no structured approach to developing or retaining digital talent in the public sector.

While the online portal https://hartak.am provides standardised information on digital services, the publication of concrete quality commitments is missing. Performance indicators are not commonly defined or used across government, limiting accountability and service benchmarking. A common methodology for user satisfaction measurement has been introduced using QR-code surveys, but this approach risks excluding digitally underserved populations. Accessibility of services is uneven. Digital portals largely meet international standards (WCAG 2.1), but in-person services still face major accessibility gaps. While 63% of citizens who responded to the SIGMA Survey of Citizens on public administration 2025 declared that they were satisfied with the functioning of all administrative services in the country, business satisfaction is notably lower (45%).

There has been progress in budget management and fiscal discipline, but challenges persist in revenue collection, risk management, internal control and audit systems.

Armenia has undertaken several significant reforms to enhance PFM, particularly in budget formulation and execution. The legal and procedural framework for budget preparation is comprehensive, with clear timelines and medium-term fiscal planning. Public access to budget information through citizen-friendly formats and open data platforms has advanced transparency. However, the credibility of the Medium-Term Budgetary Framework could be improved, and practical challenges persist in ensuring effective parliamentary and independent scrutiny. Notably, Armenia lacks a dedicated independent fiscal oversight body.

Tax administration and cash management systems have improved. Nevertheless, revenue collection is below planned levels, which indicates issues in revenue predictability and collection efficiency. Despite these challenges, Armenia maintained fiscal discipline in 2024, with actual debt and deficit figures staying below their estimated levels. The government has developed a comprehensive fiscal risk management framework, but the frequency and depth of fiscal risk monitoring is still evolving.

Public internal financial control remains underdeveloped, lacking comprehensive regulations, co‑ordination and structured risk management. The absence of systematic internal control reporting hampers oversight but does not preclude effective day-to-day control practices. Internal audit functions are legally well-established, along with related guidance. However, the framework needs to be updated to reflect recent changes in international standards. There are challenges related to co‑ordination, capacity, quality assurance and external assessments which limit the overall effectiveness of internal audit. Key elements, such as staffing for the Central Harmonisation Unit and the finalisation of the 2024 audit development, plan remain pending.

The external audit function performed by the Audit Chamber benefits from a strong legal foundation, ensuring operational independence and alignment with international auditing standards. The Chamber’s mandate covers all public sector financial operations. However, practical challenges remain in implementing the requirements of the revised quality management system, and there is limited parliamentary scrutiny and engagement in response to audit findings.

There is reasonable alignment of public procurement legislation with EU principles, but legal completeness and consistency, strategic orientation, and management, monitoring and oversight of procurement need improvement.

The Public Procurement Law is broadly aligned with 2014 EU Directives. However, some key instruments, such as framework agreements and dynamic purchasing systems, are lacking. Approximation to EU standards in some specific sectors is only partial or not in place. Overall, eligibility criteria for participation in procurement mirror the exclusion grounds set out in the EU Directives, but there is a significant discrepancy in the way economic operators are excluded from participation in the procurement process, which results in a very high number of entities included on the list of ineligible bidders. While the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Law incorporates key procurement principles, its contract award and review procedures are not yet in line with the EU acquis.

A strategic concept for public procurement was adopted in 2022, but it fails to comprehensively address all necessary policy components, and there is no up-to-date and structured action plan for implementation. This, along with limited availability of data in ARMEPS, the electronic procurement system, hinders policy monitoring and accountability. Key challenges persist in implementation. Competitive participation is gradually increasing, but non-competitive procedures still dominate in contract value. Centralised purchasing is absent, and contract management requires improvement. Support mechanisms are in place and include general guidance, training and certification of procurement officers. However, sector-specific guidance and practical training are lacking. Institutional co-operation and co-ordination also need strengthening.

The review system underwent significant reform in 2022 with the introduction of court jurisdiction over complaints. Deficiencies persist in the review framework for PPPs and concessions. There was an increase in appeals, particularly concerning the inclusion on the list of ineligible bidders, and effective monitoring of performance is not yet in place. The establishment of a dedicated judicial panel specialised in public procurement is expected to enhance the quality of decisions.

There is a sound legal basis for multi-level government, but reduced competences and fiscal autonomy, fragmented oversight and underutilised inter-municipal co-operation undermine multi-level governance.

The legal basis for multi-level governance is relatively strong, including a system for tax sharing and equalisation. However, there is still a notable gap between legislation and practice. Municipal amalgamations have increased the size of local units, but the scope of competences is limited. Although legislation supports local government fiscal autonomy, financial resources are inadequate for municipalities to meet their responsibilities. The fiscal equalisation system, introduced in 2023, has noticeably reduced disparities, but its effectiveness could be improved. Consultation between central and local governments is not institutionalised, and there is no co‑ordinated structure among ministries on local government matters. Audit and oversight mechanisms are fragmented and require further development. Inter-municipal co-operation is not sufficiently utilised, nor are mechanisms for citizen participation. The ongoing work of a Draft Law on Local Self-Government and a Decentralisation Strategy are opportunities for transformative progress, if backed by political will, institutional commitment and inclusive policymaking.

The way forward

Drawing on the comparative weaknesses in the functioning of public administration and understanding the potential of the administration of Armenia to implement reforms, the following directions merit highest level attention and support:

• The Government should adopt a comprehensive PAR agenda, including PFM, public procurement, access to public information, in-person service delivery and local government development areas.

• The Government should define and streamline institutional functions to ensure effective and coherent co-ordination of European integration-related matters.

• The Government should ensure the adoption of updated and comprehensive legal frameworks aligned with EU standards in PAR areas, including digital governance, access to information, public integrity, public internal financial control and public procurement.

• The Government should strengthen professional leadership and management in public administration, as an essential driver of successful and sustainable reforms. This should involve expanding the scope of the TPM function to the co-ordination of policy areas in ministries and the positions of heads of agencies subordinated to ministries. The Government should ensure merit in the access to TPM positions and promote gender balance.

• The Government should review the bodies currently performing functions of public administration in atypical organisational forms with the aim of integrating them into the general regulatory framework for the state administration, or at least ensuring greater alignment with the rules of open and merit-based recruitment, transparent salaries and public integrity.

• The Parliament should develop its scrutiny of the Government in policymaking and implementation and PFM. The Ombudsperson Institution and the Supreme Audit Institution should considerably improve mechanisms to monitor the responsiveness of public authorities to their recommendations.