Transition Studies Review

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 105–118 | Cite as

Development Priorities in an Emerging Decentralized Economy: The Case of Armenia’s Local Development Programs

Black Sea Regional Studies


Based on a data set of 217 communities in Armenia, this paper studies the choice of priority directions in local development programs in the years 2003–2005. The scope of programs is presented and discussed relative to good practices in local development. It is shown that a disproportionately high share of programs is directed at improving local infrastructures, against the principles of good practices. Furthermore, the responsiveness to community needs of local development programs is explored for the case of drinking water infrastructure projects. This paper provides suggestive evidence for program responsiveness, which further increases with an increase in newspaper circulation in a community.


Local development Local government Armenia 

JEL Classification

H70 O10 


  1. Ahmad J, Devarajan S, Khemani S, Shah S (2005) Decentralization and service delivery. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3603Google Scholar
  2. Andersson K, Gibson C, Lehouc F (2006) Municipal politics and forest governance: comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Dev 34(3):576–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besley T, Burgess R (2002) The political economy of government responsiveness: theory and evidence from India. Q J Econ 117(4):1415–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drampian A (2003) Local economic development in Armenia: how it can be facilitated? Econ Develop Poverty, October(5)Google Scholar
  5. Faguet JP (2004) Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs? evidence from Bolivia. J Publ Econ 88(3–4):867–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Majumdar S, Mani A, Mukand S (2004) Politics, information and the urban bias. J Dev Economics 75(1):137–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Melikyan L (2003) Economic and social aspects of reforming water resource management: the case of Armenia. In: O’Hara S (ed) Drop by drop: water management in the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. Budapest: Open Society Institute pp 33–85Google Scholar
  8. Oates W (1999) An essay on fiscal federalism. J Econ Lit 37(3):1120–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rosenzweig M, Foster A (2003) Democratization, decentralization and the distribution of local public goods in a poor rural economy. BREAD Working Paper 10Google Scholar
  10. Samoff J (1990) Decentralization: the politics of interventionism. Dev Change 21(3):513–530Google Scholar
  11. Shah A (1998) Balance, accountability, and responsiveness: lessons about decentralization. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 2021Google Scholar
  12. Slater D (1989) Territorial power and the peripheral state: the issue of decentralization. Dev Change 20(3):501–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Strömberg D (2001) Mass media and public policy. Eur Econ Rev 45(4–6):652–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tumanyan D (ed) (2004) Local self-government reforms in Armenia: policy options and recommendations. Community Finance Officers Association, YerevanGoogle Scholar
  15. Tumanyan D (ed.) (2005a) The ways of local self-government system development in the Republic of Armenia. Yerevan: Communities Finance Officers AssociationGoogle Scholar
  16. Tumanyan D (ed) (2005b) Local self-government in Armenia: development imperatives. Community Finance Officers Association, YerevanGoogle Scholar
  17. UNDP (2004) Armenia Social Trends Bulletin 05, Yerevan: UNDP ArmeniaGoogle Scholar
  18. UN-HABITAT (2005) Promoting local economic development through strategic planning, local economic development series. Nairobi: UN-HABITATGoogle Scholar
  19. World Bank (2001) Local economic development: LED quick reference. World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhuravskaya E (2000) Incentives to provide local public goods: fiscal federalism, Russian style. J Publ Econ 76(3):337–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CEEUN 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Children and Young PeopleSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  2. 2.Social Policy Research CentreUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations