Public Administration and Governance in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood Countries: Comparative Approach and Relevance for the European Neighbourhood Policy Effectiveness

  • Mihaela OnofreiEmail author
  • Florin Oprea


Public administration and governance play a key role in ensuring socio-economic stability, growth, and resilience at national and local level. Assuming that there is “no single best approach” of public administration and governance systems, this chapter proposes a comparative study for the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood countries, highlighting the main characteristics of their administrative systems and governance practices and thus revealing their implications for the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) effectiveness. Based on our findings, we synthetize the main lessons and best practices that could have a highly normative relevance for policymaking. The value of this chapter rests on the comparative approach and proposed recommendations, useful for both the EU’s institutions and national authorities in analysed countries in order to strengthen their partnerships, regulatory frameworks, and public policies.


Public administration Governance Reform European Neighbourhood Policy Eastern Partnership (EaP) 


  1. Agayev, R., Ibadoglu, G., Mehtiyev, A., & Aslanov. A. (2007). Strengthening Municipalities in Azerbaijan. Concept Paper. Retrieved December 14, 2018, from
  2. Boadway, R., & Shah, A. (2009). Fiscal Federalism – Principles and Practice of Multiorder Governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum. (2017). Eastern Partnership Index, 2017: Charting Progress in European Integration, Democratic Reforms and Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from
  4. European Commission. (2015). Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Retrieved November 10, 2018, from
  5. European Commission. (2016). Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy. Retrieved November 10, 2018, from
  6. European Commission. (2017a). A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU’s External Action. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from
  7. European Commission. (2017b). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with Our Eastern and Southern Neighbours. Retrieved from Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2017c). Eastern Partnership – 20 Deliverables for 2020 Focusing on Key Priorities and Tangible Result. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from
  9. Freedom House. (2019). Nations in Transit. Country Reports. Retrieved January 27, 2019, from
  10. Gahramanova, A. (2009). Internal and External Factors in the Democratization of Azerbaijan. Democratization, 16(4), 777–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. International Monetary Fund. (2019). Fiscal Decentralization Dataset. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from
  12. Krivorotko, Y. (2007). A Destiny of Local Finance in Belarus: Centralisation or Decentralisation? Paper presented at The 15-th NISPAcee Annual Conference “Leadership and Management in the Public Sector: Values, Standards and Competencies in Central and Eastern Europe”, Kiev, Ukraine. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from rotko05062007.doc.
  13. Krivorotko, Y. (2015). Study. Finance Benchmarks: Areas and Options for Assessing Local Financial Resources and Financial Management in Belarus. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from
  14. Mazol, A. (2015). Local Self-Governance in the Republic of Belarus (Free Policy Brief Series). Minsk: BEROC. Retrieved December 8, 2018, from Scholar
  15. OECD. (2018). Maintaining the Momentum of Decentralisation in Ukraine (OECD Multi-Level Governance Studies). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved March 8, 2019, from Scholar
  16. Onofrei, M. (2013). Sisteme administrative comparate (Comparative Administrative Systems). Bucharest: Tritonic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Onofrei, M., & Oprea, F. (2017). Fiscal Decentralisation and Self-Government Practices: Southern Versus Eastern Periphery of the European Union. In G. C. Pascariu & M. A. P. D. S. Duarte (Eds.), Core-Periphery Patterns Across the European Union (pp. 251–289). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oprea, F. (2011). Sisteme bugetare publice. Teorie şi practică (Public Budgeting Systems. Theory and Practice). Bucharest: Economica.Google Scholar
  19. Oprea, F. (2013). Managementul financiar al colectivităţilor locale (Financial Management of Local Collectivities). Bucharest: Tritonic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia. (2019). Retrieved February 4, 2019, from
  21. Terzyan, A. (2017). The EU vs. Russia in the Foreign Policy Discourse of Armenia: The Fragility of Normative Power or the Power of Russian Coercion? Eastern Journal of European Studies, 8(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  22. The Constitution of The Republic of Armenia. (1995). Retrieved December 2, 2018, from
  23. The Constitution of The Republic of Azerbaijan. (2016). Retrieved December 2, 2018, from
  24. The Constitution of The Republic of Belarus. (2004). Retrieved December 4, 2018, from
  25. The Constitution of The Republic of Georgia. (2006). Retrieved December 4, 2018, from
  26. The Constitution of The Republic of Moldova. (2016). Retrieved December 6, 2018, from
  27. World Bank. (2018). Worldwide Governance Indicators. Retrieved January 4, 2019, from
  28. World Bank. (2019). Open Budgets Portal. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of IasiIasiRomania

Personalised recommendations