The shortcomings existing in the legislation, as stated by the authors, still persisted in 2013, i.e., rates of local taxes for property and land tax established as municipal revenues continued to be defined by law, and the power of establishing tax rates was not assigned to the LSGs, in contrast to what is prescribed by the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
“Units of self-government, i.e., municipalities, continue to be extremely fragmented and weak in capacities. In terms of development of inter-municipal cooperation, there were no significant changes either. As in the previous periods, in 2013 alike no inter-municipal unions were established.
“The degree of financial autonomy in municipalities is still very low, and the property inadequate and obsolete. In 2013, as in the previous periods, there were no allocations to the municipalities from shared revenues of the state budget.”
According to the study, as in the preceding years, in 2013 LSG elections were held in the circumstances of weak competition, and in many cases even in complete absence thereof. Few municipalities saw new mayors elected, while approximately ¾ of mayors are representatives of Republican Party of Armenia.
Researchers also point out that in gender front, 2013 was not rich in serious changes either. Women`s representation in the elected positions in Armenia`s provinces continued to be tiny. In Yerevan, the number of women in Yerevan`s Council of Elders doubled.
The study, comparing the indicators of Armenia and European Union member states with respect of relevance of LSG powers and available financial resources, found that Armenia is tangibly behind the EU countries, in particular, with respect of share of municipal budgets in national government expenditures and GDP, per capita municipal budget revenues and expenditures, etc. This means, that in 2013 decentralization in Armenia continues to remain at very low level as before, and budget expenditures attributed to Yerevan are larger than those of all other municipalities, in aggregate.
“In 2013, like in 2012, revenues and expenditures of Yerevan municipality reflect over and above 60% of total revenues and expenditures of all other municipalities in the country. Per capita revenues and expenditures of municipal budgets are 2.8 times less than the same indicators of Yerevan budget.
“As in the previous periods, in 2013 too, the shares of all municipal budgets (Yerevan excluded) by functional classification of expenditures are significantly different from shares in both municipal budgets (including Yerevan) and Yerevan budget in total spending. For example shares of expenditures services of general nature in all municipal budgets (Yerevan excluded) is highest, i.e., approximately 43.7% of total spending, 23.8 of all municipal budgets (Yerevan included), and only 10.6% in Yerevan budget.
“Ratios of recurrent and capital expenditures of all municipalities in total spending over the recent five years have been changing in varying proportions. In the period between 2009 and 2011 the share of capital expenditures in total spending has consistently increased from 19.2% in the beginning of the period to reach 28.9%, but in 2012-2013 it displayed decreasing tendency having diminished to 22.4%.”
More about:
