Author
Listed:
- Irina Adriana Bilouseac
(Associate Professor PhD, "Ştefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, Suceava, Romania)
Abstract
This article focuses on the analysis and evaluation of the level of decentralization in Romania, compared to the European Union average, examining the three essential dimensions of decentralization: fiscal, administrative, and political. The main aim of the article is to analyze these types of decentralization and to assess Romania’s positioning relative to the EU average, based on relevant indicators and scores reported by the European Committee of the Regions. The goal is to determine the degree of practical implementation of decentralization, beyond the existing formal framework. Decentralization is defined as the transfer of administrative and financial competences from the central level to local authorities, giving them the ability to directly and efficiently manage community- specific issues, making their own decisions in areas such as internal organization, investment prioritization, and public service delivery. The methodology used in this article is based on a comparative analysis of official indicators provided by the European Committee of the Regions. For each dimension of decentralization (fiscal, administrative, and political), Romania’s scores and rankings were examined in relation to other EU member states, using a quantitative and graphical approach to highlight performance differences. With an overall average score of only 1.4, Romania ranks 20th out of 27 in the EU ranking, below the European average. This confirms that although there has been progress in the political and administrative dimensions, decentralization remains limited, especially from a financial perspective. This significant financial dependence on the central level represents a major obstacle to improving the efficiency of local public services and promoting balanced territorial development. At the administrative level, Romania has good local institutional capacity, but the transferred competences remain modest, and central control is still significant. In contrast, political decentralization is better shaped, with increased influence of local authorities in the decision-making process.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- A23 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Graduate
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lum:rev13d:v:12:y:2025:i:1:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Antonio Sandu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lumenpublishing.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.