The Director of the Public Administration School within the Moldova State University, Sergiu Palihovici, gave an interview for the FES/APE Foreign Policy Bulletin, in which we addressed the main dimensions of the administrative-territorial reform. The discussion covered both the reform of public administration as a whole and that of local public administration. We discussed how this reform should be carried out, in relation to the Government’s objectives, but also to the real needs of the Republic of Moldova in the field of local administration. We addressed both the opportunities and the risks entailed by these complex reforms. We invite you to read the full interview in the lines below:

- Mr. Palihovici, the administrative territorial reform is returning to the forefront after several years of stagnation. How do you assess this renewed focus: is it an inevitable reform for the Republic of Moldova, or one driven by the political context? Why did previous governments avoid this reform—was it a matter of lack of vision or was the political cost simply too high?

- Both. The issue is not the necessity of this reform— this is indisputable. The real question is whether the reform will take the form of a genuine reform effort, understood and supported by a broad majority of actors in society, or whether it will turn into an electoral exercise, dictated by the political context of the party in power.

An assumed, participatory reform, supported by a high degree of social cohesion, requires clear answers, predictable actions, credible financing, real decentralization, and the protection of local autonomy. By contrast, a reform driven by political expediency translates into political pressure, unfunded financial promises, and the use of administrative-territorial reorganization as an instrument of political repositioning.

In other words, the reform is inevitable, but its success is not guaranteed. This also explains why several governments have so far avoided administrative-territorial reorganization. It was not a lack of vision, but rather a political cost that was too high, in conditions of significant uncertainty regarding the outcome of the reform.

This risk persists today and takes on an almost existential dimension for the Republic of Moldova, especially in the context of its European path. Even a well-designed and properly implemented reform will not generate immediate benefits, and this gap between costs and results may have significant consequences at a strategic moment for our society, which aspires to integration into the European Union.

Suitable models

- At the same time, what model should the Republic of Moldova follow: a more centralized one or one based on strengthened local autonomy? What risks do you identify in an excessively centralized model, compared to one that is overly decentralized?

- Administrative-territorial reorganization represents only one element of the reform of public administration in general, and of local public administration in particular. The central elements of this reform are decentralization, in all its forms, and the strengthening of local autonomy. If we truly want a professional, engaged, and efficient local public administration, then the centralized model of managing public affairs is, in essence, the opposite of decentralization and local autonomy.

However, these models should not be absolutized. Each has advantages and disadvantages, opportunities and risks. In practice, there are no states that are fully centralized or fully decentralized.

The choice of the appropriate model for the Republic of Moldova depends, first and foremost, on the capacity of public authorities, at all levels of governance, to manage public processes effectively. An appropriate formula would be that of a unitary state, with strong institutions both at the central and at the local level, and with a balanced distribution of competences, depending on the existing administrative and institutional capacities.

For these reasons, the reform of local public administration—including through administrative-territorial reorganization—must aim at developing real capacities at the local level. This does not mean only the transfer of responsibilities, but also the provision of the tools and resources necessary to exercise them, so as to stimulate decentralization and strengthen local autonomy.

Voluntary amalgamation: between limits and realities

- The concept of voluntary amalgamation— is it realistic in the current context, or does it rather represent a preliminary stage toward mandatory decisions? In your opinion, what would motivate small villages to accept such a merger? At the same time, how do you assess the idea of reducing the number of districts and creating larger administrative units? What would be an optimal number of such units, given the profile of the Republic of Moldova?

- Like any initiative based on voluntariness, the voluntary amalgamation of local administrations has its limits. It can function where several essential conditions are met: the existence of an economic and financial rationale, community and ethnic compatibility, geographical proximity, a genuine participatory process—free from disinformation and manipulation— as well as strong local leadership willing to assume political costs.

From the perspective of administrative sciences, voluntary amalgamation, alongside inter-municipal cooperation and decentralization, represents preliminary stages toward a possible normative—that is, imposed—reorganization. In other words, normative intervention should be residual: where voluntary instruments have not produced results, mandatory measures are introduced.

According to the Government’s strategic documents, this scenario also appears likely in the Republic of Moldova. The problem is that voluntary instruments have not been sufficiently developed and have not produced effects, which means that the ground has not been prepared for a normative reorganization.

This lack of preparation creates not only the perception, but also the real risk that the reform will be seen as imposed, top-down, which may seriously affect its legitimacy. In fact, the Government itself has acknowledged, in the interim report on voluntary amalgamation, a number of shortcomings: complicated procedures, limited institutional capacity both at the local and central levels, the absence of a clear and predictable timeline, as well as an incentive system that is insufficient and difficult to use.

As for the reorganization of districts, reducing their number to around 10 may be considered a logical measure. What remains less clear, however, is the mandate of these new structures. The Government’s concept assigns them a role in regional and economic development—strategic planning, infrastructure, attracting EU funds.

The problem is that these functions are already, to a large extent, carried out by Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). Thus, there is a clear risk of over lapping competences.

Under these conditions, it remains unclear what the new district will essentially represent: a second-level authority with its own competences, a mini development region, or a hybrid structure. It is precisely this ambiguity that is risky.

In a functional institutional architecture, it must be clear who plans, who decides, who implements, who finances, and who assumes political responsibility. Without this clarity, the reform risks generating additional confusion and inefficiencies.

Efficiency gains and reduction of expenditures

- The reform is presented as a solution for improving the efficiency of public spending. In your opinion, will it generate real savings or rather a redistribution of resources? Are there credible estimates regarding these savings, or are we mainly dealing with an argument of a political nature?

- The reform of local public administration, including administrative-territorial reorganization, should not be presented as a solution for reducing expenditures. The main stake lies elsewhere: the efficiency of administration and the generation of added value—in local development, in the quality of public services, and, more broadly, in the well-being of citizens.

The redistribution of resources does not necessarily mean their reduction, but rather a more efficient use— “placing resources where they generate the greatest impact.” This implies, on the one hand, optimizing certain categories of expenditures and, on the other, redirecting funds toward priority areas.

The existing resources at the level of local public administration should be maintained and even strengthened. The objective of the reform is not saving per se, but increasing the efficiency and impact of public spending.

It is to be expected that the reform will generate costs, especially transition costs, and the results will not be immediate. We will not necessarily spend less, but rather spend better and more rationally.

These perspectives, however, are valid only to the extent that the reform is carried out on the basis of the principles of genuine decentralization and the effective guarantee of local autonomy.

If you were to formulate, in 2–3 principles, what a successful administrative-territorial reform in the Republic of Moldova should look like, what would these be?

The expression “administrative-territorial reform” in itself implies a positive outcome, with an impact on the problems that this process aims to address.

Starting from this premise, a few basic principles can be formulated to ensure such a result:

A successful administrative-territorial reform (ATR) must enjoy a high degree of legitimacy. Given that it represents one of the most important actions of state reform, ATR must be the result of a joint effort of the entire society. This effort also presupposes a certain level of social cohesion around this objective. In other words, the reform should not be merely a governmental action, but one that is designed, supported, and implemented at the level of the whole society;

ATR must be implemented on the basis of the principles of decentralization and the full guarantee of local autonomy. A reform carried out within this framework constitutes the premise for sustainable development, both from an economic and social perspective, as well as from a democratic one.

The need for fiscal reform

- Without a fiscal reform at the local level, can administrative-territorial reform truly function, or do we risk merely redrawing the map without changing reality? Should municipalities benefit from greater autonomy in revenue collection, or is there a risk that this could deepen inequalities between regions?

- Without fiscal reform, administrative-territorial reorganization risks remaining a mere redrawing of the map. The relationship between the two is one of interdependence: no fiscal reform can compensate for excessive administrative-territorial fragmentation, and without reducing it and increasing administrative capacity, fiscal adjustments remain partial and insufficiently effective.

An adequate fiscal reform, in this sense, represents a precursor to local autonomy. At present, 60.5% of the revenues of first-level local public administrations and 73.4% of the revenues of districts come from transfers from the state budget, which indicates a significant dependence on the central level.

As for autonomy in revenue collection, this is a more sensitive issue. In my view, local public authorities need greater fiscal autonomy, but within a balanced model.

This would involve a genuinely broader space for managing local taxes and duties, a more solid base of own revenues, and greater predictability in relation to transfers from the state budget. At the same time, in order to avoid deepening imbalances between localities, a robust equalization mechanism is necessary, one that combines autonomy in revenue collection with effective fiscal equalization.

The issue of human resources

- Will the new administrative units have the real capacity to attract European funds without Government support? How do you assess, in this context, the shortage of specialists on the market in the preparation of European projects?

- Consolidated administrative-territorial units will indeed have greater chances of attracting European funds. However, they will not be able to fully capitalize on these opportunities without the existence of a support ecosystem. And this is not only about Government support. Future counties (districts), development regions, the academic environment, experts, and civil society active in this field are all essential components of this ecosystem.

The capacity to attract funds must be strengthened through training and professional development and, in many cases, built practically from scratch. The problem is both institutional and related to human resources. There are not enough specialists in this field, and even if an adequate institutional framework existed, the current level of remuneration is not sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain talent.

At the same time, the shortage of specialists is not the only—or even the main—problem. A major challenge is the absence of a coherent and phased system for managing funding opportunities. For this reason, the clear delineation of competences between levels of government must explicitly include responsibilities related to attracting and implementing externally funded projects.

Risk of politicization

- The reform is planned to be implemented by the time of next year’s local elections. In this context, how significant do you consider the risk that it will be perceived as a political instrument?

- The risk is very high. The political calendar, linked to the upcoming local elections in 2027, overlaps with the stages of administrative-territorial reorganization, which makes it almost inevitable that this initiative—conceived as a reform—will be interpreted through a political lens.

This is precisely why the level of social cohesion built around this reform is essential. A reform that benefits from broad societal support becomes, in practice, a “closed chapter” for political competition: it can no longer be easily instrumentalized. Previous experiences show that, in the absence of such consensus, the risk of politicization increases significantly.

It is important to emphasize that the perception of politicization does not automatically mean that the reform is wrong. Administrative-territorial reform is inevitable; however, the outcome of its implementation remains less predictable. A reform may be necessary, but poorly managed or communicated—and this is the major vulnerability.

From this stem the real risks, which may go beyond the political cost for the governing authorities. The loss of public legitimacy for a reform of such magnitude can have deeper societal consequences, including for future democratic processes, especially those related to support for the European path of the Republic of Moldova.

The need for legitimacy

- In your opinion, what are the main risks in implementing this reform: resistance at the local level, lack of administrative capacity, or political will? Or do you identify other relevant risks as well?

- You have already addressed this question, at least partially. Political will, limited administrative and institutional capacity—both at the central and local levels—as well as resistance, not only at the local level, represent some of the major risks in implementing this reform.

However, the main risk relates to the deficit of public legitimacy. This dimension is all the more important in the current context of the Republic of Moldova, which is undergoing an accelerated process of accession to the European Union.

Administrative-territorial reform does not take place in a political and social vacuum, but at a moment when society must support a major strategic objective—European integration. Under these conditions, social cohesion, trust in public institutions, and the acceptance of structural reforms become essential resources for the success of this path.

A reform perceived as imposed, excessively disruptive, or associated with the loss of local identity may amplify public concerns, fuel polarizing narratives, and reduce the legitimacy of public institutions.

A test before Brussels

- To what extent is this reform an implicit condition for the European integration of the Republic of Moldova? Are European models directly applicable, or does Moldova need its own solution?

- The local public administration reform in general, and administrative-territorial reform in particular— alongside the reform of central public administration—represent important implicit conditions in the European integration process. However, they are not formulated as explicit requirements of the type “without administrative-territorial reform, there is no accession.” The European Union does not impose on the Republic of Moldova a specific administrative map or a predetermined number of districts or municipalities.

What is required instead is administrative capacity, functional public services, multi-level governance, coherent decentralization, and the effective implementation of reforms.

In the reports of the European Commission, public administration reform is addressed under the “funda mentals” chapter, which underlines its essential role as a precondition for delivering on the reform agenda.

In other words, the link between the reform agenda and the EU accession process is a functional one. There is also a clear financial dimension: the Growth Plan for the Republic of Moldova, worth €1.9 billion, conditions access to funding on the implementation of reforms that transpose the acquis communautaire and accelerate the accession process.

The European Administrative Space is complex and heterogeneous, which is why there is no single model applicable to all states. Consequently, there is no “perfect” model for the Republic of Moldova. There are, however, good practices and relevant experiences that can be adapted, without attempting to reinvent solutions that have already been tested.

For this reason, both the European Commission and the Council of Europe place emphasis more on principles than on fixed models. Genuine local autonomy, decentralization, clarity of competences, adequate resources, administrative capacity, and democratic participation are the pillars recognized at the European level as the foundation of effective governance, both at the central and local levels.

- If this reform is not implemented or not fully carried out, what does the Republic of Moldova stand to lose in the long term: administrative efficiency, European funding, or even credibility in the eyes of external partners?

- All three—and more. I will try to synthesize:

We lose time—because we delay modernization and, consequently, development;

We lose money—because we spend a lot and inefficiently, and because we attract fewer new resources; We lose capacity—because local administrations are not sufficiently strong, efficient, and resilient;

We lose cohesion—both territorial and social—because development is uneven and we fail to capitalize on the advantages of administrative consolidation;

 We lose credibility, both internally and externally— because citizens and external partners do not see a state that not only promises, but also delivers.

- Thank you!