Editorial by Madalin Necsutu, journalist at TVR Moldova for the FES/APE Foreign Policy Bulletin

At the roundtable organized on 26 May by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in partnership with the School of Public Administration of Moldova State University, four different concepts for local public administration reform were presented. Four visions, four approaches, four answers to the same question: how do we build a local administration capable of meeting the challenges of the coming decades?

Although the proposed solutions differed, one message was shared by almost all participants: without broad political and institutional consensus, any reform risks becoming yet another experiment abandoned when power changes hands. And the Republic of Moldova can no longer afford the luxury of unfinished reforms—neither for its own sake nor for Brussels.

In reality, the discussion about local public administration is far deeper than it may appear at first glance. It is not a debate about administrative maps, the number of municipalities, or the boundaries of territorial units. It is a debate about the state’s capacity to function and about Moldova’s ability to seize the historic opportunity of Euro pean integration.

We Have Representation, but Not Enough Capacity

For years, discussions about administrative-territorial reform have been viewed with suspicion. In the public space, the impression has taken hold that any attempt at reorganization is aimed at abolishing localities or diminishing community identities.

In reality, the problem is different. Today, the Re public of Moldova has hundreds of municipalities operating with limited financial resources, insufficient staff, and evident difficulties in managing development projects. In many cases, local administrations depend almost entirely on transfers from the state budget. Such a situation can hardly be described as local autonomy, even if the law defines it as such.

The paradox is obvious: we have democratic representation in almost every locality, yet the administrative capacity needed to meet citizens’ expectations remains limited.

And citizens no longer judge public administration by the existence of a town hall a few hundred meters from their homes. They judge it by roads, water supply, sewerage, street lighting, social ser vices, and economic opportunities. In other words, by results.

Europe Will Not Wait for Us

European integration fundamentally changes the equation. Until now, Moldova’s localities have, in one way or another, competed mainly with one another. In the years ahead, however, the competition will be much broader. Communities across Moldova will need to demonstrate that they can attract investment, manage complex projects, and use European funds effectively.

This is where the major challenge arises. Pre-accession funds—and later, EU structural and cohesion funds—will not automatically reach villages and towns. To benefit from them, competent administrations, well-trained civil servants, and strong planning and project-management capacities are required.

The experience of countries that joined the European Union before Moldova is crystal clear: communities with strong administrations prospered. Those that were unprepared watched from the sidelines as other regions developed.

From this perspective, local public administration reform is not merely an administrative reform. At its core, it is a reform aimed at preparing the country for accession.

Between Identity and Efficiency

One of the most sensitive questions remains the relationship between administrative efficiency and democratic representation. This concern is entirely legitimate. People fear that administrative consolidation could lead to the loss of local identity, traditions, or influence over decision-making.

Yet European experience demonstrates that a community’s identity is not defined by the existence of a separate town hall. Identity is shaped by people, culture, traditions, and a sense of belonging.

The real challenge is finding a formula that allows communities to preserve their local character while benefiting from more efficient administrations and better services.

This is why instruments such as voluntary amalgamation, inter-municipal cooperation, local mayoral representatives, and Unified Public Service Centres should be viewed not as threats, but as solutions for adapting to a new reality. In the twenty-first century, citizens need both representation and quality services. One without the other is no longer sufficient.

Without Financial Autonomy, Local Autonomy Remains an Illusion

Another essential issue is financial autonomy. The truth is that one cannot expect performance from a local administration that lacks the resources necessary to carry out its responsibilities. Nor can one speak of genuine decentralization when most financial decisions remain dependent on the centre.

Local autonomy is not merely the right to make decisions. It is also the capacity to finance them. This is why any serious reform must address both the administrative and the financial dimensions simultaneously. Strengthening the local tax base, increasing own-source revenues, and aligning responsibilities with available resources are indispensable conditions for the success of the proposed changes. Otherwise, we risk changing the form without changing the substance.

A Reform That Must Survive Elections

Perhaps the most important conclusion of the 26 May debate is that local public administration reform cannot belong to a single government or a single political party. If it is perceived as a short term political project, it will suffer the same fate as many previous reforms: it will be contested, suspended, or abandoned after the next election.

If, however, it is built through dialogue, consultation, and reasonable compromise, it has the potential to become one of the structural transformations that truly change the Republic of Moldova. This is why consensus is neither a luxury nor a slogan. It is the fundamental condition for making the reform irreversible.

Ultimately, citizens will not assess the success of the reform by the number of amalgamated municipalities or by the legislative amendments adopted. They will judge it by simple things: whether they have running water, better roads, accessible public services, and opportunities for their children.

And if the reform succeeds in delivering these results, then the debate about administrative maps will become irrelevant. Because the real stake is not the fate of a particular institution or territorial structure. The real stake is the Republic of Moldova’s ability to become a functional, modern, competitive European state. And that stake is far too important to be sacrificed in short-term political battles.