2. Public Perceptions and Participation
2.2 Client Satisfaction with Public Services
2.2.1 Service Delivery and Level of Satisfaction Under the Law on Local Self-government, services are divided into three categories: mandatory, delegated, and voluntary (Appendix 2). One area in which the allocation of functions between central and local government remains particularly vague is social pro-tection. Responsibility for this function is not usually assigned to local governments. However, as principal providers of certain services, local governments may become responsible for the payment of need-based allowances, such as housing, which are rational conse-quences of policies aimed at cost recovery. The intro-duction of such allowances is not discussed in the Law on Local Self-government.
More local services in Armenia are now delivered by organizations with largely or entirely non-elected boards: private educational facilities, colleges and universities, voluntary organizations, and primary care groups. An issue of growing importance is the need to develop a more responsive and better quality public administration for citizens. The overall goal is therefore to set out clear definitions of the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of local govern-ment in providing services.
In many communities, a large number of respond-ents were simply interested in better quality services, and not in answering surveys or expressing their own opinions on policy issues. This was more the case for larger urban centers (24%) than for smaller com-munities (15%). Although public opinion regarding local government is usually better than public opinion regarding central government institutions, there is, generally, a modest level of satisfaction among citizens regarding local government activity.
Empirical investigation has been conducted in several main fields of inquiry, namely:
1. the provision of services to citizens; and
2. the development of a supportive administrative framework for citizens.
In general, respondents were not completely aware of whom to approach in case of need for services—water supply, waste disposal, electricity, telecommunication,
reconstruction of roads, and so on. Most (68%) would apply directly to a water supply organization, and only 24 percent to public body—such as a mayor, head of a rural community or council. This indicates confusion, as the water supply previously was the responsibility of the municipality, while now, in many communi-ties, it is provided by private entities. Similarly there is confusion over the level or institution that a citizen or organization should confront: to ask for assistance reconstructing a road, 50 percent address the mayor, council or community head. Only 10 percent suggested they should apply to the governor.
Applications to officials vary according to locality.
Results from this survey were compared with an IFES survey (2001). In the latter, 17 percent of inhabitants of rural areas and 6 percent in urban areas had applied to one of their elected bodies (the mayor, community council or head). Current research reveals that this number has grown, as a result of more information about citizens’ rights and responsibilities. Also, during election years, politicians and officials tend to be more responsive to the needs of community members. As a result, people often use this opportunity to solve a number of problems they previously could not. When asked if they had applied to an elected official during the election year (2002), 58 percent gave an affirmative answer; 36 percent of these were rural inhabitants, and 22 percent were urban (Figure 7).
A number of indicators were used for this study to determine overall levels of satisfaction with local self-government. These dealt with: general satisfaction and contentment; the performance of councilors and offi-cials; and the level of satisfaction with local services.
In general, respondents voiced their dissatisfaction with local self-governmental bodies’ activities.
Dis-satisfaction increased compared with previous years (2000, 2001, and 2002): 73 percent of respondents answered that they were very dissatisfied with their local council or mayor, compared to 48 percent in 2000, 54 percent in 2001, and 64 percent in 2002.
The level of citizen satisfaction with local police performance is indicative of this distinctly negative trend. According to an IFES questionnaire, only 18 percent expressed satisfaction with their administra-tion, compared to 38 percent the year before. The number of satisfied respondents was much higher in rural areas (38 percent) than in urban centers (23%) (Figure 8).
For this study, it was of particular interest to in-vestigate especially problematic areas, issues, positions or individuals, and levels of administration and service provision. Questionnaires included different types of services in both rural settlements and cities. Respond-ents were mainly interested in services that are the responsibility of local governmental bodies.
Local government profiles and types, isolated through profiling, can be dependent variables even in quantitative studies. The components of local govern-ment performance profiles can also serve as dependent or independent variables in research designs. For ex-ample, the satisfaction rate of local citizens can be the dependent variable, explained by several independent variables (such municipality size or wealth) or other types of performance (the effectiveness or transparency of local governments). These research questions address both the profile and its components as dependent vari-ables.
In general, the level of satisfaction with local coun-cils is closely related to community size. A questionnaire was distributed in five localities (Yerevan, Artashat,
Figure 7.
Questionnaire: In 2002, Did You Apply to Your Local Elected Official? (Answer “Yes”)
10 20 30 40 50
2002 2001 Rural
City
36 26
22 17
Figure 8.
Questionnaire: Satisfaction with the Performance of Local Council or Community Heads
0 10 20 30 40 50
5 15 25 35 45
2000
2527 23 23
2001
25 19 19
29 28
16 18 36
2002
27
10 8 46
2003
Very dissatisfied Quite dissatisfied Quite satisfied Very satisfied
Figure 9.
Questionnaire: Percent Satisfied with the Performances of Councilors and Officials
Figure 10.
Questionnaire: Percent Satisfied with Local Services
0 10 20 30 40
Yerevan Artashat Axuryan Vedi Noraduz
16
21
25 24
35
Yerevan Artashat Axuryan Vedi Noraduz 0
10 20 30 40
27
24
19 19
16
Vedi, Noraduz, and Areni) of different sizes. In each, 20–26 citizens were asked about their satisfaction with their local government (Figures 9, 10).
Respondents were particularly dissatisfied with issues connected with community infrastructure; social, economic, and educational spheres; and health pro-tection. Mostly, respondents stressed unemployment (25%), and waiting for new administrative methods from the local bodies regarding direct investments. As well, there was significant mention of the need to en-able local self-government with the powers to improve the social situation of pensioners, large families, and
disabled people (16%). The lack of water supply and irrigation systems were of considerable concern for rural settlements, particularly in villages dependant on agriculture (13%). The respondents living in sub-urbs of Yerevan mentioned water supply as the most prominent “unsolved” problem, about which they often apply to local officials. Energy is of particular concern in several areas and districts; in some, it is a “resolved”
issue. Finally, respondents were generally satisfied with educational, leisure/sport and cultural activities (12%), and with the construction of schools, kindergartens, cultural centers, and sport facilities (7%).
Asked whether various public institutions act in the interest of the whole society (rather than only in the interest of a small group), citizens in all 14 communities assessed activities of local governments as being much better than central institutions, such as the Parliament.
In rural regions, citizens were much more positive about their local government than were inhabitants of urban areas (Figure 12).
Data suggests that the smaller the administrative unit, the more positive the opinion of citizens con-cerning local authorities’ activities. In smaller commu-nities, the more often citizens meet local councilors, the better citizens know their representatives, and the more active they are in local politics and civic events.
In Armenia, over 30 percent of respondents believed that government at the local level improved in recent Figure 11.
Questionnaire: For Which Issues Have You Applied and Remain Unsatisfied?
Unemployment (25)
Cultural (12)
Water supply (13) Social (16)
Energy supply (13)
Almost all citizens Most citizens Small group only Do not know
0 5 10 15 20 25
Small (<1,000 inhabitants)
23
10
6 11
Medium (1,000–3,999
inhabitants)
18 16
2
14 15
19
3 13
Large (4,000–50,000
inhabitants)
12 25
4 9
Yerevan (>1 million inhabitants) 30
Figure 12.
Questionnaire: Local Self-governmental Bodies Act in the Interest of What Part of the Population?
(By Community Size)
Figure 13.
Questionnaire: Is Corruption More Prevalent at the Local or Central Level of Government?
Mostly local
Central and local
Mostly central
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2003 2000 1998
18 16 8
62 51
54
25 29 20
years; 54 percent thought it had worsened. The high level of dissatisfaction, as well as on-going administra-tive abuses, have been attributed to crime and corrup-tion within local governmental bodies, which leads to illegal activities and the abuse of official respons-ibilities.
Indeed, corruption in Armenia appears to be flourishing. According to a recent survey by Regional Development/Transparency International (RD/TI), 61 percent of citizens, 41 percent of entrepreneurs, and 54 percent of civil servants believe that corruption is
“endemic.” Some suggest defining corruption broadly, to include the abuse of office and bribery. Analysts agree that all the key spheres in Armenian society and economy are experiencing extreme pressure from cor-rupt officials in the higher echelons of power.
Recently, research and consultancy on crime pre-vention and community safety measures by the police, local authorities and community-based organizations have been launched. A primary approach to crime pre-vention and community safety is that the involvement of residents and users is essential for problem-solving and for control. Regardless of the real situation, it is very dangerous for local democracy that many people believe that local government in Armenia is more cor-rupt than other political institutions. This opinion has been quite recently expressed by the media, in regard to local authorities’ significant and negative influence on the voting process during the presidential elections.
Particularly during preparatory stages in local elections,
the involvement of corrupt individuals and actors in lo-cal governance has been high. Figure 10 shows citizens’
perceptions of corruption as an issue of local or central administration (Figure 13).
2.3 Administrative Control of