Fusie en de belofte van decentralisatie: dienstverlening en lokale democratie in Armenië

Summary This dissertation examines how municipal amalgamation in Armenia has reshaped the foundations of local governance, focusing on the interrelated dimensions of administrative capacity, local autonomy, efficiency in service delivery, and citizen-level outcomes such as satisfaction and trust. Situating the analysis within a post-Soviet and institutionally fragile context, the study moves beyond viewing amalgamation as a purely technical or structural reform and instead conceptualises it as a broader institutional and political transformation. By combining quantitative efficiency analysis with qualitative and perceptual data, the dissertation provides a multidimensional assessment of how local government reforms function in environments marked by historical centralisation, uneven capacity, and fragile legitimacy. The research is guided by a conceptual framework that links amalgamation and decentralisation reforms to changes in autonomy and capacity, and subsequently to service performance, citizen satisfaction, and trust, with multilevel governance and politico-administrative relationships acting as key mediating factors. Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed-methods approach that integrates frontier efficiency techniques (DEA and FDH), clustering analysis, secondary survey data, and qualitative evidence from focus group discussions and interviews. This design allows for a simultaneous examination of objective performance changes and subjective perceptions of legitimacy, which are often treated separately in the literature. One of the central findings of the dissertation is that the effects of amalgamation are highly sector-specific. In the education sector, municipal consolidation facilitated the development of professional administrative roles, improved planning capacity, and more structured coordination with schools. These changes translated into measurable efficiency gains, demonstrating that economies of scale can materialise when services are administratively manageable and professionalisation is feasible. In contrast, the road maintenance sector did not exhibit similar improvements. Persistent underfunding, reliance on short-term financing, and the infrastructural complexity of road networks limited the capacity of amalgamated municipalities to improve performance. This divergence challenges the assumption that increasing municipal size uniformly enhances efficiency and refines amalgamation theory by emphasising the importance of sectoral characteristics and institutional preconditions. A second major contribution of the dissertation concerns the nature of local autonomy. Using the Local Autonomy Index (LAI 2.0), the study demonstrates that autonomy in Armenia has evolved unevenly across its administrative, fiscal, and political dimensions. While some gains were observed in administrative autonomy, fiscal autonomy remained highly constrained, and political autonomy continued to be limited by strong central oversight. These findings underline that decentralisation cannot be meaningfully assessed as a simple increase or decrease in autonomy. Instead, autonomy must be understood as a multidimensional and relational concept, whose effectiveness depends on the alignment between formal responsibilities, available resources, and actual decision-making discretion. Municipalities that acquired new tasks without corresponding fiscal capacity or political room for manoeuvre were unable to translate formal authority into effective action. The dissertation also makes an important conceptual distinction between citizen satisfaction and trust in local government. While satisfaction with specific services often improved following amalgamation, trust in local government did not necessarily follow the same trajectory. Qualitative evidence reveals that many citizens, especially in smaller communities absorbed into larger municipalities, perceived the reform as reducing proximity, representation, and fairness. Even where service delivery improved, feelings of marginalisation and unequal resource distribution undermined trust. These findings challenge performance-based models of legitimacy that assume a direct link between improved outputs and increased trust. Instead, the Armenian case demonstrates that trust depends heavily on procedural dimensions such as transparency, participation, and perceived fairness, highlighting the need to analyse satisfaction and trust as distinct, though related, outcomes. A further conclusion is that amalgamation should be understood as an inherently political process that reshapes the relationship between citizens and the state. Rather than being a neutral administrative adjustment, consolidation renegotiates the local social contract by redefining who decides, who benefits, and who is represented. In Armenia's fragile governance context, amalgamation produced divergent outcomes. Some municipalities used the reform as an opportunity to professionalise administration, increase transparency, and engage citizens, thereby strengthening democratic legitimacy. Others, however, centralised decision-making, weakened local representation, and reinforced perceptions of exclusion. These contrasting trajectories demonstrate that legitimacy is not an automatic by-product of reform but must be actively cultivated through inclusive governance practices. Methodologically, the dissertation illustrates the value of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in the study of local governance reforms. Efficiency analysis and clustering techniques provided robust insights into relative performance patterns, but they could not capture how reforms were experienced or interpreted by citizens. The integration of survey data and focus group evidence revealed significant mismatches between technical efficiency and perceived legitimacy. In some cases, municipalities with strong efficiency scores were viewed negatively by residents, while others maintained trust despite modest performance through inclusive and transparent practices. This finding underscores the limitations of single-method approaches and highlights the importance of methodological pluralism when analysing reforms in complex and politically sensitive environments. Finally, the Armenian case contributes to comparative public administration by extending debates on amalgamation and decentralisation beyond stable Western democracies. The findings demonstrate that in transitional and post-Soviet contexts, reforms tend to generate hybrid and uneven outcomes rather than clear successes or failures. Efficiency gains may coexist with legitimacy deficits, and progress in certain sectors may mask deeper structural constraints such as fiscal dependence and centralised authority. The study supports theories of gradual and path-dependent institutional change, showing how layering, push, and informal practices shape reform trajectories over time. In conclusion, the dissertation demonstrates that municipal amalgamation in Armenia has produced selective improvements in administrative capacity and service efficiency but has not resolved fundamental issues related to fiscal autonomy, representation, and trust. Autonomy has expanded in some dimensions while remaining constrained in others, limiting municipalities' ability to act strategically. Citizen satisfaction has improved in specific areas, yet trust remains fragile, reflecting deeper concerns about inclusion and fairness. The study shows that amalgamation is not a universal solution but a context-dependent reform whose success hinges on institutional design, sectoral conditions, and the active cultivation of democratic legitimacy. These insights offer both theoretical advancement and practical guidance for policymakers and scholars concerned with local government reform in fragile and capacity-constrained settings.