A business analyst identified the main problem with Armenia's public administration system and compared it to Azerbaijan and Georgia
21.07.2026,
11:01
One of the key problems with Armenia's public administration system is not a lack of data, but the inability to translate it into a long-term strategic vision and effective public policy.
YEREVAN, July 21. /ARKA/. One of the key problems with Armenia's public administration system is not a lack of data, but the inability to translate it into a long-term strategic vision and effective public policy. This opinion was expressed by Tigran Jrbashyan, Director of Management Consulting at Ameria, commenting on the results of the Chandler Good Government Index 2026.
According to him, Armenia ranks 64th out of 133 countries in the overall public administration quality ranking, but individual indicators reveal a serious imbalance.
"Armenia ranks 45th in the ability to collect and use data, while it only ranks 112th in long-term vision." "This means that the country is relatively good at managing data, but significantly less adept at translating it into long-term goals, strategic priorities, and a clear development direction," Jrbashyan noted.
The expert emphasized that the availability of data alone does not necessarily mean an understanding of the country's direction or how to achieve its goals.
At the same time, a regional comparison reveals a mixed picture. In the overall ranking, Georgia ranks 43rd, Azerbaijan 57th, and Armenia 64th.
In terms of data collection and use, Georgia ranks 44th, Armenia 45th, and Azerbaijan only 82nd. However, in terms of long-term vision, Azerbaijan ranks 5th, Georgia 32nd, and Armenia 112th.
Furthermore, in terms of public policy implementation, Armenia and Azerbaijan share 68th place, behind Georgia, which ranks 37th. In terms of coordination between government agencies, Armenia and Azerbaijan rank 75th, compared to Georgia's 24th. In terms of bureaucratic quality, Armenia and Azerbaijan rank 104th, while Georgia ranks 25th.
According to Jrbashyan, the study's results indicate that Armenia's problem lies not so much in the absence of modern technology or information, but rather in a lack of long-term vision, clear strategic goals, effective coordination between government agencies, and the ability to implement decisions.
At the same time, the expert urged caution in interpreting Azerbaijan's high fifth place in the long-term vision indicator. He argued that this result can largely be explained by the high degree of centralization of the governance system, which allows for the maintenance of stable priorities over a long period and the efficient concentration of resources.
However, the presence of a long-term policy does not necessarily mean that this policy is correct, has been formed through broad public debate, or meets the interests of all groups in society. "It's no coincidence that Azerbaijan ranks only 123rd in the same ranking for ethical leadership," Jrbashyan noted.
He emphasized that the quality of government decisions cannot be assessed solely by the speed of their adoption, short-term impact, or public reaction. It is far more important to understand how accurately the problem has been formulated, whether realistic alternatives have been considered, whether the long-term consequences have been assessed, whether the chosen solution is feasible, and whether it aligns with the country's strategic goals.
According to the expert, the Chandler Good Government Index does not evaluate individual government decisions and is not a final verdict. However, it does send a clear signal about the need to develop strategic thinking and improve the quality of public administration in Armenia.
Jrbashyan added that modern artificial intelligence and data analysis tools can significantly accelerate and improve the effectiveness of this work, but technology can only assist strategic thinking, not replace it.
According to him, Armenia ranks 64th out of 133 countries in the overall public administration quality ranking, but individual indicators reveal a serious imbalance.
"Armenia ranks 45th in the ability to collect and use data, while it only ranks 112th in long-term vision." "This means that the country is relatively good at managing data, but significantly less adept at translating it into long-term goals, strategic priorities, and a clear development direction," Jrbashyan noted.
The expert emphasized that the availability of data alone does not necessarily mean an understanding of the country's direction or how to achieve its goals.
At the same time, a regional comparison reveals a mixed picture. In the overall ranking, Georgia ranks 43rd, Azerbaijan 57th, and Armenia 64th.
In terms of data collection and use, Georgia ranks 44th, Armenia 45th, and Azerbaijan only 82nd. However, in terms of long-term vision, Azerbaijan ranks 5th, Georgia 32nd, and Armenia 112th.
Furthermore, in terms of public policy implementation, Armenia and Azerbaijan share 68th place, behind Georgia, which ranks 37th. In terms of coordination between government agencies, Armenia and Azerbaijan rank 75th, compared to Georgia's 24th. In terms of bureaucratic quality, Armenia and Azerbaijan rank 104th, while Georgia ranks 25th.
According to Jrbashyan, the study's results indicate that Armenia's problem lies not so much in the absence of modern technology or information, but rather in a lack of long-term vision, clear strategic goals, effective coordination between government agencies, and the ability to implement decisions.
At the same time, the expert urged caution in interpreting Azerbaijan's high fifth place in the long-term vision indicator. He argued that this result can largely be explained by the high degree of centralization of the governance system, which allows for the maintenance of stable priorities over a long period and the efficient concentration of resources.
However, the presence of a long-term policy does not necessarily mean that this policy is correct, has been formed through broad public debate, or meets the interests of all groups in society. "It's no coincidence that Azerbaijan ranks only 123rd in the same ranking for ethical leadership," Jrbashyan noted.
He emphasized that the quality of government decisions cannot be assessed solely by the speed of their adoption, short-term impact, or public reaction. It is far more important to understand how accurately the problem has been formulated, whether realistic alternatives have been considered, whether the long-term consequences have been assessed, whether the chosen solution is feasible, and whether it aligns with the country's strategic goals.
According to the expert, the Chandler Good Government Index does not evaluate individual government decisions and is not a final verdict. However, it does send a clear signal about the need to develop strategic thinking and improve the quality of public administration in Armenia.
Jrbashyan added that modern artificial intelligence and data analysis tools can significantly accelerate and improve the effectiveness of this work, but technology can only assist strategic thinking, not replace it.
