Only half of the actions covered by the Priority Reform Action Roadmap were implemented. By the deadline for implementation of the Roadmap, its level of implementation was estimated to about 55%. Of the 51 planned actions, only 28 were achieved. Furthermore, 10 of these were rated as ‘achieved with concerns’, with reasons ranging from non-observance of the decision-making transparency to content-related issues requiring substantial improvements. At the same time, 22 actions, or 43% of the total, were initiates, but not finalized. Therefore, the risk highlighted in the interim assessment report published on 1 December 2017 regarding the delayed implementation of various actions, materialized. Like in the previous report, we state that the main reasons for breaking deadlines are too ambitious timeliness, as well as the effects of the public administration reform that temporarily affected the pace of reforms in general and the implementation of measures set out in the Roadmap in particular.
The highest level of implementation was estimated in the field of ‘Governance in the financial and banking sector’, and the lowest level was registered in the area of ‘Justice and fighting corruption’. Thus, of the 8 actions planned in the field of ‘Governance in the financial and banking sector’, 6 actions were achieved without concerns, 1 – with concerns and 1 – initiated but not finalized. The high level of implementation is the result of the pro-active orientation of the institutions from this sector (particularly the NBM), including in the context of the Memorandum with IMF. In contrast, the field ‘Justice and fight against corruption’ registered weak progresses – 9 of 10 planned actions were initiated but not finalized. The causes of such a negative performance are related to the poor institutional capacity, weak political will and too ambitious timeliness. We must also note the field of ‘Public administration reform’, where 5 of 6 planned actions were achieved with concerns. The main reason for this is that the reform, although implemented at a relatively high pace (such reforms are complicated, and usually are implemented slowly if are evidence-based and the aim is to improve the public administration activity), is not based on functional reviews and empirical evidences. Hence, it is perceived rather a political reform than one to improve public policies, and is not implemented in a transparent and predictable way.