FUNCTIONS AND MANAGEMENT MATURITY OF REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS IN BULGARIA
Keywords:
regional administrations, management maturity, composite indicator, administrative capacity, territorial administration, institutional development, BulgariaAbstract
The report examines the functions of the regional governor in Bulgaria, regulated by the legal framework, and analyzes the management maturity of regional administrations in the context of the requirements for good governance. A historical review of the different rights and responsibilities of regional governors in the different territorial divisions of the country is made.
The main goal is to present and use a new methodology for calculating a Composite Indicator of Management Maturity, built on six dimensions: strategic planning, results-based management, human resources management, interaction with other institutions, degree of digitalization and transparency of management.
The results show a clear differentiation between regional administrations, with the values of the composite indicator ranging from 50.10 to 79.32 points. Leading positions are occupied by Sofia-city, Varna, Plovdiv and Burgas, while other administrations remain in the lower part of the distribution. It is found that 13 administrations fall into the “established” category and 15 into the “developing” category, with none reaching the threshold of “advanced” maturity. The dimension related to human resources management turns out to be the least developed. The validation of the model shows very high internal consistency and exceptional stability of the ranks under alternative weight configurations. This confirms that the indicator captures a stable latent characteristic of the overall management maturity. The study contributes with an analytical tool for the comparative assessment of regional administrations and outlines the need for policies aimed at reducing institutional asymmetries and strengthening the human resource capacity in the territorial administration. The results of the ranking of regional administrations by the levels of the Composite indicator of management maturity make it possible to identify areas in which some of them are leading, as well as those in which some administrations are lagging behind, and on this basis to make management decisions to modernize the relevant administrative structure.
References
Andrews, R., Beynon, M., & McDermott, A. (2016). Organizational Capability in the Public Sector: A Configurational Approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 239-258. doi:10.1093/jopart/muv005
Durkiewicz, J. J. (21). Is Digital Government Advancing Sustainable Governance? A Study of OECD/EU Countries. Sustainability, Vol. 13, Issue24. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413603
Eymann, T., & al. (2023). A Maturity Model for Assessing the Digitalization of Public. Research Paper, 65(5), 539–554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00813-y
Jääskeläinen, А., & al. (2020). Designing a maturity model for analyzing information and knowledge management in the public sector. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Volume 52, Issue 1, 120-140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-01-2020-0017
Pirannejad, A., & Ingrams, A. (25 February 2022 r.). Open Government Maturity Models: A Global Comparison. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439321106
Seabra, S., & Pettigrew, A. (2026). The Perils of Partial Reform: Capability Systems and Public Organization Performance. Public Organization Review. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-025-00977-z
Waara, A. (24 February 2025 r.). Examining Digital Government Maturity Models: Evaluating the Inclusion of Citizens. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15030073
Динев, Д. (2025). Контрол на областния управител върху актовете на общинския съвет. Сп. Норма, 3-4, 44-58.
Народно събрание. (8 Май 2026 r.). Конституция на Българското княжество,1879 г. Извлечено от Народно събрание на Република България: https://www.parliament.bg/bg/17
Русева, З. (2010). Преглед на българското законодателство, свързано с местното самоуправление и административно-териториалното деление в периода 1879-1939 г. София: МРРБ.
