The Armenian government’s 2026 state budget, at first glance, appears ambitious in terms of numbers. However, according to former Chairman of the State Revenue Committee David Ananyan, it continues to be built on the same mechanical logic: the figures change, but the economic model does not.
“In terms of numbers, the budget looks ambitious: it projects a growth of state revenues of about 8.9%, an expansion of capital expenditures to around 3.4% of GDP, and an overall economic growth of approximately 4.5–5%. The numbers are presented as indicators of success, yet the most important element is missing behind them—the purpose of economic policy,” notes Ananyan.
According to him, the budget continues to be constructed according to the same mechanical logic:
“There is no answer to the question of how these expenditures will transform the country’s production structure, stimulate exports, or create new economic directions. The numbers do not explain what exactly will change in the state’s economic approach.”
Ananyan also emphasizes that the execution of capital expenditures remains the weakest link. This year, their implementation has lagged significantly—reaching only 32–35%—indicating inadequate program management and institutional passivity. In this situation, discussing the growth of the capital budget carries more of an accounting significance than a genuine intention to achieve real economic results.
The structure of budget allocations also reflects unbalanced priorities, he believes.
“Funding for the Ministry of Justice is increasing to 24 billion drams, the Prosecutor General’s budget is also rising to 10.6 billion drams, while allocations for the Ministry of Economy, on the contrary, are decreasing by about 5 billion drams, totaling 74.5 billion drams. This trend shows that administrative systems are being reinforced, whereas economic development structures remain secondary,” Ananyan explains.
Allocations to the high-tech sector, amounting to 37.3 billion drams, though perceived as progress, are also devoid of clear performance indicators, the expert asserts:
“Without KPIs—that is, mechanisms for monitoring results and measuring real impact—any number remains practically formal.”
In his view, the greatest problem remains the quality of public finance management.
“This budget is presented as a purely technical document, not a political instrument. It is report-based, but not strategic. Programs remain at the level of formulations, without systemic transformation and without a commitment to achieving economic results,” Ananyan emphasizes.
In this context, the 2026 budget cannot be perceived as the start of a new economic turning point, he stresses.
“It reflects the logic of current preservation, without a clear roadmap for structural change. The numbers are large, the promises are loud, but behind them the state has not yet formulated its economic objectives. The conclusion is clear: this budget speaks about money, not about policy. And when the budget loses its political content, it ceases to be a development document and becomes a routine report,” the expert notes.
According to Ananyan, Armenia’s economy needs not just large numbers on paper, but a grand intent for transformation, modernization, and institutional strengthening. Without this, each subsequent budget merely repeats the mistakes of the previous one with new figures, he concludes.