This study identifies the main current vulnerabilities of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries regarding public procurement and public services, and provides a systematic assessment of priority avenues of intervention. Research methods employed here involved an original expert survey designed to systematically evaluate the main forms of corruption occurring at the subnational level in EaP countries. Targeting relevant experts from the public sector, academia and CSOs, we aimed to disentangle the prevalence of specific forms of corruption in each country, as well as the most suitable means to counter it. The original expert survey data was triangulated with existent studies and reports, as well as other primary data sources (e.g. institutional webpages). Key findings suggest that the lack of transparency is the main vulnerability of LRAs in all case studies. Nepotism and untrained personnel is predominant concerns for public procurement across cases. Abuse of administrative resources in electoral campaigns along with nepotism are predominant concerns in terms of public service delivery. In depth country analysis shows that the lack of transparency is of primary concern in Azerbaijan and Belarus, ambiguous legislation is the most stringent problem in Armenia and Ukraine (recent progress has been reported here); personnel recruitment and qualification is the core issue in Georgia and, favoritism in public procurement procedures is the main concern in Moldova. Overall, there is an estimate of average capacity to counter corruption at the level of the LRAs in EaP countries. Georgia stands out as the most willing to engage in anti-corruption efforts, while Azerbaijan has the lowest institutional competence to engage in preventive anti-corruption measures. Examples provided through the experts' qualitative assessment illustrate specific corruption manifestations: preferential mechanisms in allocating public contracts for road repairs and transportation (e.g. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Chișinău), construction works (e.g. Minsk) or waste management (e.g. Yerevan, Bila Tservka, Bălți), as well as those referring to access to social services (e.g. Tblisi), public utilities - especially energy (e.g. Shuakhevi Hydropower plant), or construction permits (e.g. Chișinău). Recommendations formulated here are informed by the benchmark practices we have identified in each case, as well as the existent challenges. These include: digitalisation of bureaucratic public services (e.g. permits, certificates), centralised online system for announcing job openings in the public sector, training public sector employees in the implementation of transparency measures and ethical conduct, allowing citizens' access to the deliberative process of local councils etc.
