A FIVE-YEAR TERM, FORMING OF THE TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES IN UKRAINE: EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLETION OF THE STAGE OF REFORM ON EXAMPLE OF KYIV REGION

  • A.L. Melnychuk
  • K.V. Hanichenko
Keywords: territorial community, local self-government, decentralization, administrative-territorial reform, Kyiv region

Abstract

The issue of the day of the Kyiv region is educed, namely is the efficiency of the prospect of administrative completion of the stage of reform of basilar level administrative-territorial device at the Kyiv area. In the article the features of redistribution of plenary powers are analyzed among the branches of power, change as between citizens and power in the conditions of decentralization. The problems of decentralization, that go out on the first plan in the conditions of crisis period of development of the Ukrainian state system, exactly this process is one of the base terms of independent and effective activity of local government, development of local economy. The features of the formation of territorial communities are examined in the article, reasons of problems of input of reform of decentralization are certain in the Kyiv area, estimation is done possibility of the well-educated incorporated territorial communities of the Kyiv area, according to the governmental methodology of forming of local communities. The features of forming of the incorporated territorial communities of the Kyiv area is plenty of all-sufficient territorial communities in the suburb of Kyiv and considerable polarization of development of communities, that was formed under an act of process of suburbanization, pendulum migration in a region. For peripheral part of region characteristic subzero solidarity and personal interest of population are in decentralization, absence of motivation and initiative to the association. It is indicated on the insufficient level of the socio-economic providing of motivation to forming of the incorporated territorial communities, the destructive role of the political process in a region.

The detailed analysis of the final perspective plan of forming of territories of communities of the Kyiv area is carried out passed by Kyiv regional administration on a statement to the Ministry of development of communities and territories of Ukraine concerning ability and prospects of development of the communities offered to creation. It is put question of communities’ further development offered to creation after administrative approach. It offers to extend the analysis of the possibility of territorial communities the analysis of providing shots, resources and development of infrastructure. Differences are exposed in possibilities and providing of possibilities of development of different types of offered to the creation in the region of communities – municipal, settlement and rural. On the example of offered to the creation of Hrebinky territorial community ostensible to the feature of forming of the budget of future society, accordance to the methodology of formation and it is indicated on problems and inconsistency of the resource providing for further speed-up socio-economic development of territorial communities.

References

1. About the voluntary association of territorial communities, law of Ukraine § 13 (2015). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/157-19 (дата звернення: 05.04.2020) [Про добровільне об’єд- нання територіальних громад, Закон України § 13 (2015). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/157-19 [in Ukrainian].
2. Administrative-territorial reform: objectives, ways of implementation, performance criteria: round table materials (2005). (ed. Varnalii Z.S.). Kyiv : ShSD. [Адміністративно-територіальна реформа: завдання, шляхи реалізації, критерії ефективності : матеріали «круглого столу» / за ред. З. С. Варналія. Київ : ШСД, 2005. 73 с.] [in Ukrainian].
3. Alm, J., Aten, R.H. and Bahl, R. 2001. Can Indonesia Deecntralize Successfully? Plans, Problems and Prospects. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 37(1), 83–102 [in English].
4. Brodjpnegoro, B.S. and Martinez Vasques, J. (2002). An analysis of Indonesia’s transfer system: recent performance and future prospects. Paper prepared for conference on Can Decentralization Help Rebuild Indonesia? Atlanta, May 2002. Georgia State University [in English].
5. Detsentralizatsiya: Mistsevi Byudzhety 159 Ob’ednanykh Terytorial’nykh Gromad [Decentralization: Local Budgets of 159 Consolidated Territorial Communities]. Kyiv, Ministry for Regional Development, Building and Housing of Ukraine, 2016 [in Ukrainian].
6. Ferazzi, G. (2007). International Experiences in Territorial Reform – Implications for Indonesia, main report, USAID Democratic Reform Support Program (DRSP) for the management Group on Territorial Reform, August 2007 Jakarta. [in English]. 7. Firman, T. (2010) Indonesia’s Rapid Decentralization Needs Inter Local-Government Partnership: Kartamantul (Greater Yogyakarta) and Jabodetabek (Greater Jakarta) Compared. Unpublished Manuscript [in English].
8. Grindle, M. (2007) The Promise of Good Governance. In: Grindle MS (ed.), Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization, and the Promise of Good Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 8, 164–186 [in English].
9. Koswara, E. 2000. Welcoming the Implementation of Regional Autonomy based on Law 22/1999’. Analisis CSIS 29(1), 36–64 [in English].
10. Kuchabskyi, O. (2009). Problems and prospects of reorganization of the administrative-territorial division of Ukraine at the regonal level. Bulletin of the National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine, 2, 158–165. [Кучабський О. Проблеми та перспективи реорганізації адміністративно-територіального устрою України на обласному рівні. Вісник Національної академії державного управління при Президентові України. 2009. Вип. 2. С. 158–165] [in Ukrainian].
11. Maruniak, Ye.O. (2014). Territorial (spatial) planning: content and evolution of major modern trends. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 2, 22-31. [Маруняк Є.О. Територіальне (просторове) планування: зміст, еволюція та основні сучасні напрями. Український географічний журнал. 2014. № 2. С. 22–31.] [in Ukrainian].
12. Napadovska, G.Y. (2019) Features of agriculture development in the context of decentralization (in the case of Kherson region). Kherson State University Herald. Series: “Geographical Sciences”, (7), 85–88. [Нападовська Г.Ю. Особливості сільського роз- селення в контексті децентралізації (на прикладі Херсонської області). Науковий вісник Херсонського державного університету. Серія: геогра- фічні науки. Херсон, 2019. Випуск №10. С. 85–88] [in Ukrainian].
13. Napadovska, G.Y. (2018) Spatial analysis of the process of united territorial communities. Kharkiv, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 181–183. [Нападовська Г.Ю. Просторовий аналіз процесу об’єднаних територіальних громад / Г.Ю. Нападовська, І.О. Пилипенко. Регіон – 2018: стратегія оптимального розвитку: матеріали міжнародної науково-практичної конференції (м. Хар- ків, 8–9 листопада, 2018 р.). Харків : ХНУ імені В.Н. Каразіна, 2018. С. 181–183] [in Ukrainian].
14. Nudelman, V. (2001). Improvement of the administrative-territorial division of Ukraine. Regional Economy, 3, 126–130. [Нудельман В. Вдосконалення адміністративно-територіального устрою України. Регіональна економіка. 2001. № 3. С. 126–130] [in Ukrainian].
15. Oliynyk, Ya.B., Ostapenko, P.O. (2016). The formation of amalgamated territorial communities in Ukraine: benefits, risks, threats. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 4, 37-43. [Олійник Я.Б., Остапенко П.О. Формування спроможних територіальних громад в Україні: переваги, ризики, загрози. Український географічний журнал. 2016. № 4. С. 37–43] [in Ukrainian].
16. Pratikno, P. 2008. Recommendations on Modifications of Regional Development Policy: Proliferation and Amalgamation of Regions. Unpublished Policy Paper, Democratic Reform Support Program, United States Agency for International Development, February 29. [in English].
17. Rondinelli, D.A. (1990). Decentralizing Urban Development Programs: A Framework for Analyzing Policy. Office of Housing and Urban Programs, US Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. [in English].
18. Shah, A. and Hutter, J. (1998) Applying a Simple Measure of Good Governance to the Debate on Fiscal Decentralization. Washington, DC : The World Bank. [in English].
19. Udovychenko, V., Melnychuk, A., Gnatiuk, O., Ostapenko, P. (2017). Decentralization reform in Ukraine: assessment of the chosen transformation model. European Spatial Research and Policy, 24 (1), 23–40 [in English].
20. Von Luebke, C. (2009). The Political Economy of Local Governance: Findings From an Indonesian Field Study. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 45(2), 201–230 [in English].
21. Zhuk, P.V. (2015). Up-to-day issues and ways of administrative and territorial system reforming in Ukraine. Socio-Economic Problems of the Modern Period of Ukraine, 1 (111), 20–25. [Жук П.В. Актуальні завдання та шляхи реформування адміністративно-територіального устрою в Україні. Соціально-е- кономічні проблеми сучасного періоду України. 2015. Вип. 1 (111). С. 20–25.] [in Ukrainian].
Published
2020-08-10
Pages
17-24
Section
SECTION 1 SOCIO-GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCHES