Ukraine`s rural areas in the conditions of decentralization and local self-government reform: challenges and prospects

Table 4

Correlation matrix of identified relationships between factors influencing capital expenditures of the TC budget, per 1 inhabitant

Source: authors' own calculations

The resulting linear regression equation is an equation of a straight line, approximating relationship between the resulting characteristic and the factors selected for the correlation and regression analysis:

Y = -557.667 - 0.000821 xi - 0.06272x2 - 4.281283x3 - 0.046553x4 - - 0.090195x5 - 0.09844x6 - 0.133143x₇ - 0.00837xs (2)

The calculated regression coefficients (ai = 0.000821, a2 = -0.06272, аз = 4.281282, a4 = 0.046553, a5 = 0.090195, аб = -0.09844, a7 = -0.133143, as = 0.00837) show how much capital expenditures from the TC budget per 1 inhabitant will change on average under changes in each factor per unit of its measurement at fixed values of the rest of the factors entered in the equation. It follows from the regression equation that of the factors considered, the level of capital expenditures is most affected by the fiscal return of the community territory per 1 inhabitant.

Emphasis on the indicator of the fiscal return of the territory and the share of local taxes and fees in the composition of local budget revenues is a positive aspect, because the authority to establish rules for collecting such taxes has been transferred to the local level. According to scientists of the State Institution “M. I. Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of the NAS of Ukraine”, considering these factors will reveal the effectiveness of using the opportunities provided to them by local self-government authorities [52].

It is worth noting that there is a fairly close relationship between the selected factors and the resulting characteristic, as evidenced by the value of the multiple correlation coefficient R = 0.8710 (Table 5).

Fluctuations in the volume of budget capital expenditures per 1 inhabitant depend by 75.87 % on the factors included in the regression equation (coefficient of multiple determination R² = 0.7587). The degree of change in the volume of capital expenditures per 1 TC inhabitant when a certain factor changes by a unit of its measurement, provided that the values of other factors included in the equation are fixed, is determined by the value of the regression coefficients. Thus, an increase in the fiscal return of the community territory by 1 UAH per inhabitant will contribute to the growth of capital expenditures by 4.28 UAH. An increase in expenses for the maintenance of management personnel per 1 resident by 1 UAH will lead to a decrease in capital expenditures by 0.09 UAH per 1 person.

Table 5

Results of the multifactorial regression dependence of TC capital expenditures of the Volyn region per 1 inhabitant, 2022

To determine the reliability of the correlation ratio, Fisher's F-test was used (Table 5). Its calculated actual value (17.68) is higher than the tabulated value (3.33), which ensures the reliability of the correlation ratio. In order to obtain a qualitative regression model and its corresponding description, calculations were made to identify the effect of multicollinearity using the Farrar -Glauber algorithm. The existence of such a phenomenon in statistical science as multicollinearity often leads to the selection of incorrect model indicators, and if they are transferred to the general population, an unreliable picture of the consequences of decentralization transformations that take place in rural areas can be obtained. The above does not allow to effectively solve the identified problems. The calculations confirmed the absence of a multicollinearity effect.

Of course, the situation in individual rural communities of the Volyn region is significantly different, which is due to natural-climatic and organizational-economic conditions, and requires an immediate response. For example, the land profitability of the Soshynetska rural territorial community in 2022 was 4,273 UAH/ha, and that of the Horodyschenska TC - 26,952 UAH/ha. At the same time, the average value for rural TCs in the region is 9,635 UAH/ha. But all communities have shown that they are able to effectively manage and increase the financial resources received, respond decently to unforeseen challenges and ensure a high level of service provision in any conditions, as well as quickly adapt to new conditions. The communities proved that local self-government budgets form the basis of the sustainability of local financial resources and socio-ecological and economic development of the territory as a whole.

It is worth noting that, in accordance with the requirements of Articles 98-100 and Clause 24 of Chapter VI “Final and transitional provisions” of the Budget Code of Ukraine, in 2022 the system of budget equalization continued to operate, which provides for the horizontal equalization of the fiscal capacity of Ukrainian territories depending on the level of income per inhabitant [53]. At the same time, horizontal equalization for local self-government budgets is carried out only by personal income tax. When performing equalization, the value of the fiscal capacity index of the corresponding local budget is taken into account. So, in accordance with part 3 of Art. 99 of the Budget Code of Ukraine [53], the horizontal equalization mechanism provides that if the value of the fiscal capacity index is between 0.9 and 1.1, equalization is not carried out; local budgets with an index below 0.9 of the average indicator for Ukraine receive a basic subsidy to increase the level of their budget security, on the other hand, local budgets with a fiscal capacity index above 1.1 transfer part of their budget resources to support less capable communities. As of January 1, 2023, in the Volyn region, territorial communities received a basic subsidy totaling 754.82 million UAH, which is by 42.17 million UAH more than in 2021, and four communities directed a reverse subsidy to the State Budget of Ukraine. In 2022, funds were returned to the Budget in the amount of: Boratynska TC - 204.9 UAH per 1 inhabitant; Lypinska - 150.9 UAH; Lutska - 65.53 UAH; Volodymyr-Volynska - 62.25 UAH per 1 inhabitant.

In the context of this study, it is appropriate to examine and implement the European experience of fiscal equalization of TC budgets based on the transfer of financial resources between subregional authorities in order to mitigate regional differences in fiscal capacity and spending needs. After all, if we compare the estimated amounts of financial resources that are allocated or withdrawn from the budgets of Ukrainian territorial communities in accordance with horizontal equalization and actual revenues, we can often see their inconsistency. Table 6 shows the indicators that are taken into account when carrying out fiscal equalization of capacity in some European countries.

The main function of the system of fiscal equalization of budgets in European countries is to correct inequalities that would otherwise prevent comparable access to public services at the local level.

Therefore, the verification of the model based on the application of coefficients of multiple correlation, multiple determination, as well as Fisher's test proves its adequacy to the methodological instruments for studying the effectiveness of decentralization transformations in rural areas and confirms the feasibility of using it. After all, the scientifically based application of the correlation and regression method involves an in-depth analysis of the financial and economic indicators of specific communities, reflecting the size of their revenues and costs, the identification of cause-and-effect relationships between the socio-economic potential of the community and its investment and innovation development. However, given the scope of our research and available resources, we were limited to assessing the financial capacity of rural territorial communities within one region (Volyn region), which may not fully reflect national trends and processes. Thus, the generalizability of the results may be limited.

Table 6

European experience of fiscal equalization of territorial community budgets

However, it is reasonable to say that in modern conditions, the new scales, structure and level of powers of rural communities require a review of the structure and volume of their budget revenues, development of industrial and social infrastructure, optimization of management costs, search for additional sources of capital investment and financing of development programs in order to ensure the interests of new, more structured and numerous communities.

Overcoming negative problems in the society of Ukrainian rural areas and on their territories is possible only under the condition of stable minimization of risks, first of all, the cessation of hostilities. As well as the implementation of economic measures, improving the financial prosperity of local budgets for social reconstruction and further development of rural communities and territories. In this context, it is necessary to develop a real policy of the socio-economic development of rural areas on the basis of sustainability and taking into account European integration processes. To this end, we consider it expedient to make changes to the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine “On the list, quantitative composition and subjects of assignment of the committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the ninth convocation” dated August 29, 2019 No. 19-IX, including the policy of rural development in the subjects of assignment of the committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and define (appoint) a separate committee that would deal with its development.

It is expedient to determine the structure and content of the new policy and strategy for the socio-economic development of rural areas in the post-war period, taking into account European integration and the need to harmonize policies. In order to implement this task, we consider it necessary to create a separate working subgroup on rural development within the existing working group “New agrarian policy”, and include a section in the project of the Recovery Plan of Ukraine “New agrarian policy” that will define rural development measures on a priority bas is. At the same time, the strategic goals of the new agrarian policy should be defined as the “development of rural society and guaranteeing a high quality of life and well-being of the rural population of Ukraine; ensuring the development of a socially necessary, competitive and ecologically safe for the population economy of agricultural production; maintaining ecological balance with mandatory consideration of the balanced use of natural resources in rural areas by eliminating the identified problems and increasing the existing potential in the context of decentralization, European integration and on the basis of sustainability”.

The primary priority is to determine the institutions responsible for developing and implementing the rural development policy and improve the coordination of efforts among them, establish their effective interaction with territorial communities. The creation of an effective institutional environment for rural development should be carried out at all levels: state, sectoral, industrial, public. At each of these levels, the competences, tasks and limits of responsibility of the relevant subjects participating in the process should be defined in order to avoid duplication of efforts and resource expenditure. It is important in the context of creating an efficient institutional environment to strengthen cooperation and partnership among all state and non-state institutions of rural development.

Further decentralization of socio-economic development processes should take place with the shift of the management center for rural development from the macroto micro-level and the maximum approximation of the government to each peasant.

In the context of further reforming the revenue capacity of local budgets of rural territorial communities, it is appropriate to consider the possibility of taking into account the horizontal equalization of some costs in th e formula. It is precisely nontargeted equalizing transfers that can provide local authorities in rural areas with greater fiscal autonomy.

Theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of the influence of administrative-territorial reform and local self-government reform on rural development, identification of problems in rural areas, including those caused by decentralization, and the search for solutions are discussed in numerous scientific publications [29-32; 39-40; 55-62]. At the same time, most of the results published in these papers correspond to the results obtained in this study. In particular, as regards the ineffectiveness of the administrative and territorial reform in Ukraine. Thus, considering decentralization to be one of the priority, strategically important tasks of Ukraine as a democratic, social and legal state that has declared a course towards European integration, M. Logvynenko and A. Tsymbal [55] nevertheless point to problematic aspects in the implementation of the reform. Namely: the lack of a proper mechanism of legal regulation; non -compliance of the publicly announced goals of the decentralization reform with the real actions of the authorities within the framework of the reform; the irrationality of uniting some territorial communities, etc. At the same time, N. Davydenko and his colleagues [56], during an empirical study of rural development in Ukraine on the basis of the Rural Development Index developed by them, also came to the conclusion that the target indicators of decentralization for rural development in Ukraine were not achieved and there are no prospects for achieving them in the near future. M. Dmytryshyn and his colleagues point out the lack of strong evidence of the success of the decentralization reform and the decrease in the level of support for the decentralization reform both at the country level and across regions [57].

The conclusion of the authors of this paper about the decline in the quality of life of the rural population, caused, among other things, by decentralization and administrative and territorial reforms, is confirmed by Yu. Kurilov [58]. In his opinion, decentralization can be accompanied by such phenomena as regionalization of some territories (enrichment and consolidation of the territory within its historical, economic, territorial boundaries), and peripheralization of other territories (their impoverishment and atomization).

The predominance of political ambitions and interests over economic and social factors, as it turned out, is characteristic not only for Ukraine, but also for other countries that went through power decentralization and local self-government reform. Thus, M. Pukis and L. Seimuskane [59] presented a study showing that in Latvia, the true goals of the administrative-territorial reform were an expression of political competition. At the same time, no positive impact on regional development was achieved as a result of the reform. This is also confirmed by our research on Ukraine.

M. Al-Saidi [60], while studying the urban water sector reform program in Yemen, concludes that ambitions in its implementation led to institutional conflicts and hasty decentralization without any regulatory measures. Although this study concerns only one area of community functioning, namely water supply and drainage, the conclusions made in the paper are quite typical for the Ukrainian decentralization reform and its impact on rural development. The main factors that led to negative results, according to the authors, were related to the time frame for implementing the reform, incorrectly defined criteria for independence, geographical boundaries of independent utility companies, and the expected wide participation of interested parties. This is currently typical for Ukraine and confirms the conclusions drawn in this work.

The results regarding financial decentralization in Ukraine [61] were also confirmed, namely the inability of budget equalization mechanisms to regulate the uneven development of territorial communities and the inability of local selfgovernment authorities to carry out their powers in the absence of their own financial resources. Y. Uzun and S. Koch came to similar conclusions in their research [62]. Thus, they claim that financial decentralization did not contribute to the budgetary independence of communities and did not ensure the balance of inter -budgetary relations.

However, the literature sources reviewed above do n ot reflect the results of this study, as the most significant statistical relationship between the level of capital expenditures and the fiscal return of the community territory per 1 resident is determined. This, in our opinion, is a positive aspect due to the fact that, according to the reform, the authority to establish rules for collecting such taxes has been transferred to the local level.

It is noteworthy that the largest increase in financial revenues to local budgets of rural TCs is due to the receipt of personal income taxes. This issue, in our opinion, requires a separate study. After all, the logical conclusion is that this increase was the result of creating new jobs and increasing employment of the rural population. However, we are currently observing the opposite trends - employment is declining, and the unemployment rate of the rural population is growing. Obviously, there are other factors that affect this indicator, for example, an increase in the wages of agricultural workers. Therefore, in our opinion, it is advisable to direct further research, firstly, to collecting data for a longer period of time, and secondly, considering other factors that may affect the increase in financial revenues to local budgets of rural TCs and, accordingly, their expenditure part, and thirdly, expanding the range of TCs studied.

Conclusions

Summarizing the research results, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. It is proved that the strategic goal of the administrative-territorial reform for rural development in TC is aimed at creating a quality living environment, increasing the employment level, increasing the competitiveness and financial stability of communities, preserving the environment and traditional rural landscapes, producing high-quality agricultural products, raw materials and food products, meeting the needs of the population and ensuring the provision of a wide range of social services has not yet been achieved. The social crisis continues to worsen, which is manifested in declining employment rates, increasing unemployment, rising poverty, mass migration of peasants, deterioration of infrastructure and access to social services. Thus, the paper confirmed the working hypothesis about the inefficiency of the administrative-territorial reform and its negative impact on rural development in Ukraine.

2. During the period 2000-2021, the number of settlements in Ukraine decreased by 370 villages, an average of 17-18 villages annually. Compared to 1990, the rural population decreased by 26.5 %, and the death rate in rural areas exceeded the birth rate by 2.5 times. The rural employment rate in 2021 reached its lowest level of 46.7 % since 2000, which is 16.8 percentage points lower than its maximum value of 63.5 % in 2013. The purchasing power of rural residents is declining, food consumption is decreasing, the cost of living is constantly rising, and their standard of living is deteriorating. The situation with providing villages with social infrastructure facilities is complicated. As a result of the administrative and territorial reform in rural areas, it not only did not improve, but on the contrary worsened, the peasants ' access to medical and educational services became difficult, in some cases impossible.

3. Based on the analysis of the state and level of socio-economic development of Ukraine's rural areas in modern conditions, the main problems have been identified and systematized, the solution of which will ensure rural development on the basis of sustainability. The basic problems affecting rural development are systematized by groups: socio-demographic, economic, environmental and nature protection, institutional, political. Understanding the existing problems creates an opportunity to form effective state policy measures for rural development, requires rethinking the power decentralization reform and implementing effective instruments of the organizational and economic mechanism for ensuring sustainable rural development in territorial communities of direct and indirect influence.

4. In order to assess the impact of factors on the efficiency of functioning and financial capacity of territorial communities, a multifactorial correlation and regression analysis was conducted. According to its results, it was found that the general profitability of territorial communities is affected by: the profitability of community lands; local taxes and fees; fiscal return of the territory; expenses of the general fund; expenses for the maintenance of management personnel; capital expenditures and the amount of subsidies (official transfers, basic subsidy). Of the factors considered, the level of capital expenditures is most affected by the fiscal return of the community territory per 1 inhabitant. The relationship between the investigated parameters of the equation and the resulting characteristic and its quantitative assessment expands the scope of correlation and regression analysis in developing and specifying directions for increasing the financial capacity of rural territorial communities.

Promising areas of further research in this context are the development of an effective state policy for rural development in Ukraine and the justification of methods and mechanisms for its implementation in the post-war period.

References

1. Tymoschenko, M. M., & Sokolova, A. O. (2018). Scientific and organizational bases of improving the rural development strategy in terms of Eurointegration. Ekonomika APK, 2, 55-64. Available at: http://eapk.org.ua/sites/default/files/eapk/2018/02/eapk_2018_02_p_5 5_63.pdf.

2. Borodina, O. M., & Prokopa, I. V. (2019). Creative discussions on systemic problems of social development. Economy and Forecasting, 1, 70-85. https://doi.org/10.15407/eip2019.01.070.

3. Borodina, O. M., & Shubravska, O. V. (Ed.) (2018). Ahrarnyi i silskyi rozvytok dlia zrostannia ta onovlennia ukrainskoi ekonomiky [Agrarian and rural development for the growth and renewal of the Ukrainian economy ]. Kyiv, Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

4. Borodina, O. M., & Prokopa, I. V. (2018). The future of Ukraine's rural sector - from extractive use to inclusive development. Economy of Ukraine, 11 - 12, 104-121. https://doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2018.11.104.

5. Borodina, O. M. (Ed.) (2020). Inkliuzyvnyi silskyi rozvytok v Ukraini: [Inclusive rural development in Ukraine]. Kyiv, Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

6. Vaskivska, K., Lyndyuk, A., Danyliuk, O., Kucher, A., & Vaskivskyy, Y. (2023). Management of business activity of territorial communities: case of Ukraine. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, XIV(3(67)), 657-669. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v14.3(67).05.

7. Hubeni, Yu. E. (2007). Development of rural areas: some aspects of European theory and practice. Economy of Ukraine, 4, 60-65.

8. Dolishnii, M. I., Poburko, Ya. O., & Karpov, V. I. (2002). About the uniformity of the economic development of Ukraine's regions. Regional Economy, 2, 7-17.

9. Dolishnii, M. I. (2006). Rehionalna polityka na rubezhi XX-XXI stolit: novi priorytety [Regional policy at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries: new priorities]. Kyiv, Naukova dumka.

10. Libanova, E. M. (Ed.) (2020). Liudskyi rozvytok v Ukraini: priorytety rozvytku silskykh poselen u konteksti detsentralizatsii upravlinnia [Human development in Ukraine: priorities for the development of rural settlements in the context of decentralization of management]. Kyiv, Akademperiodyka.

11. Khirivskyi, R., Cherevko, H., Yatsiv, I., Pasichnyk, T., Petryshyn, L., & Kucher, L. (2020). Assessment and analysis of sustainability of the socio-economic development of amalgamated territorial communities of the region. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(2), 569-578. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n2p569.

12. Tereshchenko, V. K., Laiko, P. (Ed.) (2006). Sotsialno-ekonomichnyi rozvytok sela i silskykh terytorii [Socio-economic development of the village and rural areas]. Kyiv, Nichlava.

13. Lupenko, Yu. O. (Ed.) (2020). Formuvannia obiednanykh terytorialnykh hromad u silskii mistsevosti (informatsiino-analitychnyi ohliad) [Formation of united territorial communities in rural areas (informational and analytical review)]. Kyiv, NSC “IAE”.

14. Pavlov, O., Kushnir, O., & Pavlova, T. (2021). Risks of secure socioeconomic and political development of Ukraine in conditions of decentralization of public power and management. Black Sea Economic Studies, 66, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.32843/bses.66-7.

15. Sava, A. P. (2018). Rehuliuvannia rozvytku silskykh terytorii [Regulation of the development of rural areas]. Ternopil, Krok.

16. Savchuk, P. P., Sokolova, A. O., Polishchuk, M. O., & Honta, N. A. (2022). Suchasni realii ta otsiniuvannia detsentralizatsiinykh peretvoren na silskykh terytoriiakh: rehionalnyi aspect [Modern realities and assessment of decentralization transformations in rural areas: regional aspect]. In Development trends of the world agriculture in the XXI-st century: the view of the modern scientific community (pp. 234-257). Riga, “Baltija Publishing”. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-2036-10.

17. Slavkova, O. P. (2010). Rozvytok silskykh terytorii: teoriia, metodolohiia, praktyka [Development of rural areas: theory, methodology, practice]. Sumy, Sumy National Agrarian University.

18. Sokolova, А., & Ratoshniuk, T. (2022). Features of decentralization transformations in rural areas of Western Polissia: current state and identification of problems. Bulletin of Agricultural Science, 11, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.31073/agrovisnyk202211-10.

19. Shpylova, Yu. B. (2019). Stalyi rozvytok silskykh terytorii Ukrainy v umovakh detsentralizatsii vlady [Sustainable development of Ukraine's rural areas in conditions of decentralization of power]. Kyiv, ProfKnyha.

20. Chambers, R. (2013). Rural development: putting the last first. New York, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/97 81315835815.

21. Pavlov, O. I. (2009). Silski terytorii Ukrainy: funktsionalno-upravlinska model [Rural territories of Ukraine: functional management model]. Odesa, Astroprynt.

22. Pavlov, O. I. (2014). Methodology for determining strategic priorities for the development of rural areas. Socio-economic problems of the modern period of Ukraine, 3, 370-378.

23. Pavlov, O. I. (2015). Model of Ukraine's rural territories management: spatial dimension. State and Regions. Series: Economics and Business, 3, 114-118.

24. Kravchuk, I. I. (2014). Ekonomichnyi rozvytok silskoho sotsiumu: problemy upravlinnia [Economic development of rural society: management problems]. Zhytomyr, Polissia.

25. Lupenko, Yu. O. (Ed.) (2020). Stratehichni zasady staloho rozvytku silskykh terytorii na period do 2030 roku [Strategic principles of sustainable development of rural areas for the period up to 2030]. NSC “IAE”.

26. Rosner, A., & Stanny, M. (2017). Socio-economic development of rural areas in Poland. The European fund for the development of Polish villages foundation. Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, Polish Academy of Sciences. Available at: https://www.irwirpan.waw.pl/dir upload/site/files/Lukasz/MROW en 2017.pdf.

27. Tymoshenko, M. M. (2018). Stratehiia staloho rozvytku silskykh terytorii Ukrainy ta ekonomichnyi mekhanizm yii realizatsii [The strategy of sustainable development of rural areas of Ukraine and the economic mechanism of its implementation]. Zhytomyr, Vydavets O.O. Yevenok.

28. Patyka, N. I., & Bulavka, O. H. (2021). Strategic guidelines and priority directions for sustainable development of rural communities and territories in Ukraine in the context of power decentralization. Ekonomika APK, 8, 91-102. https://doi.org/10.32317/2221-1055.202108091.

29. Petretskyi, I. I. (2022). Development potential of rural areas in conditions of decentralization. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod University. Series “Economics”, 1 (59), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.24144/2409-6857.2022.1(59).41-46.

30. Zinchuk, T., & Ramanauskasa, Yu. (Ed.) (2020). Stalyi rozvytok silskykh terytorii [Sustainable development of rural areas]. Klaipeda, vyd-vo Klaipedskoho universytetu; Kyiv, Tsentr uchbovoi literatury.

31. Riabokon, V. P. (2020). Decentralisation is the way to rural development in Ukraine. Ekonomika APK, 1, 6-17. https://doi.org/10.32317/2221-1055.202001006.

32. Hohol, T., & Melnychuk, L. (2022). Transformation of territorial communities in the conditions of decentralization in Ukraine. Law and Public Administration, 1,216-225. https://doi.org/10.32840/pdu.2022.1.32.

33. Medvid, V., Pylypenko, V., Pylypenko, N., Ustik, T., Volchenko, N., & Vashchenko, M. (2019). Factors of rural development in the context of decentralisation: empirical research. Economic Annals-XXI, 177 (5-6), 126-140. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V177-11.

34. Kolosov, A., Glinkowska-Krauze, B., Chebotarov, I., Savchenko, O., & Chebotarov V. (2020). Forming the capability of rural and settlement united territorial communities in Ukraine: using the experience of Poland. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 6(4), 118-143. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.04.07.

35. Hlynskyy, N., Krykavskyy, Ye., Hirna, O., & Savchenko Yu. (2022). Transformation of the economic role of local self-government in low-urbanized territories in Ukraine: initial conditions and social perception. International Journal of Management and Economics, 58(3), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-20220018.

36. Tomashuk, I. (2021). Development of rural areas in conditions of decentralization of power in Ukraine. Scientific notes of Taurida National V.I. Vernadsky University. Series: Economy and Management, 32(4), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.32838/2523-4803/71-4-15.

37. Dovhal, O. V. (2018). Development of rural territories in decentralization conditions. Ukrainian Journal of Applied Economics, 3(4), 268-279. Available at: http://ujae.org.ua/rozvytok-silskyh-terytorij-v-umovah-detsentralizatsiyi.

38. Rossokha, V., & Plotnikova, M. (2018). Development of rural regions of Ukraine in conditions of decentralization of management: state, problems, perspectives. The Economic Discourse, 4, 41-53. https://doi.org/10.36742/24100919.

39. Belei, S. (2021). Development of rural areas in conditions of decentralization. Efektyvna ekonomika, 1. https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105-2021.1.78.

40. Siryk, Z., Popadynets, N., Pityulych, M., Chakii, O., Irtyshcheva, I., Panukhnyk, O., Hyk, V.,... & Lysyak, N. (2021). Decentralization of local self government under the conditions of administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine. Accounting, 7, 781-790. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2021.2.006.

41. Zhumagulov, E. T., Zholdybalina, A. S., Zhumasultanova, G. A., & Arzikulov, A. A. (2022). Development of local self-government in the Republic of Kazakhstan and the role of foreign experience in its improvement. Public Policy and Administration, 21(5), 544-555. https://doi.org/10.13165/VPA-22-21-5-02.

42. Tsymbaliuk, I., & Pidtserkovnyi, B. (2017). Regional development in the conditions of financial dezentralization in Ukraine. International Journal of New Economics and Social Sciences, 6(2), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.7623.

43. Galluzzo, N. (2021). A quantitative analysis on Romanian rural areas, agritourism and the impacts of European Union's financial subsidies. Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 458-467. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.jrurstud.2021.01.025.

44. Vasarri, S., & Salek-Lipcean, P. (2022). The role and place of local democracy and decentralisation in the modernisation and consolidation of democratic processes in the Eastern Partnership countries. Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs. European Union. https://doi.org/10.2863/637587.

45. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2014). Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On the approval of the concept of reforming local selfgovernment and territorial organization of power in Ukraine”. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/333-2014-%D1%80#Text.

46. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2014). Law of Ukraine “On cooperation of territorial communities”. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/150818#Text.

47. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2015). Law of Ukraine “On the voluntary association of territorial communities”. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/157-19.

48. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2023). Statistical information. Available at: https://ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/oper_new.html.

49. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2019). Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine “On the list, quantitative composition and subjects of assignment of the committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the ninth convocation”. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/19-20#Text.

50. New agrarian policy: project (2022). Available at: https://www.vin.gov.ua/images/doc/vin/Dep-APK-2022/Prezentatsia.pdf. Decentralization (2021). Information and analytical dashboard “Municipality budgets in Ukraine”. Available at: https://decentralization.gov.ua/news/14281 ?page=3.

51. Kravtsiv, V. S., & Storonianska, I. Z. (Ed.) (2020). Terytorialni hromady v umovakh detsentralizatsii: ryzyky ta mekhanizmy rozvytku [Territorial communities in conditions of decentralization: risks and mechanisms of development]. Lviv, State Institution “Institute of Regional Research named after M. I. Dolishniy of NAS of Ukraine”.

52. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2023). The Budget Code of Ukraine, as amended. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2456-17#Text.

53. OECD (2021). Fiscal federalism 2022: making decentralisation work. Paris, OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/201c75b6-en.

54. Logvynenko, M. I., & Tsymbal, A. E. (2020). Problems of decentralization reform implementation in Ukraine and ways to solve them. Legal Horizons, 24, 2328. http://www.doi.org/10.21272/legalhorizons.2020.i24.p23.

55. Davydenko, N., Wasilewska, N., Boiko, S., & Wasilewski, M. (2022). Development of rural areas in Ukraine in the context of decentralization: an empirical study. Sustainability, 14(11), 6730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116730.

56. Dmytryshyn, M., Dmytryshyn, R., Yakubiv, V., & Zagorodnyuk, A. (2021). Peculiarities of Ukrainians' approval of decentralization reform. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040104.

57. Kurilov, Y. Y. (2019). Regionalization, decentralization and administrative reform in Europe: theoretical and methodological aspect. Public Administration Aspects, 6(11-12), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.15421/151876.

58. Pukis, M., & Seimuskane, L. (2021). Influence of interest groups in Latvia on centralization. Proceedings of CBU in Social Sciences, 2, 308-317. https://doi.org/10.12955/pss.v2.239.

59. Al-Saidi, M. (2018). Evaluation of decentralization and commercialization in the urban water sector of Yemen. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(3), 513-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318780984.

60. Tolkmitt, V., Volokhova, I., & Ignatenko, R. (2022). Financial dezentralization in Ukraine in the context of European trends. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 4(45), 36-47. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.4.45.2022.3839.

61. Uzun, Yu., & Koch, S. (2020). Decentralization vs centralization: scenarios of regional development of Ukraine in the context of internal stability establishment. Przeglqd Strategiczny, 13, 243-62. https://doi.org/10.14746/ps.2020.1.15.

Размещено на Allbest.ru