Preservation of regional identity during the administrative reform in Ukraine (in example of the Odessa region)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Preservation of regional identity during the administrative reform in Ukraine (in example of the Odessa region)

M. V. Adobovska, PhD (Pedagogy), Docent

A. O. Buyanovskiy, PhD (Geography), Docent

N. O. Popelnytska, PhD (Geography), Docent

V. V. Yavorska, DrSc (Geography), Prof.

Odessa National I. I. Mechnikov University

Faculty of Geology and Geography



Throughout the history of Ukraine, there have been two opposite tendencies: a historical approach to regional division, which manifested itself in the formation of ideas about the cultural, ethnic, linguistic and other diversity of its historical lands, which for a long time were part of different states and a rational approach - the creation of such administrative-territorial units (provinces, voivodships, districts, regions), which would level regional differences and contribute to political centralization. Since the beginning of Ukraine's independence in 1991, several attempts have been made to change the administrative-territorial structure in accordance with the European principles of territorial administration. The main purpose of the work is to consider some issues of environmental management and regional identity within the framework of the new districts and administrative and territorial structure created in the Odessa region as a result of the administrative reform. The theoretical basis of the study is the provisions of economic theory, environmental economics, theory of sustainable development, institutional analysis. The methodological basis of the research is a set of such general scientific and special methods used to achieve the goal of the work, in particular, the system approach, the dialectical method of cognition and comparative legal analysis, the historical approach, the method of cause-and-effect relationships, economic and statistical methods. The decentralization policy in Ukraine is an effective model of the identity formation policy at the regional level. In 2014, after the approval of the Concept of reforming local self-government in our country, transformational changes began, which resulted in the approval in 2020 of a new administrative-territorial structure of the district level and the level of territorial communities. As part of the decentralization reform in 2020, the administrative-territorial division of the region has changed. So instead of 490 village, settlement and city councils, 91 territorial communities were allocated, and instead of 26 liquidated districts - 7 new districts. When carrying out the reform, the physical-geographical zoning, natural-recreational potential and socio-cultural characteristics of the multicultural region were not fully taken into account, which ultimately leads to inadequate receipt by a person of the benefits provided for by law, incl. ecosystems. Ignoring these problems may in the near future in the foreseeable future lead to an imbalance in the systems of the region, irrational use of natural resources, including land use, and inconsistency with the existing concept of sustainable development. odessa region regional development

Keywords: Odessa region, regional development, administrative reform in Ukraine, environmental management, sustainable development



М. В. Адобовська, к. пед. н. доцент

A. А. Буяновський, к. геогр. н., доцент

Н. О. Попельницька, к. геогр. н., доцент

B. В. Яворська, д. геогр. н., професор

Одеський національний університет імені І. І. Мечнікова

Геолого-географічний факультет

ЗБЕРЕЖЕННЯ РЕГІОНАЛЬНОЇ ІДЕНТИЧНОСТІ ПІД ЧАС АДМІНІСТРАТИВНОЇ РЕФОРМИ В УКРАЇНІ (НА ПРИКЛАДІ ОДЕСЬКОЇ ОБЛАСТІ)

Протягом історії України мали місце дві протилежні тенденції: історичний підхід до регіонального поділу, що виявився у формуванні уявлень про культурне, етнічне, мовне та інше розмаїття її історичних земель, які тривалий час входили до складу різних держав та раціональний підхід - створення таких адміністративно-територіальних одиниць (губерній, воєводств, округів, областей), які б нівелювали регіональні відмінності та сприяли політичній централізації. З початку здобуття Україною незалежності у 1991 року було зроблено кілька спроб змінити адміністративно-територіальний устрій відповідно до європейських принципів територіального управління. Основною метою роботи є розгляд деяких питань природокористування та регіональної ідентичності в межах створених нових районів і ОТГ в Одеської області в результаті проведеної адміністративної реформи. Теоретичною основою дослідження є положення економічної теорії, економіки природокористування, теорії сталого розвитку, інституційного аналізу. Методологічна основа дослідження складає сукупність загальнонаукових та спеціальних методів, зокрема системний підхід, діалектичний метод пізнання та порівняльно-правовий аналіз, історичний підхід, метод причинно-наслідкових зв'язків, економіко-статистичні методи. Політика децентралізації в Україні є ефективною моделлю політики формування ідентичності на регіональному рівні. У 2014 році, після затвердження Концепції реформування місцевого самоврядування, в нашій країні розпочалися трансформаційні зміни, результатом яких стало затвердження у 2020 році нового адміністративно-територіального устрою районного рівня та рівня територіальних громад. У рамках реформи децентралізації у 2020 році змінився адміністративно-територіальний поділ Одеської області. Так замість 490 сільських, селищних та міських рад було виділено 91 територіальну громаду, а замість 26 ліквідованих районів - 7 нових районів. Під час проведення реформи були не повною мірою враховані фізико- географічне зонування, природно-рекреаційний потенціал і соціокультурні особливості полікультурного регіону, що зрештою призводить до неадекватного отримання людиною передбачених законом благ, зокрема. екосистеми. Ігнорування цих проблем може в найближчому майбутньому призвести до дисбалансу в системах регіону, нераціональності використання природних ресурсів, у тому числі землекористування, і невідповідності існуючої концепції сталого розвитку.

Ключові слова: Одеська область, регіональний розвиток, адміністративна реформа в Україні, природокористування, сталий розвиток.



М. В. Адобовская, к. пед. н., доцент

A. А. Буяновский, к. геогр. н, доцент

Н. О. Попельницкая, к. геогр. н., доцент

B. В. Яворская, д. геогр. н., проф.

Одесский национальный университет имени И. И. Мечникова Геолого-географический факультет

СОХРАНЕНИЕ РЕГИОНАЛЬНОЙ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ ВО ВРЕМЯ АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОЙ РЕФОРМЫ В УКРАИНЕ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ ОДЕССКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ)

На протяжении истории Украины имели место две противоположные тенденции: исторический подход к региональному делению и рациональный подход. Создание таких административно-территориальных единиц (губерний, воеводств, округов, областей), нивелировали бы региональные отличия и способствовали политической централизации. С начала получения Украиной независимости в 1991 году предпринято несколько попыток изменить административно-территориальное устройство в соответствии с европейскими принципами территориального управления. Теоретической основой исследования являются положения экономической теории, экономики природопользования, теории устойчивого развития, институционального анализа. Политика децентрализации в Украине это эффективная моделью политики формирования идентичности на региональном уровне. В 2014 году, после утверждения Концепции реформирования местного самоуправления в нашей стране, начались трансформационные изменения, результатом которых стало утверждение в 2020 году нового административно-территориального устройства районного уровня и уровня территориальных общин. В рамках реформы децентрализации в 2020 году изменилось административно-территориальное деление региона. При проведении реформы не были в полной мере учтены физико-географическое зонирование, природно-рекреационный потенциал и социокультурные особенности поликуль- турного региона, что в конечном итоге приводит к неадекватному получению человеком предусмотренных законом благ, в т.ч. экосистемы. Игнорирование этих проблем может в ближайшем будущем в обозримом будущем привести к дисбалансу в системах региона, нерациональности использования природных ресурсов, в том числе землепользования, и несоответствию существующей концепции устойчивого развития.

Ключевые слова: Одесская область, региональное развитие, административная реформа в Украине, природопользование, устойчивое развитие.



INTRODUCTION

Most researchers note the complexity and inconsistency of the territorial structure of Ukraine, which is revealed in various aspects. Throughout its history, there have been two opposite tendencies: a historical approach to regional division, which manifested itself in the formation of ideas about the cultural, ethnic, linguistic and other diversity of its historical lands, which for a long time were part of different states (Galicia, Volyn, Transcarpathia, Bukovina, Slobozhanshchina, Podillia, etc.), and a rational approach is the creation of such administrative-territorial units (provinces, voivodships, districts, regions) that would level regional differences and contribute to political centralization (Holubko, 2014). As a result, there was a partial discrepancy between “informal” and “formal” (Busyigina, 2006) Regions of Ukraine. For example, the historical region of Galicia includes part of the territory of Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv and Ternopil regions. The administrative-territorial division (ATD) of Ukraine changed several times during the 19th-20th centuries.

Analysis of recent research and publications. Russian scientists A. Topchiev (2011), B. Danylyshin (2012), A. Dotsenko (2003) and others made a fundamental contribution to the study of this issue. The idea of creating districts, based on the historical experience of the formation of administrative-territorial units, was expressed by M. Dnestryansky (1997). In his work, V. Shilov (1997, p. 51) considers the region as “a socio-economic space with a certain natural and geographical territory, which is distinguished by the appropriate nature of production, specific historical, cultural and demographic characteristics, administrative and political territory and borders, and also the same type of regulatory framework”. When studying the administrative reform in Ukraine, they focused on the economic, legal, managerial, political aspects of decentradization (T. Baban, 2016; V. Groisman, 2015; T Zabeyvorota, 2017; M. Melnichuk, 2015; M. Pukhtinsky 2016; N Shibaeva, 2016, etc.). Decentralization from the point of view of regional development was considered by T Bezverkhnyuk (2009), V. Tolkovanov (2013), S. Romanyuk (2016) and others. In the report “Decentralization in Ukraine: achievements, hopes and fears” (Decentralization in Ukraine, 2017) prepared by the Ukrainian Independent Center for Political Research drew attention to the social problems of decentralization.

The modern state territory of Ukraine has been formed over the past one hundred years. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Ukrainian lands were part of the “two empires”: most of them - in the Russian, the extreme western part - in the Austro- Hungarian. At the end of the First World War (1914-1918), these empires collapsed (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Administrative division of Ukraine in the 1930^th

In the 1920^th, a temporary division into districts was introduced in the USSR (19231930). The modern system of regions and districts of Ukraine has been formed since 1932, when the first 7 regions were formed instead of the current administrative system of 40 districts and 406 districts and 29,938 settlements. The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic existed on the territory of Crimea, which was turned into a region in 1944, and in February 1991 the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was formed on the territory of the Crimean region. In addition to the regions, the Moldavian ASRR (1924-40) existed as part of Ukraine.

In 1939, Eastern Galicia and Volyn (from Poland) were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR and in 1940 - Bukovina and Southern Bessarabia (from Romania). Zacarpathia was transferred to Ukraine (under an agreement with Czechoslovakia) in 1945 (Fig. 2).

Given the close economic ties with Ukraine, in 1954, by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Crimean region, which was part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR.

Having gained independence in 1991, Ukraine inherited from the Soviet past and the administrative-territorial structure, which was formed in the mid-60^th. XX century for the needs of the administrative-command (planned) economy. Our country has lived with this legacy for another 29 independent years, during which there have been several attempts to change the administrative-territorial structure in accordance with the European principles of territorial administration, the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the conditions of a market economy.

The main purpose of the work is to consider some issues of environmental management and regional identity within the framework of the new districts and administrative and territorial division created in the Odessa region as a result of the administrative reform.

Fig. 2. Administrative-territorial division of Ukraine in 1945

DATA & METHODS

The theoretical basis of the study is the provisions of economic theory, environmental economics, theory of sustainable development, institutional analysis. The methodological basis of the research is a set of such general scientific and special methods used to achieve the goal of the work, in particular, the system approach, the dialectical method of cognition and comparative legal analysis, the historical approach, the method of cause-and-effect relationships, economic and statistical methods.

The theoretical basis of the study is the provisions of economic theory and economics of natural resource management, the methodological basis of the study is a set of general scientific and special methods.

In the study of integration processes, we paid attention to regional integration institutions, the logic of the formation of which differs from the now classic European scheme of integration. The developed concepts, based on new theoretical models and describing new practices of cooperative interaction between state and non-state actors in different areas of public life, can be classified as “new regionalism”.

In new research approaches, the region is seen as an active and dynamically developing unit. It can be both constructed and deconstructed in ideal-symbolic and spatial-geographic terms. Often, the processes of integration and disintegration are dichotomous and develop simultaneously in the region.

Specific components of the identity of a regional community. The complexity of the study of this phenomenon is associated, first of all, with the ambiguity of understanding regional identity, since this construct includes social, cultural, mental, symbolic, components. In the process of cultural-historical dynamics, these components

go through a series of metamorphoses (for example, the transition from the cultural sphere to the mental or symbolic sphere, when it comes to the formation of the image of the territory). In addition, the interconnection of the territorial, mental, symbolic foundations of the formation of regional identity is not obvious. This situation requires systematization of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of the phenomenon of regional identity.

This problem found its development in the works of B. Anderson (1991), who paid great attention to the functional significance of the region and the functional distinction between representatives of “their” society in relation to other members of society as a result of the formation of regional identity. According to B. Anderson (1991), it is the restriction of functional ties based on the principle of territorial unity that leads to the formation of communities with a high degree of social identity. At the same time, he highlights a very important thesis: the formation of territorial identity, as it were, follows the image of the territory. In this capacity, the display of the territory of the region on a map, or a literary image, or art canvases that capture the territory can act.

RESULTS

In a general sense, regional (or territorial) identity is certain mental connections between the population and the territory, which are manifested in the form of value (political, cultural, religious) priorities. Such characteristic value preferences, in fact, determine the formation of a special type of perception of the world.

Each regional identity has a traditional and modern component. Traditional features inherited from the conventionally preceding historical era and continue to be automatically reproduced. Modern features, which in most cases contradict them, have developed and continue to emerge as a result of modern events and changes.

On the one hand, the political life is determined by the intensified European integration reforms. On the other hand, there is the gradual formation of regional identities.

At least so far, none of the processes has acquired a dominant character. Both develop equally slowly and partially. However, two interestingly conflicting trends are already evident:

1. Decentralization becomes a catalyst for regionalization processes, contributes to the allocation of regional identities.

2. In turn, more or less “self-sufficient” regional identities are turning into the main source of resistance to decentralization.

In a general sense, regional (or territorial) identity is certain mental connections between the population and the territory, which are manifested in the form of value (political, cultural, religious) priorities. Such characteristic value preferences, in fact, determine the formation of a special type of perception of the world (Kiselova, 2017).

One of the most effective models of identity formation policy at the regional level is the policy of decentralization in Ukraine. The main actor in the formation of such a policy is the state. Elites and, to a lesser extent, society and ideological institutions exert a certain influence on the process of forming regional identity. Actors shaping identity should be guided by the fact that identity is a dynamic, not a static process, therefore, in the context of a variety of alternative identities, it is necessary to strengthen and maintain the foundations of the existing identity.

In 2014, after the approval of the Concept of reforming local self-government (The concept of local government reform, 2014) in our country, transformational changes began, which resulted in the approval in 2020 of a new administrative-territorial structure of the district level and the level of territorial communities. Administrative- territorial reform was supposed to take into account the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (European Charter of Local Self- Government, 2017) as much as possible. Administrative and territorial reform is the most important reform of decentralization in Ukraine - a set of changes in legislation, the main purpose of which is to transfer significant powers and funds from central authorities to local governments.

The territory of the Odessa oblast passed to Russian control in 1791 in the course of the Russian southern expansion towards the Black Sea at the end of the 18th century. By 1920 the Soviet authorities had secured the territory of Odessa region, which became part of the Ukrainian SSR. At the time of its formation on February 27, 1932, the Odessa region included not only the modern Odessa region, but also parts of the territories of the present Kirovograd, Kherson and Mikolaiv regions. From 1932 to 1940, numerous administrative and territorial changes took place on the territory of the Odessa region. In 1937 the Central Executive Committee of the USSR split off the eastern portions of the Odessa Oblast to form the Mykolaiv Oblast.

During World War II Romania occupied the oblast and administered it as part of the Transnistria Governorate (1941-1944). After the war the Soviet administration reestablished the oblast with its pre-war borders.

Odessa region expanded in 1954 to include the Izmail region (also known as the Budzhak region of Bessarabia), formed in 1940 as a result of the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (from Romania), when Northern and Southern parts of Bessarabia were given to the Ukrainian SSR (Fig. 3).

The phenomenon of the local community in its different versions - the rural world, urban communities, regional communities - has not often been put forward as a subject of research. The lack of attention of Ukrainian sociologists to local (regional) communities is explained by the fact that at one time the disintegration of the Russian Empire made the problem of maintaining the integrity of the state more urgent and forming a new identity within the old territorial boundaries. With all the declaration of the union character of the state of the USSR, all efforts were aimed at building a state of a centralized type, and, accordingly, at forming a community of the population on a political and ideological basis.



Fig. 3. Administrative division of the Odessa region until 2020

Reproduction of any kind of local communities or subcultures was not allowed, because they were seen as a threat to state solidarity. At present, the transition to real decentralization and the ability of the subjects to pursue their own regional economic policy within the country and at the international level have brought into focus the problem of solidarity of local territories - regions, cities, rural settlements. In these conditions, a difference was revealed between the population of the territory and the territorial community.

The main population living in the territory is a community united by common ideas, which are the basis of territorial identity. These representations are formed in the process of spatial imagination, transformation of the environment and the accumulation of social experience. Most researchers refer to the main characteristics of territorial identity as a community of residence, consciousness and interests, a sense of cohesion and solidarity and the general ideas about the territory that are formed on this basis (Deacon, 2001).

As part of the decentralization reform in 2020, the administrative-territorial division of the region has changed. So instead of 490 village, settlement and city councils, 91 territorial communities were identified, and instead of 26 liquidated districts - 7 new districts (Fig. 4, Table 1).

When carrying out the reform, the physical-geographical zoning, natural-recreational potential and socio-cultural characteristics of a multicultural region were not fully taken into account, which ultimately leads to an inadequate receipt by a person of the benefits provided by law, incl. ecosystem. The analysis shows that the Ukrainian administrative-territorial units (regions), for a number of reasons, with the exception of a part of the territory of the East of the country, did not become a space for the formation of regional identity, which could become the basis for regionalism.

In the systematics of settlement on a historical-geographic-genetic basis, we have proposed a basic unit - the genetic type of settlement (GTR), which should be formed within the territory, which has a certain taxonomic level of natural-geographical and socio-economic kinship. The criteria for determining the GTR are the territorial unity of certain settlements of functional types, a kind of network of settlements by their location and general configuration, the total time of settlement and economic development of the territory, joint socio-economic development and similar dynamics of geodemographic processes.

An important genetic characteristic of settlements is their location, linkage to the natural and geographic environment. For example, it is known that the initial agrarian settlement in the south of Ukraine gravitated towards valleys and gullies, while the secondary recreational-agrarian settlement was already oriented towards the coast of seas, estuaries and large rivers. It can be argued that each functional-genetic group of settlements has a characteristic link to the natural-geographic environment, its typical locations.

The territory of the Odessa region is located in the forest-steppe and steppe zones (with the northern, southern and dry-steppe subzones), within which the physical and geographical regions are distinguished (The nature of the Odessa region, 1979). The determining factors in the formation of the natural and recreational potential of the Odessa region are: geographic location, bioclimatic conditions, water bodies of the coastal zone (first of all, the sea basin and estuaries), mineral waters, therapeutic mud, territories and objects of the nature reserve fund, picturesque natural landscapes, etc. The united territorial community is a combination of various identities - local, national, European, Ukrainian, political. The issue of cultural diversity often poses difficult challenges. Many philosophers, political scientists, legal scholars consider multiculturalism, which is “understood not only as tolerance towards cultural diversity, but also as a requirement for legislative recognition of the rights of racial, religious and cultural groups,” as one of the ways to overcome tension in multicultural countries and options for activating the democratization process.

Fig. 4. Formation of administrative-territorial units of the subregional (district) level of the Odessa region

Table 1

Comparative characteristics of the results of the administrative reform in Ukraine (as of 01.01.2021)

Region	Raions / Districts (until 2020 year)	Raions / Districts (after2020 year)	Cities of regional significance	Number of OTGs	Area of the region, km2	Population	Average number of residents in the district
Cherkasy Oblast	20	4	6	66	20900,0	1192137	18062,68
Chernihiv Oblast	22	5	3	57	31865,0	991294	17391,12
Chernivtsi Oblast	11	3	2	52	8097,0	901632	17339,08
Dnipropetrovsk Oblast	22	7	13	86	31914,0	3176978	36941,60
Donetsk Oblast	18	8	28	46	26517,0 (18038,1)	4200461 (1843578)	91314,37
Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast	14	6	5	62	13900,0	1368097	22066,08
Kharkiv Oblast	27	7	7	56	31415,0	2654375	47399,55
Kherson Oblast	18	5	3	49	27360,3	1027319	20965,69
Khmelnytskyi Oblast	20	3	6	60	20645,0	1254702	20911,70
Kyiv Oblast	25	7	13	69	25555,2	1781044	25812,23
Kirovohrad Oblast	21	4	4	49	24588,0	933209	19045,08
Luhansk Oblast	18	8	14	26	26684,0 (18254,6)	2167802 (661028)	83377,00
Lviv Oblast	20	7	9	73	21833,0	2512084	34412,11
Mykolaiv Oblast	19	4	5	52	24341,5	1119862	21535,81
Odessa Oblast	26	7	7	91	32147,8	2377191	26122,98
Poltava Oblast	25	4	5	60	28748,0	1386079	23101,32
Rivne Oblast	16	4	4	64	20047,0	1152961	18015,02
Sumy Oblast	18	5	7	51	23834,0	1068247	20946,02
Ternopil Oblast	17	3	1	55	13823,0	1036590	18847,09
Vinnytsia Oblast	27	6	6	63	26513,0	1545416	24530,41
Volyn Oblast	16	4	4	54	20144,0	1031421	19100,39
Zakarpattia Oblast	13	6	5	64	12777,0	1253791	19590,48
Zaporizhzhia Oblast	20	6	5	67	27237,1	1682534	25112,45
Zhytomyr Oblast	23	4	5	66	29651,7	1208212	18306,24

On the agenda is the transition from the administrative-territorial systematics of the population in the form of territorial systems of settlement to the territorial organization of the population according to regional systems of settlement, formed on a historical and geographical basis. The establishment of regional settlement systems is guided by the possible socio-economic regionalization of the country; in turn, the development of an objective network of regions is based on the historical and geographical systematics of the settlement of the regional level.

Achieving a state of sustainable (ecologically balanced) development requires a number of prerequisites, which, as noted in the report “Our Common Future” of the International Commission on Environment and Development (Our Common Future, 1987), are: political system, economic system, social system, system of effective production, technological system, international system.

The formation and implementation of the state regional policy presupposes a significant increase in the role and responsibility of local state administrations, local governments, and territorial communities for the development of regions. The transformation of regions into active subjects of economic relations in a market economy, in the future - their formation as subjects of international economic relations in the European space puts forward new requirements for strengthening the economic potential of regions, ensuring their competitiveness in domestic and international markets for goods and investments.

Ignoring these problems can in the near future in the foreseeable future lead to an imbalance in the systems of the region, irrational use of natural resources, including land use, and inconsistency with the existing concept of sustainable development.



CONCLUSIONS

Summing up, let us single out the main goal of the state regional policy - creating conditions for a balanced and dynamic development of territories and overcoming the main regional imbalances. The basis of regional development should be the independence of the regions in determining the goals of their development and the possibility of implementing such tasks. The transformation of regions into active subjects of economic relations in a market economy, and in the future - their formation as subjects of international economic relations in the European space puts forward new requirements for strengthening the economic potential of regions, ensuring their competitiveness in domestic and international markets for goods and investments.

Finally, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Conducting administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine is extremely important and is aimed at decentralizing all levels of state organization.

2. The preferences from the reform are primarily economic, aimed at the economic independence of the region. The multiculturalism of the region provides great opportunities for the economic development of individual territorial clusters.

3. However, during the implementation of the reform, it is important to take into account the regional identity, so that the ethnic identity of the multicultural region, which is the Odessa region, is not lost.

4. The main activities should be aimed at economic development, but taking into account the industries traditional for the region, taking into account the regional, multicultural features of the region, adapted to modern climatic changes and scientific and technical development



REFERENCES

1. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism [2nd, revised edition]. London, New York: Verso.

2. Baban, T.O., Shybaieva, N.V (2016). Skladovi protsesu detsentralizatsii v Ukraini (Components of the decentralization process in Ukraine). Bulletin of Kharkiv National Technical University of Agriculture: Economic Sciences. Kharkiv: pp. 205-216. [in Ukrainian].

3. Bezverkhniuk, T. M. (2009). Systema resursnoho zabezpechennia rehionalnoho upravlinnia: kontseptualni zasady rozbudovy i mekhanizmu funktsionuvannia (System of resource provision of regional management: conceptual bases of development and the mechanism of functioning). Doktor's theisis. Odessa: ORIPA. [in Ukrainian].

4. Brutland, G. H. (1987). Nashe obschee buduschee. Doklad mezhdunarodnoy komissii po okruzhayuschey srede i razvitiyu (Our common future. Report of the international commission on environment and development). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/ru/ga/pdf/brundtland.pdf. [in Russian].

5. Busyigina, I. M. (2006). Politicheskaya regionalistika: ucheb. posobie (Political regionalistics: textbook allowance). Moskow: ROSSPEN. [in Russian].

6. Danilishin, B. (2012). Regionalizm v Ukraine: realnost i perspektivyi. (Regionalism in Ukraine: reality and prospects) Mirror of the week. 16 June. № . 22 (70). pp. 4. [in Russian].

7. Deacon, B. (2001). The reformulation of territorial identity: Cornwall in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Open University. Chapter 1: Identity and territory. Retrieved from: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/ academic_departments/huss/ics/documents/Chapter1.pdf.

8. Detsentralizatsiya v Ukraine dostizheniya, nadezhdyi i opaseniya (Decentralization in Ukraine achievements, hopes and fears) (2017). Ukrainian Independent Center for Political Research. International Alert. Retrieved from: URL: https://www.international-alert.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ukraine-Decentralisation-RU-2017.pdf. [in Russian].

9. Dnistrianskyi, M. S. (1997). Perspektyvy vdoskonalennia terytorialnoho polityko - administratyvnoho ustroiu Ukrainy: metodolohichni i prykladni aspekty (Prospects for improving the territorial political and administrative system of Ukraine: methodological and applied aspects). Regional economy. 1997. № 2. [in Ukrainian].

10. Dotsenko, A. I. (2003). Administratyvno-terytorialnyi ustrii ta rozselennia v Ukraini. (Administrative and territorial organization and resettlement in Ukraine). Kyiv, 2003. [in Ukrainian].

11. Holubko, V. (2014). Administrativno-territorialnoe delenie Ukrainyi: istoricheskiy opyit i perspektivyi (Administrative-territorial division of Ukraine: historical experience and prospects). Roczniki administracji i prawa, Rok. XIV, Vol. 2. pp. 87-96. Retrieved from: URL: http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight- c8662005-ac0b-470b-9872-bfd3fab40c20/c/Holubko_Wiktor.pdf. [in Russian].

12. Hroisman, V. B. (2015). Mistse ta rol detsentralizatsii vlady u protsesakh stanovlennia hromadianskoho sus- pilstva (The place and role of decentralization of power in the processes of formation of civil society). Democratic governance. Scientific Bulletin. [in Ukrainian].

13. Kontseptsiia reformuvannia mistsevoho samovriaduvannia ([The concept of local government reform). (2014, April 1). Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. № 333-р. Retrieved from: URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/333-2014-%D1%80#Text [in Ukrainian].

14. Kyselova, V (2017). Detsentralizatsiia i rehionalni identychnosti: paradoksy vzaiemodii (Decentralization and regional identities: paradoxes of interaction). Khvylia. Retrieved from: URL: https://hvylya.net/analytics/politics/ detsentralizatsiya-i-regionalni-identichnosti-paradoksi-vzayemodiyi.html. [in Ukrainian].

15. Melnychuk6 L. M. (2015). Pryntsyp detsentralizatsii vlady yak kliuchovyi vektor modernizatsiinykh peretvoren u systemi derzhavnoho upravlinnia sotsialnym rozvytkom rehioniv (The principle of decentralization of power as a key vector of modernization transformations in the system of state management of social development of regions). Aspects of public administration. № 7-8. pp. 77-84. [in Ukrainian].

16. PukhtynskyiS M. O. (2016). Transformatsiia systemy mistsevoho samovriaduvanniav konteksti realizatsii mizhnarodno-pravovykh standartiv mistsevoi demokratii (Transformation of the system of local self-government in the context of the implementation of international legal standards of local democracy). Bulletin of the Academy of Labor, Social Relations and Tourism. pp. 63-67. [in Ukrainian].

17. RomaniukS S. A. (2016). Rehionalnyi rozvytok i detsentralizatsiia: teoretychni ta praktychni aspekty (Regional development and decentralization: theoretical and practical aspects). Regionalna ekonomika. № 3. pp. 10-18. [in Ukrainian].

18. Shilov, V. (1997). Tri podhoda k ponyatiyu «Region». (Three approaches to the concept of «Region»). Region. Problems and prospects. № 4. pp. 50-51. [in Russian].

19. Shvebs, G. I., Ambroz, Yu. A. (Eds). (1979). Priroda Odesskoy oblasti. Resursyi, ih ratsionalnoe ispolzovanie i ohrana (The nature of the Odessa region. Resources, their rational use and protection). Kiev-Odessa: Vischa shkola. [in Russian].

20. Tolkovanov, V. V. (2013). Klastery yak innovatsiinyi instrument staloho mistsevoho i rehionalnoho rozvytku: ukrainska praktyka ta dosvid zarubizhnykh krain (Clusters as an innovative tool for sustainable local and regional development: Ukrainian practice and experience of foreign countries). Scientific Bulletin of the Academy ofMunicipal Management. Ser. Management. Vol. 2. pp. 16-28. [in Ukrainian].

21. Topchiiev, O. H., Titenko, Z. V., Yavorska, V. V. (2011). Problemy ta perspektyvy administratyvno-terytorialnoi reformy v Ukraini. (Problems and prospects of administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine. Socio-economic problems of the modern period of Ukraine). Economic space of Ukraine: regionalization and integration in the conditions of social transformations. Lviv, Vol. 1 (87). pp. 3-12. [in Ukrainian].

22. Yeropeiska khartiia mistsevoho samovriaduvannia (2017). Konhres mistsevykh i rehionalnykh vlad Rady Yevropy (European Charter of Local Self-Government. Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe). Council of Europe. Retrieved from. https://rm.coe.int/-pdf-a6-59-pages/168071a536. [in Ukrainian].

23. Zabeivorota T. V. (2017). Modernizatsiia systemy derzhavnoho upravlinnia v umovakh detsentralizatsii vlady (Modernization of the system of public administration in the conditions of decentralization of power). Candidate's theisis. Kharkiv. [in Ukrainian].

СПИСОК ВИКОРИСТАНОЇ ЛІТЕРАТУРИ

1. Anderson B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism [2nd, revised edition]. London, New York: Verso, 1991. 224 p.

2. Бабан Т. О., Шибаєва Н. В. Складові процесу децентралізації в Україні. Вісник Харківського національного технічного університету сільського господарства: Економічні науки. Харків: ХНТУСГ, 2016. С. 205-216.

3. Безверхнюк Т. М. Система ресурсного забезпечення регіонального управління: концептуальні засади розбудови і механізму функціонування: дис... д-ра.держ.упр. 25.00.02. Одеса: ОРІДУ НАДУ, 2009. 441 с.

4. Бусыгина, И. М. Политическая регионалистика: учеб. пособие. Москва: РОССПЭН, 2006. 279 с.

5. Брутланд Г. Х. Наше общее будущее. Доклад международной комиссии по окружающей среде и развитию, 1987. 412 с. URL: https://www.un.org/ru/ga/pdf/brundtland.pdf (дата звернення: 22.03.2021).

6. Данилишин Б. Регионализм в Украине: реальность и перспективы. Зеркало недели. 2012. 16 июня. № 22 (70). С. 4.

7. Deacon B. The reformulation of territorial identity: Cornwall in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.- Open University, 2001. Chapter 1: Identity and territory. URL: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/academic_departments/ huss/ics/ documents/Chapter1.pdf (дата звернення: 03.09.2020).

8. Децентрализация в Украине достижения, надежды и опасения / Украинский независимый центр политических исследований // International Alert 2017. 32 с. URL: https://www.international-alert.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/08/Ukraine-Decentralisation-RU-2017.pdf (дата звернення: 28.06.2020)

9. Дністрянський М. С. Перспективи вдосконалення територіального політико - адміністративного устрою України: методологічні і прикладні аспекти. Регіональна економіка. 1997. № 2. 97 с.

10. Доценко А. І. Адміністративно-територіальний устрій та розселення в Україні. Київ, 2003. 63 с.

11. Голубко В. Административно-территориальное деление Украины: исторический опыт и перспективы, Roczniki administracji i prawa, Rok.XIV, Vol. 2, 2014. С. 87-96. URL: http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1. element.desklight-c8662005-ac0b-470b-9872-bfd3fab40c20/c/Holubko_Wiktor.pdf (дата звернення: 21.10.2020).

12. Гройсман В. Б. Місце та роль децентралізації влади у процесах становлення громадянського суспільства. Демократичне врядування. Науковий вісник. 2015. Вип. 15.

13. Концепция реформирования местного самоуправления. Розпорядження Кабінету міністрів України від 1 квітня 2014 р. № 333-р. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/333-2014-%D1%80#Text (дата звернення: 13.06.2021).

14. Кисельова В. Децентралізація і регіональні ідентичності: парадокси взаємодії. Хвиля, 2017. URL: https://hvylya.net/analytics/politics/detsentralizatsiya-i-regionalni-identichnosti-paradoksi-vzayemodiyi.html (дата звернення: 10.02.2021).

15. Мельничук Л. М. Принцип децентралізації влади як ключовий вектор модернізаційних перетворень у системі державного управління соціальним розвитком регіонів. Аспекти публічного управління. 2015. № 7-8. С. 77-84.

16. Пухтинський МО Трансформація системи місцевого самоврядуванняв контексті реалізації міжнародно- правових стандартів місцевої демократії. Вісник Академії праці, соціальних відносин і туризму, 2016. С. 63-67.

17. Романюк С. А. Регіональний розвиток і децентралізація: теоретичні та практичні аспекти. Регіональна економіка. 2016, № 3. С. 10-18.

18. Шилов В. Три подхода к понятию «Регион». Регион. Проблемы и перспективы. 1997. № 4. С. 50-51.

19. Природа Одесской области. Ресурсы, их рациональное использование и охрана / Под ред. Г. И. Швебса, Ю. А. Амброз. Киев-Одесса: Вища школа, 1979. 144 с.

20. Толкованов, В. В. Кластери як інноваційний інструмент сталого місцевого і регіонального розвитку: українська практика та досвід зарубіжних країн. Науковий вісник Академії муніципального управління. Сер. Управління. 2013. Вип. 2. С. 16-28.

21. Топчієв О. Г., Тітенко З. В., Яворська В. В. Проблеми та перспективи адміністративно-територіальної реформи в Україні. Соціально-економічні проблеми сучасного періоду України. Економічний простір України: регіоналізація та інтеграція в умовах суспільних трансформацій. Львів, 2011. Вип.1(87). С. 3-12

22. Єропейська хартія місцевого самоврядування. Конгрес місцевих і регіональних влад Ради Європи. Council of Europe, 2017. 62 с. URL: https://rm.coe.int/-pdf-a6-59-pages/168071a536 (дата звернення: 05.05.2021).

23. Забейворота Т. В. Модернізація системи державного управління в умовах децентралізації влади: дис ... канд. наук з держ. управління: 25.00.01. Харків, 2017. 276 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...