Demography and social economy, 2018, 2(33):117-129
doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2018.02.117
UDC 352(477)
JEL CLASSIFICATION: R00

S.A. Rоmanyuk
Dr. Econ. Sciences, Рrof .
National Academy of Public Administration
under the President of Ukraine
03057, Kyiv, ul. Anton Tsedika, 20
E-mail:rosand@i.ua

CONTRADICTIONS AND CHALLANGERS OF IMPLEMENTATION THE REFORMS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION’S SYSTEM AND LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE: METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Section: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC GOVERNANCE AND LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: This article is focused on the theoretical and metrological aspects of decentralization. The problems of its implementation are consideredfrom the point of view of the optimal distribution of powers, responsibilities and resources first of all, between the state and the community as the two key institutions of the society.The institutionalized society.and community are conceived of as complementary forms of organization whose relative balance and interaction shape the economic potential of every territory. Changes in the balance between community and society take place constantly and affect the medium- and long-run development. And government should take this into account. Because decentralization policies have usually emanated from the center this process is very contradictory and complex. It is analyzed in this article. Factors such as the size of the country, the level of development, the dimension of the internal disparities, and, fundamentally, the type and degree of decentralization, contribute to determine the potential for subnational governments to efficiently deliver public goods and services.It is worth stressing, whether the positive or the negative effects of decentralization on local and regional development prevail, is almost impossible to determine and cannot be established using theory alone.The empirical work on the economic effects of decentralization has been limited and generally reaches widely diverging conclusions. The reasons for this diversity are that determining the impact of decentralization on local and regional development empirically is undoubtedly difficult. There is no clear agreement about how to best measure decentralization and, even when the same indicators are used, the methods and approaches vary enormously. In addition, it is impossible to discern what would have happened to local and regional development trajectories in the absence of decentralization. As a consequence, the evidence of whether decentralization promotes or deters local and regional development across the world remains limited.But conclusion is that with the exception of some very local services with few or no economies of scale, the center will continue to be involved in local service provision, even after radical decentralization, in important ways. Therefore, decentralization and centralization represent two ends of a single continuum and are both important in public governance for development of localities, regions and countries.
Key words: ecentralization, community, society, centralization, institutions, development.
References:
1. Rondinelli, D.A. (2002). «Sovereignty on Line: The Challenges of Transnational Corporations and Information Technology in Asia» in Sovereignty under Challenge: How Governments. New Brunswick. N.J.: Transaction.
2. Storper, M. (2004). Society, community and economic development. Studies in Comparative International Development.
3. Weber, M. (1921). Economy and Society. Translated by Roth and Wittich (1968). New York: Bedminster Press.
4. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Buchanan, J. & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.7687
6. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
7. Becattini, G. & Sforzi, F. (Eds.). (2002). Lezioni sullo sviluppo locale. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier and Sforzi.
8. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
9. Stiglitz, J. (1994). Whither Socialism? Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
10. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy: a place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent Report at the Request of Danuta Hubner. Commissioner for Regional Policy.
11. Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2006) & Storper M. (2006). Better Rules or Stronger Communities? On the Social Foundations of Institutional Change and Its Economic Effects. Economic Geography. 82 (1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2006.tb00286.x
12. Dafflon, B. & Ruegg, J. (2001). Réorganiser les communes, créer l’agglomération, Editions Universitaires. Collection Economie et Gestion, 4, 15-17.
13. Eichenberger, R. & Frey, B. (2007). FOCJ: a Complement and Alternative to Today’s Federalism.
14. Dafflon, B. & Ruegg, J. (2003). Créer l’agglomération par une logique «de bas en haut»: la démarche du canton de Fribourg (Suisse). Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine.
15. Oates, W.E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. New York.
16. Dafflon, B. (2011) & Madies, T. (2011). Decentralization: a few principles from the theory of fiscal federalism. Agence Francaise de Developpement, Paris.

» pdf