Demography and social economy, 2018, 3(34):161-174
doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2018.03.161
UDC 314.9:336.02
JEL CLASSIFICATION: R51, O18, R23

O.I. Dyakonenko
PhD (Economics), Senior Research Fellow
Ptоukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies
of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
01032, Ukraine, Kyiv, blvd. Taras Shevchenko, 60
E-mail: oksana.dyakonenko@gmail.com

INFLUENCE OF FINANCIAL DECENTRALIZATION ON DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN UKRAINE
Section: LABOUR AND SOCIAL AND LABOUR RELATIONS
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: The influence of financial decentralization on the development of rural settlements is investigated by analyzing the shifts in financial provision as a condition of development of settlements and estimating the balance of rural budgets as requirements of rural communities’ financial capacity to withstand destabilization of development. It was found that the impact of fiscal decentralization on the development of rural settlements is subject to a number of risks (low of involvement of financial provision instruments, increasing financial burden on financially self-sufficient villages in united territorial communities, low effectiveness expenditure of the rural budget, etc.). It has been revealed that the transformation of the structure of local budgets and the growth of the budgetary independence of communities will have a significant impact on: the economic development of rural settlements, subject to tax autonomy and discipline of local government; aggravation of socio-economic asymmetry under the influence of decentralization of taxes in conditions of significant subsidies and fluctuations of the national financial system; a rise in the standard of living of the population, subject to an increase in social spending and a significant share of the public sector; the field of education, especially primary and secondary education, through the delegation of educational functions to the local level and their financial support, as well as the active participation of the local community in the financing, management and control of these institutions; the health sector, which, given the inadequate management and low level of tax decentralization, will be characterized by a deterioration in the availability and quality of medical services for the rural population; improvement of local infrastructure due to the ability of communities to independently control costs, which will reduce the cost of work and maximize local needs. The prospects for the development of rural settlements in Ukraine due to the influence of financial decentralization implementation are substantiated.
Key words: rural budget, rural settlements, development, financial decentralization, income, expenditure, Ukraine.
References:
1. Otsinka finansovoi spromozhnosti 366 OTH za 2017 rik (u rozrizi oblastej) [Estimation of financial capacity 366 UTC for 2017 (in terms of regions)] (2018). Council of Europe; Social Indicators Center [in Ukrainian]
2. Boryslavs’ka, O. (Ed.). (2012). Detsentralizatsiia publichnoi vlady: dosvid ievropejs’kykh krain ta perspektyvy Ukrainy [Decentralization of public authority: experience of European countries and prospects of Ukraine]. Kyiv: Sofiia [in Ukrainian].
3. Detsentralizatsiia ta reforma mistsevoho samovriaduvannia: rezul’taty sotsiolohichnoho doslidzhennia sered zhyteliv terytorial’nykh hromad, iaki projshly protses ob’iednannia v 2015–2016 rokakh [Decentralization and Local Self-Government Reform: Results of a Sociological Survey among the Territorial Population Living in the Process of Association in 2015-2016]. (2018). Analytical Report 2017. Council of Europe [in Ukrainian]
4. Dieieva, N. (2016). Sotsial’na funktsiia derzhavy: praktyka i zavdannia biudzhetnoho zabezpechennia [Social function of the state: practice and objectives of budget providing] Demohrafiia ta sotsial’na ekonomika – Demography and social economy, 3(28), 83-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2016.03.0183 [in Ukrainian].
5. Zaiats, Т.A. (2017). Rozvytok sil’s’kykh poselen’ Ukrainy v umovakh detsentralizatsii: mozhlyvosti ta ryzyky [Development of rural settlements of Ukrainian conditions of decentralization: opportunities and risks]. Demohrafiia ta sotsial’na ekonomika – Demography and social economy, 3 (31), 48-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2017.03.048 [in Ukrainian].
6. Zaiats, Т.A. (Ed.). (2017). Transformatsiia sil’s’koho rozselennia v Ukraini [Transformation of rural settlement in Ukraine]. Kyiv: In-t demohrafii ta sots. doslidzh. im. M.V. Ptukhy NAN Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
7. Libanova, E.M. (2015). Ya oboma rukamy za detsentralizatsiiu, ale rozumiiu ii nebezpeku [I am for decentralization with both hands, but I understand its danger] // Zemlevporiadnyj visnyk – Land Management Bulletin, 3, 10–13 [in Ukrainian].
8. Azarov, M.Ya., Yaroshenko, F.O., & Baranovskyj, O.I. et al. (2004). Biudzhetna polityka u konteksti stratehii sotsial’no-ekonomichnoho rozvytku Ukrainy [Budget policy in the context of the strategy of social and economic development of Ukraine]. E.M. Libanova, (Ed.). (Vols. 1-6). Kyiv: NDFI [in Ukrainian]
9. Azarov, M.Ya., Yaroshenko, F.O., & Baranovs’kyj, O.I. et al. (2011). Derzhavnyj biudzhet i biudzhetna stratehiia v umovakh ekonomichnykh reform [State budget and budget strategy in the conditions of economic reforms]. E.M. Libanova, (Ed.). (Vols. 1-4). Kyiv: Akad. fin. upr. [in Ukrainian].
10. Romanyuk, S. (2013). Rozvytok rehioniv u vidkrytiy ekonomitsi: teoriya, polityka, praktyka [Development of regions in an open economy: Theory, policy, practice]. Kyiv: National Academy of Public Administration [in Ukrainian].
11. Novikov, V.М. (2016). Prohramnyj biudzhet: mizhnarodnyj dosvid i ukrains’ka praktyka [The program budget: international experience and Ukrainian practice]. Demohrafiia ta sotsial’na ekonomika – Demography and social economy, 2(27), 50-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2016.02.050 [in Ukrainian].
12. Romaniuk, S. (2018). Detsentralizatsiia: teoriia ta praktyka zastosuvannia [Decentralization: the theory and practice of application]. Kyiv: National Academy of Public Administration [in Ukrainian].
13. Romaniuk, S.A. (2018). Superechnosti ta vyklyky realizatsii reformy systemy derzhavnoho upravlinnia ta mistsevoho samovriaduvannia v Ukraini: metodolohichni aspekty [Contradictions and challangers of implementation the reforms public administration’s system and local self-government in Ukraine: methodological aspects]. Demohrafiia ta sotsialna ekonomika – Demography and social economy, 2(33), 117-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2018.02.117 [in Ukrainian].
14. Biudzhet Ukrainy 2017 [Budget of Ukraine 2017]. (2018). Ministerstvo finansiv Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
15. Biudzhet Ukrainy 2016 [Budget of Ukraine 2016]. (2017). Ministerstvo finansiv Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
16. Biudzhet Ukrainy 2010 [Budget of Ukraine 2010]. (2011). Ministerstvo finansiv Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
17. Biudzhet Ukrainy za 2000 rik [Budget of Ukraine for 2000]. (2001). Ministerstvo finansiv Ukrainy [in Ukrainian]
18. Buehn, A. Lessman, C. and Markwardt, G. (2013). Decentralization and the shadow economy: Oates meets Allingham-Sandmo. Applied Economics, 45(18): 2567-2578.
19. Gemmell, N., Kneller, R. and Sanz, I. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: spending versus revenue decentralization. Economic Inquiry, 51 (4): 1915-1931
20. Yak zhyve najzamozhnisha hromada Donechchyny [How does the richest community in the Donetsk region live?]. Retrieved from http://decentralization.gov.ua/news/8557 [in Ukrainian]
21. Monitorynh finansovoi spromozhnosti 159 OTH za 2016 rik [Financial Capacity Monitoring 159 UTC for 2016]. (2017). Analytical Report 2016. Ministry of Regional Development, Building and Housing of Ukraine; Council of Europe [in Ukrainian].
22. MVerbkivska silska obiednana terytorialna hromada. Dnipropetrovska oblast [Verbkivska village combined territorial community. Dnipropetrovsk region]. Retrieved from http://decentralization.gov.ua/gromada/728/addition_info [in Ukrainian]
23. Tselios, V. Rodríguez-Pose, A. Pike, A. Tomaney, J. and Torrisi, G. (2012). Income inequality, decentralization and regional development in Western Europe. Environment and Planning A 44(6): 1278-1301.
24. Sacchi, A. and Salotti, S. (2014). The effects of fiscal decentralization on household income inequality: Some empirical evidence. Spatial Economic Analysis, 9(2), 202-222.
25. Falch, T. and Fischer, J.A.V. (2012). Public sector decentralization and school performance: International evidence. Economic Letters, 114(3): 276-279
26. Faguet, J. (2004). Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs? Evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics, 88 (3-4): 867-893.
27. OECD (2013). Fiscal federalism 2014: Making decentralisation work. Paris: OECD Publishing.
28. Jimenez, Emmanuel, and Vicente Paqueo. (1996). Do Local Contributions Affect the Efficiency of Public Primary Schools? Economics of Education Review, 15(4): 377–386.
29. Habibi, N., Huang, C., Miranda, D., Murillo, V., Ranis, G., Sarkar, M., and Stewart, F. (2003). Decentralization and human development in Argentina. Journal of Human Development, 4(1), 73-101
30. Jimenez-Rubio, D. (2011). The impact of decentralization of health services on health outcomes: Evidence from Canada. Applied Economics, 43(26): 3907-3917
31. Hromadska dumka naselennia shchodo reformy detsentralizatsii [Public opinion on decentralization reform]. Retrieved from https://dif.org.ua/article/detsentralizatsiya-dosyagnennya-i-problemi-otsinkigromadyan [in Ukrainian].
32. World Bank (1994). World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development. Washington, DC.
33. Petrushenko, Yu.M. (2015). Finansova polityka sotsial’no-ekonomichnoho rozvytku terytorial’nykh hromad [Financial policy of socio-economic development of territorial communities]. Doctor’s thesis. Sumy [in Ukrainian].


» pdf