Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Participation and Local Governance Outcomes: Evidence from Ukraine

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As participatory governance approaches to local development get adopted also in transition countries, one of the key questions is how participation actually impacts local governance outcomes. This study examines the link between non-electoral participation and different public goods outcomes in rural Ukraine along with identifying the role of community-based organizations (CBOs). Using a unique survey data from Ukraine, I approach these questions empirically explicitly distinguishing between different public goods outcomes. I find that participation appears to be positively associated with local school and water supply outcomes. In addition, CBOs are found to be associated with better quality of water supply systems motivating a discussion about establishment of service cooperatives for water supply as a functional local governance arrangement.

Résumé

Les approches de gouvernance participative au développement local étant également adoptées dans les pays en transition, l’une des questions clés est l’impact réel de la participation sur les résultats de la gouvernance locale. Cette étude examine le lien entre la participation non électorale et les résultats de différents biens publics en milieu rural ukrainien, et identifie le rôle des organismes communautaires. À partir des données d’une enquête unique réalisée en Ukraine, j’aborde ces questions de manière empirique en distinguant explicitement les résultats des différents biens publics. Je constate que la participation semble être corrélée de manière positive aux résultats scolaires et à l’approvisionnement local en eau. En outre, les organisations communautaires se trouvent associées à une meilleure qualité des réseaux d’approvisionnement en eau, motivant une discussion sur la mise en place de coopératives de services d’approvisionnement en eau comme système de gouvernance local fonctionnel.

Zusammenfassung

Während auch in Transformationsländern der Ansatz der partizipatorischen Steuerung im Rahmen der lokalen Entwicklung Anwendung findet, ist eine der wichtigsten Fragen, wie sich eine Partizipation tatsächlich auf die Resultate lokaler Steuerung auswirkt. Diese Studie untersucht die Verbindung zwischen nicht elektoraler Partizipation und verschiedenen Resultaten im Bereich öffentlicher Güter in ländlichen Regionen in der Ukraine und ergründet die Rolle gemeindebasierter Organisationen. Diese Fragen werden mithilfe einmaliger Umfragedaten aus der Ukraine empirisch untersucht, wobei ausdrücklich zwischen verschiedenen Resultaten bei den öffentlichen Gütern unterschieden wird. Man kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass sich die Partizipation positiv auf die Resultate bei den lokalen Schulen und der Wasserversorgung auszuwirken scheint. Darüber hinaus zeigt sich, dass die gemeindebasierten Organisationen mit einer höheren Qualität der Wasserversorgungssysteme in Verbindung stehen. Dies regt zur Diskussion über die Gründung von Dienstleistungsgenossenschaften für die Wasserversorgung als eine funktionsfähige Regelung für die lokale Steuerung an.

Resumen

A medida que se adoptan enfoques de gobernanza participativa para el desarrollo local en los países en transición, una de las cuestiones claves es cómo la participación impacta realmente en los resultados de la gobernanza local. El presente estudio examina el vínculo entre la participación no electoral y los diferentes resultados de los bienes públicos en la Ucrania rural junto con la identificación del papel de las organizaciones basadas en la comunidad (CBO, por sus siglas en inglés). Utilizando los datos de una única encuesta de Ucrania, abordo estas cuestiones empíricamente distinguiendo de manera explícita entre diferentes resultados de los bienes públicos. Encuentro que la participación parece estar asociada de manera positiva a los resultados de la escuela local y del suministro de agua. Asimismo, se encuentra que las CBO están asociadas a una mejor calidad de los sistemas de suministro de agua motivando un debate sobre el establecimiento de cooperativas de servicios para el suministro de agua como un acuerdo funcional de gobernanza local.

摘要

随着转型国家在地方发展中也采取参与式管治方式(participatory governance approaches),其产生的关键问题之一是:参与在事实上是如何影响管治效果的?本研究通过确定以社区为基础的组织(community-based organizations (CBOs))所扮演的角色,探究了在乌克兰农村地区,非选举式参与与不同公共产品的效果。利用一组独一无二的来自乌克兰的调查数据,笔者以实证的方法对这些问题进行了探究。这些问题在不同的公共产品效果中明显不同。笔者也发现,参与似乎与地方学校与用水供应效果呈正相关。此外,研究还发现,以社区为基础的组织 与用水供应系统的品质更优相关联,这促使我们围绕着为用水供应建立服务合作社以作为一种功能性地方管治安排这一课题进行了讨论。

ملخص

حصول نهج الحكم المشترك في التنمية المحلية على إعتماد أيضا” في البلدان التي تمر بمرحلة إنتقالية، أحد المسائل الرئيسية هو كيفية تأثيرالمشاركة في الواقع على نتائج الحكم المحلي. تبحث هذه الدراسة الرابط بين المشاركة الغير إنتخابية ونتائج منافع عامة مختلفة في مناطق ريفية في أوكرانيا إلى جانب التعرف على دورالمنظمات التي ترتكزعلى المجتمع(CBOs). بإستخدام بيانات إستطلاع رأي فريدة من أوكرانيا أنا تعاملت مع هذه الأسئلة تجريبيا” بصراحة بطريقة مميزة بين مختلف نتائج سلع عامة. أجد أن المشاركة تظهر لتكون مرتبطة بشكل إيجابي مع نتائج المدرسة وإمدادات المياه المحلية. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، تم العثور على أن دور المنظمات التي ترتكزعلى المجتمع(CBOs) مترابط مع تحسين نوعية نظم إمدادات المياه يحفز نقاش حول تأسيس تعاونيات الخدمات لتوفير المياه كترتيب وظيفي للحكم المحلي.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. In some cases, one can find more exotic legal forms like service cooperatives or bodies of local self-governance.

  2. It is a special quasi-public organization defined by the Law of Ukraine on Bodies of Populations’ Self-Governance (2001) that enjoys a substantial degree of autonomy from local government.

  3. Rural medical establishments providing primary healthcare. Existing network of health posts was inherited from the Soviet Union.

  4. Informal civic organization with a history dating back to Soviet times. People living on the same street would cooperate in order to resolve local issues.

  5. Most of the CBOs in the sample were established in 2008 or 2009. This coincides with the inception of the UNDP’s Project “Community-Based Approach to Local Development” and other smaller similar programs.

  6. Please, consult Appendix A for descriptive statistics.

  7. Please, consult Appendix B for estimation results.

  8. Among the exceptions are Swiss Cooperation Bureau and to some extent UNDP.

References

  • Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Development, 32(3), 447–463. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, K., & van Laerhoven, F. (2007). From local strongman to facilitator: Institutional incentives for participatory municipal governance in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 40(9), 1085–1111. doi:10.1177/0010414006288977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avritzer, L. (2009). Participatory institutions in democratic Brazil. Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banfield, C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. Chicago: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P., Ghatak, M., & Karaivanov, A. (2007). Wealth inequality and collective action. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1843–1874. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2000). Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review, 90(1996), 135–139. doi:10.1257/aer.90.2.135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2006). Decentralisation and accountability in infrastructure delivery in developing countries. The Economic Journal, 116(January), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, A., Dekker, M., & Fafchamps, M. (2015). The formation of community-based organizations: An analysis of a quasi-experiment in Zimbabwe. World Development, 66, 131–153. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Iossa, E. (2010). Contracting out public service provision to not-for-profit firms. Oxford Economic Papers, 62(4), 784–802. doi:10.1093/oep/gpp040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, T., Collion, M.-H., de Janvry, A., Rondot, P., & Sadoulet, E. (2008). Do village organizations make a difference in African rural development? A study for Senegal and Burkina Faso. World Development, 36(11), 2188–2204. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Burgess, R. (2002). The political economy of government responsiveness: Theory and evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(November), 1415–1451. doi:10.2307/4132482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Coate, S. (2001). Issue unbundling via citizens initiatives. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(4), 379–397. doi:10.1561/100.00008059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2001). Government versus private ownership of public goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1343–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2003). Incentives, choice, and accountability in the provision of public services. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(2), 235–249. doi:10.1093/oxrep/19.2.235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., Pande, R., & Rao, V. (2005). Participatory democracy in action: Survey evidence from South India. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2/3), 648–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskov, C. (2010). How does social trust lead to better governance? An attempt to separate electoral and bureaucratic mechanisms. Public Choice, 144(1–2), 323–346. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9522-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. (1948). On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making, 56(1), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 21–39. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00109-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, C., & Wampler, B. (2010). Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect of participatory democracy on well-being. World Development, 38(1), 125–135. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bräutigam, D. (2004). The people’s budget? Politics, participation and pro-poor policy. Development Policy Review, 22(6), 653–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buček, J., & Smith, B. (2000). New approaches to local democracy: Direct democracy, participation and the “third sector”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18(1), 3–16. doi:10.1068/c9950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, N. E., & Kolstad, C. D. (2009). Coalition formation and uncertainty: Testing theoretical predictions with experiments (No. 15543). Cambridge, MA.

  • Cleary, M. R. (2007). Electoral competition, participation, and government responsiveness in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 283–299. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00251.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coirolo, L., Mclean, K., Mokoli, M., Ryan, A., Shah, P., & Williams, M. (2001). Community based rural development: Reducing rural poverty from the ground up. Washington DC.

  • Commins, S. (2007). Community participation in service delivery and accountability. Los Angeles: UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2006). Community based approach to local development. Description of action. Kyiv. http://www.cba.org.ua/one/images/stories/documents/117.doc

  • EU. (2009). Community based approach to local development Project Phase II. Kyiv: Description of the action.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faguet, J.-P. (2014). Decentralization and governance. World Development, 53, 2–13. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. (1996). How does political society thicken? The political construction of social capital in Mexico. World Development, 24(6), 119–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, P., & James, R. (2003). Balancing rural poverty reduction and citizen participation: The contradictions of Uganda’s decentralization program. World Development, 31(2), 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., & Wright, E. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In A. Fung & E. Wright (Eds.), Deepening democracy: Institutions in empowered participatory governance (pp. 13–42). New York: Verso. doi:10.1086/659440

  • Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N., & Zielińska, M. (2010). Area-based partnerships in rural Poland: the post-accession experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(1), 52–62. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2006). Challenging the boundaries of the possible: Participation, knowledge and power. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 122–128. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00329.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opstal, W. Van, & Gijselinckx, C. (2008). The co-operative provision of public services in an evolving welfare state. Leuven.

  • Gonçalves, S. (2014). The Effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil. World Development, 53, 94–110. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, W. (1979). The celebration of heroes: Prestige as a control system. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review, 101(4), 709–725. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (1988). Ownership of the firm. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 4(2), 267–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O. (2003). Incomplete contracts and public ownership: Remarks, and an application to Public-Private Partnerships. The Economic Journal, 113(486), C69–C76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). Proper scope of government: Theory and an application to prisons. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1127–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, P. (2012). Democracy, participatory politics and development: Some comparative lessons from Brazil. India and South Africa. Polity, 44(4), 643–665. doi:10.1057/pol.2012.19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.3917/rce.002.0244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, H. (1990). A social exchange approach to voluntary cooperation. The American Economic Review, 80(5), 1157–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzio, T. (2010). Nationalism, identity and civil society in Ukraine: Understanding the Orange Revolution. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 43(3), 285–296. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2010.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvartiuk, V. (2013). What facilitates community-based development in Ukraine? Landbauforschung, 63(1), 47–60. doi:10.3220/LBF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvartiuk, V. (2015). Participatory governance in rural development: Evidence from Ukraine. Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg. Retrieved from www.iamo.de/dok/sr_vol78.pdf

  • Lerman, Z., Csaki, C., & Feder, G. (2004). Agriculture in transition: Land policies and evolving farm structures in post-Soviet countries. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, B. (1997). The geographic component of mass attitudes in Ukraine. Post-Soviet Geography & Economics, 38(10), 601–614. doi:10.1080/10889388.1997.10641065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukovenko, Y. (2003). Ukraine: Steps towards effective fiscal equalization. In S. Slukhai (Ed.), Dilemmas and compromises: Fiscal equalization in transition countries (pp. 121–162). Budapest: Open Society Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macken-Walsh, A. (2009). Post-socialist community action in Lithuania. Community Development Journal, 44(4), 515–524. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsn007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madrigal, R., Alpízar, F., & Schlüter, A. (2011). Determinants of performance of community-based drinking water organizations. World Development, 39(9), 1663–1675. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-based and -driven development: a critical review. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1–39. doi:10.1093/wbro/lkh012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, S. J., & Davis, J. (2012). Does user participation lead to sense of ownership for rural water systems? Evidence from Kenya. World Development, 40(8), 1569–1576. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschall, M. (2004). Citizen participation and the neighborhood context: A new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231–244. doi:10.1177/106591290405700205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza-Botelho, M. (2013). Social capital and institutional trust: Evidence from Bolivia’s popular participation decentralisation reforms. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(9), 1219–1237. doi:10.1080/00220388.2013.786961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menocal, A. R., & Sharma, B. (2008). Joint evaluation of citizens’ voice and accountability: Synthesis report. London.

  • Mueller, D. (1993). The public choice approach to politics. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (1995). Participation and power. In N. Nelson & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development: Theory and practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publication.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring corruption: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 200–249. doi:10.1086/517935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard: Havard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703993104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games and common pool resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paldam, M., & Svendsen, G. T. (2001). Missing social capital and the transition in Eastern Europe. Journal of Institutional Innovation, Development and Transition, 5, 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrick, M., & Gramzow, A. (2012). Harnessing communities, markets and the state for public goods provision: Evidence from post-socialist rural Poland. World Development, 40(11), 2342–2354. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilyavsky, A., Aaronson, W., Bernet, P., Rosko, M., Valdmanis, V., & Golubchikov, M. (2006). East–west: Does it make a difference to hospital efficiencies in Ukraine? Health Economics, 15(11), 1173–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy, L. S. (2005). The relationship between participation and project outcomes: Evidence from rural water supply projects in India. World Development, 33(11), 1801–1819. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy, L. S. (2009). Determinants and benefits of household level participation in rural drinking water projects in India. Journal of Development Studies, 45(4), 471–495. doi:10.1080/00220380802265504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Shuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2011). Estimating fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp. Stata Journal, 11(3), 123–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (2001). Trust and honesty in post-socialist societies. Kyklos, 54(2/3), 415–444. doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shatkin, G. (2000). Obstacles to empowerment: Local politics and civil society in metropolitan Manila, the Philippines. Urban Studies, 37(12), 2357–2375. doi:10.1080/00420980020002841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sissenich, B. (2010). Weak states, weak societies: Europe’s east-west gap. Acta Politica, 45(1–2), 11–40. doi:10.1057/ap.2009.28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, J. (2012). Participatory governance reform: A good strategy for increasing government responsiveness and improving public services? World Development, 40(12), 2379–2398. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In D. W. K. Andrew (Ed.)Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg, 2001, (pp. 80–108). New York: Cambridge University Press

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, J., & Björkman, M. (2009). Power to the people evidence from a randomized field experiment on community-based monitoring in Uganda. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 735–769. doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swianiewicz, P. (2006). Poland and Ukraine: Contrasting paths of decentralisation and territorial reform. Local Government Studies, 32(5), 599–622. doi:10.1080/03003930600896228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2013). Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 20(10), 1–28. doi:10.1177/0010414013512601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, L. (2007). Solidary groups, informal accountability, and local public goods provision in rural China. The American Political Science Review, 101(2), 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. (2012). What have been the impacts of World Bank community-driven development programs? Washington, DC.

  • Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD, & World Bank. (2004). Achieving Ukraine’s agricultural potential: Stimulating agricultural growth and improving rural life. Washington DC.

  • World Bank. (2004). World development report 2004: Making services work for poor people. Washington DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/jae/ejh019.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2008a). Ukraine. Improving intergovernmental fiscal relations and public health and education expenditure policy: Selected issues. Washington DC.

  • World Bank. (2008). Ukraine social investment fund (USIF). Washington DC: Implementation completion and results report.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the helpful comments from Jarmila Curtiss, Martin Petrick, and two anonymous reviewers who helped to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Theodor-Lieser-Str. 2, Halle (Saale), 06120, Germany

    Vasyl Kvartiuk

Authors
  1. Vasyl Kvartiuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasyl Kvartiuk.

Appendices

Appendix A. Descriptive Statistics for Robustness Check

See Table 5.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for robustness check
Full size table

Appendix B. Estimation Results of the Multivariate Probit Models

See Table 6.

Table 6 Estimation results of the multivariate probit models
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kvartiuk, V. Participation and Local Governance Outcomes: Evidence from Ukraine. Voluntas 27, 1123–1151 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9687-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9687-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation