Advertisement

Decentralization in Ukraine and Bottom-Up European Integration

Chapter
  • 93 Downloads
Part of the Federalism and Internal Conflicts book series (FEINCO)

Abstract

Decentralization is one of the most profound reforms undertaken in Ukraine. It includes the voluntary merging of previously independent villages and towns into larger Amalgamated Territorial Communities (ATCs). The European Union strongly supports the reform but does not make Ukraine’s further European integration conditional upon it. In order to study whether decentralization can, nevertheless, contribute to the country’s European integration, this chapter adopts a sociological perspective. It asks whether decentralization has led to an increase in community twinning and participation of Ukrainian communities in transnational municipal networks. It is based on a survey conducted among the leaders of the 159 ATCs founded in 2015, and on publicly available data. The chapter finds that although the respondents generally value international cooperation and new transnational twinning partnerships that emerged after amalgamation, the overall number of such partnerships is relatively low.

Keywords

Decentralization, European Union, Community twinning, Ukraine 

References

  1. Aasland, Aadne. 2018. Mot økt folkelig innflytelse? Desentralisering og lokaldemokrati i Ukraina (Towards Greater Popular Participation? Decentralization and Local Democracy in Ukraine). Nordisk Østforum. vo. 32: 174–194, (in Norwegian).Google Scholar
  2. AUC. 2019. Mista-Chleny AMU. [Cities-Members of the Association of Ukrainian Cities] Association of Ukrainian Cities. http://2.auc.org.ua/members.
  3. Bartlett, Will, and Vesna Popovski. 2013. Local Governance and Social Cohesion in Ukraine. Barcelona: SEARCH Working Paper WP5/22.Google Scholar
  4. Betliy, Oleksandra. 2018. Fiscal Decentralization in Ukraine: Is It Run Smoothly? 4liberty.eu Review 9: 124–137.Google Scholar
  5. Bock, Hans Manfred. 1994. Europa von Unten. Zu den Ursprüngen und Anfängen der Deutsch-Französischen Gemeindepartnerschaften. In Gemeindepartnerschaften im Umbruch Europas, ed. Annette Jünemann, 13–35. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Brkusanin, Maja, and Sophie Ellwood. 2011. New Twin Manual. Innovation and Practical Ideas for Town Twinning. Rome: CESIE—Centro Studi ed Iniziative Europeo.Google Scholar
  7. CEMR. 2010. Table Showing the Number of Twinnings in the Wider Europe in 2010. Council of European Municipalities and Regions. http://www.twinning.org/uploads/assets/news/Number%20of%20twinnings%20in%20Europe%20in%202010.pdf.
  8. ———. 2019. Introducing CEMR. Council of European Municipalities and Regions. https://www.ccre.org/en/article/introducing_cemr.
  9. Council of Europe. 1985. European Charter of Local Self-Government Strasbourg, 15.X.1985. European Treaty Series-No. 122. https://localgovernment.gov.mt/en/DLG/Legislation/Documents/Legislation/122.pdf.
  10. Covenant of Mayors. 2019. Covenant Community. Signatories. https://www.covenantofmayors.eu/about/covenant-community/signatories.html.
  11. Dudley, William. 2019. Ukraine’s Decentralization Reform. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik: Working Paper, Research Division Eastern Europe and Eurasia, 1/2019.Google Scholar
  12. EU–Ukraine. 2014. Association Agreement between the European Union and Its Member States, of the One Part, and Ukraine, of the Other Part. Official Journal of the European Union L161 (29.5.2014): 3-2137.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2015. EU–Ukraine Association Agenda to Prepare and Facilitate the Implementation of the Association Agreement. As endorsed by the EU–Ukraine Association Council on 16 March 2015. http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/ukraine/docs/st06978_15_en.pdf.
  14. European Commission. 1997. A Europe of Towns and Cities. A Practical Guide to Town Twinning. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2014. EU Supports Decentralisation and Regional Policy Reforms in Ukraine With €55 Millions. IP/14/2221. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2221_en.htm.
  16. ———. 2019. EU–Ukraine Summit: EU Provides Additional Support to Decentralisation, Fight Against Corruption, Empowerment of Civil Society and Accountable and Efficient Governance in Ukraine. IP/19/3811. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-3811_en.htm.
  17. European Commission, and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. 2018. Association Implementation Report on Ukraine. Brussels, 7.11.2018: SWD(2018) 462 final.Google Scholar
  18. EU–Ukraine Parliamentary Association Committee. 2019. Final Statement and Recommendations. Strasbourg: Ninth Meeting, March 13–14.Google Scholar
  19. Favell, Adrian, and Virginie Guiraudon. 2009. The Sociology of the European Union: An Agenda. European Union Politics 10 (4): 550–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiedler, Thomas. 2006. Regionale Vernetzung—Innovative Städtekooperationen. In Europafähigkeit der Kommunen. Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen Union, ed. Ulrich von Alemann and Claudia Münch, 395–411. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giest, Sarah, and Michael Howlett. 2013. Comparative Climate Change Governance: Lessons from European Transnational Municipal Network Management Efforts. Environmental Policy and Governance 23 (6): 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Government of Ukraine. 2014. “Розпорядження від 1 квітня 2014 р. № 333-р, Київ, “Про схвалення Концепції реформування місцевого самоврядування татериторіальної організації влади в Україні”.” https://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/333-2014-%D1%80#n8.
  23. ———. 2019. “Decentralization reform.” accessed 20 September 2019. https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/reformi/efektivne-vryaduvannya/reformadecentralizaciyi.
  24. Hanushchak, Yuri, Oleksii Sydorchuk, and Andreas Umland. 2017. Ukraine’s Most Underreported Reform. New Eastern Europe, April 4. http://neweasterneurope.eu/2017/04/13/ukraine-s-most-underreported-reform-decentralisation-after-the-euromaidan-revolution/.
  25. Interfax-Ukraine. 2016. Over Half of Ukrainians Never Make Trips Abroad. Kyivpost, December 16. https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/half-ukrainians-never-make-trips-abroad.html.
  26. International Alert, and UCIPR. 2017. Decentralisation in Ukraine. Achievements, Expectations and Concerns. https://www.international-alert.org/sites/default/files/Ukraine_Decentralisation_EN_2017.pdf.
  27. Joenniemi, Pertti, and Jarosław Jańczak. 2017. Theorizing Town Twinning—Towards a Global Perspective. Journal of Borderlands Studies 32 (4): 423–428.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2016.1267583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keller, Eileen. 2018. Städtepartnerschaften—den Europäischen Bürgersinn Stärken. Eine Empirische Studie. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  29. Kern, Kristine, and Harriet Bulkeley. 2009. Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate Change Through Transnational Municipal Networks. Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2): 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirchhoff, Sabine, Sonja Kuhnt, Peter Lipp, and Siegfried Schlawin. 2010. Der Fragebogen. Datenbasis, Konstruktion und Auswertung. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Köhn, Klaudia. 2006. Von Reformen und Begriffsverwirrungen—Tschechiens Lokale und Regionale Ebene auf dem Weg in die Europäische Mitbestimmung. In Europafähigkeit der Kommunen. Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen Union, ed. Ulrich von Alemann and Claudia Münch, 458–476. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langenohl, Andreas. 2019. European Integration, Valuation, and Exchange: Toward a Value Theoretic Understanding of Transnational Sociality in the European Union. Przegląd Socjologiczny LXVIII (68) (1): 77–98.Google Scholar
  33. LePlant, James T., Michael Baun, Jiri Lach, and Dan Marek. 2004. Decentralization in the Czech Republic: The European Union, Political Parties, and the Creation of Regional Assemblies. Publius 34 (1): 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marciacq, Florent. 2019. Where to Now for Enlargement. Key Challenges to Western Balkans’ Accession into a Brexiting European Union Nice Centre International de Formation Européenne CIFE. Policy Paper No 82.Google Scholar
  35. Mayors for Economic Growth. 2017. Introduction to Mayors for Economic Growth (M4EG). General Principles and Approaches. https://www.m4eg.eu/media/1787/m4eg-concept-eng.pdf.
  36. ———. 2019. Pidpysanty. [Signatories]. https://www.m4eg.eu/uk/signatories/.
  37. OECD. 2018. Maintaining the Momentum of Decentralisation in Ukraine. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porst, Rolf. 2014. Fragebogen. Ein Arbeitsbuch. 4th ed. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rabinovych, Maryna, Anthony Levitas, and Andreas Umland. 2018. Revisiting Decentralization After Maidan: Achievements and Challenges of Ukraine’s Local Governance Reform. Washington, DC: Kennan Cable 34.Google Scholar
  40. Richter, Emanuel. 1994. Die Gemeinde als Basis Europäischer Integration—Subsidiarität und Bürgernähe. In Gemeindepartnerschaften im Umbruch Europas, ed. Annette Jünemann, 37–55. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  41. Romanova, Valentyna, and Andreas Umland. 2019. Ukraine’s Decentralization Reforms Since 2014. Initial Achievements and Future Challenges, Ukraine Forum. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  42. Saito, Fumihiko. 2011. Decentralization. In The SAGE Handbook of Governance, ed. Mark Bevir, 484–500. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sasse, Gwendolyn. 2008. The European Neighbourhood Policy: Conditionality Revisited for the EU’s Eastern Neighbours. Europe-Asia Studies 60 (2): 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saurugger, Sabine, and Frédéric Mérand. 2010a. Does European Integration Theory Need Sociology? Comparative European Politics 8 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ———, eds. 2010b. Mainstreaming Sociology in EU Studies. Comparative European Politics 8 (1).Google Scholar
  46. Sologoub, Ilona, Olena Shkarpova, and Yar Batoh. 2019. “Decentralization cannot be rolled back because the reform is too popular among people. Interview with Georg Milbradt.” VOX Ukraine 1 July 2019. https://voxukraine.org/en/decentralization-cannot-be-rolled-back-because-the-reform-is-too-popular-among-people/.
  47. Swianiewicz, Paweł, Adam Gendźwiłł, and Alfonso Zardi. 2017. Territorial Reforms in Europe: Does Size Matter? Council of Europe: Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform.Google Scholar
  48. Tausendpfund, Markus, and Lisa Schäfer. 2018. Town Twinning and Political Support. Local Government Studies 44 (4): 552–576.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1465934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Umland, Andreas. 2019. International Implications of Ukraine’s Decentralization. VOXUkraine, January 30. https://voxukraine.org/en/international-implications-of-ukraine-s-decentralization/.
  50. Woesler, Dietmar M. 2006. Städtepartnerschaften in Neuem Licht. In Europafähigkeit der Kommunen. Die lokale Ebene in der Europäischen Union, ed. Ulrich von Alemann and Claudia Münch, 412–433. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AgderKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations