Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

139

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022 

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms 
of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0

1 State Scientific Institution
"Institute of Education Content Modernization", Ukraine (corresponding author)
E-mail: sum1971@ukr.net
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5623-1965
2 Ukrainian Academy of Printing, Ukraine
E-mail: shtangret.am@ukr.net
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5179-4996 
3 Educational and Research Institute 
for Interdisciplinary Expertise and Sustainable Development, Ukraine
E-mail: usuef@ukr.net
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3542-6952

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2022-8-4-139-150

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIO-POLITICAL 
CRISIS (ON THE EXAMPLE OF MODELING THE COORDINATION 

MECHANISM FOR REGULATING AGRICULTURAL  
AND CONSTRUCTION POLICIES)

Yuriy Safonov1, Andrey Shtangret2, Yaroslav Kotliarevskyy3

Abstracts. The goal is to achieve human development through the printed media. Objectives – to study the 
socio-economic aspects of coordination of the activities of segmental components in the publishing industry;  
to find out and substantiate the strategic subjectivity of the state institutional regulation of the publishing 
industry of the national economy. Methodology. System-structural approach – in the study of theoretical and 
methodological aspects of ensuring the development strategy of the publishing industry of the national economy 
in transformational conditions; comparative analysis – for comparing objects and phenomena, identifying the 
general and special, for studying the causes of changes that have occurred, identifying development trends.  
For the implementation of the scientific topic: "Development of norms of consumption and norms of material 
waste in the production of textbooks and educational/teaching aids" 0122U002363. Results. The results of the  
latest pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus and the active phase of the military confrontation have a decisive 
impact on the national economy and human development of our country. The current focus on agricultural 
development provides partial stabilization of the situation by maintaining an adequate level of food security and 
increasing food exports. In the long term, it is envisaged to use the existing advantages and revise the agrarian and 
construction policies, by coordinating them to create conditions for improving the human development situation 
in the country. To form the necessary theoretical basis for such changes, the definition of the term "state agricultural 
policy" was clarified and the list of strategic goals of the state agricultural policy was expanded. The current direction 
of construction policy is critically characterized. The essence of three dominants (continuation of land reform; 
decentralization; transformational changes in the development of agriculture), which should be taken into account 
when harmonizing agricultural and construction policies, is considered. The model of the coordination mechanism 
of agricultural and construction policy regulation was developed in order to create conditions for sustainable 
development of rural areas, which, accordingly, should contribute to the progress of human development.

Key words: human development, agrarian policy, construction policy, rural area, land reform, decentralization, 
transformation of agriculture.

JEL Classification: O15, Q15

1. Introduction
In recent decades, significant progress has been 

made in the field of human development, which is 
the development of people through human capacity 
building, by people and for people. This concept  
implies the expansion of freedoms for everyone.  

These freedoms have two components: freedom of 
well-being, consisting of functions and potentials, 
and freedom of subjectivity. In turn, potential 
capabilities are different sets of functions that a  
person can achieve. The Millennium Declaration and 
the formulated development goals, the main directions 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

140

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022
of sustainable development for the period up to  
2030, as well as the presented global goals, which 
were approved by the UN member states, are of 
great importance for this. Human development is 
characterized by an index that combines three main 
dimensions: life expectancy at birth; average years 
of schooling and life expectancy; and gross national 
product per capita.

It should be emphasized that human development, 
in particular in Ukraine, remains uneven. According  
to the authors of the national report Innovative  
Ukraine 2020: " Ukrainian economy and its society  
in the next ten or even twenty years will be divided  
into three, to some extent conditional, parts. The first  
and the most widespread is the one where the  
population will be mainly engaged in production, 
including agro-industrial activities... and for them 
the prospects of modernization due to innovative 
activities in traditional sectors of the economy are 
opening up. The second, relatively small one, is those 
who will be engaged in high-tech business, which  
will be integrated into global value chains, will carry 
out advanced scientific research on request and will 
be engaged in relevant educational activities. This  
also includes the development and production of 
modern weapons, which will lead to successful 
entry into world markets, including through new  
cooperation with EU countries. The third part is 
the impoverished mass of the population, including 
those who will lose their jobs as a result of structural 
changes and will not have the resources to receive 
appropriate education, and therefore will not work 
for the convergence of the first and second groups..." 
The pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus and  
the active phase of Ukraine's military confrontation 
with the aggressor, in addition to the negative  
impact on the national economy, also affected the 
quantitative ratio of the above groups.

Printed products are of great importance for 
achieving the proper level of human development. 
The main consumer of information products for  
a long time was science as a relatively isolated 
system. But it is especially important for society that  
information products "circulate" in a much wider range.  
Previously, the system "science – technology – produc-
tion" was traditionally considered. According to 
the authors, the course of scientific and technical 
development should be supplemented by the 
component – "education". It is education at the 
present stage of human and social development that 
will determine the prospects and life cycle of the 
production product through modeling the quality  
level of the potential consumer and the economic  
system as a whole. Education is an element-commu-
nicator of certain classical subsystems.

The current difficult conditions of combating the 
latest pandemic and the intensification of military 

events require the rapid redistribution of all types 
of resources, the activities of agricultural enterprises 
contribute to stabilizing the situation in the national 
economy and directly affect the main dimensions of 
human development. This is confirmed by the data 
of the State Statistics Service, according to which in 
2020 the net profit of agricultural, forestry and fisheries 
enterprises amounted to UAH 81,129.2 million,  
while in general for all types of economic activity –  
UAH 80,700.4 million, in industry losses were  
recorded at UAH 39,807.5 million. Another  
important parameter is the fact that 82.6% of 
agricultural, forestry and fishery enterprises were 
profitable, while in general for all types of economic 
activity this figure was only 71%. Given the positive 
results, the authors believe that the wrong position 
is to passively observe the development of events 
without timely response to the emergence of new 
challenges. The defined concepts are related to the 
following dominant factors of rural development:  
the continuation of land reform, a new stage of  
which began on July 1, 2021; further decentralization, 
the first results of which revealed complex problems 
for which there are currently no effective instruments 
of state regulation; transformational changes in 
the development of agriculture, which are aimed at  
obtaining short-term benefits. Without a timely 
response to the change of dominants, positive trends  
in the activities of agricultural enterprises can be  
stopped with the subsequent emergence of threats 
and a new crisis. With changes in agricultural and 
construction policies, these same dominants can 
contribute to sustainable rural development.

The problems of agrarian and construction policy  
and rural development in relation to human 
development are in the field of view of such scientists  
as: O. Borodina, A. Veremeychyk, P. Hayyduky,  
V. Gotra, N. Gushtyk, H. Kaletnik, O. Kozich,  
V. Kravtsiv, V. Melko, V. Myagkokhod, O. Pronina, 
V. Romaska, Z. Titerenko, O. Chan-hee, O. Cherkasov. 
Given the importance and depth of scientific 
research, the issue of comprehensive perception and  
improvement of agrarian and construction policy in 
order to create conditions for improving the human 
development situation in the country remains 
insufficiently studied.

The study sets a number of tasks that provide for 
a consistent review of agricultural and construction 
policies with further clarification of the essence  
of the determining dominants as a basis for  
modeling the mechanism of coordination of  
regulation in order to create conditions for improving 
the level of human development of the country.

To model the mechanism of coordination of 
regulation of agrarian and construction policies, the 
methods of induction and deduction, comparison  
and systematization were used in the study of the 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

141

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022 
essential characteristics of agrarian and construction 
policies; synthesis and analysis – in assessing the  
results of land reform, decentralization and 
transformational changes in agricultural development; 
morphological analysis – to substantiate the content  
of the components of the mechanism of coordination  
of agrarian and construction policy; graphic – for  
clarity of presentation of theoretical and methodo-
logical material; abstract-logical – for theoretical 
generalizations and conclusions of the study.

The study is based on a systematic analysis of  
materials of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine.

2. Presentation of the main material
The complexity of the tasks is determined by the  

Law of Ukraine "On the Basic Principles of the State 
Agrarian Policy ", which does not define the term  
"state agrarian policy ", which is a significant problem 
that complicates the development of tactics and 
strategies by subjects (state and public institutions)  
to achieve the goals set out in the said legislative act.

Generalization of scientific achievements allowed  
to reveal the existence of several approaches 
("orientation to the application of a set of measures", 
"direction of the state agrarian policy on the formation 
of favorable conditions for the development of the 
agrarian sector", "priority of rural development", 
"combined") to the interpretation of the essence  
of the concept of "state agrarian policy ", common to 
which is the emphasis on the term "policy ", which 
determines the actions, that is, the activities of the 
relevant bodies, with a focus on solving socially 
important problems. Avoiding a thorough conside-
ration of the essence of each approach, the authors 
offer their own version, which is formed by taking  
into account the cornerstone provisions and  
eliminating contradictions. As understood by the 
authors, the essence of state agrarian policy can be 
defined as the activity of the state, in accordance 
with a scientifically sound strategy, regarding  
interaction with producers of agricultural and 
other products and the population to implement 
a set of tactical measures for the rational use of  
natural resources, food security and development of 
rural areas in order to improve human development  
in Ukraine. The authors made an attempt to combine  
the key factors of the existing approaches with  
the priorities of the State Agrarian Policy 
(herenafter – SAP), in accordance with the European 
vector of the country 's development. It is about 
increasing food production, ecologization, rational 
use of natural resources, social development of rural 
areas, which is possible due to the intensification of the 
functioning of agricultural and construction clusters.

Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Basic  
Principles of the State Agrarian Policy for the period 

up to 2015" limits the scope of application of the  
state agrarian policy to "...agriculture and fisheries,  
food industry and processing of agricultural products, 
agrarian science and education, social sphere of the 
village, their material, technical and financial support." 
The absence of a new law today confirms the lack of 
flexibility of the state agricultural policy, the lack of 
strategic guidelines, the inability to respond quickly 
to new challenges. This is confirmed by the Law of 
Ukraine "On the Principles of Domestic and Foreign 
Policy ", in particular Article 7, which defines the 
principles of domestic agricultural policy as follows:  
"...creation of conditions for the revival of the  
Ukrainian village, efficient use of agricultural land, 
formation of a competitive agro-industrial complex, 
increasing its export potential, ensuring food security  
of the state; ensuring a high level of quality of  
agricultural products and food, formation of 
a transparent market for such products; formation 
of land market infrastructure, ensuring registration 
of title documents for land ownership." Despite the 
fact that the last amendments to the legislative act 
were made in 2018, some of its provisions can be  
considered morally outdated and do not contribute 
to improving the human development situation in 
Ukraine. The current modernization of the legislative 
framework of the state agrarian policy should be 
carried out taking into account the principles of the 
SAP, in terms of interrelated regulation of agricultural 
production and rural development, the WTO, on 
the use of the "green" and "yellow" boxes for financial 
support of national producers, and the FAO, to ensure 
access to quality and safe food. In accordance with  
the above, the authors propose to amend the list 
of strategic goals of the state agrarian policy, which  
are defined in Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine "On the 
Basic Principles of the State Agrarian Policy for the 
period up to 2015" (Figure 1).

The following positions require further explanation:
– there are some detailed individual goals that are 
defined in the legislative act, in particular in the social 
sphere. The position on "preservation of the peasantry " 
is devoid of any specificity. The position of the  
authors is in line with the modern SAP, when the 
population is offered both means and opportunities 
to meet all needs at a level not lower than in the city;
– the emphasis is on supporting domestic producers;
– the goal of protecting the interests of the population, 
which is the owner of land resources, is separately 
highlighted. This problem is related to the current  
stage of land reform and will be considered  
further. Even at this stage, it can be argued that  
without control over the land market, the development 
of rural areas will not only be threatened, but will  
also cause a new social crisis.

Therefore, it can be stated that the current  
legislation is characterized by a significant lag 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

142

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022

behind the current needs of rural development. The  
erroneous focus solely on increasing agricultural 
production only complicates the situation, which 
against the background of economic instability can 
cause a complex social crisis, the solution of which 
requires significant resources and time.

In accordance with the defined tasks, in the future 
the attention will be paid to the state policy in 
the construction industry. Over the past 30 years,  
significant changes have taken place in the system of 
public administration of the construction industry.  
It is about partial re-profiling, periodic redistribution 
of functions and powers between state bodies.  
For example, in 1991–1992 there was the State 
Committee of the Ukrainian SSR for Architecture, 
Construction and Protection of Historical Heritage, 
which in 1992 was reformed into the Ministry of 
Investment and Construction, with the subsequent 
creation of the Ministry of Construction and  
Architecture on its basis. Nowadays, the industry 
is managed by the Ministry of Communities and 

Territories Development of Ukraine, as well as 
departments within other ministries, in particular,  
the Ministry of Environmental Protection and  
Natural Resources of Ukraine and the Ministry of 
Infrastructure of Ukraine.

In this work, we agree with N. Gushtyk that 
today "the state policy in the field of construction is  
carried out through the development, adoption and 
application of normative legal acts, building codes 
and regulations." Among the main functions of public 
administration (forecasting, planning, organization, 
regulation, coordination and control), the priority is 
actually given to regulation, which provides for the 
implementation of measures by state structures to 
control the economic activities of market participants 
in order to solve the most important socio-economic 
problems of society. Along with this actual restriction, 
which does not contribute to the development of 
construction in our country at a higher pace, we  
consider it appropriate to agree with O. Kozych that 
within the framework of regulation "...formation of  

 

State agrarian policy is the activity of the state in accordance with a scientifically 
based strategy for interaction with producers of agricultural and other products, the 
population to implement a set of tactical measures aimed at the rational use of natural 
resources, food security and rural development in compliance with the principles of 
sustainable development 

Guaranteeing food safety 

Transformation of the 
agricultural sector into a 

highly efficient, 
competitive sector of the 
state's economy on the 
domestic and foreign 

markets 

Preservation of the 
peasantry as a carrier of 

Ukrainian identity, culture 
and spirituality of the 

 
Comprehensive 
development of rural areas, 
solving social problems in 
the countryside 

Ensuring sustainable development of rural areas 

Improving the welfare of the rural population by 
creating jobs, developing infrastructure, meeting 

social and cultural needs 

Implementation of investment support for 
innovative projects that are focused on more 

rational use of natural resources 

Protection of the domestic producer by creating 
additional competitive advantages 

Protection of the interests of the population that 
owns land resources 

Stabilization of the market of agricultural products 

Figure 1. The essence and strategic goals of the state agrarian policy

Source: supplemented by data: On the Basic Principles of the State Agrarian Policy for the period up to 2015: Law of Ukraine  
of 18.10.2005 № 2982-IV. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2006. № 1. P. 17.



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

143

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022 
goals and objectives of the construction complex 
development, determination of objects of regulation, 
organization of the management system, determi- 
nation of subjects of regulation and formation of  
their structure, delimitation of functions and selection  
of necessary methods of regulation, evaluation 
of regulation results." All these stages should be 
accompanied by the application of appropriate forms 
of state regulation, namely: financial and credit 
support of business entities, logistics, tax preferences 
and management assistance, information support. 
Accordingly, it can be argued about the low level of 
state regulation. The position of V. Melko is sufficiently 
well-argued, which proves that "...today we observe 
a low level of control by state authorities in the field  
of construction, as well as low efficiency of state 
regulation of construction activities: illegal construc-
tion without appropriate permits and land rights; 
violation of technical standards of construction;  
non-compliance with environmental safety standards; 
insecurity of investors and potential building owners; 
high level of bureaucracy and difficulty in obtaining 
permit documentation for construction works; low  
level of application of the financial and credit  
mechanism and insurance mechanism, etc." 
O. Romansko also adds to the facts ... the development 
of recreational areas and places of rest and leisure,  
such as playgrounds and sports grounds... corruption, 
and sometimes fraud, which thousands of citizens  
fall victim to, left alone with their problems."  
The authors argue that today the actions or omissions  
of state structures regarding regulation in the 
construction industry are used contrary to the interests 
of society in favor of certain business structures.

Summing up, it is appropriate to emphasize that  
the state policy in the construction industry today, 
limited to the implementation of mainly regulatory 
management functions, does not create favorable 
conditions for improving the situation with human 
development in Ukraine. The main investor is the 
population and business structures. While the 
population is focused on meeting the need for  
housing, businesses are interested in industrial 
infrastructure in accordance with their production 
needs. In addition, the problem of social infrastructure 
has a clear tendency to aggravation.

Earlier, three dominant factors that directly affect 
agricultural and construction policies were identified. 
The first of them reproduces the land reform that  
was initiated in the early 90s, in particular due to 
the adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 
December 18, 1990 of the Resolution "On Land 
Reform", which stated that "...the task of this reform 
is to redistribute land with its simultaneous transfer 
to private and collective ownership, as well as to 
enterprises, institutions and organizations in order to 
create conditions for equal development of various 

forms of land management, formation of a multi-
structured economy, rational use and protection of 
land." It should be admitted that the declared focus  
on the free ownership, use and disposal by each owner 
of his part of agricultural land has not yet been fully 
implemented. The next important stage began on  
July 1, 2021, when the land market was launched,  
albeit with significant restrictions. It is important 
to form a general idea of the changes that directly  
affected the development of rural areas, for which 
land remains the most valuable resource. Scientists of 
Vinnytsia National Agrarian University distinguish  
four stages of land reform: "... transformational to  
market environment (1991–1999); reformation 
(2000–2008); adaptation to WTO membership 
(2009–2013); the current stage of external influence 
(since 2014)." According to the authors, the launch  
of the land market makes it possible to distinguish 
the fifth stage, which began on July 1, 2021. This 
phasing is due to the complexity of the transformation 
processes, which consisted in denationalization, that 
is, the liquidation of collective and state farms with 
the formation of new agricultural producers, with  
the change of ownership of the main resource – land.

The prerequisites of the first one are the determi-
nation of the existence of an absolute monopoly of 
the state on land, the absence of payment for land as 
a resource that allows to obtain a product, and the  
lack of responsibility for the results of agricultural 
activities, when losses were covered by the state 
budget. The first stage was marked by legislative 
changes that provided for denationalization with the 
transfer of property rights to citizens, institutions 
and organizations. In accordance with the provisions 
of the Land Code of Ukraine, which was adopted 
on March 13, 1992, land resources and land used 
by collective and state farms were transferred to  
collective ownership to the economic entities created  
on their basis, i.e. collective agricultural enterprises. 
Despite this important step, members of the new  
entities did not become real owners of land resources. 
With the entry into force of the Decree of the  
President of Ukraine of August 8, 1995 "On the  
Procedure of Land Sharing Transferred to Collective 
Ownership of Agricultural Enterprises and Organi-
zations", the process of issuing certificates certifying 
the right to a land share began. It was with this step  
that the process of transformation of collective  
property into private property began, which was 
subsequently reflected not only in documents, but  
also in the actual allocation of land plots.

Along with legislative initiatives, before the 
implementation of the Decree of the President of 
Ukraine "On Urgent Measures to Accelerate the  
Reform of the Agrarian Sector of the Economy " of 
December 3, 1999 № 1529/99, the main producers 
of agricultural products remained collective 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

144

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022
agricultural enterprises, the results of which had a clear  
tendency to deteriorate. For example, the total gross 
agricultural output in 1999 was 137.5 billion UAH.  
In constant prices of 2010, when in the base 
year 1999 – 289 billion hryvnias. In the period  
1995–1999, the average annual decline in production 
was recorded at 6.3%. Only Leonid Kuchma's  
legislative initiatives, which provided for the division  
of land and property of collective agricultural  
enterprises, the introduction of compulsory rent and 
a fixed tax for producers, the allocation of preferential 
loans, etc. made it possible to change the situation. 
In 2000 the volume of gross output increased to 
151 billion UAH. It should be noted that L. Kuchma  
in his actions relied on the achievements of scientists 
and was forced to confront a powerful agrarian  
lobby, whose representatives tried to adhere to the 
socialist approach in the state agrarian policy, that is, 
with the preservation of absolute control over land 
resources. The main directions of land reform during 
the presidency of L. Kuchma P. Haidutskyi mentions 
the following "...1) land reform (land parceling, 
inventory, valuation, land lease); 2) economic reform 
(transformation of collective and state farms into 
private economic structures); 3) reform of the market 
for products (abolition of state orders, introduction of 
exchange trade, development of market infrastructure); 
4) reform of the state support system (introduction  
of a fixed tax, preferential lending, targeted grant 
programs, subsidizing leasing of machinery; 5) reform  
of the system of social development of rural areas)." 
About 60 decrees signed by L. Kuchma on reforming,  
not only in terms of transformation of collective 
agricultural enterprises into private economic  
structures, but also on social development of rural  
areas, are the key point of land reform in Ukraine. 
Significant progress can be illustrated by the  
following analytical data, according to which in 2002  
"...out of 42.7 million hectares of agricultural land, 
32 million hectares were privately owned, 10.5 million 
hectares were state-owned, and 30 thousand hectares 
were communally owned." It is reasonable to agree  
with P. Haidutskyi's position that L. Kuchma stopped 
one step short of creating a land market, trying to  
solve this politically complicated issue by creating  
a land bank, but his initiative was not supported due 
to the interest of certain circles to take control of  
unshared land shares, the volume of which in 2002  
was estimated at 3 million hectares.

According to the Land Code of Ukraine, which was 
adopted in 2002, a moratorium on the purchase and  
sale of agricultural land was established, which 
significantly slowed down the pace of land reform, 
effectively depriving 7 million citizens of the right to 
freely dispose of their property.

Within the framework of the third stage, which is 
connected with the accession of our country to the 

WTO, official statistics indicate that agriculture is  
not subsidized until 2000, but as a budget-forming 
sector. Membership in the WTO, along with filling  
the domestic market, made it possible to increase  
export potential, and thus stabilize the national 
economy through the inflow of foreign currency.  
One cannot ignore the fact that export orientation 
has led to the emergence of new risks associated with 
dependence on the world market conditions.

The fourth stage is related to the adaptation of 
the legislative field of Ukraine to the terms of the  
"Association Agreement between Ukraine and the 
EU", which requires changes in the institutions of  
state regulation of the agricultural sector in 
accordance with EU practice, in particular in terms of 
decentralization, development of local self-government 
and the formation of public policy mechanisms, 
promotion of human development in Ukraine.

The dominant of them is related to decentralization, 
but in the context of land reform, it is appropriate 
to emphasize the fact that since 2014, 1.68 million  
hectares of agricultural land have been transferred 
from state to communal ownership (as of 2019, but 
this process continues), which allows communities 
to receive additional financial resources for social 
development through their lease.

This stage is also characterized by the annual 
postponement of the lifting of the moratorium due 
to the imposition of certain warnings on the society  
with which it was associated:
– the possibility of acquisition by individual companies  
of large areas of agricultural land with further 
uncontrolled use without taking into account the 
interests of the population of rural areas;
– speculative purchase of land from the population  
at low prices with subsequent resale at a higher price;
– loss of land resources due to their acquisition by 
foreign companies;
– incomplete reform of the land cadastre, which in 
combination with high centralization and corruption 
of officials does not provide the necessary level of 
protection of property rights of owners.

A significant part of owners, not being interested  
in independent agricultural activities, leased them,  
which cannot be considered a rational use of the 
country 's land resources. This thesis is based on 
analytical data, according to which in 2019 the rental 
price of 1 hectare of agricultural land in Ukraine  
was 80 USD. While in France it was 165 USD, in 
Hungary – 194 USD, in Bulgaria – 278 USD and 
in Italy – 917 USD, which indicates a significant 
shortfall in income for owners. It is advisable to take 
into account that large agricultural holdings conclude 
lease agreements for a period of at least 7 years with 
the subsequent right of prolongation, which makes 
it impossible to increase the owners' income by 
renegotiating the agreement on more favorable terms. 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

145

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022 
Tenants suffer from the crushing of leasehold shares  
and cannot ensure further productivity growth.  
Thus, the average share size is roughly 4 hectares,  
when "...the optimal size of a grain farm is  
300-400 hectares, and animal husbandry is unprofi-
table with an area of less than 55 hectares." Therefore, 
the losses from the moratorium are significant.

In this paper, it is agreed with the authors of the 
article "Strategy for the development of land relations 
in Ukraine", who confirm that due to the existence of 
a moratorium on the purchase/sale of agricultural  
land and the existing state management of land 
resources, Ukraine is significantly inferior to 
other countries in terms of agricultural efficiency.  
Analytical data, according to which: "...the volume of 
added value of agricultural production per hectare 
of agricultural land in Ukraine in 2019 amounted to 
355 USD. USD, compared to 792 USD in Poland, 
502 USD in Brazil, 1316 USD in Germany, 1558 USD 
and 456 USD in the USA."

The fifth stage, in addition to the launch of the land 
market, is interesting in relation to the issues under 
study because, in accordance with the provisions  
of the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Land 
Code of Ukraine and Other Legislative Acts on 
Improving the Management System and Deregulation 
in the Field of Land Relations", which was signed by 
the President of Ukraine on May 24, 2021, determines 
the procedure for transferring land plots located 
outside settlements to communal ownership to 
village, settlement, city councils, which creates new  
resources for the development of rural areas.

According to the results of the study, we argue that  
over the past thirty years there has been a significant 
change in approaches to the use of land as the 
main resource for agricultural production and rural 
development. The elimination of the state monopoly  
on land contributed to the formation of a new  
generation of owners, the transition from inefficient 
forms of organization in the form of collective and  
state farms, and later collective agricultural enterprises  
to private structures, the acquisition by local 
communities of land resources within and outside 
settlements as an additional source of income to  
finance socially important projects. Today 's 
stage, marked by the launch of the land market, is  
characterized not only by a number of restrictions 
on free disposal, but also by a high probability of  
new risks associated with an increase in the number 
of raider attacks, financial constraints of medium and 
small farmers in access to land resources, a decrease 
in diversification in land use due to the increase in 
land resources owned by agricultural holdings, the 
release of labor with the deepening social crisis in rural 
areas. Accordingly, the need to develop mechanisms 
that would allow to respond to the identified risks in  
order to prevent their further transformation into real 

threats to the agrarian sector of our country, form 
the basis for improving the situation with human 
development by using new opportunities that have 
emerged. One of the mechanisms should be related 
to the formation and development of agrarian and 
construction clusters, whose activities are focused on 
more efficient use of natural resources and creation 
of conditions for full satisfaction of the needs  
of the population of rural areas.

The second dominant, defined as the one  
associated with decentralization. The relevance of 
administrative and financial decentralization, which 
actually began in 2014, O. Pronina connects with  
"...insufficient funding for the development of 
rural areas, the weak development of the local self-
government institute, the lack of effective mechanisms 
for the implementation of sustainable rural develop-
ment programs." The importance of the reform is 
justified by the multidirectional vectors of rural and 
agricultural development. Since 2000, agricultural 
production has been characterized by generally  
positive dynamics, in particular in the cultivation  
and export of grain, while at the same time there has  
been a reduction in the number of employees at 
agricultural enterprises and deterioration of social 
infrastructure. The state agricultural policy provides 
support to agricultural producers in connection with  
the growth of their role in stabilizing the national 
economy. The Decree of the President of Ukraine  
"Basic Principles of Rural Social Sphere Development" 
(2000) and "State Program of Rural Social Sphere 
Development for the period up to 2005" (2002), "State 
Target Program of Ukrainian Rural Development for 
the period up to 2015" (2007) were mainly declarative 
in nature, as they did not contain a real mechanism of 
financial support for rural development.

In the short period of time since the start of 
decentralization, some conclusions can be drawn 
about its results, but it is difficult to fully assess 
its impact on sustainable rural development, in  
particular because of the relationship with the land 
reform under consideration. Therefore, the authors 
will focus on two facts: the tasks and expectations 
from decentralization and the real results for today, 
which concern rural areas. An important clarification 
is that decentralization is the whole system of public 
administration, not just rural areas.

In the most general sense, decentralization is  
defined as "...the process of redistributing or  
dispersing functions, powers, people, or things from 
central control." That is, it is about the transfer of 
some functions from central government to local  
self-government bodies. For rural areas, given the 
analytical data on the level of employment, welfare,  
the ability to meet the needs of the population,  
the changes should be positive. It is not only 
about increasing the financial resources for the 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

146

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022
implementation of socially important projects,  
but also about the fact that local residents participate  
in the formation of requests for their development, 
based on real needs, are ready to join the implemen-
tation process and, in the future, act as consumers.  
The following points deserve attention: firstly, the 
possibility of using the so-called "social mobilization" 
method; secondly, the focus on the implementation  
of micro-projects, rather than large projects, i.e., with 
a clear definition of the end user. Social mobilization 
consists in uniting different people into groups to 
meet a common need, based on their own capabilities. 
Social mobilization is characterized by: a high level of 
self-organization, the absence of any restrictions for 
participants, priority in achieving common interests  
both through coordination and partial personal 
restrictions. Personalization of needs is the basis for 
consideration of projects that are relevant within the 
community, they are inferior in scale to those that 
can be implemented under conditions of centralized 
management, but the effectiveness is much higher, 
in particular, due to passive support and active 
participation on the basis of partnerships.

Thus, it can be argued that decentralization as 
a process is designed to solve a number of complex 
problems related to improving the situation with  
human development, in particular in terms of 
multifunctional development within rural areas 
through the implementation of projects to support 
non-agricultural production with more efficient use of 
available resources and compliance with the principles 
of sustainable development.

Today, the results of decentralization in Ukraine  
can be assessed only as intermediate, in particular,  
due to the low speed of changes in the transfer of  
powers and redistribution of financial resources. 
The emphasis is only on those points that relate to 
the development of rural areas as a basis for further 
development of a mechanism for coordinating the 
regulation of agricultural and construction policies.

A. Wiremeichyk and O. Ruban offer the following 
information to characterize the current results 
of decentralization: "...before the reform, 92% of 
rural communities had less than 3,000 inhabitants,  
almost 11% of rural territorial communities had  
less than 500 inhabitants. At the same time, in  
more than 50% of rural communities, the subsidy 
was more than 70%. In general, 483 territorial  
communities were supported by subsidies for 90%." 
The above analytical data explains the gradual decline  
of social infrastructure in rural areas, which was  
caused by the dispersion of funding from the state  
budget, and its volumes could not be used for 
improvement, but only for the minimum level of 
support for socially important facilities.

According to the Decentralisation website, as of 
July 2021, 1,470 hromadas have been formed in 

Ukraine, including 627 rural ones with a population 
of 4,926,682 people and a total area of 173,444.0 km2, 
uniting 3,291 councils. The number of amalgamated 
councils varies significantly – from 2 to 24. Another  
fact is that the AHs include villages with centers in 
cities and urban-type settlements, which, accordingly, 
significantly complicates the analysis of trends in 
rural development before and after decentralization. 
For confirmation, the publications of V. Gotra and 
A. Kovach emphasize the fact that "...at the beginning 
of 2019, the composition of the united territorial 
communities included an average of 11 villages,  
but the majority (55%) with centers in the cities 
and towns of the city type On average, there are  
14 villages per urban (rural) united territorial 
community, and 9 villages per rural community."  
The amalgamation of several villages around a city  
as an economic, social and cultural center provides  
such communities with significant advantages  
compared to rural Amalgamted hromadas (here-
nafter – AHs), which leads to an imbalance in the 
level of development already at the initial stages  
of the reform. Rural AHs with a small population  
and area and without functioning producers 
(taxpayers) are characterized by low capacity. By this 
term, the authors who prepared the practical guide  
on decentralization understand "...a hromada in which 
local sources of budget revenues, infrastructure and 
human resources are sufficient for local self-govern- 
ment bodies to solve local issues envisaged by the 
legislation in the interests of the residents of the 
hromada."

According to the above-mentioned website 
"Decentralization", during 2015–2021 with a forecast  
for 2022, there is a positive dynamics of growth of 
the share of local budgets (without transfers) in the 
consolidated budget of Ukraine. Thus, this share in 
2015 was 18.5%, and in 2019 reached 23.3% with 
a slight decrease in 2020 to 22.6%. It is also important 
that the share of transfers in revenues is gradually 
decreasing – from 59.1% in 2015 to 34.0% in 2020,  
which is partly due to the growth of local budget  
revenues. It is appropriate to agree with the position 
of Z. Titenko on the importance of voluntary  
amalgamation of more hromadas with a larger  
population, which due to the deduction of 60% of 
personal income tax allows to form a larger budget to 
achieve the goals of the hromada. Small communities 
do not have the necessary human resources for 
development, although the exception is those 
where large budget-forming enterprises are located.  
In addition, the amount of state support in the form  
of subventions is carried out taking into account  
"...the area of the united territorial community  
and the number of rural population in such a  
territorial community with equal weight of both of 
these factors."



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

147

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022 
According to official sources, today in Ukraine  

there are signs of increasing disparities in the 
development of territories. Thus, the average 
income per capita in January-May 2021 in Ukraine  
amounted to UAH 3358.4, which is 21.2% more 
than in the same period in 2020. In addition, in the 
regional context, the lowest level of this indicator  
was in Transcarpathian region – UAH 1,921.6, and  
the highest in the city of Kyiv – UAH 7,305.1. 
Accordingly, the share of own income in total  
income in these administrative-territorial units was 
49.4% and 90.6%.

In addition to the risk of deepening disparities in 
the levels of development, the issues of territorial 
associations have become relevant today, which  
require the development of appropriate mechanisms. 
Risks, according to the generalization and  
clarification, include:
– reduction of the state budget if it is necessary to 
further perform the function of protection of socially 
vulnerable groups of the population;
– weakening of control over the efficiency of the use  
of local budgets by the state in the absence or 
imperfection of the institution of public control;
– imbalance between the powers and available  
resources of local self-government;
– regional centres and AHs established with the 
participation of cities have greater economic and 
labour potential and developed social infrastructure, 
and therefore, acting as regional centres, become more 
attractive for further employment and permanent 
residence of the rural population, which deepens the 
demographic crisis in rural areas;
– growing influence of local elites on the process 
of formation of revenues and expenditures of local  
self-government bodies in order to lobby the interests  
of their own business;
– impossibility to meet the social needs of the  
population within rural AHs due to limited resources;
– failure to take into account the socio-economic  
needs of AHs in the distribution of subventions;
– the existence of the practice of influence of  
people's deputies on the distribution of subventions;
– focus on achieving short-term goals, i.e.,  
maintaining an acceptable level of social infrastructure, 
and lack of understanding of the need to achieve 
strategic goals in the form of increasing the investment 
attractiveness of rural areas.

It is difficult to assess the results of decentralization 
unambiguously, given the fact that since 2014, changes 
have been made to the implementation process, which 
have significantly affected the level of capacity of the AHs 
to meet the socio-economic needs of the population. 
Decentralization is accompanied by the emergence of 
a number of risks, the lack of response to which, in the 
form of the application of corrective mechanisms, can 
complicate the process of rural development.

The third dominant factor – transformational 
changes in the development of agriculture – is directly 
related to the agricultural development of Ukraine. 
Thus, a group of scientists convincingly argues 
that the current situation with the lease of land 
resources has a number of threats associated with  
"...deformation of the structure of gross agricultural 
output (in 2014, crop production accounted for 71%, 
and livestock – 29%); refusal to keep livestock – 56% 
of enterprises are not engaged in it; large-scale spread 
of monocultures (the most profitable crops – wheat, 
corn, sunflower, rapeseed occupy 80% of the area), 
etc.” Updated data, according to the State Statistics  
Service, indicate that the share of crop production 
increased to 79.1% in 2019, soybean acreage has 
increased 13 times in 29 years, and rapeseed –  
15.5 times, that is, this disproportion has only 
increased. The focus on higher profits in the short 
term leads to a higher level of soil depletion due 
to non-compliance with crop rotation policy. If 
to add to this the uncontrolled use of cheap and  
low-quality agrochemicals, which harms the land  
and adversely affects the health of villagers bordering  
the fields, then in the future our country may lose  
part of the most valuable resource – fertile soils.  
These actions are partly related to the uncontrolled 
actions of tenants who are focused on making quick 
profits, which causes an environmental disaster and 
deterioration of the quality parameters of soils that 
remain in the ownership of the rural population, 
thereby complicating the possibility of achieving 
and maintaining sustainable development goals and 
improving the human development situation.

Scientific sources substantiate the need for the 
integrated application of "...market, state and corporate 
mechanisms of regulation" of agricultural production.  
In addition, the connection of tasks with the 
improvement of the situation with human develop- 
ment is taken into account, which requires the 
development and application of a mechanism for 
coordinating the regulation of agricultural and 
construction policies, taking into account three 
key dominants: land reform, decentralization and 
transformational changes." (Figure 2)

The author's position differs from the existing view 
on the coordination of agrarian and construction 
policies as the basis for the development of agrarian  
and construction clusters, which forms the necessary 
basis for solving a whole range of complex problems  
that are characteristic of rural areas and are determined  
by the content of the three dominants.

The integrity of the perception of the content 
of the identified dominants and the consideration 
of international experience in sustainable rural 
development allowed us to substantiate the strategy, 
goals and objectives that can be achieved through  
the harmonization of agricultural and construction 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

148

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022

 

State agrarian 
policy 

State 
construction 

policy 

L
an

d 
re

fo
rm

 

D
ec

en
tr

al
iz

at
io

n 

T
ra

ns
fo

rm
at

io
na

l 
ch

an
ge

s 

Dominants 

Regulation coordination mechanism 

Mission Sustainable development of rural areas 

Achieving and maintaining the competitiveness of rural producers and ensuring a 
high standard of living while reducing the burden on the environment Strategy 

Creating favorable conditions for the development of entrepreneurship with the most 
efficient use of available resources (including land) and preservation of the 
environment and improving the quality of life of the rural population in accordance 
with the principles of circular economy 

Purpose 

Development of agricultural and non-agricultural production; increase of
employment and incomes of the population; rational use of resources; increase of AH 
revenues; increase of investment attractiveness of AHs; development of production 
and social infrastructure; ensuring access to quality food; reduction of waste and 
losses; wider use of renewable energy sources; improvement of processing 
processes; application of innovations for adaptation to climate change 

Tasks 

Fair distribution of subventions between local self-government bodies, satisfaction of 
social needs of the population, control over the use of resources by the state and the 
community, equality in the development of local self-government bodies, self-
financing of local self-government bodies, rationality in the use of natural resources 

Principles 

Financial, logistical, labor, information, land, water Resource 

Development of rural economy. Creation of agricultural and construction clusters. 
Improvement of industrial and social infrastructure. Ensuring food security Result 

Measures (legal, economic, organizational). Support (regulatory, financial, scientific, 
personnel, information). Methods (direct and indirect influence). Means 
(administrative, economic, informational). Tools (legislative, regulatory, 
administrative, organizational and economic) 

Toolkit 

Figure 2. Model mechanism for coordination of agricultural and construction policy regulation  
as a basis for sustainable rural development and improvement of human development



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

149

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022 
policy regulation, which, accordingly, should  
contribute to improving the human development 
situation in our country.

3. Conclusions
The study proves that without harmonization of 

agricultural and construction policies, taking into 
account the priority of rural production for further 
stabilization of the national economy and the need  
to form social infrastructure and diversification in  
the use of rural resources, threats may arise in the 
future, the impact of which will spread to industries 
of all countries. Land reform, decentralization and 
transformational changes in agriculture require the 
prompt application of measures that would ensure 

the coordination of the interests of the state, business 
structures and the population in order to improve the 
situation with human development. The development 
of social infrastructure and creation of proper  
conditions for labor activity will contribute to the 
stabilization of economic, social and demographic 
situation in the whole country and individual  
regions. Each position of the formed model of the 
coordination mechanism of regulation of agrarian and 
construction policy is supported by the considered  
key facts and is based on analytical materials on the 
activities of agricultural producers, construction 
enterprises, rural development. Further research can 
be conducted in the direction of substantiation of  
ways to intensify the formation and development of 
agro-industrial and construction clusters.

References:
Kaletnik, H. M., Honcharuk, I. V., Yemchyk, T. V., & Litkovska, S. M. (2020). Ahrarna polityka ta zemelni  
vidnosyny [Agrarian policy and land relations]. Vinnytsia: VNAU, 307 p.
Chan-khi, O. S. (2016). Teoretychni pidkhody shchodo vyznachennia mekhanizmu derzhavnoho rehuliuvannia 
aharnoho rynku Ukrainy [Theoretical approaches to determining the mechanism of state regulation of the agar 
market of Ukraine]. Ekonomika. Finasy. Pravo, vol. 5/3. Available at: http://efp.in.ua/arhiv-nomeriv-efp/archive-
nomeriv-2016/efp%205-3%202016.pdf
Cherkasov, O. V., & Mamaiev, I. O. (2019). Zemelna reforma v Ukraini: perspektyvy ta ryzyky [Land reform 
in Ukraine: prospects and risks]. Teoretychni ta praktychni problemy zemelnoi reformy v Ukraini: zb. nauk. pr.  
za materialamy kruhloho stolu (Kharkiv, 15 lystop. 2019 r.). Kharkiv, pp. 63–67.
Miahkokhod, V., Vernyhor, Yu., Chepel, O., & Baran, M. Formuvannia spromozhnykh terytorialnykh 
hromad: praktychnyi posibnyk [Formation of capable territorial communities: a practical guide]. Available at:  
https://www.auc.org.ua/sites/default/files/library/posibnyk.tergrweb.pdf
Haidutskyi, P. I. (2015). Ahrarna reforma L. D. Kuchmy v Ukraini: istoryko-ekonomichni aspekty [Agrarian  
reform of L. D. Kuchma in Ukraine: historical and economic aspects]. Ekonomika APK, vol. 1, pp. 5–13.
Hotra, V. V., & Kovach, A. Ya. (2021). Vplyv protsesu detsentralizatsii na rozvytok silskykh terytorii [The impact  
of the decentralization process on the development of rural areas]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho Universytetu, 
vol. 1 (57), pp. 30–37.
Human Development Report 2016. Human Development for Everyone / UNDP (2016). Available at:  
https://www.undp.org/publications/human-development-report-2016
Hushtyk, N. (2013) Derzhavne upravlinnia v haluzi budivnytstva: retrospektyvnyi analiz [Public administration  
in the field of construction: a retrospective analysis]. Efektyvnist derzhavnoho upravlinnia, vol. 37, pp. 204–212.
Heitsia, V. M., et al. (ed.) (2015). Innovatsiina Ukraina 2020. Natsionalna dopovid [Innovative Ukraine 2020. 
National report]. Kyiv: NAN Ukrainy, pp. 25–26.
Kozych, O. (2012). Derzhavne rehuliuvannia diialnosti budivelnoi haluzi Ukrainy [State regulation of the 
construction industry of Ukraine. Public administration: theory and practice]. Publichne upravlinnia: teoriia ta 
praktyka, vol. 3(1), pp. 138–142.
Melko, V. L. (2017). Teoretychni pidkhody do derzhavnoho rehuliuvannia haluzi budivnytstva [Theoretical 
approaches to state regulation of the construction industry. State and regions]. Derzhava ta rehiony, vol. 1(57),  
pp. 61–68.
Melnykov, A. V., Semeniuk, E. P., & Kotliarevskyi, Ya. V. (2010). Prymenenye ynformatsyonnoho podkhoda  
k analyzu razvytyia polyhrafyy [Application of the information approach to the analysis of printing development]. 
Visti Akad. inzhenernykh nauk, vol. 1 (40), pp. 40–48.
Nehoda V. Monitorynh protsesu detsentralizatsii [Monitoring the process of decentralization]. Available at: 
https://decentralization.gov.ua/mainmonitoring/news?page=2
Borodina, O. M., Prokopy, I. V., & Popova, O. L. (2015). Polityka silskoho rozvytku na bazi hromad: naukova 
dopovid [Community-based rural development policy: scientific report]. Kyiv: DU "In-t ekon. ta prohnozuv.  
NAN Ukrainy ", 70 p.
Pro dobrovilne obiednannia terytorialnykh hromad: Zakon Ukrainy № 157-19 vid 05.02.2015 r [On the 
voluntary association of territorial communities: Law of Ukraine No. 157-19 dated 02.05.2015]. Available at:  
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/157-19#Text
Pro nevidkladni zakhody shchodo pryskorennia reformuvannia ahrarnoho sektoru ekonomiky: Ukaz  
Prezydenta Ukrainy vid 3 hrudnia 1999 roku № 1529/99 [On urgent measures to accelerate the reform of the 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

150

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2022
agrarian sector of the economy: Decree of the President of Ukraine dated December 3, 1999 No. 1529/99]. 
Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1529/99#Text
Pro osnovni zasady derzhavnoi ahrarnoi polityk na period do 2015 roku: Zakon Ukrainy vid 18.10.2005  
№2982-IV. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy [On the main principles of the state agrarian policy for the  
period until 2015: Law of Ukraine dated 18.10.2005 No. 2982-IV]. 2006. No. 1. S. 17.
Pro poriadok paiuvannia zemel, peredanykh u kolektyvnu vlasnist silskohospodarskym pidpryiemstvam i 
orhanizatsiiam: Ukaz Prezydenta Ukrainy № 720/95 vid 08.08.1995 [On the procedure for allocating lands 
transferred into collective ownership to agricultural enterprises and organizations: Decree of the President of 
Ukraine No. 720/95 dated August 8, 1995]. Available at: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/720/95
Pro vnesennia zmin do Zemelnoho kodeksu Ukrainy ta inshykh zakonodavchykh aktiv shchodo udoskonalennia 
systemy upravlinnia ta derehuliatsii u sferi zemelnykh vidnosyn: Zakon Ukrainy vid 28.04.2021 r. №1423-IХ [On 
amendments to the Land Code of Ukraine and other legislative acts regarding the improvement of the system 
of management and deregulation in the field of land relations: Law of Ukraine dated 04/28/2021 No. 1423-IX]. 
Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1423-20#Text
Pro zasady vnutrishnoi i zovnishnoi polityk: Zakon Ukrainy vid 1 lypnia 2010 roku №2411-IV [On the 
principles of domestic and foreign policy: Law of Ukraine dated July 1, 2010 No. 2411-IV]. Available at:  
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2411-17#Text
Pro zemelnu reformu: postanova Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainskoi RSR . Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady [On land 
reform: resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR . Verkhovna Rada information]. 1991. No. 10. S. 1. 
Pronina, O. V. (2016). Stan, problemy ta perspektyvy rozvytku silskykh terytorii v Ukraini [State, problems and 
prospects of development of rural areas in Ukraine. State and regions]. Derzhava ta rehiony, vol. 2 (54), pp. 92–96.
Romasko, V. O. (2009) Pravove zabezpechennia derzhavnoho kontroliu u sferi budivnytstva [Legal support of  
state control in the field of construction]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav,  
vol. 45, pp. 159–166.
Silske hospodarstvo Ukrainy za 2019 rik: statystychnyi zbirnyk [Agriculture of Ukraine for 2019: statistical 
collection]. vidpovid. O. Prokopenkoiu. Kyiv: Derzhavna sluzhba statystyky Ukrainy, 2020. 230 s.
Statystychna informatsiia. Derzhavna sluzhba statystyky Ukrainy [Statistical information. State Statistics Service  
of Ukraine]. Available at: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua
Stratehiia rozvytku zemelnykh vidnosyny v Ukraini [Strategy for the development of land relations in Ukraine]. 
Available at: https://kse.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Land-strategy.pdf
Kravtsiv, V. S., & Storonianska, I. Z. (2020) Terytorialni hromady v umovakh detsentralizatsii: ryzyky ta  
mekhanizmy rozvytku: monohrafiia [Territorial communities in conditions of decentralization: risks and 
mechanisms of development: monograph]. Lviv: DU «Instytut rehionalnykh doslidzhen imeni M. I. Dolishnoho 
NAN Ukrainy, 531 p.
Titerenko, Z. M. (2020). Biudzhetna detsentralizatsiia yak faktor rozvytku silskykh terytorii Ukrainy  
[Budget decentralization as a factor in the development of rural areas of Ukraine]. Ahrosvit, vol. 7, pp. 87–91.
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development / UN (2015). Available at:  
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication
United Nations Millennium Declaration / UN (2000). Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/422015?
Viremeichyk, A., & Ruban, O. (2021). Upravlinnia rozvytkom terytorii v umovakh detsentralizatsii [Territorial 
development management in conditions of decentralization. Economic analysis]. Ekonomichnyi analiz,  
vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 7–16.

Received on: 11th of September, 2022
Accepted on: 21th of October, 2022

Published on: 30th of November, 2022