1. Introduction Cooperation between societies has a historical char- acter. The practice of social organization shows so- cieties can not only compete, but also join forces. In general, any cooperation between different socio- territorial entities can be formalized and classified according to different parameters. The forms of such cooperation are extremely diverse, as they were made by the coincidence of specific interests over time. Only part of such coop- eration has institutionalized forms characterized by clear legal regulation. It should be noted that the legal framework regulates only a part of coopera- tion which, due to its diversity, may not be general- izable at all. Z. Niewiadomski (1992) points out that cooperation between communities is universal and Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2019, 9(2), 20–31 https://doi.org/10.26881/jpgs.2019.2.03 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN MODEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD INTER-MUNICIPAL COOPERATION IN UKRAINE Aleksander Kuczabski (1), Maksym Maksymchuk (2), Solomiya Kloba (3) (1) Department of Regional Development Geography, University of Gdańsk, Bażyńskiego 4, 80–309 Gdańsk, Poland, ORCID: 0000-0003-1271-0782 e-mail: aleksander.kuczabski@ug.edu.pl (corresponding autor) (2) Department of Regional Economic Policy, State Institution “Institute of Regional Research named after M.I. Dolishniy of the NAS of Ukraine, Kozelnitska 4, 79026 Lviv, Ukraine, ORCID: 0000-0001-5177-539X e-mail: regionmak@i.ua (3) Department of Regional Economic Policy, State Institution “Institute of Regional Research named after M.I. Dolishniy of the NAS of Ukraine, Kozelnitska 4, 79026 Lviv, Ukraine, ORCID: 0000-0003-4697-4866 e-mail: solya007@gmail.com Citation Kuczabski A., Maksymchuk M., Kloba S., 2019, Implementation and development of European model of neighborhood inter- municipal cooperation in Ukraine, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 9(2), 20–31. Abstract The article was tried to solve the dilemma of whether neighborhood inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine is part of the Eu- ropean model of inter-municipal cooperation, or just another attempt to imitate it? The basis of the study is the work on the general theory of governance, territorial governance, inter-municipal cooperation, which provide a basis for understanding what the European model of neighborhood inter-municipal cooperation is. The re- search is based on an analysis of the legal framework governing inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine, as well as official statistics on the practical implementation of the right to inter-municipal cooperation of neighboring territorial communities. Key words inter-municipal cooperation, territorial governance, multi-level governance, administrative-territorial structure, European model of inter-municipal cooperation, Ukraine. Received: 15 January 2019 Accepted: 17 July 2019 Published: 30 July 2019 Implementation and development of the European model… 21 cannot be limited substantially, subjectively or for- mally. Also, inter-municipal cooperation should not be restricted to administratively defined forms, but it may have another dimension, such as based on private law. There are several terms in the scientific literature that directly relate to cooperation between societies: cooperation, collaboration, inter-municipal coopera- tion. According to T. Kaczmarek (2005), cooperation, collaboration, integration characterize the common work of elements of a system that aim at its effec- tive functioning. Each of these definitions has got its own special content. The narrowest and, at the same time, the most clearly defined is the concept of inter- municipal cooperation. In order for community co- operation to be classified as inter-municipal cooper- ation, in addition to a common interest, a number of other important elements are also needed. First, the community must have its own authorized represent- ative – a municipality that has the right on behalf of the entire community to establish cooperation with other equal partners. Secondly, the municipality must have sufficient autonomy to initiate and imple- ment cooperation with partners. Thirdly, the munici- pality must have the resources that can be used to solve issues relating to cooperation. In general, the prerequisite for the development of inter-municipal cooperation, in its current sense, is the existence of a decentralized system of public administration. The post-communist states of Central and East- ern Europe, which started decentralization reforms much later than the world’s leading democracies, were forced to implement new organizational and management mechanisms in the shortest possible time. On the one hand, they had access to world- class best practices in the field, but on the other they lacked their own experience, and they had a very limited time to coordinate advanced models with local characteristics. Within the management expe- rience of the European Union countries, standards have been formed that have become a model for subsequent implementation in countries with a to- talitarian past. One of the post-communist European countries where decentralization is extremely inconsistent, and problematic is Ukraine. Although the first steps towards decentralization dating back to the time of its entry in the USSR (1990), until recently the local government in Ukraine was mainly just an imitation of European standards. However, the last phase of decentralization reform, which began in 2014, gives hope that European standards will be implemented in Ukraine’s territorial governance system. Evidence of this is the emergence in recent years of such phe- nomena as inter-municipal cooperation, which is developing dynamically and today can be regarded as an object for comprehensive analysis. The purpose of this article is to answer the ques- tion of whether neighborhood municipal coopera- tion in Ukraine is part of the European model of in- ter-municipal cooperation, or just another attempt to imitate it? In order to achieve this aim, based on the analysis of the theory of inter-municipal cooperation in the modern sciences of administration, we will try to find out what the European model of inter-munici- pal cooperation. The next step will be to analyze the system of legal regulation of inter-municipal coop- eration in Ukraine, and finally to examine its imple- mentation in the subject, evolutionary and spatial planes. The basis of the study is the work on the general theory of governance, territorial governance, inter- municipal cooperation, which provide a basis for understanding what the European model of neigh- borhood inter-municipal cooperation is. The study is based on an analysis of the legal framework govern- ing inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine, as well as official statistics on the practical implementation of the right to inter-municipal cooperation of neigh- boring territorial communities. 2. The theory of inter-municipal cooperation in the modern sciences of administration The modern theory of inter-municipal cooperation is developing thanks to the spontaneous and dynamic growth of interest of local authorities in the interac- tion that takes place in the countries of the Europe- an Union, the USA and other developed democratic states of the world with increasing power since the postwar years. The theory of inter-municipal cooperation imple- ments a rational combination of the principles of local democracy and praxeology, which reflects the nature of decision-making and implementation of administrative decisions. The principle of local de- mocracy ensures maximum involvement of commu- nity residents in managerial decision-making, and the principle of praxeology aims to implement these decisions in the most effective way. Typically, successful combination of local de- mocracy with effective management implemented within the administrative and territorial system. If the necessary administrative efficiency within the existing administrative-territorial structure is impos- sible to achieve, then there is a need to reform it. The post-war dynamic socio-economic de- velopment, the emergence of new ones and the 22 Aleksander Kuczabski, Maksym Maksymchuk, Solomiya Kloba complication of existing administrative tasks, pose new challenges to the system of territorial govern- ance of developed democracies. Traditionally, such problems have been solved through lengthy and costly administrative and territorial reforms, but in the current context, there is a need to find oth- er forms of management effectiveness. In order to avoid permanent reformation of the administrative- territorial system, the central government needs to move away from traditional historical ideas about the administrative-territorial structure of society as a stable conservative hierarchical system. However, given the stability and inertia of the units of the administrative-territorial structure on the one hand, and on the other hand, the diversity and atypical- ity of the administrative problems, an acceptable alternative may be the release of the territorial self- organization resource in the form of cooperation. The popularity of inter-municipal cooperation in advanced democracies is a kind of response to the transformation of governing philosophy. This is es- pecially true for the development and complication of management units, and the gradual departure from the traditional hierarchical management sys- tem towards network management. The first trend was manifested in the implemen- tation of multi-level governance. Analyzing the es- tablishment and operation of supranational institu- tions, L. Gruber (2000) came to the conclusion that multilevel governance enhances its effectiveness by creating a harmonized standard for implemen- tation and enforcement of policies. In fact, this con- clusion is also confirmed at local and regional levels of government. F. Teles (2016) points out that in to- day’s context, multi-level governance is complicated and needs new tools to ensure efficiency and avoid redundancy. The second trend does not mean a complete replacement, but only a complement to the man- agement hierarchy of network forms. According to K. Hanf and F.W. Scharpf (1978), a major change in this respect can be summed up by a transforma- tion in social governance from hierarchical control to horizontal coordination. Networking in govern- ment means engaging more and more new players in policy making: on the one hand, public and self- governing, and on the other, public or private. According to P. Kenis and V. Schneider (1991), the concept of policy networks is a complex combina- tion of stable, decentralized, non-hierarchical rela- tionships between actors, by their social nature, that share resources in order to achieve a common goal. Such networks emerge at different territorial levels. B. Marin and R. Mayntz (1991) note that there are in- ternational (eg European), nationwide, regional and even local networks. F. Teles (2016) emphasizes the link between emerging network governance and inter-municipal collaboration. According to him, in such conditions political and administrative hierar- chical structures become more open to horizontal networks both an interbranch and intra-industry. The complication and development of the ter- ritorial governance system in the context of multi- leveled and networking leads to the increased in- teraction of all participants involved. H. Baldersheim (2002) draws attention to the growing interest in the phenomenon of multi-level governance from a sci- entific and practical point of view. F. Teles (2016) em- phasizes the importance of multi-level interaction and develops the concepts of horizontal partner- ships and vertical partnerships. In most European countries a new multi-level space has emerged with a complex interweaving of different functional territories and levels of govern- ment, with local and regional institutions operating in both horizontal partnerships and vertical net- works. In general, this complication of forms of ter- ritorial governance F. Teles (2016) describes as “ter- ritorial mess”. Thus, inter-municipal cooperation is a flexible form of territorial governance that allows it to be more effective and efficient without costly adminis- trative-territorial changes, based on the principles of local democracy. Emphasis on the effectiveness and performance of inter-municipal cooperation can be seen as key to implementing this form of local government inter- action (see: Bel, Warner, 2015). Inter-municipal coop- eration is not universal and cannot be an alternative to a system of established administrative and territo- rial structure. Its flexible nature makes it possible to increase the efficiency of management on the one hand, but on the other it can become a problem for municipality. F. Teles (2016) calls inter-municipal co- operation only “one of the alternative strategies”. Inter-municipal cooperation does not deny the administrative-territorial structure but is formed on its basis. According to K. Nowacki (1996), various unions, agreements and associations are secondary territorial groups that arise on the basis of units of administrative and territorial structure. Often, inter- municipal cooperation is seen as an alternative to amalgamation of local-level administrative-territo- rial units (Tranin, 1984; Kaczmarek, 2005; Hertzog, 2015). F. Teles (2016) identifies three key elements of inter-municipal cooperation: efficiency, democracy and stability. The positive effect of municipal coop- eration is only possible under certain conditions. Implementation and development of the European model… 23 First, the political governance system must be democratic, namely aimed at attracting the maxi- mum number of participants to the decision-making process. Secondly, there must be a climate of mutual trust and strategic vision between the participants in the cooperation, that is, a willingness to yield to narrow, short-term interests in order to achieve a common goal. Thirdly, the subjects of cooperation must have a sufficient level of managerial autonomy to del- egate some of their powers and resources to the op- erational level. Fourth, the legal system must be sufficiently flex- ible, ready to adapt quickly to the changing expecta- tions of participants in the cooperation. In the absence of these conditions, inter-munici- pal cooperation becomes limited and sporadic acts of interaction, or it is merely artificial, formal or ficti- tious. There is a risk of contradiction between ensur- ing efficiency and democracy in the context of inter- municipal cooperation. In general, the efficiency of public administration is ensured by the delegation of powers in the form of delegation of certain admin- istrative functions to specific bodies, and the phe- nomenon of delegation is manifested in the chain of power authority (Kuczabski, 2010). At the same time, the formation of additional links in the chain of dele- gation (which is actually inter-municipal bodies) can be a threat to democratic foundations. F. Teles (2016) draws attention to the fact that inter-municipal or- ganizations may face serious problems of democrat- ic deficit or duplication of costs. Inter-municipal cooperation is the most common definition for the various forms of cooperation of lo- cal communities or their representative or executive bodies. It can be classified into a number of aspects: economic, geographical, organizational, managerial. On the basis of spatial coverage, T. Kaczmarek (2005) notes that cooperation may be local, supra-local, re- gional, national and foreign. In our study, the object of the analysis is only neighborhood inter-municipal cooperation of the local level, which arises between the municipalities, which are bordering on each oth- er and on the basis of legally established forms and procedures, solve joint management tasks. As mentioned, the economic aspect of neigh- borhood inter-municipal cooperation is to address the problem of managerial effectiveness. The con- figuration of new organizational forms of manage- ment, which are inter-municipal associations, is sub- ordinated to the idea of maximizing efficiency. In this context, there is a problem of finding the best point of view of service for the size of structures. This problem has composed an important part of local government literature (Hirsch, 1959; Oates, 1972; Dixit, 1973). J.L. Gomez-Reino and J. Martinez- Vazquez (2013) draw attention to the problem of suboptimal jurisdiction for a range of management services. The geographical aspect of neighborhood inter- municipal co-operation is also aimed at improving governance but is broader in nature and integrates problems of geographical scope and structure. According to S.C. Deller (1992), the optimal geo- graphical scale depends on three main parameters: volume of services, population and population dis- placement. Reconciling these parameters with each other is key to maximizing the effectiveness of gov- ernance, including providing services to the general public. Clearly, for each individual service, the op- timal configuration of service volume, population, and resettlement can vary significantly. As a result, inter-municipal cooperation is able to offer options that bring territorial systems closer to optimal scale. The problem of geographical structure is to clas- sify forms of cooperation according to the resource proportionality of its subjects. R.C. Feiock (2007) drew attention to the problem of partner hetero- geneity in inter-municipal cooperation. There are inter-municipal structures that represent different in nature and scope of subjects – central municipali- ties and satellite municipalities, etc. In this context, it is advisable to pay attention to cooperation from the point of view of its place in the center-periphery system. On the one hand, a good ground for interop- erability emerges within powerful urban agglomera- tions, and on the other hand, peripheral rural com- munities are often forced to cooperate to address current issues. For rural municipalities, inter-municipal coopera- tion can be an important alternative to contracting with the private sector, since in rural areas private competition in services can be limited by consumer fragmentation and high costs (Warner, 2006). At the same time, G. Bel and A. Miralles (2003) note that in rural areas there is a certain reluctance to cooperate, because on a small scale, potential efficiency gains are not always commensurate with the additional costs of organizing and maintaining new inter-mu- nicipal structures. The administrative aspect is manifested in the assessment of the place and role of inter-municipal structures in the system of territorial governance. In- ter-municipal cooperation requires at least the pres- ence of stakeholders. Lack of specific procedures, lack of institutional staff or incentives make the situ- ation where spontaneous field projects do not occur (Hertzog, 2015). An important characteristic is the level of autonomy of the inter-municipal bodies and 24 Aleksander Kuczabski, Maksym Maksymchuk, Solomiya Kloba the nature of their relations not only with the munic- ipalities themselves, but also with other administra- tive entities. In this context, the role of state agencies that indirectly participate in inter-municipal cooper- ation should not be underestimated. As noted by P. Swianiewicz and M. Herbst (2002), the cooperation of local governments should be not only spontane- ous but also stimulated by the state. One of the key characteristics in this respect is the competence problem that determines the substan- tive basis of cooperation. It is about what managerial powers can be delegated to inter-municipal bodies. Delegations are traditionally considered to be jointly pursuing public tasks, but in practice, cooperation can cover a broader range of issues. The managerial aspect of inter-municipal coop- eration is also hierarchical. From the point of view of the place of the subjects of cooperation in the system of administrative and territorial structure T. Kaczmarek (2005) proposes to classify inter-munic- ipal cooperation into horizontal (occurs at the same level of management) and vertical (covers different administrative levels). Equally important in terms of improving the effectiveness of territorial govern- ance is the organizational aspect of inter-municipal cooperation. Inter-municipal cooperation is charac- terized by varying levels of integration, depending on its organizational forms, the amount of delegated powers and financial resources, and the timeframe. Such cooperation may be one-off, sporadic, period- ic, or permanent. In general, inter-municipal cooperative agree- ments differ in form, scope and integration (Teles, 2016). This opens the possibility for practically un- limited number of organizational forms of coopera- tion, which depend only on the legal framework, dominant organizational culture, local management traditions, etc. The simplest classification of forms of inter-municipal cooperation from an organizational point of view can be done by the number of dele- gated functions. According to G. Bel and M.E. Warner (2015), inter-municipal contracts can be single-pur- pose or multi-purpose. An additional criterion may be the depth (scale) of inter-municipal cooperation, which is measured by the amount of resources del- egated to implement community-level cooperation at the inter-municipal level. An important problem of organizational nature is the mechanism of forma- tion of inter-municipal bodies and the cessation of their activities. G. Bel and M.E. Warner (2015) point out that an important feature of cooperation itself is the ability and ease of withdrawal from the coopera- tion agreement. To sum up, the European model of inter-munic- ipal cooperation is not simple and straightforward. In this regard, F. Teles (2016) argues that inter-mu- nicipal governance is not unified, stable and has no agreed functions and boundaries. The European model is likely to be a general framework that cov- ers issues of organizing inter-municipal cooperation based on democracy, self-government, efficiency, involvement and more. 3. Legal regulation of neighborhood inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine The legal basis of inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine is similar with the countries of the European Union and is based on democratic principles of the organization of government. In 1997, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine fully ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The Charter’s provisions, in particular, entitle local governments to cooperate and create consortiums to carry out tasks of com- mon interest (European Charter of Local Self-Gov- ernment, 1985, Article 10, paragraph 1). In the national legal system, the right to inter- municipal cooperation has been reflected both at the constitutional level and in separate legislative acts. The Constitution of Ukraine clearly specifies that the condition of such an association should be the implementation of joint projects, the form – is an appropriate contract, and the objects may be com- munal property, as well as budgetary funds. At the same time, the Ukrainian constitution entitles the territorial communities (community) to create ap- propriate bodies and services for this purpose (Kon- stitucìá Ukraïni, 1996, Art. 142). Some examples of inter-municipal cooperation have taken place in Ukraine since the time of join- ing the USSR (Proshko, 2015). For the first time, the mention of the right of local self-government bod- ies of Ukraine to voluntary association appeared in 1990 in the relevant law (Pro mìscеvì…, 1990). Arti- cle 34, paragraph 12 of this law gave the executive bodies of local self-government the right to “merge on a contractual basis the funds of the budgets of other local self-government bodies to resolve com- mon issues.” However, at the initial stage of decen- tralization, inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine was mostly carried out directly, but with the help of representative bodies of local self-government at higher levels of government. Until 2014, the func- tion of solving community cooperation tasks was actually performed by representative bodies of lo- cal self-government of other administrative levels – district and regional councils, which by constitution are intended to represent the common interests of Implementation and development of the European model… 25 territorial communities of villages, towns and cities (Kоnstitucіâ Ukraїni, 1996, Art. 140). Ukrainian law in the field of local government does not operate on the concept of public tasks of municipalities, but instead develops the concept of “common interests of territorial communities” (Prо mìscеvе…, 1997, Art. 2, paragraph 2 and so on). The common interests and goals of the territorial communities, as well as the effective implementation by local self-government bodies of the authorities defined by law, determine the basis for the implementation of inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine. The main tasks of such cooperation are: ensuring the socio-economic, cultural development of the territories, improving the quality of service provided to the population, etc. (Prо spìvrоbìtnictvо…, 2014, Art. 1, paragraph 1, 2). However, it can be argued that both in Poland and in Ukraine it is actually about ensuring the effective implementation of the authorities of municipalities for the benefit of representatives of the relevant territorial communities. The current Ukrainian legislation distinguishes between “voluntary association of local self-gov- ernment bodies” and “cooperation of territorial communities”. The first case involves the right of lo- cal self-government bodies to form associations or other voluntary associations in order to effectively exercise their authority, protect the rights and inter- ests of territorial communities (Prо mìscеvе …, 1997, Art. 15). Since 2014, the process of establishing active and efficient local self-government bodies has begun in Ukraine. The creation of new, much more self-suffi- cient, administrative units at the local level, known as ‘capable municipalities’, is considered to be a cru- cial element of this reform (Kuczabski et al., 2017). At the same time, the issue of territorial management of communities, which did not decide to go into ad- ministrative association, intensified. In general, the emphasis on improving the effectiveness of territo- rial governance has been reflected in a special law (Pro spìvrоbìtnictvо…, 2014). This law created legal grounds for cooperation of local self-government units. Critics of the law note that the law has not been properly audited. By some estimates, instead of expanding the legal forms of cooperation, it has been over-regulated. V. Proshko (2015) criticizes the absence of any mention of private-public partner- ship in the context of inter-municipal cooperation in the text. At the same time, previous Ukrainian legislation provided only for a general framework of inter-mu- nicipal cooperation. The new law classifies the co- operation of territorial communities as relationships based on appropriate agreements between two or more communities for the purpose of socio-eco- nomic, cultural development, improving the quality of public services and the efficient execution of local tasks by local governments (Kuczabski, 2017). The law provided for the creation of supra-mu- nicipal superstructures by delegating certain tasks to them. The text of the law clearly outlines the forms in which cooperation can be implemented, namely: – delegation to one of the subjects of cooperation by other subjects of cooperation the accomplish- ment of one or more tasks with the transfer of relevant resources to it; – implementation of joint projects, which envis- ages coordination of activities of the subjects of cooperation and their accumulation for a certain period of resources with the purpose of joint im- plementation of the corresponding measures; – joint financing (maintenance) by the subjects of cooperation of enterprises, institutions and or- ganizations of communal ownership - infrastruc- ture objects; – the creation of joint utilities, institutions and or- ganizations by the subjects of cooperation - joint infrastructure objects; – the formation of joint bodies of cooperation by the subjects of cooperation for the joint fulfill- ment of the authorities defined by law. Public authorities monitor the implementation of projects on cooperation of territorial communities. Thus, within the framework of the National Decen- tralization Project, the monitoring of the process of decentralization of government and reform of local self-government in which the cooperation of territo- rial communities (state of concluding inter-munici- pal cooperation agreements) appears as an indicator 5 (Spіvrоbіtnictvо grоmad, nd.). However, the total number of cooperation projects is presented not in the context of the five forms of cooperation defined by the relevant Law of Ukraine, but by economic orientation. 4. Development and geography of neighborhood inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine Neighborhood inter-municipal cooperation in Ukraine has lagged for a long time far behind the relevant indicators in the countries of the European Union. Back in 2015, V. Proshko (2015) explained this phenomenon with too short list of responsibilities of Ukrainian municipalities for their joint fulfillment and no real need for cooperation. 26 Aleksander Kuczabski, Maksym Maksymchuk, Solomiya Kloba Instead, in recent years, inter-municipal coop- eration in Ukraine has been gaining popularity. In general, by June 2019, 1031 territorial communi- ties have been using the tools of inter-municipal co-operation, having concluded 433 agreements in this area (Mоnіtоring prоcеsu dеcеntralіzacії…, nd.). The undisputed leader in the development of inter- municipal cooperation is Poltava. For more than three years, the region has shown an increase in the number of territorial community cooperation pro- jects increasing (as of May each year): 2015 – 5 pro- jects, 2016 – 17, 2017 – 34. As of the end of 2018, the number of projects it has also more than doubled. Since 2010, the Poltava Regional Council has been holding a Regional Competition for the Develop- ment of Territorial Communities, to which after 2015 the cooperation of territorial communities has been submitted. The terms of the competition for projects related to the development of inter-municipal coop- eration have been doubled (Dzûpin et al., 2017). Overall in Ukraine in 2018, Vinnytsia and Sumy re- gions with 55 and 24 agreements respectively take the leading positions in the conclusion of agree- ments on the total number of cooperation projects, except for Poltava region. Instead, Poltava, Vinnytsia, and Ivano-Frankivsk regions are leading the number of communities that have used inter-municipal co- operation. Kherson (1), Lugansk (0) and Mykolayiv (0) regions occupy the last positions in terms of the to- tal number of cooperation projects, while in the last two ones no agreement was reached on the number of communities that benefited from inter-municipal cooperation. (Mіžmunіcipal’nе spіvrоbіtnictvо…, nd.; Mоnіtоring prоcеsu dеcеntralіzacії…, nd.). Due to the significant detachment from the rest of the Poltava region and the formation of a sig- nificant number of outsider regions, a considerable level of differentiation and asymmetry in the devel- opment of inter-municipal cooperation can be es- tablished (fig. 1). As can be seen from fig. 1., on average 12 agree- ments have been concluded in the regions of Ukraine, but 18 regions are below this indicator and only 6 regions – Poltava, Vinnytsia, Sumy, Kharkiv, Zhytomyr and Cherkasy exceed the average of Ukraine, with the first two one – several times. In the regions of Ukraine, on average, 47 communities have benefited from inter-municipal cooperation, but in 17 regions this figure is lower. And only less than one third of the country’s regions is above av- erage. These are Poltava, Vinnytsia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kharkiv, Cherkasy, Sumy and Zhytomyr regions. If we consider in the regional context the dynam- ics of concluding agreements on inter-municipal cooperation, we will see that in two regions they have increased tenfold (Vinnytsia in 55, Sumy in 24) because in the previous period these regions had only one concluded agreement (fig. 2). The third and fourth places are occupied by Zaporizhzhya and Rivne regions, where the number of transactions increased 6 and 5 times respectively. In the leading region for the development of inter-municipal co- operation – Poltava region, the number of projects has almost doubled. Overall, in December 2018, the number of inter-municipal cooperation projects in Ukraine increased by 2.7 times compared to the same period last year. In 2018, the number of areas in which inter-municipal cooperation was not in- troduced in 2017 decreased by 3.5 times. Instead, in 2018, the Lugansk and Mykolaiv regions did not have any registered agreements on inter-municipal cooperation in 2018. As of June 2019, no agreement was concluded only by the Mykolaiv region (fig. 2). The development of IMC is mainly in the hous- ing sector, although there are opportunities in other areas as well. Thus, according to official statistics, the largest number of projects of inter-municipal cooper- ation in the regions of Ukraine is implemented in the field of housing and communal services (24%), edu- cation, health care, social security (19%), as well as fire safety (12%) (Mіžmunìcipal’nе spìvrоbìtnictvо…, nd.; Mоnìtоring prоcеsu dеcеntralìzacìї…, nd.). According to experts on average in Ukraine, the TOP 5 topics of the agreements on inter-municipal cooperation include (Spìvrоbìtnictvо tеritоrìal’nih…, 2017): – solid waste management (purchase of contain- ers, cars for garbage collection and creation of waste sorting lines); – repair of local roads; – repair works in educational establishments (schools, pre-schools); – creation, joint maintenance of communal enter- prises, organizations (local fire protection, enter- prise providing housing and communal services, preschool educational institution, work archive, social service institution); – administrative services (co-financing of the CNAP, provision of administrative services). The regional section on the forms of development of inter-municipal cooperation for the regions of the Carpathian region was obtained as a result of a so- ciological study conducted by the staff of the State Institution of Regional Studies named after M. I. Dol- ishny NAS of Ukraine. The most common form of co- operation for the Carpathian region communities is the implementation of joint projects (table 1). The use of a problem-oriented approach to the research of IMCs in the regions of Ukraine allows us to highlight the problems of cooperation development Implementation and development of the European model… 27 and to see the possibilities of their solution. Yes, the problems that slow down the development of IMC in the regions of the state are: Firstly, there is a lack of consistent and clear re- gional policy to encourage the development of IMCs. Thus, regional programs of support of the develop- ment of cooperation between territorial communi- ties were adopted in only eight regions of Ukraine (table 2). Secondly, the low efficiency of implementa- tion of the IMC financial mechanisms by local self- government bodies in the regions of the state due to their imperfection, which is related to the limited financial resources for the implementation of co- operation projects, limited capacities of the UTC to carry out obligatory co-financing and underdevel- opment of credit instruments inter-municipal pro- jects and the limited access of UTC budgets to the Fig. 1. Inter-regional asymmetry in concluding community cooperation agreements by number of projects (A) and num- ber of communities (B) in 2018, units Source: own studies based on „ Mоnіtоring prоcеsu dеcеntralіzacії…”. 28 Aleksander Kuczabski, Maksym Maksymchuk, Solomiya Kloba 1 8 3 0 5 2 1 10 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 2 6 0 6 9 6 1 2 6 6 3 0 2 0 2 5 5 1 3 3 8 82 12 10 2 25 3 8 7 10 1 11 0 2 102 10 36 7 24 4 3 24 5 47 12 88 24 20 1115 55 13 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V in n y ts y a V o ly n D n ip ro p e tr o v s k D o n e ts k Z h y to m y r Z a k a rp a tt y a Z a p o ri z h z h y a Iv a n o -F ra n k iv s k K y iv K ir o v o h ra d L u h a n s k L v iv M y k o la iv O d e s a P o lt a v a R iv n e S u m y T e rn o p il K h a rk iv K h e rs o n K h m e ln y ts k iy C h e rk a s y C h e rn iv ts i C h e rn ih iv December, 2017 December, 2018 June, 2019 N u m b e r o f p ro je c ts , u n it s Fig. 2. Dynamics of conclusion of agreements of inter-municipal cooperation in the regions of Ukraine in 2017–2019, units Source: own studies based on „Mоnіtоring prоcеsu dеcеntralіzacії…”. Tab. 1. Answers to the question: «In what form is your UTC collaborative with other UTCs?» Frequency of selection % Implementation of joint projects 26 38% Joint venture maintenance 3 4% Delegation of authority and resources to another community 10 15% Establishment of new joint communal enterprises, institutions and organizations 1 2% Establishment of a joint management body for joint exercise of authority 3 4% We do not cooperate with other UTCs 25 37% Total 68 100% * two communities added the following comments to the collaboration: learning from other communities’ experience, membership in the PJSC Carpathian Association, sharing experiences, and providing advisory services. Source: Stоrоnâns’ka, Maksimеnkо, 2018. Tab. 2. Regional support for cooperation between territorial communities No. The name of the region The maximum amount of grant of the IŃĚ category, ths. UAH. Applicant’s co-financing rate 1 Kharkiv 1 500 no less 50% 2 Dnipropetrovsk 1 500 no less 10% 3 Lviv 1 500 no less 50% 4 Kherson 1 000 no less 50% 5 Poltava 800 no less 50% 6 Ivano-Frankivsk 600 no less 25% 7 Vinnytsia 400 no less 50% 8 Sumy 200 no less 60% Source: Mіžmunìcipal’nе spìvrоbìtnictvо…, nd.; Prоgrama pìdtrimki..., nd. Implementation and development of the European model… 29 borrowing market as a potential financial source for IMC projects. Thus, one of the areas of activity of the State Support Fund for Regional Development (SFRD) is the development of cooperation of territorial com- munities, but it receives a small number of applica- tions (out of 17,059 of all projects, only 235 projects in the field of IMC). The total amount of funding for cooperation between territorial communities and the SFRD during 2015–2018 was only 0.6% of the total project financing, which cannot be considered satisfactory either. In addition, during 2015–2017 no projects were implemented in the area “Coop- eration of territorial communities”, and in 2018 out of 60 implemented projects for a total amount of 298 744,5 thousand UAH only one project was im- plemented with the volume of financing of 1 330.7 thousand UAH. Also, not all project proposals submitted by com- munities are backed by co-operation agreements, and the existence of such agreements is a manda- tory requirement of the law for communities apply- ing for funding from the SRDF. Thirdly, there is a lack of awareness among lead- ers and employees of local self-government bodies about the possibilities of developing IMCs in improv- ing territorial governance and improving the quality of municipal services. In particular, an expert survey conducted by public organizations working in the field of self- organization support revealed a relatively low level of awareness among community leaders about the opportunities and mechanisms of cooperation. Only 40% of the respondents demonstrated real knowl- edge of the content of the forms and mechanisms of the IMC in accordance with the legislation (Dzûpin et al., 2017). Fourthly, there is a low level of activity in imple- mentation of information opportunities for the de- velopment of IMCs on the basis of the formation of municipal cooperation networks, inter-municipal as- sociations and associative structures that are already formed in the regions. Thus, according to experts, about half of the local councils that have concluded the agree- ment on cooperation of territorial communities do not have an official site, and half of the local councils that have a site do not publish information on inter- municipal cooperation on it. Reports on the imple- mentation of the agreement on cooperation of ter- ritorial communities are published by about 15–20% of the sites of local councils (Dzûpinet al., 2017). Existence of problems in the development of IMC in the regions of Ukraine is confirmed by the data of a sociological survey conducted in four regions of the Carpathian region. Overall, 39.7% of local government representatives do not consider lack of cooperation with other UTCs a problem. The reasons for the formation of problems in the field of MMC development are: – unfavorable social climate in the communities and in society in general, due to the low level of solidarity and involvement in the socio-econom- ic development of the territories; – low level of cooperation and culture of coopera- tion at the basic level of the Ukrainian communi- ties, lack of mutual trust when everyone wants to be “his own master”; – lack of transparency of the activities of local self- government bodies, which are potential partici- pants of the IMC; – lack of skills and competences due to insufficient staffing, familiar with the legal, organizational and financial capacity to implement IMC projects; – the absence of clearly defined strategic objec- tives for the development of UTCs, which can be solved through IMC; – little use of opportunities for participation of voluntary non-governmental organizations in stimulating the resolution of issues of local im- portance and control over the activity of local self-government bodies. 5. Conclusion Neighborhood municipal cooperation in Ukraine is developing in line with European trends in decen- tralization of power, multi-level governance, diversi- fication of governance structures through a number of network forms. Increasing the effectiveness of territorial governance is a major driver of deepening inter-municipal cooperation. This creates grounds for arguing that in Ukraine, at least since 2014, the European model of inter-municipal cooperation has been deliberately approved. At the same time, Ukraine has significantly lagged behind the countries of the European Union in the implementation of networked territorial gov- ernance. The reasons for this gap are different: from lack of trust to potential partners up to miscalcula- tions of public policy in the field of promoting inter- municipal cooperation. The implementation of a coherent state policy in the field of inter-municipal cooperation should aim at addressing the following key objectives: – development and adoption by the regional au- thorities of all regions of Ukraine of programs of financial support and encouragement of co- operation of territorial communities, as well as 30 Aleksander Kuczabski, Maksym Maksymchuk, Solomiya Kloba identification of potential territories in the re- gions where cooperation could be developed; – inclusion of mechanisms of inter-municipal co- operation in regional programs of socio-eco- nomic and cultural development of regions and introduction at the regional level of monitoring of its use; – awareness-raising work among representatives of local self-government bodies on the practi- cal application of the provisions of the Law on Cooperation of Territorial Communities through the organization of trainings, seminars, roundta- bles and study visits of the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the UGF, other events, the dissemi- nation of scientific literature, invitations of lead- ing Ukrainian and foreign students , experts, and analysts; – dissemination of positive experience of coopera- tion, public support and promotion of best prac- tices of cooperation, holding public contests of projects to mark the winners and supporting the implementation of their experience in other com- munities, as well as the formation of networks of exchange of experience on the development of inter-municipal cooperation between local self- government bodies of Ukraine; – organization of informal effective control by the public on the promotion of projects, implemen- tation of measures and obtaining the results of IMC. As a result, it should be noted that the cooperation of territorial communities not only creates problems but creates opportunities for solving them by stimu- lating entrepreneurial activity, expanding self-gov- ernment and civic creativity at a basic level. In view of this inter-municipal cooperation must become an effective instrument to complete the reform of de- centralization of power in Ukraine. References Baldersheim H., 2002, Subsidiarity at work: Modes of multi- level governance in European countries, [in:] Local Gov- ernment at the Millenium, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaf- ten, Wiesbaden, 203–211. Bel G., Miralles A., 2003, Factors influencing the privatisation of urban solid waste collection in Spain, Urban Studies, 40(7), 1323–1334. doi: 10.1080/0042098032000084622 Bel G., Warner M.E., 2015, Inter‐municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence, Public Administration, 93(1), 52–67. doi: 10.1111/padm.12104 Deller S.C., 1992, Production efficiency in local government: A parametric approach, Public Finance / Finances pub- liques, 47(1), 32–44. Dixit A., 1973, The optimum factory town, Bell Journal of Eco- nomics, 4(2), 637–654. Dzûpin M., Kalašnìkоva О., Kоlеsnìkоv О., 2017, Analìz sta- nu vprоvadžеnnâ spìvrоbìtnictva tеritоrìal’nih grоmad v Ukraїnì. Analìtičnij zvìt (eng. Analysis of the implemen- tation state of territorial communities’ cooperation in Ukraine. Analytical report), VGО ASSN, L’vìv. European Charter of Local Self-Government, 1985, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCom- monSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId= 090000168007a088 (accessed 15 May 2019). Feiock R.C., 2007, Rational choice and regional governance, Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), 47–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9906.2007.00322.x Gomez-Reino J.L., Martinez-Vazquez J., 2013, An international perspective on the determinants of local government fragmentation [in:] S. Lago-Peñas, J. Martinez-Vazquez (eds.), The challenge of local government size: theoretical perspectives, international experience and policy reform, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 8–54. Gruber L., 2000, Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational institutions, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Hanf K., Scharpf F.W., 1978, Interorganizational policy making: limits to coordination and central control (Vol. 1), Sage Pub- lications, London. Hertzog R., 2015, Inter-municipal cooperation: many ways, various models for strengthening local self-government, [in:] Mapping the obstacles to inter-municipal to coop- eration in Eastern Partnership countries, https://rm.coe. int/1680687d91 (accessed 15 May 2019). Hirsch W.Z., 1959, Expenditure implications of metropolitan growth and consolidation, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 41(3), 232–241. Kaczmarek T., 2005, Struktury terytorialno-administracyjne i ich reformy w krajach europejskich (Eng. Territorial-admin- istrative structures and their reforms in European coun- tries), Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań. Kenis P., Schneider V., 1991, Policy networks and policy analy- sis: scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox, [in:] Policy net- works: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 25–59. Kuczabski A., 2010, Admìnìstrativnо-tеritоrìal’na оrganìzacìâ Ukraїni: tеоrìâ, mеtоdоlоgìâ, mеhanìzmi stanоvlеnnâ (Eng. Administrative territorial organization of Ukraine: theory, methodology, mechanisms of formation), LRІDU NADU, L’vìv. Kuczabski A., 2017, Reforma podziału administracyjnego na Ukrainie jako uwarunkowanie rozwoju pogranicza polsko-ukraińskiego (Eng. The administrative division re- form in Ukraine as a condition for the development of the Polish-Ukrainian borderland), [in:] A. Miszczuk (ed.) Wyz- wania rozwojowe pogranicza polsko-ukraińskiego (Eng. Development challenges of the Polish-Ukrainian border- land), Norbertinum, Lublin, 215–234. Kuczabski A., Zastavetska L., Zastavetskyy T., 2017, The reform of administrative division in Ukraine: Problems of territo- rial communities’ formation in the Polish-Ukrainian bor- Implementation and development of the European model… 31 derland, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 7(2), 87–97. doi: 10.4467/24512249JG.17.019.6635 Kоnstitucìâ Ukraїni (Eng. Constitution of Ukraine), 1996, Zakоn Ukraїni 28.06.1996, http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80 (accessed 15 May 2019). Marin B., Mayntz R., 1991, Introduction: Studying Policy Net- works, [in:] B. Marin, R. Mayntz (eds.), Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt, 11–23. Mіžmunìcipal’nе spìvrоbìtnictvо: mоžlivоstì dlâ rоzvitku grоmad (Eng. Inter-municipal cooperation: opportunities for community development), http://lgdc.org.ua/sites/ default/files/library/ 20181212_mms_sambir.pdf (ac- cessed 15 May 2019). Mоnìtоring prоcеsu dеcеntralìzacії vladi ta rеfоrmuvannâ mìscеvоgо samоvrâduvannâ (Eng. Monitoring the decen- tralization process of power and local self-government reform), Dеcеntralìzacìâ daê mоžlivоstì, https://decen- tralization.gov.ua/mainmonitoring (accessed 15 May 2019). Niewiadomski Z., 1992, Polski samorząd terytorialny w świetle standardów europejskich (Eng. Polish territorial self-gov- ernment in the light of European standards), Samorząd Terytorialny, 11, 24–33. Nowacki K., 1996, Prawne formy współpracy między gminami w Austrii – Związki komunalne (Eng. Legal forms of co- operation between municipalities in Austria – Municipal associations), [in:] A. Błaś (ed.) Związki komunalne w Polsce i w państwach Europy Zachodniej (Eng. Municipal associa- tions in Poland and in Western Europe), Przegląd Prawa i Administracji, 35, 135–142. Oates W.E., 1972, Fiscal federalism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, New York. Proshko V., 2015, Intermunicipal cooperation in Ukraine, Strengthening Institutional Frameworks For Local Govern- ance Programme 2015–2017, https://rm.coe.int/CoERM- PublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?d ocumentId=0900001680687cda (accessed 15 May 2019). Prо mìscеvì Radi narоdnih dеputatìv Ukraїns’kої RSR ta mìscеvе samоvrâduvannâ (Eng. About local councils of people’s deputies of the Ukrainian SSR and local self-government), 1990, Zakоn Ukraїns’kої RSR 7.12.1990, https://zakon. rada.gov.ua/laws/show/533-12 (accessed 15 May 2019). Prо mìscеvе samоvrâduvannâ v Ukraїnì (Eng. About local self- government in Ukraine), 1997, Zakоn Ukraїni, http://za- kon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/280/97-%D0%B2%D1%80 (accessed 15 May 2019). Prо spìvrоbìtnictvо tеritоrìal’nih grоmad (eng. About coop- eration of territorial communities), 2014, Zakоn Ukraїni, http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1508 18 (accessed 15 May 2019). Prоgrama pìdtrimki spìvrоbìtnictva tеritоrìal’nih grоmad u L’vìvs’kìj оblastì na 2019–2020 rоki (Eng. Support pro- gram of territorial communities cooperation in Lviv re- gion for 2019–2020), http://www.oblrada.lviv.ua/news. php?news/4119/group/17 (accessed 15 May 2019). Spìvrоbìtnictvо grоmad (Eng. Cooperation of Communities), Dеcеntralіzacіâ daê mоžlivоstі, https://decentralization. gov.ua/cooperation (accessed 15 May 2019). Spìvrоbìtnictvо tеritоrìal’nih grоmad. Nеvikоristanì rеzеrvi (Eng. Cooperation of territorial communities. Unused reserves), http://samoorg.com.ua/blog/2017/09/25/spivrobitnit- stvo-teritorialnih-gromad-nevikoristani-rezervi (accessed 15 May 2019). Stоrоnâns’ka І., Maksimеnkо A., 2018, Оb’êdnanì tеritоrìal’nì grоmadi Karpats’kоgо rеgìоnu: sоcìоlоgіčna оcìnka (Eng. Unified territorial communities of the Carpathian region: sociological assessment), ІRD NANU, L’vìv. Swianiewicz P., Herbst M., 2002, Economies and disecono- mies of scale in Polish local governments, [in:] P. Swianie- wicz (ed.), Consolidation or fragmentation. The size of local Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, Local Govern- ment and Public Service Reform Initiative – Open Society Institute, Budapest, 219–292. Teles F., 2016, Local governance and intermunicipal coopera- tion, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmills. Tranin A., 1984, Administrativnо-tеrritоrial’naâ оrganizaciâ kapitalističеskоgо gоsudarstva (Eng. Administrative terri- torial organization of the capitalist state), Nauka, Mоskva. Warner M.E., 2006, Market‐based governance and the chal- lenge for rural governments, Social Policy & Administration, 40(6), 612–631. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2006.00523.x