Development of Rural Areas in Ukraine in the Context of Decentralization: An Empirical Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- (2)
- (3)
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Hypothesis 1
3.2. Hypothesis 2
Regions | The Period before Decentralization | The Period during Decentralization | Difference 2020 vs. 2014 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea | 0.32 | 0.36 | ||||||||
Vinnytsia region | 0.36 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0.75 | 0.67 | −0.02 |
Volyn region | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.53 | 0.79 | 0.69 | −0.09 |
Dnipropetrovsk region | 0.26 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.30 | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.05 |
Donetsk region | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.22 | −0.03 |
Zhytomyr region | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.75 | −0.06 |
Zakarpattia region | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 0.60 | 0.53 | −0.05 |
Zaporizhzhia region | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.03 |
Ivano-Frankivsk region | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.20 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.02 |
Kyiv region | 0.67 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.13 |
Kirovohrad region | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.55 | 0.71 | 0.64 | −0.04 |
Luhansk region | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.02 |
Lviv region | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.26 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.02 |
Mykolaiv region | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.80 | 0.66 | 0.49 | 0.59 | 0.47 | −0.23 |
Odesa region | 0.35 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.29 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.00 |
Poltava region | 0.47 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.56 | 0.71 | 0.65 | 0.03 |
Rivne region | 0.54 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.46 | 0.76 | 0.69 | −0.01 |
Sumy region | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.63 | −0.08 |
Ternopil region | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.44 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.03 |
Kharkiv region | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 0.03 |
Kherson region | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 0.71 | 0.62 | −0.09 |
Khmelnytskyi region | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.83 | 0.73 | −0.09 |
Cherkasy region | 0.73 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.59 | 0.80 | 0.72 | −0.03 |
Chernivtsi region | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.30 | 0.58 | 0.51 | −0.05 |
Chernihiv region | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.02 |
Regions | The Period before Decentralization | The Period during Decentralization | Difference 2020 vs. 2014 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea | 0.43 | 0.16 | ||||||||
Vinnytsia region | 0.46 | 0.87 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 0.72 | 0.46 | 0.53 | 0.59 | 0.85 | 0.45 |
Volyn region | 0.49 | 0.77 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.77 | 0.60 | 0.79 | 0.47 | 0.82 | 0.48 |
Dnipropetrovsk region | 0.33 | 0.76 | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 0.68 | 0.40 |
Donetsk region | 0.40 | 0.29 | 0.49 | 0.72 | −0.11 | |||||
Zhytomyr region | 0.33 | 0.75 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.70 | 0.43 |
Zakarpattia region | 0.42 | 0.71 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.41 | 0.69 | 0.43 |
Zaporizhzhia region | 0.29 | 0.68 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.50 | 0.32 |
Ivano-Frankivsk region | 0.54 | 0.82 | 0.60 | 0.34 | 0.80 | 0.50 | 0.64 | 0.40 | 0.78 | 0.39 |
Kyiv region | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.69 | 0.83 | 0.49 | 0.83 | 0.34 |
Kirovohrad region | 0.21 | 0.68 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.47 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.35 | 0.53 | 0.35 |
Luhansk region | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.37 | 0.12 | 0.41 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.54 | 0.37 | 0.01 |
Lviv region | 0.66 | 0.98 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.99 | 0.42 |
Mykolaiv region | 0.15 | 0.55 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.47 | 0.42 |
Odesa region | 0.31 | 0.67 | 0.20 | 0.45 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.62 | 0.45 |
Poltava region | 0.38 | 0.81 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.61 | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.30 | −0.03 |
Rivne region | 0.38 | 0.69 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.61 | 0.43 | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.64 | 0.39 |
Sumy region | 0.41 | 0.75 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.72 | 0.46 |
Ternopil region | 0.61 | 0.93 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.78 | 0.55 | 0.77 | 0.68 | 0.89 | 0.37 |
Kharkiv region | 0.33 | 0.79 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.58 | 0.75 | 0.46 |
Kherson region | 0.09 | 0.50 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.47 | 0.45 |
Khmelnytskyi region | 0.49 | 0.90 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.71 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.59 | 0.93 | 0.50 |
Cherkasy region | 0.39 | 0.75 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.57 | 0.34 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.66 | 0.40 |
Chernivtsi region | 0.65 | 0.92 | 0.73 | 0.57 | 0.78 | 0.53 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.89 | 0.37 |
Chernihiv region | 0.26 | 0.62 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.47 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.35 | 0.55 | 0.43 |
Regions | The Period before Decentralization | The Period during Decentralization | Difference 2020 vs. 2014 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea | 0.73 | 0.76 | ||||||||
Vinnytsia region | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.47 | −0.15 |
Volyn region | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.70 | −0.09 |
Dnipropetrovsk region | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.19 | −0.16 |
Donetsk region | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.16 | −0.04 |
Zhytomyr region | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.44 | −0.12 |
Zakarpattia region | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.84 | −0.16 |
Zaporizhzhia region | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.25 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.27 | −0.13 |
Ivano-Frankivsk region | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.72 | −0.12 |
Kyiv region | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.11 |
Kirovohrad region | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.34 | −0.11 |
Luhansk region | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.20 | 0.23 | −0.08 | |||||
Lviv region | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.56 | −0.11 |
Mykolaiv region | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.39 | −0.09 |
Odesa region | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.54 | −0.13 |
Poltava region | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.41 | 0.43 | −0.06 |
Rivne region | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.66 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.74 | −0.16 |
Sumy region | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 0.25 | −0.05 |
Ternopil region | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.59 | 0.62 | −0.11 |
Kharkiv region | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.24 | 0.23 | −0.14 |
Kherson region | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 0.47 | 0.38 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.47 | −0.14 |
Khmelnytskyi region | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.42 | 0.45 | −0.07 |
Cherkasy region | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.33 | 0.60 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.42 | −0.11 |
Chernivtsi region | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.75 | −0.11 |
Chernihiv region | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.24 | −0.01 |
Regions | The Period before Decentralization | The Period during Decentralization | Difference 2020 vs. 2014 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea | 0.89 | 0.84 | ||||||||
Vinnytsia region | 0.51 | 0.74 | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.06 |
Volyn region | 0.77 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.38 | −0.16 |
Dnipropetrovsk region | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.60 | 0.46 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.44 | 0.22 |
Donetsk region | 0.58 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.02 |
Zhytomyr region | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.62 | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.20 |
Zakarpattia region | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.60 | −0.02 |
Zaporizhzhia region | 0.39 | 0.69 | 0.55 | 0.56 | 0.73 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.49 | −0.09 |
Ivano-Frankivsk region | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.47 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.55 | 0.56 | −0.14 |
Kyiv region | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.65 | 0.56 | 0.29 | 0.38 | 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.19 |
Kirovohrad region | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.45 | 0.31 | 0.23 |
Luhansk region | 0.78 | 0.70 | 0.52 | 0.30 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.36 |
Lviv region | 0.63 | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.22 |
Mykolaiv region | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.49 | 0.61 | 0.53 | 0.65 | −0.04 |
Odesa region | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.48 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.53 | 0.71 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.06 |
Poltava region | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.13 | 0.40 | 0.32 | 0.08 |
Rivne region | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.75 | −0.11 |
Sumy region | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.76 | 0.42 | 0.73 | 0.63 | 0.92 | 0.72 | 0.74 | −0.02 |
Ternopil region | 0.57 | 0.64 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.35 | 0.55 | 0.33 | −0.12 |
Kharkiv region | 0.73 | 0.61 | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0.37 | 0.56 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.29 | −0.13 |
Kherson region | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.64 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.74 | −0.16 |
Khmelnytskyi region | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.13 |
Cherkasy region | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.42 | −0.24 |
Chernivtsi region | 0.77 | 0.89 | 0.62 | 0.68 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.25 |
Chernihiv region | 0.85 | 0.70 | 0.68 | 0.35 | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 | −0.22 |
4. Discussion
- The Kyiv region—increasing social expenditures from the regional budget; ensuring access to health care facilities;
- The Rivne region—increasing gross regional product per capita; social expenditures from the regional budget; wages, provision of preschool education; ensuring access to health care facilities;
- The Zhytomyr region—increasing gross regional product per capita; wages, provision of accommodation in rural areas, slowing down the rate of rural population decrease,
- The Ivano-Frankivsk region—increasing gross regional product per capita; increasing regional budget revenues; social expenditures from the regional budget; wages and rural employment rate, provision of preschool education; ensuring access to health care facilities; slowing down the rate of rural population decrease;
- The Volyn region—increasing gross regional product per capita; wages and rural employment rate, provision of preschool education; slowing down the rate of rural population decrease;
- The Chernihiv region—increasing gross regional product per capita; increasing regional budget revenues; social expenditures from the regional budget; wages, access to health care facilities; provision of accommodation in rural areas;
- The Chernivtsi region—increasing gross regional product per capita; increasing regional budget revenues; social expenditures from the regional budget; wages, access to health care facilities; provision of accommodation in rural areas, slowing down the rate of rural population decrease.
- Third, the maximum of the Rural Development Index did not change in 2018 and was equal to the level of 2014, which corresponds to the medium level. None of the regions of Ukraine meets high standards of rural development (very good level or excellent level) by all components of rural development.
- The Lviv region—increasing gross regional product per capita; increasing regional budget revenues; social expenditures from the regional budget; provision of preschool education; ensuring access to health care facilities;
- The Sumy region—increasing gross regional product per capita; social expenditures from the regional budget; wages, provision of accommodation in rural areas, slowing down the rate of rural population decrease,
- The Ternopil region—increasing gross regional product per capita; increasing regional budget revenues; social expenditures from the regional budget; wages and rural employment rate, provision of preschool education; slowing down the rate of rural population decrease.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
RD Domain | Relative Weight | Partial Variables | |
---|---|---|---|
Highest Weight (+) | Lowest Weight (−) | ||
Slovakia | |||
Environmental | 1 | Municipal waste in tonnes per capita; % of households by consumption of drinking water; % parks in communal verdure | % of permanent pastures in agricultural land; public sewage system availability |
Infrastructural | 0.88 | % of residential telephone lines; local communication lines per km2 | Telephone lines per capita; cable TV per capita |
Economic | 0.83 | % enterprises of total legal entities; % real estate, lease and commercial activities of total number of business entities | % non-profit organisations of total legal entities; % agriculture, hunting and fishing of total legal entities; % cooperatives of total legal entities |
Demographic | 0.49 | % working age population; population growth | Mortality rate under 1 year per 1000 live births; mortality rate under 28 days per 1000 live births |
Social | 0.31 | Sport stadiums per km2; swimming pools per km2 | % unemployed women of total unemployed persons; primary schools per capita |
Administrative | −0.39 | Post offices per km2; central government authorities per capita | % urban territory of municipality area; % public administration, defence, etc. of total subjects |
Poland | |||
Demographic | 1 | % females aged 30–39 of total population: actual Irving population aged 30–39 of total population | % males of working-age population; % over working-age persons of total population: |
Social | 0.56 | New residential buildings (usable floor space of dwelling units per km2); new single-family residential buildings | Library collection in volumes per 1000 population: registered unemployed by age (25–34 years) of total unemployed: Registered unemployed of total population |
Infrastructural | 0.55 | Gas consumption from gas-line system: electricity consumption per capita: % local (gmina) utility and environmental expenditures of total expenditures | % wages in local (gmina) expenditures; % public entities in utility expenditures; length of water supply system per capita |
Economic | 0.53 | % group 3 taxpayers (the highest income group) of total taxpayers: % private sector in service sector | % group 1 taxpayers (the lowest income group) of total taxpayers: % public sector in service sector |
Environmental | 0.28 | Natural monuments (natural attractions) per km2; generated sediment in tons of dry mass per km2 | % biological treatment plants of total municipal facilities; total number of treatment plants per 1000 population |
Administrative | 0.07 | % councillors with tertiary education level; % councillors aged 25–29 of total councillors | Local self-government bodies per 1000 population: organisational units controlled by powiat government |
Appendix B
Systems | Indicators | Weight |
---|---|---|
Rural Settlement (0.271) | Permanent population (person) | 0.320 |
Population density (person/m2) | 0.132 | |
Building area (m2) | 0.381 | |
Distance between administrative village and new urban district government (km) | 0.147 | |
Rural land (0.220) | Distance between administrative village and central city government (km) | 0.12 |
Proportion of cultivated land area (%) | 0.264 | |
Cultivated land area per capita (m2/person) | 0.236 | |
Proportion of construction land area (%) | 0.245 | |
Proportion of garden area (%) | 0.255 | |
Rural industry (0.253) | Total number of primary industry enterprises | 0.165 |
Total registered capital of primary industry enterprises (100 million yuan) | 0.136 | |
Total number of secondary industry enterprises | 0.134 | |
Total registered capital of secondary industry enterprises (100 million yuan) | 0.179 | |
Total number of tertiary industry enterprises | 0.154 | |
Total registered capital of tertiary industry enterprises (100 million yuan) | 0.232 | |
Rural human settlement environment (0.256) | Proportion of forest and grass area (%) | 0.107 |
Proportion of water area (%) | 0.103 | |
Road density (m/km2) | 0.117 | |
Number of hospitals (health centers) | 0.109 | |
Number of social welfare facilities | 0.188 | |
Number of cultural and leisure facilities | 0.190 | |
Ratio of teachers to students in primary and secondary schools (%) | 0.091 | |
Number of commercial service facilities, outlets | 0.095 |
References
- European Commission. Empowering Local Authorities in Partner Countries for Enhanced Governance and More Effective Development Outcomes. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/communication-local-authorities-in-partner-countries-com2013280-20130515_en_4.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2022).
- European Union. Supporting Decentralisation, Local Governance and Local Development through a Territorial Approach. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/030cde3f-c109-11e6-a6db-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 1 March 2022).
- Bojanic, A.N. The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Accountability, Economic Freedom, and Political and Civil Liberties in the Americas. Economies 2018, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhu, Y.; Zhou, X.; Li, J.; Wang, F. Technological Innovation, Fiscal Decentralization, Green Development Efficiency: Based on Spatial Effect and Moderating Effect. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; Zhang, X. Measuring the Efficiency of Fiscal Policies for Environmental Pollution Control and the Spatial Effect of Fiscal Decentralization in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, S.; Wen, L.; Wu, Y.; Yue, X.; Fan, G. Fiscal Decentralization and Local Environmental Pollution in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Liu, J. Fiscal Decentralization and Environmental Pollution: A Spatial Analysis. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2020, 2020, 9254150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bojanic, A.N. The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Growth, Inflation, and Inequality in the Americas. Cepal. Rev. 2018, 124, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baskaran, T.; Feld, T.P. Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth in OECD Countries: Is there a Relationship. Public Financ. Rev. 2012, 41, 421–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davoodi, H.; Zou, H. Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: A cross-country study. J. Urban Econ. 1998, 43, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Digdowiseiso, K. Is Fiscal Decentralization Growth Enhancing? A Cross-Country Study in Developing Countries over the Period 1990–2014. Economies 2022, 10, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filippetti, A.; Agnese, S. Decentralization and economic growth reconsidered: The role of regional authority. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2016, 34, 1793–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gemmel, N.; Kneller, R.; Sanz, I. Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: Spending versus Revenue Decentralization. Econ. Inq. 2013, 51, 1915–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iimi, A. Decentralization and economic growth revisited: An empirical note. J. Urban Econ. 2005, 57, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altunbas, Y.; Thornton, J. Fiscal Decentralization and Governance. Public Financ. Rev. 2012, 40, 66–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisman, R.; Gatti, R. Decentralization and corruption: Evidence across countries. J. Public Econ. 2002, 83, 325–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kyriacou, A.P.; Roca-Sagalés, O. Fiscal and political decentralization and government quality. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2011, 29, 204–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huynh, C.M.; Tran, H.N. Moderating effects of corruption and informality on the fiscal decentralization-economic growth nexus: Insights from OECD countries. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2021, 92, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ezcurra, R.; Pascual, P. Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: Evidence from several European Union countries. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2008, 40, 1185–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lessmann, C. Fiscal decentralization and regional disparity: Evidence from cross-section and panel data. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2009, 41, 2455–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Ezcurra, R. Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis. J. Econ. Geogr. 2010, 10, 619–644. [Google Scholar]
- Olar, A.; Jitea, M.I. Counterbalancing the Development Territorial Disparities in the Implementation of the CommunityLed Local Development EU Approach in Romania. Land 2021, 10, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davydenko, N.; Boiko, S.; Buriak, A.; Demianenko, I. Development of rural areas through fiscal decentralization. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference “Economic science for rural development”, Jelgava, Latvia, 11–14 May 2021; pp. 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faguet, J.P.; Sanchez, F. Decentralization and access to social services in Colombia. Public Choice 2014, 160, 227–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Letelier, S.L.E.; Sáez-Lozano, J.L. Expenditure Decentralization: Does It Make Us Happier? An Empirical Analysis Using a Panel of Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Storonyanska, I.; Hrynchyshyn, I.; Dub, A.; Horga, I. Fiscal decentralization in Europe in the context of social protection development. Econ. Ann. 2019, 175, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sujarwoto, S.; Tampubolon, G. Decentralisation and Citizen Happiness: A Multilevel Analysis of Self-rated Happiness in Indonesia. J. Happiness Stud. 2015, 16, 455–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Digdowiseiso, K.; Murshed, S.M.; Bergh, S.I. How Effective is fiscal decentralization for inequality reduction in developing countries? Sustainability 2022, 14, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tselios, V.; Rodríguez-Pose, A. Did Decentralisation Affect Citizens’ Perception of the European Union? The Impact during the Height of Decentralisation in Europe. Economies 2020, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajić, A.; Krunić, N.; Protić, B. Classification of Rural Areas in Serbia: Framework and Implications for Spatial Planning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jurjević, Ž.; Zekić, S.; Ðokić, D.; Matkovski, B. Regional Spatial Approach to Differences in Rural Economic Development: Insights from Serbia. Land 2021, 10, 1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churski, P.; Herodowicz, T.; Konecka-Szydłowska, B.; Perdał, R. Spatial Differentiation of the Socio-Economic Development of Poland–“Invisible” Historical Heritage. Land 2021, 10, 1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tselios, V.; Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Pike, A.; Tomaney, J.; Torrisi, G. Income inequality, decentralization and regional development in Western Europe. Environ. Plan. 2012, 44, 1278–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. The LEADER Approach. A Basic Guide, 2006. ENRD Home Page. The European Network for Rural Development (ENRD). Available online: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fms/pdf/2B953E0A-9045-2198-8B09-ED2F3D2CCED3.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2008).
- Navarro, F.; Labianca, M.; Cejudo, E.; De Rubertis, S.; Salento, A.; Maroto, J.; Belliggiano, A. Interpretations of Innovation in Rural Development. The Cases of Leader Projects in Lecce (Italy) and Granada (Spain) in 2007–2013 Period. Eur. Countrys. 2018, 10, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska, A. The importance of the leader programme 2007–2013 in the rural areas development in Poland. Res. Rural Dev. 2017, 2, 97–103. [Google Scholar]
- Alonso, G.C.; Masot, N.A. Rural space governance in Extremadura (SW Spain): Analysis of the Leader Approach. Eur. Countrys. 2020, 12, 448–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gargano, G. The Bottom-Up Development Model as a Governance Instrument for the Rural Areas. The Cases of Four Local Action Groups (LAGs) in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dziekański, P.; Prus, P. Financial Diversity and the Development Process: Case study of Rural Communes of Eastern Poland in 2009–2018. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, P. Decentralizations as an Incentive Scheme. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 1987, 3, 24–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, A.N. Decentralization: The Way forward for Rural Development? World Bank, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Sector Policy and Water Resources Division: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- Karanikolas, P.; Hatzipanteli, S. The Decentralization Process of Rural Development Policy in Greece. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2008, 18, 411–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maro, P.S. The impact of decentralization on spatial equity and rural development in Tanzania. World Dev. 1990, 18, 673–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, S.; Wang, H. Limited Decentralization: Understand China’s Land System from the Perspective of Central-Local Relation. Land 2022, 11, 517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Song, Y.; Liang, X.; Wang, L.; Geng, Y. Fiscal Decentralization, Urban-Rural Income Gap, and Tourism. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennebry, B.; Stryjakiewicz, T. Classification of Structurally Weak Rural Regions: Application of a Rural Development Index for Austria and Portugal. Quaest. Geogr. 2020, 39, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zekic, S.; Kleut, Z.; Matkovski, B. An analysis of key indicators of rural development in Serbia: A comparison with EU countries. Econ. Ann. 2017, 214, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pawlik, A.; Dziekański, P.; Przybytniowski, J.W. Influence of Financial Variables on the Development of Rural Communes of Eastern Poland in 2009–2018. Risks 2021, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shcherbak, V.; Ganushchak-Yefimenko, L.; Nifatova, O.; Fastovets, N.; Plysenko, H.; Lutay, L.; Tkachuk, V.; Ptashchenko, O. Use of key indicators to monitor sustainable development of rural areas. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2020, 6, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashemi, N.; Ghaffarv, G. A proposed Sustainable Rural Development Index: Lessons from Hajij village, Iran. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalek, J.; Zarnekow, N. Application of the Rural Development Index to Analysis of Rural Regions in Poland and Slovakia. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 105, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banakar, V.; Patil, S.V. A Conceptual Model of Rural Development Index. Int. J. Hortic. Agric. Food Sci. 2018, 2, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Luo, J.; Zhang, C.; Tian, L.; Liu, Q.; Chen, G.; Tian, Y. Study on the Level and Type Identification of Rural Development in Wuhan City’s New Urban Districts. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cadoná, L.A.; Umburanas, R.C.; Junior, P.A.V.; Dourado Neto, D. Sustainable Rural Development Index. World Economics Association (WEA) Conferences, No. 2 2016, Food and Justice, 5 November–15 December 2016. Available online: https://foodandjustice2016.weaconferences.net/papers/sustainable-rural-development-index/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
- Tae-Hwa, K.; Seung-Ryong, Y. Construction Of The Rural Development Index: The Case Of Vietnam. J. Rural. Dev. /Nongchon-Gyeongje Ang 2016, 39, 113–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khomiuk, N.; Bochko, O.; Pavlikha, N.; Demchuk, A.; Stashchuk, O.; Shmatkovska, T.; Naumenko, N. Economic modeling of sustainable rural development under the conditions of decentralization: A case study of Ukraine. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2020, 20, 317–332. [Google Scholar]
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Ten Guidelines for Effective Decentralisation Conducive to Regional Development OECD. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/eurasia/countries/ukraine/Ten-Guidelines-for-Effective-Decentralisation-Conducive-to-Regional-Development.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Yearbook of Ukraine. Available online: http://ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/11/Yearbook_2020_e.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Armstrong, J.S.; Adya, M.; Collopy, F. Rule-Based Forecasting: Using Judgment in Time-Series Extrapolation. In Principles of Forecasting; A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners; Kluwer: Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Rural Development Concept on 23 September 2015 No. 995-p. Available online: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995-2015-%D1%80#Text (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Patyka, N.; Gryschenko, O.; Kucher, A.; Hełdak, M.; Raszka, B. Assessment of the Degree of Factors Impact on Employment in Ukraine’s Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dmytryshyn, M.; Dmytryshyn, R.; Yakubiv, V.; Zagorodnyuk, A. Peculiarities of Ukrainians’ Approval of Decentralization Reform. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kvålseth, T.O. Coefficient of Variation: The Second-Order Alternative. J. Appl. Stat. 2016, 44, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Budget Code of Ukraine on 8 July 2010. No. 2456-VI. Available online: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/79-19#Text (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. About Modification of the Budget Code of Ukraine Concerning Reform of Interbudgetary Relations on 28 December 28 2014. No. 79-VIII. Available online: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2456-17?lang=en#Text (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Publication “Regions of Ukraine”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/Arch_reg.htm (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical publication “Gross regional product”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/03/Arch_vrp.htm (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Ministry of Finance of Ukraine. Statistical Yearbook “Budget of Ukraine”. Available online: https://www.mof.gov.ua/uk/statistichnij-zbirnik (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Publication “Expenditure and Resources of Households of Ukraine”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/06/vrd_20_ue.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Publication “Economic Activity of Population in Ukraine”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/07/zb_r_s_2020.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Publication “Preschool education in Ukraine”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/publosvita_u.htm (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Ministry of Health of Ukraine. Statistics. Available online: http://medstat.gov.ua/ukr/statdan.html (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Dyakonenko, O.I. Influence of financial decentralization on development of rural settlements in Ukraine. Demogr. Soc. Econ. 2018, 3, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Publication “Transport and Communication of Ukraine”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/10/zb_Transpot.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Statistical Publication“Resident Population of Ukraine by Sex and Age”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/06/zb_rpn21_ue.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Demographic Yearbook “Population of Ukraine”. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/10/dem_2020.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Belei, S. Development of Rural Areas in Conditions of Decentralization. Ef. Ekon. 2021, 1. Available online: http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/?op=1&z=8503 (accessed on 16 May 2022).
- Dubnevych, Y.; Dubnevych, N.; Dorosh, U. Social and economic development of rural areas under conditions of decentralization. Agric. Econ. 2019, 1–2, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Britchenko, I.; Bezpartochnyi, M.; Maslii, N. Financial decentralization in Ukraine: Prerequisites, problems, prospects. VUZF Rev. 2019, 4, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Titenko, Z. Budgetary decentralization as a factor for the rural development of rural areas of Ukraine. Agrosvit 2020, 7, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hotra, V.V.; Kovach, A.Y. The influence of the decentralization process on the development of rural areas. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod University. Ser. Econ. 2021, 1, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliynyk-Dunn, O.M.; Wasilewski, M.; Wasilewska, N.; Okhrimenko, I.; Adamenko, V. Transformation of the financing patterns of agricultural enterprises in the conditions of the financial system crisis: A case of Ukraine and the USA. Econ. Ann.-Xxi 2020, 182, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boiko, S.V.; Shirinyan, L.V. Horizontal equalization of regional budgets in the system of interbudget financial provision of regions of Ukraine. Econ. Horiz. 2018, 3, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakal, O.; Kovalenko, A.; Tretiak, R.; Tretiak, N. Results of the decentralization reform in Ukraine: Land use. Scientific Papers Series Management. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2019, 19, 511–516. [Google Scholar]
Indicator | The Period before Decentralization | The Period during Decentralization | Difference 2020 vs. 2014 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
Social component of Rural Development Index | ||||||||||
The proportion of children in preschool education in rural areas, % (xsoc2) | 38 | 41 | 40 | 40 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 43 | 39 | −2 |
Number of RMPs per 1000 rural population (xsoc3) | 0.86 | 1.06 | 1.06 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.94 | −0.13 |
Infrastructural component of Rural Development Index | ||||||||||
Growth (decrease) rate in the provision of rural population with accommodation, % (xinfrast2) | 100.77 | 100.76 | 95.33 | 100.87 | 100.68 | 100.39 | 100.62 | 100.59 | 99.95 | −0.82 |
Demographic component of Rural Development Index | ||||||||||
Share of rural population, % (xdemog1) | 31.23 | 31.12 | 31.02 | 30.88 | 30.81 | 30.77 | 30.71 | 30.70 | 30.70 | −0.53 |
Growth (decrease) rate in the number of the available rural population, % (xdemog2) | 99.41 | 99.45 | 99.40 | 94.08 | 99.39 | 99.44 | 99.34 | 99.09 | 98.97 | −0.45 |
Employment component of Rural Development Index | ||||||||||
Rural employment rate, % (xemploy1) | 62.7 | 63.5 | 55.9 | 55.1 | 54.9 | 54.4 | 55.0 | 48.9 | 47.1 | −15.6 |
Average duration of job search by the unemployed in rural areas, months (xemploy2) | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 1 |
Indicator | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Critical Indicator Until 2025 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of rural population, million people | 14.3 | 14.2 | 14.1 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 13.1 | 13.0 | 12.9 | 12.8 | Increase |
The level of wages in agriculture, Euro | 203.88 | 220.88 | 162.64 | 136.57 | 148.28 | 201.87 | 235.11 | 305.88 | 316.92 | Increase |
Number of jobs in the rural area, thousands | 6370.70 | 6405.90 | 5292.40 | 5134.20 | 5098.40 | 5047.10 | 5089.20 | 5163.5 | 4931.6 | Increase up to 1 mln |
The rate of the employed rural population growth, according to 2015 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.01 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 1.5 times |
Share of income of rural households from entrepreneurial activity and self-employment | 3.1 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 5.1 | 5.6 | 5.6 | Increase up to 15% |
Regions | The Period before Decentralization | The Period during Decentralization | Difference 2020 vs. 2014 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea | 0.46 | 0.40 | ||||||||
Vinnytsia region | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.05 |
Volyn region | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 0.41 | −0.05 |
Dnipropetrovsk region | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | −0.06 |
Donetsk region | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.57 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.44 | −0.13 |
Zhytomyr region | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.01 |
Zakarpattia region | 0.11 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.08 |
Zaporizhzhia region | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.57 | −0.07 |
Ivano-Frankivsk region | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.01 |
Kyiv region | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.62 | −0.02 |
Kirovohrad region | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.50 | −0.02 |
Luhansk region | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.31 | −0.01 |
Lviv region | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.43 | −0.02 |
Mykolaiv region | 0.54 | 0.60 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.55 | 0.47 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.02 |
Odesa region | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.00 |
Poltava region | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.61 | 0.70 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.02 |
Rivne region | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.38 | −0.08 |
Sumy region | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.01 |
Ternopil region | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.12 |
Kharkiv region | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.46 | −0.08 |
Kherson region | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.33 | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.03 |
Khmelnytskyi region | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.37 | −0.07 |
Cherkasy region | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 0.41 | −0.01 |
Chernivtsi region | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.22 | −0.01 |
Chernihiv region | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.04 |
State | The Period before Decentralization | The Period during Decentralization | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
All regions of Ukraine | |||||||||
Average | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.55 |
Median | 0.51 | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.51 | 0.54 |
Maximum | 0.64 | 0.73 | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.71 |
Minimum | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.20 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.32 | 0.36 |
Standard Deviation | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
Coefficient of variation, % | 15.99 | 16.07 | 14.95 | 18.47 | 15.26 | 18.83 | 19.56 | 15.32 | 15.84 |
Regions of Ukraine excluding the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. the city of Sevastopol and a part of the temporarily occupied territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014–2020 | |||||||||
Average | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.54 | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.51 |
Median | 0.51 | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
Maximum | 0.64 | 0.73 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.72 |
Minimum | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.38 | 0.36 |
Standard Deviation | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
Coefficient of variation, % | 15.99 | 16.07 | 18.48 | 16.87 | 13.16 | 15.91 | 18.66 | 15.03 | 15.24 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Davydenko, N.; Wasilewska, N.; Boiko, S.; Wasilewski, M. Development of Rural Areas in Ukraine in the Context of Decentralization: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116730
Davydenko N, Wasilewska N, Boiko S, Wasilewski M. Development of Rural Areas in Ukraine in the Context of Decentralization: An Empirical Study. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11):6730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116730
Chicago/Turabian StyleDavydenko, Nadiia, Natalia Wasilewska, Svitlana Boiko, and Mirosław Wasilewski. 2022. "Development of Rural Areas in Ukraine in the Context of Decentralization: An Empirical Study" Sustainability 14, no. 11: 6730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116730