Spatial disproportions in development of territorial community under conditions of administrative and financial decentralization
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to identify the spatial features of the social-economic development of territorial communities in the context of administrative and financial decentralization.
Methodology /approach. The method of system analysis is used in the work – to research the spheres of central-peripheral interactions at the level of territorial communities; method of comparative analysis – to identify trends in the formation and development of interactions between the center and the periphery in communities and the factors that determine them; abstract-logical method – for the formation of theoretical generalizations and formulation of conclusions from the research; method of graphic visualization, which allows providing a clear presentation of the results of the analysis; sociological survey of chairmen of local councils of territorial communities of Lviv region – to determine the state of development of central-peripheral interactions in their communities. The key role of territorial and systemic approaches to the analysis of core-peripheral interactions in territorial communities is emphasized, which made it expedient to form a research method based on taking into account the conditions for the development of a particular environment and existing spatial restrictions.
Results. The article identifies the features of the formation of core-peripheral interactions in the territorial communities of rural areas. It is focused on the formation of derivative core-peripheral interactions that arise in the territorial communities created during the implementation of administrative-territorial reform. On the basis of a systematic and comprehensive analysis, the existing and hidden core-peripheral dependencies were identified and the features of the mutual influence of the centers of the united territorial communities of the rural areas of the Lviv region on the socio-economic development of the community territory were revealed. The problems and risks of the development of the territory of the community are substantiated in the context of the mutual influence of a derivative nature.
Originality / scientific novelty. A scientific approach to the identification of central-peripheral interactions in territorial communities was developed, which allows identifying the spatial effects of social, economic, managerial interactions of the center and the periphery within the community. A scientific-and-methodological approach to the assessment of central-peripheral interactions was developed, which provides for the selection of community groups according to certain criteria (community type (urban / rural / urban), community composition, location in the region) and their diagnosis in areas: analysis of strategic documents of local council on the development of central-peripheral interactions in a community; analysis of the management structure of the local council, representation of peripheral communities, compliance of the composition and structure of the governing body with the goals of community development; analysis of budget support for infrastructure development; research of employment opportunities in the community. The application of the approach will reveal the patterns of formation of central-peripheral interactions at the level of territorial communities.
Practical value / implications. The results of the study make it possible to have a more comprehensive assessment of the state of the formation of central-peripheral interactions in territorial communities, contribute to the identification of risks of social conflict between different groups in the community and to form recommendations for their activation. The results are recommended for consideration by local governments when preparing proposals for socio-economic development and ensuring the financial capacity of local communities.
2. Storonyanska, I. and Benovska, L. (2017), Risks of administrative and financial decentralisation: theoretical hypotheses and empirical assessment. Economic Annals–XXI, vol. 166, is. 7–8, pp. 76–79. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V166-15.
3. Hrynchyshyn, I., Bil, M., Popadynets, N., Patytska, K., Leshchuh, I., Panukhnyk, O. (2019), Scientific-methodical foundations of estimation of territorial communities’ endogenous capacity in Ukraine in conditions of decentralization. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, vol. 95, pp. 314–319.
4. Rhodes, M. J., Epstein, R. and Börzel, T. A. (2019), Introduction: peripheries in competition? Political and economic development in the EU. West European Politics, vol. 42, is. 5, pp. 927–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1609195.
5. Börzel, T. A. and Langbein, J. (2019). Core–periphery disparities in Europe: is there a link between political and economic divergence? West European Politics, vol. 42, is. 5, hp. 941–964. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1558534.
6. Uwazie, I. U., Igwemma, A. A. and Ukah, F. I. (2015), Contributions of Andre Gunder Frank to the Theory of Development and Underdevelopment: Implications on Nigeria’s Development Situation. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 18, pp. 27–38.
7. Krugman, P. (1998), What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 14, is. 2, pp. 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/14.2.7.
8. Ascani A., Crescenzi, R. and Iammarino, S. (2012), New economic geography and economic integration: a review search. Search working paper WP01/02. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK, available at: http://www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WP-1.2.pdf.
9. Caraveli, H. (2017), The dynamics of the EU core-periphery division: Eastern vs. Southern periphery – a comparative analysis from a new economic geography perspective in Core-Periphery Patterns Across the European Union, ed. G. C. Pascariu and M. A. P. D. S. Duarte, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-495-820171001.
10. Naumann, M. and Fischer-Tahir, A. eds. (2013), Peripheralization. The making of spatial dependencies and social injustice. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19018-1.
11. Schulz, S. (2020), Ambitious or ambiguous? The implications of smart specialisation for core-periphery relations in Estonia and Slovakia. Baltic Journal of European Studies, vol. 9, is. 4, pp. 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2019-0037.
12. Magerman, G., De Bruyne, K., Van Hove, J. (2020), Pecking order and core-periphery in international trade. Review of International Economics, vol. 28, is. 4, pp. 1113–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12483.
13. Cohendet, P., Grandadam, D., Mehouachi, C. and Simon, L. (2018), The local, the global and the industry common: the case of the video game industry. Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 18, is. 5, pp. 1045–1068. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lby040.
14. Bernt, М. and Colini, L. (2013), Exclusion, marginalization and peripheralization conceptual concerns in the study of urban inequalities. Working Paper no. 49. Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning, Erkner, Germany.
15. Nordlund, C. (2018), Power-relational core-periphery structures: peripheral dependency and core dominance in binary and valued networks. Network Science, vol. 6, is. 3, pp. 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2018.15.
16. Draçi, B., Çaro, D. and Nikolli, P. (2014), Center – periphery urban territorial dynamics: the case of Durrës municipality – Albania. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 552–557. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n9p552.
17. Kubeš, J. and Chvojková, A. (2020), Back to peripheries based on remoteness. Human capital in the peripheral municipalities of South Bohemia. Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 79, pp. 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.045.
18. Pociute-Sereikiene, G. and Kriaučiunas, E. (2018), The development of rural peripheral areas in Lithuania: the challenges of socio-spatial transition. European Countryside, vol. 10, is. 3, pp. 498–515. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2018-0028.
19. Pylypenko, I. (2014), The general characteristics of the methods in social-geographic analy sis of the «center-periphery» system. Human Geography Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 47–50. https://doi.org/10.26565/2076-1333-2014-17-08.
20. Pidgrushny, G. P. and Denisenko, O. O. (2013), Kyiv and surrounding territory in the center – peripherial interaction. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, vol. 1, pp. 27–34. https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2013.01.027.
21. Melnik, M. I. (2016), Metropoliyni funktsiyi velykykh mist Ukrayiny: potentsial rozvytku ta perspektyvy realizatsiyi [Metropolian functions of large cities of Ukraine: development potential and prospects of implementation], NAS of Ukraine; SI Dolishny Institute for Regional Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Lviv, Ukraine.
22. Mezentsev, K. V., Pidgrushny, G. P. and Mezentseva, N. I. (2014), Rehionalʹnyy rozvytok v Ukrayini: suspilʹno-prostorova nerivnistʹ i polyaryzatsiya [Regional development in Ukraine: socio-spatial inequality and polarization], Print Service, Kyiv, Ukraine.
23. Portal of united communities of Ukraine Gromada.Info (2020), available at: https://gromada.info/region.
24. Davis, J. B. (2019), Economics and economic methodology in a core-periphery economic world. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, vol. 39, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-35172019-3004.
25. Official site of the Lviv City Council (2020), Lviv City Council together with Vodafone Ukraine conducted a large-scale study to develop the city's transport model, available at: https://city-adm.lviv.ua/news/city/lviv-changes/251171-lvivska-miska-rada-spilno-z-kompaniieiu-vodafone-ukraina-provely-masshtabne-doslidzhennia-dlia-rozvytku-transportnoi-modeli-mista.