Abstract
The article presents a systematic study of social cohesion phenomenon at the level of amalgamated hromadas as a key local entity of decentralization reform in Ukraine. Building on the analysis of the 26 semi-structured interviews conducted in amalgamated hromadas of two border regions of Ukraine – Kharkiv and Chernivtsi, the author has identified social cohesion components, their interconnection as well as positive and negative factors of social cohesion strengthening at community level. Relying on Chan’s empirical model and perceived perspective of social cohesion, hromada amalgamation is conceptualized as a transformation process of avoiding ‘old practices’ to form ‘new order’. In the process, the establishing of democratic tools, local activist growth, reducing gaps between center and periphery, formation of common sociocultural space are emphasized. Strengthening social cohesion components at the hromada level are stated to become a sure basis for ‘a giant leap’ of Ukraine’s democratisation in the nearest future.
Go to article
Bibliography
1. Aasland, Aadne, and Oleksii Lyska. 2016. Local democracy in Ukrainian cities: civic participation and responsiveness of local authorities. Post-Soviet Affairs, 32, 2: 152–175.
2. Babenko, Svetlana. 2002. Life Strategies and Social Practices: Sociocultural Potential of the Post-Soviet Society Transformation. Methodology, theory and practice of sociological analysis of society, 73, 2: 57–64.
3. Bader, Max. 2020. Decentralization and a Risk of Local Elite Capture in Ukraine. In: H. Shelest and M. Rabinovych, eds. Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and Conflict. The Case of Ukraine. Basingstocke: Palgrave McMillan, 259–282.
4. Berger-Schmitt, Regina. 2002. Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: Concept and measurement. Social indicators research, 58, 1-3: 403–428.
5. Bollen, K. A. and Hoyle, R. H. 1990. Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social forces, 23, 3: 479–504.
6. Bottoni, Gianmaria. 2018. A multilevel measurement model of social cohesion. Social Indicators Research, 136, 3: 835–857.
7. Chan, Joseph, Ho-Pong To, and Elaine Chan. 2006. Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social indicators research, 75, 2: 273–302. 8.
Council of Europe. 2008. Report of high-level task force on social cohesion: Towards an active, fair, and socially cohesive Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
9. Delhey, Jan, Klaus Boehnke, Georgi Dragolov, Zsófia S Ignácz, Mandi Larsen, Jan Lorenz, and Michael Koch. 2018. Social Cohesion and its Correlates: A Comparison of Western and Asian Societies. Comparative Sociology, 17, 3-4: 426–455.
10. Dickes, Paul, and Marie Valentova. 2013. Construction, validation and application of the measurement of social cohesion in 47 European countries and regions. Social indicators research, 113, 3: 827–846.
11. Dragolov, Georgi, Zsófia Ignácz, Jan Lorenz, Jan Delhey, and Klaus Boehnke. 2013. Social cohesion radar measuring common ground: An international comparison of social cohesion methods report. http://aei.pitt.edu/74134/1/Social_cohesion_radar.pdf, accessed 30.09.2020.
12. Fonseca, Xavier, Stephan Lukosch, and Frances Brazier. 2019. Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32, 2: 231–253.
13. Golovakha, Evgeniy I., and Panina, Nataliya V. 2006. Main Stages and Trends in the Transformation of Ukrainian Society: from Perestroika to the Orange Revolution. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing 3: 32–51.
14. Jenson, Jane. 1998. Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. Ottawa: Canadian policy research networks.
15. Kutsenko, Olga. 2004. Phases and Ways of Systemic Transformations: Similarities and Differences in the Former Countries of State Socialism. In: O. Kutsenko, S. Babenko, eds. Postcommunist Transformations: Vectors, Dimensions, Content. Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Publisher, 251–274.
16. Law of Ukraine ‘About Voluntary Amalgamation of Territorial Hromadas’. 2015. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/157-19#Text, accessed 30.09.2020.
17. Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack Snyder. 2002. Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War. International Organization, 56, 2: 297–337.
18. Monitoring of the Decentralization Process and Local Self-Government Reform. 2020. https://decentralization .gov.ua/mainmonitoring, accessed 30.09.2020.
19. Oleinekova, Olga 2020. Decentralization Reform: An Effective Vehicle for Modernization and Democratization in Ukraine? In: H. Shelest and M. Rabinovych, eds. Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and Conflict. The Case of Ukraine. Basingstocke: Palgrave McMillan, 311–338.
20. Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Concept of Reforming Local Self-Government and Territorial Organization of Power in Ukraine’. 2014. https://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/333-2014-%D1%80, accessed 30.09.2020.
21. Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ‘Concept of Reforming Local Self-Government and Territorial Structure of Power’. 2014. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/333-2014-%D1%80#Text, accessed 25.11.2020.
22. Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/perspectives-on-global-development-2012_persp_glob_dev-2012-en, accessed 30.09.2020.
23. Rabinovych, M., Shelest, H. 2020. Introduction: Regional Diversity, Decentralization, and Conflict in and around Ukraine. In: H. Shelest and M. Rabinovych, eds. Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and Conflict. The Case of Ukraine. Basingstocke: Palgrave McMillan.
24. Rajulton, F., Ravanera, Z. R. and Beaujot, R. 2007. Measuring social cohesion: An experiment using the Canadian national survey of giving, volunteering, and participating. Social Indicators Research, 80, 3: 461–492.
25. Riabchuk, Mykola. 2015. The ‘Two Ukraines’ Reconsidered: The End of Ukrainian Ambivalence? Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 15, 1: 138–156.
26. Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ‘State Strategy for Regional Development 2015 - 2020’. 2014. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/385-2014-%D0%BF#Text, accessed 23.11.2020.
27. Report ‘Сonflicts in the Amalgamated Territorial Hromadas: Types, Reasons, Forms, Consequences’. 2018. Association of Impowering Self-Organization of Population.Kropyvnytskyi.
28. Romanova, Valentyna, and Andreas Umland. 2019. Decentralising Ukraine: Geopolitical Implications. Survival, 61, 5: 99–112.
29. Rotterdam Resilient Strategy. 2020. https://www.resilientrotterdam.nl/en/download, accessed 30.11.2020.
30. Tkachuk, A.F. 2018. From a Perspective Plan to the Community Development Strategy (Through the Prism of the Experience of the Amalgamated Territorial Hromadas in Khmelnytskyi Region). Kiev: Juston Publishing House LLC.
31. Zhurzhenko, Tatiana. 2014. Divided Nation? Reconsidering the Role of Identity Politics in the Ukraine Crisis. Die Friedens-Warte, 89, 1/2: 249–267.
32. Ukrainian society 1992–2013. Current state and dynamics of changes. Sociological monitoring. Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine. 2013. https://i-soc.com.ua/assets/files/monitoring/soc-mon-2013.pdf, accessed 27.11.2020.
33. Umland, Andreas. 2019. International Implications of Ukraine’s Decentralization. VOXUkraine, January 30. https://voxukraine.org/en/international-implications-of-ukraine-s-decentralization/, accessed 27.11.2020.
34. Zhalilo Y.A, Shevchenko O.V., Romanova V.V. 2019. Decentralization of Power: Agenda for the Medium Term. Kyiv: National Institute for Strategic Studies.
Go to article
en
pl
