PROBLEMS OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND DECENTRALIZATION УДК 332:338.24:352 STORONYANSKA Iryna1, BENOVSKA Liliya2 1Institute of Regional Research named after M.I. Dolishniy of the NAS of Ukraine, Research ID : http://www.researcherid.com/rid/ SPATIAL ASYMMETRIES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL DECENTRALIZATION Theoretical principles and world experience of the influence of administrative and financial decentralization on spatial development processes are highlighted and modern tendencies and peculiarities of territorial differentiation of development in Ukraine formed under conditions of decentralization are revealed. It is determined that Ukraine failed to avoid the deepening territorial socio-economic differentiation, and the mechanisms of direct regulation and indirect influence turned out to be unable to resolve the problems of the unevenness of the endogenous community development potential and various efficiency of its use. The current state of spatial development in Ukraine is characterized by the following trends: (i) decreased level of interregional differentiation; (ii) increased differentiation at the level of districts under influence of budgetary decentralization mechanisms; (iii) increased level of differentiation of fiscal capacity of territorial communities having direct budgetary relations with the state budget; (iv) increased concentration of economic activity in “growth points”, which produces a tendency to expand the areas of depressiveness; (v) increased asymmetry between suburban areas and territorial communities remote from major cities; (vi) deepening the gap in financial capacities within the same district between the territorial communities that joined the united territorial communities and those that were not included. Keywords:asymmetries of economic development, spatial disproportions, administrative and financial decentralization, financial capacity, risks
1. Oates W. Fiscal Federalism. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. 2. Weingast B. The economic role of political institutions: market-preserving federalism and economic development. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1995, No. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-31. 3. McKinnon R. EMU as a device for collective fiscal retrenchment. The American Economic Review, 1997, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 227-229, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/2950920?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. 4. Prud'homme R. The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer, 1995, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 201-220, available at: documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/602551468154155279/pdf/770740JRN0WBRO0Box0377291B00PUBLIC0.pdf. doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.2.201 5. Qian Y., Weingast B. Federalism as a commitment to preserving market incentives. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1997, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 83-92, available at: www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.11.4.83. doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83 6. Qian Y., Roland G. Federalism and the soft budget constraint. The American Economic Review, 1998, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 1143-1162, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/116864?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. 7. Ponomareva M., Zhuravskaya E. Federal Tax Arrears: Liquidity Problems, Federal Subsides, or Regional Protection? Working paper No. 2001/029. Moscow, New Economic School, 2001, available at: www.nes.ru/dataupload/files/programs/econ/preprints/2001/Zhuravskaya.pdf. 8. Sepúlveda C., Martínez-Vázquez J. The consequences of fiscal decentralization on poverty and income equality. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 2011, Vol. 29, Iss. 2, pp. 321-343, available at: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/c1033r . doi.org/10.1068/c1033r 9. West L., Wong C. Fiscal decentralization and growing regional disparities in rural China: some evidence in the provision of social services. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 1995, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, pp. 70-84. doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/11.4.70 10. Ravallion M. Reaching Poor Areas in a Federal System. Policy Research Working Paper No. 1901. Washington, DC, World Bank, 1998, available at: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.6750&rep=rep1&type=pdf. 11. Béland D., Lecours A. Does nationalism trigger welfare-state disintegration? Social policy and territorial mobilization in Belgium and Canada. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 2010, Vol. 28, Iss. 3, pp. 420-434, available at: journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1068/c0956r. doi.org/10.1068/c0956r 12. Rodríguez-Pose A., Ezcurra R. Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Economic Geography, 2010, Vol 10, Iss. 5, pp. 619-644, available at: academic.oup.com/joeg/issue/10/5. doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbp049 |