ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE-TERRITORIAL UNITS: LEGAL STATUS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Territorial communities (hromadas) are increasingly acting as economic agents, responsible for allocating resources, developing the area and providing public goods. Their capacity largely depends on effective economic co-operation. This study aims to analyse administrative-territorial units as economic actors and examine the legal mechanisms governing their economic co-operation. A combination of dialectical, system-structural, comparative-legal and formal-legal methods is employed in the research. The results demonstrate that the current legal framework in Ukraine does not fully align with the economic functions of territorial communities. The absence of a clear concept of economic legal personality, inconsistencies in the distribution of budgetary powers and fragmented regulation of intermunicipal co-operation limit the efficient use of resources and hinder local economic development. The study identifies the key legal gaps that affect economic co-operation. These include conflicts in the delimitation of competences between levels of government, and insufficient implementation of the principle of subsidiarity in the economic sphere. The paper pays special attention to institutional forms of economic co-operation, such as joint municipal enterprises, inter-municipal partnerships and public-private partnerships. These are assessed in terms of their capacity to reduce transaction costs and enhance economic efficiency. The paper also examines how European standards of financial autonomy and multilevel governance impact the development of local economic systems. The findings highlight the necessity of modernising the legal framework to better align it with the economic functions of administrative-territorial units. The proposed approach strengthens economic autonomy, improves interterritorial co-operation and ensures sustainable local development, particularly in the context of post-crisis recovery and integration into the European economic space.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
economic co-operation, financial decentralisation, budgetary powers, communal property, local self-government
Antonyuk, N. A., Protsyk, O. S., Lyubka, V. V., Zherebukh, Y.-D. R., & Savka, V. B. (2023). Management system for the socio-economic development of territorial communities in modern institutional conditions. Scientific Notes of the Lviv University of Business and Law. Economic Series. Legal Series, (36), 217–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7794831
Opanasenko, O. (2024, January 8). Last year, local budgets received almost 442 billion hryvnias: The main income is personal income tax. Babel. https://babel.ua/en/news/102609-last-year-local-budgets-received-almost-442-billion-hryvnias-the-main-income-is-personal-income-tax
Baranovska, V., Zavertneva-Yaroshenko, V., Dryshliuk, V., Leshanych, M., & Huk, I. M. (2022). Legal regulation of public-private partnership relations and protection of the interests of business entities in Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga, 11(50), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.50.02.10
Bel, G., Bischoff, I., Blaka, S., Casula, M., Lysek, J., Swianiewicz, P., Tavares, A. F., & Voorn, B. (2023). Styles of inter-municipal co-operation and the multiple principal problem: A comparative analysis of European Economic Area countries. Local Government Studies, 49, 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2022.2041416
Brauksa, I. (2013). Overcoming comparison problems after administrative territorial reform in Latvia: Municipality budget analysis. New Challenges of Economic and Business Development. University of Latvia. https://eszf.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/lu_portal/projekti/bvef/konferences/konference_2013/report/6Session/Brauksa.pdf
Buryk, Z. M. (2020). Development of regions and ATCs in the context of decentralization reform. Investments: Practice and Experience, (23), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6814.2020.23.85
Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. C. (2020). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001
Chepel, O. D. (2019). Reform of municipal bodies and administrative-territorial system: On the example of Ukraine, Poland and Latvia. Enterprise, Economy and Law, (5), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.32849/2663-5313/2019.5.34
European Committee of the Regions. (2024). European Cross-border Mechanism 2.0 (Opinion C/2024/3672). EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202403672
European Parliament. (2023). Mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (EPRS_STU(2023)740233_EN). Brussels. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2023)740233
Folke, O., & Rickne, J. (2024). The more the merrier? Examining the effects of inter-municipal co-operation on costs and service quality in upper secondary education. Journal of Economic Policy Reform. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2024.2326410
Hirota, H., & Akai, N. (2024). Inter-municipal co-operation and tax enforcement capabilities (Research Paper). Osaka School of International Public Policy. https://www.osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp/archives/DP/2024/DP2024E004.pdf
Kolomoiets, T., Alimov, K., Matiiko, M., Popeliuk, V., & Huk, I.-M. (2022). Public–private partnership: Problems of contractual settlement. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 11(51), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.34069/ai/2022.51.03.19
Kwadwo, V. O., & Skripka, T. (2021). Metropolitan governance and environmental outcomes: Does inter-municipal co-operation make a difference? Local Government Studies, 48, 771–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.1958785
Kwiatkowski, M. A., Grzelak-Kostulska, E., & Biegańska, J. (2024). What builds inter-municipal co-operation? Assumed and added effects of a metropolitan bicycle-sharing project. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12599
Laboratory of Legislative Initiatives (2021). Analytics on community co-operation as an instrument of the democratic process. https://parlament.org.ua/analytics/analityka-dnya-spivrobitnycztvo-gromad-yak-instrument-demokratychnogo-proczesu/
Ministry of Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine (2025). Register of agreements on co-operation of territorial communities. https://mtu.gov.ua/content/reestr-dogovoriv-pro-spivrobitnictvo-teritorialnih-gromad.html
Portal “Decentralization” (2025). Community co-operation. https://decentralization.gov.ua/co-operation
Romanova, V., & Umland, A. (2019). Ukraine’s decentralization reforms since 2014: Why and how local communities amalgamate. Chatham House, Royal Institute of International Affairs. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/09/ukraines-decentralization-reforms-2014/2-why-and-how-local-communities-amalgamate
Warner, M. E., Aldag, A. M., & Kim, Y. (2020). Privatization and intermunicipal co-operation in U.S. local government services: Balancing fiscal stress, need and political interests. Public Management Review, 23, 1359–1376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1751255
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.