Abstract
Every countrywide reform can always have specific opponents and fans as the changes make people leave their comfort zone. As an example, we have chosen a Ukrainian decentralization reform. Although this local self-government reform can be considered the most successful in our country, the attitude of Ukrainians to the changes has not always been unambiguous. Using taxonomic analysis, the paper calculates the integrated indicator of public approval of decentralization reform in Ukraine based on sociological research for 2015–2020. We have described the features of conducting surveys in different periods and identified the reasons for the emergence of such an attitude to the reform. We have also calculated the weights of the impact of each primary indicator on the integrated indicator, which helped us identify the weaknesses and strengths of the reform in public opinion Furthermore, the analysis allowed us to reveal and substantiate a set of problems in implementing decentralization reform in Ukraine, and the causes and solutions were worked out for each problem. Finally, we have made a generalized algorithm for the application of the experience of public opinion analysis in planning and carrying out reforms.
Highlights
Accepted: 15 September 2021In 2015, local self-government reform was launched in Ukraine, which later became known as the “decentralization reform”
In the course of the research, we found that the population of Ukraine has different attitudes to the reform in general and its aspects in particular
The integrated indicator obtained in the calculation process is noted in the graph (Figure 1)
Summary
In 2015, local self-government reform was launched in Ukraine, which later became known as the “decentralization reform”. Its key essence was the transfer of power to resolve local affairs to the primary level of self-government—the community. With authority, resources and responsibility for the decision-making efficiency were transferred to the minor local self-government subjects. For all communities to be financially, professionally, and institutionally capable of performing their functions and tasks, they needed to have a particular demographic, territorial, and industrial potential. In 2015–2019, there was a voluntary unification of small settlements around a more robust center and a united territorial community was created. Some more powerful communities did not want to unite with economically weak outlying areas, or the community did not want any association
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
