Foreign experience of decentralization changes: lessons for Ukraine

Problem setting. The changes taking place in Ukraine are closely linked to the need to reform the system of local government and build civil society. The experience of the development of foreign countries, which have passed the path of decentralization in the initial conditions, as close as possible to the Ukrainian ones, the experience of the reform of the administrative-territorial system should be used in Ukraine. This process will be the basis for ensuring a high standard of living, access to quality services at the level of local communities.Recent research and publications analysis. Many domestic scholars have worked and are working on the problems of decentralization reform, changes in the administrative-territorial system, which directly affect the redistribution and formation of budgets of territorial units of the basic level, in particular: O. Vasylyk, I. Volokhova, V. Demyanyshyn, O. Kyrylenko, V. Averyanov, B. Adamov, G. Atamanchuk, V. Bakumenko, S. Bila, Z. Varnaliy, B. Danylyshyn, V. Knyazev , V. Kozbanenko, S. Kolomiytsev, V. Kravchenko, V. Kuybida, which is an important factor for the implementation of administrative reform in Ukraine and the avoidance of undesirable risks that may adversely affect the decentralization process in general. At the same time, the experience of foreign scholars is important: M. Horvat, D. Young, D. Kregar, who paid considerable attention to the reform of local self-government and the results of decentralization changes for community building.Highlighting previously unsettled parts of the general problem. Most scholars focus on foreign experience as a derivative for use in Ukrainian practice in order to develop methods that can be implemented only under certain conditions of economic development. The purpose of the article is to form our own theoretical generalizations about the possibility of using the experience of decentralization reforms in Latvia, Lithuania and Croatia in Ukrainian practice.Paper main body. The experiences of foreign countries in reforming the administrative-territorial system, the formation of administrative units of the basic level, the redistribution of powers among branches of government have been considered. Carrying out the decentralization reform is one of the most urgent tasks of Ukraine. The path taken by foreign countries in the framework of local government reform is different and unique. Each state carried out decentralization reform in accordance with the specifics of national, ethnic, economic, geographical and other factors that in one way or another influenced the final result of the reform. The experience of countries that in the historical context had a certain identity in economic, territorial-administrative and historical-cultural terms is important for Ukraine. Therefore, the Baltic States, countries with a post-Soviet past, which implemented the decentralization process in different ways, have been chosen for our study.In Lithuania, a country that embarked on local government reform under the strict control of the central government, the approach to territorial change was voluntary, but within clear rules governing administrative units practically the same in size and population, which eventually became economically effective communities. During the decentralization process, the state defined the powers, which were entrusted to the implementation by local authorities primarily within the social components – education, health and social care, other sectors of the economy such as economic, housing and communal, public order are performed by local governments exclusively within the needs and processes of communities.The decentralization process in Latvia took place according to a slightly different scenario. First of all, it should be noted that the territories were voluntary united without government intervention, but with certain preferences in the form of remuneration for communities united according to the plan submitted from “the above”. The state delegated powers, and in the case of Latvia, first of all, of a social nature. Expenditures on education in self-government units have the largest share among others, but it should be noted that the economy and housing, communal services are given slightly broader powers, which are characterized by the provision of broad powers in the permitting systems of Latvian communities. However, the exercise of powers in health care is limited to the primary level. In addition, social housing as well as urban planning is given a special niche in the municipal authorities, which is a balance between expenditure and revenue in this area.Croatia is a state that also had a socialist past, but began the decentralization process under the occupation of a part of the territory. A country that has approached the change of administrative-territorial system with economic pragmatism, and basic self-government units are created by the method of economic factors without government intervention. Regarding the self-government expenditures of Croatia, the financing of the housing and communal services sector and the holding of recreational activities have a key role to play. Delegation of powers in the field of transport and communications is also quite important. The economic activity of local self-government is carried out on the principle of priority provision of personal needs; therefore expenditures of local budgets among the countries considered by us are approximately at the same level.The revenue part of the budgets of self-government bodies in the countries considered by us is based on the same principles – taxes on land, real estate and the main source of income – personal income tax, however, in the structure of revenues to Croatian communities, the biggest part is allocated to the housing and communal services sector, which is the generator of economic development related to the construction business in the counties (Županija) of Croatia.The path of each country in the process of administrative reform in the framework of legislative initiatives that should become significant for Ukraine has been analysed. After all, each of the states began the reform of local self-government by changing the legislation, primarily electoral to minimize local government risks at the local level, as well as local government laws as the foundation of the entire country.Based on foreign experience, the positive and negative aspects of decentralization reform have been summarized; the ways of implementing the reform in Ukraine to avoid undesirable results of decentralization completion, as well as changes in legislation, the formation of units of the basic level of self-government have been outlined. The experience of Croatia, which had to carry out a major reform during the aggression period of another state, can be especially valuable.The ultimate goal of decentralization reform is to create communities, basic units of local self-government that have to be economically viable and promising. After all, the quality of services provided to the population depends on this: educational and medical, social and administrative, landscaping, as well as quality of life of urban and rural residents.Conclusions of the research and prospects for further studies. The amount of resources at the disposal of local self-government depends on the powers vested in the central government. Accordingly, various models of administrative reform of countries that have long been focused on the command-administrative economic model were considered. The conclusion is that post-Soviet countries are oriented towards the social package, where education accounts for about a third of local government expenditures. On the other hand, in Croatia, which has taken a different path, expenditures that are comparable to the performance of national functions are quite significant, such as the provision of housing and communal services, entertainment and sports activities, transport infrastructure, and economic activity.The prospect of further research is the experience of Croatia as a country that has carried out decentralization reform under the occupation of part of the territory.