Social Risks of Decentralization Reform
In the paper, the present-day risks of decentralization reform are considered at the theoretical and empirical levels, which is carried out today for economic reasons, in order to create capable communities. The author argues that the decision of an economic nature, in the framework of decentralization, has social consequences, the risks of deteriorating social climate, and social mood of the population.
The author's definition of the social risks of decentralization, which refers to situations or activities caused by the decentralization reform, which threaten social well-being, social well-being, the existence and further development of the rural community, and affect society as a whole.
According to the author, such risks have four features of sociality: 1. in terms of content - it is a risk of violations of social well-being and well-being; 2. At risk - this is a risk to communities; 3. The origin of risk is the decentralization reform; 4. For social significance, it is important for the community and society as a whole.
Based on the results of a sociological survey conducted by LLC "MLS group", official monitoring of decentralization and other materials, the author came to the conclusion that it is possible to distinguish the following social risks of decentralization: the risk of excessive concentration of land in private ownership of the authorities or agrarian oligarchs; etc. In addition to this, the creation of an UTC can become another means of exploiting the countryside city. There is a risk of neglect by the interests of non-centered communities. There are also risks of worsening social comfort for residents of non-central communities in connection with the closure of social infrastructure in small villages.
The authorities propose the timely adoption of measures that would prevent the emergence of negative consequences of the implementation of reforms in the countryside.
2. Vlasenko, N. S. (2007). Legal principles of the system of information provision of social policy. Demography and Social Economics, №1, 155–169
3. Marshall, A. (2007). Fundamentals of economic science. Moscow: Eksmo, 830 p.
4. Salnikova, S. (2018). The Social Diagnostic of Lutsk City in the Framework of Creation of the Strategic Plan of its Development. Sociological Studios, 1 (12), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2018-01-42-51
5. Topischko, N. P. (2009). Social risks as a factor in the regulation of the social protection system of the population. The financial system of Ukraine. Collection of scientific works, Issue 11, 401–411.
6. Khrustalev, F. S., Ashurbekov, A. (2018). Sociological support of decentralization processes. Social technologies: topical problems of theory and practice. Collection of scientific works, Issue 78, p.131–138.
7. Beck, U. (2000). Risk Society: Towards another modernity. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 384 p.
8. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press, 256 p.
9. Luhmann, N. (1991). Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 252 p.
10. Decentralization by the eyes of the population: a comparative cut of the Zaporizhzhya, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Report on the results of sociological research. (2017). Retrieved April 03, 2019 from https://issuu.com/ mlsgroup/docs/decentralization
11. Expected risks in the process of decentralization of power in Ukraine: analytical note. Retrieved April 03, 2019 from http://www.niss.gov.ua/articles/1021/#_ftn1
12. Ranking of areas for the formation of OTG / Monitoring of the process of decentralization of power and reform of local self-government as of March 12, 2019 [Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine]. Retrieved April 03, 2019 from https://decentralization.gov.ua/mainmonitoring# main_info