Inter-Group Cleavages in Amalgamated Territorial Hromadas: Risks of Social Cohesion Weakening in Decentralized Ukraine




inter-group cleavages, amalgamated territorial hromadas, decentralization, social cohesion, social inequality


The paper is dedicated to studying major inter-group cleavages in amalgamated territorial hromadas in Ukraine as a horizontal objective component of social cohesion weakening proposed by J. Chan. The author has realized the attempt to adapt Chan’s model of social cohesion measurement in the framework of qualitative sociological perspective, basing on analysis of 26 semi-structured interviews conducted with decentralization experts, representatives of civil society, local elected officials and local authorities in the amalgamated hromadas two border regions of Ukraine – Kharkiv and Chernivtsi. The study has shown the existence of such types of inter-group cleavages «newly established hromada – the previous local authorities»; «hromada authorities – locals»; «сenter-periphery»; «rich hromadas - poor hromadas»; «decentralized Ukraine - non-decentralized Ukraine». Existence of social expectations of «old» corrupt practices reproduction in the management of the newly amalgamated hromadas, which destroys the notion of decentralization as a mechanism of strengthening democracy and transparency is identified in the study as well as the risks of local elites capture. The research has shown that various starting points of territorial units in readiness to implement the reform, the voluntary nature of amalgamation and the weak control of the implementation contributed to the formation of new intergroup alliances on the principle of «rich with rich», that led to both deepening social inequality in Ukraine and strengthening of closed «social orders» establishing. The author has emphasized the urgency of the beginning of decentralization reform administrative stage, which helps to reduce the social gap between decentralized and non-decentralized Ukraine.


Aasland, A., Lyska, O. (2016). Local democracy in Ukrainian cities: civic participation and responsiveness of local authorities. Post-Soviet Affairs, 32 (2), 152–175.

'About Voluntary Amalgamation of Territorial Hromadas': Law of Ukraine from February 5, 2015, № 157-VIII. Retrieved December 01, 2020 from

Bader, M. (2020). Decentralization and a Risk of Local Elite Capture in Ukraine. In: H. Shelest and M. Rabi-novych, eds. Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and Conflict. The Case of Ukraine. Basingstocke: Palgrave McMillan, 259–282.

Berger-Schmitt, R. (2002). Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: Concept and measurement. In: Hagerty M. R., Vogel J., Møller V. (eds) Assessing Quality of Life and Living Conditions to Guide National Policy. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht, 58, 403–428.

Chan, J., To, HP, Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social indicators research, 75, 273–302.

Deineko, A., Bilokopytov, D., Filippova, O. (2020). Decentralization reform in assessments of united territorial communities (hromadas) leaders’: new dimensions of social subjectiveness. Ukrainian Sociological Journal, 21, 16–24.

Final report of Sociological Association of Ukraine «Social inequalities: perception of the Ukrainian society» (2018). Retrieved December 01, 2020 from

Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F. (2019). Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to charac-terize it. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32 (2), 231–253.

Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. Ottawa: Canadian policy research networks.

Oleinekova, O. (2020). Decentralization Reform: An Effective Vehicle for Modernization and Democratization in Ukraine? In: H. Shelest and M. Rabinovych, eds. Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and Conflict. The Case of Ukraine. Basingstocke: Palgrave McMillan, 311–338.

Rabinovych, M., Shelest, H. (2020). Introduction: Regional Diversity, Decentralization, and Conflict in and around Ukraine. In: H. Shelest and M. Rabinovych, eds. Decentralization, Regional Diversity, and Conflict. The Case of Ukraine. Basingstocke: Palgrave McMillan.

Report «Decentralization and local self-government reform: the results of the fifth wave of sociological research among the population of Ukraine» (2020). Retrieved December 01, 2020 from

Romanova, V., Umland, A. (2019). Decentralising Ukraine: Geopolitical Implications. Survival, 61 (5), 99–112.

Rusinuk, М. М. (2018). Problems and disadvantages of decentralization of public administration and management. Scientific notes of V.I. Vernadsky Tavriya National University. Series: Public Administration, 29(68), 135–138.

Sen, A. (1995). Inequality Reexamined. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). The price of inequality. How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. Moscow: Eksmo.

Tkachuk, A.F. (2018). From a Perspective Plan to the Community Development Strategy (Through the Prism of the Experience of the United Territorial Communities in Khmelnytskyi Region). Кyiv: Juston Publishing House LLC.

Zhalilo, Y.A, Shevchenko, O.V., Romanova, V.V. (2019). Decentralisation of Power: Agenda for the Medium Term. Kyiv: National Institute for Strategic Studies.