UDC 332.1:339.92, JEL R11, F01
Borshchevskyy, V. V. (2021). Suchasni tendentsiyi endohennoho rozvytku rehioniv u konteksti vplyvu hlobalizatsiynykh chynnykiv [Current trends in regional endogenous development in the context of influence of the globalization factors]. Rehional'na ekonomika - Regional Economy, 102 (4), 5-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2021-4-1. [in Ukrainian].
Sources: 14

Authors



Borshchevskyy Viktor Valentynovych

Doctor of Economics, Associate Professor

Leading Researcher of the Department of spatial development of the Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of NAS of Ukraine; Head of the Department of public administration of the Ukrainian Catholic University

Contacts: borshchevsky@ukr.net

Webpages:

Resume

The administrative-territorial reform, which is being carried out in Ukraine, has updated the search for new ways of endogenous development of its regions. Now, the real decentralization of power is one of the main priorities of the initiated changes. This should increase the institutional and managerial capacity of local governments in both individual communities and regions. At the same time, achieving this goal will be difficult if we ignore the current trends of globalization and the impact of globalization factors on the endogenous development of regions. However, recent practices show that globalization factors can have not only stimulating but also limiting effects. These factors can also reduce the efficiency of regional development potential. The case of the spread of quarantine restrictions in many countries caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic can serve as an example. As a result, the government institutions of different states and their regional local governments face a number of serious challenges of socio-economic nature. The negative factors of globalization impact on the endogenous development of regions in modern conditions include: non-tariff restrictions generated by environmental, security or socio-psychological motives; opportunistic behavior of residents or businesses; corruption and the shadow economy; insufficient quality of human and social capital. It results in restrictions on the free movement of people, goods and capital under the pretext of protecting citizens from viral threats or from potentially harmful consumer goods. Another argument is the ban on using dishonestly acquired financial resources. As opposed, the main positive aspects of globalization’s impact on endogenous development of regions include: activation of interregional and cross-border cooperation, improvement of regional institutional and information infrastructure, local governments’ openness to cooperate with foreign investors and international donor organizations, cultural integration and implementation of democratic practices of public administration in regions, including instruments of participatory governance.

Keywords:

globalization factors, deglobalization, regions endogenous development, regional economy, self-development potential of the region

References


1. Brykova, I. (2007). Determinanty mizhnarodnoyi konkurentospromozhnosti natsional’nykh rehioniv u hlobal’nomu ekonomichnomu prostori [Determinants of the international competitiveness of national regions at the global economic space]. Mizhnarodna ekonomichna polityka – International economic policy, 2(7), 5-33. [in Ukrainian].
2. Vasylkova, Ye. (2011). Yevropeys’kyy rehionalizm [European regionalism]. In Visnyk Mariupol’s’koho derzhavnoho universytetu. Seriya: Pravo [Bulletin of Mariupol State University. Series: Law]: Vol. 2 (pp. 122-127). [in Ukrainian].
3. Hetmanchuk, M., & Kukartsev, O. (2005) Rehionalizatsiya Yevropy: praktyka i teoriya [Regionalization of Europe: practice and theory]. In Politychnyy protses v Ukrayini u 2004 rotsi: rehional’ni aspekty [Political process in Ukraine in 2004: regional aspects]: Proceedings of the conference, Lviv, February 12, 2005. Lviv: Center for Policy Research (pp. 23-28). [in Ukrainian].
4. Holubyak, N. (2015). Paradyhma «novoho rehionalizmu» ta yevropeys’koyi rehionalizatsiyi [Paradigm of «new regionalism» and regionalization of Europe]. Aktual’ni problemy filosofiyi ta sotsiolohiyi – Actual problems of philosophy and sociology, 4, 45-49. [in Ukrainian].
5. Horlo, N. (2012). Osoblyvosti politychnoyi rehionalizatsiyi Ukrayiny v konteksti vplyvu hlobalizatsiynykh protsesiv [Peculiarities of political regionalization of Ukraine in the context of the influence of globalization processes]. Politychnyy menedzhment – Political management, 1-2, 103-111. [in Ukrainian].
6. Dehtyaryova, I. (2010). Teoriyi rehional’noho rozvytku ta yikh evolyutsiya yak osnova suchasnoho rehional’noho upravlinnya [Theories of regional development and their evolution as the basis of modern regional governance]. Visnyk Natsional’noyi akademiyi derzhavnoho upravlinnya pry Prezydentovi Ukrayiny – Bulletin of the National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine, 4, 141-148. [in Ukrainian].
7. James, H. (2020). Pandemiya dehlobalizatsiyi? [A deglobalization pandemic?]. Day: Website. Retrieved from https://m.day.kyiv.ua/uk/article/den-planety/pandemiya-deglobalizaciyi [in Ukrainian].
8. Dovhal, O., & Dovhal, H. (2016). Dehlobalizatsiyni tendentsiyi u suchasniy svitoviy torhivli v umovakh nevyznachenosti [Deglobalization trends in modern world trade under uncertainty]. Visnyk Kharkivs’koho natsional’noho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina. Seriya: Mizhnarodni vidnosyny. Ekonomika. Krayinoznavstvo. Turyzm – Bulletin of Kharkiv National University named after V. N. Karazin. Series: International Relations. Economy. Countryknowledge sciences. Tourism, 5, 19-26. [in Ukrainian].
9. Kish, Ye. (2018). Systemnyy analiz novoho skhidnoho kordonu Yevropeys’koho Soyuzu: vid istoriyi limesu do suchasnoho frontiru [A systematic analysis of the European Union’s new eastern border: from the history of the Limes to the modern Frontiers]. In Naukovyy visnyk MNU imeni V. O. Sukhomlyns’koho. Istorychni nauky [Scientific Bulletin of V. O. Sukhomlinsky MNU. Historical sciences]: Vol. 2(46) (pp. 61-68). [in Ukrainian].
10. Panova, V. (2008). Paradyhma «novoho rehionalizmu» v Yevropeys’komu Soyuzi [The «new regionalism» paradigm in the European Union]. Viche – Chamber, 14. Retrieved from https://veche.kiev.ua/journal/1022 [in Ukrainian].
11. Savelyev, Ye. (2013). «Novyy rehionalizm» i rozvytok teoretychnykh aspektiv klasteroutvorennya [«New Regionalism» and the development of theoretical aspects of clustering]. Visnyk ekonomichnoyi nauky Ukrayiny – Bulletin of Ukraine’s Economic Science, 2, 142-144. [in Ukrainian].
12. Tarasenko, A. (2020). Ukrayina ne hotova do dehlobalizatsiyi torhivli [Ukraine is not ready for the deglobalization of trade]. GMK Center: Website. Retrieved from https://gmk.center/ua/opinion/ukraina-ne-gotova-do-deglobalizacii-torgivli [in Ukrainian].
13. Fedotova, Yu., & Holubnycha, M. (2021). Hlobalizatsiya vs dehlobalizatsiya v umovakh pandemiyi COVID-19 [Globalization vs deglobalization in the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic]. In Zbirnyk materialiv Mizhnarodnoyi naukovo-praktychnoyi internet-konferentsiyi «Novi vyklyky ta aktual’ni problemy rozvytku svitovoho hospodarstva» [Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Internet Conference «New Challenges and actual problems of World Economy Development»] (pp. 32-33). Kharkiv: Kharkiv National University of Municipal Economy named after A. М. Beketov. [in Ukrainian].
14. Chuzhykov, V. (2008). Hlobal’na rehionalistyka: istoriya ta suchasna metodolohiya [Global Regionalistic: History and Modern Methodology]. Kyiv: National Economic University. [in Ukrainian].