Local self-government as a tool for reconstruction: lessons from Ukraine and the experience of the Hostomel community

Local self-government has long been seen as something “secondary” compared with the central government. In reality it is the opposite: it is communities that are the first to face crisis, war and economic collapse, and it is at their level that it is decided whether people will have water, electricity, roads, kindergartens and security.

Over the past decade Ukraine has gone through a very deep decentralization reform. The war has only highlighted it: where communities are strong, people survive and recover faster. One telling example is the Hostomel community in the Kyiv region, which is at once a suburb of the capital, a magnet for business and logistics, and a place that lived through occupation and heavy fighting.

This article is about how local self-government in Ukraine works, in simple terms, what decentralization has really changed, and what conclusions can be drawn from the history and present of the Hostomel community.

1. From the veche to modern communities: a short history

To put it very simply, local self-government is the right of people on the ground to decide for themselves how to live, rather than waiting for “instructions from above.”

On Ukrainian lands, various forms of self-government existed for centuries:

• in the era of Kyivan Rus – the veche and communities, where the most important issues were decided jointly;
• in cities with Magdeburg law – elected magistrates and real municipal rights;
• in the Cossack era – village and Cossack communities with elected atamans and officers.

Then came the periods of empires and the Soviet system, when self-government was either restricted or formally kept in place but under the full control of the center. The Soviet “councils” were in fact part of the power vertical rather than an independent level of decision-making.

After 1991, Ukraine proclaimed a course toward democracy and a market economy, but the inertia of centralism was very strong. Formally, councils were elected, yet the real players remained the local state administrations and “manual” control from Kyiv. For a long time, the essence of local self-government existed only on paper.

2. How local self-government is organized in Ukraine today

In plain language, the model looks like this:

• territorial community – these are the residents of a village, a settlement or a city (sometimes of several merged settlements);
• they elect a council (village, settlement or city) and a head;
• the council adopts decisions, the budget and development programs;
• the council's executive bodies (the executive committee, departments, offices) put all of this into practice: roads, lighting, kindergartens, public amenities, and so on.

A community has:

• its own powers (its own matters – public amenities, utilities, territorial development, local programs);
• delegated powers (tasks that the state passes down “to the localities” – part of education, social protection, the administration of certain services).

The financial base is not only “local levies” but also part of the nationwide taxes that is built into the community's budget (for example, part of the personal income tax, land payments, the single tax, property tax, and so on).

The key logic is this: if a community is responsible for roads, kindergartens, lighting and safety, it must have real money and real powers, not just “wishes.”

3. Decentralization: what has really changed

After 2014, a systematic decentralization reform began in Ukraine. Setting aside the bureaucratic terminology, the state took three important steps:

1. It merged small and weak communities into capable ones.
   Instead of dozens of village councils with meager budgets and an “accountant on a half-time basis,” amalgamated territorial communities were created, with proper budgets, their own executive structures and direct relations with the state budget.
2. It passed more money down to the local level.
   Part of the taxes “stays at the bottom.” In many communities, own revenues have grown several times over. Those who know how to work with business, land and investment have become genuinely richer.
3. It redrew the map of districts and closed the “holes on the map.”
   Ukraine was divided into more logical districts, and the entire territory came to be covered by communities. There are no more “no man's zones” where nobody is responsible for anything.

The result is simple: where a community is active, competent and able to plan, real progress is visible. Where the old approach of “waiting for Kyiv” has remained in place, change is minimal.

4. The Hostomel community: from a “suburban appendage” to an independent player

4.1. Status and place in the system of power

Hostomel is a typical suburb of Kyiv, but with its own unique features: the strategic Antonov airport, transport corridors, industrial facilities and rapid housing construction in recent years.

Before the reform, Hostomel was a settlement within the Irpin city council. This meant that:

• some decisions about Hostomel were made in Irpin;
• the interests of the settlement competed with those of the city;
• strategic planning went “through the prism of Irpin.”

After the new administrative-territorial reform, Hostomel became the center of a separate Hostomel settlement territorial community within the Bucha district. The community received:

• its own settlement council and head;
• direct inter-budgetary relations with the state;
• clearly defined powers and responsibility;
• a separate budget and development programs.

In effect, Hostomel moved from the status of a “suburban appendage” to a full-fledged player in the system of local self-government.

4.2. The programmatic approach: how Hostomel planned its development

Even before the full-scale war, the Hostomel settlement council actively used a program-targeted approach. In 2016–2017 the following were adopted:

• programs of socio-economic and cultural development;
• programs for public amenities, the development of housing and utilities, and street lighting;
• programs supporting education, culture and sport;
• programs of social protection and support for veterans and low-income residents;
• environmental programs.

The key priorities for the settlement at that time were very pragmatic:

• roads of local significance;
• street lighting;
• solving the problems with waste;
• waiting lists for kindergartens and the need for new educational institutions;
• support for municipal enterprises and basic infrastructure.

This is the classic “set of pain points” for most suburbs of large cities. Hostomel tried to respond to it not with chaotic decisions but through systematic programs with specific measures, responsible persons and a cost estimate.

4.3. War, occupation and new challenges

Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022 hit Hostomel especially hard. The battles for the airport, the occupation, the destruction of housing and infrastructure, the loss of lives – these are not abstract risks but reality.

For local self-government, this meant:

• the military administration took over the powers;
• resources became scarcer, while problems multiplied several times over;
• a significant part of the effort went not into development but into survival, evacuation, humanitarian aid and basic recovery.

At the same time, the war showed another side – a high level of self-organization, volunteer initiatives, and cooperation between the community and the military and security forces. This is the social capital on which recovery is later built.

5. Systemic problems: what prevents communities from working effectively

Even after decentralization, local self-government in Ukraine does not live in an ideal world. There are several chronic problems that are clearly visible in the example of Hostomel as well.

5.1. Powers are not fully spelled out

Formally, the law divides what the community is responsible for and what the state is responsible for through local state administrations. In practice:

• some functions are duplicated;
• some are “smeared” so thinly that it is unclear who is really responsible;
• many decisions are still tied to central bodies.

As a result, delays, conflicts and “ping-pong” between different bodies arise.

5.2. Financial imbalances

There are communities with powerful economies, and there are territories where there is hardly anything to fill the budget with. The system of subsidies and equalization partly compensates for this, but:

• poor communities remain heavily dependent on the center;
• the richer ones get the feeling that “development is punished by the reverse subsidy.”

Hostomel has potential – industry, logistics, proximity to the capital. But large-scale projects (new schools, utility networks, postwar reconstruction) still require resources that go beyond a single local budget.

5.3. Staff shortages and management skills

A strong community is not only law and money, but also people who know how to manage all of it. Here the problem is more or less the same across the whole country:

• good financiers, lawyers, urban planners and project managers are valued more highly in business;
• in local self-government bodies, salaries are lower, the workload is higher and public pressure is greater.

As a result, communities often work “on enthusiasm” and a thin layer of personnel. This limits their ability to attract grants, manage large infrastructure projects and plan spatial development well.

5.4. A low culture of citizen participation

Formally, there are many tools for people's participation in local politics: public hearings, local initiatives, bodies of population self-organization, petitions, participatory budgeting. The problem lies elsewhere:

• some residents are simply not interested in local politics;
• some do not believe that their participation will change anything;
• some become active only “for a scandal,” not for constructive work.

For any community, including Hostomel, this means that the authorities often work “blind,” without systematic feedback from people.

6. Lessons from Poland, Germany and the Baltics: where to move next

It is important to admit honestly that Ukraine is not inventing local self-government “from scratch.” European countries have already gone through very similar stages.

• Poland underwent strong changes after the reforms of the 1990s, with broad powers, a serious financial base and powerful inter-municipal cooperation. There, a community is truly a “small manager of its territory,” not a “petitioner to the center.”
• Germany shows how municipalities can unite in joint structures to solve issues of transport, waste disposal and security together without losing their identity.
• Estonia demonstrates how strongly digitalization reinforces local government: e-services, online discussions and electronic voting make communication between the authorities and people fast and transparent.

To Ukraine and to communities like Hostomel, these are not just “interesting cases” but real benchmarks: less paper and politics for politics' sake, more service, data and openness.

7. What next: practical steps for the Hostomel community and beyond

If we translate everything said into concrete actions, the priorities can be formulated as follows.

1. Clear rules of the game at the state level.
Complete the decentralization reform at the legislative level: update the basic law on local self-government and clearly spell out oversight of the legality of community decisions, without returning to the old administrative centralism.

2. Financial sustainability and economic development.
In Hostomel's case – to stimulate business registration in the community as much as possible and to develop logistics, industry and safe, well-thought-out housing development. In the state's case – to improve the equalization system so as not to stifle active communities and not to leave weak ones without a chance.

3. A strategy of reconstruction and development, not “patching holes.”
Hostomel needs an updated development strategy through 2030: one that takes into account postwar reconstruction, the development of the airport, transport corridors, industrial zones, new residential areas and, separately, a security component.

4. Transparency and communication with people.
Decisions concerning development, land and infrastructure must go through public discussions. The budget must be as open as possible. Reports must be regular, clear and public.

5. Investment in people.
Systematically strengthen the community's team: training, attracting new specialists, internship programs, work with young people. This takes a long time and is not always “loud,” but without it institutional capacity does not grow.

6. Cooperation with neighbors and international partners.
Joint projects with Bucha, Irpin and other communities, participation in international reconstruction programs, and partnerships with communities in the EU are no longer a “nice idea” but a basic condition for large-scale reconstruction.

7. Digital services as the norm.
Introducing electronic services, electronic appointments, online broadcasts of meetings, and public maps of projects and repairs. This raises trust and reduces room for corruption and manipulation.

Conclusion: communities as a pillar of resilience

The war has clearly shown that the state rests not only on the army and the central government. It rests on communities that, at a critical moment, do not scatter but organize, feed people, evacuate them, make repairs and take decisions on the spot.

Local self-government is not about “who will be the head.” It is about whether specific people on a specific street will have:

• a safe school for children;
• a doctor who can be reached;
• utilities that do not break down at the first thunderstorm;
• the feeling that they are heard and that they influence decisions.

The Hostomel community is a vivid example of how a territory with a complicated history, severe blows from the war and difficult political processes nevertheless remains a subject, not an object, of governance.

The next stage is to turn this agency into a systemic, transparent and professional model of governance in which local self-government is not just a slogan but a daily managerial practice that delivers tangible results to people.

Ruslan PAPENKO