Science, Technologies, Innovations №3(39) 2026, 90-102 р

https://doi.org/10.35668/2520-6524-2026-3-11

Mykytenko V. V. — D. Sc. in Economics, Professor, Chief Research Scientist, Department of Spatial Development and Quality of Life, Mykhailo Ptukha Institute for Demography and Life Quality Research of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; 60, Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01032; +38 (093) 564-22-22; vmikitenko@ukr.net; ORCID: 0000-0002-8212-9777

Ohorodnyk N. P. — PhD in Economics, Junior Research Fellow, Department of Spatial Development and Quality of Life, Mykhailo Ptukha Institute for Demography and Life Quality Research of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; 60, Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard, Kyiv, Ukraine, 01032; +38 (066) 140-03-88; Nadya_o@ukr.net; ORCID: 0009-0000-0172-6215

STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE FOR SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE: SYSTEMIC DIAGNOSTICS AND DIRECTIONS FOR TRANSFORMATION

Abstract. The article investigates the structural and functional architecture of spatial development governance of Ukraine’s territorial entities under the conditions of post-war transformation. It substantiates that the effectiveness of the contemporary governance system is determined not only by the existence of individual institutions but also by the degree of integration among its structural components, governance functions, coordination mechanisms, information and analytical support, and resource flows. The study employs systemic, structural-functional, logical-analytical, comparative, and generalization methods. A structural and functional assessment of the existing governance system is carried out, while its principal structural, functional, institutional, coordination, information-analytical, and spatial constraints are identified and systematized, together with their interdependent nature. The paper introduces the concept of the “self-reinforcing loop of systemic imbalances”, which explains the mechanism through which structural, functional, institutional, and information-analytical distortions within the existing governance model mutually reinforce one another. Furthermore, a transformation matrix of the structural and functional architecture of spatial development governance is developed. The proposed matrix defines a consistent transition from a fragmented administrative-sectoral governance model to an integrated, adaptive, and territorially cohesive governance system. The practical significance of the research lies in the possibility of applying the proposed methodological provisions to improve the state spatial development policy, design a modern public governance architecture, develop post-war recovery programmes for territorial entities, and support evidence-based decision-making aimed at strengthening territorial cohesion, enhancing governance effectiveness, and improving the quality of life of the
population.

Keywords: structural and functional architecture, spatial development governance, economic systems of territorial entities, systemic diagnostics, post-war recovery, territorial cohesion, managerial decision-making, governance system transformation, quality of life.

REFERENCES

  1. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1469 p.
  2. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x.
  3. Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley, 405 p.
  4. (2019). Making decentralisation work. OECD. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en.
  5. (2018). Rethinking regional development policy-making. OECD Multi-level Governance Studies. OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264293014-en.
  6. (2014). Recommendation of the Council on effective public investment across levels of government. OECD Publishing.
  7. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons. 110 p.
  8. Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administration. Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University. 211 p.
  9. Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. 4th ed. Free Press. 368 p.
  10. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall. 312 p.
  11. Shevchuk, L. T. (Ed.). (2011). Prostorovyi rozvytok rehionu: Sotsialno-ekonomichni mozhlyvosti, ryzyky i perspektyvy [Spatial development of the region: Socio-economic opportunities, risks, and prospects]. Retrieved from: https://ird.gov.ua/irdp/p20110301.pdf [in Ukr.].
  12. Bystriakov, I. K. (2018). Prostorovyi kontsept obgruntuvannia ekoloho-ekonomichnoho rozvytku [The spatial concept of substantiating ecological and economic development]. Ekonomika Ukrainy [Economy of Ukraine], 11-12, 136-147. Retrieved from: http://jnas.nbuv.gov.ua/article/UJRN-0001021147 [in Ukr.].
  13. Bystriakov, I. K., & Mykytenko, V. V. (2018). Pereformatuvannia prostorovoi systemy upravlinnia pryrodno-resursnymy aktyvamy [Reformatting the spatial management system of natural resource assets]. Ekonomika pryrodokorystuvannia i stalyi rozvytok [Economics of Nature Use and Sustainable Development], 1-2(20-21), 37-43 [in Ukr.].
  14. Libanova, E. M., & Bystriakov, I. K. (2025). Pisliavoienna Ukraina: innovatsiina orhanizatsiia prostorovoho rozvytku [Post-war Ukraine: Innovative organization of spatial development]. Demohrafiia ta sotsialna ekonomika [Demography and Social Economy], 2(60), 32-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2025.02.032 [in Ukr.].
  15. Kononenko, V. V., & Kushko, I. S. (2025). Derzhavna rehionalna polityka ta detsentralizatsiia v Ukraini v umovakh dii pravovoho rezhymu voiennoho stanu [State regional policy and decentralization in Ukraine under martial law]. Naukovi perspektyvy [Scientific Perspectives], 2(56), 310-322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52058/2708-7530-2025-2(56)-310-322 [in Ukr.].
  16. Stoliarenko, O. S. (2025). Systemni zahrozy ekonomichnii bezpetsi v epokhu hlobalnoi nestabilnosti [Systemic threats to economic security in the era of global instability]. Tsyfrova ekonomika ta ekonomichna bezpeka [Digital Economy and Economic Security], 3(18), 189-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/dees.18-29 [in Ukr.].
  17. Storonianska, I. Z., & Zalutskyi, I. R. (2023). Determitatsiia zasad rehionalnoi polityky v konteksti suchasnykh vyklykiv prostorovoho rozvytku v Ukraini [Determination of regional policy foundations in the context of modern challenges of spatial development in Ukraine]. Ekonomika Ukrainy [Economy of Ukraine], 10, 23-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2023.10.023 [in Ukr.].
  18. Pidorycheva, I. Yu. (2023). Innovatsiini spilnoty ta ikh mozhlyvosti u vidrodzhenni postrazhdalykh vid viiny ukrainskykh terytorii na zasadakh stiikosti i stalosti [Innovative communities and their opportunities in the revival of war-affected Ukrainian territories on the principles of resilience and sustainability]. Ekonomika Ukrainy [Economy of Ukraine], 10, 3-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2023.10.003 [in Ukr.].
  19. Mykytenko, V. V. (2024). Mekhanizmy povoiennoho vidnovlennia makrorehionalnykh zon Ukrainy: arkhitektura hibrydnoho stsenariiu [Mechanisms of post-war recovery of macro-regional zones of Ukraine: Architecture of a hybrid scenario]. Hlobalni transformatsii rozvytku suspilstva [Global transformations of society development] (p. 68-87). Kharkiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61718/mon [in Ukr.].
  20. Mykytenko, V. V. (2024). Prohnoznyi format hibrydnoho stsenariiu prostorovoho vidnovlennia: informatsiino-tekhnolohichna arkhitektura ta sotsio-ekoloho-ekonomichni determinanty [Predictive format of a hybrid scenario of spatial recovery: Information and technological architecture and socio-ecological-economic determinants]. Visnyk ekonomichnoi nauky Ukrainy [Herald of Economic Sciences of Ukraine], 2(47), 12-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37405/1729-7206.2024.2(47).12-21 [in Ukr.].
  21. Mykytenko, V. V. (2025). Structural and scenario architecture of spatial development management mechanisms. Global Trends in Science: Research, Innovation and Development: Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific and Practical Conference (Varna, Bulgaria, June 23-25, 2025). European Open Science Space, P. 47-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.70286/EOSS-24.06.2025.
  22. Mykytenko, V. V. (2025). Architecture of management decisions in spatial development: A scenario approach for macro-regional strategies. Scientific Exploration: Bridging Theory and Practice: Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific and Practical Conference. European Open Science Space. P. 23-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.70286/EOSS-07.07.2025.
  23. (2020). Territorial agenda 2030: A future for all places. European Commission. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/brochure/territorial_agenda_2030_en.pdf.
  24. Cotella, G., & Rivolin, U. J. (2025). The Europeanization of territorial governance: Towards a typology. Planning Practice & Research, 40(2), 263-284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2024.2431770.

Received 08/06/2026
Accepted for publication 08/17/2026
Published 09/30/2026

License
Copyright (c) 2026 Science, Technologies, Innovations Journal

All materials published in the current issue of the journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.uk
The license permits free non-commercial use, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation of the materials in any format, provided that proper attribution is given to the author(s) and the source of publication is cited. Commercial use of the materials is permitted only with the publisher’s written consent.