Article

Received 06.11.2025

Revised 16.04.2026

Accepted 26.05.2026

Published 30.06.2026

Retrieved from Volume 30, No. 2, 2026

Pages 115 -133

Klyuchnik, A., Kormyshkina, I., Galunets, N., Husenko, A., & Kryvko, O. (2026). Formation of management mechanisms for rural development under martial law and European integration. Ukrainian Black Sea Region Agrarian Science, 30(2), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.56407/bs.agrarian/2.2026.115

Formation of management mechanisms for rural development under martial law and European integration

Alona Klyuchnik Iryna Kormyshkina Nataliia Galunets Anzhela Husenko Oleh Kryvko

The purpose of the study was to assess the financial, organisational, and institutional parameters of management in view of external challenges and to determine their adaptive potential. The study used methods of structural and functional analysis of budget indicators, ratio and relative analysis, aggregation and grouping of statistical data, normalisation and integral indexing, and descriptive statistics. Assessment of the financial base showed that local budget revenues of UAH 679.5 billion formed a basic resource platform, while the revenue structure, dominated by own-source revenues at 72.3%, increased decision-making autonomy. The financial stability coefficient of 0.64 summarised the capacity of the system to maintain stability in a changing environment. The organisational component of management was characterised through the number of territorial communities, which described the scale of the spatial coverage of the system and the distribution of management functions between administrative units. Strategic planning covered approximately 91.4% of communities, while the institutional capacity index of 0.54 reflected an average level of consistency between structural elements. Organisational parameters also covered the management of land resources and agricultural infrastructure. Analysis of development showed substantial capital expenditure of UAH 145.8 billion, reflecting an orientation towards forming a material base. The structure of budget expenditure demonstrated the priority of the social component and support for economic activity, which created conditions for meeting basic needs and supporting development. The integral index of 0.59 summarised the effectiveness of management influences. At the regional level, budget revenues of UAH 4.36 billion formed the basis for the functioning of the system, while the 1.6% share of the special fund reflected limited targeted financing. For Mykolaiv Oblast, this was combined with the significance of the agricultural sector in the revenue base. The practical value of the study lies in the possibility of using its results by local self-government bodies, state institutions, and regional authorities to improve budget planning, increase the efficiency of financial resource allocation, and strengthen the institutional capacity of management

rural development; management; financial stability; European integration; security conditions; martial law
  1. Adoyo, B., et al. (2025). Agroecology for sustainable development: evidence on multidimensional performance from a cross-country TAPE assessment in Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 9, article number 1667882. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1667882.
  2. Blesh, J., et al. (2023). Against the odds: Network and institutional pathways enabling agricultural diversification. One Earth, 6(5), 479-491. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.03.004.
  3. Bocean, C.G. (2024). A cross-sectional analysis of the relationship between digital technology use and agricultural productivity in EU countries. Agriculture, 14(4), article number 519. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14040519.
  4. Cascone, G., Scuderi, A., Guarnaccia, P., & Timpanaro, G. (2024). Promoting innovations in agriculture: Living labs in the development of rural areas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 443, article number 141247. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141247.
  5. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2026). History of the COPE code of conduct and core practices. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/about/what-we-do/our-story/history-code-conduct.
  6. Das, D.K. (2024). Exploring the symbiotic relationship between digital transformation, infrastructure, service delivery, and governance for smart sustainable cities. Smart Cities, 7(2), 806-835. doi: 10.3390/smartcities7020034.
  7. Finance Department of the Mykolaiv City Council. (n.d.). On the budget of the Mykolaiv city territorial community for 2025. Retrieved from https://depfin.mkrada.gov.ua/Media/files/budget/file/d8af1b7201e73b25841091e3aea3ae11.pdf?utm_source=.
  8. Gebresenbet, G., et al. (2023). A concept for application of integrated digital technologies to enhance future smart agricultural systems. Smart Agricultural Technology, 5, article number 100255. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2023.100255.
  9. Hackfort, S. (2023). Unlocking sustainability? The power of corporate lock-ins and how they shape digital agriculture in Germany. Journal of Rural Studies, 101, article number 103065. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103065.
  10. Irani, Z., Abril, R.M., Weerakkody, V., Omar, A., & Sivarajah, U. (2023). The impact of legacy systems on digital transformation in European public administration: Lesson learned from a multi case analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), article number 101784. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101784.
  11. Kazyuk, Ya., & Ventsel, V. (2025). Financial capacity of communities in 2024 by region. Retrieved from https://decentralization.ua/news/19512.
  12. Kelemen, R.D., & McNamara, K.R. (2021). State-building and the European Union: Markets, war, and Europe’s uneven political development. Comparative Political Studies, 55(6), 963-991. doi: 10.1177/00104140211047393.
  13. Kliuchnyk, A., Prohoniuk, L., Galunets, N., Husenko, A., & Oliinyk, T. (2023). Public management and administration in territorial communities of Ukraine during the war and in the post-war period. Economic Affairs, 68, 923-929. doi: 10.46852/0424-2513.2s.2023.40.
  14. Kliuchnyk, A., Shyshpanova, N., Prohoniuk, L., Galunets, N., & Husenko, A. (2025). The role of local communities in the restoration of agricultural infrastructure after destruction. Scientific Horizons, 28(4), 180-196. doi: 10.48077/scihor4.2025.180.
  15. Laskar, M.H. (2023). Examining the emergence of digital society and the digital divide in India: A comparative evaluation between urban and rural areas. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, article number 1145221. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1145221.
  16. Liu, Y., Dai, L., Long, H., Woods, M., & Fois, F. (2022). Rural vitalization promoted by industrial transformation under globalization: The case of Tengtou village in China. Journal of Rural Studies, 95, 241-255. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.09.020.
  17. Losch, B. (2022). Decent employment and the future of agriculture. How dominant narratives prevent addressing structural issues. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, article number 862249. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.862249.
  18. Luo, X., Liao, J., Zang, Y., Ou, Y., & Wang, P. (2022). Developing from mechanized to smart agricultural production in China. Strategic Study of CAE, 24(1), 46-54. doi: 10.15302/J-SSCAE-2022.01.005.
  19. Mashetty, S., Challa, S.R., Adusupalli, B., Singireddy, J., & Paleti, S. (2024). Intelligent technologies for modern financial ecosystems: Transforming housing finance, risk management, and advisory services through advanced analytics and secure cloud solutions. MSW Management Journal, 34(2), 953-971. doi: 10.7492/aj462244.
  20. Millard, J. (2023). Impact of digital transformation on public governance – new forms of policy-making and the provision of innovative, people-centric and inclusive public services. Luxemburg: European Union. doi: 10.2760/204686.
  21. Mu, Q., & Aimar, F. (2022). How are historical villages changed? A systematic literature review on European and Chinese cultural heritage preservation practices in rural areas. Land, 11(7), article number 982. doi: 10.3390/land11070982.
  22. Navarro-Valverde, F., Labianca, M., Cejudo-García, E., & De Rubertis, S. (2022). Social innovation in rural areas of the European Union learnings from neo-endogenous development projects in Italy and Spain. Sustainability, 14(11), article number 6439. doi: 10.3390/su14116439.
  23. Ouafiq, E.M., Saadane, R., & Chehri, A. (2022). Data management and integration of low power consumption embedded devices IoT for transforming smart agriculture into actionable knowledge. Agriculture, 12(3), article number 329. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12030329.
  24. Pilarski, K., Pilarska, A.A., & Pietrzak, M.B. (2025). Biogas production in agriculture: technological, environmental, and socio-economic aspects. Energies, 18(21), article number 5844. doi: 10.3390/en18215844.
  25. Portal “Decentralisation”. (n.d.). Communities. Retrieved from https://decentralization.gov.ua/en/newgromada.
  26. Preziuso, M., Koefer, F., & Ehrenhard, M. (2023). Open banking and inclusive finance in the European Union: Perspectives from the Dutch stakeholder ecosystem. Financial Innovation, 9, article number 111. doi: 10.1186/s40854-023-00522-1.
  27. Reinhardt, T. (2022). The farm to fork strategy and the digital transformation of the agrifood sector – an assessment from the perspective of innovation systems. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 45(2), 819-838. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13246.
  28. Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Kalantari, Z., Egidi, G., Gaburova, L., & Salvati, L. (2022). Urbanisation-driven land degradation and socioeconomic challenges in peri-urban areas: Insights from Southern Europe. Ambio, 51(6), 1446-1458. doi: 10.1007/s13280-022-01701-7.
  29. Shebanin, V., Kormyshkin, I., Ruzhniak, M., Reshetilov, G., & Kormyshkina, I. (2025). Formation of complex community restoration management models in the context of sustainable agricultural development. Scientific Horizons, 28(2), 116-128. doi: 10.48077/scihor2.2025.116.
  30. Stojanova, S., Cvar, N., Verhovnik, J., Božić, N., Trilar, J., Kos, A., & Duh, E.S. (2022). Rural digital innovation hubs as a paradigm for sustainable business models in Europe’s rural areas. Sustainability, 14(21), article number 14620. doi: 10.3390/su142114620.
  31. The Accounting Chamber. (2025). Report on the results of the analysis of the implementation of the main indicators of local budgets for 2022-2024. Kyiv: The Accounting Chamber.
  32. Van Hilten, M., & Wolfert, S. (2022). 5G in agri-food-A review on current status, opportunities and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 201, article number 107291. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2022.107291.
  33. Varzakas, T., & Smaoui, S. (2024). Global food security and sustainability issues: the road to 2030 from nutrition and sustainable healthy diets to food systems change. Foods, 13(2), article number 306. doi: 10.3390/foods13020306.
  34. Vărzaru, A.A., & Bocean, C.G. (2024). Digital transformation and innovation: The influence of digital technologies on turnover from innovation activities and types of innovation. Systems, 12(9), article number 359. doi: 10.3390/systems12090359.
  35. Vatamanu, A.F., & Tofan, M. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence into public administration: Challenges and vulnerabilities. Administrative Sciences, 15(4), article number 149. doi: 10.3390/admsci15040149.
  36. Xu, Y., Tao, Y., Zhang, C., Xie, M., Li, W., & Tai, J. (2022). Review of digital economy research in China: A framework analysis based on bibliometrics. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022(1), article number 2427034. doi: 10.1155/2022/2427034.