Ways to improve the multi-level coordination of public investment management in Ukraine to ensure its effectiveness
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article is dedicated to the study of multi-level coordination in public investment management, the analysis of experiences from OECD member countries, and the identification of ways to improve the multi-level coordination of public investment management in Ukraine, ensuring its effectiveness. It is emphasized that coordination is one of the three systemic challenges to multi-level public investment management that hinder the achievement of optimal outcomes. The complexity lies in the practical provision of intersectoral, interjurisdictional, and intergovernmental coordination, as well as in aligning the interests of the numerous stakeholders involved in public investments. The need to consider the context of decentralization for multi-level coordination is underscored, as it represents a challenge that involves delegating responsibilities, decision-making, and financial powers to lower levels of government. Three main dimensions of multi-level coordination are distinguished: institutional, territorial, and public governance. Two primary types of coordination are identified: vertical (coordination of decisions between national and subnational authorities) and horizontal (coordination between authorities within the same level of governance, whether national or subnational). It is concluded that vertical coordination is essential for aligning goals between central and lower levels of governance and is critical for improving the effectiveness and outcomes of public investments. The experiences of Canada, Greece, Austria, Australia, Italy, and the Netherlands in ensuring vertical coordination between levels of governance are outlined. The article also concludes that horizontal coordination is necessary to meet investment needs at the appropriate scale and avoid fragmentation, as infrastructure needs and projects, for example, often span jurisdictional boundaries. It is noted that significant administrative, financial, and political costs, as well as the absence of a joint investment strategy with neighboring cities/regions and incentives for cooperation between different jurisdictions, pose obstacles to effective horizontal coordination of public investment management at the local level. The experiences of Spain, the United Kingdom, Poland, and Iceland in ensuring horizontal coordination are analyzed. The article outlines the problematic aspects of multi-level coordination in public investment management and the risks to the effectiveness of multi-level coordination in Ukraine’s public investment management. Based on the experiences of OECD member countries in improving multi-level coordination of public investment management, a number of measures are recommended for adoption in Ukraine to enhance this coordination.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».