Roman Kizyma
Executive Director of the Local Self-Government Association “Lviv Agglomeration”

The decentralisation reform in Ukraine is, without exaggeration, one of the most successful. The state has transferred powers, resources, and responsibilities to communities. Local self-government has been genuinely strengthened, and this is evident in many cities and villages.

However, there is one thing to consider. There are areas where even the largest city cannot cope on its own. And these are not trivial matters. These are basic services: transport, water, sewerage, and waste management… The reality is this: people live in one community, work in another, and use the infrastructure of a third. And when everyone plans separately, the system begins to break down. Traffic jams, overloaded networks, chaotic development, and environmental problems arise. One-off agreements or formal contracts between communities no longer work here. Constant, systematic cooperation is needed. Institutional cooperation.

There are different ways of addressing this issue in the world. In some places, the state centralises these functions – for example, transport or water supply. In others, it creates the conditions for communities to unite into joint structures that manage these matters.

In Ukraine, when it comes to interconnected communities, the term ‘agglomeration’ has become established. But this is a very broad and largely geographical concept – simply a collection of localities that are close to each other. If we look more closely, such areas can be broadly divided into three types:

• the first is metropolises. These are large areas surrounding cities with populations of over a million: Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odesa, and Zaporizhzhia. These are the most complex and, at the same time, the most powerful systems;
• the second is urban agglomerations. These are associations of communities around cities with populations of 100,000 or more. These make up the majority in Ukraine – in fact, all regional centres and the communities surrounding them;
• and the third type – other inter-municipal associations. These are formed not around a major city, but according to function: mountainous areas, frontline regions, industrial or coal-mining districts.

However, today it is worth discussing the metropolises in particular. Why are they so important? Because this is where the country’s main economic activity is concentrated. In Ukraine, around half the population already lives in potential metropolitan areas. This is where the economy, jobs, education, and innovation are concentrated. And it is precisely these territories that determine how the country will develop. In fact, these are the very ‘growth poles’ referred to in the state strategy.

Metropolises give the state far more than it seems at first glance.

• firstly, they maximise economic growth. It is here that a disproportionately large share of GDP is generated. It is like investing money at a higher rate of return – investments in metropolises yield greater returns for the whole country;
• secondly, the metropolitan productivity effect comes into play. It is in megacities that the synergy effect works best, generating budget revenue among other things;
• thirdly, this represents direct revenue for the state. As these areas grow, so do tax revenues – VAT, corporation tax, excise duties and so on. It is in megacities that the synergy effect works best, generating budget revenue among other things;
• fourthly, this is where national economic drivers are formed. Today, countries compete not through regions, but through large metropolitan areas – such as Greater Warsaw or Greater Barcelona. Ukraine also needs such centres of strength;
• fifthly, foreign investment flows through metropolitan areas. Investors require large territories, access to the labour market, strong universities, and sufficient domestic demand – all of which are provided by large urban regions;
• sixthly, metropolitan areas can recover much more quickly after a war. They are capable of launching major projects and rapidly scaling up solutions. Unfortunately, most of Ukraine’s potential metropolitan areas are located in frontline regions. Without stimulation from the ‘bottom up’ – that is, through the combined efforts of local self-government – the state will face a very costly and protracted process of restoration.

But economic growth is not the only thing that matters. Metropolitan areas are also about efficiency.

Joint administration of infrastructure – transport, water, energy, waste management – is significantly cheaper and more efficient. Synergies come into play, as this infrastructure is often either unprofitable or only marginally profitable.

It also helps to avoid haphazard development. When planning is joint, the city and its suburbs develop in a logical manner, rather than randomly.

This also affects public investment. Today, the state often builds roads or hospitals without taking into account the actual connections between communities. Metropolitan planning allows funds to be invested much more effectively.

Another important aspect is people’s mobility. Daily commutes to work have long since extended beyond the boundaries of a single community. And without a unified transport system, this becomes a problem. Large cities will continue to invest in their urban transport networks, whilst suburban transport will deteriorate.

Metropolises also help keep people in the country. Young people and professionals stay where there are opportunities, jobs, and housing options. And the development of suburbs allows for more affordable housing, particularly for internally displaced persons.

This has a direct impact on demographics. The concentration of resources in ‘growth poles’ helps to stem depopulation, which is a key problem for us today.

Logistics is no less important. Metropolises are becoming hubs of international trade – via railways, roads, ports or airports.

There is also an environmental dimension. Rivers, air, and water basins have no administrative boundaries. And they need to be managed at the level of the entire territory, rather than by individual communities.

And finally, metropolitan areas shape new regional policy. They can be more than just centres of concentration; they can serve as pillars of development for the surrounding territories.

But for this to work, the right approach is needed. A metropolis is not a new level of government nor a ‘superstructure’. It is a tool for cooperation. Communities remain independent, but reach agreements where it benefits everyone. They plan together, implement joint projects, and attract resources. This is a different culture of governance – based on trust, not coercion.

Ukraine is only just beginning this journey. But if we want a strong economy, modern infrastructure, and a high quality of life – this will not happen without metropolitan areas. Because the future does not depend on individual cities. The future depends on territories that act together.

This column reflects solely the views of its author. The author is responsible for the accuracy of the information. The views of the editorial board of the Decentralisation portal may not necessarily reflect those of the author.