ANNUAL CONGRESS 2025

Becoming asset managers under institutional uncertainty: Local land governance in Ukraine

Not scheduled

20m

Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul

Oral Track 15 | PROPERTY MARKET ACTORS

Speaker

Mr Oleksandr Anisimov (Aalto University)

Description

The implementation of three interconnected reforms in Ukraine in 2019-2021 has set the stage for one of the largest transfers of land ownership and land use controls on the European continent. First of these, the Decentralization reform resulted in a large-scope municipal amalgamation. Over 12,000 mostly sparsely populated rural, institutionally weak, and subsidy-dependent municipalities were amalgamated into 1469. The amalgamated jurisdictions of municipalities now cover the whole territory of the country and include heterogeneous assemblages of urbanised areas, cultivated lands, and open natural space (see Romanova & Umland 2024; OECD, 2017 and 2022; Dudley 2019 for a general overview). Moreover, the majority of state-owned lands within the municipal territory have been transferred into municipal ownership (Taratula & Stupen 2018).

Second, the spatial planning reform introduced a locally developed statutory comprehensive plan that sets functional zoning for the entire municipal territory (see Anisimov et al. (2024); Steinkemper and Vlasenko (2024). This essentially established a formal municipal planning monopoly without regional or state interference. Third, the land market reform completed the land privatisation by lifting the 20-year moratorium on selling private agricultural land plots, mostly owned by farmers. As a result, the mobility and value of land resources have increased dramatically, with the expectation of intense use and local economic growth in the upcoming years (Deininger & Ali, 2023). Even during the Russian invasion, market transactions expanded and prices increased.

These reforms gave local authorities strong statutory planning powers and fiscal capacities while expanding the market reach in land use. As municipalities lack the experience and the expertise to use these powers effectively and efficiently, this poses a risk to a sustainable and just recovery of the country, especially considering the impending global land scarcity and its overlapping impacts (Meyfroidt et al., 2022), exacerbated by the loss of lands to the Russian invasion.

And while much research is currently focused on a better understanding of the drivers of local land policies (Götze & Hartmann, 2021), their effectiveness and trade-offs, chiefly in light of the housing (Krigsholm et al., 2022; Lönnroth et al., 2024), climate and energy crises (Löschner et al., 2021), we know little about how local governments start building capacity in land-use planning or develop a land portfolio strategy. While benefitting from extended knowledge of the range of land policies, we can still hardly explain and compare which local land policies are used and why in different contexts (Hengstermann et al., 2023). Intermunicipal learning and knowledge systematization remain weak. Resolving the knowledge and policy gap is crucial, as municipalities are key mediators of land use and are responsible for the implementation of supra-national normative regulations and strategies (Evers, 2024), while also balancing the interests of their constituency and local stakeholders (Mazzoleni, 2022).

Focusing on Ukrainian municipalities of different sizes, land use and population we explore both the use of public land (land portfolio management) and control over privately owned lands (land use management) from the perspective of organizational learning and institutional theory. Via in-depth interviews, we analyse how the local authorities interpret the broader governance context, as well as learn and develop their approach to land management. Using questionnaires and follow-up interviews we identify the use of policy tools and structure the reasoning behind their implementation.

Synthesising these findings, we expand the theoretical understanding of how municipalities engage in land management under conditions of institutional uncertainty and explore practical consequences for the broad goals of achieving sustainable land use.

References

Hengstermann, A., Wenner, F., Jehling, M., & Hartmann, T. (2023). Innovative Land Policies in Europe. Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning, 81(6), 575-578. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.2246
Gerber, J. D., Hartmann, T., & Hengstermann, A. (2018). Planning with or against property rights. In Instruments of Land Policy: Dealing with Scarcity of Land (pp. 337-349). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315511658
Hersperger, A. M., Grădinaru, S. R., & Siedentop, S. (2020). Towards a better understanding of land conversion at the urban-rural interface: planning intentions and the effectiveness of growth management. Journal of Land Use Science, 15(5), 644-651. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423x.2020.1765426
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2010). Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization. Journal of management inquiry, 20(1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222