Decentralisation and Social Cohesion in Ukraine

Ukraine is often described as a country with low levels of institutional trust. Yet this characterisation hides an important local dynamic: across Ukraine’s municipalities, communities have become spaces where social trust is generated – even under the pressures of war, displacement, and growing social diversity.

This dynamic has been shaped by Ukraine’s decentralisation reform, which has strengthened the role of municipalities as key arenas of everyday cooperation and collective problem-solving. In this sense, social cohesion in Ukrainian communities is a lived process, reproduced through continuous interaction between local authorities, civil society actors, religious groups, businesses, volunteers, and residents – even when invisible barriers or tensions persist.

Decentralisation and the conditions for social cohesion

Decentralisation did not automatically create social cohesion. However, it did fundamentally change the conditions under which cohesion could emerge by providing local actors with concrete tools. The transfer of financial resources and decision-making powers from the central government to the municipalities put the latter at the centre of citizens’ everyday lives. Residents increasingly associate governance with visible, local outcomes rather than distant politics.

People see how decisions are made on the ground – from infrastructure repairs and service provision to crisis responses – which fosters practical trust in local authorities even as general political trust declines. Newly established institutions, such as administrative service centres and dedicated communication departments, have made local governments more accessible and responsive.

Crises have amplified this shift. During the Covid-19 pandemic and, later, the full-scale Russian invasion, Ukraine’s need for rapid local solutions became critical. Communities organised evacuations, distributed humanitarian aid, supported the military, and helped displaced populations. These experiences strengthened perceptions of local authorities as capable partners rather than distant administrators.

Importantly, research shows that citizens rarely link social cohesion directly to decentralisation as a reform. Instead, they emphasise improved interaction, transparency, and accountability at the local level. Decentralisation created an enabling environment – but social cohesion was shaped primarily through everyday lived experiences.

Cohesion among diverse groups

Social cohesion in Ukrainian communities is moulded by the everyday interactions between diverse groups. In focus groups and interviews held in nine communities, respondents described concrete forms of cooperation among veterans, internally displaced people, religious and ethnic communities, and local residents. Respondents emphasised that these interactions are what ultimately determines the level of trust in a community.

In several communities, participants pointed to tensions between particular groups – notably over the distribution of humanitarian aid or access to services, or because of differing expectations of the role of local authorities. These tensions were managed through informal arrangements with the involvement of local leaders or activists, or through personal contacts among residents.

Horizontal practices play a particularly important role in this process and were consistently identified by respondents as crucial for maintaining unity. These practices include joint cultural events, volunteering initiatives, school-based activities, local traditions, and collective commemoration of fallen soldiers. Especially illustrative are communities that received large numbers of internally displaced people. In these cases, volunteering often became the first space for interaction – through joint activities such as weaving camouflage nets for the military, collecting aid, or participating in humanitarian initiatives. Respondents noted that it was shared activities, rather than formal integration programmes, that gradually reduced the social distance between long-term residents and newcomers.

Vertical interaction between citizens and local authorities proved to be just as significant. Respondents stressed that openness on the part of local authorities, regular communication, and a willingness to respond to conflict situations substantially reduced tensions in communities. Regular meetings with residents, consultations, and citizen participation in decision-making fostered a sense of shared responsibility for community life.

Taken together, these examples show that social cohesion in communities does not emerge through a single instrument or actor. It develops through a combination of everyday practices, informal mechanisms, and local governance, which together form an ecosystem of interaction between authorities and citizens. Within this ecosystem, local authorities play a coordinating role, activists initiate and moderate interactions, businesses provide material support, religious communities act as carriers of trust, and citizens participate through concrete collective actions.

Sustaining cohesion in challenging times

The Ukrainian case shows that social cohesion cannot be engineered through institutional reform alone. While decentralisation provided the structural conditions and resources that elevated the role of local governance, cohesion itself emerged through everyday interaction, negotiation, and cooperation among diverse groups. Communities become cohesive not when differences disappear, but when local institutions can mediate tensions, foster participation, and enable collective action. In this sense, Ukrainian municipalities illustrate how social cohesion can be sustained even in contexts of low institutional trust, war, and deep social diversity – offering important insights for other societies that seek to strengthen local cohesion in uncertain conditions.

This Spotlight draws on findings from the research project Decentralisation and Differences in Ukraine, implemented by the Kyiv School of Economics in cooperation with the Center for Governance and Markets at the University of Pittsburgh, with the support of the John Templeton Foundation. The field research was conducted between April and May 2025.

Tetiana Lukeria is a sociologist and researcher at the Kyiv School of Economics and a lecturer at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.

Dr Oleksandra Keudel is an associate professor and vice-dean for science in the Social Sciences Department and a founding director of the Center for Democratic Resilience at the Kyiv School of Economics.

Both authors are fellows at the Ukraine Research Network@ZOiS (UNET), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space.