Institutional Resilience of Public Governance under Conditions of

Sustainable Development

RADMYLA VOITOVYCH, MARIIA МASYK, DENYS DARMOSTUK

Institute for Personnel Training of the State Employment Service,

Kyiv, UKRAINE

NATALIIA ZLENKO

Department of Fine Arts, Musicology and Cultural Studies,

Educational and Scientific Institute of Culture and Arts

Sumy State Pedagogical University named after A.S. Makarenko

Sumy, UKRAINE

IRYNA YATSYK

Educational and Research Institute of Pedagogics

Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University

Zhytomyr, UKRAINE

MARINA SHULGA

Educational and Scientific Institute of Public Administration and Civil Service,

Department of Public Administration

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Kyiv, UKRAINE

Abstract: Intensification of globalization processes, social-political and financial and economic instability, the

desire of Eastern European countries to integrate into the European Union raise the issue of sustainable

development, in which public governance is of great importance. Ensuring effective and sustainable public

governance is one of the priority areas of sustainable development of the state. The purpose of the research lies

in substantiating the theoretical and applied principles of studying the institutional resilience of public

governance and assessing the impact of public governance on ensuring sustainable development. General and

special methods of economic analysis have been used in the research, in particular as follows: analysis and

synthesis, comparisons and analogies, generalization and systematization, grouping and cluster analysis based

on the use of k-means method, and graphical method. The results of studying the impact of public governance

stability on sustainable development have revealed that the institutional resilience of public governance

significantly affects sustainable development. Exploring the impact of the institutional resilience of public

governance on ensuring sustainable development of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, three groups

of countries have been identified that have common features of public governance and sustainable

development, namely: countries with a relatively high level of institutional resilience of public governance and

sustainable development (Hungary (GSDGI: 75,00 - 78,78), Poland (GSDGI: 73,70 - 80,22), the Czech

Republic (GSDGI: 78,70 - 81,39), Slovakia (GSDGI: 75,60 - 79,57), in which the basic principles of

institutional resilience of public governance and sustainable development are implemented at a sufficiently high

level; countries with a moderate (intermediate) level of institutional resilience of public governance and

sustainable development (Moldova (GSDGI: 73,68 - 74,50), Ukraine (GSDGI: 72,30 - 75,51), Belarus

(GSDGI: 76,00 - 78,82), which make significant efforts to ensure an effective system of public governance and

sustainable development indicators; countries with a low level of institutional resilience of public governance

and sustainable development (Azerbaijan (GSDGI: 70,50 - 73,68), Armenia (GSDGI: 68,80 – 71,79), Georgia

(GSDGI: 68,90 - 72,23), in which significant destabilizing factors are revealed to ensure the institutional

resilience of public governance and sustainable development.

Key-Words: resilience, public governance, sustainable development, Global Sustainable Development Index,

Integrated Public Governance Indicator.

Received: August 9, 2021. Revised: May 22, 2022. Accepted: June 10, 2022. Published: June 24, 2022.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

884

Volume 18, 2022

1 Introduction

The challenges of globalization and European

integration necessitate effective counteraction to the

risks, threats and dangers of the external and

internal environment, increasing the importance of

public governance. Ensuring sustainable

development in such conditions is considered as an

indicator of improving standards and quality of life

in the strategic perspective. In this context, the

problem of the role of state structures, local

governments and non-governmental organizations in

the system of management decisions is relevant.

After all, effective balancing of economic, social

and environmental systems is not possible without

practical public governance. At the present stage,

the necessity arises to meet the mechanisms of the

public governance system to the requirements of

institutional resilience, which is seen as a property

to resist destabilizing factors, to maintain its own

order of organization and functioning. It should be

noted that in the context of globalization, countries

with different types of political regimes and,

accordingly, with different stability of public

governance functionate in parallel: from developed

democracy to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Therefore, public governance in these countries is

also characterized by different features and methods

of implementation.

2 Literature Review

The necessity to develop and deepen the publicity of

the system of exercising power on the basis of

combining public governance with local self-

government and public involvement is due to the

need to implement public policy in all spheres of

economy and society. Public governance is

considered as an activity aimed at ensuring the

effective functioning of public authorities and local

self-government, providing for the possibility of

wide participation of various stakeholders in the

formation and implementation of public policy. The

system of studying the activities of civil servants,

politicians and procedures of public authorities of

Pollitt & Bouckaert (2017) is interpreted as public

governance. At the same time, Bouckaert (2002)

considers public governance activities the ones that

are closely related to politics, law and civil society.

Along with this, Caldatto et al. (2020) suggest

understanding the concept of resilience of public

governance, which is associated with ensuring

sustainable development, while emphasizing that

public governance should take into account the

social dimension, and decision makers, accordingly,

should comply with certain established standards.

Institutional resilience of public governance

involves ensuring the proper functioning of the

system of public authorities and local self-

government, security and safety of the society and

their ability to withstand the challenges and threats

of internal and external environment.

Spangenberg (2002) emphasizes the necessity to

explore the institutional dimension of sustainable

development in terms of such components as

institutions, mechanisms and orientations, and

evaluate the effectiveness of public governance

based on determining the relationship of progress to

the goals set. In addition, the scholar argues that

political institutions use the rules of political

decision-making from the standpoint of both social

subjects in political processes and subjects of the

rule system of political behaviour.

The idea of sustainable development of public

governance is substantiated at a high level by Bartle

& Leunenberger (2006), who consider sustainable

development to be an important fresh angle at public

policy and public governance, the essence of the

concept of which lies in predicting the possible

consequences of current behaviour.

Lavrus (2021) pays considerable attention to the

issue of ensuring the institutional resilience of

public governance; he believes that countries of a

democratic type have more sustainable public

governance than countries of other types.

At the same time, Al-Atti (2018) substantiates

the viewpoint according to which there is a fairly

high level of development of civil society in

democratic countries, and state power turns into

public governance, and it is significantly dependent

on the society.

Saburova (2021) sees the essence of public

governance in the management of people in the

system of democracy development and on the basis

of the consciousness of a progressive civil society.

Concurrently, the scientist distinguishes two types

of public governance, namely: (1) indirect - the

activities of executive authorities at all levels and

(2) direct - the activities of legislative authorities

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

885

Volume 18, 2022

and local self-government, highlighting elements of

public governance and the activities of non-

governmental organizations, as well as business

structures.

The 2021 World Public Sector Report “National

Institutional Arrangements for the Implementation

of the Sustainable Development Goals: A Five-Year

Stocktaking: 2021” recognizes that national

institutions are crucial in the system of sustainable

development, and strengthening the resilience of

public governance in the context of globalization

and intensifying the COVID-19 pandemic

contributes to inclusive policy responses to

challenges and threats. At the same time, the

premium is placed on measuring the institutional

resilience of public governance in the context of

sustainable development, namely, on the

institutional mechanisms of public governance,

determining its strengths and weaknesses and

effectiveness, as well as assessing the ability of

public authorities to ensure sustainable

development.

In this context, the assessment of the

implementation of the Sustainable Development

Goals proclaimed by the UN General Assembly

(United Nations General Assembly, 2015), gains

newfound relevance, in particular those, relating to

various governance structures, taking into account

their national realities, capabilities, the level of

development of the country, the effectiveness of

state policy and defined priorities. It should be noted

that it is supposed to fulfil eleven principles for the

consistent and effective achievement of the

Sustainable Development Goals, which apply to all

government institutions, including the management

of legislative and executive bodies, the security and

defence sector, constitutional bodies and state

corporations. Along with this, efficiency,

transparency, accountability of public

administration entities, crackdown on corruption,

inclusive management decision-making, free access

to information and counteraction to discrimination

of laws and policies is also expected to be achieved.

Meuleman (2021) insists that the coherence of

the quality of public governance with the goals of

sustainable development is of great importance for

the formation and implementation of strategic

policy. At the same time, the scholar proves that a

quick response and resistance to crisis influences

significantly depends on the effectiveness of public

governance and cooperation between public

authorities and the society.

A similar viewpoint is shared by Bornemann &

Christen (2018), who argue that the institutional

resilience of public governance is interrelated with

the management of sustainable development. The

scientists confirm this standpoint by their

investigations on the public governance system,

which is characterized by four types of sustainable

development management, and focus on identifying

practical mechanisms for managing institutional

resilience.

The viewpoint that the institutional resilience of

public governance is aimed at ensuring sustainable

development is supported by Zeijl-Rozema et al.

(2008). The scholars insist on the necessity and

importance of measuring the effectiveness of public

governance and creating a methodological

framework for conducting an empirical analysis of

resilience of public governance in the context of

sustainable development. The standpoint of Fiorino

(2010) on determining the focus of public

governance in terms of sustainable development is

characterized by absolute similarity. Along with

this, Lubell & Morrison (2021) argue that

sustainable development requires an appropriate

level of social cooperation based on the

implementation of the principles of public

governance, and institutional resilience in their

understanding is interpreted as a tool for public

participation in sustainable development

management.

Concurrently, Pomaza-Ponomarenko et al.

(2021) emphasize the difficulties of assessing the

effectiveness and efficiency of the institutional

resilience of public governance and convince that

the achievement of a positive effect depends on the

optimal choice of criteria, tools and methodology

for conducting assessments, which has not been

clearly defined and regulated yet. Moreover,

Shumska & Melnyk (2021) focus on the need for a

large-scale, rapid and timely update of the content

of public governance based on innovative

development when conducting research in the field

of sustainable development.

Exploring the problems of public governance,

Parkhomenko-Kutsevil (2020) pays considerable

attention to the issue of information protection in the

public governance system. The scholar believes that

information openness of public governance

authorities is one of the tools to combat corruption

in the political sphere, which is manifested through

the formation of mechanisms to provide information

to public governance bodies in order to establish

their dialogue with the public and society and form

effective management decisions.

3 Research Goals

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

886

Volume 18, 2022

The purpose of the research lies in substantiating the

theoretical and applied principles of studying the

institutional resilience of public governance and

assessing the impact of public governance on

ensuring sustainable development.

4 Materials and Methods

A variety of general and special methods of

economic analysis have been used in the research, in

particular as follows: analysis and synthesis in order

to determine the essence of the institutional

resilience of public governance and sustainable

development; comparisons and analogies for

conducting analytical assessments of the state and

trends of institutional resilience of public

governance and determining its impact on

sustainable development of the country;

generalization and systematization in order to

formulate hypotheses and conclusions, as well as to

summarize the results of the research; grouping a

cluster analysis based on the use of k-means method

for grouping Central and Eastern European

countries according to the Global Sustainable

Development Index (Global SDG Index), the

integrated indicator of public governance

(Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot

(GRICS), Disinformation Resilience Index;

graphical method for visual display of research

results.

The countries of Central and Eastern Europe (10

countries: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia,

Moldova, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, the

Czech Republic) have been selected for conducting

the research.

The information base of the research is based on

the reports for 2018-2021, namely: Sustainable

Development Report 2018-2021 according to the

Global SDG Index; Worldwide Governance

Indicators according to the Governance Research

Indicator Country Snapshot (GRICS);

Disinformation Resilience Index in Central and

Eastern Europe in 2021 according to the

Disinformation Resilience Index.

5 Results

The issues of social-economic development of the

countries of Central and Eastern Europe are related

to the incompleteness of the transformation process

of national economies and the increasing influence

of globalization and European integration, entailing

significant challenges and threats to the national

interests of these countries, which should be

countered at the diplomatic level, ensuring high

indicators of sustainable development. In view of

the tendencies outlined, the study of the institutional

resilience of public governance in the countries of

Central and Eastern Europe and its impact on

sustainable development is of great importance.

The state of change in the functioning of the

financial, economic and social-political sphere is

sufficiently fully characterized on the basis of the

assessment of certain indicators that allow drawing

conclusions about development trends,

implementation efficiency and the dynamics of

processes and phenomena. The most complete

analysis of the country’s sustainable development is

possible on the basis of the Global SDG Index,

which is based on a comprehensive assessment of

countries on indicators such as security, human

development and quality of life. Empirical

calculations of the Global Index of Sustainable

Development (Global SDG Index) and studies of its

dynamics during 2018-2021 (Figure 1) testify to the

ambiguity of its significance in the countries of

Central and Eastern Europe. The highest value of

the Global SDG Index has been recorded in such

countries as Hungary (75,00 – 78,78), Poland (73,70

– 80,22) and the Czech Republic (78,70 -81,39).

Slightly lower values of the analysed indicator are

revealed in Slovakia (75,60 – 79,57) and Belarus

(76,00 – 78,82), and the lowest values - in Armenia

(68,80 – 71,79), Georgia (68,90 - 72,23) and

Azerbaijan (70,50 - 73,68).

Fig. 1: Dynamics of the Global SDG Index in the

countries of Central and Eastern Europe in 2018-

2021

Source: it has been compiled based on Sustainable

Development Report, 2018–2021.

The results of the investigations conducted show

that in the countries - members of the European

Union, there is a higher level of sustainable

development; however, in the countries of the

transitive type - rather low indicators of security,

human development and living standards are

revealed. It should be noted that the analysis of

sustainable development indicators in the analysed

group of countries showed an interesting position of

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

887

Volume 18, 2022

Ukraine, which according to the Global SDG Index

occupies much higher positions than Moldova,

Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, but lags far

behind such countries as Hungary, Poland, the

Czech Republic, Slovakia and Belarus. Therefore,

we consider it expedient to deepen our research and

group Central and Eastern European countries

according to the Global SDG Index in 2018-2021

(Table 1) using cluster analysis technology based on

the k-means method in order to clarify the common

features of sustainable development and determine

the reasons for changes in established trends.

Table 1. Grouping of Central and Eastern European countries according to the Global SDG Index in 2018-2021

Global SDG Index

2018

2019

2020

2021

Country

Cluster

number

Country

Cluster

number

Country

Cluster

number

Country

Cluster

number

The Czech

Republic

Hungary

The Czech

Republic

Hungary

Poland

Hungary

Poland

The Czech

Republic

Poland

The Czech

Republic

Slovakia

Belarus

Moldova

Ukraine

Moldova

Azerbaijan

Armenia

Moldova

Georgia

Source: It has been compiled based on Sustainable Development Report, 2018–2021.

Based on the data obtained, it can be stated that the

clustering of selected countries has made it possible

to distinguish three groups of countries, namely: (1)

countries with a relatively high level of sustainable

development (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,

Slovakia and Belarus); (2) countries with a

moderate level of sustainable development

(Moldova and Ukraine); (3) countries with a very

low level of sustainable development (Azerbaijan,

Armenia and Georgia).

Forasmuch as it has been established that

sustainable development to a large extent depends

on the effectiveness of public governance, it can be

assumed that in countries with the highest level of

social-economic development (the Czech Republic,

Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Belarus), the public

governance system is more efficient, and its

institutional resilience is ensured at the highest

level. By contrast, in developing countries

(Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia and

Georgia) the system of public governance does not

take into account the state and trends of key

indicators of development and factors influencing it,

leading to inefficient state regulation and indicating

the presence of problems of a social-political nature

in such countries.

In this context, it is reasonable to study the

indicators of public governance efficiency, which

will be conducted on the basis of assessing the value

of the Governance Research Indicator Country

Snapshot (GRICS) during 2018-2020 using the

same cluster analysis based on the k – means

method (Table 2). It should be noted that the

calculation of the Integral Indicator of Public

Governance is based on an international assessment

methodology that allows conducting interstate

comparisons and identifying common and

distinctive features based on assessments of the

indicators as follows: (1) the right to vote and

accountability – it measures the extent to which

citizens can participate in the choice of public

authorities, features of political processes, civil

liberties and political rights; (2) political stability

and absence of violence – it assesses the likelihood

of destabilizing the government and the possibility

of forced resignation due to violence, as well as the

degree of quality of public governance authorities to

adapt to abrupt changes, change course and counter

the risks of disrupting the peaceful election process;

(3) government efficiency – it reflects the quality of

services provided by public authorities and local

governments, the competencies of civil servants, the

level of their independence from political pressure

and the level of confidence in public policy; (4) the

quality of legislation – it establishes compliance of

the effectiveness of economic, political and social

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

888

Volume 18, 2022

measures with current legislation, in particular,

control of price levels, control of banks, excessive

regulation of business development and

international trade; (5) rule of law – it measures the

level of citizens’ trust in the law, the effectiveness

of the legislative system, the extent to which laws

are enforced by the society, and citizens’ attitudes

towards crime; (6) control of corruption – it

determines the level of perception of corruption in

the society and the existence of political corruption.

Table 2. Grouping of Central and Eastern European countries according to Governance Research Indicator

Country Snapshot (GRICS) in 2018–2020

Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot (GRICS)

2018

2019

2020

Country

Cluster number

Country

Cluster number

Country

Cluster number

Hungary

Poland

The Czech

Republic

The Czech

Republic

The Czech

Republic

Slovakia

Georgia

Belarus

Azerbaijan

Ukraine

Armenia

Moldova

Source: It has been compiled based on Worldwide Governance Indicators, 2018–2020.

Based on the results of the calculations conducted,

the countries of Central and Eastern Europe

according to the Governance Research Indicator

Country Snapshot (GRICS) in 2018-2020 were

stably divided into three groups as follows: (1)

countries with relatively efficient level of public

governance (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic,

Slovakia and Georgia), where the society can freely

participate in the electoral process; there is a fairly

high level of political stability and the absence of

violence; effective operation of public authorities in

the field of public governance is ensured; legislation

is observed, and enhanced control measures are

implemented to ensure effective prevention and

counteraction of corruption; (2) countries with a

moderate level of public governance efficiency

(Belarus, Azerbaijan), where there are significant

problems in ensuring the right to vote and political

stability, the facts of falsification of election results

to public authorities, low level of confidence in the

law and the presence of corruption; (3) countries

with a low level of public governance efficiency

(Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova), where significant

destructive changes in all indicators of the

Integrated Indicator of Public Governance are

observed, and the institutional stability of public

governance is ensured inadequately.

In addition, the conditions of uncertainty,

instability and globalization cause significant legal

and institutional changes towards ensuring the

sustainability of public governance related to the

functioning of the information space, which plays an

important role in the public administration system. It

should be noted that, at the present stage, the issue

of ensuring the resilience of countries to

disinformation is exacerbated, which, in turn,

requires a study of countries’ ability to withstand

threats and challenges in this area and effectively

manage information flows. According to the results

of calculations on the Disinformation Resilience

Index in the countries of Central and Eastern

Europe, conducted for the first time in 2021, a stable

trend in the analysed group of countries has not

been recorded yet (Figure 2). By the way, Belarus

and Moldova demonstrated the lowest level of

resistance to misinformation.

Fig. 2: Dynamics of the Disinformation Resilience

Index in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe

in 2021

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

889

Volume 18, 2022

Source: it has been compiled based on

Disinformation Resilience Index in Central and

Eastern Europe in 2021.

An in-depth analysis of the Disinformation

Resistance Index in the countries of Central and

Eastern Europe on such indicators as societal

resilience, institutional and legal resilience, media

resilience and digital technology has revealed the

completely different positions of the countries of

Central and Eastern Europe on ensuring resilience.

Consequently, we consider it expedient to conduct

the research in this area by grouping the countries of

a certain group separately for each indicator, using

cluster analysis technologies. The results of the

calculations, systematized in Table 3, make it

possible to draw certain conclusions, namely: firstly,

for each indicator, three groups of countries have

been formed that have common signs of ensuring

resistance to disinformation; secondly, it was not

possible to identify a stable trend among countries.

Table 3.Grouping of Central and Eastern European countries according to the Disinformation Resilience Index

in 2018-2020

Disinformation Resilience Index

Resilience of the society

Institutional and legal resilience

Resilience of the media and the

digital sphere

The Czech

Republic

Ukraine

Belarus

Ukraine

Slovakia

Azerbaijan

Poland

Hungary

Azerbaijan

The Czech

Republic

Poland

Armenia

Ukraine

Slovakia

Moldova

Slovakia

Armenia

Hungary

Georgia

The Czech

Republic

Poland

Belarus

Armenia

Moldova

Georgia

Moldova

Source: It has been compiled based on Disinformation Resilience Index in Central and Eastern Europe in

2021.

In particular, the Czech Republic, Ukraine and

Azerbaijan have taken the highest position in terms

of society’s resistance to misinformation, forming a

reliable basis for combating false information. The

societies of such countries as Belarus and Moldova

are considered to be the least protected. Other

countries (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Armenia and

Georgia) are placed in the second cluster, indicating

a moderate level of resilience to misinformation.

As for the resistance to misinformation in terms

of institutional and legal resilience, Ukraine and

Slovakia are the most protected states, however,

Hungary, the Czech Republic, Belarus and Georgia

are the least protected countries. Along with this, the

moderate level of protection is observed in Poland,

Azerbaijan, Armenia and Moldova.

The investigations of countries on the resilience

of the media and digital technologies to

misinformation have revealed the best positions of

Belarus and Azerbaijan, and the worst ones of

Poland, Armenia and Moldova. Other countries

(Hungary, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Slovakia,

Georgia) have provided a moderate level of

protection.

Taking into consideration the conducted studies,

there is such a tendency that Ukraine, the Czech

Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia

significantly exceed the values of the other two

indicators in terms of the resilience of the society. It

must be admitted that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Georgia and Moldova are more stable in terms of

media and digital resilience compared to the value

of the other two indicators in these countries.

Thus, the assessments of the institutional

resilience of public governance make it possible to

determine the degree of impact on sustainable

development of the country. If we conduct a

comparative analysis, then there is a tendency that

countries with a higher level of institutional

resilience of public governance have higher

indicators of sustainable development (Poland, the

Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary), and

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

890

Volume 18, 2022

developing countries are unable to adequately

ensure the growth of either the institutional

resilience of public governance or sustainable

development.

6 Discussion

The results of the studies of the institutional

resilience of public governance in the context of

sustainable development in the countries of Central

and Eastern Europe make it possible to distinguish

three groups of countries that can be characterized

by common features and characteristics of resilience

of public governance or sustainable development.

Group 1. Countries with a relatively high level of

institutional resilience of public governance and

sustainable development (Hungary, Poland, the

Czech Republic, Slovakia), where appropriate

conditions and opportunities for the right to vote are

provided; political stability is observed; state and

local self-government bodies function effectively

and opportunities for the public to influence their

activities are provided; legislation is characterized

by the quality, effectiveness and rule of law,

appropriate measures are taken to combat corruption

offences and prevent political corruption.

Group 2. Countries with a moderate level of

institutional resilience of public governance and

sustainable development (Moldova, Ukraine,

Belarus), where an insufficient level of sustainable

development is observed, however, there are

significant distortions in ensuring the institutional

resilience of public governance, problems with the

functioning of public authorities, incomplete reform

of decentralization of power, existing problems of

political stability, imperfect legislation and a

significant level of corruption.

Group 3. Countries with a low level of

institutional resilience of public governance and

sustainable development (Azerbaijan, Armenia,

Georgia), where the optimal level of institutional

resilience of public governance is not provided and

low values of sustainable development indicators

are recorded.

Taking into consideration the outlined tendencies

and identified problems in ensuring sustainable

development, due to the inefficiency and

imperfection of public governance, it is advisable to

strengthen the interaction of public authorities and

local self-government with the public; to promote

the involvement of the society in the social-

economic and social-political process; to constantly

improve the quality of public governance and ensure

the rule of law.

7 Conclusions

Therefore, studies of the institutional resilience of

public governance in terms of sustainable

development in Central and Eastern European

countries give grounds to conclude that public

governance significantly affects the sustainable

development of the country; consequently, it is

important to ensure institutional sustainability of

public governance. It has been established that in

countries where a high level of efficiency of public

governance is ensured, a higher level of sustainable

development is observed, and developing countries

of the so-called transitive type, under the present

conditions, are not able to provide appropriate

conditions for public governance and have

significant problems in the mechanism of interaction

between public authorities, local government and

the society. The results of the research conducted

have revealed that the countries of Central and

Eastern Europe are divided into three groups in

terms of ensuring the institutional resilience of

public governance in the context of their sustainable

development, namely: the countries that are member

states of the European Union (Hungary, Poland, the

Czech Republic, Slovakia) are characterized as

those where a higher level of sustainable

development is observed, and respectively, the

sustainability indicators of public governance are

much higher, and the countries of Eastern Europe,

which have not completed the processes of

economic transformation yet (Azerbaijan, Armenia,

Georgia), they are on the periphery of social-

economic development and need to strengthen the

system of public governance.

References:

[1] Al-Atti, I. (2018). Public administration:

essence and definition. Public administration

aspects, 6 (8), 35–41. Available at.: DOI:

10.15421/151844

[2] Bartle, J.R. & Leunenberger, D. (2006). The

Idea of Sustainable Development in Public

Administration. Public Administration Faculty

Publications, 10. Available at.:

https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/pubadfa

cpub/10

[3] Bornemann, B. & Christen, M. (2018).

Sustainability governance in public

administration: Interpreting practical

governance arrangements in Swiss cantons.

Environmental Policy and Governance, 29

(3), 159–169. Available at.:

https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1840

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

891

Volume 18, 2022

[4] Bouckaert, G. (2002). Modernizing the

Rechtsstaat: Paradoxes of the Management

Agenda. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 155.

[5] Caldatto, F.C., Bortoluzzi, S.C. & Lima, E.P.

(2020). The role of Public Administration in

Sustainable Development. International

Business, Trade and Institutional

Sustainability. World Sustainability Series,

69–79. Available at.:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26759-9_4

[6] Fiorino, D.J. (2010). Sustainability as

Conceptual Focus for Public Administration.

Public Administration Review, 70 (s1), 78–

88. Available at.:

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2010.02249.x

[7] Havlićek, P. & Yeliseyeu, A. (2021).

Disinformation Resilience Index in Central

and Eastern Europe in 2021. Warsaw, 272.

Available at.: https://east-center.org/wp-

content/uploads/2021/09/DRI-report-2021.pdf

[8] Lavrus, V.V. (2021). Comparative Analysis of

the Sustainability of Public Administration

Systems in democratic and authoritarian

Regimes to destructive Information and

Psychological influences. Theory and History

of Public Administration, 3 (84), 30–36.

Available at.: DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35432/1993-

8330appa3842021246233

[9] Lubell, M & Morrison, T.H. (2021).

Institutional navigation for polycentric

sustainability governance. Nat Sustain, 4,

664–671. Available at.:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00707-5

[10] Melnychenko, B. (2021). Modern paradigm of

public management: a practical dimension for

Ukraine. Bulletin of the National University

«Lviv Polytechnic», 8 (29), 104–109.

Available at.:

https://science.lpnu.ua/uk/law/vsi-

vypusky/volume-8-number-129-

2021/suchasna-paradygma-publichnogo-

upravlinnya-praktychnyy

[11] Meuleman, L. (2021). Public Administration

and Governance for the SDGs: Navigating

between Change and Stability. Sustainability,

13 (11), 5914. Available at.:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115914

[12] National institutional Arrangements for

implementation of the Sustainable

Development Goals: a five-year stocktaking.

World Public Sector Report 2021. Available

at.:

https://unpan.un.org/sites/unpan.un.org/files/

WPSR2021_Full-Report_24Aug-Final.pdf

[13] Parkhomenko-Kutsevil, O.I. (2020).

Information openness of the public

administration system as a basis for ensuring

national security. Scientific Bulletin: Public

Administration, 3 (5), 195–203. Available at.:

https://doi.org/10.32689/2618-0065-2020-

3(5)-195-203

[14] Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public

Management Reform: A Comparative

Analysis. Oxford: University Press, 388.

Available at.:

https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=8jooD

wAAQBAJ&hl=uk&source=gbs_similarbook

[15] Pomaza-Ponomarenko, A.L., Semiletov, O.S.,

Medvedeva, D.O.& Kryukov, O.I. (2021).

Effectiveness of public administration

mechanisms in the environmental sphere in

Ukraine: content analysis of legal,

institutional and innovation components.

Public Administration and Customs

Administration, 2, 29, 44–48. Available at.:

DOI https://doi.org/10.32836/2310-9653-

2021-2.7

[16] Saburova, G.B. (2021). The main directions of

development of the public administration

system in Ukraine. Public Administration in

Ukraine, 21, 23–27. Available at.: DOI

https://doi.org/10.32843/pma2663-5240-

2021.21.5

[17] Shumska, G.M. & Melnyk, V.I. (2021).

Determining the directions of development of

the national economy in the context of

reforms based on ensuring effective public

administration in Ukraine. Businessinform, 5,

102–107. Available at.: https://www.business-

inform.net/export_pdf/business-inform-2021-

5_0-pages-102_107.pdf

[18] Spangenberg, J.H. (2002). Institutional

sustainability indicators: An analysis of the

institutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of

indicators for monitoring their effectivity.

Wiley InterScience, 10, 103–115. Available

at.: DOI: 10.1002/sd.184

[19] Sustainable Development Report 2018. The

Decade of Action for the Sustainable

Development Goals. Available at.:

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/

[20] Sustainable Development Report 2019. The

Decade of Action for the Sustainable

Development Goals. Available at.:

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

892

Volume 18, 2022

[21] Sustainable Development Report 2020. The

Decade of Action for the Sustainable

Development Goals. Available at.:

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/

[22] Sustainable Development Report 2021. The

Decade of Action for the Sustainable

Development Goals. Available at.:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainabledevelop

ment.report/2021/2021-sustainable-

development-report.pdf

[23] United Nations General Assembly of 25

September 2015 № 70/1. Available at.:

https://undocs.org/ru/A/70/L.1

[24] Worldwide Governance Indicators. Оfficial

website of the World Bank. Available at.:

https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/

[25] Zeijl-Rozema, A., Cörvers, R., Kemp, R. &

Martens, R. (2008). Governance for

sustainable development: a framework.

Sustainable Development, 16 (6), 410–421.

Available at.: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.367.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.83

Radmyla Voitovych, Mariia Мasyk,

Denys Darmostuk, Nataliia Zlenko,

Iryna Yatsyk, Marina Shulga

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

893

Volume 18, 2022