Source
https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2022.08.04.07 — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Voznyak, Stasyshyn & Koval 2022 — evaluating financial self-sufficiency of territorial communities (LIT_075)
A measurement METHODOLOGY for financial self-sufficiency — the primary behind the I01 Voznyak bullet
Develops and tests an integral composite index of a community’s financial self-sufficiency, built from a revenue component and an expenditure component (7 sub-indicators each), normalised and PCA-weighted. Tested on 73 Ukrainian territorial communities (Lvivska oblast, 2021). For NI it is a template for how to compose a financial-sufficiency sub-index (the I01 measurement design) and the primary source behind a bullet previously cited only via CR_001 — not an NZ figure for any calculation cell.
Summary
Voznyak, Stasyshyn & Koval develop a three-stage methodology (compositional → empirical → taxonomic) for evaluating the financial self-sufficiency of territorial (municipal) communities as a basis for their sustainable development, and test it on all 73 communities of Lvivska oblast, Ukraine, using 2021 open-budget data. Financial self-sufficiency is decomposed into a revenue component and an expenditure component, each formed from seven per-capita / ratio sub-indicators; the sub-indicators are normalised, weighted by principal-components analysis, combined into structural component scores by linear weighting, and then into a single integral coefficient of financial self-sufficiency per community. A separate taxonomic ranking scores each community on the efficiency of its financial-resource management for economic development. The headline empirical result is that 83.6% of the 73 communities cannot be regarded as financially self-sufficient, with town communities weakest (75% at low levels). For Neobiome this is a methodological reference for the I01 financial/economic-sufficiency indicator — a worked example of building a composite financial-sufficiency index from weighted sub-indicators — and the primary source behind the existing I01 Voznyak evidence bullet.
Key claims
- claim: "DEFINITION. 'For the purpose of the research, a territorial community is regarded as financially self-sufficient if it has an efficient mechanism for generation and management of financial resources, can independently secure the complete realization of social services for the community residents, and is capable of self-development in the long run based on self-realization, self-governance, and self-funding.' A self-funding / self-governance / self-development definition of FINANCIAL self-sufficiency at community scale."
source_location: "p.153 (Introduction and review of literature)"
- claim: "METHOD (composite-index structure). Financial self-sufficiency is evaluated in three consequent stages — compositional, empirical, taxonomic — decomposing it into a REVENUE component (InC) and an EXPENDITURE component (OutC), each built from 7 per-capita / ratio sub-indicators. Sub-indicators are normalised (stimulating vs destimulating formulas 3-5), weighted by principal-components analysis (formula 6; weights sum to 1 within each component), combined into structural component scores by linear weighting (formula 7), and into a single INTEGRAL coefficient of financial self-sufficiency per community by the integral approach (formula 8)."
source_location: "Methodology, pp.155–158 (Figure 1; Formulas 2–8)"
- claim: "REVENUE-COMPONENT INDICATOR MENU (7). (1) own revenues per capita, USD; (2) share of own revenues (without transfers) in GRP, %; (3) share of local taxes and fees in own revenues, %; (4) ratio of own revenues to general revenue fund, coefficient; (5) level of fiscal autonomy (tax revenues / own revenues without transfers), coefficient; (6) subsidiarity level, % (negative impact); (7) ratio of local taxes to community transfers, coefficient."
source_location: "Formula 2, pp.156–157"
- claim: "EXPENDITURE-COMPONENT INDICATOR MENU (7). (1) capital expenditures per capita, USD; (2) share of capital expenditures in total expenditures, %; (3) general fund expenditures per capita, USD; (4) expenditures for performance of national functions per capita, USD (negative impact); (5) economic activity expenditures per capita, USD; (6) social expenditures per capita, USD; (7) housing expenditures per capita, USD."
source_location: "Formula 2, pp.156–157"
- claim: "WEIGHTS (Lvivska oblast 2021, PCA-derived, Table 1). Revenue component: own revenues per capita 18.5%, own-revenues-to-general-fund ratio 19.0%, subsidiarity level 16.1%, local-taxes-to-transfers ratio 14.7%, local taxes/fees share 11.2%, fiscal autonomy 11.2%, own-revenues-in-GRP share 9.2% (least). Expenditure component: capital expenditures per capita 19.1% (highest), economic activity expenditures per capita 18.9%, general fund expenditures per capita 17.8%, capital-expenditure share 15.9%, national-functions expenditures 13.3%, housing expenditures 11.7%, social expenditures per capita 3.3% (least)."
source_location: "Table 1, p.159"
- claim: "HEADLINE RESULT — 83.6% not financially self-sufficient. 'analysis and evaluation of financial indicators for 73 territorial communities in Lvivska oblast in 2021 show that 83.6 % of the communities cannot be regarded as financially self-sufficient. The share of basic grants in own revenues was over 50 % for more than 12.3 % of communities, which is a significant challenge for the sustainable development of communities. High subsidiarity levels of local budgets are the destructive factor for improvement of their financial self-sufficiency.'"
source_location: "Conclusions, p.166"
- claim: "DISTRIBUTION BY COMMUNITY TYPE. City communities: only Lvivska reached a high integral level (revenue component 0.815, expenditure 0.561); moderate for Stryiska, Pustomytivska, Horodotska, Sudovovyshnyanska, Chervonohradska, Sambirska and Kamyanka-Buzka; Turkivska critically low (0.217). Town communities: NONE reached high — 75% had low financial self-sufficiency (integral 0.218–0.372); Slavska best (moderate, 0.577). Village communities: Sokilnytska (integral 0.636) and Solonkivska (0.626) highest of all communities in the oblast, driven by fiscal autonomy and proximity to the oblast centre; 64.7% of village communities were at low levels. ⚠ Internal inconsistency in the source: the Abstract and integral-index classification count only Lvivska as high (Stryiska moderate), but the results-discussion body (p.162) states the 'High level (Harrington scale) of financial self-sufficiency in Lvivska and Stryiska territorial communities' — i.e. the body text treats Stryiska as high too."
source_location: "Results and discussion, pp.159–164 (Abstract; Tables 2–4; Figures 2–4; caveat p.162)"
- claim: "TAXONOMIC RANKING (efficiency of financial-resource management for economic development). Communities ranked by formulas 9–10 (OnFront software) into four groups: I max efficiency (coefficient = 1.00), II high (0.90–0.99), III moderate (0.60–0.89), IV low (0–0.59). The MODERATE group is the largest (45 of 73 communities). Communities with high financial self-sufficiency 'do not always show high socio-economic development paces.'"
source_location: "pp.164–166 (Table 5; Conclusions)"
- claim: "NOVELTY / METHODOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION. Unlike prior fragmented approaches, the method provides a COMBINED (integral) evaluation of the significance of the components of financial self-sufficiency and detects the complementary impact of financial self-sufficiency on ensuring sustainable economic development of the territory; it lets local governments compare communities both by the integral indicator and by individual criteria for budget-planning diagnosis."
source_location: "Abstract (Originality; Practical value); Conclusions, p.166"Neobiome Intelligence / thesis relevance
A measurement-methodology reference for the I01 (Financial & Economic Self-Sufficiency) indicator — not a data input. The value to NI is the structure: it is a fully-worked example of building a composite financial-sufficiency index from weighted, normalised sub-indicators — decompose into revenue and expenditure components, normalise each per-capita/ratio sub-indicator (with explicit stimulating/destimulating handling), PCA-weight, linear-weight into component scores, then integrate into one coefficient. That is the same architecture the SSI itself uses (normalised sub-indicators → weighted composite with a limiting-domain safeguard), so it corroborates the I01 measurement design and offers a concrete sub-indicator menu for the financial-autonomy facet (own-revenue share, fiscal autonomy, subsidiarity/transfer dependence, capital-vs-social expenditure mix).
What it is NOT. The numbers are Ukrainian municipal-budget results (Lvivska oblast, 2021) — a government-finance / fiscal-decentralisation scale, not the household/eco-village financial sufficiency I01 targets in the NZ context. No figure here lands in an NI calculation cell; treat it as a methodological analog and a thesis reference on how community financial self-sufficiency is operationalised, alongside the water-measurement methods (LIT_065, LIT_063) and the SSI framework (LIT_001).
Primary-source upgrade. This is the primary behind the I01 evidence bullet “Voznyak et al. (2022) operationalise financial self-sufficiency through local budget self-sufficiency ratios, tax revenue independence scores, and per capita expenditure on housing and social services” — until now cited only via the Bustamin synthesis CR_001. Feeds I01.
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- None. This resolves RT_022 (Voznyak et al. 2022 — territorial-community self-sufficiency evaluation framework), the doc raised by LIT_001.
Research gaps
- No new RT. (No NZ equivalent — a NZ territorial-authority financial-self-sufficiency index would be a fiscal-governance study outside the NI scope; not worth a target. The I01 measurement design already draws its NZ financial evidence from CHFA / community-finance sources.)
Notes
Primary peer-reviewed article, read verbatim via pdftotext -layout; every figure traces to the raw → data_quality: verified. Open-access e-journal (are-journal.com), so no access restriction. Ukrainian-context caveat is the main interpretation limit — the method transfers, the numbers do not. context: both — an I01 measurement-methodology reference (NI) that also grounds the thesis’s community-financial-self-sufficiency-measurement argument. Resolves RT_022; upgrades an existing CR_001-attributed I01 bullet to its primary.
Connections
Links to
Sources (4): CR_001 · LIT_001 · LIT_063 · LIT_065
SSI indicators (1): I01: Financial & Economic Self-Sufficiency
Referenced by
SSI indicators (1): I01: Financial & Economic Self-Sufficiency