Ensuring the resilience of multilevel governance of social development under hybrid threats.
Abstract
The article examines the problem of ensuring the resilience of multilevel governance of social development under hybrid threats. The relevance of the problem is substantiated through the growing scale and intensity of hybrid threats that create systemic challenges for the public authority vertical. The essence of resilience is revealed as the ability of the system to maintain functionality, adapt to changes, and recover after destructive impacts. Four key dimensions of resilience are defined: structural resilience through diversification and absence of single points of failure, functional resilience through redundancy of critical capabilities, adaptive capacity through learning and response mechanisms, recovery capability through plans and recovery resources. Specific threats to different levels of governance are identified: at the national level – undermining the legitimacy of central authorities through disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, economic pressure through energy blackmail; at the regional level – destabilization through exacerbation of inter-regional contradictions, use of historical and cultural differences, support for separatist movements; at the local level – destruction of trust between authorities and communities, cyberattacks on service systems, physical destruction of infrastructure. Mechanisms for ensuring resilience are examined: structural diversification to avoid single points of failure, functional redundancy of critical capabilities, development of adaptive response mechanisms through early warning systems and scenario planning, creation of reserve resources for rapid recovery. The role of decentralization in enhancing resilience through the distribution of powers, resources, and risks between levels is revealed, while vulnerabilities of decentralization without adequate coordination mechanisms are identified. The importance of vertical and horizontal coordination for coherence of actions and mutual assistance is analyzed. International experience of Estonia, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic countries in ensuring resilience under hybrid threats is studied. Based on Ukrainian experience of resisting Russian aggression, both critical vulnerabilities and significant adaptive capacity of the system are identified. Five priority directions for strengthening resilience are proposed: completion of institutional development of local self-government, strengthening of the resource base, creation of effective coordination systems, enhancement of cybersecurity, development of crisis response capabilities.
Downloads
References
Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-level governance. Public Policy and Administration, vol. 19, is. 1, 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670401900103
Boin, A., & Lodge, M. (2016). Designing resilient institutions for transboundary crisis management: a time for public administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12264
Comfort, L.K., Boin, A., & Demchak, C.C. (2010). Designing resilience: Preparing for extreme events. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijdrbe.2011.2.2.178.1
Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 299–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124
Faguet, J.P. (2014). Decentralization and governance. World Development, 53, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.002
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
Hoffman, F.G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st century: The rise of hybrid wars. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649
Jore, S.H. (2017). The conceptual and scientific demarcation of security in contrast to safety. European Journal for Security Research, 2, 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41125-017-0021-9
Lanoszka, A. (2016). Russian hybrid warfare and extended deterrence in eastern Europe. International Affairs, 92(1), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12509
Manyena, S.B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2006.00331.x
Renz, B., & Smith, H. (2016). Russia and hybrid warfare: Going beyond the label. Helsinki: Aleksanteri Institute. URL: http://www.helsinki.fi/aleksanteri/english/publications/
presentations/papers/ap_1_2016.pdf
Rodden, J. (2004). Comparative federalism and decentralization: On meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics, 36(4), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150172
Smoke, P. (2001). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries: A review of current concepts and practice. Geneva: UNRISD. URL: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/31721101_Fiscal_Decentralization_in_Developing_Countries_A_Review_of_Current_Concepts_and_Practice_P_Smoke
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington: Island Press.
