Transcarpathian context of administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine in 2020
Authors: Panov A.V. 
Published: August 2022

The analysis of the basic principles of the system of administrative-territorial organization of Transcarpathia is carried out. It is noted that since the beginning of the twentieth century for this region have been marked by the presence of a large number of important political events in the context of territorial affiliation and, consequently, territorial division. This topic is especially relevant because the process of forming new administrative-territorial units in Transcarpathia has recently taken place. The researcher had to be one of the authors and a constructive critic of the change in the administrative and legal structure of this region.
It is established that the boundaries and sizes of territorial communities and districts raise a number of questions. It is unclear how Uzhhorod is left without territorial growth, which is almost the only regional center in Ukraine that has not increased the area and population within the reform. Instead, there is a significant consolidation of Mukachevo due to the addition of a large number of rural settlements that do not have proper road transport links with the center of the newly formed community. For example, in order for a resident of the village of Dorobratovo to get to Mukachevo, he will have to travel through the territory of the neighboring Verkhnokoropetsk community. Similar questions arise before designing the Khust community.
It is indicated that it is unknown what principle was followed when deciding on the establishment of five communities in the former city of regional importance Beregovo and Beregovo district, the total area of which is 0.7 thousand square meters. km. with a population of 80 thousand people. Instead, in the situation with the city of regional significance - Khust and the relevant district, four communities were formed, despite the fact that the area is 1.1. thousand sq. km., and a population of 129 thousand people. In addition, one of the most problematic issues in the formation of districts is the frequent lack of correlation with the system of transport networks. In particular, in order for a conditional resident of the village of Zarichchya in the new Khust district to reach the district center, he will have to cross the border of his own district several times and get to Berehivsky, and then return again. Such nuances in the future may negatively affect the livelihoods of new districts, the convenience of communication between the population and government agencies, in particular, cause problems in determining jurisdiction, areas of responsibility in serving citizens and more.
It is proved that the current model for six districts is much more balanced than the ones proposed at the beginning of the reform of the division into four / three districts. With the exception of Rakhiv district, the rest of the territorial units look comparable and balanced.
Among the proposals that, in the author's opinion, could make the administrative-territorial structure of the region more balanced, the following are highlighted: 1. Association of Rakhiv and Tyachiv districts, with the location of the district center in the village of Solotvino. An alternative is to relocate the Solotvyno settlement community from Tyachiv to Rakhiv district, in order to balance the population and resource potential of the latter. 2. Transfer of Zarichanska village community from Khust district to Berehiv district. 3. Joining of Onokivska, Kholmkivska and Baranynska rural communities to Uzhhorod city community.