Vorotin, Valerii; Vorotina, Nataliia; Prodanyk, Vasyl (2025). THE HYBRID TRAJECTORY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN UKRAINE: A MODEL OF RESILIENCE, REFORM, AND EUROPEAN INTEGRATION. Social and Human Sciences. Polish-Ukrainian scientific journal (https://issn2391-4165.webnode.com.ua/), 01 (45).

 THE HYBRID TRAJECTORY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN UKRAINE: A MODEL OF RESILIENCE, REFORM, AND EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

Vorotin, Valerii, Doctor of Sciences in Public Administration, Professor, Head of the Department of Public Administration, State Environmental Academy of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine (Ukraine, Kyiv), vevorotin@gmail.com ;

Vorotina, Nataliia PhD in Law, Associate Professor,
Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Public Administration and Administrative Law,
V.M. Koretsky Institute of State and Law,National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Ukraine, Kyiv), vorotina.nataliia@gmail.com ;

Prodanyk, Vasyl, PhD in Public Administration,
Associate Professor of the Department of Public Administration,
Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations and Social Sciences,
Private Higher Educational Institution «Interregional Academy of Personnel Management» (Ukraine, Kyiv), nubiru9x9@gmail.com

SUMMARY

The article analyzes the transformation of Ukraine’s public administration under the conditions of full-scale war and active European integration. The author proposes a hybrid model that combines elements of crisis administration, institutional resilience, and the implementation of EU standards. The purpose of the study is to identify the structures of administrative resilience that emerged under martial law and to assess their compliance with the European principles of good governance. The methodological basis includes institutional analysis, comparative approach, case studies, and content analysis of regulatory documents.

The hybrid model consists of three functionally interconnected levels: the crisis level (reactive administration and resource mobilization), the adaptive level (organizational flexibility, digitalization, network-based governance), and the integrative level (systematic implementation of the acquis communautaire and EPPA principles). This multi-level structure makes it possible to reflect not only the formal parameters of administrative reform, but also the actual capacity of institutions for sustainable transformation under conditions of high threat dynamics.

The results of the study demonstrate that Ukrainian public administration has shown resilience through digitalization, decentralized decision-making, interinstitutional coordination, and the continuation of reforms oriented toward the principles of good governance. The model has both academic value - in developing the concept of resilience governance and Europeanization under threat - and practical value - as an analytical framework for strategic post-war governance planning.

Keywords: public administration; martial law; institutional resilience; European integration; administrative reform; hybrid model; good governance; digital government; adaptive governance.

 

 

ГІБРИДНА ТРАЄКТОРІЯ ПУБЛІЧНОГО УПРАВЛІННЯ В УКРАЇНІ: МОДЕЛЬ СТІЙКОСТІ, РЕФОРМ І ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОЇ ІНТЕГРАЦІЇ

 

Воротін, Валерій, доктор наук державного управління, професор, Державна екологічна академія Міністерства охорони навколишнього середовища та природних ресурсів України (Україна, Київ), vevorotin@gmail.com;

Воротіна, Наталія, кандидат юридичних наук, доцент, старший науковий співробітник, Інститут держави і права імені В. М. Корецького, Національна академія наук України (Україна, Київ), vevorotin@gmail.com;

Проданик, Василь, кандидат наук державного управління, доцент Навчально-науковий інститут міжнародних відносин та соціальних наук, Приватний вищий навчальний заклад «Міжрегіональна академія управління персоналом» (Україна, Київ), vevorotin@gmail.com

АНОТАЦІЯ

У статті аналізується перетворення публічного управління України в умовах повномасштабної війни та активної європейської інтеграції. Автори пропонують гібридну модель, яка поєднує елементи кризового управління, інституційної стійкості та впровадження стандартів ЄС. Метою дослідження є визначення структур адміністративної стійкості, що виникли в умовах воєнного стану, та оцінка їхньої відповідності європейським принципам належного управління. Методологічна основа включає інституційний аналіз, порівняльний підхід, тематичні дослідження та контент-аналіз нормативних документів.

Гібридна модель складається з трьох функціонально взаємопов'язаних рівнів: кризового рівня (реактивне управління та мобілізація ресурсів), адаптивного рівня (організаційна гнучкість, цифровізація, мережеве управління) та інтегративного рівня (систематичне впровадження принципів acquis communautaire та EPPA). Така багаторівнева структура дозволяє відобразити не лише формальні параметри адміністративної реформи, але й фактичну спроможність інституцій до сталої трансформації в умовах високої динаміки загроз.

Результати дослідження демонструють, що українське публічне  управління продемонструвало стійкість завдяки цифровізації, децентралізації прийняття рішень, міжінституційній координації та продовженню реформ, орієнтованих на принципи належного управління. Модель має як академічну цінність – у розвитку концепції управління стійкістю та європеїзації під загрозою, так і практичну цінність – як аналітична основа для стратегічного планування післявоєнного управління та відновлення.

Ключові слова: публічне управління; воєнний стан; інституційна стійкість; європейська інтеграція; адміністративна реформа; гібридна модель; належне управління; цифровий уряд; адаптивне управління. 

1. Introduction

In the context of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation since February 2022, public administration has faced challenges that go beyond traditional crisis management. Issues such as the continuity of administrative processes, the functioning of critical infrastructure, responses to humanitarian needs, and the simultaneous fulfillment of Ukraine’s commitments within its European integration course have highlighted the urgent need to reconsider the functioning of the public administration system under martial law.

Despite the extraordinary circumstances, the reform of public administration in Ukraine has not stopped. On the contrary, new practices have emerged: adaptation mechanisms, enhanced institutional resilience, digitalization of procedures, and the mobilization of horizontal governance structures, including volunteer, civic, and business networks. These developments allow us to speak of the emergence of a distinct model of governance resilience that is evolving under conditions of hybrid threats, yet remains oriented toward post-conflict recovery and compliance with the principles of good governance, as required by Ukraine’s European trajectory.

The aim of this study is to identify the main directions of public administration reform in Ukraine under martial law, to reveal the mechanisms for the formation of governance resilience structures, and to outline ways to ensure that these transformations align with European Union standards. The article examines how adaptive models of governance contribute to maintaining the state’s functionality, and how these models may be integrated into a long-term reform strategy for public administration in line with the acquis communautaire.

The key research question is: What structures of institutional resilience are being formed in Ukraine’s public (national and local) administration under wartime conditions, and how do they correlate with the requirements of European integration?

In the scope of this research:

-                     a review of relevant literature on institutional resilience and European governance is presented;

-                     a case analysis of public administration reforms during wartime is conducted;

-                     the key characteristics of the emerging governance model are identified (flexibility, networked interaction, adaptability);

-                     a comparison with European administrative standards is provided;

-                     a conceptual scheme is proposed for the integration of governance resilience structures into the post-war reform framework of public administration.

Thus, this article contributes to the understanding of how a system of public administration can transform in the context of large-scale crisis, while maintaining functionality, legitimacy, and adherence to a strategic development trajectory -European integration. 

2. Literature Review

The study of institutional resilience in public administration under crisis conditions, as well as transformations related to European integration, encompasses an interdisciplinary research field. One of the key concepts in this context is resilient governance - a framework that integrates the capacity of public institutions to adapt to complex threats while maintaining functional integrity (Christensen & Lægreid, 2020; Ansell et al., 2021). According to contemporary approaches, resilient governance is based on openness to innovation, the ability to make rapid decisions, and the engagement of external actors, including civil society, business, and international organizations.

Simultaneously, a scholarly direction is evolving that focuses on the transformation of public administration under emergency conditions. This field emphasizes adaptive capacity - the ability of institutions to learn, self-correct, and engage in horizontal governance (Comfort et al., 2010; Boin et al., 2017). Studies in this domain show that in the face of hybrid challenges (such as war, cyber threats, and migration crises), a network-oriented governance model - grounded in openness, transparency, and cross-sectoral cooperation—proves to be the most effective.

At the same time, the European dimension of public administration reform in Ukraine is rooted in the implementation of good governance principles, as outlined by the Council of Europe, the OECD, and the acquis communautaire. Notably, the European Principles of Public Administration (EPPA) provide a normative framework for assessing the administrative capacity of EU candidate countries (SIGMA/OECD, 2019). Research highlights that the European integration process influences not only legislative changes but also institutional models, administrative procedures, and governance cultures (Meyer-Sahling, 2009; Dimitrova, 2010).

Considerable attention is also devoted to analyzing the interplay between centralized and decentralized structures in crisis management contexts. According to studies (Boin et al., 2020), regional and local administrations emerge as key agents of adaptation during emergencies. Their ability to respond swiftly to challenges and collaborate with non-governmental actors is seen as the cornerstone of effective public governance in turbulent environments.

In recent years, Ukraine’s experience has increasingly entered the scope of comparative research (Kuzio, 2022; Romaniuk et al., 2023), particularly as an example of a symbiosis between military governance, digital technologies, volunteer movements, and integration-oriented reforms. This unique context positions Ukraine as a living laboratory for testing new models of resilience governance, which may prove relevant for other countries facing protracted conflicts or high levels of external threat.

 

3. Methodology of Institutional Analysis under Martial Law

This study applies a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach combining elements of institutional analysis, comparative administrative studies, case-based reasoning, and qualitative content analysis of regulatory frameworks and analytical sources. This methodology enables the integration of empirical analysis of transformations in Ukraine’s public administration system under martial law with a critical reflection on their compliance with European administrative standards.

3.1. Analytical Framework

At the core of the analytical framework lies the concept of governance resilience, understood as the capacity of institutions to maintain functionality, efficiency, and legitimacy under conditions of high destabilization, particularly during wartime. The model defines four structural components of resilience:

-     Organizational adaptability (the ability to promptly transform administrative structures);

-      Information and digital mobility (digital services, transparency, speed of communication);

- Network-based interaction with non-governmental actors (volunteers, businesses, communities);

-      Compliance with the standards of European public governance.

These components are aligned with the parameters of the European Principles of Public Administration (SIGMA/OECD), particularly: the existence of a stable legal framework, functional division of competences, administrative efficiency, transparency, control, and accountability.

3.2. Case Selection Justification

The empirical analysis focuses on Ukrainian public institutions at both central and regional levels, including executive authorities, military administrations, and territorial communities. Special attention is given to innovative governance practices during wartime: digital platforms (Diia, eAid, Reserve+), regional initiatives in security and humanitarian response (e.g., in Kyiv and Kharkiv regions), and the integration of volunteer structures into local governance systems.

The case is selected due to its unique context: a functioning state system under conditions of full-scale military aggression that continues to pursue EU membership, requiring constant adaptation to European administrative standards.

3.3. Data Sources

- Regulatory and legal framework of Ukraine (laws, presidential decrees, Cabinet resolutions, military administration regulations);

- Strategic documents: Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement, National Strategy for Public Administration Reform;

- Public analytical data: Centre for Economic Strategy, Ukraine Recovery Plan, SIGMA Papers;

- Semi-structured expert interviews with regional administrators and digital project managers (with anonymization);

- Review of practices documented in open reports by international donors (UNDP, GIZ, USAID DOBRE, SURGe).

3.4. Methods of Analysis

- Content analysis - used to systematize changes in legal acts governing public administration during martial law;

- Comparative analysis - applied to compare Ukrainian administrative practices with the requirements of EPPA and other European standards;

- Case method - for in-depth examination of adaptive governance examples at regional and community levels, followed by typologization of practices;

- Systemic generalization - enabled the synthesis of results into a conceptual model of resilient public governance in wartime.

4. Public Administration of Ukraine under Martial Law

The 2022 invasion by the Russian Federation led to rapid changes in Ukraine’s public administration system. National institutions were forced to operate under the legal regime of martial law, with limited access to resources, constant security threats, and dynamic humanitarian demands. At the same time, these conditions catalyzed the emergence of new governance practices focused on speed, adaptability, digital mobility, and cross-sector cooperation. This section examines the key aspects of these transformations.

4.1. Organizational Adaptability: Restructuring of Institutions and Procedures

Martial law in Ukraine accelerated flexible restructuring of state authority. Military administrations played a critical role, assuming civil governance functions in temporarily occupied or frontline areas. According to the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” and decisions of the National Security and Defense Council, the state vertical was complemented by crisis powers, enabling rapid delegation of authority and resource concentration on the ground.

Operational governance mechanisms also deserve attention - coordination headquarters, interagency working groups, and crisis centers established at the level of regional administrations. Many operated in close partnership with international donors, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, law enforcement, and civil society. Adaptability manifested in the integration of formal legal frameworks with informal decision-making practices, often under conditions of extreme time and resource constraints.

4.2. Digitalization and Information Mobility: New Dimensions of Administrative Efficiency

Ukraine’s e-governance system proved its effectiveness during critical moments—resource mobilization, registration of internally displaced persons, financial assistance, and unified information policy. Tools such as the Diia application, the eAid platform, Prozorro+, and inter-ministerial digital coordination ensured the continuity of basic governance functions. A notable example is the Ministry of Digital Transformation, which served as a “driver institution” of dynamic management.

These digital tools performed not only service functions but also strategic roles - data collection, risk management, and citizen communication. This aligns with European standards of transparency, efficiency, and user-centered administration (EPPA, OECD, e-Government benchmarks).

4.3. Network Governance and Collaboration with Non-Governmental Actors

During mass humanitarian challenges, the integration of volunteer initiatives, businesses, local communities, media, and international organizations became a core resource of administrative resilience. Particularly at the regional level, the state established horizontal coordination mechanisms: logistics centers, volunteer hubs at military administrations, and municipal coordination points. These operated in a network governance mode, ensuring decision speed and multi-actor responses.

This interaction occurred not through directive mechanisms but via partnerships and complementarity - hallmarks of collaborative governance, recognized as effective in emergencies (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Such cooperation enabled the integration of social capital into public administration processes.

4.4. Institutional Capacity for Regulatory Adaptation and Uncertainty Management

The crisis period activated temporary regulatory mechanisms (emergency regulation), including pilot procedures, simplified permitting systems, and changes in public procurement. Ukraine demonstrated a model of crisis-sensitive governance, wherein regulatory policy provided both stability and adaptability.

However, the prolonged state of war creates risks of regulatory overload, erosion of normative consistency, and weakened accountability. In this context, a strategic balance is needed between temporary measures and long-term alignment with the European legal environment.

 

5. European Integration Guidelines for Public Administration Reform

5.1. Compliance with the Principles of the European Administrative Space

After Ukraine obtained EU candidate status in 2022, aligning the public administration system with EU standards became not only a political obligation but also a central element of national development strategy. The focus has been placed on the principles of good governance, efficient administration, transparency, and accountability, as outlined in the European Principles of Public Administration (EPPA), developed within the SIGMA initiative (Support for Improvement in Governance and Management) by the OECD and the European Commission (SIGMA, 2019).

EPPA outlines five key areas for assessing the quality of public administration in candidate countries:

1.                  A strategic policy-making framework;

2.                  A reliable and predictable legal system;

3.                  Development and management of the civil service;

4.                  Accountability of public authorities;

5.                  Citizen-oriented public service delivery.

In response to these requirements, Ukraine adopted the National Public Administration Reform Strategy for 2022–2025, which explicitly requires alignment with European governance frameworks. The war has not halted this process; rather, it has accelerated the emergence of institutions, procedures, and tools that reflect the logic of European governance.

Significant progress has been recorded in the following components:

-                     Digital transformation of public services, aligned with accessibility and transparency standards — exemplified by the Diia application, recognized as one of Europe’s most innovative e-governance projects (UNDP, 2023);

-                     Civil service reform, based on meritocracy, competitive selection, and professional ethics, consistent with SIGMA Paper No. 61 (OECD/SIGMA, 2020);

-                     Institutionalization of strategic planning, particularly through evidence-based policymaking tools applied in the Ministries of Finance, Digital Transformation, and Regional Development;

-                     Transparency in public finance and procurement, supported by platforms such as Prozorro and Prozorro+, consistent with accountability and anti-corruption standards (Transparency International, 2023).

Ukraine’s reforms increasingly follow a whole-of-government approach as recommended by the OECD, involving horizontal coordination, shared objectives, digital integration, and outcome-oriented policy (OECD, 2018).

Nevertheless, challenges remain: regulatory instability, lack of comprehensive assessment of institutional effectiveness, and low levels of citizen participation in local policymaking. As Dimitrova (2020) argues, it is the implementation - not merely legal approximation - that serves as the real indicator of European governance, and this requires improved monitoring, independent auditing, and impact evaluation.

Overall, reform assessment in Ukraine is positive in terms of both pace and adaptability. Under crisis conditions, the country has introduced numerous measures that align not only formally but also substantively with the administrative culture of the EU - demonstrating the potential for synergy between reform, institutional resilience, and integration.

5.2. Interaction Between European Integration Reforms and Governance Resilience During War

Ukraine’s European integration agenda under martial law has acquired dual significance: on the one hand, it maintains the logic of implementing the acquis communautaire as a strategic objective of state policy; on the other, it has become a mechanism for ensuring institutional resilience amid systemic threats. Under such conditions, public administration reforms fulfill not only a normative but also a stabilizing function (Dimitrova, 2020).

Scholarly literature emphasizes the dual dynamics of Europeanization in post-socialist countries: an initial phase of transposition (formal adoption of norms) and a deeper phase of internalization (institutional embedding) (Meyer-Sahling & Veen, 2012). In wartime Ukraine, both phases have accelerated - driven by external expectations and the internal need to strengthen governance and state legitimacy.

5.2.1. EU Standards as a Stabilizing Framework

European administrative standards - particularly those embedded in EPPA - have become an “orientation framework” for Ukrainian reforms under complex conditions (OECD/SIGMA, 2019). Ministries such as Digital Transformation, Finance, and Economy incorporate these standards into their strategic plans, demonstrating commitment to normative alignment even in times of crisis.

Digital tools like Diia, online citizen requests, and Prozorro+ have ensured transparency, accessibility, and responsiveness—core components of the open government principle (OECD, 2017).

5.2.2. Resilience Governance as a New Element of European Integration

Under the impact of war, Ukraine is forming a new administrative model -resilience governance - characterized by flexibility, rapid responsiveness, network cooperation, and institutional adaptability (Ansell et al., 2021). This model shifts focus from traditional bureaucratic administration to multi-actor governance involving citizens, local governments, businesses, and volunteer networks.

This transformation aligns with the current European paradigm of institutions that remain functional amid multilayered uncertainty (Boin & Lodge, 2016). Integrating resilience-based elements into the European reform logic could lead to new methodologies for assessing reforms in conflict-affected countries.

5.2.3. European Integration as a Channel for Institutional Resource Support

EU integration instruments serve not only to shape legal standards but also to provide institutional resources - financial, expert, and technological. Programs such as SIGMA, SURGe, EU4PAR, and U-LEAD deliver not only know-how transfer but also implementation sustainability (European Commission, 2022).

During wartime, this support has underpinned the continued modernization of Ukraine’s administrative system, especially at the regional level, where international partnerships have intensified.

5.2.4. Ukraine’s Experience as a Source of Political Learning in the EU

Ukraine’s unique wartime experience generates new types of institutional behavior that may be relevant to other countries within the European Administrative Space. Elements of digital response, emergency delegation of powers, and cross-sector coordination could be institutionalized within the European framework for public administration evaluation (Boin et al., 2020).

 

6. Synergy of Reform, Resilience, and European Integration

A key finding of this analysis is the understanding that public administration reform in Ukraine during wartime has gone beyond the process of formal adaptation to EU standards. It has acquired strategic importance for maintaining governability, institutional legitimacy, and embedding the national administrative model into the European context through real-life resilience. As a result, three vectors have been integrated during wartime: crisis response, administrative modernization, and political European integration.

6.1. The European Integration Framework as a Stabilizing Foundation for Crisis Governance

European principles of public administration - particularly openness, legality, accountability, and effectiveness - remain the backbone of Ukraine’s administrative reform (OECD/SIGMA, 2019). Martial law has not nullified these principles; on the contrary, it has emphasized their role as tools for legal stabilization, procedural unification, and public trust.

Digital governance tools, standardized administrative procedures, and new service delivery models through platforms like Diia and eAid demonstrate the effective combination of managerial adaptation and compliance with the acquis communautaire (UNDP, 2023). These elements are not merely technological but serve as structural pillars of stable governance grounded in the principles of good administration.

6.2. Governance Resilience as a Marker of Institutional Maturity

In contemporary public administration theory, resilience is not only the ability to withstand pressure but also to adapt, transform, and function under uncertainty (Ansell et al., 2021). Ukraine, operating under war conditions, demonstrates not just mobilization capacity but institutional flexibility and innovation capacity, including:

-          Rapid regulatory updating (pilot laws, new legal regimes);

-          Interagency coordination at national and regional levels;

-          Formation of hybrid administrative-civic models of service delivery.

This multifaceted system functions not in spite of, but because of, reforms initiated in previous years. The principles of meritocracy, e-governance, transparency, and strategic planning introduced during the 2016-2021 reform cycle have become the foundation for institutional viability during full-scale crisis (Dimitrova, 2020).

6.3. Systemic Interaction: Crisis – Transformation – Integration

Empirical analysis has revealed a new outline of Ukraine’s entire public administration system—mechanisms and tools - that can be described as an integrative model composed of three levels:

1.                  Crisis Governance – decision-making under immediate threat;

2.                  Transformative Governance – restructuring of institutional architecture;

3.                  Integrative Governance – alignment with principles and structures of the European Administrative Space.

A systemic interaction is established between these levels: crisis decisions stimulate transformation, and transformation is directed toward EU-standard alignment (Meyer-Sahling & Veen, 2012). Thus, the Ukrainian case illustrates a new modernization configuration under emergency conditions, relevant for EU candidate countries facing multidimensional threats and strategic challenges.

6.4. Strategic Architecture for the Governance of the Future

Based on the experience gained, Ukraine’s future public administration model must be institutionally reimagined by integrating:

-          Good governance and EPPA standards;

-          Elements of adaptive crisis administration;

-          Co-governance mechanisms involving civil society and business;

-          Digital responsiveness and transparency;

-          Full integration of local self-government into national policy architecture.

In this way, the synergy of reform, resilience, and European integration becomes not just an ideological construct but a structural foundation for Ukraine’s post-war recovery, oriented toward trust, performance, and strategic modernization (Boin & Lodge, 2016; OECD, 2018).

6.5. The Hybrid Model of Public Administration Transformation: From Wartime Adaptation to European Integration

To summarize, this study presents a hybrid model combining elements of crisis administration, institutional resilience, and European administrative standards. It is based on the interaction of three levels:

1. Crisis Level (reaction, mobilization):

- Priority: rapid response to threats;

- Instruments: military administrations, emergency regulations, resource mobilization, command logic;

- Objective: ensure governability, security, and minimize chaos.

2. Adaptive Level (restructuring, stabilization):

- Priority: flexibility, functional transformation of institutions;

- Instruments: decentralization, digitalization, cross-sector cooperation, staff mobility;

- Objective: institutional continuity and functionality under crisis dynamics.

3. Integrative Level (reforms, standards):

- Priority: implementation of good governance and EPPA principles;

- Instruments: reform roadmaps, compliance with the acquis communautaire, participation in SIGMA, SURGe, U-LEAD;

- Objective: European integration and long-term modernization.

 

Analytical Table: Comparison of Components of the Hybrid Governance Model in Ukraine

Component	Crisis Management	Adaptive Governance	European Integration Governance
Priority	Speed of response, security, control	Resilience, innovation, flexibility	Compliance with European standards
Institutions	Military administrations, staff offices	Local regional military administrations, digital platforms, cross-sectoral hubs	Ministries, Reform Office, SIGMA, SURGe
Mechanisms	Command decisions, emergency powers	Partnership, experimentation, digital services	Regulations, strategies, policies
Action Logic	Centralization, vertical structure	Flexible coordination, networked approach	Unification, normalization according to acquis communautaire
Time Horizon	Immediate, short-term	Medium-term	Long-term, post-crisis
Type of Management	Reactive	Adaptive	Institutionalized, strategic
Value Base	Survival, discipline	Solidarity, local capability	Transparency, legal certainty, efficiency
Examples	Evacuation, centralized decisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, General Staff	Diia, Prozorro+, humanitarian hubs, digital Ministry of Digital Transformation	HRMIS, EPPA monitoring, public policy in action

 

This hybrid model allows for understanding the Ukrainian situation not as a deviation from the «European norm», but as a dynamic adaptation of governance norms and mechanisms to the challenges of a real security crisis. It holds potential for use in comparative research on administrative resilience in the context of conflicts or threats.

6.6. Scientific and Practical Significance of the Hybrid Governance Model in the Context of War and European Integration

The proposed hybrid model of public governance transformation has significant heuristic value for public administration science and high practical relevance for shaping state and local governance policies in crisis and post-crisis conditions.

 

Scientific Significance:

1.                  Theoretical Generalization of Post-Crisis Transformation of Public Governance: The model allows for the synthesis of individual approaches to crisis governance, administrative adaptability, and Europeanization of governance into a single theoretical construct. It offers a structured understanding of the interaction between three governance levels (reactive, adaptive, and integration), which were previously considered separately in the academic literature (Ansell et al., 2021; Dimitrova, 2020; Boin & Lodge, 2016).

2.                  A New Object for Comparative Analysis: The model is useful for comparing the governance systems of countries at the intersection of war conflicts and European integration processes. The Ukrainian case is highly relevant for deep analysis, especially in comparison to the experiences of the Balkans, Georgia, Moldova, or even EU member states that have undergone institutional adaptation in crisis conditions (Meyer-Sahling & Veen, 2012).

3.                  Development of the Resilience Governance Concept: The model expands the concept of resilience from the organizational level to the macro-structural level of the state administrative system functioning under the pressure of existential threats. This creates the foundation for the development of a new theoretical framework: resilient Europeanization — the sustainable implementation of European principles in the context of war instability. 

Practical Significance:

1.                  A Tool for Strategic Planning of Reforms in the Post-War Period: The model can serve as the basis for designing a new architecture of public governance that takes into account the experience of crisis mobilization, digital transformation, and partnerships with the non-governmental sector. It allows for building reforms not "from scratch," but as an institutional continuation of already acquired adaptability.

2.                  A Guiding Framework for Donor and Partner Programs: The model's application can improve the structuring of external aid for reforms provided by international donors. For example, programs like SIGMA, U-LEAD, or SURGe can use the model as a methodological guide for evaluating the sequence and coherence of reforms during the war and in the recovery phase.

3.                  Assessment of Governance Systems' Capacity for Integration: The model provides an indicative toolset for assessing a country's readiness for EU membership, not only in the normative sense but also in terms of its functional readiness — how capable institutions are to simultaneously adapt, implement, and maintain new governance standards.

4.                  Development of Training Programs for Civil Service: In the context of reforming the civil servant training system, the model can be integrated into educational courses on crisis management, European administration, digital transformation, and institutional resilience.

The hybrid model of Ukrainian public governance in the context of war and European integration is not only an analytical description of the current situation but also a scientifically practical tool for understanding, evaluating, and shaping the strategic development of public governance in Ukraine and beyond.

It should be noted that the proposed conceptual hybrid governance model in Ukraine during the full-scale war and active phase of European integration generalizes and simultaneously systematizes the dynamics of reforms, institutional adaptation, and crisis administration. Its multi-level structure allows interpreting the current governance reality in Ukraine as a continuous interaction between existential threats and strategic modernization (18).

The model is based on three integrated levels:

-    Reactive (crisis) level - ensuring basic functionality under threats;

-   Adaptive (reform) level - organizational flexibility, digitalization, cross-departmental mobility;

- Integration (European) level - implementation of EU standards, alignment with EPPA principles, interaction with EU institutions.

The Scientific Value of the model lies in its creation of a new interdisciplinary approach to public governance in crisis, synthesizing knowledge from administrative science, European studies, crisis governance, and digital transformation. The model opens prospects for comparative studies in other countries with experiences of conflicts and transitions to European governance standards.

The Practical Value of the model lies in its potential to serve as a guide for post-war reforms of the entire public governance system and recovery, preparation of governance personnel, assessment of public institution efficiency, as well as strategic planning within the framework of the National Reform Strategy and Ukraine's Recovery Plan.

Thus, the model can be applied:

-          as an analytical framework for further research;

-          as a methodological foundation for policy and reform evaluation;

-          as a practical tool for building effective, resilient, and European-oriented public governance in Ukraine. 

8. Conclusions

The study of the hybrid model of transformation of public governance in Ukraine in the context of war and European integration allowed the formulation of a number of theoretical, analytical, and practical conclusions. Wartime circumstances have become not only a stress test for state institutions but also a catalyst for the modernization of governance practices, which have occurred in parallel with the continuation of the European integration course.

Ukraine's public governance has demonstrated its ability to combine operational crisis response, institutional adaptation, and systematic implementation of European administrative standards. This process is characterized as a hybrid trajectory, where war challenges have activated mechanisms of digitalization, inter-agency cooperation, decentralization, and public-civil partnership and budgeting. Some aspects have already been explored in the work (22).

Key conclusions can be summarized as follows:

1.                  The public governance system of Ukraine demonstrates multi-level resilience, which is manifested in its ability to ensure basic public functions under direct military threat. This resilience includes organizational, digital, regulatory, and network components.

2.                  European integration reforms have not been suspended; rather, they have gained new meaning, transforming from an external political priority into an internal tool for the stabilization and modernization of public governance. EPPA principles are applied in digital services, human resources policy, anti-corruption mechanisms, and strategic planning.

3.                  The proposed hybrid governance model structurally combines three levels: crisis management, adaptive reform, and European integration. This model is relevant for post-crisis and transition countries aiming to achieve high public administration standards in the context of systemic risks.

4.                  The scientific significance of the model lies in the synthesis of the theories of Europeanization, resilience governance, and administrative transformation, while the applied value is in creating a framework for strategic planning of reforms, particularly in unstable conditions.

 

Recommendations

Based on the analysis and the developed model, the following recommendations are proposed:

1.                  Officially integrate the principles of resilience governance into the National Strategy for Public Administration Reform, recognizing them as a necessary element during both wartime and post-war periods.

2.                  Develop a standardized methodology for assessing governance resilience, which will include indicators of digital maturity, personnel flexibility, network interaction, and compliance with the acquis communautaire.

3.                  Ensure continuous methodological support for public administration bodies at the regional level within partnerships with programs such as SIGMA, U-LEAD, and SURGe, focusing on the model of cooperative governance.

4.                  Institutionalize the best practices of adaptive governance developed during the war by incorporating them into training programs for civil servants, with an emphasis on crisis management.

5.                  Deepen the analytical monitoring of reform implementation, based on the integrated model: crisis response – adaptation – European integration. This will allow for assessing not only the implementation of EU standards but also their effectiveness in terms of resilience.

6.                  Promote the Ukrainian experience of hybrid governance as an innovative case in European political and administrative learning platforms, particularly within successful EU institutional projects.

 References:

1.                  SIGMA (2019). The Principles of Public Administration, OECD Publishing. https://www.sigmaweb.org

2.                  OECD/SIGMA (2020). Public Service and Human Resource Management: Paper No. 61. https://www.oecd.org/gov/sigma

3.                  UNDP Ukraine (2023). Digitalization and resilience: Ukraine’s Diia case study. https://www.ua.undp.org

4.                  Transparency International Ukraine (2023). Public Procurement Reform Review: Prozorro during wartime. https://ti-ukraine.org

5.                  Dimitrova, A. (2020). Europeanization and Governance in Eastern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. www.palgrave.com

6.                  Meyer-Sahling, J.H., Veen, T. (2012). Governance by Conditionality: EU Civil Service Reform Assistance in the Western Balkans. Public Administration, 90(1), 139–158. www.wiley.com

7.                  OECD/SIGMA (2019). Principles of Public Administration. OECD Publishing. www.sigmaweb.org

8.                  OECD (2017). Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward. OECD Publishing. www.oecd.org

9.                  Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J. (2021). Public Governance as Co-Creation: A Strategy for Resilient Governance. Cambridge University Press. www.cambridge.org

10.              Boin, A., Lodge, M. (2016). Designing Resilient Institutions for Transboundary Crisis Management. Public Administration, 94(2), 289–298. www.wiley.com

11.              European Commission (2022). Ukraine Reform Tracker. www.europa.eu

12.              Shulga, M. A., Nelipa, D. V., Vorotin, V. Y., Korchak, N. M., & Vashchenko, K. O. (2021). When does the state disappear? (in memory of Rudolf Kjellen). Linguistics and Culture Review, USA. 5(S2),  p. 795-804. https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v5nS2.1421

13.              Оleksandr Savka, Oleksandr Keier, Andriana Oliinyk, Vasyl Kuibida, Valerii Vorotin. Current practice of interpreting corruption and anti-corruption policies concerning providing improper advantage: european experience. AD ALTA: Journal of interdisciplinary research. (CZECH REPUBLIC). 12 (1) 2022. р. 16-24. http://www.magnanimitas.cz/adalta/120126/pdf/120126.pdf.

14.              Boin, A., Hart, P., Stern, E., Sundelius, B. (2020). The Politics of Crisis Management in the European Union. www.crisisgovernance.eu

15.              OECD/SIGMA (2019). The Principles of Public Administration. OECD Publishing. www.sigmaweb.org

16.               OECD (2018). The Path to Becoming a High-Performing Digital Government. www.oecd.org

17.               Boin, A., Lodge, M. (2016). Designing Resilient Institutions for Transboundary Crisis Management. Public Administration, 94(2), 289–298. www.wiley.com

18.               Bakke, K. M., Sasse, G., & Cleuziou, J. (2022). Resilience, resistance and reform: Local governance in conflict-affected states. Governance, 35(4), 789–807. Retrieved from www.wiley.com

19.               Boin, A., Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2020). The Politics of Crisis Management in the European Union. Retrieved from www.crisisgovernance.eu

20.               Chechel, O., Bashuk, A., Tsykhovska, E., Vorotin, V., Mukovoz, V., Prodanyk, V. (2022). Reform of state regulation of pro-duction and transportation of hydrogen on the territory of European states in the context of positive practice of the EU. Eastern-Euro-pean Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 3 (13 (117)), 78–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2022.260329

21.               OECD. (2017). Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from www.oecd.org

22.               OECD. (2018). The Path to Becoming a High-Performing Digital Government. Retrieved from www.oecd.org

23.               UNDP Ukraine. (2023). Digitalization and resilience: Ukraine’s Diia case study. Retrieved from www.ua.undp.org

24.               Nataliia Vorotina, Oleg Koval, Valerii Vorotin, Vasyl Prodanyk, Andrii Shynkarov. Legal foundations and features of public administration in the budgetary sphere in Ukraine and abroad. Rivista di scienze giuridiche a cura della facoltà di giurisprudenza dell’università cattolica di Milano/vp vita e pensiero indice n. 2/2023. 247-262. doi: https://doi.org/10.26350/18277942_000122