What a community does with its own money

After amalgamation, communities gained a defined share of the income tax collected on their territory plus locally set taxes. For the first time they had money that was theirs, that rose if local employment rose, and that they decided how to spend.

What they mostly spent it on

In the order I have observed, driving between them: roads and street lighting first, because those are visible and everybody uses them. Then schools and kindergartens — roof, windows, heating, sanitation, which in many buildings had not been touched since the 1980s. Then water and sewerage. Then an administrative service centre, so residents can get documents locally.

That sequence is not arbitrary. It is what you spend on when the electorate is small enough to see the results and to know who authorised them.

The variation

Considerable, and it is the honest finding. Some communities have transformed. Others have not, and the money went to things that produced less. Driving between two neighbouring hromadas you can frequently tell which is which without asking.

The determining factor, as far as I can see, is the community head and the quality of the small team around them. That is uncomfortable because it is not a systemic explanation, and it is what the evidence suggests.

What it means commercially

Several hundred new counterparties, each running its own tenders, each with a budget cycle and a decision-maker you can actually meet. For a supplier of municipal-scale equipment this created a market segment that did not previously exist.

That several hundred communities did different things with the same opportunity is the most instructive part of this reform. The distinction I see on the ground is this: the town that spends on visible works and the town that spends on maintenance and networks end up in very different places five years later. The commercial consequence is clear too — the second group becomes my customer, the first buys once and does not call again.