Analysis of changes in the administrative-territorial status of monoprofile cities of Donbas (late 1940s – 1980s)

Transformations of the administrative-territorial status of monoprofile cities of Donbas in the context of development of structural-settlement structure of the region in the late 1940s and 1980s are considered. The urgency of the study is due to the reform of decentralization in Ukraine – changes in the order of local self-government and territorial organization of power. Its goal is to create communities that are self‑sufficient and effective in the economic, administrative and socio‑cultural dimensions. In the course of reform, monoprofile cities often acquire the status of centers of united territorial communities. In assessing the relevance of such decisions to the purpose of the reform, it is advisable to examine the relationship of structural-settlement, socio-economic and administrative-territorial status of these cities in historical retrospect. It turns out that the monoprofile cities of the region are an industrial-urban phenomenon, the genesis of which influenced the formation of the specifics of the settlement structure of Donbas. During the study period, the number of such cities more than doubled, reaching more than sixty cities in the late 1980s. Their share among the settlements of the region with the administrative status of a city was at that time two thirds. The emergence of monoprofile cities in the region in large numbers in the 1940s – 1980s is associated with government-industrial policy. At the same time, the structural and settlement importance of these settlements was reflected in their acquisition of the administrative-territorial status of region or district cities. From the beginning of the study period, the vast majority of cities with a narrow industrial base in the region belonged to the cities of district subordination, as they did not meet high enough urban criteria. In the urbanized region, in the presence of other, more powerful urban centers, the corresponding role in the administrative-territorial organization programmed the secondary nature of their structural settlement development. In particular, it did not contribute to the formation of micro-regions around these cities, which must be taken into account in the current conditions of reforming local self-government and territorial organization in the country.