Keywords
digital interaction
social inclusion
local self-government
electronic services
feedback
vulnerable population groups
How to Cite
Abstract
The relevance of this study is driven by the growing role of communication as a key instrument for implementing state policy in the socio-humanitarian sphere, especially at the local level, where direct interaction between public authorities and the population takes place. In the context of digital transformation, wartime challenges, an increasing number of internally displaced persons, and heightened social vulnerability of certain population groups, the effectiveness of public policy increasingly depends on the state’s ability to ensure clear, inclusive, and two-way communication with citizens. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the role of communication mechanisms in the implementation of state policy in the socio-humanitarian sphere at the local level and to identify directions for their improvement based on an index-based analysis of social and digital indicators. To achieve this aim, the study employs methods of comparative analysis, systematization, and generalization, as well as an index approach using the Human Development Index, the E-Government Development Index, and the Local Online Service Index. The results of the study indicate that Ukraine demonstrates positive dynamics in the development of digital communication mechanisms; however, structural constraints persist, related to unequal access to digital services, the level of digital competencies among the population, and the specific features of policy implementation at the local level. It is shown that the municipal level constitutes a key space for transforming digital tools into practical mechanisms for access to social services, information, and feedback. Based on the analysis, an expanded set of directions for improving communication mechanisms is proposed, focusing on social outcomes, digital and social inclusion, educational and communication support for the population, consideration of wartime conditions, and the needs of internally displaced persons. The practical significance of the findings lies in their potential use by local self-government bodies to improve communication policies, enhance the accessibility of socio-humanitarian services, and strengthen citizens’ trust in public authorities.
References
1. Chepurko, Ya. (2023). Participation of consultative and advisory bodies in the formation and implementation of socio-humanitarian policy in Ukraine. Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Ways of Development, (45), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.35619/ucpmk.vi45.637
2. Chupryna, S. (2025). State mechanisms for the implementation of social policy in the context of globalization. Kyiv Economic Scientific Journal, (9), 296–301. https://doi.org/10.32782/2786-765X/2025-9-39
3. Diachenko, O. (2025). Strategic priorities of Ukraine’s state policy in the field of de-occupation, reintegration, and territorial recovery. Current Issues in Modern Science. Series “Public Administration”, 10(40), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-6300-2025-10(40)-243-253
4. Gustafsson, M., Matveieva, O., Wihlborg, E., Borodin, Y., Mamatova, T., & Kvitka, S. (2025). Adaptive governance amidst the war: Overcoming challenges and strengthening collaborative digital service provision in Ukraine. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102056
5. Hartman-van der Laan, M., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Laar, E., & Tuinstra, J. (2025). The role of social work in digital inclusion: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Social Work, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2025.2553856
6. Holovnia, Yu. (2025). Integration of sustainable development principles into the post-war recovery of de-occupied municipalities of Ukraine. Successes and Achievements in Science, 8(18), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.52058/3041-1254-2025-8(18)-297-308
7. Lampe, H. W., & Vogel, D. (2025). Twitter communication in times of crisis: How do German local governments use and frame social media messages and how do citizens react to them? Local Government Studies, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2025.2539953
8. Liu, H., Zhou, Q., & Liang, S. (2025). Digital inclusion in public services for vulnerable groups: A systematic review for research themes and goal-action framework from the lens of public service ecosystem theory. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), 102019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102019
9. Maziashvili, M., Pleśniak, A., & Kowalik, I. (2023). The digital communication tools and citizens’ relationship with local governments: A comparison of Georgian and Polish cities. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(2), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221079746
10. Nguyen, P. (2024). The influence of local government responsiveness and information quality on citizen acceptance of e-participation: An experimental study. JeDEM – eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 16(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v16i1.825
11. Oliychenko, I., Ditkovska, M., & Klochko, A. (2024). Digital transformation of public authorities in wartime: The case of Ukraine. Journal of Information Policy, (14), 686–746. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.14.2024.0020
12. Pham, L., Limbu, Y. B., Le, M. T. T., & Nguyen, N. L. (2023). E-government service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: Evidence from a newly emerging country. Journal of Public Policy, 43(4), 812–833. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X23000296
13. Shin, B., Floch, J., Rask, M., Bæck, P., Edgar, C., Berditchevskaia, A., Mesure, P., & Branlat, M. (2024). A systematic analysis of digital tools for citizen participation. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), 101954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101954
14. Shtyrov, M., Zhovnirchyk, Ya., & Kosse, A. (2024). Socio-humanitarian policy of the state as a basis for sustainable development: Problems and prospects. Investments: Practice and Experience, (12), 218–223. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6814.2024.12.218
15. Shunda, A. (2025). Innovative financial and organizational instruments in public management of the socio-humanitarian sphere. Scientific Perspectives, 10(64), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.52058/2708-7530-2025-10(64)-401-409
16. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). E-Government Knowledgebase. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/EGDI
17. United Nations Development Programme. (n.d.). Human Development Index (HDI). https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
18. United Nations. (2024). E-Government Survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development (with addendum on artificial intelligence). https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb
19. Yu, J., Domahidi, E., Johansson, B., & Steinmetz, N. (2025). Multilevel government crisis communication on social media: A comparative and longitudinal approach. International Communication Gazette. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485251404809
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Viktoriia Zalizniuk, Hennadii Moskalyk, Iryna Lazebna