Archetypic fundamentals of institutional and innovation projects of sustainable territorial development in postmodern conditions


The decentralization and post-war recovery processes raise the issue of sustainable territorial development to a qualitatively new level, based on innovation and the search for appropriate resources. The study aims to analyse the features of building institutional and innovative projects within the new concept of territorial development resources based on the archetypal approach and develop practical recommendations for their implementation on the example of sub-ethnic groups of the Sumy region. The study based on world experience substantiates that the process of innovative development of territories should not focus solely on economic issues and technological change but should consider socio-cultural aspects that can be viewed as an essential component of the potential. Considering territorial archetypes when initiating changes and resolving issues of territorial development will allow the development of effective measures through the rational use of resource potential. It is determined that the question of considering socio-cultural historical and modern approaches to to studying settlements, cities, and landscapes (regional and local aspects), analysis of their formation, change and development in developing strategies. The importance of the regional component is illustrated by the experience of the EU, where local authorities are gaining more and more ground in finding the most practical and concrete opportunities for territories. It is determined that public administration undergoes significant changes under the influence of postmodernism, a new philosophy of building organizational structures, government, and management. It considers the uncertainty and ambiguity of new types of social systems and is seen as open to the future. The authors consider the application of postmodern theories to be fruitful in studying the impact of the socio-cultural environment on socio-economic processes and adaptation of innovations. This factor’s impact on economic entities’ behaviour has traditionally been regarded as exogenous. Given the use of postmodern methodology must be studied when trying to return people and actual processes to a place occupied by abstract variables and modelled dependencies. The influence of postmodernism at the territorial level is determined based on the evolution of innovation communities. This approach is consistent with the current EU regional policy, which aims to enhance regions’ development by improving competitiveness efficiency. It is proposed to consider the possibility of using institutional and innovative projects for sustainable development of territories, considering the archetypal resource component and the concept of innovation communities. Institutional and innovative projects are considered so-called «security-related products» of territorial development, which may include innovative projects and programs that involve a wide range of resources, including socio-cultural, focused on achieving sustainable development goals. It is substantiated that the use of tools for institutional and innovative projects should be considered in the context of the smart specialization of regions, making it possible to consider the socio-cultural component practically. Examples of the use of archetypes for the construction of innovation and institutional projects in the instance of two sub-ethnic groups of the Sumy region are considered. The main archetypes of goryuns and sevryuks are generalized, and paper provides the related institutional and innovation projects they will promote.

  1. Eisenack, K., Villamayor-Tomás, S., Epstein, G., Kimmich, C., Magliocca, N., Manuel-Navarrete, D., Oberlack, C., Roggero, M., Sietz, D. (2019). Design and quality criteria for archetype analysis. Ecology and Society, 24 (3): 6.

  2. Mulgan, G., Ali, R. (2007). Social Innovation: what is it, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. London: The Young Foundation. URL:

  3. Scaringella, L. (2019). Which organizational capabilities and inter-organizational knowledge dynamics enable innovation within an ecosystem? Business administration. Université Rennes, 1, ffNNT: 2019REN1G010ff.

  4. Oberlack, C., Sietz, D., Bürgi Bonanomi, E., de Bremond, A., Dell’Angelo, J., Eisenack, K., Ellis, E.C.,  Epstein, G., Giger, M., Heinimann, A., Kimmich, C., Kok, M.T.J., Manuel-Navarrete, D., Messerli, P., Meyfroidt, P., Václavík, T., Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2019). Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations and evidence-based policy making. Ecology and Society, 24 (2), 26.

  5. Said, M., Supriyono, B., Rahman, M., Muluk, K., Santoso, H. B. (2019). Archetype Basic Modeling for Local Government Performance: A geographical challenge to manage archipelagic parts. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research. Annual International Conference of Business and Public Administration (AICoBPA 2018), 134-138.

  6. Potapov, A.D., Ryabova, S.S. (2013). The concept of sustainable development as an expression of postmodernism. Vestnik MGSUBulletin of MGSU, 9, 70-78 [in Russian]

  7. Bystriakova, I.K. (2012). Sustainable development of Ukraine: postmodernism, space, management methodology. Visn. Nac. Akad. Nauk Ukr.Visnyk of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 7, 47-53 [in Ukrainian]

  8. Pogrebnyak, A.A. (2000). Postmodern economics: scientific paradigm and economic style. Saint Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University [in Russian]

  9. Shubrt, I. (2018). Postmodern world in the sociology of Michel Maffesoli. SOCISSociological Research, 10, 25–32 [in Russian]

  10. Lim, M., Yong Ong B. (2019). Communities of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11, 402-418.

  11. Pliushch, V.A., Tancher, V.V. (2017). Transformation of politics into ethics: Michel Maffesoli on moral values of postmodern society. Ukr. socìum – Ukrainian Society, 2 (61), 9-19 [in Ukrainian]

  12. Harvey, D. (2021). The state of the postmodern: a study of the origins of cultural change. Moscow: HSE Publishing House [in Russian]

  13. Desmarchelier, B., Djellal, F., Gallouj, F. (2020). Mapping social innovation networks: knowledge intensive social services as systems builders. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157.

  14. Todorova, O.L. (2016). Cluster approach as a public tool for the implementation of state policy of regional development. Odesa: Nat. acad. state under the President of Ukraine, Odessa Region. Inst. [in Ukrainian]

  15. Osik, Yu.I., Aimagambetov, E.B. (2006). On the methodology of postmodernity and the choice of socio-economic criteria for periodization in the theories of modernity. Fundamentalnye issledovaniyaBasic Researches, 3, 28-31 [in Russian]

  16. Omelyanenko, V.A. (2020). Practical aspects of using the institutional and innovation design methodology in the context of innovation policy coherence for sustainable development. Problemy economiky – The Problems of Economy, 4, 67-74 [in Ukrainian]

  17. Omelyanenko, V., Braslavska, O., Biloshkurska, N., Biloshkurskyi, M., Omelyanenko, O. (2021). C-Engineering Based Industry 4.0 Innovation Networks Sustainable Development. International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security, 21 (9), 267-274.

  18. Omelyanenko, V. (2020). National strategic innovation security policy making (theoretical review). Tallinn: Teadmus.

  19. Omelyanenko, V. (2018). Archetypal analysis of resources for innovative development of the European public administration space (comparative approach). Publichne uriaduvanniaPublic governance, 14 (4), 206-221 [in Ukrainian]

  20. Afonin, E., Martynov, A. (2019). Ukrainian miracle: from depression to social optimism. Kyiv: Kyiv-Mohyla Academy House [in Ukrainian]

  21. Shabunova, A.A., Gulin, K.A., Okulova, N.A., Solovyov, T.S. (2009). Socio-cultural aspects of the development of the territory. Vologda: ISEDT RAN [in Russian]

  22. Krysovatyi, A., Saveliev, Ye., Adamyk, V., Bohdanova, M., Borysov, B., Borsekova, K., Valihura, V., Vitalishova, K., Hospodynov, Yu., Darvidu, K., Derkach, T., Zakhariiev, A., Koziuk, V., Lyzun, M., Lishchynskyi, I., Melnyk, A., Kyrylenko, O., Kyrylenko, S., Koloshta, S., Kuryliak, V., Kuryliak, Ye., Kuryliak, M., Marcheva, A., Parashkevova, E., Romaniuta, E., Syskos, E., Smaliuk, H., Sokhatska, O., Todorov, E., Tulai, O., Flashka, F., Fedorenko, A., Tsvetanova, E., Chapkova S. (2017). Europe of regions: benchmarking of regional development in Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine. Herald of Economics, 4, 191-214 [in Ukrainian]

  23. Hwang, W. (2012). Rainforest. The secret to creating the next Silicon Valley. Tomsk: Tomsk Publishing House. state un-ta systems control. i radioelectronics [in Russian]

  24. Maffesoli, M. (2016). The crisis is in our heads. URL: [in French]

  25. Shvets, N.V., Shevtsova, G.Z. (2020). Entrepreneurship development and its role in implementing the smart specialization approach in Ukraine. Economic Herald of the Donbas, 2 (60), 53-66 [in Ukrainian]

  26. Jamison, F. (2019). Postmodernism or the cultural logic of late capitalism. Moscow: Publishing House of the Gaidar Institute [in Russian]

  27. Kim, D.H., Anderson, V. (1998). Systems Archetype Basics: From Story to Structure. Waltham: Pegasus Communication, Inc.

  28. Helkkula, A., Kowalkowski, C., Tronvoll, B. (2018). Archetypes of Service Innovation: Implications for Value Cocreation. Journal of service research, 21 (3), 284-301.

  29. Local Economic Development of Ukraine Cities Project (2014). Local economic development is the path to community prosperity. Guide to the basics of theory and practice of LED. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. URL: [in Ukrainian]

  30. Golovaty, M.F., Antonyuk, O.V. (Eds.). (2005). Political Science Dictionary. Kyiv: MAUP [in Ukrainian]

  31. Balushok, V.G. (2016). Sevryuki XIV-XVII centuries: an attempt at ethnic attribution. URL: [in Ukrainian]

  32. Balushok, V. (2016, November 5). Seversk land – the first victim of the “Russian world”. ZN.UA. URL: [in Ukrainian]

Full text