INDUSTRIAL REVITALIZATION AS AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: THEORETICAL APPROACHES AND SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATIONS

Abstract

Introduction. Industrial revitalization in contemporary Ukraine has become particularly relevant as a complex socio-economic and managerial process, occurring at the intersection of public policy, regional development, and economic reconstruction under wartime conditions. The full-scale military aggression of the Russian Federation has caused extensive destruction of industrial infrastructure, loss of production capacities, disruption of supply chains, and decreased investment attractiveness of territories. Under these circumstances, traditional approaches to industrial recovery have proven insufficient, making industrial revitalization an independent object of public administration that requires theoretical understanding, institutional design, and the development of adaptive managerial mechanisms considering wartime and post-war challenges.

Purpose. The purpose of this article is to theoretically explore industrial revitalization as an object of public administration and to substantiate the specifics of the managerial process that takes into account structural challenges, public policy mechanisms, and socio-economic consequences under martial law and post-war reconstruction in Ukraine.

Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the study includes systems analysis to reveal the structure and multidimensionality of industrial revitalization, content analysis of current scientific publications in the fields of public administration, regional development, and revitalization practices, as well as comparative analysis of theoretical approaches in Ukrainian and international research. Elements of empirical generalization were applied to integrate various conceptual approaches to managing industrial transformations.

Results. It has been proven that industrial revitalization goes beyond the physical restoration of production facilities and should be considered a comprehensive public policy aimed at rethinking the functional purpose of industrial assets, integrating economic, social, and environmental objectives, and involving a wide range of stakeholders. The institutional, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of revitalization as an object of public administration have been identified. The distinctions between recovery and revitalization mechanisms have been substantiated, and their sequence and complementarity in the structure of post-war transformation have been defined. A classification of approaches to revitalization management (project-based, strategic, integrated, flexible) has been proposed, and their advantages and limitations under wartime conditions have been analyzed. It has been shown that combining strategic, project-based, and integrated approaches is the most effective way to ensure adaptability, coordination, and resilience of revitalization processes.

Discussion. Future research include empirical assessment of the effectiveness of revitalization policies in different regions of Ukraine, development of performance indicators for managerial mechanisms, and analysis of the role of local governments, civil society, and institutional capacity in implementing revitalization processes in the post-war period.