, professor, Kharkiv, Svobody Sq. 4,
, Doctor of Science (Economics), docent, Professor of the Department of Economic Theory and International Economics, Ukraine, Kharkiv

In heading

Economic theory;

Signed print


Issues number

2019 - № 4 (39)



Type of articles

Scientific article

Code UDK


ISSN print



Problem setting. The concept of quality of life demonstrates that economic growth without solving the essential social problem does not create decent conditions for improving the living conditions of the population. Social cohesion as the ability of society to ensure the well-being of all its members, minimize inequality and prevent the expansion of social differentiation is becoming one of the most important characteristics of the quality of life
and is becoming increasingly relevant.
Recent research and publication analysis. Among the significant studies of this problem, one should single out such foreign and domestic scientists as D. Acemoglu, J. Robinson, D. North, J. Wallis, S. Webb, B. Weingast, A. Grytsenko, A. Kolot and others. However, revealing basically the essence and prospects of development of social cohesion, the authors do not pay due attention to the relationship of social cohesion and the quality
of life of the population.
Paper objective. The purpose of the article is to reveal the features of the development of social cohesion in the conditions of accelerated technological development of the fourth industrial revolution and the directions of its influence on the quality of life; identification of objective and subjective prerequisites and obstacles to its formation in Ukrainian society.
Paper main body. Cohesion of society as a fundamental value is a factor that ensures not only its development, but also an increase in the quality of life of the population. Social cohesion reflects a qualitative characteristic of society – the ability to adapt to new constantly becoming more complex conditions of the modern world. An important principle of the concept of social cohesion is the inclusion of people in public life, which complies
with the norms and rules of socio-economic institutions, ensures overcoming social disintegration and exclusion, and contributes to an increase in the quality of life. Social cohesion of society can be considered as a social contract on ways and measures to improve the quality of life, freedom and happiness of the population. Inclusive economic institutions motivate and encourage the participation of the population in economic activity, create
conditions for the best realization of their abilities and goals, and contribute to a new quality of economic growth. The fourth industrial revolution creates opportunities for improving the quality of life of the entire population of the planet, but only a mature socially united society can manage this potential.
Conclusion of the research. Modern cohesion is the most important characteristic of the quality of life of the population, which is updated in modern conditions. Social cohesion becomes an imperative for the existence of society in the context of the development of the fourth industrial revolution and requires harmonious interaction between the economy and society for its development.
Short Abstract for the article
The essence of the modern understanding of social cohesion as a factor in improving the quality of life is revealed, the obstacles to its formation in the context of the implementation of the results of the fourth industrial revolution are identified. The features of the state of social cohesion in Ukraine are identified, the directions of improving the socio-economic policy to create conditions for the growth of social cohesion of society are substantiated.


social cohesion, social justice, income inequality, inclusive institutional regime, social exclusion.


External reviewer

Article in PDF



1. North, D., Wallis, J., Webb, S., & Weingast, B. (2012). V teni nasiliya: uroki dlya obshestv s ogranichennym dostupom k politicheskoj i ekonomicheskoj deyatelnosti [In the Shadow of Violence: Lessons for Societies with Limited Access to Politicaland Economic Activities]. In: Reports of the XIII April International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development, Moscow, April 3–5. Moskva: Izd. dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [in Russian].
2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown Publishers.
3. Cherez 100 let: vedushie ekonomisty predskazyvayut budushe [After 100 years: leading economists predict the future]. (2016) Moskva: Izd-vo Instituta Gajdara [in Russian].
4. Grytsenko, A. A. (2016). Ekonomika Ukrainy na shliakhu do inkliuzyvnoho rozvytku [Economy of Ukraine on a hat to inclusive development]. Ekonomika i prohnozuvannia – Economy and forecasting, 2, 9–23 [in Ukrainian].
5. Kolot, A. M. (2010). Sotsialna zghurtovanist suspilstva yak doktryna: osnovni zasady, prychyny aktualizatsii, skladovi rozvytku [Social development of suspension as doctrine: the main ambush, reasons for actualization, storage warehouses]. Ekonomichna teoriia – Economic theory, 1, 18–28 [in Ukrainian].
6. Weizsaecker, E., & Wijkman, A. (2018). Come On! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet. Springer.
7. Kolot, A. M. (2013). Transformaciya instituta zanyatosti kak sostavlyayushaya globalnih izmenenij [Transformation of the institution of employment as a component of global change]. Uroven zhizni regionov Rossii –The standard of living of the regions of Russia, 11, 93–102 [in Russian].
8. Report of high-level task force on social cohesion. Towards an active, fair and socially cohesive Europe. (2008, January 28). Strasbourg,
9. Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies (Foundations of Modern Sociology Series). United States: Prentice-Hall.
10. Berveno, O. V. (2015). Yakist zhyttia yak faktor natsionalnoho ekonomichnoho rozvytku: kontseptualni osnovy formuvannia ta upravlinnia [Yakіst life is a factor ofnational economic development: the conceptual basis of the form and management]. Kharkiv: «Tochka» [in Ukrainian].
11. Rubinshtejn, A. Ya. (2016). Socialnyj liberalizm i konsociativnyj paternalizm [Social liberalism and consociative paternalism]. Obshestvennye nauki i sovremennost – Social sciences and modernity, 2, 5–38 [in Russian].
12. Belyaeva, A. A. (2009). Uroven i kachestvo zhizni. Problemy izmereniya i interpretacii [Level and quality of life. Problems of measurement and interpretation]. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya – Sociological research, 1. Retrieved from–01/Belyaeva.pdf [in Russian].
13. OECD. It Together: Why less inequality benefits all. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015. Retrieved from‑en.
14. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer Cambridge. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
15. Milanovich, B. (2014). Globalnoe neravenstvo dohodov v cifrah: na protyazhenii istorii i v nastoyashee vremya [Global income inequality in numbers: throughout history and now]. In: Review of reports to the 15th April International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development, Moscow, April 1–4. Moskva: Izd. dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [in Russian].
16. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
17. Tihonova, N. E. (2002). Socialnaya eksklyuziya v rossijskom obshestve [Social exclusion in Russian society]. Obshestvennye nauki i sovremennost – Social sciences and modernity, 6, 5–17 [in Russian].
18. World inequality report 2018. Executive Summary. Retrieved from https://wir2018.‑summary-english.pdf.
19. Panchenko, A., & Serov, I. (2019, May 26). Milliardery po-ukrainski: kto oni i otkuda berut dengi [Billionaires in Ukrainian: who they are and where they get the money from]. Segodnya – Today. Retrieved from [in Russian].
20. U kogo iz rukovoditelej goskompanij samye bolshie zarplaty. Top-30 [Which of the leaders of state-owned companies has the highest salaries. Top 30]. (2019, April 9). Ekonomicheskaya pravda – The economic truth. Retrieved from [in Russian].
21. Ofitsiinyi sait Pensiinoho fondu Ukrainy [Official site of the Pension Fund of Ukraine]. Retrieved from [in Ukrainian].
22. Bauman, Z. (2002). Individualizirovannoe obshestvo [Individualized society]. Moskva: Logos [in Russian].

Code DOI