e-ISSN 2518-1181
DOI 10.33146/2518-1181
Online Media ID R40-06293
← Back Published: 30.09.2026

The Role of Matriarchal Values in Shaping the Foundations of Sustainable Rural Development

Authors

Nadiya Stolyarchuk National Scientific Centre "Institute of Agrarian Economics", Kyiv, Ukraine ORCID 0000-0001-9775-093X
Mykola Krylov National Scientific Centre "Institute of Agrarian Economics", Kyiv, Ukraine ORCID 0009-0009-8107-467X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33146/2518-1181-2026-3(113)-229-237

Abstract

Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires not only improving economic and institutional mechanisms but also considering sociocultural factors that shape community interactions, levels of social capital, and responsible attitudes toward natural resources. This article aims to provide theoretical substantiation of the role of matriarchal values in shaping a sustainable economy as a basis for the sustainable development of rural areas, and to identify the mechanisms by which these values influence the development of community social capital and the achievement of the SDGs. The methodological framework of the study is based on systemic, axiological, and interdisciplinary approaches and employs methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, systematization, structural and logical analysis, and conceptual modeling. The article reviews matriarchal values as a sociocultural resource that fosters trust, cooperation, mutual responsibility, civic engagement, intergenerational solidarity, and environmental awareness, as well as substantiates their influence on the development of community social capital, the establishment of a sustainable economy, and the enhancement of the economic, social, and environmental resilience of rural areas. The results of the study indicate an interrelationship among matriarchal values, social capital, the achievement of the SDGs, and the sustainable development of rural areas. The study offers a conceptually new approach, according to which matriarchal values are considered a factor in the formation of community social capital, which mediates the emergence of a sustainable economy and facilitates the achievement of the SDGs at the local level. Unlike traditional economic models, the proposed approach emphasizes the role of sociocultural values as a prerequisite for economic resilience and long-term development. The results of this study may be useful to government bodies and other institutions in developing strategies for the sustainable development of territorial communities, rural development programs, mechanisms to strengthen social capital, and the implementation of the SDGs at the local level.

Keywords

matriarchal values, sustainable economy, sustainable development, rural areas, social capital, Sustainable Development Goals, rural communities, sustainable agriculture
References
  1. Bennholdt-Thomsen, V., & Mies, M. (1999). The subsistence perspective: Beyond the globalized economy. Zed Books.
  2. Bezhеnar, I. M., Skyba, H. I., & Kravchenko, S. A. (2022). Analytical assessment of rural areas development. Scientific Works of Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. Economic Sciences, 2(65), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.32689/2523-4536/65-8 [in Ukrainian]
  3. Caillé, A. (2000). Anthropologie du don: Le tiers paradigme. Desclée de Brouwer.
  4. Caillé, A. (2002). The gift as sufficient source of normativity. Diogenes, 49(195), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/039219210204919516
  5. Caillé, A. (2020). The gift paradigm: A short introduction to the anti-utilitarian movement in the social sciences. Prickly Paradigm Press.
  6. Cheal, D. (2015). The gift economy. Taylor & Francis.
  7. Chervinska, T. M. (2026). Development of the concept of sustainable development. Efektyvna ekonomika, 2. https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105.2026.2.72 [in Ukrainian]
  8. Fistetti, F. (2023). The gift paradigm: Towards a science of “total social facts”. Elementa: Intersections between Philosophy, Epistemology and Empirical Perspectives, 3(1–2). https://doi.org/10.7358/elementa-2023-0102-fisf
  9. Galaz, V. (2014). Global environmental governance, technology and politics: The Anthropocene gap. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  10. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. University of Minnesota Press.
  11. Göttner-Abendroth, H. (1991). The dancing goddess: Principles of a matriarchal aesthetic. Beacon Press.
  12. Göttner-Abendroth, H. (2012). Matriarchal societies: Studies on indigenous cultures across the globe. Peter Lang Publishing.
  13. Göttner-Abendroth, H. (2020). The principles of sustainable societies: Matriarchy as an alternative paradigm. Peter Lang Publishing.
  14. Göttner-Abendroth, H. (2022). History of matriarchal societies and the rise of patriarchy: West Asia and Europe. Peter Lang Publishing.
  15. Göttner-Abendroth, H. (2023). Matriarchal politics. Retrieved from: https://goettner-abendroth.de/en/matriarchy/matriarchal-politics
  16. Habermas, J. (1973). A postscript to Knowledge and Human Interests. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 3(2), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317300300204
  17. Hadzzalo, Ya. M., Zhuk, V. M., Mohylova, M. M., et al. (2019). Scientific foundations and strategic priorities of sustainable development of rural areas of Ukraine. Kyiv: National Scientific Center “Institute of Agrarian Economics” [in Ukrainian]
  18. Herasymchuk, V. (2022). Theoretical aspects of rural areas development in Ukraine: Problems and solutions. Economy and Society, 45. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2022-45-88 [in Ukrainian]
  19. Hinrichsen, D. (1987). Our common future: A reader’s guide. The ‘Brundtland Report’ explained. Earthscan Ltd.
  20. Libanova, E. M. (Ed.). (2015). Human development in Ukraine. Modernization of social policy: Regional aspect. Kyiv: M. V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Research of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. [in Ukrainian]
  21. Lupenko, Yu. O., Yehorov, B. V., Nemchenko, V. V., & Lahodiienko, N. V. (2024). Human capital development as a basis for sustainable development of rural areas. Aktualni pytannia ekonomichnykh nauk, 3–4. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14860929 [in Ukrainian]
  22. Mann, B. A., & Göttner-Abendroth, H. (2015). Matriarchal studies. In: Oxford bibliographies in anthropology. Oxford University Press.
  23. Mauss, M. (1954). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  24. Mies, M., & Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. (1999). The subsistence perspective: Beyond the globalised economy. Zed Books.
  25. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. Verso.
  26. Patyka, N., Sokolova, A., Movchaniuk, A., Sysoieva, I., & Khirivskyi, R. (2023). Ukraine’s rural areas in the conditions of decentralization and local self-government reform: Challenges and prospects. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 9(3), 266–295. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2023.09.03.12 [in Ukrainian]
  27. Patyka, N. I., & Mohylnyi, O. M. (2023). Employment of rural population: State and prospects. Kyiv: National Scientific Center “Institute of Agrarian Economics”. [in Ukrainian]
  28. Petrov, V. P. (1972). Ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian]
  29. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Random House Business.
  30. Reeves Sanday, P. (2002). Women at the center: Life in a modern matriarchy. Cornell University Press.
  31. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
  32. Santovetti, S. (2021). Feminine regenerative cultures. Matriculture. Retrieved from: https://www.matriculture.net/feminine-regenerative-cultures/
  33. Seheda, S. (2021). Historical anthropology of Ukraine. Lviv. [in Ukrainian]
  34. Shukurov, A., Sarson, G., Videiko, M., Henderson, K., Shiel, R., Dolukhanov, P., & Pashkevich, G. (2015). Productivity of premodern agriculture in the Cucuteni-Trypillia area. Human Biology, 87(3), 235–282. https://doi.org/10.13110/humanbiology.87.3.0235
  35. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
  36. Strelnyk, O. (2023). Gender, citizenship, and war: How Russia’s war on Ukraine affects women’s political rights. Femina Politica – Zeitschrift für feministische Politikwissenschaft, 32(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.3224/feminapolitica.v32i1.07 [in Ukrainian]
  37. Mokhnenko, A., Razumova, H., Brahina, O., Kryshtal, H., Skyba, H., Tsimoshynska, O., Volokhova, I., et al. (2025). Strategy for the recovery of deoccupied territories of Ukraine: Challenges of post-conflict development and ways to overcome them. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15190154 [in Ukrainian]
  38. The United Nations. (2026). The 17 goals. Retrieved from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
  39. The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
  40. Vaughan, G. (2007). Women and the gift economy: A radically different worldview is possible. Inanna Publications and Education Inc.
  41. Waring, M. (1988). If women counted: A new feminist economics. HarperCollins.