We have a task - to rebuild Ukraine after the war. But how not to go the way of those who failed

At the conference in Lugano, a plan of reconstruction was presented on July 4, for which $ 750 billion should be involved. Although history knows a large number of examples of successful rebuildings, many countries, despite the presence of funding from donors and creditors, the economic miracle after the war could not be achieved. These include, for example, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq and Iran. The problems that have suffered their recovery programs are actually very similar: 1.

Poor strategic planning and coordination. 2. Insufficient control over costs and performance. 3. Lack of focus on the formation of the basis for sustainable economic growth after restoration.

Why are the same challenges relevant for Ukraine and how best to overcome them? Only the Ukrainian government should be in part of the organizational mistakes (at the same time, several different agencies with functions that mostly duplicate each other) and misunderstanding of the local context should be responsible for strategic planning and coordination. This experience should be taken into account when forming a post -war reconstruction strategy.

External subjects are unlikely to fully understand the nuances of the Ukrainian environment. They will have different opinions about priorities and report primarily to their own leadership. Therefore, it is very important that the Ukrainian authorities remain responsible for the planning, approval and coordination of all restoration projects.

The creation of additional entities specifically for the management of the reconstruction process is superfluous, as they will only duplicate the structure of public administration. But this does not mean that the Ukrainian authorities have the opportunity to spend uncontrollable donor funding. International partners should maintain their right to coordinate the directions of use of funds.

Such cooperation makes it possible to ensure the mutual accountability of the parties and somewhat reminiscent of the methods of current cooperation of Ukraine from the MFI. It is necessary to limit the threat of the influence of selfish interests on government decisions. Before proceeding with a full -scale post -war reconstruction, the Ukrainian authorities need to develop a detailed road card and attach local communities and businesses to this process.

This document should be made as possible and contain clear key performance indicators that every interested person can easily track. Transparency improves accountability and secures the expectations of all stakeholders.

Proper control over costs and performance of projects is possible only if market and automated approaches everywhere, where it is possible to appropriate and inefficient use of reconstruction funds - this is a common problem in post -war conditions, since they are characterized by a combination of urgency, weakened institutions and large numbers projections performed at the same time.

The case of Ukraine is hardly unique, which means that the threats of corruption and illegal appropriation should be considered extremely seriously. However, although the idea of ​​creating mechanisms of supervision at all recovery costs may seem attractive, this approach is not optimal. Both historical examples and pre -war experience of Ukraine show that too tight control can significantly slow down the performance of the projects and, therefore, lead to refusal to supervise as such.

To prevent this from happening, it is necessary to focus on the formation of a funding distribution system that would direct as much money as possible through market and automated approaches. Such methods are especially effective to support the private sector and small construction.

Businesses, for example, can receive the bulk of assistance at the expense of the combination:-subsidized credit programs, which partially cover interest rates and pledge (the Ministry of Finance already has a similar experience in the form of launching the initiative available loans 5-7-9); - Tax benefits on a general basis. Persons who have lost private housing (unlike apartments in multi -storey buildings) could receive assistance in the form of a fixed payment for reconstruction.

Restrictions on the directions of costs of such funds (for example, you can even transfer them to construction companies with which the owners have signed the corresponding contracts) can significantly reduce the likelihood of misuse. The control over the costs and the execution of large -scale projects should be harsh.

Since Ukraine's pre -war experience demonstrates that the corporate governance system of local agencies, such as Ukravtodor, has not yet been reformed, they cannot be relied on in the hopes of effective funding of projects. It is necessary to involve recognized international experts and organizations to supervise tenders and compliance with technical requirements by contractors (the audit should be carried out on a permanent basis during the construction).

The path to sustainable economic growth after reconstruction lies through strong institutions, it is obvious that new bridges and roads cannot compensate for the absence, for example, the rule of law and effective market regulation, since long -term economic growth is determined primarily by investing in the real sector. Investors need predictability, legal and physical security, as well as clear rules for interaction with state bodies.

In recent years, Ukraine has been working on reforming its legal system, natural gas and electricity markets, anti -corruption infrastructure, and management of state -owned enterprises. These efforts should not be back to the background after the reconstruction begins. It is also necessary to direct considerable efforts to ensure the effective work of the Antimonopoly Committee and the state apparatus as a whole.