Location: Europe
From Integration to Reconstruction: Standing with Ukraine by Supporting Ukrainians in Sweden
Sweden has strongly supported Ukraine through both public opinion and government actions, yet there has been little discussion about the needs of Ukrainian displaced people in Sweden. The ongoing war and the rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape have created uncertainty – geopolitical, institutional, and individual. Ukrainian displaced people in Sweden face an unclear future regarding their rights, long-term status, and opportunities, making future planning or investing in relevant skills difficult. This uncertainty also weakens the effectiveness of integration policies and limits the range of policy tools that can be deployed, which hinders participation in the labor market, affecting both displaced and employers. Addressing these challenges is essential, not only for the well-being of Ukrainians in Sweden, but also for Sweden’s broader role in supporting Ukraine. Helping displaced Ukrainians rebuild their lives also strengthens their ability to contribute both to Swedish society and to Ukraine’s future reconstruction and integration into Europe.
The Swedish Approach to Displaced Ukrainians
In response to the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC) (commonly referred to as collective temporary protection) was activated in March 2022, granting Ukrainians seeking refuge temporary protection in EU countries, including Sweden. This directive provides residence permits, access to work, education, and limited social benefits without requiring individuals to go through the standard asylum process.
However, the practicalities of the Directive’s use differed significantly between countries. Sweden, despite its, until recent, reputation of being relatively liberal in its migration policies, has at times, lagged behind its Scandinavian neighbors in supporting Ukrainian displaced people. To illustrate this, it is useful to compare the Swedish approach to that of other Nordic states, as well as Poland.
Comparison to Other Nordic States
The Nordic countries have implemented the directive in different ways, adopting varying policies toward Ukrainians demonstrating different degrees of flexibility and support. Despite its generally restrictive immigration policy, Denmark introduced some housing and self-settlement policies for Ukrainians that were more liberal than its usual approach. Norway also initially introduced liberal measures but later tightened regulations, banning temporary visits to Ukraine and reducing financial benefits. Finland, meanwhile, has taken a relatively proactive stance, granting temporary protection to over 64,000 Ukrainians – one of the highest per capita rates in the region. Its strong intake reflects a more flexible and effective implementation of the directive, particularly from late 2022, when it surpassed Sweden and Denmark in number of arrivals.
In Sweden the so-called “massflyktsdirektivet“ grants Ukrainians temporary protection until at least March 2025. Its future beyond that, however, remains uncertain, adding to the challenges faced by refugees and policymakers alike. Sweden – considered liberal in migration policies (at least, up until 2016) – has been criticized for offering limited rights and financial support to displaced Ukrainians, making it one of the least attractive destinations among the Nordic countries (Hernes & Danielsen, 2024). Under “massflyktsdirektivet”, displaced Ukrainians were entitled to lower financial benefits and limited access to healthcare compared to refugees or residents with temporary permits. It was only in July 2023 that they became eligible for Swedish language training, and only in November 2024 could they apply for residence permits under Sweden’s regular migration laws – a pathway that can eventually lead to permanent residence.
Figure 1 illustrates significant fluctuations in the number of individuals granted collective temporary protection in the Nordic countries over the first two years following Russia’s full-scale invasion. As Hernes and Danielsen (2024) show in a recent report, all Nordic countries experienced a peak in arrivals in March-April 2022, followed by a decline in May-June. Sweden initially received the most, but aside from this early peak, inflows have remained relatively low despite its larger population (Table 1). Since August 2022, Finland and Norway have generally recorded higher arrivals than Denmark and Sweden. By August 2023, Norway’s share increased significantly, accounting for over 60 percent of total Nordic arrivals between September and November 2023.
Figure 1. Total number of individuals granted collective temporary protection in the Nordic countries
Source: Hernes & Danielsen, 2024, data from Eurostat.
Table 1. Total number of registered temporary protection permits and percent of population as of December 2023
Source: Hernes & Danielsen, 2024, data from Eurostat.
Comparison to Poland
Sweden’s policies and their outcomes compare rather poorly to those of Poland, one of the European countries that received the largest influx of Ukrainian migrants due to its geographic and cultural proximity. A key factor behind Poland’s relatively better performance is that pre-existing Ukrainian communities and linguistic similarities have facilitated a smoother integration. Ukrainians themselves played a crucial role in this regard, with many volunteering in Polish schools to support Ukrainian children. Sweden also had a community of Ukrainians who arrived to the country over time, partly fleeing the 2014 annexation of Donetsk and Crimea. Since these individuals were never eligible for refugee status or integration support, they had to rely on their own efforts to settle. In doing so, they built informal networks and accumulated valuable local knowledge. Nevertheless, after the full-scale invasion in 2022, they were not recognized as a resource for integrating newly arrived Ukrainian refugees – unlike in Poland.
However, Poland’s approach was shaped not only by these favorable preconditions but also by deliberate policy choices. As described in a recent brief (Myck, Król, & Oczkowska, 2025), a key factor was the immediate legal integration of displaced Ukrainians, granting them extensive residency rights and access to social services, along with a clearer pathway to permanent residence and eventual naturalization.
Barriers to Labor Market Integration
Despite a strong unanimous support for Ukraine across the political spectrum, there is less public debate and fewer policy processes in Sweden regarding displaced Ukrainians, most likely attributable to the general shift towards more restrictive immigration policies. The immigration policy debate in Sweden has increasingly emphasized a more “selective” migration, i.e. attracting migrants based on specific criteria, such as employability, skills, or economic self-sufficiency. This makes it puzzling that displaced Ukrainians, who largely meet these standards, have not been better accommodated. Before the full-scale invasion, Sweden was a particularly attractive destination among those who wanted to migrate permanently, especially for highly educated individuals and families (Elinder et al., 2023), indicating a positive self-selection process.
When large numbers of displaced Ukrainians arrived after the full-scale invasion, many had higher education and recent work experience, which distinguished them from previous refugee waves that Sweden had received from other countries. Despite a strong labor market in 2022, their integration was hindered by restrictions imposed under the Temporary Protection Directive, which limited access to social benefits and housing. At the same time, Sweden explicitly sought to reduce its attractiveness as a destination for migrants in general, contributing to a sharp decline in its popularity among Ukrainians after the war escalated.
In addition to the restrictiveness and numerous policy shifts over time, the temporary nature of the directive governing displaced Ukrainians – rather than the standard asylum process – creates significant policy uncertainty. This uncertainty makes it difficult for Ukrainians to decide whether to invest in Sweden-specific skills or prepare for a potential return to Ukraine, whether voluntary or forced, complicating their long-term planning. It also hinders labor market integration, increasing the risk of exploitation in the informal economy. Another key challenge is the unequal distribution of rights, as entitlements vary depending on registration timelines, further exacerbating the precarious situation many displaced Ukrainians face in Sweden.
A survey of 2,800 displaced Ukrainians conducted by the Ukrainian NGO in Sweden “Hej Ukraine!” in February 2025 provides key insights into their labor market integration (Hej Ukraine!, 2025). Survey results show that, currently, 40 percent of respondents are employed, with 42 percent of them holding permanent contracts while the rest work in temporary positions and 6 percent being engaged in formal studies. Employment is concentrated in low-skilled sectors, with 26 percent working in cleaning services, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in hospitality and restaurants. Other notable sectors include IT (11 percent), education (8 percent), warehousing (7 percent), elderly care (5 percent), forestry (3 percent), and healthcare (3 percent). The lack of stable permits, access to language courses (until September 2024), and financial incentives for hiring displaced persons have complicated their integration.
As mentioned above, the Swedish government has over time introduced several initiatives to facilitate the integration of displaced Ukrainians. However, assessing their effectiveness is crucial to identify persistent challenges and to formulate targeted policy solutions.
The Role of the Private Sector and Civil Society
The business sector, civil society and NGOs have also played a role in supporting displaced Ukrainians, filling gaps left by the public sector. This includes initiatives aimed at creating job opportunities that encourage voluntary return. However, broader systemic support, including simplified diploma recognition and targeted re-skilling programs, is needed to enhance labor market participation.
Moreover, there is a lack of information among displaced, potential employers and public institutions (municipality level) about the tools and programs available. For example, a community sponsorship program funded by UNHCR, which demonstrated positive effects on integration by offering mentorship and support networks, was only applied by five municipalities (UNHCR, 2025). Similar programs could be expanded to address structural barriers, particularly in the labor market. Another example is the Ukrainian Professional Support Center established to help displaced Ukrainians find jobs through building networks and matching job seekers with employers (UPSC, 2024). The center was funded by the European Social Fund, and staffed to 50 percent by Ukrainian nationals, either newcomers or previously established in Sweden, to facilitate communication. Experiences from this initiative, shared during a recent roundtable discussion – Integration and Inclusion of Ukrainian Displaced People in Sweden, highlighted that between 2022 and 2024, about 1,400 Ukrainians participated in the project, but only one-third of participants found jobs, mostly in entry-level positions in care, hospitality, and construction. Restrictions under the temporary protection directive, along with the absence of clear mechanisms for further integration, posed significant challenges; the lack of a personal ID, bank account, and access to housing were considered major obstacles. The uncertainty of their future in Sweden was also reported as a significant source of stress for participants.
Implications and Policy Recommendations
The lack of clarity surrounding the future of the EU Temporary Protection Directive, as well as its specific implementation in Sweden, leaves displaced Ukrainians in a precarious situation. Many do not know whether they will be allowed to stay or if they should prepare for a forced return. This uncertainty discourages long-term investment in skills, housing, and integration efforts.
Uncertainty also affects Swedish institutions, making it difficult to implement long-term policies that effectively integrate Ukrainians into society. To address these issues, the following policy recommendations are proposed.
- Extend Temporary Protection Status Beyond 2025: Clear guidelines on the duration of protection are necessary to provide stability for displaced Ukrainians
- Improve Labor Market Access: Introduce targeted programs for skill recognition, language training, and financial incentives for businesses hiring displaced Ukrainians
- Enhance Civil Society and Private Sector Collaboration: Support mentorship and community sponsorship programs that facilitate integration
- Acknowledge and Utilize displaced Ukrainians as a Resource: Recognizing displaced Ukrainians as potential assets in rebuilding Ukraine and strengthening European ties should be a priority.
- Increase Public and Policy Debate: There is a need for greater discussion on how to integrate Ukrainians in Sweden, as an important complement to the policy priority of providing aid to Ukraine.
By implementing these measures, Sweden can provide displaced Ukrainians with greater stability, enabling them to engage in the formal labour market rather than being pushed into informal or precarious employment. This not only benefits Ukrainians by ensuring fair wages and legal protection, but also strengthens Sweden’s economy through increased tax revenues and a more sustainable labour force.
As Sweden continues to support Ukraine in its fight for sovereignty, it should also recognize the value of displaced Ukrainians within its borders, fostering their contribution to both Swedish society and Ukraine’s eventual reconstruction.
References
- Hernes, V., & Danielsen, Å. Ø. (2024). Reception and integration policies for displaced persons from Ukraine in the Nordic countries – A comparative analysis. NIBR Policy Brief 2024:01. https://oda.oslom et.no/oda-xmlui/handle/11250/3125012
- Hej Ukraine! (2025). Telegram channel. https://t.me/hejukrainechat
- Elinder, M., Erixson, O., & Hammar, O. (2023). Where Would Ukrainian Refugees Go if They Could Go Anywhere? International Migration Review, 57(2), 587-602. https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183221131559
- EUROSTAT. Decisions granting temporary protection by citizenship, age and sex – monthly data. Dataset. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_asytpfm__custom_15634298/default/map?lang=en
- Myck, M., Król, A., & Oczkowska, M. (2025, February 21). Three years on – Ukrainians in Poland after Russia’s 2022 invasion. FREE Policy Brief. Centre for Economic Analysis (CenEA). https://freepolicybriefs.org/2025/02/21/ukrainians-in-poland/
- Ukrainian Professional Support Center (UPSC). (2024). https://professionalcenter.se/omoss/
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2025). Community sponsorship. UNHCR Northern Europe. Retrieved [March 6, 2025] from https://www.unhcr.org/neu/list/our-work/community-sponsorship
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Energy Security at a Cost: The Ripple Effects of the Baltics’ Desynchronization from the BRELL Network
The Baltic States’ desynchronization from the BRELL network on February 7, 2025, cut ties with Russia and Belarus, ending electricity trade. Though the transition was smooth with no outages, recent underwater cable disruptions have highlighted vulnerabilities, raising energy security concerns. These events underscore the importance of both diversifying and decentralizing power systems, drawing lessons from Ukraine’s electricity market, which has remained operational despite sustained Russian attacks.
The Baltics’ power system was part of a large Russian-operated synchronous electricity system known as BRELL, which connected the electricity transmission systems of Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (Figure 1). The desynchronization from BRELL and the integration into the European grid have been discussed since 2007, when the Prime Ministers of the Baltic States declared desynchronization as the region’s strategic priority. In 2018, a decision was made to join the Continental European Synchronous Area through a connection with Poland, leading to significant investments – financially supported by the European Commission – to ensure adequate infrastructure. Fully committing to their priority, the Baltic’s desynchronized completely from BRELL on February 7th, 2025.
Figure 1. The BRELL power ring
Source: Karčiauskas (2023)
A Successful Physical (De)synchronization
The desynchronization process proceeded smoothly, with no blackouts. This success was anticipated, given the project’s meticulous planning over several years. A comparable example is Ukraine, which disconnected from the Russian and Belarusian power systems less than a month after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Ukraine then synchronized with the Continental European power grid ENTSO-E, an event that had been in preparation since 2017.
After the desynchronization, the Baltic states temporarily operated in island mode, relying entirely on domestic generation for all grid operations. To maintain system stability, the commercial capacity of interconnectors with the Nordics (whose regional group is not part of the Continental European Synchronous Area) was reduced, ensuring they could serve as reserves in case of major generator outages. The NordBalt cable is one such connector linking Sweden’s SE4 region and Lithuania.
However, conditions are gradually returning to normal. As of February 17, 2025, 700 MW is now available for commercial trading, as shown in Figure 2. Despite this progress, the commercial trading capacity of the interconnector with Poland (the LitPol line) remains heavily restricted and is primarily used to maintain system stability.
Figure 2. Day-ahead commercial transfer capacities on the Nordic interconnectors around the desynchronization
Source: Nord Pool
The Baltic region’s synchronization with the European grid is currently achieved through a 400 kV overhead power line connecting Lithuania and Poland. A second link, the Harmony Link, an underground cable, is planned to become operational by 2030. This makes the existing interconnection an essential part of regional infrastructure and a potential security risk, particularly given the recent sabotage of cables in the Baltic Sea. In response to these threats, Lithuania has increased surveillance of the NordBalt cable. The country’s prime minister has estimated the cost of securing the Baltic cables at €32-34 million, seeking EU support for its funding. The government has also strengthened the protection measures. Initially, security was outsourced to a private security company, but plans are in place for the country’s Public Security Service (Viešojo saugumo tarnyba) to take over in spring 2025. Further, in preparation for the Baltics’ full desynchronization, the Polish Transmission System Operator deployed helicopters to patrol the interconnection, to enhance the security of the infrastructure.
From Trade Interruption to Infrastructure Sabotage
The most significant short-term impact of the desynchronization from the BRELL is the limitation of electricity trade for the Baltic states. The desynchronization has affected reserve balancing in the Baltic region, forcing the three states to rely more on their internal generation for system stability. This has resulted in reduced generation capacity for commercial trade, as the states must be prepared to again operate in island mode in case of an outage on the LitPol cable. Until February 19, 2025, the LitPol line remained unused for commercial trading. However, gradual increases are expected to eventually allow for 150 MW commercial trade between the Polish area and the Baltics, a significant reduction from the 500 MW previously available. This limited trading capacity could lead to higher prices in the Baltics, as the region is a net importer of electricity.
This is not the first time the Baltics have faced trade disruptions. In November 2020, after the construction of a Belarusian nuclear power plant near the Lithuanian border, Lithuania, followed by Latvia and Estonia, limited commercial electricity exchanges with Russia and Belarus. Furthermore, on May 15, 2022, electricity trade between Russia and Finland was halted, followed by the closure of the Kaliningrad-Lithuania connection the next day. While this event led to no blackouts, it clearly impacted the region’s price volatility (Lazarczyk & Le Coq, 2023).
Recently, the region has experienced sabotage to underwater interconnectors, significantly impacting electricity trade between the Nordics and the Baltics. On December 25, 2024, the Estlink 2 cable, one of two connections between Finland and Estonia, was cut, reducing transmission capacity between the two regions. Repair costs are expected to reach several million Euros. As disclosed via Nord Pool’s Urgent Market Message, repairs are expected to last until August 2025 – stressing the system. As Estlink 2 is offline, the Baltic system is not fully operating. If another major component fails, there may be insufficient capacity to maintain grid stability, increasing the risk of outages or the need for emergency interventions.
With the complete disconnection from the Russian and Belarusian power grids, Russia no longer has direct control over the Baltic electricity trade, effectively eliminating the risk of trade disruptions from Russia. However, a new energy threat has emerged: infrastructure sabotage. Although the perpetrators of recent sabotage incidents have not been clearly identified, both Lazarczyk & Le Coq (2023) and Fang et al. (2024) emphasize Russia’s strategic incentives to engage in such actions to maintain its geopolitical influence and discourage neighboring countries from reducing their energy dependence. Sabotaging critical infrastructure presents another efficient method of weaponizing electricity, particularly in the current context of limited Nord Pool imports and the Baltic States’ insufficient integration with the broader European grid.
From Diversification to Decentralization: Responses to Electricity Infrastructure Threats
The Baltic States have diversified their domestic energy supply sources to address the electricity infrastructure threat. In 2024, Estonia’s parliament approved the development of nuclear energy, with Fermi Energia planning to build two 300 MW light-water reactors. Other projects include a hydrogen-ready gas plant in Narva, which is expected to be completed by 2029, as well as an expansion of wind power capacity. While there was some support for extending the use of oil-fired plants in Estonia, their competitiveness has been undermined by high carbon prices and the closure of domestic oil fields. Elering, the Estonian Transmission system operator, has also begun long-term procurement to acquire 500 MW of new generation and storage for frequency management to ensure reserve capacity.
However, diversification alone will not be sufficient to address the challenges currently faced by the Baltic States. Incidents like the cutting of underwater cables underscore the growing need to decentralize the power system. Large, centralized power plants are more vulnerable to targeted attacks compared to decentralized energy systems. As a result, connected microgrids seem to be a viable solution for future energy resilience, as they can maintain functionality even when localized damage occurs. Again, Ukraine’s experience demonstrates the benefits of decentralization. Since the onset of the war, Ukraine has faced both physical and cyberattacks but has strengthened its energy resilience by decentralizing its system and expanding wind and solar power (Eurelectric, 2025). This approach has proven effective: while a single missile could destroy a nearly gigawatt-scale power plant, it would only damage an individual wind turbine or a small section of solar panels, significantly limiting the overall impact.
The desynchronization of the Baltic States from the BRELL network marked a complete break with Russia and Belarus, effectively ending any possibility of electricity trade between these countries and the Baltic region. This transition was successfully completed without any power outages. While the primary goal was to enhance energy security in the Baltics, several challenges remain, as highlighted in this policy brief. Recent disruptions to underwater cables, as well as Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s electricity market, underscore the urgent need for both diversification and decentralization to strengthen the region’s energy security. While energy supply diversification reduces supply chain dependencies, decentralization enhances resilience against targeted attacks, creating a more robust and flexible energy system.
References
- Eurelectric, 2025, Redefining Energy Security In the age of electricity, Lexicon.
- Fang, S., Jaffe, A. M., Loch-Temzelides, T., and C.L. Prete. (2024). Electricity grids and geopolitics: A game-theoretic analysis of the synchronization of the Baltic States’ electricity networks with Continental Europe. Energy Policy, 188, 114068.
- Karčiauskas, J. (2023). Lithuania External Relations Briefing: Synchronization of the Baltic Electricity Network and Breaking Dependence on Russian Energy Market. China CEE Institude Weekly Briefing 2023 Eylül, 4, 3.
- Lazarczyk, E. and Le Coq, C. (2023). Power coming for Russia and Baltic Sea region’s energy security, Energiforsk report.
- Lazarczyk, E. and Le Coq, C. (2022). Can the Baltic States Do Without Russian Electricity?, FREE Policy Brief.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Ukraine’s Fight Is Our Fight: The Need for Sustained International Commitment
We are at a critical juncture in the defense of Ukraine and the liberal world order. The war against Ukraine is not only a test of Europe’s resilience but also a critical moment for democratic nations to reaffirm their values through concrete action. This brief examines Western support to Ukraine in the broader context of international efforts, putting the order of magnitudes in perspective, and emphasizing the west’s superior capacity if the political will is there. Supporting Ukraine to victory is not just the morally right thing to do, but economically rational from a European perspective.
As the U.S. support to the long-term survival of Ukraine is becoming increasingly uncertain, European countries need to step up. This is a moral obligation, to help save lives in a democratic neighbor under attack from an autocratic regime. But it is also in the self-interest of European countries as the Russian regime is threatening the whole European security order. A Russian victory will embolden the Russian regime to push further, forcing European countries to dramatically increase defense spending, cause disruptions to global trade flows, and generate another wave of mass-migration. This brief builds on a recent report (Becker et al., 2025) in which we analyze current spending to support Ukraine, put that support in perspective to other recent political initiatives, and discuss alternative scenarios for the war outcome and their fiscal consequences. We argue that making sure that Ukraine wins the war is not only the morally right thing to do, but also the economically rational alternative.
The International Support to Ukraine
The total support provided to Ukraine by its coalition of Western democratic allies since the start of the full-scale invasion exceeded by October 2024 €200 billion. This assistance, that includes both financial, humanitarian and military support, can be categorized in various ways, and its development over time can be analyzed using data compiled by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. A summary table of their estimates of aggregate support is provided below.
A particularly relevant aspect in light of recent news is that approximately one-third of total disbursed aid has come from the United States. The U.S. has primarily contributed military assistance, accounting for roughly half of all military aid provided to Ukraine. In contrast, the European Union—comprising both EU institutions and bilateral contributions from member states—stands as the largest provider of financial support. This financial assistance is crucial for sustaining Ukraine’s societal functions and maintaining the state budget.
Table 1. International support to Ukraine, Feb 2022 – Oct 2024
Source: Trebesch et al. (2024).
Moreover, the EU has signaled a long-term commitment to provide, in the coming years, an amount comparable to what has already been given. This EU strategy ensures greater long-term stability and predictability, guaranteeing that Ukraine has reliable financial resources to sustain state operations in the years ahead. Consequently, while a potential shift in U.S. policy regarding future support could pose challenges, it would not necessarily be insurmountable.
What is crucial is that Ukraine’s allies remain adaptable, and that the broader coalition demonstrates the ability to adjust its commitments, as this will be essential for sustaining the necessary level of assistance moving forward.
Putting the Support in Perspective
To assess whether the support provided to Ukraine is truly substantial, it is essential to place it in context through meaningful comparisons. One approach is to examine it in historical terms, particularly in relation to past instances of large-scale military and financial assistance. A key historical benchmark is the Second World War, when military aid among the Allied powers played a decisive role in shaping the outcome of the conflict. Extensive resources were allocated to major military operations spanning multiple continents, with the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular, dedicating a significant share of their GDP to support their allies, including the Soviet Union, France, and other nations. As seen in Figure 1, by comparison, the current level of aid to Ukraine, while substantial and essential to its defense, remains considerably smaller in relation to GDP.
Figure 1. Historical comparisons
Source: Trebesch et al. (2024).
Another way to assess the scale of support to Ukraine is by comparing it to other major financial commitments made by governments in response to crises. While the aid allocated to Ukraine is significant in absolute terms, it remains relatively modest when measured against the scale of other programs, see Figure 2.
A recent example is the extensive subsidies provided to households and businesses to mitigate the impact of surging energy prices since 2022. Sgaravatti et al. (2021) concludes that most European countries implemented energy support measures amounting to between 3 and 6 percent of GDP. Specifically, Germany allocated €157 billion, France and Italy each committed €92 billion, the UK spent approximately €103 billion. These figures represent 5 to 10 times the amount of aid given to Ukraine so far, with some countries, such as Italy, allocating even greater relative sums. On average, EU countries have spent about five times more on energy subsidies than on Ukraine aid. Only the Nordic countries and Estonia have directed more resources toward Ukraine than toward energy-related support. Although not all allocated funds have been fully disbursed, the scale of these commitments underscores a clear political and financial willingness to address crises perceived as directly impacting domestic economies.
Figure 2. EU response to other shocks (billions of €)
Source: Trebesch et al. (2024).
Another relevant comparison is the Pandemic Recovery Fund, also known as Next Generation EU. With a commitment of over €800 billion, this fund represents the EU’s comprehensive response to the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. Again, the support to Ukraine appears comparatively small, about one seventh of the Pandemic Recovery Fund.
The support to Ukraine is also much smaller in comparison to the so-called “Eurozone bailout”, the financial assistance programs provided to several Eurozone member states (Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal) during the sovereign debt crisis between 2010 and 2012. The programs were designed to stabilize the economies hit hard by the crisis and to prevent the potential spread of instability throughout the Eurozone.
Overall, the scale of these commitments underscores a clear political and financial willingness and ability to address crises perceived as directly impacting domestic citizens. This raises the question of whether the relatively modest support for Ukraine reflects a lack of concern among European voters. However, this does not appear to be the case. In survey data from six countries – Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland – fielded in June 2024, most respondents express satisfaction with current aid levels, and a narrow majority in most countries even supports increasing aid (Eck and Michel, 2024).
A further illustration comes from the Eurobarometer survey conducted in the spring of 2024 which asked: “Which of the following [crises] has had the greatest influence on how you see the future?”. Respondents could choose between different crises, including those mentioned above, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Figure 3 illustrates the total commitments made by EU countries for Ukraine up until October 31, 2024, compared to other previously discussed support measures, represented by the blue bars. The yellow bars, on the other hand, show a counterfactual allocation of these funds, based on public priorities as indicated in the Eurobarometer survey. Longer yellow bars indicate that a higher proportion of respondents perceived this crisis as having a greater negative impact on their outlook for the future. By comparing the actual commitments (blue bars) with this hypothetical allocation (yellow bars)—which reflects how resources might have been distributed if they aligned with the population’s stated priorities—it becomes evident that there is substantial public backing for maintaining a high level of support for Ukraine. The results show that the population prioritizes the situation in Ukraine above several other economic issues, including those that directly affect their own personal finances.
Figure 3. Support to Ukraine compared to other EU initiatives – what do voters think?
Source: Trebesch et al. (2024); Niinistö (2024); authors’ calculations.
The Costs of Not Supporting Ukraine
When discussing the costs of support to Ukraine it is important to understand what the correct counterfactual is. The Russian aggression causes costs for Europe irrespective of what actions we take. Those costs are most immediately felt in Ukraine, with devastating human suffering, the loss of lives, and a dramatic deterioration in all areas of human wellbeing. Also in the rest of Europe, though, the aggression has immediate costs, in the economic sphere primarily in the form of dramatically increased needs for defense spending, migration flows, and disruptions to global trade relationships. These costs are difficult to determine exactly, but they are likely to be substantially higher in the case of a Russian victory. Binder and Schularik (2024) estimate increased costs for defense, increased refugee reception and lost investment opportunities for the German industry at between 1-2 percent of GDP in the coming years. As they put it, the costs of ending aid to Ukraine are 10-20 times greater than continuing aid at Germany’s current level.
Any scenario involving continued Russian aggression would demand substantial and sustained economic investments in defense and deterrence across Europe. Clear historical parallels can be drawn looking at the difference in countries’ military spending during different periods of threat intensity. Average military spending in a number of Western countries during the Cold War (1949-1990) was about 4.1 percent of GDP, much higher in the U.S. but also in Germany, France and the UK. In the period after 1989-1991 (the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Soviet Union), the amounts fell significantly. The average for the same group of countries in this period is about 2 percent of GDP and only 1.75 percent if the U.S. is excluded.
Also after 1991 there is evidence of how perceived threats affect military spending. Figure 4 plots the change in military spending over GDP between 2014-2024 against the distance between capital cities and Moscow. The change varies between 0 (Cyprus) and around 2.25 (Poland) and shows a very clear positive correlation between increases in spending and proximity to Moscow. There has also in general been a substantial increase in military spending after 2022 in several European countries, but in a scenario where Russia wins the war, these will certainly have to be increased further and maintained at a high level for longer. An increase in annual military expenditure in relation to GDP in the order of one to two percentage points would mean EUR 200-400 billion per year for the EU, while the total EU support to Ukraine from 2022 to today is just over €100 billion.
Figure 4. Increase in military expenditures in relation to distance to Moscow
Source: SIPRI data, authors’ calculations.
A Russian victory would also have profound consequences for migration flows, with the most severe effects likely in the event of Ukraine’s surrender. The Kiel Institute estimates the cost of hosting Ukrainian refugees at €26.5 billion (4.2 percent of GDP) for Poland, one of the countries that received the largest flows. Beyond migration, a Russian victory would also reshape the global geopolitical order. Putin has framed the war as a broader conflict with the U.S. and its democratic allies, while an emerging alliance of Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China is positioning itself as an alternative to the Western-led system. A Ukrainian defeat would weaken the authority of the U.S., NATO, and the rules-based international order, potentially driving more nations in the Global South toward authoritarian powers for military and economic support. This shift could disrupt global trade, affect access to food, metals, and energy. Estimating the full economic impact of such a shift is difficult, but comparisons can be drawn with other global shocks. The European Union’s GDP experienced a significant contraction due to the Covid-19 pandemic, 5.9 percent contraction in real GDP according to Eurostat, 6.6 percent according to the European Central Bank. While the economy rebounded relatively quickly from the pandemic, a permanent geopolitical realignment caused by a Russian victory would likely have far more severe and lasting economic consequences.
Given that Ukraine is at the forefront of Russia’s aggression, its resilience serves as a critical test of Europe’s ability to withstand potential future threats. Thus, strengthening our own security and economic stability in the long term is inseparable from strengthening Ukraine’s resilience now. The fundamental difference lies in the long-term trajectory of these investments. In a scenario where Ukraine is victorious, military and financial aid during the war would eventually transition into reconstruction efforts and preparations for the country’s integration into the EU. This outcome is undeniably more favorable—both economically and in humanitarian terms—not only for Ukraine but for Europe as a whole. Therefore, an even more relevant question is whether the level of support is enough for Ukraine to win the war.
Is Sufficient Support Feasible?
Is it even reasonable to think that we in the West could be able to support Ukraine in such a way that they can militarily defeat Russia? Russia is spending more on its war industry than it has since the Cold War. In 2023, it spent about $110 billion (about 6 percent of GDP). By 2024, this figure is expected to have increased to about $140 billion (about 7 percent of GDP). These amounts are huge and represent a significant part of Russia’s state budget, but they are not sustainable as long as sanctions against Russia remain in place (SITE, 2024). For the EU, on the other hand, the sacrifices needed to match this expenditure would not be as great. The EU’s GDP is about ten times larger than Russia’s, which means that in absolute terms the equivalent amount is only 0.6-0.7 percent of the EU’s GDP. If the U.S. continues to contribute, the share falls to below 0.3 percent of GDP.
Despite the economic advantage of Ukraine’s allies over Russia, several factors could still shift the balance of power in Russia’s favor. One key issue is military production capacity—Russia has consistently outproduced Ukraine’s allies in ammunition and equipment. While Western economies have the resources to manufacture superior weaponry, actual production remains insufficient, requiring both increased capacity and political will. Another challenge is cost efficiency. Military purchasing power parity estimates suggest that Russia can produce approximately 2.5 times more military equipment per dollar than the EU, giving it a cost advantage in volume production. However, this does not fully compensate for its overall economic disadvantage, particularly when factoring in quality differences.
Manpower is also a critical factor. Russia’s larger population allows for sustained mobilization, but at a steep financial cost. Soldiers are recruited at a minimum monthly salary of $2,500, with additional bonuses bringing the first-year cost per recruit to three times the average Russian annual salary. Compensation for injured and fallen soldiers further strains state finances, with estimated payouts reaching 1.5 percent of Russia’s GDP between mid-2023 and mid-2024. Over time, these costs limit Russia’s ability to fund its war effort, making mass mobilization financially unsustainable.
Overall, advanced Western weaponry and superior economic capacity can match Russia’s advantage in manpower if the political will is there. Additionally, Russia’s already fragile demographic situation is deteriorating due to battlefield losses and wartime emigration. Any measure that weakens Russia’s economic capacity—particularly through sanctions and embargoes—diminishes the strategic advantage of its larger population and serves as a crucial complement to military and financial support for Ukraine.
Conclusion
Ukraine’s western allies have provided the country with substantial military and financial support since the onset of the full-scale invasion. Yet, relative to the gravity of the risks involved, previous responses to economic shocks, and citizens’ concerns about the situation, the support is insufficient. The costs of a Russian victory will be higher for Europe, even disregarding the human suffering involved. With U.S. support potentially waning, EU needs to pick up leadership.
References
- Becker, Torbjörn; and Anders Olofsgård; and Maria Perrotta Berlin; and Jesper Roine. (2025). “Svenskt Ukrainastöd i en internationell kontext: Offentligfinansiella effekter och framtidsscenarier”, Commissioned by the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council.
- Binder, J. & Schularick, M. (2024). “Was kostet es, die Ukraine nicht zu unterstützen?” Kiel Policy Brief No. 179.
- Eck, B & Michel, E. (2024). “Breaking the Stalemate: Europeans’ Preferences to Expand, Cut, or Sustain Support to Ukraine”, OSF Preprints, Center for Open Science.
- Niinistö, S. (2024) .“Safer Together – Strengthening Europe’s Civilian and Military Preparedness and Readiness” European Commission Report.
- Sgaravatti, G., S. Tagliapietra, C. Trasi and Zachmann, G. (2021). “National policies to shield consumers from rising energy prices”, Bruegel Datasets, first published 4 November 2021.
- SITE. (2024). “The Russian Economy in the Fog of War”. Commissioned by the Swedish Government.
- Trebesch, C., Antezza, A., Bushnell, K., Bomprezzi, P., Dyussimbinov, Y., Chambino, C., Ferrari, C., Frank, A., Frank, P., Franz, L., Gerland, C., Irto, G., Kharitonov, I., Kumar, B., Nishikawa, T., Rebinskaya, E., Schade, C., Schramm, S., & Weiser, L. (2024). “The Ukraine Support Tracker: Which countries help Ukraine and how?” Kiel Working Paper No. 2218. Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Three Years On – Ukrainians in Poland after Russia’s 2022 Invasion
The wave of Ukrainian refugees which followed the full-scale Russian invasion on February 24th, 2022, was in Poland met with unprecedented levels of support and solidarity. According to data from the Polish Household Budget Survey, 70 percent of households offered some help, and over 10 percent (1.3 million households) provided direct personal assistance. Overall, by early 2025, 1.9 million refugees had registered in the dedicated social security registry (PESEL-UKR system) and 1 million continue to be registered as residing in Poland. Drawing on other data sources we argue in this policy paper that the latter figure is highly overstated, giving rise to unjustified criticisms of low school enrolment among Ukrainian children, and low rates of labour market activity among adult refugees. We highlight the risks that these critical voices may become prominent in the ongoing campaign ahead of the Polish presidential elections. During the crucial months of prospective peace negotiations, when presidential candidates are appealing for voters’ support, we argue that the public debate in Poland concerning Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees, ought to be grounded in reliable evidence.
Introduction
The dramatic events of late February 2022 shook the populations across Ukraine, Europe and the world. The objective of the massive, full-scale Russian aggression was clear – to rapidly take over Kyiv, force Ukraine to surrender and take over full control of the country thus subjugating it into Kremlin’s rule. Three years later, while thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have lost their lives, and while Russia has imposed a massive economic and social burden on Ukraine, its key objective has badly failed and remains far from being realised. This thanks to the commitment of the Ukrainian government, the country’s army and the mobilisation of the Ukrainian population. In turn, the country’s resistance would not have been possible without substantial support from the outside, primarily from countries in the European Union and the U.S. International aid from governments to Ukraine between February 2022 and October 2024 amounted to over €230 billion (bn) with the largest part contributed by the US (€88 bn), the European Commission and European Council (€45 bn) and Germany (€16 bn). Proportional to 2021 GDP levels, the highest support came from Estonia (2.20 percent), Denmark (2.02 percent) and Lithuania (1.68 percent) (Kiel Institute, 2024). Support for Ukraine has come in many forms – military, material, financial, political and diplomatic. The international community has also imposed substantial economic and political sanctions against Russia, and has excluded it from many international forums, marginalising its voice in international discussions and meetings.
On top of that, Ukraine’s neighbours and many Western countries opened their borders and welcomed a massive wave of refugees escaping the immediate military invasion in the east and north of Ukraine, seeking safety from continued bomb and drone attacks on the entire country, and running away from the risk of a complete Russian take-over. It is estimated that up to 8 million Ukrainians left the country in the first months after the full-scale war started, initially moving mainly to Poland, Romania and Slovakia (Polish Economic Institute, 2022; UNCHR, 2022). At the same time the Russian aggression resulted in internal displacement of more than 3.6 million Ukrainians (IOM UN Migration, 2024). While many of the international and internal refugees have since returned, over 6.8 million Ukrainians still reside outside of Ukraine’s borders (UNCHR, 2025).
The wake of the war was met with an unprecedented wave of support among the Polish population (Duszczyk and Kaczmarczyk, 2022). We use data from one of the largest representative Polish surveys – the Household Budget Survey 2022 and 2023 – to show the degree of involvement among Polish households in direct and indirect support to Ukrainian refugees. We also show that declarative general sympathy towards Ukrainians reached over 50 percent in 2023 – twice as high compared to 16 years earlier. This support has by now fallen close to the levels from just before the full-scale war (40 percent). As the immediate need for help has become less urgent, and the refugees have organised their lives in Poland, the involvement of Polish households in supporting the Ukrainian population has also declined. At its peak at the beginning of the war the proportion of Polish households that were actively involved in helping the Ukrainian population reached nearly 70 percent, with over 10 percent (i.e. more than 1.3 million) of the households providing direct assistance to the refugees.
In this policy paper we call into question some of the official data on the number of Ukrainian refugees who continue to reside in Poland (almost 1 million) (EUROSTAT, 2025). We argue that inconsistency across different sources with regard to precise numbers – such as likely inflated refugee count in the official social security register – may be used to build unfavourable claims against the refugees and the Ukrainian cause overall, as arguments and narratives develop based on marginal anecdotal evidence and incorrect statistics. As the new U.S. administration tries – in its own way – to bring an end to the war, Ukraine will need continued strong support from all Western allies to end the war on favourable terms for Ukraine and to get significant additional help to rebuild the country. Ukraine’s safety and economic security will depend on Western military guarantees and closer integration with the EU. All of this requires the support of populations in these countries, which gets increasingly undermined by internal disputes and external political interferences.
As negotiations to end the war begin to take shape, Poland enters a crucial electoral campaign ahead of its May 2025 presidential elections. This combination is likely to place the Ukrainian question among the top issues on the local agenda. At the same time, there is a risk that the extent of support towards Ukraine and Ukrainian residents in Poland will be used in the battle for electoral votes. We argue that any debate around this topic should draw on reliable, up to date data sources. In this regard, the government should provide more information to clarify data inconsistencies, to shed more light on the situation among Ukrainian citizens currently residing in Poland, and to ensure that any doubtful narratives raised in the public debate are quickly addressed.
Ukrainian sovereignty, its peaceful development and prosperity are very much in the interest of both Poland and the rest of Europe. Therefore, the Polish government must provide arguments to reinvigorate the support for Ukraine among its population. This will be fundamental to ensure Ukraine’s military success and stability, to guarantee the mutual benefits of integration of the Ukrainian population in Poland, and for the future economic cooperation with Ukraine in the prospective enlarged European Union.
The Outbreak of the Full-Scale War: Ukrainians in Poland
In the first couple of months after the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24th 2022, over 2 million refugees fled to Poland through the common land border, with as many as 1.3 million people crossing the border during the first two weeks of the war (Figure 1a). The exact number of refugees who arrived in Poland is difficult to gauge as some people left Ukraine via the border with Romania or Slovakia and could have entered Poland across the uncontrolled borders of the Schengen area.
|
BOX 1. Ukrainian citizens in Poland before the war in 2022 Before February 24, 2022, the migration of Ukrainian citizens to Poland was regulated by existing legal mechanisms concerning all foreigners coming from non-EU countries (European Parliament, 2010). Migrants could apply for a temporary residence permit for a maximum of three years, most often in connection with prearranged employment or education (Sejm RP, 2013). Since 2017 Ukrainian citizens with biometric passports could travel to Poland and other EU countries without a visa, but their stay was limited to 90 days (European Parliament, 2017). Access to the Polish social transfer system for migrants and their families was strictly regulated and limited. Labor migrants and temporary visitors under the visa-free regime had no right to public benefits or healthcare (Sejm RP, 2003). |
At the time, application for refugee status was possible, but required undergoing a lengthy and burdensome asylum procedure. Those with refugee status granted had access to public transfers and healthcare (Sejm RP, 2003).
In accordance with the European regulations of Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001, the Polish government responded to the refugee crisis by establishing a special residence status for those fleeing the war. The regulations were introduced as early as March 12, 2022, and as a result, all Ukrainian refugees who arrived in Poland since 24 February could register themselves (and their family members) in a special social security registry, the so-called PESEL-UKR (Sejm RP, 2022). This registration immediately provided the refugees with an official status of temporary protection and legalized their stay in Poland until a specified date, which – as the war continued – has been regularly extended. In comparison to other, non-EU migrants, the PESEL-UKR status grants the refugees simplified access to the Polish labour market and gives them access to public healthcare and social transfers – including general support available to all legal residents, as well as special financial and non-monetary aid targeted specifically at refugees (Duszczyk and Kaczmarczyk, 2022). The registration process was streamlined and widely accessible in all municipality offices throughout Poland and resulted in rapid registration of the majority that had arrived to Poland since February 24, 2022. By the end of June 2022, 1.2 million individuals had registered for the PESEL-UKR status. The number grew to 1.4 million by October 2022 and continued to grow to 1.9 million registrations by January 2025. As evident from Figure 1b not all of those who crossed the Polish border (or arrived in Poland having left Ukraine through a different country) stayed in the country. Some continued their journey to other EU countries and beyond, while some decided to return to Ukraine. It is worth noting though that of all the registrations carried out by the end of 2024, nearly half happened in the first 8 weeks following the invasion.
Figure 1. Number of Ukrainian citizens crossing the border between Poland and Ukraine and registering for PESEL-UKR, 2021-2024
Note: Weekly data on crossings via all land borders with Ukraine.
Source: Open Data Portal (2025a, 2025b).
A notable and important legal change was introduced in October 2022, whereby individuals are automatically withdrawn from the PESEL-UKR registry after a period of 30 days when they (1) leave Poland, (2) apply for a residence permit, or (3) apply for international protection status (Sejm RP, 2022). This change is the reason for the substantial drop in the number of registered refugees at the end of 2022, with over 400 000 individual withdrawals (Figure 1b). This change in legislation was aimed at estimating more precisely the number of Ukrainian refugees currently residing in Poland. However, since withdrawals from the system require that departures from the territory of Poland are officially recorded at the border, or follow a parallel registration in another EU country, or are recorded as departures from the Schengen area through another country, the numbers in the system may still be far from the actual number of refugees currently residing in Poland.
Since late 2022 the number of registered Ukrainian refugees in Poland has been fairly stable at slightly below 1 million. Similarly, the shares of different age cohorts have not changed. In Figure 2 we show the split of those in the PESEL-UKR registry by age. Children under the age of 18 account for about 40 percent of all refugees, of which 30 percent are in schooling age (7-17). 7 percent of the refugees are aged 62 years or older. Among those aged 18-61 years old, 70 percent are women. It is worth noting that out of about half a million children recorded in the first 7 months, almost 400 000 are still registered in the PESEL-UKR registry, a number that has been stable since the end of 2022. As we show below, these values are significantly higher compared to the number of refugee children reported by two other administrative sources. This in turn casts doubt on the reliability of the estimates of the total number of Ukrainian refugees in Poland.
Figure 2. Ukrainian citizens registered with PESEL-UKR, by age group
Note: Based on registered year of birth, age as of 2025.
Source: Open Data Portal (2025b).
Where Are All the Registered Children?
To check the reliability of the PESEL-UKR registry data, we match the information from the registry with information from school registers provided by the Ministry of National Education, and the number of children benefitting from social transfers provided by the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS). As evident in Figure 3, the number of registered school-age children in the PESEL-UKR registry and the number of those who are officially registered in Polish schools significantly differ, and the difference seems stable over time. According to school records, most of the Ukrainian parents promptly enrolled their children in schools right after their arrival in Poland – about 120 000 pupils joined Polish schools as early as March 2022. The numbers grew in September 2024, which followed the introduction of obligatory schooling for all Ukrainian children aged between 7 and 17 (Sejm RP, 2024), with online classes in Ukraine permitted only for those in their final year. When we compare data for late 2024 and early 2025, we see that while about 270 000 children aged 7-17 were registered in the PESEL-UKR database, only 152 000 attended Polish schools – resulting in a very low enrolment rate of about 56 percent – raising legitimate concerns over the children’s academic and social development (see for example CEO, 2024).
Figure 3. Number of school-age children among Ukrainian refugees
Note: School registrations: all school types except preschool education, post-secondary schools, schools for adults and grades in which children are at least 18 years old. Ukrainian refugees only. Child benefit data points as reported in June, October and December.
Source: Open Data Portal (2025b, 2025c); information on 800+ benefit recipients: unpublished data from the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS).
As evident from Figure 3 though, from late 2023 all the way until early 2025, the ‘800+ benefit’ (which is a universal child benefit paid to all children aged 0-17) was paid to around 150 000 Ukrainian refugee children aged 7-17. Given the ease of claiming the benefit, and the relatively high value of the transfers (about 23 percent of net minimum wage per child per month), it seems very unlikely that so many families would opt out of the support. Looking at the close match between the numbers from ZUS and from the Ministry of Education, the more likely interpretation of the figures is not that children stay away from school and fail to claim social transfers, but rather that far fewer children continue to reside in Poland.
An additional argument supporting the inaccuracy of the PESEL-UKR data comes from a report published by the Narodowy Bank Polski (the Polish Central Bank) (NBP, 2024). Using information from a large survey conducted among Ukrainians living in Poland the report shows that 83 percent of school-age children in refugee families were enrolled in either a Polish or a Ukrainian school physically based in Poland. This is very far from the 56 percent rate calculated with reference to administrative data, again suggesting that the PESEL-UKR numbers of school-age children are highly inflated. If that is the case, not only the number of refugee children but the overall PESEL-UKR numbers (992 000 by January 2025) should be called into question.
How Many of the Registered Adults Are Active on the Labor Market?
The accuracy of the overall number of refugees is important because it is one of the key references for policy discussions. While international regulations specify that victims of war and conflict are granted the same basic rights and privileges as other legal residents, including access to the labour market, healthcare and other public services (Duszczyk et al., 2023), negative sentiments towards Ukrainian citizens have recently grown in Poland. Further, various restrictions on access to public support for Ukrainian refugees have already been publicly discussed and proposed in Parliament. These sentiments feed on the claims of fraudulent behaviour, unwillingness to engage in official employment and crowding out of public services for Polish nationals. Such claims about Ukrainians are spread more easily if not met by accurate numbers.
Figure 4. Number of Ukrainian men and women contributing to pension insurance in Poland
Note: ‘Other countries’ refers to other registered foreigners.
Source: Social Insurance Institution ZUS (2024).
Looking at labour market activity, the number of Ukrainians who were officially active on the Polish labour market (as employees, self-employed or receiving unemployment benefit) and who thus paid pension contributions to social security in December 2023 stood at 759 000 (see Figure 4). Of those 396 000 were men and 363 000 were women. While ZUS, the Social Insurance Institution, does not distinguish between migrants (those with the right to stay before February 24th, 2022) and refugees (with PESEL-UKR status) it seems safe to assume that those who registered in the ZUS database in 2022 and 2023 belong to the latter group. The difference between the number of Ukrainians contributing to social security in December 2021 and December 2023 is 132 000 and, as seen in Figure 4, the additional numbers of those registered differ only for Ukrainian women. New Ukrainian male refugees certainly also appear in the database in 2022 and 2023, but their number is difficult to estimate as some earlier migrants returned to Ukraine after the outbreak of the war, and as a result the net effect of men between 2021 and 2023 is essentially zero. Focusing on women, we can compare the number of new registrations in the ZUS database to the total number of women aged 18-59 (excluding students) in the PESEL-UKR database (about 335 000 in December 2023). Such a ratio would suggest that only about 40 percent of female Ukrainian refugees are formally contracted on the Polish labour market (on contracts paying social security contributions). This is much lower than the values presented in the NBP report (2024), suggesting that in July 2024, around 70 percent of the adult war refugees were working and further 19 percent were looking for a job. This comparison once again suggests that the PESEL-UKR numbers are significantly inflated.
Addressing the public concerns with regard to school enrolment and labour market activity with correct figures could help counter the growing negative sentiments towards Ukrainians in Poland as well as towards the overall support for the process of securing peace in Ukraine and integrating it closer with Poland and the EU. In the next section we show that when the full-scale war started in February 2022, not only the sentiments were strongly in favour of supporting Ukraine. Additionally, the level of engagement of the Polish population in actively assisting Ukrainian refugees was truly unprecedented.
Individual Support in Response to the Outbreak of the War
In the first few weeks after the full-scale Russian invasion the Polish society almost uniformly united in providing help and assistance to Ukrainians affected by the war. The Polish Economic Institute estimated that during the first 3 months the financial, humanitarian and material help provided by the Polish society alone reached 9-10 billion PLN, which corresponded to 0.34-0.38 percent of Poland’s GDP (Baszczak et al. 2022). Polish private businesses were also quick to join the assistance efforts, donating money, food, medical and other specialized equipment, and providing services such as transportation, insurance, and education free of charge (WEI 2023). Until May 2022, 53 percent of Polish enterprises engaged in different kinds of relief or support.
The assistance to refugees has been documented in numerous anecdotes, formal reports and extensive media coverage. The scale of support is also reflected in the Polish Household Budget Survey, a regular household survey conducted by the Central Statistical Office. Already in the first quarter of 2022 the survey included several questions related to the assistance given by the interviewed households to Ukrainian refugees. These questions were then included in the survey throughout 2022 and 2023. As shown in Figure 5, when the inflow of refugees from Ukraine started in late February 2022, nearly 70 percent of Polish households offered some form of assistance. Most of this help took the form of gifts and money transfers, but 10.4 percent, i.e. over 1.3 million Polish households, offered direct help such as transport, providing an overnight stay, delivering goods to accommodation venues, etc. The fraction of those offering assistance stayed very high through the first half of 2022, and 23 percent of Polish households still provided some form of assistance in the last quarter of 2022 (Figure 5). As the war stalled, and the Ukrainian population settled and became more independent, and the Polish government took official responsibility of assisting those still in need, the level of direct support from households fell. However, in late 2023 9 percent of Polish households still continued to provide some form of assistance. What is really special about the initial wave of support is that the positive attitudes towards the refugees and the Ukrainian cause were nearly universal. As seen in Figure 6, assistance was offered by high and low educated households (79 and 59 percent), those living in large cities and in rural areas (73 and 68 percent), the young and the old (66 and 63 percent). Households who declared good material conditions were more likely to offer help (75 percent), but even among those who declared difficulties with their financial status 41 percent came forward to offer some assistance.
Figure 5. Polish households engaged in assisting Ukrainian refugees, 2022-2023 (by quarter)
Note: Help covers support and transfers to individuals and institutions in Ukraine as well as to Ukrainian refugees in Poland. “Personal assistance” – direct help to refugees (with job search, doctor’s visits, public matters, language lessons, translation, etc.), “Other help” – help at the border, in reception points, temporary accommodation points, gift collection points, transportation, hosting or subletting own housing free of charge, blood donation.
Source: own compilation based on the Polish Household Budget Surveys 2022-2023.
Figure 6. Polish households engaged in assisting Ukrainian refugees (any help) in the first quarter of 2022, by household characteristics
Notes: Urban status – A: rural area, B: city below 100 000 inhabitants, C: city over 100 000 inhabitants. Material situation (self-assessed) – D: bad or rather bad material situation, E: average material situation, F: good or rather good material situation. Age of head of household – G: 18-29, H: 30-59, I: 60 and older. Education of head of household – J: lower than secondary, K: secondary or postsecondary, L: tertiary. Source: own compilation based on the Polish Household Budget Survey 2022.
It is worth noting also that by the time the full-scale war broke out in February 2022 the sentiments among the Polish population towards Ukrainians had improved compared to attitudes in the 1990s and early 2000s. These sentiments have been regularly surveyed by the Public Opinion Research Center CBOS, and we summarize them in Figure 7. As evident, in the early 1990s the proportion of Poles declaring positive sentiments towards Ukrainians was very low. It steadily increased until about 2017 and then grew rapidly from 2018 till 2020. In 2022 the sentiments towards Ukrainians reached their peak, with over 50 percent of Poles declaring fondness towards them – on par with nations such as Lithuania and Slovakia. At the same time positive attitudes towards Russians reached an all-time low of 6 percent. Positive sentiments towards Ukrainians declined in 2024 – the last year for which the data is available – but even after the drop they are still high when compared with attitudes before 2023.
While the general positive sentiments towards Ukrainians in Poland has improved over the years, 2022 was truly unique when it comes to attitudes toward Ukrainian refugees (see Figure 8). Between 2015 and 2018, i.e. after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, around 50-60 percent of Poles declared that refugees from the conflict areas in Ukraine should be welcomed in Poland. When the same question was asked again in March 2022, 95 percent agreed that Ukrainian refugees should be welcomed in Poland and nearly 60 percent declared that they ‘definitely’ agreed with such a policy. However, the proportion of Poles in support of welcoming Ukrainian refugees has decreased. In late 2024 the share was more or less back at the level prior to the full-scale war, i.e. at over 50 percent.
Figure 7. Share of survey participants declaring fondness towards foreigners of different origin
Source: The Public Opinion Research Center CBOS (2024a).
Figure 8. Opinion survey: If Poland should accept Ukrainian refugees coming from the conflict territories
Note: The surveys were discontinued between 2018 and 2022.
Source: Public Opinion Research Center CBOS (2024b).
Why Have Sentiments Shifted?
At the crucial time of a possible long-awaited end to the Russian invasion, when coordinated support of Western governments will be essential to secure a just and long-lasting solution, the willingness of these governments to firmly stand behind Ukraine will, to a large extent, depend on the sentiments among their voters. Thus, the wavering enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause in countries such as Poland can be seen as a worrying sign, in particular given how high the level of support was in the early days of the invasion. This support will be particularly important over the next few months, given the likely period of intensive international negotiations and the battle for votes in the upcoming Polish presidential elections.
It is not unusual to try to put the blame for various unfortunate developments on external forces, including global trends, external conflicts and all things ‘foreign’. Thus, the fact that many people in various countries, including Poland, blame their perceived worsened economic conditions on the consequences of the war and the related influx of Ukrainian refugees is far from surprising. While some politicians might want to explain the complex broad context, others will take advantage of these sentiments and continue to fuel the negative discourse. With that in mind, three main topics have been particularly visible in the public debate in Poland:
- access to social transfers, in particular to the ‘800+’ child benefit for Ukrainian refugees
- Ukrainian refugees’ participation in the Polish labour market and tax contributions to the local budget
- risks to particular groups of interest, most prominently reflected in Poland by the crisis surrounding imported Ukrainian grain (see Box 2)
The first two issues are strongly related to the general approach to immigration and integration of migrants in the Polish society. The popular media discourse – in traditional and social media – tends to focus on instances of abuse of social support and public services, and to build up negative sentiments along the lines of supposed unwillingness to engage in legal economic activity among those who have settled in Poland. While one can certainly identify anecdotes which selectively confirm all sorts of misbehaviour, the overall evidence would clearly reject such claims. As discussed, the surveys conducted by the NBP show that a significant majority of migrants and refugees from Ukraine find legal employment in Poland. Further research based on administrative data demonstrates that many Ukrainians establish and successfully run their businesses in Poland (Polish Economic Institute, 2024). Between January 2022 and June 2024 Ukrainian migrants and refugees established almost 60 000 enterprises in Poland, and as Vézina et al. (2025) argue, these firms did not crowd out Polish businesses, meaning they represent a true value added to the national and local economies.
Recent public discussions, however, have focused on the combination of employment and benefit claims. The debate started with two parliamentary initiatives by the right wing Konfederacja and Prawo i Sprawiedliwość opposition parties and was then picked up by the leading government party’s presidential candidate, Rafał Trzaskowski (money.pl, 2025). The proposed legislative changes are broadly similar, suggesting that access to the main child benefits – the ‘800+ benefit’ – should be limited to those refugee families where at least one of the parents is formally employed. Such conditionality does not apply to Polish families, and according to current legislation, to no other families legally residing in Poland (Konfederacja, 2025; Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, 2025). The supposed aim of the changes would be to, first of all, limit fraudulent claims among those who no longer reside in Poland, and secondly, to restrict access to the benefits to those who contribute with their taxes to the public budget only. On both counts the policy seems badly misconceived. As shown above, the ‘800+’ claims closely match the numbers of children officially registered in Polish schools, far below the numbers registered in the PESEL-UKR database. Moreover, such a policy is unlikely to lead to much higher employment among refugee parents. The benefit is universal and received by all families regardless of employment status or income; previous research has shown a similar benefit to have negligible effects on employment (see for example: Myck and Trzcinski, 2019). Therefore, the most likely reason for some refugee parents to not take up work is not unwillingness, but rather other constraints – constraints which will not change as a result of the proposed restrictions. Most Ukrainian families who fled the war are mothers whose partners could not join them due to military restrictions on the mobility of Ukrainian men. While many women settled and found jobs, family obligations may significantly limit some refugee’s options for regular employment. For these families, withdrawing the eligibility for the ‘800+ benefit’ would be a significant loss of income with potentially dire consequences for their children. It is thus difficult to understand the initiatives as anything other than attempts to address the growing critical sentiments towards the refugees to gain support among voters who are convinced by the anecdotal narrative. As argued above – with the exception of anecdotes – there is very little evidence in support of such legislative changes. Even from the point of view of potential budgetary gains, the proposed limitations on benefit claims would impose heavy administrative costs which would likely exceed any resulting savings. The politicians coming forward with such proposals would be well advised to consider data from various sources and avoid raising issues which have a clear potential to fuel negative sentiments towards refugees and migrants.
|
BOX 2. The dispute over the Ukrainian grain In February 2022, Russia’s full-scale invasion destabilized the Ukrainian market, in particular the agricultural sector, due to blocked exports through the Black Sea. To enable exports, so-called Solidarity Lanes were established, including corridors crossing Poland (European Commission 2022). However, Poland was not prepared to handle and re-export large volumes of Ukrainian agricultural products, due to insufficient capacity of Polish sea ports (farmer.pl, 2023; for such quantities experts argue that road transport is unprofitable; Kupczak, 2023). This led to a surplus of grain in multiple storehouses throughout the country, especially in Southeastern Poland. Overall, Polish grain stocks increased by over 250 percent, from 3.8 to almost 10 million tones (Supreme Audit Office, 2023). The drastic surplus of grain, together with much lower prices for Ukrainian crops, led to a dramatic price drop—one could buy mixed Polish-Ukrainian grain for half the price it cost the previous year (rp.pl, 2023). Apart from its impact on quantity and price, Ukrainian grain drew public attention also due to concerns regarding its quality (money.pl, 2023). Imported agricultural and food articles must undergo rigorous quality controls at the border, depending on their purpose – human consumption, animal fodder or cultivation, conducted by the respective state inspection office. Random controls held in 2022 by the Food Articles Inspection revealed that 2.4 percent of the grain samples were banned from entering the market (rp.pl, 2023). According to a report by the Supreme Audit Office (2023), controls run by the Veterinarian Inspection were drastically limited as of May 2022 which allowed poor quality fodder grain to enter the Polish market (Supreme Audit Office 2023). Since technical grain – used in the production of biofuels, insulating materials or oils – is exempt from border quality controls, its imports and sale as consumable grain could be particularly profitable. Several incidents of such forgery were subject to investigation confirming that large quantities of technical grain originating from Ukraine were sold as consumable to Polish companies (gov.pl, 2024). The tightened border controls that followed, resulted in multiday delays in the transportation of food products from Ukraine. To mitigate these constraints an agreement was reached, and, as of March 8, 2023, grain transit through Poland to other final destinations (within EU or to a third country via Polish ports) is exempt from border controls at the Polish-Ukrainian border and sealed by the National Revenue Administration. These seals can be removed only at the final destination (gov.pl, 2023a). Throughout this period Polish farmers held demonstrations opposing the influx of Ukrainian grain. The border crossings with Ukraine were temporarily blocked by protests aimed at disrupting the flow of goods. The symbolic dumping of Ukrainian grain on the ground at the Medyka border crossing resulted in a famously cited statement by the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that this event may be seen as evidence of the “erosion of solidarity” with Ukraine (BBC, 2024). After the EU-level temporary embargo on four types of grains and oil seeds from Ukraine was lifted in mid-September 2023 (which was in effect since May 2023), Ukraine agreed to introduce export measures to avoid grain surges (European Commission, 2023). Nevertheless, Poland administered a unilateral ban on selected products and their derivatives (gov.pl, 2023b), which led Ukraine to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO, 2023). While the ban still applies (gov.pl, 2025), the Polish government has on multiple occasions actively sought to convince the EU to include wheat (and other grains) among the crops covered by the quotas under the EU-level 2022 regulation on temporary trade liberalization with Ukraine (the Autonomous Trade Measures Regulation; OKOpress, 2024; European Commission, 2024). |
Conclusions
Considering the current approach by the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump, Ukraine’s position in the prospective negotiations will strongly depend on the support it can gather from its European allies. This in turn is likely to reflect the sentiments towards the Ukrainian cause among European voters. In Poland, where critically important presidential elections are scheduled for May 2025, the importance of these sentiments might be particularly salient. On the one hand, the candidates are likely to voice support for Ukraine to secure peace and stability in the region. On the other hand, they may appeal for support among voters who are critical of the generous approach of Polish public institutions towards Ukrainian refugees.
As shown in this policy paper, the critical voices highlighting instances of abuse of privileges granted to refugees are largely unfounded, and much of the critical discourse is linked to – in our view – highly inaccurate numbers of officially registered refugees with the PESEL-UKR status system. The government would do a service to the quality of the debate about Ukrainian refugees in Poland, and at the same time defuse some of the critical claims, by verifying the PESEL-UKR database.
Using administrative data on school enrolment and benefit claims we show that these match almost perfectly, with around 150 000 children aged 7-17 in both registries in late 2024. This is far less than the 270 000 children in this age group registered in the PESEL-UKR database and assumed to be residing in Poland. Similarly, survey data suggests that about 70 percent of Ukrainian refugees are active on the Polish labour market. This proportion is much lower when official data based on social security contributions is compared to the total number of adult refugees in the PESEL-UKR registry. The comparison once again suggests that the figures in the latter database are significantly overstated. It is thus very unlikely that the number of Ukrainian refugees in Poland is as high as the numbers officially reported in the registry (992 000 in January 2025).
The accuracy of the numbers is important for several reasons, and the ability to address various critical claims in the public debate is only one of them. At the time of an electoral campaign ahead of a highly significant presidential election, this reason, however, may prove fundamental to avoid further polarization of the debate about continued support for Ukrainian refugees in Poland. It is also crucial for securing strong support for Ukraine by the Polish government in the coming challenging months of peace negotiations. While it is likely impossible to restore the level of positive attitudes toward Ukrainian citizens seen in Poland in February and March 2022, that degree of solidarity should serve as a foundation for a deepened relationship between the two countries.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Sida. We are grateful to Patryk Markowski for helpful research assistance. The Polish Household Budget Survey data (2022, 2023) used in the analysis was provided by Statistics Poland (Główny Urząd Statystyczny). We are grateful to the Social Insurance Institution ZUS (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) for providing us with unpublished data on child benefit recipients.
References
- Baszczak, Ł., Kiełczewska, A., Kukołowicz, P., Wincewicz, A., & Zyzik, R. (2022). Pomoc polskiego społeczeństwa dla uchodźców z Ukrainy. Polish Economic Institute. https://pie.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Pomoc-pol-spol-UKR-22.07.2022-D-1.pdf
- BBC. (2024). Polish farmers block Ukraine border in grain row. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68337795
- CEO Center for Citizenship Education. (2024). Students from Ukraine with refugee experience in Polish schools: What changed in the school year 2024/2025? https://ceo.org.pl/uczniowie-z-ukrainy-w-polskich-szkolach-nowy-raport/
- Duszczyk, M., Górny, A., Kaczmarczyk, P., & Kubisiak, A. (2023). War refugees from Ukraine in Poland – one year after the Russian aggression: Socioeconomic consequences and challenges. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 15(1), 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12642
- Duszczyk, M., & Kaczmarczyk, P. (2022). Poland and war refugees from Ukraine – Beyond pure aid. CESifo Forum, 23(4), 26-33. https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/CESifo-Forum-2022-4-duszczyk-kaczmarczyk-ukrainian-refugee-crisis-july.pdf
- Duszczyk, M., & Kaczmarczyk, P. (2022). The war in Ukraine and migration to Poland: Outlook and challenges. Intereconomics, 57(3), 164-170. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2022/number/3/article/the-war-in-ukraine-and-migration-to-poland-outlook-and-challenges.html
- European Commission. (2022). EU-Ukraine solidarity lanes. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-solidarity-ukraine/eu-assistance-ukraine/eu-ukraine-solidarity-lanes_en
- European Commission. (2023). Following the expiry of the restrictive measures on Ukrainian exports of grain. https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/following-expiry-restrictive-measures-ukrainian-exports-grain-ukraine-agrees-introduce-measures-2023-09-15_en
- European Commission. (2024). EU trade relations with Ukraine. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/ukraine_en
- European Parliament. (2001). Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0055
- European Parliament. (2010). Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:344:0001:0003:EN:PDF
- European Parliament. (2017). Regulation (EU) 2017/850 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 on visa requirements (Ukraine). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0850&from=EN
- EUROSTAT. (2025). Temporary protection for persons fleeing Ukraine – monthly statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Temporary_protection_for_persons_fleeing_Ukraine_-_monthly_statistics
- farmer.pl (2022). Import zboża z Ukrainy. Co ze zbożem technicznym?. https://www.farmer.pl/produkcja-roslinna/zboza/import-zboza-z-ukrainy-co-ze-zbozem-technicznym-ruszyly-dodatkowe-kontrole-aktualizacja,126026.html
- farmer.pl (2023). Przepustowość polskich portów ogranicza możliwości opróżnienia silosów. https://www.farmer.pl/produkcja-roslinna/zboza/przepustowosc-polskich-portow-ogranicza-mozliwosci-oproznienia-silosow,131743.html
- gov.pl (2023a). Tranzyt zbóż z Ukrainy – ważne ustalenia ministrów Polski i Ukrainy. https://www.gov.pl/web/rolnictwo/tranzyt-zboz-z-ukrainy–wazne-ustalenia-ministrow-polski-i-ukrainy
- gov.pl (2023b). Rozporządzenie na temat zakazu przywozu z Ukrainy produktów rolnych. https://www.gov.pl/web/kas/rozporzadzenie-na-temat-zakazu-przywozu-z-ukrainy-produktow-rolnych
- gov.pl (2024). Rekordowa kara za oszustwa związane z importem produktów rolnych z Ukrainy. https://www.gov.pl/web/ijhars/rekordowa-kara-za-oszustwa-zwiazane-z-importem-produktow-rolnych-z-ukrainy
- gov.pl (2025). Relacje handlowe z Ukrainą. https://www.gov.pl/attachment/1f3a8fed-3556-42ed-b4dc-98960a498744
- IOMM UN Migration. (2024). https://dtm.iom.int/ukraine
- Kiel Institute. (2024). Ukraine Support Tracker. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ukraine-support-tracker-data-20758/
- Konfederacja. (2025). Projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy o pomocy obywatelom Ukrainy. https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki10ka.nsf/Projekty/10-RPW-2793-2025/$file/10-RPW-2793-2025.pdf
- money.pl (2023). Zboże techniczne w mące?. https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/zboze-techniczne-w-mace-takie-ziarna-nadaja-sie-do-spalenia-w-piecu-6887330302552992a.html
- money.pl (2025). https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/800-plus-dla-pracujacych-ukraincow-trzaskowski-ma-pomysl-rzad-ma-problem-7119211731655488a.html
- Myck, M., K. Trzciński (2019) From Partial to Full Universality: The Family 500+ Programme in Poland and its Labor Supply Implications, ifo DICE Report, 17(03), 36-44.
- Narodowy Bank Polski. (2024). Sytuacja życiowa i ekonomiczna migrantów z Ukrainy w Polsce w 2024 r.
- OKOpress. (2024). Zboże z Ukrainy demoluje polski rynek?
https://oko.press/czy-zboze-z-ukrainy-psuje-rynek-w-polsce - Open Data Portal (2025a). Daily statistics from the Polish Border Guard Headquarters. https://dane.gov.pl/pl/dataset/3595,bazy-ruchu-granicznego-straz-graniczna
- Open Data Portal (2025b). Statistics from the Ministry of Digital Affairs of Poland. https://dane.gov.pl/pl/dataset/2715,zarejestrowane-wnioski-o-nadanie-statusu-ukr
- Open Data Portal (2025c). Statistics from the Ministry of National Education of Poland. https://dane.gov.pl/pl/dataset/2711,uczniowie-uchodzcy-z-ukrainy
- pap.pl (2025). Kwestie historyczne to papierek lakmusowy pokazujący stan relacji polsko-ukraińskich. https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/ekspertka-kwestie-historyczne-papierek-lakmusowy-pokazujacy-stan-relacji-polsko
- Polish Economic Institute. (2022). Pomoc polskiego społeczeństwa dla uchodźców z Ukrainy. https://pie.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Pomoc-pol-spol-UKR-22.07.2022-D-1.pdf
- Polish Economic Institute. (2024). Tygodnik Gospodarczy PIE 1 sierpnia 2024 r., 31/2024. https://pie.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Tygodnik-PIE_31-2024.pdf
- Prawo i Sprawiedliwość. (2025). Projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy o pomocy obywatelom Ukrainy. https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki10ka.nsf/Projekty/10-RPW-1978-2025/$file/10-RPW-1978-2025.pdf
- Public Opinion Research Center CBOS. (2024a). Attitude towards other nationalities. https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2024/K_025_24.PDF
- Public Opinion Research Center CBOS (2024b). Ukrainians in Poland and the war in Ukraine. https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2024/K_099_24.PDF
- Rp.pl (2023). Dlaczego zboże z Ukrainy zostało w Polsce?. https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art38318551-dlaczego-zboze-z-ukrainy-zostalo-w-polsce-suski-wina-putina
- Sejm RP. (2003). Ustawa z dnia 28 listopada 2003 r. o świadczeniach rodzinnych. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20032282255/U/D20032255Lj.pdf
- Sejm RP. (2003). Ustawa z dnia 13 czerwca 2003 r. o udzielaniu cudzoziemcom ochrony na terytorium RP. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20031281176/U/D20031176Lj.pdf
- Sejm RP. (2013). Ustawa z dnia 12 grudnia 2013 r. o cudzoziemcach. https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/default/files/aldfiles/EN%20-%20Poland%20act_on_foreigners_en_0.pdf
- Sejm RP. (2022). Law of 12 March 2022 on assistance to citizens of Ukraine. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20220000583
- Sejm RP. (2024). Act of 15 May 2024 Amending the Act on Assistance to Citizens of Ukraine. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20240000854/O/D20240854.pdf
- Supreme Audit Office. (2023). Działania organów państwa w zakresie importu i obrotu zboża. https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/D/23/506/
- UNCHR. (2022). https://web.archive.org/web/20220410070535/http://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine
- UNCHR. (2025). https://www.unhcr.org/emergencies/ukraine-emergency
- Vézina, P.-L., Aksoy, C. G., & Lewandowski, P. (2025). Refugees and entrepreneurship: Evidence from Ukrainians in Poland. Unpublished draft.
- Warsaw Enterprise Institute. (2023). Kompendium polskiej pomocy dla Ukrainy. https://wei.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Kompendium-PL.pdf
- WTO World Trade Organisation. (2023). Ukraine initiates WTO dispute complaints. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/ds619_620_621rfc_21sep23_e.htm
- ZUS Social Insurance Institution (2024). Cudzoziemcy w polskim systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych 2019-2024. https://www.zus.pl/baza-wiedzy/statystyka/opracowania-tematyczne/cudzoziemcy
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Breaking the Link: Costs and Benefits of Shutting Down Europe’s Last Gas Pipeline from Russia
Ukraine’s decision to halt Russian gas transit from January 1st, 2025, marks the end of decades of direct gas links between Europe and Russia. The EU is unlikely to face significant short-to-mid-term impacts, as Russian pipeline gas imports have already dropped sixfold since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, uneven exposure to this shock has already created internal tensions within the EU. Further, increased reliance on liquefied natural gas may also slow the green transition. In the region, Moldova faces severe supply challenges and Ukraine will lose transit revenues. Targeted support and stronger cooperation within the EU and with neighboring countries, especially EU candidates, will be essential. In turn, the halt will make Russia face not only financial but also geopolitical losses.
On January 1st, 2025, Ukraine halted the transit of Russian gas to Europe following the expiration of a five-year agreement between Russian Gazprom and Ukrainian Naftogaz, marking a major shift in Europe’s energy landscape. This decision ended decades of reliance on Ukrainian pipelines for Russian gas (see Figure 1). Despite Ukraine announcing its intent not to renew the agreement well in advance (Corbeau, 2023), uncertainty lingered until the contract’s final days. Similarly, the broader implications remain uncertain. This policy brief explores the short-, mid-, and long-term effects of this change on the region.
Figure 1. Russian pipeline network to Europe, 2022-2025
Source: Euromaidan Press
A “Political” Pipeline
The Ukrainian transit route has long been a key corridor for direct gas deliveries to Europe, playing a crucial role in shaping the EU energy security policy. However, this route has also been the site of major disruptions, particularly during the 2006 and 2009 gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine. These incidents exposed Europe’s reliance on transit routes and its vulnerability to geopolitical conflicts, prompting political responses despite the relatively localized impact. To address these vulnerabilities, the EU introduced measures aimed at diversifying energy sources and strengthening internal energy markets (see, e.g., Le Coq and Paltseva, 2012). Early efforts focused primarily on improving the internal energy market’s efficiency while diversification advanced slowly. This changed drastically during the gas crisis that began in mid-2021 and escalated with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. These events forced the EU to alter its gas import strategy, driving further investments in liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure and new pipelines, such as the Southern Gas Corridor enabling gas imports from Azerbaijan (see e.g., Regulation (EU) 2022/1032 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1789).
As a result, despite the significant burden of soaring energy prices and investment costs, the EU has made remarkable progress in reducing its reliance on Russian piped gas. Indeed, the share of Russian natural gas (both pipeline and LNG) in total EU gas imports, which increased 35 percent in 2015 to 41 percent in 2020, dropped to just 9 percent by 2023. However, the progress was non-uniform among member states (see Figure 2). In turn, by 2024, Russian gas via Ukraine accounted for just 5 percent of EU’s gas supply, with significant reliance limited to Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia (where it still made up between 65 percent and 78 percent of imports, and, between 12 percent and 22 percent of total energy consumption).
Figure 2. Share of Russian pipeline and LNG gas in total gas imports across the EU
Source: Eurostat, 2024. The gas imports include data for both pipeline and LNG imports. The 2024 gas imports data was unavailable at the time of writing this brief. However, several EU member states further decreased their consumption of Russian gas in 2024. For example, while Sweden and Finland were importing Russian LNG both in 2020 and 2023, possibly for re-export, as shown in Figure 1, they both stopped this practice from June 2024.
Further, Austrian data on imports from Russia is not available from Eurostat, and is, instead, compiled from Eurogas, IMF, and Austrian government data.
The Immediate Impact of the Transit Stop
The EU’s reduced reliance on Russian gas has significantly softened the immediate impact of the transit halt. Gas prices showed only a slight reaction, with no clear evidence linking the transit stop to price changes. Even if one would attribute the cumulative gas price increase over 2024 to the expectations of the pipeline shutdown only, the effect was much smaller than during the 2021 gas crisis or the sharp price spikes of 2022, as illustrated in Figure 3. Ample storage levels – 71.8% as of January 01.2025, well within acceptable levels for this time of the year – have further limited the immediate impact.
Figure 3. EU gas prices, 2021-2025
Effectively, the only part of the region facing an immediate and significant impact due to the termination of the gas transit deal has been Moldova. The pro-Russian separatist region of Transnistria, previously fully reliant on subsidized Russian gas via Ukraine and representing 70 percent of Moldovan gas consumption, has been cut off since January 1, 2025, due to the lack of alternative routes. This has also significantly affected the right-bank-of-Dniester Moldova as 80 percent of its electricity supply was previously provided by the Russian gas-based MGRES plant in Transnistria (Anisimova, 2024). In response, Chisinau declared a state of emergency in the energy sector, introducing energy-saving measures and rationing. In turn, Transnistria halted most industrial production and faced widespread blackouts (Kieff, 2025).
The Mid-Term Costs and Benefits for Involved Parties
In the mid-term, the impact will likely broaden and take various forms. Moldova, Ukraine, and Europe are expected to face primarily financial consequences, while Russia will also bear significant geopolitical costs.
Moldova will continue to be the most affected country. Russia could attempt to reroute gas to Transnistria via Turkstream and reversed flow on the Trans-Balkan pipeline. However, since this route briefly passes through Ukraine before reaching Moldova, it would require a transit agreement, an unlikely scenario under current conditions.
Alternatively, the Trans-Balkan route could be used to import gas from Azerbaijan or LNG from Turkey and Greece (Halser and Skaug, 2024). However, this would require political will from both Moldova and Transnistria, and involve substantial costs, likely unaffordable singlehandedly for Moldova or Transnistria, especially as the latter has long received Russian gas for free. Financial, as well as infrastructural support from the EU could help address these challenges.
Ukraine faces an annual loss of transit fees due to the halted agreement amounting to approximately $450 million/year. Formally, the loss should have been around $1.2 billion annually but Russia payed only for 15 bcm/a of gas transit since 2022, instead of 40 bcm/a under the ship-or-pay transit agreement, citing Ukraine’s refusal to transit gas via the Russia-occupied Sokhranivka entry point. This dispute is in international arbitration but is unlikely to be resolved before the war ends (see Reley, 2025). The absence of a transit gas flow could also undermine the competitiveness of Ukraine’s gas storage services for the EU (Ukraine’s Naftogaz has Europe’s largest underground facilities with a capacity of 30.9bcm, 10bcm of which is available to foreign traders.)
At the same time, the option of renewing the transit agreement could boost Ukraine’s leverage in future talks with Russia. However, this leverage weakens with the EU’s ability to cope with its remaining reliance on Russian gas – greater diversification in EU imports would reduce the importance of Russian pipelines and, consequently, Ukraine’s bargaining position.
Europe’s mid-term impact from the transit halt will be non-uniform, with Austria, Slovakia, and Hungary facing the highest energy bill increases. However, the effect is expected to be limited due to its well-connected internal energy market, which can absorb shocks and distribute shortages across member states. The shortage is likely to be compensated by increased LNG purchases, which would somewhat increase gas prices due to the current LNG market rigidity. However, with LNG supply capacity increasing already in 2025 and projected to grow by 40 percent by 2028 without a matching rise in demand (IEEFA, 2024), the price increase is not going to last long.
However, the EU may also face a political cost. Expectations of price increases and Slovakia’s loss of transit fees could strain the EU unity, as differing energy dependencies risk deepening intra-EU tensions and complicating policy coordination (see, e.g., here and here). This underscores the importance of Europe’s “one voice” energy policy, which has gained momentum in recent years.
Russia faces significant financial and geopolitical losses from the transit halt. Financially, it risks losing approximately $6.5 billion annually in revenue at current prices (Keliauskaitė and Zachmann, 2024) unless flows are redirected. While temporary price increases – for the sales of Russian gas via Turkstream, and Russian LNG exports to Europe, could offset some of these losses – these are not going to last.
The greater impact lies in Russia’s diminished geopolitical leverage. Historically, Russia has used gas as a political tool, leveraging its dominant position and access to multiple pipeline routes to exert influence over transit countries and dependent nations. This influence would now be lost. Further, with the loss of a Ukrainian transit, Russia’s pipeline connection to EU gas markets now relies solely on Turkey, increasing its dependency on Turkey and potentially altering its alliance dynamics due to higher transit costs. Additionally, as Azerbaijani gas emerges as a viable alternative for Europe, Russia’s bargaining power in its geopolitical relations with Azerbaijan is likely to weaken further. This erosion of influence marks a significant shift in Russia’s regional energy strategy.
Long-Term Effects: Increased Dependence on LNG and the Green Transition
The halt of the Russian gas transit is facilitating the implementation of the RePowerEU goal of fully eliminating EU Russian fossil fuels dependency by 2027. However, its long-term effects, particularly on the timing and success of the green transition, warrant attention. Natural gas is widely considered a transitional fuel, essential for maintaining energy reliability in an energy system relying heavily on intermittent renewables. For the green transition to succeed, it is critical to avoid infrastructure lock-ins, displacement of low-carbon technologies, and the creation of stranded assets.
The shift from Russian gas to the LNG market will likely require substantial infrastructure investments in the EU and LNG-producing countries, increasing the risk of long-term dependency. Geopolitical dynamics add further complexity – e.g., the U.S., which supplied 50 percent of Europe’s LNG in 2023, has advocated for long-term purchasing agreements that could delay green technology adoption and extend the EU’s reliance on fossil fuels. This is already a reality as some EU member states having signed long-term gas contracts with Qatar, lasting beyond 2050, which may hinder efforts to accelerate the green transition.
Conclusion
The impact of the gas transit halt varies depending on whether it is seen from a short-, medium-, or long-term perspective. While all parties involved face losses, the impact of the halt on the EU is drastically different from what it could have been a few years ago due to the dramatic efforts undertaken in the last few years. Further, there are also potential benefits to consider. Notably, the EU has the opportunity to play a crucial role in reducing the economic and political burdens on neighboring countries, particularly those seeking EU membership. By offering targeted financial support and promoting deeper cooperation, the EU can help these nations manage the challenges posed by the halt. In turn, the halt will imply not only financial but also geopolitical losses for Russia.
References
- Anisimova, A. (2024). Moldova’s EU integration and the special case of Transnistria. FREE Policy Brief. Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://freepolicybriefs.org/2024/10/14/moldovas-eu-integration/
- Corbeau, A. (2024). Swapping Azeri gas for Russian supplies: No easy fix for Europe. Center on Global Energy Policy. Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/swapping-azeri-gas-for-russian-supplies-no-easy-fix-for-europe/
- Halser, P., & Skaug, B. (2024). Supply shift: End of Ukraine gas transit sets the stage for LNG and pipeline diversions. Rystad Energy. Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/end-of-ukraine-gas-transit-lng-and-pipeline
- Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). (2024). Global LNG outlook 2024–2028. Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/067.%20IEEFA%2C%20Global%20LNG%20Outlook%202024-2028.pdf
- Keliauskaitė, D., & Zachmann, G. (2024). The end of Russian gas transit via Ukraine and options for the EU. Bruegel. Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/end-russian-gas-transit-ukraine-and-options-eu
- Kieff, T. (2025). An energy crisis provides opportunity in Moldova. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/energy-crisis-provides-opportunity-moldova
- Le Coq, C., & Paltseva, E. (2012). Buyer power as a tool for EU energy security. FREE Policy Brief. Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://freepolicybriefs.org/2012/06/07/buyer-power-as-a-tool-for-eu-energy-security/
- Reley, M. (2025). The end of the affair? The transit of Russian gas across Ukraine. International Center for Defense and Security. Retrieved January 11, 2025, from https://icds.ee/en/the-end-of-the-affair-the-transit-of-russian-gas-across-ukraine/
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
What decision did Ukraine make regarding Russian pipeline gas transit? How has the EU’s reliance on Russian pipeline gas changed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? What are the potential consequences of the EU’s increased reliance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) following the decline in Russian pipeline gas imports? Read the policy brief “Breaking the Link: Costs and Benefits of Halting Russian Pipeline Gas to Europe” to explore the impact of halting Russian pipeline gas transit on Europe, Ukraine, and energy security.
Gender Board Diversity Across Europe Throughout Four Decades
Despite comprising a large share of the workforce, women remain a minority in corporate boardrooms across Europe. While progress has been made in recent decades among public (listed) firms, diversity lags behind in private corporations. This policy brief showcases evidence from the Gender Board Diversity Dataset (GBDD) – a newly released, unique data source which covers a comprehensive sample of European private and public corporations over multiple decades. Uniquely, the GBDD encompasses private (non-listed) companies, a novel method for identifying the gender of board members based on linguistic and cultural heuristics, and a cross-country harmonization of firm-level data. These features make the GBDD a great tool for answering policy-related questions and enable cross-country and cross-sector comparisons. As such, the GBDD can help ensure that policies aimed at promoting gender board diversity are scientifically well grounded.
Background
The labor force participation rate of women in Europe has been rising over the last few decades and is approaching the participation rate of men. However, the proportion of company board positions held by women is still significantly lower. This issue has generated heated debate among academics (e.g. see Nguyen et al., 2020, for a recent literature review) as well as among the general public. It has also prompted several countries to mandate gender quotas for some companies (typically public companies or the largest limited liability companies). For example, in Norway, large and medium-size firms are mandated to guarantee that both women and men account for at least 40 percent of board members. Given the increasing proliferation of mandated gender board quotas across countries, it is imperative that the public be aware of the main facts concerning gender board diversity in a broad set of companies i.e. those that make up the largest proportion of the economy, offer the majority of jobs, and often remain outside the scope of quota legislation.
The Gender Board Diversity Dataset
The Gender Board Diversity Dataset (GBDD), created by Drazkowski, Tyrowicz, and Zalas (2024), provides a novel cross-country perspective on women in management and supervisory boards over the past four decades. The GBDD is based on firm-level registry data from Orbis, which the authors have harmonized to ensure comparability across countries. A key feature of the GBDD is that it covers registry information from both public and private (non-listed) companies. This makes it a comprehensive source of information as the majority of board positions, as well as the majority of jobs in general, are in private rather than public companies. Data on private companies are scarce, and the GBDD is one of very few data sources containing this information across Europe. The GBDD is based on a sample of over 28 million unique firms from 43 European countries observed, on average, for around seven years. It contains information about nearly 59 million individuals who sit on management and supervisory boards and covers the period between 1985 and 2020.
Another key component of the GBDD is the identification of the gender of board members, which is a key innovation compared to other studies that use Orbis data. While the original data do not specify the gender of individuals until 2010, they do include names and surnames, which the creators utilized to perform gender identification. By applying cultural and linguistic heuristics, they were able to determine the gender of over 99 percent of the board members in their sample. For example, in some languages (e.g. Czech), surnames end with a gender-specific suffix, while in other languages (e.g. Polish), given names of women end with a vowel.
The GBDD reports several measures of gender board diversity computed for countries over time, as well as for sectors in each country over time. As such, it is a unique source of information about gender board diversity in corporate Europe, and it can serve as a useful guide for policymakers and analysts. The data are publicly available and can be downloaded in various formats from the website of the authors’ research group: https://grape.org.pl/gbdd.
The Absence of Women in Boardrooms
A key insight emerging from the GBDD is that, despite women holding on average 22 percent of all board positions in a given industry, more than two-thirds of all firms report no women in their boardrooms. More specifically, 68 percent of sectors across the European continent over the past several decades have not had a single firm with at least one woman in their boardrooms. Figure 1 shows the fraction of firms in a sector with no women in the boardroom. This is a new measure in the literature. The x-axis shows the proportion of such firms in a sector, ranging from 0 (all firms in that sector have at least one woman on their boards) to 1 (women are absent from all corporate boardrooms in the entire sector). The y-axis shows the relative number of sectors in the sample for each of the observed fractions.
Figure 1. Fraction of firms with no women in the boardroom
Note: The figure details the distribution (countries and years are combined). Source: Drazkowski, Tyrowicz, and Zalas (2024).
This finding points to clusters of companies with potentially significant obstacles to gender board diversity. Since lack of representation could be considered a major barrier to diversity, policies aimed at promoting even minimal representation of women among board members could have a significant impact on overall diversity.
The Substantial Differences Between Industries and Countries
The average firm-level share of women on corporate boards is only around 16 percent in the IT sector, while it is 35 percent in the education, health, and care (EHC) sector. Figure 2 shows two distributions of the average firm-level shares of women among board members: one for the IT sector and the other for the EHC sector. The distribution for the EHC sector is clearly to the right relative to the distribution for the IT sector, which means that across multiple countries and years, women tend to constitute a much smaller proportion of board members in the IT sector than in the EHC sector. Furthermore, the proportion of observations with no female board members (the spike at value 0) is much higher in the IT sector than in the EHC sector.
Figure 2. Distribution across sectors
Note: Distribution of the firm-level share of women on boards across countries and years in two broad sectors. The following categories make up the two sectors. IT: 61, 62, 63; Education, health & care: 85, 86, 87. Source: GBDD.
Decomposing the data by country also highlights significant differences. For example, firms with no female board members tend to be more prevalent in Poland than in Finland. This is illustrated in Figure 3, where the distribution for Poland is shifted to the right relative to the distribution for Finland.
Figure 3. Distribution across countries
Note: Distributions of the share of firms in an industry with no female board members (Finland vs Poland). Source: GBDD.
The above data suggest that there may exist a set of sector- and country-specific barriers to gender board diversity. Therefore, policies tailored to addressing those specific barriers could be more appropriate than blanket economy-wide policies.
Diversity Has Mildly Increased
The GBDD can also be used to assess how gender board diversity has evolved over time. Generally, there was an increase in diversity in the 1990s, stagnation in the 2000s, and another increase in the 2010s. However, in the case of supervisory boards, the recent increase in the proportion of female board members was not accompanied by an increase in the number of women on supervisory boards. While the full explanation of this observation would require further research, one possible interpretation is that supervisory boards might have become smaller over time, with male board members accounting for most of the decline, thus mechanically increasing the share of female board members.
Conclusion
Despite the increase in gender diversity among company board members over the last three decades, women still comprise a smaller share of board members and, in many cases, are completely absent from boards. While examining the reasons for this is beyond the scope of this policy brief, the high prevalence of firms with no women on their boards suggests the possibility that significant barriers to entry for women still exist, with this total lack of representation in many companies potentially being one. Policymakers interested in fostering an inclusive and fair society could focus their attention on understanding and removing barriers to board participation faced by women. Furthermore, identifying and tackling country- and sector-specific barriers to board diversity could be particularly impactful. The GBDD can be used by researchers and non-researchers alike to gain further insights into this topic, thus contributing to evidence-based policymaking.
Acknowledgement
The research outlined in this policy brief was funded by Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014–2021 (grant # 2019/34/H/HS4/00481).
References
- Drazkowski, H., Tyrowicz, J., & Zalas, S. (2024). “Gender board diversity across Europe throughout four decades” Nature (Scientific Data), 11(1), 567.
- Nguyen, T. H. H., Ntim, C. G., & Malagila, J. K. (2020). “Women on corporate boards and corporate financial and non-financial performance: A systematic literature review and future research agenda.” International Review of Financial Analysis, 71, 101554.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
The 2024 FREE Network Retreat: Economic Research and Capacity Building in Moldova
The 2024 FREE Network Retreat, held in Chisinau, Moldova on September 11-13, brought together representatives from the FREE Network institutes and other stakeholders, focusing on economic research and capacity building, especially in the context of Moldova’s EU accession efforts. The event featured general sessions on institutional development, special tracks on academic, administrative and communication topics, and a half-day conference on “Economic Research and Capacity Building“. Key discussions addressed challenges such as Moldova’s weak economic research infrastructure, policymaking gaps, and the need for capacity building. Several examples of Moldovan success stories were also highlighted. The event concluded with a call for strengthened collaboration and donor support towards economics education and fostering Moldova’s research and capacity-building landscape.
Introduction
The FREE Network Retreat is an annual event for researchers and administrators from the FREE Network institutes. The 2024 Retreat took place in Chisinau, Moldova, September 11-13 and was attended by representatives from BEROC (Belarus – currently in exile in Lithuania), BICEPS (Latvia), CenEA (Poland), ISET (Georgia), KSE (Ukraine) and SITE (Sweden). In addition, although not being a member of the FREE Network, the New Uzbekistan University in Tashkent and its Greater Eurasia Research Center (GEAR) were represented.
Like at previous retreats, there were two general sessions with a focus on the development of the individual institutes and the Network as a whole, and three tracks of special sessions on academic, administration and communication topics. The Retreat also involved a meeting of the FREE Network’s joint initiative The Forum for Research on Gender in Eastern Europe (FROGEE) – and a special side event on the integration of Ukrainian Refugees in Moldova.
An integral part of this year’s Retreat was the half-day conference, “Economic Research and Capacity Building”. Drawing on the FREE Network’s experience, the conference focused on how capacity building and research can facilitate the transformation of societies and economies, particularly within the Moldovan context, on its path towards EU-accession. In addition, it provided the FREE Network members an opportunity to share their experiences of capacity building, economic research and policymaking with Moldovan stakeholders.
The Conference was open to external participants interested in the topic, particularly policymakers, academics, and think tank representatives. It clearly illustrated the need to strengthen not only economic research and capacity building but also academic education in economics and related fields, improve the quality and access to data, and raise the level of competence in economics within the government and public sector in general.
A summary of the Conference discussions is provided below. For a full overview of the program and participants see the Appendix.
The Opening Session
The opening session started with the general observation that EU integration, in addition to being a political and security issue is primarily an economic issue with a need for economic research and analysis that can inform policy discussions and educate current and future stakeholders. Within this context, all the FREE Network institutes have considerable experience engaging in research and discussions of policy and policy reform within the region. With Moldova not (yet) represented in the FREE Network, the Conference served as a platform for the Network to learn and eventually engage in sustainable partnership(s).
The discussion then shifted to the Moldovan situation and the challenges ahead on the path to EU membership. Several challenges were identified: a lack of economic research, with most existing research being rather weak; missing connections between researchers and policymakers; a shortage of human resources; and generally weak institutions; as well as policies often being based on trial and error rather than evidence-based decision-making.
To address these challenges several actions were suggested including the need to strengthen research and independent economic thinking through capacity building; drawing on the experience of the countries that have joined the EU during the last two decades; developing international research cooperation through networks like the FREE Network; business-friendly practices and treating investors right while at the same time encouraging entrepreneurship and educating society on the importance of private and public investments.
The discussion also addressed activities supporting civil society undertaken by the EU and Sweden, respectively. Examples of activities include building partnerships and strong ecosystems for innovation and entrepreneurship, supporting reforms cutting red tape and improving the business climate in general as well as supporting the Academy of Economic Studies Moldova and the Association of Women in Business.
Research and Capacity Building – the Moldovan Perspective
The discussion started with a presentation of three Moldovan success stories. The first one is a recently launched program on media, gaming development and animation. Currently, 1,000 students are being enrolled. The program attracts Moldovans from all over the country as well as Moldovan students abroad who decided to terminate their studies abroad to go back to Moldova and enrol in the program. The success of the program is a good example of cooperation between industry, higher education institutions and the Ministry of Education opening up to new professions and programs that attract young people.
The second example is taken from the fashion industry. Traditionally Moldova has been a country where sewing takes place thanks to cheap labor. However, in recent years a “pipeline” of talent, design and brands has developed. As a result, the value added in the industry and export revenues as well as wages have increased.
The final example is the Moldovan tech industry. The tech industry has been at the forefront and could be considered the tiger of the Moldovan economy with growth rates of 30-40 percent per year. There are two main reasons behind this success: the rapidly developing Moldovan startup scene combined with a 7 percent single tax mechanism for the tech industry.
The discussion then turned to the role of research in policymaking. The first argument put forward focused on the impact (or rather the lack of impact) of research and analysis on Moldovan policymaking. As the examples above show, the Moldovan economy has the potential to develop – however, the policy discussion does not focus on the transition towards higher-value activities. On the contrary, even though Moldovan research highlights the role of transition to higher value-added, this argument has essentially been ignored in the policy debate that has been mostly characterized by rhetoric on job creation rather than transition to an economy that creates jobs within the high(er) value-added sectors. Unfortunately, this is not the only example of Moldovan policy discussions and decision-making ignoring the research perspective and outcomes. Among other examples mentioned is the recent tax reform experience and programs supporting Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. Currently, reforms are driven either by purely political reasons or by lobbying or by any other vested interests. There is essentially no impact assessment or any economic analysis underpinning the decisions. Due to the fact that policy initiatives neither are based on economic analysis nor on best practices, they are vulnerable to clientelism or corruption. The importance of rule of law was emphasized in light of Moldova’s anchoring to the EU and with reference to Latvia and the other Baltic states. It is a too important topic to be left to the lawyers and should hence be part of economic capacity building and research.
The second argument referred to access to reliable data needed for quality policy-oriented research. While the data collected by the National Bureau of Statistics in general is good, the main issue lies in accessing it. The Bureau does not have the resources to support researchers. To exacerbate the problem further, there seems to be no willingness among policymakers to address this issue. Given Moldova’s vulnerability to Russian disinformation and the increased pressure on Moldova, the issue of access to reliable data is even more pressing today than a few years ago.
To foster an informed policy debate and decision-making process taking evidence-based research into account, it would be desirable to create a platform to advocate the results of economic policy analysis where, e.g., policy papers and monitoring reports, could be presented and discussed by experts and decision-makers in the public and private sectors as well as the civil society.
The session continued with a discussion on human capital. The successful program attracting Georgians in the diaspora to return and work for the Georgian government, launched during the first decade of the 2000s, served as the point of departure for the discussion. The key to the success in Georgia was that the government was able to pay competitive salaries. This is one of the main challenges facing Moldova. Even though there have been some adjustments in government salaries during recent years, the government is still far from being anywhere close to paying the same salaries as the private sector in general and think tanks in particular. An understanding of this is important not only at the national level but also among donors. It was noted that there have been some adjustments in government salaries, but it has not been enough. Further, while the Moldovan diaspora are starting to return, they, however, have little governmental or political experience, which makes it difficult to involve them in, e.g. policymaking and development of support programs. It would be good to draw on experiences and best practices from other countries in the region – such as the Baltic states and Georgia – and use them as benchmarks, e.g., for the innovation ecosystem, incubators and accelerators.
Research and Capacity Building – the FREE Network Experience
The FREE Network institutes shared their experiences in capacity building and brain gain, developing an economics undergraduate program, research and policy impact, and network building through research.
ISET (Georgia) shared their experience on attracting talented economists in the Georgian diaspora back to Georgian academia, research, and government positions. The starting point was an initiative developed in collaboration with the donor community to establish a world-class economics school in the Caucasus – the International School of Economics (ISET). The school has developed from a small boutique school to a school with three academic programs (undergraduate and graduate) and about 700 enrolled students. ISET graduates are in high demand and are seen in the private and public sectors. The ISET Policy Institute plays a pivotal role in terms of contributing to evidence-based policymaking. Throughout the years more than 50 ISET graduates have been accepted in Ph.D. programs at top universities worldwide. Many of them have returned to Georgia and ISET after completing their Ph.D. Had not it been for opportunities offered by ISET and the Policy Institute, it is very unlikely that they would have returned. The FREE Network and the opportunities offered are a great resource for the ISET as well as for the ISET Policy Institute.
BEROC (Belarus – in exile in Lithuania since 2022) shared their experience on the process of creating and launching an undergraduate program in economics and business. BEROC started as a research center, but the idea to establish a Bachelor program in economics and business had been around for several years. As part of the re-organization and reformation of the European Humanities University (Belarusian, but in exile), the European Commission approached BEROC asking if it could develop an undergraduate program in economics and business for Belarusian students.
The challenge has been two-fold: first, in the current political situation, Belarusian people are “locked within the country” and for them it is much easier to go to Russia for studies. In addition, the cost of living and the tuition fee (although low by Baltic standards) provide additional barriers to potential students. Second, BEROC operates in exile themselves. Nevertheless, a Bachelor program in economics and business will be launched in October 2024 with the support of Belarusian business in exile. Thanks to cooperation with partners within the FREE Network the program is at the global frontier.
BICEPS (Latvia) provided an overview of how research can contribute to the policy agenda. BICEPS’s first policy reports, published more than 15 years ago, focused on the unsustainable Latvian economic growth and inflation levels at the time. These reports reached conclusions that, while correct ex-post, were contrary to those of the Latvian Central Bank. This divergence sparked substantial discussion at both the political level and in the media.
In the early 2010s, BICEPS was commissioned to produce the first-ever Latvian Competitiveness Report. This report has served as a foundation for policymaking and has left a lasting mark on the policy agenda. Furthermore, following BICEPS’s research on the shadow economy and the annual presentation of the shadow economy index, the Ministry of Finance, through public procurement, commissioned a 2021 project to develop a model addressing the impact of the shadow economy.
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Latvia and the EUROMOD tax-benefit microsimulation model are long-term projects run by BICEPS. Current projects include one focused on the impact of broadening the sugar tax base, a regional Global Entrepreneurship Monitor study, a project on road congestion tolls in cities and the development of sustainable agriculture in Africa.
CenEA (Poland) might be small in terms of people employed, but disproportionally big in terms of impact and presence in the Polish policy discussion. From the very beginning, CenEA has aimed at combining policy with solid economic research. The focus has primarily been in the areas of fiscal policy, ageing and health – with the latter two being major issues in Poland.
For CenEA, the FREE Network has been fundamental, both for funding and for building its credibility and position. CenEA has played an active role in terms of broadening and deepening the cooperation within the FREE Network. It has been very active in developing and coordinating the FROGEE project. The project (financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, SIDA) has run for six years and covered a wide range of topics within the field of gender equality. It has resulted in several FREE Policy Briefs, policy and research papers, and several conferences and workshops. In addition, the project has contributed to the development of tools and skills for both senior and junior researchers within the Network. Based on the success of the FROGEE project, new projects and initiatives within the Network have been developed.
SITE (Sweden) has taken the lead on the FREECE (the Forum for Research on Eastern Europe: Climate and Environment) project. The project has been around for eighteen months with a focus on the transition from an economy based on the production and consumption of fossil fuels to an economy based on the production and consumption of zero-carbon renewables. This will be a challenge for everyone, especially for countries throughout Eastern Europe that often rely on the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for employment as well as for energy needs.
The FREECE project provides several opportunities to engage in policy-relevant research while at the same time filling a gap in the literature.
Initiatives and the Road Ahead
At the current stage of Moldovan economic and political development there is a higher demand for analysis and applied research, rather than general and theoretical research. In other words, policy relevance needs to be in focus. At the same time, such applied analysis and research need to involve well-educated human capital with relevant skills, such as university graduates. This puts focus on the role of universities and how they can reform.
The Moldova School of Economics initiative was launched approximately half a year ago. Among the first activities were public lectures on economic behaviour and public policies. In September, in cooperation with CERGE-EI in Prague, the first short economics course was launched. Currently, there are discussions with the Ministry of Education and the State University on developing the initiative into an actual program. So far, the response has been positive. The vision is to create the Moldova School of Economics into an initiative that reaches out not only to Chisinau and Moldova but to the wider region.
The session on this topic proceeded to discuss how the FREE Network could support Moldovan research and capacity building, focusing on its experience in implementing various projects. One potential starting point would be a summer school involving both the FREE Network and Moldovan economists living abroad. There are already contacts with members of the diaspora who have expressed a willingness to participate as faculty members, without compensation. Additionally, there is a need for shorter courses or executive classes aimed at individuals in ministries. Topics to be covered may include basic macroeconomic analysis, fiscal policy, and economic growth. It is also important to incorporate microeconomic subjects, such as the factors driving innovation and the development of economic clusters.
Concluding Comments
The FREE Network Retreat and conference has shown that many of the issues currently facing Moldova, have at least partly been addressed by the FREE Network members in their respective countries. Looking forward this should provide a good basis for cooperation between the Network and Moldovan partners. Three broadly defined areas for collaboration and partnerships were identified: (i) education and training: at the university level as well as for ministries and government agencies; (ii) creation and development of a good environment for research and policy analysis; (iii) communication and outreach.
The dialogue that has been initiated during the conference should continue and include a discussion on how to attract donors to support long-term cooperation that contributes to the needed strengthening of research and capacity building in Moldova.
Appendix
Conference Programme: Economic Research and Capacity Building
9.30 Conference Opening
- Torbjörn Becker, Director, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics
- Jānis Mažeiks, Ambassador of the European Union to the Republic of Moldova
- Katarina Fried, Ambassador of Sweden to the Republic of Moldova
10:00 Research and Capacity Building – the Moldovan perspective
- Doina Nistor, Chief of Party, Moldova Future Technologies Activity
- Adrian Lupușor, Executive Director, Independent Analytical Center Expert-Grup
- Kálmán Mizsei, EU Adviser to the Government of Moldova
10:50 Research and Capacity Building: The FREE Network Experience
- Tamar Sulukhia (ISET, Georgia): Capacity building and brain gain
- Dzmitry Kruk (BEROC, Belarus – in exile): Development of a new academic programme
- Marija Krūmiņa (BICEPS, Latvia): Research and policy impact
- Michal Myck (CenEA, Poland): Network building and the FROGEE experience
- Julius Andersson (SITE, Sweden): Network building and the FREECE experience
11:30 Initiatives and the Road Ahead
- Mihnea Constantinescu, Advisor to the Governor National Bank of Moldova
- Misha Zeldin-Gipsman, the Moldova School of Economics Initiative
12:10 Concluding Comments
- Torbjörn Becker, Director, SITE
- Kata Fredheim, Associate Professor, BICEPS and Stockholm School of Economics in Riga
12:20 Lunch and Networking
Conference moderator: Kata Fredheim, BICEPS and SSE Riga.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Moldova’s EU Integration and the Special Case of Transnistria
In the shadow of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, another East European country is actively working to secure its European future. After three years of negotiating cooperation agreements with the European Commission, Moldova finally obtained its EU candidate status and is now on track to join the EU as a member state. However, among many remaining obstacles on the path to full membership, one stands out as especially problematic: the region of Transnistria. The region, officially Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic, is an internationally unrecognized country and is rather seen as a region with which Russia has “special relations”, including a military presence in the region since 1992. This policy brief provides an overview of the current state of the Transnistrian economy and its relationships with Moldova, the EU, and Russia, arguing that Transnistria’s economy is de facto already integrated into the Moldovan and EU economies. It also points to the key challenges to resolve for a successful integration of Moldova into the EU.
Moldova’s EU Integration: The Moldovan Economy on its Path to EU Accession
On December 14th, 2023, the European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Moldova, recognizing Moldova’s substantial progress when it comes to anti-corruption and de-oligarchisation reforms. The first intergovernmental conference was held on the 25th of June 2024, officially launching accession negotiations (European Council, 2024). On October 20th, 2024, Moldova will hold a referendum on enshrining Moldova’s EU ambitions in the constitution. However, several issues remain to be solved, for Moldova to enter the EU.
With a small and declining population of only about 2.5 million people and a GDP of 16.54 billion US dollars (2023), Moldova remains among the poorest countries in Eastern Europe. In 2023 the GDP per capita was 6600 US dollars in exchange rate terms (substantially higher if using PPP-adjusted measures; World Bank, 2024a). In the last decade, the largest share of its GDP, about 60 percent, stemmed from activities in the services sector, and about 20 and 10 percent from the industrial and agricultural sectors, respectively (Statista, 2024). Despite substantial economic growth in the last decade (3.3 percent on average between 2016 and 2021) and recent reforms (largely under the presidency of Maia Sandu), Moldova remains highly dependent on financial assistance from abroad and remittances, the latter contributing to about 15 – 35 percent of Moldova’s GDP in the last two decades (World Bank, 2024b).
The COVID-19 pandemic and refugee flows caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have only intensified this dependence. Furthermore, these events excavated existing vulnerabilities in the Moldovan economy, such as high inflation and soaring energy and food prices, which depressed households’ disposable incomes and consumption, while war-related uncertainty contributed to weaker investment (World Bank, 2024c).
The Contested Region of Transnistria – Challenge for Moldova’s EU Integration
In addition to Moldova’s economic challenges, the country also faces a particular and unusual problem; it does not fully control its territory. The Transnistrian region in the North-West of the country (at the South-Western border of Ukraine) constitutes about 12 percent of Moldova’s territory. The region has a population of about 350 000 people, mostly Russian-speaking Moldovans, Russians, and Ukrainians.
Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, a movement for self-determination for the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic resulted in a self-declaration of its independence on the 2nd of September 1990. More specifically, the alleged suppression of the Russian language and threats of unification between Moldova and Romania were the main stated reasons for the Transnistrian movement for self-determination, which in turn led to the civil armed conflict in 1992 and a following ceasefire agreement (Government of Republic of Moldova, 1992). The main points of the agreement concern the stationing of Russia’s 14th Army in Transnistria, the establishment of a demilitarized security zone, and the removal of restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and services between Moldova and Transnistria. As of 1992, Transnistria is de-facto an entity under “Russia’s effective control” (Roșa, 2021).
Over the years, the interpretations of the conflict have become more controversial, ranging from the local elite’s perspectives to assertions of an entirely artificial conflict fueled by malign Russian influence (Tofilat and Parlicov, 2020).
Notably, the Moldovan government has never officially recognized Transnistria as an occupied territory (see Article 11 of the Moldovan constitution stating “The Republic of Moldova – a Neutral State (1) The Republic of Moldova proclaims its permanent neutrality. (2) The Republic of Moldova shall not allow the dispersal of foreign military troops on its territory” (Constitute, 2024)).
Furthermore, the European Council’s official recognition of Transnistria as an “occupied territory” on March 15, 2022, underscores the EU’s stance on the matter and highlights Russia’s pivotal role in providing political, economic, and military support to Transnistria (PACE, 2022).
The Transnistrian Economy: Main Indicators and Weaknesses
Despite Russia’s central role in Transnistria, the region’s economy is, in practice, substantially integrated into the Moldovan and EU economies. This fact should be considered at various levels of decision-making when discussing Moldova’s EU accession.
As depicted in Figure 1, economic activity in Transnistria has been quite “stable” in the last decade. GDP per capita has remained around 2000 US dollars, 2,5 times lower than Moldova’s GDP per capita in 2021.
Figure 1. Moldovan and Transnistrian GDP per capita, in thousand USD
Source: Data from World Bank, 2024; Pridnestrovian Republican Bank, 2024a. Note: since 2022 the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank has suspended publishing official statistics on macroeconomic indicators.
However, one must be careful when estimating and interpreting Transnistrian economic indicators in dollar terms. The local currency is the Transnistrian ruble which is not recognized anywhere in the world except in Russia. Its real value is thus highly uncertain as there is no market for this currency. Moreover, only Russian banks are authorized to open accounts and conduct transactions in the currency, demonstrating yet another significant weakness for Transnistria as a potential independent state, particularly given the current global ban on most Russian banks. As such, the official exchange rate for US dollars should be taken with a grain of salt. At the same time, there are no alternative statistics as the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank is the only source for relevant data on Transnistria.
Another distinctive feature of Transnistria is the substantial reliance on remittances from abroad (see Figure 2). In 2021, remittances amounted to 143.7 million US dollars, constituting 15.5 percent of GDP in 2021 (if relying on the official exchange rate for US dollars, as published by the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank).
Figure 2. Remittances to/from Transnistria, in million USD
Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank (2024b). Note: CIS denotes the Commonwealth of Independent States and all other countries.
Figure 2 illustrates a notable trend of increasing dependency on remittances in recent years, particularly on remittances originating from CIS countries, chiefly Russia and Ukraine.
In terms of reliance on Russia, this dependency is not a concern when it comes to Transnistria’s exports. Foreign trade data from recent years indicates that the Transnistrian economy no longer relies on exports to Russia. As seen in Figure 3, the share of exports to Russia has been constantly declining since 2014 and amounted to merely 9.2 percent in 2021. At the same time, exports to the EU, Moldova and Ukraine collectively accounted for about 80 percent in 2021. The primary commodities driving Transnistrian exports were metal products, amounting to 337.3 million US dollars in 2021, followed by electricity supplies at 130.1 million US dollars. Additionally, food products and raw materials contributed 87.6 million US dollars to Transnistrian exports in the same period.
Figure 3. Transnistrian exports by destination countries, in percent
Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank Bulletins (2024c).
These figures highlight the significant integration of the Transnistrian economy into the European market and, to some extent, indicate the strong potential to further align in this direction.
The increase in Transnistria’s exports to the EU in recent years can be largely attributed to the implementation of mandatory registration of Transnistrian enterprises in Moldova in 2006 as a prerequisite for engaging in foreign economic activities (EUBAM, 2017). Consequently, Moldova has exercised full control over Transnistrian exports and partial control over its imports since 2006.
However, Transnistria remains reliant on Russia for its imports, particularly in the energy sector. In contrast to the export structure, Russia’s share in Transnistrian imports was significantly larger in 2021. About 45 percent of the imports originated from Russia in 2021, and mostly constituted of fuel and energy goods (447.0 million US dollars) and metal imports (254.3 million US dollars), quite typical for a transition economy.
Figure 4. Transnistrian imports by origin countries, in percent
Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank Bulletins (2024c).
Transnistria’s Energy Dependence on Russia
The biggest challenge for Transnistria, as well as for Moldova, is the large fuel and energy dependence on Russia, mostly in the form of natural gas.
For many years, gas has been supplied to Transnistria effectively for free, often in the form of a so-called “gas subsidy” (Roșa, 2021). This gas flows through Transnistria to Moldova, effectively accumulating a gas debt. Typically, Gazprom supplies gas to Moldovagaz, which in turn distributes gas to Moldovan consumers and to Tiraspol-Transgaz in Transnistria. Tiraspol-Transgaz then resell the gas at subsidized tariffs to local Transnistrian households and businesses. This included providing gas to the Moldovan State Regional Power Station, also known as MGRES – the largest power plant in Moldova. MGRES, in turn, exports electricity, further highlighting the interconnectedness of energy distribution between the Transnistrian region and the rest of Moldova.
Figure 5. Export/import of fuel and energy products from/to Transnistria, in million USD
Source: Data from the Pridnestrovian Republican Bank Bulletins (2024c). Note: Data for 2017 and 2018 unavailable.
The revenue generated from energy exports to Moldova has been deposited into a so-called special gas account and subsequently channeled directly into the Transnistrian budget in the form of loans from Tiraspol-Transgaz. In this way the Transnistrian government has covered more than 30 percent of their total budgetary expenditures over the last ten-year period. This further points to Transnistria’s’ fiscal inefficiencies and highlights its precarious dependency on gas from the Russian Federation.
In the last few years there have however been repeated disruptions in the gas supply and continuous disputes about prices and how much Moldovagaz owes Gazprom. De jure Tiraspol-Transgaz operates as a subsidiary of Moldovagaz, but de facto its assets were effectively nationalized by the separatist authorities in Transnistria (Tofilat and Parlicov, 2020). These unclarities has led to multiple conflicts over who owes the built-up gas debt. Given the ownership structure the debt is often seen as “Moldovan debt to Russia” (see e.g., Miller, 2023), albeit created by Transnistrian authorities. According to Gazprom, the outstanding amount owed by Moldovagaz to Gazprom stood at approximately 8 billion USD at the end of 2019 (Gazprom, 2024). This corresponds to about 7 times of Transnistria’s GDP. The Moldavian assessment of the debt is about two orders of magnitude lower (Gotev, 2023).
The disagreement on the debt amount was the official reason for the gas supply to be drastically reduced in October 2022. From December 2022 to March 2023, Russia’s Gazprom supplied gas only to Transnistria and it was not until March 2023 that supplies to the rest of Moldova were resumed. Since then, there have been shifts back and forth with Moldova mainly buying gas from Moldovan state-owned Energocom, which imports gas from suppliers other than Gazprom (Całus, 2023; Tanas, 2023). Understanding all turns and events is at times challenging due to lack of transparency in dealings.
Currently, despite Gazprom’s debt claims, the entirety of Transnistria’s gas is still being provided by Russia. While this is a relatively “cheap” investment from the Russian perspective, its impact on Moldova is large, as highlighted by Tofilat and Parlicov (2020) “the bottomline costs for Russia with maintaining Transnistria as its main instrument of influence in Moldova was at most USD 1 billion—not too expensive for twenty-seven years of influence in a European country of 3 million people”.
Corruption in Transnistria – Who is the Real “Sheriff”?
Another obstacle hindering a resolution of the Transnistrian conflict is the near complete monopoly of political and economic power held by Transnistria’s former President Igor Smirnov (1991-2011), through his strong ties to the Sheriff corporation. The corporation, established in 1993 by two former members of Transnistria’s “special services” (Ilya Kazmaly and Victor Gushan), was enabled by Transnistria’s former president, Igor Smirnov. For instance, the Sheriff company was exempt from paying customs duties and was permitted to monopolize trade, oil, and telecommunications in Transnistria. In return, the company supported Smirnov’s party during his presidency. For more on the conflict between Transnistria’s power clans and their relationships with Russia, see Hedenskog and Roine (2009) and Wesolowsky (2021).
The Sheriff company encompasses supermarkets, gas stations, construction firms, hotels, a mobile phone network, bakeries, a distillery, and a mini media empire comprising radio and TV stations. Presently, the company is reported to exert control over approximately 60 percent of the region’s economy (Wesolowsky, 2021).
A straightforward illustration of Sheriff’s political influence is the establishment of the Sheriff football team. For the team, Victor Gushan constructed the Sheriff sports complex, the largest football stadium in Moldova, accommodating
12 746 spectators. This investment in sports infrastructure is notable, especially considering that the total population of Transnistria is only approximately 350 000, and that the region is fairy poor. A similar example concerns the allocation of a land plot of 6.4 hectares to the company “to expand the construction of sports complex for long-term use under a simplified privatization procedure” signed directly by the former president.
While these details may seem peripheral to broader problems, they illustrate how some vested interests in the Transnistrian region may not be keen to change towards a society based on the rule-of-law, increased transparency and a market-oriented economy.
Moldova’s Options for Resolving the Transnistrian Conflict in EU Integration
As Moldova grapples with both the consequences of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the prolonged “frozen” conflict with Transnistria, its economy remains vulnerable. With the recent attainment of EU candidate status, it’s essential for the Moldovan government to map out ways to solve the conflict despite strong interest from powerful political and economic groups in preserving the status quo.
While the perspectives of resolving the Transnistrian conflict obviously hinge on Russian troops withdrawing from the region, Moldova would also need to address a wide range of economic issues. The Transnistrian economy faces numerous critical structural challenges including a persistent negative foreign trade balance, an unsustainable banking system, and pervasive corruption. Notably, the dominant oligarchic entity, the Sheriff company, exercises monopolistic political and economic influence, striving to preserve the status quo for Transnistria. The obvious unviability of the local currency due to its artificial nature and a complete dependency on Russia’s banking system are additional challenges to be solved for Moldova to be able to integrate Transnistria properly into its economy. Therefore, introducing additional measures such as restricting access to remittances in Transnistria, and imposing personal sanctions on elite groups could help Moldova in establishing economic control over the region.
Furthermore, while the Transnistrian region de-facto has strong economic ties with the Moldovan and European markets in terms of exports, its heavy reliance on Russian gas imports remains a significant vulnerability.
When integrating Transnistria and severing its ties with Russia, Moldova would also need to resolve the issues arising from its reliance on the electricity produced at MGRES using subsidized Russian gas. Natural gas bought at market prices would make Moldovan electricity highly costly, presenting financial challenges to Moldova, and effectively destroying the competitive advantage and important source of revenue in the Transnistrian region. Moreover, alternative electricity routes to Moldova are yet to be completed (with an estimated cost of approximately 27 million EUR).
These and other issues need to be dealt with for a successful Moldovan transition into the EU. Although these challenges are highly important from a Moldovan point of view, and even more so from a Transnistrian perspective, it should be emphasized that these issues are, in economic terms, relatively small for the EU. Given that the EU has opened the way for Moldovan accession, it should be ready to step up financially to help Moldova solve these issues and stay on the membership path.
References
- Całus, K. (2023, June 15). Moldova: diversifying supplies and curbing Gazprom’s influence. OSW Centre for Eastern Studies. https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2023-06-15/moldova-diversifying-supplies-and-curbing-gazproms-influence
- Constitute. (2024). Constitution of Moldova (Republic of) 1994 (revision 2016). Https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Moldova_2016
- European Council. (2024, June 25). EU opens accession negotiations with Moldova. https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-opens-accession-negotiations-moldova-2024-06-25_en
- European Parliament. (2022, June 23). Grant EU candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova without delay. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220616IPR33216/grant-eu-candidate-status-to-ukraine-and-moldova-without-delay-meps-demand
- European Union Border Assistance Mission to Republic of Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM). (2017). ENPI 2008 C2008 3821 RAP East EUBAM 6. https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-03/enpi_2008_c2008_3821_rap_east_eubam_6.pdf
- Gazprom. (2024). Gazprom financial report for Q4/2019. https://www.gazprom.ru/f/posts/77/885487/gazprom-ifrs-2019-12m-ru.pdf
- Gotev, G. (2023, September 7). Moldova puts its debt to Gazprom at $8.6 million, Russia disagrees. EURACTIV. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/moldova-puts-its-debt-to-gazprom-at-8-6-million-russia-disagrees/
- Government of Republic of Moldova. (1992, July 21). Agreement on Principles of Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict in the Transnistrian Region of Moldovan Republic. https://gov.md/sites/default/files/1992-07-21-ru-moscow-agr_on_principles_of_peaceful_settlem.pdf
- Hedenskog, J., & Roine, J. (2009). Transnistrien. En Ekonomisk och Säkerhetspolitisk Analys. Utrikesdepartementet/Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sweden. Stockholm, 40 p.
- Leontiev, L. (2022, March 25). Big, But Distant Dreams. Political and Legal Implications of Moldova’s Quest for EU Membership. The Review of Democracy. https://revdem.ceu.edu/2022/03/25/big-but-distant-dreams-political-and-legal-implications-of-moldovas-quest-for-eu-membership/
- Miller, M. (2023, September 7). Independent Audit of Gazprom’s Debt Claims Against Moldovagaz. U.S. Embassy in Moldova. https://md.usembassy.gov/independent-audit-of-gazproms-debt-claims-against-moldovagaz/
- Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). (2022, March 15). Consequences of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine. https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29885/html
- Pridnestrovian Republican Bank. (2024a). Main macroeconomic parameters of PMR. https://www.cbpmr.net/content.php?Id=13&lang=ru
- Pridnestrovian Republican Bank (2024b). Remittances. https://www.cbpmr.net/content.php?Id=110&lang=ru
- Pridnestrovian Republican Bank (2024c). Pridnestrovian Republican Bank Bulletins. https://www.cbpmr.net/content.php?Id=28&lang=ru
- Racz, A. (2016, April 8). The Frozen Conflicts of the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood and Their Impact on the Respect of Human Rights. European Parliament Think Tank. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EXPO_STU(2016)578001
- Roșa, V. (2021, October 18). The Transnistrian Conflict: 30 Years Searching for a Settlement. SCEEUS Reports on Human Rights and Security in Eastern Europe No.4. https://sceeus.se/publikationer/the-transnistrian-conflict-30-years-searching-for-a-settlement/
- Statista. (2024). Moldova: Distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) across economic sectors from 2012 to 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/513314/moldova-gdp-distribution-across-economic-sectors/
- Tanas, A. (2023, March 21). Moldova resumes gas purchases from Russia’s Gazprom -Moldovagaz head. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/moldova-resumes-gas-purchases-russias-gazprom-moldovagaz-head-2023-03-21/
- Tofilat, S., & Parlicov, V. (2020, August 14). Russian Gas and the Financing of Separatism in Moldova. The Kremlin’s Influence Quarterly #2. https://www.4freerussia.org/russian-gas-and-the-financing-of-separatism-in-moldova/
- Wesolowsky, T. (2021, October 18). The Shadow Business Empire Behind the Meteoric Rise of Sheriff Tiraspol. RadioFreeEurope. https://www.rferl.org/a/moldova-sheriff-tiraspol-murky-business/31516518.html
- World Bank. (2024a). Data. Moldova. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?Locations=MD
- World Bank. (2024b). Personal remittances, received (% of GDP) – Moldova. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.DT.GD.ZS?Locations=MD
- World Bank. (2024c). Moldova Overview. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/moldova/overview
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Gender Gap in Life Expectancy and Its Socio-Economic Implications
Today women live longer than men virtually in every country of the world. Although scientists still struggle to fully explain this disparity, the most prominent sources of this gender inequality are biological and behavioral. From an evolutionary point of view, female longevity was more advantageous for offspring survival. This resulted in a higher frequency of non-fatal diseases among women and in a later onset of fatal conditions. The observed high variation in the longevity gap across countries, however, points towards an important role of social and behavioral arguments. These include higher consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and fats among men as well as a generally riskier behavior. The gender gap in life expectancy often reaches 6-12 percent of the average human lifespan and has remained stubbornly stable in many countries. Lower life expectancy among men is an important social concern on its own and has significant consequences for the well-being of their surviving partners and the economy as a whole. It is an important, yet under-discussed type of gender inequality.
Country Reports
| Belarus Country Report | FROGEE POLICY BRIEF |
| Georgia Country Report | FROGEE POLICY BRIEF |
| Latvia Country Report | FROGEE POLICY BRIEF |
| Poland Country Report | FROGEE POLICY BRIEF |
Gender Gap in Life Expectancy and Its Socio-Economic Implications
Today, women on average live longer than men across the globe. Despite the universality of this basic qualitative fact, the gender gap in life expectancy (GGLE) varies a lot across countries (as well as over time) and scientists have only a limited understanding of the causes of this variation (Rochelle et al., 2015). Regardless of the reasons for this discrepancy, it has sizable economic and financial implications. Abnormal male mortality makes a dent in the labour force in nations where GGLE happens to be the highest, while at the same time, large GGLE might contribute to a divergence in male and female discount factors with implications for employment and pension savings. Large discrepancies in life expectancy translate into a higher incidence of widowhood and a longer time in which women live as widows. The gender gap in life expectancy is one of the less frequently discussed dimensions of gender inequality, and while it clearly has negative implications for men, lower male longevity has also substantial negative consequences for women and society as a whole.
Figure A. Gender gap in life expectancy across selected countries
Source: World Bank.
The earliest available reliable data on the relative longevity of men and women shows that the gender gap in life expectancy is not a new phenomenon. In the middle of the 19th century, women in Scandinavian countries outlived men by 3-5 years (Rochelle et al., 2015), and Bavarian nuns enjoyed an additional 1.1 years of life, relative to the monks (Luy, 2003). At the beginning of the 20th century, relative higher female longevity became universal as women started to live longer than men in almost every country (Barford et al., 2006). GGLE appears to be a complex phenomenon with no single factor able to fully explain it. Scientists from various fields such as anthropology, evolutionary biology, genetics, medical science, and economics have made numerous attempts to study the mechanisms behind this gender disparity. Their discoveries typically fall into one of two groups: biological and behavioural. Noteworthy, GGLE seems to be fairly unrelated to the basic economic fundamentals such as GDP per capita which in turn has a strong association with the level of healthcare, overall life expectancy, and human development index (Rochelle et al., 2015). Figure B presents the (lack of) association between GDP per capita and GGLE in a cross-section of countries. The data shows large heterogeneity, especially at low-income levels, and virtually no association from middle-level GDP per capita onwards.
Figure B. Association between gender gap in life expectancy and GDP per capita
Source: World Bank.
Biological Factors
The main intuition behind female superior longevity provided by evolutionary biologists is based on the idea that the offspring’s survival rates disproportionally benefited from the presence of their mothers and grandmothers. The female hormone estrogen is known to lower the risks of cardiovascular disease. Women also have a better immune system which helps them avoid a number of life-threatening diseases, while also making them more likely to suffer from (non-fatal) autoimmune diseases (Schünemann et al., 2017). The basic genetic advantage of females comes from the mere fact of them having two X chromosomes and thus avoiding a number of diseases stemming from Y chromosome defects (Holden, 1987; Austad, 2006; Oksuzyan et al., 2008).
Despite a number of biological factors contributing to female longevity, it is well known that, on average, women have poorer health than men at the same age. This counterintuitive phenomenon is called the morbidity-mortality paradox (Kulminski et al., 2008). Figure C shows the estimated cumulative health deficits for both genders and their average life expectancies in the Canadian population, based on a study by Schünemann et al. (2017). It shows that at any age, women tend to have poorer health yet lower mortality rates than men. This paradox can be explained by two factors: women tend to suffer more from non-fatal diseases, and the onset of fatal diseases occurs later in life for women compared to men.
Figure C. Health deficits and life expectancy for Canadian men and women
Source: Schünemann et al. (2017). Note: Men: solid line; Women: dashed line; Circles: life expectancy at age 20.
Behavioural Factors
Given the large variation in GGLE, biological factors clearly cannot be the only driving force. Worldwide, men are three times more likely to die from road traffic injuries and two times more likely to drown than women (WHO, 2002). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the average ratio of male-to-female completed suicides among the 183 surveyed countries is 3.78 (WHO, 2024). Schünemann et al. (2017) find that differences in behaviour can explain 3.2 out of 4.6 years of GGLE observed on average in developed countries. Statistics clearly show that men engage in unhealthy behaviours such as smoking and alcohol consumption much more often than women (Rochelle et al., 2015). Men are also more likely to be obese. Alcohol consumption plays a special role among behavioural contributors to the GGLE. A study based on data from 30 European countries found that alcohol consumption accounted for 10 to 20 percent of GGLE in Western Europe and for 20 to 30 percent in Eastern Europe (McCartney et al., 2011). Another group of authors has focused their research on Central and Eastern European countries between 1965 and 2012. They have estimated that throughout that time period between 15 and 19 percent of the GGLE can be attributed to alcohol (Trias-Llimós & Janssen, 2018). On the other hand, tobacco is estimated to be responsible for up to 30 percent and 20 percent of the gender gap in mortality in Eastern Europe and the rest of Europe, respectively (McCartney et al., 2011).
Another factor potentially decreasing male longevity is participation in risk-taking activities stemming from extreme events such as wars and military activities, high-risk jobs, and seemingly unnecessary health-hazardous actions. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no rigorous research quantifying the contribution of these factors to the reduced male longevity. It is also plausible that the relative importance of these factors varies substantially by country and historical period.
Gender inequality and social gender norms also negatively affect men. Although women suffer from depression more frequently than men (Albert, 2015; Kuehner, 2017), it is men who commit most suicides. One study finds that men with lower masculinity (measured with a range of questions on social norms and gender role orientation) are less likely to suffer from coronary heart disease (Hunt et al., 2007). Finally, evidence shows that men are less likely to utilize medical care when facing the same health conditions as women and that they are also less likely to conduct regular medical check-ups (Trias-Llimós & Janssen, 2018).
It is possible to hypothesize that behavioural factors of premature male deaths may also be seen as biological ones with, for example, risky behaviour being somehow coded in male DNA. But this hypothesis may have only very limited truth to it as we observe how male longevity and GGLE vary between countries and even within countries over relatively short periods of time.
Economic Implications
Premature male mortality decreases the total labour force of one of the world leaders in GGLE, Belarus, by at least 4 percent (author’s own calculation, based on WHO data). Similar numbers for other developed nations range from 1 to 3 percent. Premature mortality, on average, costs European countries 1.2 percent of GDP, with 70 percent of these losses attributable to male excess mortality. If male premature mortality could be avoided, Sweden would gain 0.3 percent of GDP, Poland would gain 1.7 percent of GDP, while Latvia and Lithuania – countries with the highest GGLE in the EU – would each gain around 2.3 percent of GDP (Łyszczarz, 2019). Large disparities in the expected longevity also mean that women should anticipate longer post-retirement lives. Combined with the gender employment and pay gap, this implies that either women need to devote a larger percentage of their earnings to retirement savings or retirement systems need to include provisions to secure material support for surviving spouses. Since in most of the retirement systems the value of pensions is calculated using average, not gender-specific, life expectancy, the ensuing differences may result in a perception that men are not getting their fair share from accumulated contributions.
Policy Recommendations
To successfully limit the extent of the GGLE and to effectively address its consequences, more research is needed in the area of differential gender mortality. In the medical research dimension, it is noteworthy that, historically, women have been under-represented in recruitment into clinical trials, reporting of gender-disaggregated data in research has been low, and a larger amount of research funding has been allocated to “male diseases” (Holdcroft, 2007; Mirin, 2021). At the same time, the missing link research-wise is the peculiar discrepancy between a likely better understanding of male body and health and the poorer utilization of this knowledge.
The existing literature suggests several possible interventions that may substantially reduce premature male mortality. Among the top preventable behavioural factors are smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Many studies point out substantial country differences in the contribution of these two factors to GGLE (McCartney, 2011), which might indicate that gender differences in alcohol and nicotine abuse may be amplified by the prevailing gender roles in a given society (Wilsnack et al., 2000). Since the other key factors impairing male longevity are stress and risky behaviour, it seems that a broader societal change away from the traditional gender norms is needed. As country differences in GGLE suggest, higher male mortality is mainly driven by behaviours often influenced by societies and policies. This gives hope that higher male mortality could be reduced as we move towards greater gender equality, and give more support to risk-reducing policies.
While the fundamental biological differences contributing to the GGLE cannot be changed, special attention should be devoted to improving healthcare utilization among men and to increasingly including the effects of sex and gender in medical research on health and disease (Holdcoft, 2007; Mirin, 2021; McGregor et al., 2016, Regitz-Zagrosek & Seeland, 2012).
References
- Albert, P. R. (2015). “Why is depression more prevalent in women?“. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 40(4), 219.
- Austad, S. N. (2006). “Why women live longer than men: sex differences in longevity“. Gender Medicine, 3(2), 79-92.
- Barford, A., Dorling, D., Smith, G. D., & Shaw, M. (2006). “Life expectancy: women now on top everywhere“. BMJ, 332, 808. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7545.808
- Holden, C. (1987). “Why do women live longer than men?“. Science, 238(4824), 158-160.
- Hunt, K., Lewars, H., Emslie, C., & Batty, G. D. (2007). “Decreased risk of death from coronary heart disease amongst men with higher ‘femininity’ scores: A general population cohort study“. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 612-620.
- Kulminski, A. M., Culminskaya, I. V., Ukraintseva, S. V., Arbeev, K. G., Land, K. C., & Yashin, A. I. (2008). “Sex-specific health deterioration and mortality: The morbidity-mortality paradox over age and time“. Experimental Gerontology, 43(12), 1052-1057.
- Luy, M. (2003). “Causes of Male Excess Mortality: Insights from Cloistered Populations“. Population and Development Review, 29(4), 647-676.
- McCartney, G., Mahmood, L., Leyland, A. H., Batty, G. D., & Hunt, K. (2011). “Contribution of smoking-related and alcohol-related deaths to the gender gap in mortality: Evidence from 30 European countries“. Tobacco Control, 20, 166-168.
- McGregor, A. J., Hasnain, M., Sandberg, K., Morrison, M. F., Berlin, M., & Trott, J. (2016). “How to study the impact of sex and gender in medical research: A review of resources“. Biology of Sex Differences, 7, 61-72.
- Mirin, A. A. (2021). “Gender disparity in the funding of diseases by the US National Institutes of Health“. Journal of Women’s Health, 30(7), 956-963.
- Oksuzyan, A., Juel, K., Vaupel, J. W., & Christensen, K. (2008). “Men: good health and high mortality. Sex differences in health and aging“. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 20(2), 91-102.
- Regitz-Zagrosek, V., & Seeland, U. (2012). “Sex and gender differences in clinical medicine“. Sex and Gender Differences in Pharmacology, 3-22.
- Rochelle, T. R., Yeung, D. K. Y., Harris Bond, M., & Li, L. M. W. (2015). “Predictors of the gender gap in life expectancy across 54 nations“. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20(2), 129-138. doi:10.1080/13548506.2014.936884
- Schünemann, J., Strulik, H., & Trimborn, T. (2017). “The gender gap in mortality: How much is explained by behavior?“. Journal of Health Economics, 54, 79-90.
- Trias-Llimós, S., & Janssen, F. (2018). “Alcohol and gender gaps in life expectancy in eight Central and Eastern European countries“. European Journal of Public Health, 28(4), 687-692.
- WHO. (2002). “Gender and road traffic injuries“. World Health Organization.
- WHO. (2024). “Global health estimates: Leading causes of death“. World Health Organization.
- Łyszczarz, B. (2019). “Production losses associated with premature mortality in 28 European Union countries“. Journal of Global Health.
About FROGEE Policy Briefs
FROGEE Policy Briefs is a special series aimed at providing overviews and the popularization of economic research related to gender equality issues. Debates around policies related to gender equality are often highly politicized. We believe that using arguments derived from the most up to date research-based knowledge would help us build a more fruitful discussion of policy proposals and in the end achieve better outcomes.
The aim of the briefs is to improve the understanding of research-based arguments and their implications, by covering the key theories and the most important findings in areas of special interest to the current debate. The briefs start with short general overviews of a given theme, which are followed by a presentation of country-specific contexts, specific policy challenges, implemented reforms and a discussion of other policy options.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Sanctions on Russia: Getting the Facts Right
The important strategic role that sanctions play in the efforts to constrain Russia’s geopolitical ambitions and end its brutal war on Ukraine is often questioned and diminished in the public debate. This policy brief, authored by a collective of experts from various countries, shares insights on the complexities surrounding the use of sanctions against Russia, in light of its illegal aggression towards Ukraine. The aim is to facilitate a public discussion based on facts and reduce the risk that the debate falls prey to the information war.
Sanctions are a pivotal component in the array of strategies deployed to address the threat posed by Russia to the rule-based international order. Contrary to views minimizing their impact, evidence and research suggest that sanctions, particularly those targeting Russian energy exports, have significantly affected Russia’s macroeconomic stability [1,2,3]. Between 2022 and 2023:
- merchandise exports fell by 28 percent,
- the trade surplus decreased by 62 percent,
- and the current account surplus dropped by 79 percent (see the Bank of Russia’s external sector statistics here).
Although 2022 represents an extraordinarily high baseline due to the delayed impacts of energy sanctions, the $190 billion decrease in foreign currency inflows during this time has already made a significant difference for Russia. This amount is equivalent to about two years of Russia’s current military spending, or around 10 percent of Russia’s yearly GDP, depending on the figures. Our estimates suggest that Russia’s losses due to the oil price cap and import embargo alone amount to several percent of its GDP [3,4]. These losses have contributed to the ruble’s continued weakness and have forced Russian authorities to sharply increase interest rates, which will have painful ripple effects throughout the economy in the coming months and years. Furthermore, the international sanctions coalition’s freezing of about $300 billion of the Bank of Russia’s reserves has significantly curtailed the central bank’s ability to manage the Russian economy in this era of war and sanctions.
Sanctions Enforcement
Addressing the enforcement of sanctions, it is crucial to acknowledge the extensive and continuous work undertaken by governments, think tanks, and the private sector to identify and close loopholes that facilitate sanctions evasion. Suggesting that such efforts are futile, often with arguments that lack solid evidence, potentially undermines these contributions, and furthermore provides (perhaps unintended) support to those advocating for a dismantling of the sanctions regime. We do not deny that several key aspects are facing challenges, from the oil price cap to export controls on military and dual-use goods. However, the path forward is to step up efforts and strengthen the implementation and enforcement – not to abandon the strategy altogether. Yes, Russia’s shadow fleet threatens the fundamental mechanism of the oil sanctions and, namely its reliance on Western services [4,5,6]. However, recent actions by the U.S. Treasury Department have shown that the sanctioning coalition can in fact weaken Russia’s ability to work around the energy sanctions. Specifically, the approach to designate (i.e., sanction) individual tankers has effectively removed them from the Russian oil trade. More vessels could be targeted in a similar way to gradually step-up the pressure on Russia [7]. While Russia continues to have access to many products identified as critical for the military industry (for instance semiconductors) [8], it has been shown that Russia pays significant mark-ups for these goods to compensate for the many layers of intermediaries involved in circumvention schemes. Sanctions, even when imperfect, thus still work as trade barriers. In addition to existing efforts and undertakings, companies which help Russia evade export controls can be sanctioned, even when registered in countries outside of the sanctioning coalition. Furthermore, compliance efforts within, and against, western companies, who remain extremely important for Russia, can be stepped up.
The Russian Economy
Many recent newspaper articles have been centered around the theme of Russia’s surprisingly resilient economy. We find these articles to generally be superficial and missing a key point: Russia is transitioning to a war economy, driven by massive and unsustainable public spending. In 2024, military spending is projected to boost Russia’s GDP growth by at least 2.5 percentage points, driven by a planned $100 billion in defense expenditures [9]. However, seeing this for what it is, namely war-spending, raises significant concerns about the sustainability of this growth, as it eats into existing reserves and crowds out investments in areas with a larger long-term growth potential. The massive spending also feeds inflation in consumer prices and wages, in particular as private investment levels are low and the labor market is short on competent labor. This puts pressure on monetary policy causing the central bank to increase interest rates even further, to compensate for the overly stimulating fiscal policy.
Further, it is important to bear in mind that, beyond this stimulus, the Russian economy is characterised by fundamental weaknesses. Russia has for many years dealt with anaemic growth due to low productivity gains and unfavourable demographics. Since the first round of sanctions was imposed on Russia, following its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, growth has hovered at around 1 percent per year on average – abysmal for an emerging market with catch-up potential. More recently, current sanctions and war expenditures have made Russia dramatically underperform compared to other oil-exporting countries [10]. Moreover, none of the normal (non-war related) growth fundamentals is likely to improve. Rather, the military aggression and the ensuing sanctions have made things worse. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have been killed or wounded in the war; many more have left the country to either escape the Putin regime or mobilization. Those leaving are often the younger and better educated, worsening the already dire demographic situation, and reinforcing the labor market inefficiencies. Additionally, with the country largely cut off from the world’s most important financial markets, investments in the Russian economy are completely insufficient [11].
As a result, Russia will be increasingly dependent on fossil fuel extraction and exports, a strategy that holds limited promise as considerations related to climate change continue to gain importance. With the loss of the European market, either due to sanctions or Putin’s failed attempt to weaponize gas flows to Europe, Russia finds itself dependent on a limited number of buyers for its oil and gas. Such dependency compels Russia to accept painful discounts and increases its exposure to market risks and price fluctuations [12].
The Cost of Sanctions
Sanctions have not been without costs for the countries imposing them. Nonetheless, the sanctioning countries are in a much better position than Russia. Any sanction strategy is necessarily a tradeoff between maximizing the sanctioned country’s economic loss while minimizing the loss to the sanctioning countries [9], but there are at least two qualifications to bear in mind. The first is that some sanctions imply very low losses – if any – while others may carry limited short term losses but longer term gains. This includes the oil-price cap that allows many importing countries to buy Russian oil at a discount [3], and policies to reduce energy demand, which squeezes Russia’s oil-income [13]. These policies may also initially hurt sanctioning countries, but in the long term facilitate an investment in energy self-sufficiency. Similarly, trade sanctions also imply some protection of one’s own industry, meaning that such sanctions may in fact bring benefits to the sanctioning countries – at least in the short run. The second qualification is that, in cases where sanctions do imply a cost to the sanctioning countries, the question is what cost is reasonable. Russia’s economy is many times smaller than, for instance, the EU’s economy. This gives the EU a strategic advantage akin to that in Texas hold’em poker: going dollar for dollar and euro for euro, Russia is bound to go bankrupt. Currently, Russia allocates a significantly larger portion of its GDP to its war machine than most sanctioning countries spend on their defense. That alone suggests sanctioning countries may want to go beyond dollar for dollar as it is cheaper to stop Russia economically today than on a future battlefield. This points to the bigger question: what would be the future cost of not sanctioning Russia today? Many accredit the weak response from the West to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 as part of the explanation behind Putin’s decision to pursue the current full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Similarly, an unwillingness to bear limited costs today may entail much more substantial costs tomorrow.
When discussing the cost of sanctions, one must also take into account Russia’s counter moves and whether they are credible [14]. Often, they are not [3, 15]. Fear-inducing platitudes, such that China and Russia will reshape the global financial system to insulate themselves from the West’s economic statecraft tools, circulate broadly. We do not deny that these countries are undertaking measures in this direction, but it is much harder to do so in practice than in political speeches. For instance, moving away from the U.S. dollar (and the Euro) in international trade (aside from in bilateral trade relations that are roughly balanced) is highly challenging. In such a trade, conducted without the U.S. dollar, one side of the bargain will end up with a large amount of currency that it does not need and cannot exchange, at scale, for hard currency. As long as a transaction is conducted in U.S. dollar, the U.S. financial system is involved via corresponding accounts, and the threat of secondary sanctions remains powerful. We have seen examples of this in recent months, following President Biden’s executive order on December 22, 2023.
One of Many Tools
Finally, we and other proponents of sanctions do not view them as a panacea, or an alternative to the essential military and financial support that Ukraine requires. Rather, we maintain that sanctions are a critical component of a multi-pronged strategy aimed at halting Putin’s unlawful and aggressive war against Ukraine, a war that threatens not only Ukraine, but peace, liberty, and prosperity across Europe. The necessity for sanctions becomes clear when considering the alternative: a Russian regime with access to $300 billion in the central bank’s reserves, the ability to earn billions more from fossil fuel exports, and to freely acquire advanced Western technology for its military operations against Ukrainian civilians. In fact, the less successful the economic statecraft measures are, the greater the need for military and financial aid to Ukraine becomes, alongside broader indirect costs such as increased defense spending, higher interest rates, and inflation in sanctioning countries. A case in point is the West’s provision of vital – yet expensive – air defense systems to Ukraine, required to counteract Russian missiles and drones, which in turn are enabled by access to Western technology. Abandoning sanctions would only exacerbate this type of challenges.
Conclusion
The discourse on sanctions against Russia necessitates a nuanced understanding of their role within the context of the broader strategy against Russia. It is critical to understand that shallow statements and misinformed opinions become part of the information war, and that the effectiveness of sanctions also depends on all stakeholders’ perceptions about the sanctioning regime’s effectiveness and long run sustainability. Supporting Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian aggression is not a matter of choosing between material support and sanctions; rather, Ukraine’s allies must employ all available tools to ensure Ukraine’s victory. While sanctions alone are not a cure-all, they are indispensable in the concerted effort to support Ukraine and restore peace and stability in the region. The way forward is thus to make the sanctions even more effective and to strengthen the enforcement, not to abandon them.
References
[1] “Russia Chartbook”. KSE Institute, February 2024
[2] “One year of sanctions: Russia’s oil export revenues cut by EUR 34 bn”. Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, December 2023
[3] “The Price Cap on Russian Oil: A Quantitative Analysis”. Wachtmeister, H., Gars, J. and Spiro, D, July 2023
[4] Spiro, D. Gars, J, and Wachtmeister, H. (2023). “The effects of an EU import and shipping embargo on Russian oil income,” mimeo
[5] “Energy Sanctions: Four Key Steps to Constrain Russia in 2024 and Beyond”. International Working Group on Russian Sanctions & KSE Institute, February 2024
[6] “Tracking the impacts of G7 & EU’s sanctions on Russian oil”. Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air
[7] “Russia Oil Tracker”. KSE Institute, February 2024
[8] “Challenges of Export Controls Enforcement: How Russia Continues to Import Components for Its Military Production”. International Working Group on Russian Sanctions & KSE Institute, January 2024
[9] “Russia Plans Huge Defense Spending Hike in 2024 as War Drags”. Bloomberg, September 2023
[10] “Sanctions and Russia’s War: Limiting Putin’s Capabilities”. U.S. Department of the Treasury, December 2023
[11] “World Investment Report 2023”. UNCTAD
[12] “Russia-China energy relations since 24 February: Consequences and options for Europe”. Swedish Institute of International Affairs, June 2023
[13] Gars, J., Spiro, D. and Wachtmeister, H. (2022). “The effect of European fuel-tax cuts on the oil income of Russia”. Nature Energy, 7(10), pp.989-997
[14] Spiro, D. (2023). “Economic Warfare”. Available at SSRN 4445359
[15] Gars, J., Spiro, D. and Wachtmeister, H., (2023). “Were Russia’s threats of reduced oil exports credible?”. Working paper
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.