Location: Ukraine
How to Rebuild Ukraine with Security, EU Support, and Grants
A new review explains how to rebuild Ukraine after the destruction of war. It highlights the importance of lasting security, EU accession, and grant-based funding. The study breaks down costs, phases, and reforms to modernize the state and economy. The research is by Torbjörn Becker (SITE/SSE), Yuriy Gorodnichenko (UC Berkeley/CEPR), and Beatrice Weder di Mauro (CEPR/Geneva Graduate Institute/INSEAD).
The Scale of the Challenge
The war has left widespread human and material losses. The World Bank estimates $486 billion in recovery needs through 2023, with other figures running even higher. Therefore, plans to rebuild Ukraine must address the concentrated destruction in Donetsk and Kharkiv, where housing and infrastructure were hit hardest. In addition, more than 6 million refugees remain abroad, while millions are still displaced inside Ukraine.
Building a Path to Recovery
First, the review gathers insights from hundreds of proposals into a clear plan. Moreover, to rebuild Ukraine, the authors stress linking recovery with EU accession, anticorruption, and private investment. Finally, they urge the use of grants instead of loans and recommend creating a single, empowered coordination body aligned with EU standards.
Key Research Findings
Recovery unfolds in three phases: emergency relief, restoring essential services, and long-term modernization tied to EU accession. Policymakers should prioritize grants over loans to avoid debt traps and attract private foreign direct investment with risk-sharing and war insurance. Ukraine must rebuild energy and housing sustainably, replacing old fossil-based systems and inefficient Soviet-era structures. Finally, rule-of-law reforms, transparent procurement, and community involvement play a critical role in preventing corruption and securing investor confidence.
Looking Ahead for Ukraine’s Future
To rebuild Ukraine, policymakers must secure the country militarily while tying reforms closely to EU accession. A lean EU-linked agency should coordinate funding and enforce conditions. Investment in education, reintegration of veterans, and energy efficiency will be essential to protect long-term growth. Future research can identify which incentives are most effective in bringing back refugees and foreign investors.
Meet the Researchers
- Torbjörn Becker: Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, Stockholm School of Economics.
- Yuriy Gorodnichenko: University of California, Berkeley; Centre for Economic Policy Research.
- Beatrice Weder di Mauro: Centre for Economic Policy Research; Geneva Graduate Institute; INSEAD.
Read The Full Report
Explore the full findings and detailed analysis in the complete report on the Annual Review of Economics website. You can also learn more about the impact of sanctions on Russia through SITE’s project, Sanctions on Russia & the Russian Economy.
Corporate Complicity: Global Firms Funded Russia with $20B in 2024
A new report by the KSE Institute and B4Ukraine reveals that many global corporations continued doing business in Russia throughout 2024. These companies paid $20 billion in taxes to the Russian government, indirectly helping fund the war. This corporate complicity has drawn widespread criticism for undermining sanctions and supporting aggression.
Global Business and War: A Dangerous Link
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the international response included economic sanctions and public pressure for firms to exit Russia. Yet as of mid-2025, only 12% of global firms had fully withdrawn. 1377 firms or 33% have officially declared that they are completely shutting down, or have announced they are temporarily reducing operations, but haven’t yet fully exited. A staggering 55% remain active in Russia, paying taxes, generating profit, and keeping operations running.
Many companies claim to have paused or scaled back operations. However, their tax contributions tell another story. In 2024 alone, foreign firms earned $201 billion in Russia and paid $20 billion in taxes—enough to fund more than one million soldiers based on Russia’s $18,400 recruitment bonus per soldier.
Why Companies Choose to Stay
Some firms chose profits over principles. The finance and consumer goods sectors led the way, with banks and brands like PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Mars topping revenue and tax lists. Despite early promises to leave, many companies either delayed their exit or quietly expanded. Others, like Mondelez and Coca-Cola, have been accused of masking their continued presence with rebranding or shifting operations to subsidiaries.
Key Research Findings on Corporate Complicity
- In 2024, foreign companies earned $201 billion and paid $20 billion in taxes to Russia.
- Only 12% of firms fully exited the Russian market; 55% stayed.
- U.S. and EU firms paid more than $3.8 billion in profit taxes combined.
- The finance and consumer sectors were the top contributors to the Russian war economy.
Western Values Undermined by Business-as-Usual
The report argues that continued business in Russia by Western firms directly undermines their governments’ aid to Ukraine. Companies headquartered in the U.S., Germany, and France are among the largest contributors to Russia’s tax base.
The report highlights that increasing numbers of foreign firms have stopped publishing their financial reports, a trend particularly noticeable among large corporations. Of the 100 largest foreign companies operating in Russia in 2021, 86 disclosed their financials in 2023. This number has halved in 2024 to just 43. The decision not to disclose financial statements may reflect an effort by companies to avoid further reputational damage linked to the scale of their economic support for the war effort.
Read the Full Report
Explore the full findings and detailed analysis by reading the complete report on the Kyiv School of Economics website. Additionally, you can view more policy briefs from the KSE Institute on the FREE Network’s website.
Learn More About the Russian War Economy and Sanctions
To learn more about Western sanctions and Russia’s countermeasures, visit the Sanctions Timeline. And for details on sanctions imposed on Russia and their effects, see the Evidence Base section of the sanctions portal. Explore more policy briefs on sanctioning Russia here.
Russian War Economy Faces Slowdown Despite Resilience
Since 2022, the Russian economy has surprised many with its resilience under Western sanctions. Growth was fueled by wartime spending and high energy revenues. Now, signs suggest this “war bump” is fading. In a recent Financial Times interview, Elina Ribakova explains why the Russian war economy faces serious challenges ahead. Elina Ribakova is vice-president for foreign policy at the Kyiv School of Economics. She spoke with Sam Fleming, economics editor at the Financial Times.
Sanctions and Short-Term Resilience
When Western nations imposed sanctions on Russia, many expected a collapse. Instead, wartime spending and high oil revenues propped up growth. Ribakova notes that Russia’s ability to redirect resources into military production created a temporary boom. But this resilience came at the cost of long-term growth in the Russian war economy.
Why the Russian War Economy Is Slowing
Russia is now hitting hard limits. Labor shortages, soaring inflation, and overstretched industrial capacity are beginning to bite. Ribakova points out that unemployment has fallen to unsustainably low levels, while non-military sectors are stagnating. Even the defense industry, once booming, is showing signs of strain across the Russian war economy.
China’s Critical Role
One reason Russia has endured sanctions is its growing reliance on China. Ribakova highlights how Chinese exports—from consumer goods to vital military components—have allowed Moscow to sustain its war economy. Yet this partnership is highly lopsided: for China, Russia is a marginal partner; for Russia, China is a lifeline.
The Postwar Challenge
Looking ahead, Ribakova warns that ending the war will not mean an easy recovery. Russia faces deep demographic challenges, heavy reliance on military production, and decades of failed economic diversification. Rebuilding a sustainable postwar economy may prove “devastatingly hard” for the Russian war economy.
Listen to the Original Interview
The slowdown of the Russian war economy is more than an economic story; it shapes global energy markets, security, and geopolitics. To hear the full conversation and Ribakova’s detailed analysis, listen to the original Financial Times interview here.
Learn More About the Russian War Economy and Sanctions
To learn more about Western sanctions and Russia’s countermeasures, visit the Sanctions Timeline. And for details on sanctions imposed on Russia and their effects, see the Evidence Base section of the sanctions portal. Explore more policy briefs on sanctioning Russia here.
European Security Needs Ukraine’s Lessons to Deter Russia
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered Europe’s long-held belief in lasting peace. The continent now faces its most serious security crisis since World War II. In response, Ukraine’s battlefield-tested innovations offer a powerful blueprint for a stronger and more resilient European defense system.
In their latest report, “Rethinking European Security in the Face of the Russian Threat,” authors from the KSE Institute, Olena Bilousova, Pavlo Shkurenko, Kateryna Olkhovyk, Elina Ribakova, and Lucas Risinger, outline how Europe can integrate Ukraine into its defense strategy to build lasting protection and deterrence against future aggression.
Europe’s Wake-Up Call on Security
For decades, Europe’s defense relied heavily on U.S. military power. But with Washington’s commitment increasingly uncertain, European nations must prepare to defend themselves. Years of underinvestment have left defense industries underdeveloped and ammunition stockpiles dangerously low.
Meanwhile, Russia continues to expand its military capabilities well beyond the war in Ukraine. This shifting landscape makes Ukraine’s role, both as a frontline defender and a hub of defense innovation, indispensable to Europe’s long-term security.
How Ukraine Became a Model for European Defense
For over three years, Ukraine has resisted a larger, nuclear-armed aggressor through speed, adaptability, and rapid technological innovation. From AI-driven battlefield systems to anti-drone warfare, Ukraine demonstrates how creativity and decentralization can offset limited resources.
Europe can learn from Ukraine’s experience to modernize its own defense systems and close existing capability gaps.
Key Research Insights
- Combat-tested technologies: Ukraine’s AI-based DELTA systems and digital command tools provide models for next-generation European defense.
- Cost-effective innovation: Interceptor drones and low-cost countermeasures can neutralize expensive Russian weapons at scale.
- Decentralized procurement: Streamlined processes speed up the delivery of critical battlefield tools and reduce bureaucratic delays.
- Strategic integration: Including Ukraine in European defense programs enhances deterrence and joint security across the continent.
Building a Future-Ready European Defense
The report calls for full integration of Ukraine into Europe’s defense ecosystem — from procurement and research to industrial planning. This includes:
- Granting Ukraine access to EU defense funds
- Embedding Ukrainian military expertise in European training programs
- Co-producing weapons and defense technologies
Such integration would not only bolster European security but also make rearmament faster, more affordable, and more coordinated across the EU and its partners.
Meet the Researchers
- Olena Bilousova: KSE Institute
- Pavlo Shkurenko: KSE Institute
- Kateryna Olkhovyk: KSE Institute
- Elina Ribakova: KSE Institute
- Lucas Risinger: KSE Institute
Read the Full Report
Explore the complete findings and recommendations in the full report on the KSE Institute website. You can also explore more policy briefs covering conflict and sanctions in the FREE Network’s policy briefs section.
The Case for Seizing Russian State Assets
This brief examines the legal and economic arguments in the ongoing debate over whether to confiscate Russian state assets frozen in Western democracies and redirect them toward supporting Ukraine’s resilience and reconstruction. It also outlines concrete proposals for how such a measure could be undertaken in compliance with international law and with manageable economic consequences.
At the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, substantial Russian state assets held in Western countries were frozen. While not all countries have disclosed precise figures, estimates place the total between $290–330 billion, most of it held within European jurisdictions. These numbers can be put in perspective to the total global support to Ukraine so far, €267 billion according to the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker. A lively discussion has emerged around the legal, economic, and political feasibility of seizing these assets to support Ukraine. As evident, this would constitute a very substantial addition to the support for the country. Thus far, agreement has only been reached on utilizing the returns on the assets to service a $50 billion loan to Ukraine under the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) mechanism. It has been argued that $50 billion should be enough, but Western contributions to the defence of Ukraine have been around €80 billion per year. The ERA is thus only a partial and very short-term financial solution for Ukraine, while a €300 billion fund based on the seizure of the assets would last perhaps 3-5 years. In short, the size of the fund matter and the principal amount is significantly larger than the fund that has been set up based solely on taxing the returns of the frozen assets.
This brief survey’s the main areas of contention and proposes viable pathways forward. It focuses on the legal and economic dimensions, setting aside moral arguments—which are broadly accepted given Russia’s unprovoked aggression and the destruction it has caused. Ultimately, the question is a political one: whether the legal justification and economic trade-offs favour asset seizure over other financing methods.
The Legal Arguments
Opposition to seizure often cites the principle of sovereign immunity. Yet, international law permits exceptions through countermeasures—acts that would otherwise be unlawful but are allowed in response to grave violations by another state. Additionally, asset confiscation may be lawful when enforcing international judgments (other possible legal avenues are for instance explored in Webb (2024), though in the end deemed as less likely to gain traction and legal approval). In both cases, the goal is to induce compliance with international obligations and secure reparations. A further legal basis lies in the doctrine of collective self-defense, which permits states not directly attacked to aid those that are, in response to unlawful aggression (Vlasyuk, 2024).
Critics often note that countermeasures should be temporary and reversible. However, as Vlasyuk (2024) points out, international law qualifies reversibility as being required only “as far as possible.” This implies that in cases of severe violations—where reversible countermeasures have failed—non-reversible actions may be justified. One proposed mechanism ties the frozen assets to future war reparations, allowing permanent transfers only if Russia refuses to comply with a future reparations ruling. Since reparation should go to the victim of Russia’s aggression, it also means that it is Ukraine that has the ultimate claim on the frozen Russian assets. This implies that any decision of confiscation and governance structure for transferring funds to Ukraine should be made with the consent of Ukraine. Put differently; even if the money is in Western financial institutions, there are good reasons to make sure the resources are used according to Ukrainian preferences.
The Economic Arguments
The principal economic concerns surrounding asset seizure are its potential impact on confidence in European capital markets, including risks of capital flight, increased interest rates, and diminished credibility of the euro. There are also fears of reciprocal actions by Russia against remaining Western investments.
These concerns, however, are increasingly overstated. The major shock to financial markets occurred when the assets were first frozen; any anticipated impact should now be fully priced in. Moreover, a viable reserve currency must be supported by convertibility, sound economic governance, and rule of law—features absent in countries like China, Gulf states, or most other emerging economies. The yen and Swiss franc lack either scale or stability. Despite previous sanctions and the 2022 asset freeze, the dollar and euro still account for around 80 percent of global foreign exchange reserves (The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions, 2023). Given the current crisis of confidence in U.S. fiscal governance, the euro remains especially robust.
The extraordinary nature of the situation also diminishes fears of setting a destabilizing precedent. Investors alarmed by this measure may not be long-term assets to Western markets but rather criminal states or individuals that should not be protected by the West’s financial and legal systems. More broadly, it signals to authoritarian regimes that aggressive actions will carry financial consequences. Western firms still operating in Russia have had ample time to disinvest, and those that remain should not constrain public policy.
Importantly, the costs of inaction must be considered. Financing Ukraine through increased public borrowing could raise interest rates across the eurozone and widen yield spreads between fiscally stronger and weaker member states. Seizing Russian assets, by contrast, may be economically safer, more equitable, and legally sound (International Working Group on Russian Sanctions, 2023).
Suggested Approaches
Several proposals aim to facilitate asset transfer in ways consistent with international law and economic stability.
Zelikow (2025) proposes the establishment of a trust fund to lawfully assume custody of frozen assets. This fund—grounded in the legal doctrine of countermeasures—would not represent outright confiscation but a conditional hold. Assets would remain Russia’s property until disbursed to victims of its aggression. A board of trustees would oversee disbursements—for example, servicing ERA loans or financing reconstruction. In this proposal, the fund would broadly define “victims” to include Ukraine and neighbouring states that have borne costs, such as accommodating refugees. This can perhaps help build political support among Western countries for the trust fund, but it has the obvious drawback that it may imply less support to Ukraine. Zelikow (2025) argues that institutions like the Bank of England or World Bank could manage the fund, given past experience with similar arrangements, potentially issuing bonds backed by the assets to accelerate support.
Vlasyuk (2024) proposes a multilateral treaty among coalition states recognizing Russia’s grave breaches of international law. This would provide a unified legal basis for transferring central bank assets to Ukraine via a compensation fund. National legislation would follow—similar to the U.S. REPO Act—tailored narrowly to address such violations. These laws should include safeguards, such as provisions to suspend asset seizure if hostilities end and reparations are paid.
Dixon et al. (2024) propose a “reparation loan” backed by Ukraine’s reparations claims. The EU or G7 would lend to Ukraine, using these claims as collateral. If Russia fails to pay after a ruling by a UN-backed claims commission, the frozen assets could be seized. This approach aligns well with the requirement for reversibility in countermeasures and may also reassure financial markets.
Conclusions
In summary, compelling legal arguments support the transfer or confiscation of Russian state assets under international law. Meanwhile, fears of damaging economic consequences appear increasingly unfounded. Any meaningful support for Ukraine—whether through asset seizure or public borrowing—will carry financial implications. However, using Russian rather than Western taxpayer resources is both morally and politically compelling.
What is now needed is coordinated political will and a practical, legally sound mechanism to operationalize asset transfers. With sound governance, such a step would not only finance Ukraine’s recovery but reinforce the international legal order and deter future aggression. An arrangement that makes sure all resources go to Ukraine—and not toward covering losses incurred by supporting Western countries—should be prioritized.
References
- Dixon, H., Buchheit, L. C., & Singh, D. (2024). Ukrainian reparation loan: How it would work. The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions.
- The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions. (2023). Working Group paper #15. Stanford University.
- Vlasyuk, A. (2024). Legal report on confiscation of Russian state assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. KSE Institute.
- Webb, P. (2024). Legal options for confiscation of Russian state assets to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. European Parliament.
- Zelikow, P. (2025). A fresh look at the Russian assets: A proposal for international resolution of sanctioned accounts (Hoover Institution Essay). Hoover Institution Press.
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.
Beyond North Africa: Ukraine’s Agricultural Engagements with Sub-Saharan Partners
In recent years, the global agricultural landscape has shifted dramatically, shaped by the intersecting crises of climate change, food insecurity, geopolitical tensions, and technological disruption. Against this backdrop, Ukraine and Sub-Saharan Africa have emerged as two regions uniquely positioned to build a complementary partnership in the agri-food sector – one that not only addresses immediate humanitarian and trade challenges but also lays the groundwork for long-term sustainable development. As Ukraine looks to diversify its agricultural partnerships beyond traditional European and Asian markets, Ukraine’s agricultural engagements with Africa offer both a growing consumer base and an investment frontier where Ukraine’s expertise and surplus production capacity can meet critical demand. This policy brief explores how Ukraine’s agricultural engagements with certain African countries can deepen cooperation across the agricultural value chain. Drawing on in-depth regional analyses conducted by the Kyiv School of Economics Agrocenter (Martyshev, Stolnikovych & Piddubnyi, 2024a–d), the discussion considers strategic sectors, regional particularities, and policy innovations essential for a robust and mutually beneficial partnership.
Ukraine Agricultural Engagements with Africa: Opportunities for Growth and Partnership
Ukraine is one of the world’s most productive agricultural exporters, supplying significant volumes of wheat, corn, sunflower oil, and other essential staples. Africa, by contrast, is grappling with an array of food production and security challenges. In many regions, agricultural productivity remains stubbornly low, constrained by underinvestment, poor infrastructure, limited irrigation, climate volatility, and outdated farming techniques. Yet, Africa’s demographic trends suggest a rapidly growing demand for food. Urbanization is accelerating, dietary preferences are shifting, and consumers are increasingly looking beyond subsistence crops toward diversified and processed foods. These dynamics set the stage for Ukraine to serve not just as a food exporter, but also as a strategic partner in Africa’s agricultural transformation.
In a series of recent regional reports by the Kyiv School of Economics Agrocenter, all titled Cooperation Between Ukraine and African Countries in Agriculture, (Martyshev, Stolnikovych & Piddubnyi, 2024a,b,c,d), the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) explored the mutually beneficial opportunities for collaboration between Ukraine and Africa in the agricultural sector. The full reports covering Central, East, Southern, and West Africa are available at https://agrocenter.kse.ua. This brief summarizes the key findings and insights drawn from those reports.
Data and Methods
A standardized analytical framework across four African regions, Central, East, Southern, and West Africa, focusing on three major countries in each region, was applied. The objective was to, through data-drive insights, assess the potential for agricultural cooperation with Ukraine in food security, trade, production systems, and policy environments.
- Food security analysis relies on indicators from FAOSTAT and the World Bank, including prevalence of undernourishment, dietary energy adequacy, and trends in malnutrition from 2000 to 2022.
- Trade analysis uses data from UN Comtrade, ITC Trade Map, Ukrainian customs, and national sources to evaluate import-export flows, Ukraine’s market share, and commodity dependencies, particularly in cereals and vegetable oils.
- Agricultural sector profiling includes employment, GDP contribution, key crop and livestock outputs, and irrigation coverage. Data are drawn from FAOSTAT, national agricultural statistics, and World Development Indicators.
- Infrastructure and technology assessments are based on literature reviews and secondary sources evaluating the state of storage, logistics, irrigation, and mechanization. Attention is given to adoption of modern tools like drones and ICT platforms.
- Policy and institutional reviews focus on national agricultural strategies, trade policies, food security programs, and land tenure systems, using official government documents and donor evaluations.
- For East and West Africa, findings were also informed by stakeholder input from KSE Agrocenter webinars held in 2024, involving local policymakers, researchers, and trade representatives.
This mixed-methods approach enabled a comparative, region-specific understanding of agri-food challenges and opportunities relevant to Ukraine’s engagement in Africa.
Empirical Findings and Policy Recommendations
Trade: A Nascent but Promising Relationship
The trade relationship between Ukraine and Africa, while still developing, shows considerable potential. Based on empirical trade flow data, Ukraine’s primary exports to Africa include cereals like wheat and corn, along with vegetable oils. Imports from Africa, however, are minimal, revealing the one-sided nature of current trade. This asymmetry is due to limited diversification, logistical barriers, and underdeveloped bilateral trade frameworks. Trade activity is concentrated in North and West Africa, while countries in Central, Eastern and Southern Africa receive fewer Ukrainian goods. Engagement with regional trade blocs such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC) presents both regulatory hurdles and strategic entry points.
Based on observed trade gaps, the policy recommendation is to expand Ukraine’s access to African markets by negotiating preferential trade agreements and eliminating non-tariff barriers. Appointing agrarian attachés in African capitals can facilitate market entry, monitor regional regulations, and promote Ukrainian products in regional fairs and business forums.
Joint Investment Opportunities
Based on field-level evidence and investment data, agriculture in Central and East Africa is constrained by severe infrastructure deficits. Post-harvest losses, driven by the absence of proper storage, cold chains, and road networks, are estimated to cost billions in lost output annually. The strategic proposal is for Ukraine to co-invest in building post-harvest systems, leveraging its expertise in grain storage and export logistics. Ukrainian firms could collaborate with African partners on silos, warehouses, and cold storage tailored to tropical climates.
Food processing also represents a high-potential area. Many East African countries impose protective tariffs on processed food imports to stimulate local industry. Based on these findings, the policy recommendation is for Ukraine to establish agro-processing joint ventures that align with local industrial policies. These ventures would stimulate employment, reduce food imports, and strengthen Ukraine’s position in value-added agriculture abroad.
Technology Transfer Potential
Empirical assessments reveal that low mechanization, climate volatility, and limited access to agri-tech remain persistent barriers to productivity in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Ukraine, with its advanced capabilities in precision agriculture, can provide high-impact technologies such as satellite-based soil monitoring, drones for crop surveillance, and automated irrigation systems. For example, in parts of Southern Africa like Zambia and Namibia, where rainfall is unpredictable, these technologies can help stabilize crop yields and reduce risk for smallholder farmers.
The strategic proposal is for Ukrainian firms to develop demonstration farms and pilot projects that showcase these innovations. Based on successful models from Eastern Europe, these pilots could serve as training grounds for local agronomists and as proof-of-concept for scalable investment.
Regional Variability and Context-Specific Cooperation
Central Africa (e.g., the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Angola, Cameroon)
Based on food security metrics, Central Africa faces some of the highest levels of undernourishment on the continent. In DRC for example, more than one-third of the population is chronically underfed. Political instability and unclear land rights further hinder agricultural investment.
The strategic recommendation is to continue and scale humanitarian programs like “Grain from Ukraine,” while also offering technical support in veterinary services for cattle and poultry sectors, particularly in Angola and Cameroon. Ukrainian expertise in land reform and extension services could also help unlock investment in rural farming.
East Africa (e.g., Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania)
Agricultural productivity is improving in East Africa, but gaps remain. Based on infrastructure and yield data, the region struggles with limited access to farm machinery, irrigation systems, and post-harvest technology. The policy recommendation is to focus on joint research, agricultural education, and training programs that address these specific bottlenecks. Ukrainian institutions could work with African universities to design curricula on crop science, data-driven farming, and agri-business entrepreneurship. Mobile extension services and remote learning platforms could further boost rural outreach.
Southern Africa (e.g., South Africa, Botswana, Namibia)
This region has a more developed agricultural sector with export orientation and mechanization. However, environmental and political factors, such as energy shortages and water scarcity, threaten sustainability. Based on these empirical conditions, the strategic proposal is for Ukraine to engage through agri-consulting and technology partnerships. High-value inputs like hybrid seeds and automated irrigation systems can address local constraints, while cooperation on renewable energy solutions for farming could provide long-term stability.
West Africa (e.g., Nigeria, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire)
According to population and consumption data, West Africa faces mounting pressure on food systems. Despite improving domestic output, infrastructure deficits and policy inconsistency limit food availability. Based on these findings, the strategic recommendation is to invest in logistics infrastructure, such as road and rail links to key ports and warehouses, as well as to diversify the region’s agricultural base. Ukrainian seed companies could introduce crops like barley and legumes, adapted to regional climates, to reduce dependence on cocoa and palm oil.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the partnership between Ukraine and Sub-Saharan Africa in the agricultural sector is not merely a matter of commerce; it is a strategic opportunity with tangible benefits for both sides. Ukraine, as a breadbasket with advanced agri-tech capabilities, can play a pivotal role in enhancing food systems in parts of Africa where food insecurity remains acute, particularly in regions such as the Horn of Africa (e.g., Somalia and Ethiopia), the Sahel (e.g., Niger and Mali) and Central Africa (e.g., the Democratic Republic of the Congo). At the same time, many African nations offer Ukraine access to growing consumer markets, underutilized arable land, and increasing geopolitical relevance in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
To realize this vision, both sides must commit to a comprehensive, long-term strategy built on trust, transparency, and mutual benefit. The road ahead is complex but filled with promise. With smart investments, targeted diplomacy, and collaborative innovation, Ukraine and Africa can co-author a new chapter in global agriculture, one defined not by scarcity and dependency, but by resilience, growth, and shared prosperity.
References
Central Africa
- Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024a). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: Central Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics.
- Abia, W. A., Shum, C. E., Fomboh, R. N., Ntungwe, E., & Ageh, M. T. (2016). Agriculture in Cameroon: Proposed Strategies to Sustain Productivity. International Journal for Research in Agricultural Research, 2(2), 1–14.
- Africa24. (2024, January 25). Cameroon reduces state fees for agricultural enterprises by 92%.
- African Development Bank. (2022). Cameroon – Agricultural Production Support Program (PARPAC).
- African Development Bank. (2023). Angola – Agriculture Sector Reform Program (ASRP).
- African Development Bank. (2024). African Economic Outlook 2024: Driving Africa’s Transformation.
- Arsene, M. B., & Mwine Fyama, J. N. (2021). Potential threats to agricultural food production and farmers’ coping strategies in the marshlands of Kabare in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 7(1), 1933747.
- Binswanger-Mkhize, H. P. (2008). Empowering Rural People for Their Own Development. FAO.
- Boko, M. I., Niang, A., Nyong, C., et al. (2007). Africa Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report.
- CAADP. (2013). Agriculture Investment Opportunities Brief: CAADP Investment Facilitation Programme – DRC.
East Africa
- Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024b). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: East Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics.
- Achandi, E., Mujawamariya, G., Agboh-Noameshie, A., et al. (2018). Women’s access to agricultural technologies in rice production and processing hubs: A comparative analysis. Journal of Rural Studies, 60, 188–198.
- African Development Bank. (2024). African Economic Outlook 2024.
- Ayenew, M., & Arquitt, S. (2018). Kenya Agricultural Performance and Targets. CCGA Policy Brief No. 2.
- Bekabil, U. T. (2014). Review of challenges in Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 4(18), 70–77.
- Casaburi, L., Kremer, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2016). Contract farming and agricultural productivity in Western Kenya. In S. Edwards et al. (Eds.), African Successes, Vol IV. University of Chicago Press.
- Charles, G., Jeppesen, S., Kamau, P., & Kragelund, P. (2016). Food-processing sector study. Forum for Development Studies, 44(1), 109–131.
- FAO. (2015–2016). AQUASTAT Country Profiles – Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania.
- Government of Kenya. (2007). Kenya Vision 2030.
- Government of Tanzania. (2015). Agricultural Sector Development Strategy II (ASDS II).
- Kashindi, G. (2020). Local agricultural production in Kenya. KAS African Law Study Library, 7.
- Laichena, J., Kiptoo, E., et al. (2022). Kenya agricultural policy profile. IWMI/CGIAR.
Southern Africa
- Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024c). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: South Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics.
- Acquah, B. K. (2004). In Shaping the Future of African Agriculture for Development. AAAE.
- AgriSA. (2024). Key Issues for South African Agriculture.
- Bank of Namibia. (2017). Feeding Namibia: Agricultural Productivity and Industrialisation.
- Commission on Restitution of Land Rights. (2021). Strategic Plan 2021–2024.
- Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. (2022, 2024). Agriculture and Agro-Processing Master Plan; State Land Lease and Disposal Policy.
- Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. (2013). NARYSEC Booklet.
- Financial and Fiscal Commission. (2021). Strategic Plan 2020–2025.
- Fortunato, A., & Enciso, S. (2023). Food for Growth: Namibia’s Agriculture Sector. Harvard Growth Lab.
- Giesel, C. (2023). Agriculture Challenges in South Africa. Bizcommunity.
- GIZ. (2020). Sector Brief: Namibia Agriculture.
- Government of Namibia. (2004–2017). Vision 2030, Agriculture Policy, Development Plans, and Cooperative Policy.
- Namibia Statistics Agency & UNICEF. (2021). Multidimensional Poverty Index Report.
West Africa
- Martyshev, P., Stolnikovych, H., Piddubnyi, I. (2024d). Cooperation between Ukraine and African countries in agriculture: West Africa. Center for Food and Land Use Research at Kyiv School of Economics, https://kse.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/COOPERATION-BETWEEN-UKRAINE-AND-AFRICAN-COUNTRIES-IN-AGRICULTURE-WEST-AFRICA-.pdf
- Banson, K., Nguyen, N., & Bosch, O. (2014, 2015). Systems Research and Behavioral Science.
- Diallo, S., Fofana, I., & Diallo, M. (2020). AGRODEP Working Paper 0041. IFPRI.
- FAO. (2005–2016). AQUASTAT Country Profiles – Ghana, Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire.
- FAOSTAT. (2023). Food, Beverages and Tobacco Data.
- FMARD. (2022). National Rice Development Strategy II (2020–2030).
- Ghana Business News. (2009). The Challenge of Agriculture in Ghana.
- Jalloh, A., Nelson, G., Thomas, T., et al. (2013). West African Agriculture and Climate Change. IFPRI Monograph.
- JICA. (2023). Côte d’Ivoire Country Analysis Paper (JCAP).
- King, C. (2008). Community resilience in agri-ecological systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 111.
- Kouassi, J-L., Gyau, A., et al. (2021). Land, 10(4), 429.
- NEPAD. (2003). Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security.
- Nitag Consults Ltd. (2009). Agricultural Development Review.
- Olukunle, O. (2013). Challenges and Prospects of Agriculture in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(16).
- USDA. (2023). Nigeria Grain and Feed Update (GAIN Report NI2023-0008).
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.
AI in the Energy Transition – Insights from Energy Talk 2025
As flexibility needs and energy security concerns grow, artificial intelligence (AI) is playing an increasingly central role in managing, optimizing, and securing energy systems. At the 2025 Energy Talk: AI and the Future of Energy, organized by the Stockholm Institute for Transition Economics (SITE) in collaboration with Energiforsk, several key experts and innovators showcased how AI is shaping the energy system, from household-level optimization to national infrastructure forecasting and regulation. The discussions highlighted AI’s potential to enhance efficiency, resilience, and user responsiveness, while also raising critical issues around data governance, cybersecurity, and value distribution. This policy brief summarizes the main takeaways from the event.
AI as an Actor in Energy Networks
AI is now embedded in everything from electricity generation forecasts to district heating systems and real-time price optimization. As Chloé Le Coq, Research Fellow at SITE and Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University, noted in her opening remarks, this marks not just a technological upgrade but a systemic shift in how energy systems operate. Where systems were once reactive, AI opens the door to adaptive, self-learning networks that can respond dynamically to demand and supply. Examples shared at the 2025 Energy Talk showed how this transformation is already underway across Europe.
In the Baltic region, AI is contributing to a broader transformation of the energy system. Dzintars Jaunziems, Advisor for Energy and Climate Policy at Latvijas Banka and Assistant Professor at Riga Technical University, explained that the region has undergone several major transitions over the past three decades by building liberalized market economies and opening energy markets. More recently, the Baltics have halted energy imports from Russia, fully disconnected from the BRELL grid, and completed synchronization with the EU electricity network.
Against this backdrop, AI is now supporting the Baltics’ transition from fossil fuels to renewables. In grid operations, AI is used to assess overhead lines and remotely monitor systems in real-time. It also optimizes transmission capacity and supports renewable energy forecasting, particularly for solar generation. In district heating, digital twin technologies are being introduced, while in the mobility sector, AI helps manage electric vehicle (EV) charging and route planning. The region has one of the highest smart meter penetration rates in Europe, although full-scale utilization is still pending.
In Ukraine, AI plays a crucial role in managing the energy system—both in daily operations and in maintaining resilience during wartime. Andrii Starzhynskyi, co-founder and CEO of a-Gnostics, presented several examples of how AI is already deeply embedded in the sector. Since 2018, machine learning has been used to forecast electricity consumption and generation with over 98 percent accuracy. This fully automated system also enables predictive maintenance by detecting failures in critical equipment such as transformers. One example is an app that analyses the sound of machines to detect faults early and prevent breakdowns.
AI also supports automated decision-making around electricity flows—for instance, whether to buy, sell, or store solar-generated electricity. At a-Gnostics, multiple AI models—primarily based on time series data—are used to manage and coordinate forecasts across different applications. According to Starzhynskyi, these solutions are already used daily by customers in sectors such as mining, agritech, energy production, and energy trading.
AI is also being used at the household level to enhance energy system efficiency. Björn Berg, CEO of Ngenic, presented how their system integrates AI in real time to control and optimize heat pumps, using live data rather than historical averages. Reported benefits include over 20 percent energy savings, fewer boiler starts, and reduced system losses. Berg noted that if optimization were scaled to one million heat pumps, the aggregate impact could exceed the output of Sweden’s three nuclear reactors—highlighting the potential of household-level AI integration at scale. At the same time, he pointed to current forecasting limitations, referencing a recent two-gigawatt prediction error as a reminder that learning models still need improvement.
Infrastructure, Governance, and Cybersecurity
The shift in how energy systems operate today also adds complexity. As energy systems become more decentralized, with growing integration of intermittent sources, and data volumes expand rapidly, new governance challenges emerge. Key questions include: Who owns the data and the algorithms? How can we ensure fairness, accountability, and cybersecurity?
Filip Kjellgren, Strategic Initiative Developer Energy at AI Sweden, shared how interactive visualization tools are making future energy needs more accessible to individuals. Traditional methods, such as static bar charts, often fail to engage. In contrast, tools like the so-called Behovskartan allow users to explore different demand scenarios and, visualize, and test assumptions such as reduced fossil fuel use. Kjellgren emphasized that while solar and wind installations are expanding rapidly due to falling costs, public resistance to local infrastructure remains strong—often stronger than for other infrastructure projects. In this context, AI-driven visualizations can help bridge the gap between energy system planning and public acceptance, improving both actual and perceived fairness and facilitating green transition.
Figure 1. Behovskartan
Source: Printscreen from behovskartan.se
Similarly, Michael Karlsson, Programme Coordinator Heat & Power at Energiforsk, introduced the organization’s newly launched AI cluster—an initiative designed to disseminate research and applied insights about AI in the energy sector through webinars, seminars, and other outreach activities. He also highlighted the limited involvement of energy economists in AI projects and called for greater interdisciplinary collaboration to close that gap and broaden the field.
These highlighted initiatives set the stage for a panel discussion focused on the broader policy and structural questions facing AI in energy systems. As AI becomes embedded in critical infrastructure, concerns have been raised about the controls over data and algorithms that drive energy decisions. Speakers warned against relying on proprietary “black-box” models, calling instead for open-source alternatives and domestic oversight. The discussion also highlighted the importance of building national capabilities to avoid overdependence on international actors with limited public accountability and at times questionable agendas. Legal frameworks were seen as lagging technological development—particularly regarding new forms of data, such as sound recordings from equipment, which are not clearly covered in existing regulations.
Cybersecurity and system resilience emerged as recurring themes. AI can help detect anomalies, anticipate grid stress, and support decentralized energy configurations. One example illustrates how AI can detect abnormal behavior in connected devices—so-called Internet of Things (IoT) components—by analyzing how equipment behaves in real-time, rather than relying solely on code-level protections. Several participants stressed the need to build resilience into infrastructure design. In the case of cyber-attacks or physical disruption—like those experienced by Ukraine—systems should be capable of switching to “island mode”, operating autonomously during crisis. Others pointed to privacy-preserving data architectures, where AI models are deployed to the data, avoiding the need to centralize sensitive information—an approach already used in sectors like healthcare and finance.
The panel also raised the question of fairness: Who benefits from AI in the energy sector? While large industrial users are already reaping the rewards, such as a farm that significantly lowered its electricity costs using AI-based forecasting, it remains unclear whether smaller consumers are seeing comparable gains. In regulated systems, efficiency improvements may translate into lower tariffs; however, several speakers noted that public acceptance of AI will depend on whether consumers can clearly perceive and share the benefits. Ultimately, the long-term legitimacy of AI will depend on how these gains are distributed in practice.
Concluding Remarks
The 2025 Energy Talk AI and the Future of Energy made clear that AI is no longer a future consideration—it is already transforming how energy is produced, distributed, and consumed. From national-level forecasting to household-level optimization and strategic planning, AI is increasingly present in every part of the energy system. Yet, as participants emphasized, its rapid deployment has outpaced both regulation and public awareness. Successfully integrating AI into the energy system requires a broader policy dialogue—one that goes beyond the technical regulation to address economic and social matters. The Energy Talk brought these intersecting areas into focus and highlighted the need for broader conversations on AI in energy.
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.
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.
Human Capital Loss Among Belarusian and Ukrainian Migrants to the EU
This policy brief examines the underutilization of human capital among involuntary migrants from Ukraine and Belarus in Poland and Lithuania. Focusing on those who migrated after 2020 (Belarus) and 2022 (Ukraine), the brief investigates the factors influencing the conversion of their pre-migration skills into gainful employment in their host countries. Our findings show that despite many migrants possessing high levels of education and professional qualifications, structural barriers and low convertibility of their skills, hinder their full labor market integration. This skill underutilization not only limits migrants’ professional growth and earning potential but also deprives the host countries of valuable skills and potential economic gains.
Effective labor market integration substantially benefits both host and sending countries and migrants themselves. For host nations, successful integration can alleviate critical skill shortages, boost productivity, and drive economic growth (Boubtane, Dumont, & Rault, 2016; Boubtane, 2019; Engler, Giesing, & Kraehnert, 2023; Bernstein et al., 2022). Conversely, inadequate integration leads to underemployment, diminished potential, and economic inefficiency. Countries of origin can benefit from remittances, the return of migrants with enhanced skills, and strengthened international economic ties. However, poor integration risks an uncompensated “brain drain” (Reinhold & Thom, 2009; Barrett & O’Connell, 2001; Iara, 2006; Barrett & Goggin, 2010; Co, Gang, & Yun, 2000). For migrants, the ability to continue their careers means higher earnings and less stress from the acquisition of a new profession, while the non-utilization of existing skills results in their depreciation, potentially causing permanent wage reductions even upon return to the home country (Bowman & Myers, 1967).
Migrants can be broadly categorized into voluntary migrants or forced migrants. Voluntary migrants assess labor market prospects beforehand and often possess convertible human capital – one that can be used in a new labor market. This group often includes professionals like IT specialists and scientists and those in low-skilled but highly transferable professions. Forced migrants, on the contrary, may be utterly unprepared for changes in jurisdiction and possess skills of limited transferability. For example, even highly specialized professions requiring extensive training and substantial human capital, such as lawyers, officials, and teachers, often prove “non-convertible“ (Duleep & Regets, 1999). These individuals’ skills are frequently country specific.
Low convertibility of skills generates significant negative consequences. Highly educated professionals, for instance, may find themselves relegated to low-paying, unskilled jobs, unable to leverage their expertise. This hinders their professional development and deprives host countries of valuable skills and potential contributions to economic growth. Addressing these mismatches is crucial for maximizing the benefits of migration for stakeholders in both home and host countries.
Forced Migration from Belarus and Ukraine
The political crisis in Belarus, starting with the contested 2020 presidential elections, led to widespread repression and significant forced migration. Belarus’s role in supporting Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine exacerbated this situation, resulting in approximately 300,000 Belarusians seeking refuge in the European Union (Eurostat). This number accounts for a substantial proportion of the country’s 9 million population and its approximately 5 million-strong labor force (Belstat).
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered the most significant wave of migration in Ukrainian history, with over 6 million of the pre-war 44 million population fleeing to the EU (UNHCR). About 90 percent of the initial refugees were women and children due to a mobilization law preventing most men aged 18 to 60 from leaving (UNHCR).
Online Survey and Migrant Differences
To better understand the situation of migrants, their integration into the EU labor market, and to develop data-driven recommendations for improving their conditions, the CIVITTA agency, in partnership with BEROC, conducted an online survey in the summer of 2024. This brief is based on the survey results. The survey includes responses from 616 Ukrainian nationals who migrated to Poland or Lithuania after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, as well as 173 Belarusian migrants who left their home country after 2020. The research focuses on individuals aged 28 to 42, providing insights into their experiences and challenges in the labor market in their host countries. While we acknowledge the sample’s limitations in terms of representativeness, we believe the findings provide valuable insights into the specific challenges faced by involuntary migrants and their adaptation strategies in the new labor market.
Key differences characterize these migration waves. Ukrainian migration comprises of more women, while Belarusian migrants show a more balanced gender distribution, with 47 percent women in our sample versus 62 percent for Ukrainians. Family separation is also notable, as 91 percent of married Belarusians live with their spouses, compared to only 75 percent of Ukrainians (due to the mobilization law).
Survey respondents from both groups possess high levels of human capital with 60 percent of Ukrainians and 90 percent of Belarusians holding higher education degrees. Among Belarusians, 94 percent had over five years of work experience before migration, with and 79 percent of Ukrainians stating the same.
Ukrainian return intentions are split: 38 percent plan to return, 19 percent will not, and the rest are undecided. An end to the war and changes in Russian foreign policy would increase return rates to 70 percent. For Belarusians, 35 percent plan to return, 38 percent will not, and the rest are undecided. Education level is key, as less-educated Belarusians are more likely to stay abroad. An end to repression would increase the share of those Belarusians who want to return to 70 percent, and a regime change would increase this percentage to 82 percent.
Factors Conditioning Human Capital Loss
As expected, due to the involuntary nature of migration of the two groups in focus, a large fraction of survey participants reported losing their profession after migration. As Figure one shows, 48 percent of Belarusians and 63 percent of Ukrainians in our sample reported full loss of their prior careers. The lower percentage of Ukrainians fully retaining their careers (23 percent) compared to Belarusians (44 percent) could be attributed to several factors, including the more recent and disruptive nature of the Russo-Ukrainian war leading to more significant displacement and challenges in finding comparable work. The higher percentage of Ukrainians starting their careers from scratch (49 percent compared to 29 percent among Belarusians) also supports this idea.
Figure 1. Preservation of careers in the EU
Source: Authors’ computations based on survey data.
To foster an evidence-based discussions on the smooth integration of migrants into the EU labor market and the prevention of human capital loss, it is crucial to examine the individual factors that influence career continuity for Belarusian and Ukrainian migrants. We therefore utilize a logistic regression model to identify key predictors that increase the likelihood of migrants remaining in their profession after relocating to Poland and Lithuania.
In our quantitative analysis, an outcome binary variable for staying in the profession is equal to 1 if an individual either “continued career started in a home country (in the same position)” or “remained in the same profession but started working in a position lower than the one held before emigration.” As predictors, we consider a set of sociodemographic variables reasonably related to the probability of staying in the profession and dummy variables for the most common spheres of employment (see Table 1).
Table 1. Overview of model variables
Who Maintains Their Career After Emigration?
Based on the regression coefficients in Table 2, we can identify characteristics related to losing career-specific human capital. In our regression, we control for both home and host country factors. One noteworthy finding is that, while Ukrainian migrants in our sample report significantly higher rates of career loss than Belarusian migrants, nationality itself does not emerge as a significant predictor of career loss once other characteristics are accounted for.
Our results also show that the probability of staying in a profession is higher among men, those with more extended work experience and higher income before emigration, and those who were invited to a host country by an employer. The same holds for entrepreneurs, those who do not plan to return, and those employed in the fields of Architecture & Engineering and Information and Communication Technologies.
Table 2. Results of regression analysis
Note: *** Significant at the .001 level. ** Significant at the .01 level. * Significant at the .05 level.
Conclusion
Several conclusions and policy advice can be derived from the survey results.
The higher likelihood of entrepreneurs staying in their profession suggests that supporting migrant entrepreneurship can be a valuable strategy to retain human capital. This can be done, for example, by:
- Providing access to resources, mentorship, and funding for migrant entrepreneurs.
- Streamlining the procedures for migrants to start and operate businesses.
- Facilitating access to capital for migrant-owned businesses.
The research highlights the disproportionate impact of human capital loss on women. Therefore, policies should include gender-specific programs that address women’s unique challenges in integrating into new labor markets. This could include:
- Skills retraining and certification programs: Designed to align women’s existing skills with the demands of the host country’s labor market, with consideration for childcare needs and other barriers women may face.
- Connecting women migrants with established professionals in their fields to facilitate knowledge transfer and career guidance.
- Language training programs: Tailored to the specific needs of women, potentially incorporating childcare support to enable participation.
The study highlights the positive role of international companies in supporting employee relocation. Respondents who were invited by an employer demonstrated the most successful integration into the new labor market. To enhance and strengthen these networks, policies may focus on:
- Encouraging corporations to hire and train migrant workers, potentially through tax breaks or other incentives. This could include partnerships with migrant-serving organizations to connect companies with qualified candidates.
- Developing digital platforms that connect migrants with diaspora networks, potential employers, and relevant resources.
In addition, policies should address the non-recognition of foreign qualifications, simplifying and expediting the procedures for recognizing foreign degrees and professional certifications. Initiatives to create targeted training programs could complement such policies and allow migrants to quickly acquire any missing skills or certifications required by the host country’s professional bodies. These policy measures would enhance the utilization of migrants’ human capital, benefiting both migrants and host countries while also supporting sending countries. This could be achieved by fostering a successful diaspora or facilitating productive reintegration in the case of return migration.
References
- Barrett, A., & Goggin, J. (2010). Returning to the question of a wage premium for returning migrants. National Institute Economic Review, 213, R43–R51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027950110389752
- Barrett, A., & O’Connell, P. J. (2001). Does training generally work? The returns to in-company training. ILR Review, 54(3), 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390105400403
- Bernstein, S., Diamond, R., McQuade, T. J., & Pousada, B. (2022). The contribution of high-skilled immigrants to innovation in the United States (No. w30797). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30797
- Boubtane, E. (2019). The economic effects of immigration for host countries. L’Economie politique, 84(4), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.3917/leco.084.0072
- Boubtane, E., Dumont, J.-C., & Rault, C. (2016). Immigration and economic growth in the OECD countries 1986–2006. Oxford Economic Papers, 68(2), 340–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpv024
- Bowman, M. J., & Myers, R. G. (1967). Schooling, experience, and gains and losses in human capital through migration. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(319), 875–898. https://doi.org/10.2307/2283723
- Co, C. Y., Gang, I. N., & Yun, M.-S. (2000). Returns to returning. Journal of Population Economics, 13, 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001480050121
- Duleep, H. O., & Regets, M. C. (1999). Immigrants and human-capital investment. American Economic Review, 89(2), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.2.186
- Engler, P., Giesing, Y., & Kraehnert, K. (2023). The macroeconomic effects of large immigration waves. IAB-Discussion Paper. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-239271
- Iara, A. (2006). Skill diffusion in temporary migration? Returns to Western European working experience in the EU accession countries (Development Studies Working Paper No. 210). Centro Studi Luca d’Agliano. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921492
- Reinhold, S., & Thom, K. (2009). Temporary migration and skill upgrading: Evidence from Mexican migrants. University of Mannheim, unpublished manuscript.
- UNHCR. (n.d.). Operational Data Portal. https://data.unhcr.org/
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.
Exposure to Violence and Prosocial Attitudes
This policy brief examines the academic literature on the impact of conflict exposure on pro-social behavior, a crucial component of resilience and societal cohesion. It also explores potential implications for public opinion, particularly in relation to Ukraine’s prospective EU accession and foreign relations.
Introduction
Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on February 24, 2022, Russian forces have launched daily attacks with varying intensity. Living in a conflict zone profoundly affects individuals in multiple dimensions, including physical and mental health, as well as economic and social conditions. While reports often focus on the destruction of physical and human capital, social capital is equally affected by violence, influencing community resilience, cohesion, and cooperation. In conflict settings, identity can become more pronounced, particularly in distinguishing allies from adversaries.
This policy brief overviews the academic literature on this topic; the impact of conflict exposure on pro-social behavior broadly defined. This literature primarily examines post-conflict settings within the broader discourse on sustaining peace. It focuses on individuals directly engaged in combat or civilians directly affected by violence, particularly regarding the reintegration of former combatants and the rehabilitation of affected populations. As discussed below, results vary, depending on indicators used and the specific context. There is more consistent support for an impact on cooperation than on trust for instance. Another key finding in the literature is the differential behavior towards in-group members – those with whom individuals identify – versus out-group members, raising important questions about national identity and attitudes towards foreign allies. Based on this literature, the brief proceeds to discuss potential implications for public attitudes in Ukraine, focusing on Ukraine’s prospective EU accession.
Literature Overview
This review focuses on the empirical literature, though the theoretical basis spans psychology and the social sciences. Post-traumatic growth theory posits that adversity can foster positive change, whereas post-traumatic withdrawal theory suggests that violence exposure leads to distrust and social withdrawal. Economic arguments emphasize the need for rebuilding, enhanced safety concerns, or reduced time constraints for civic participation due to economic disruptions. Other perspectives highlight the detrimental effects of fragmented communities, given that trust and cooperation take time to develop, or suggest that individuals directly involved in violence may face social ostracization (see Fiedler 2023 for a detailed discussion).
Empirical studies on pro-social behavior employ diverse methodologies and data, including survey responses, indicators of political engagement, and controlled experiments measuring cooperation and trust. Methodology and research design vary, but most studies compare those with direct exposure to violence (treatment group) to those indirectly exposed (control group) within a post-conflict context. It is thus important to note that even the control group experiences some degree of conflict-related impact, meaning that studies specifically capture the effects of direct exposure.
Fiedler (2023), in a recent overview, categorizes the impact of violence into three main domains: personalized and political trust, cooperation, and political engagement. Most studies suggest a negative effect on trust, as seen in Kosovo (Kijewski & Freitag, 2018) and across Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia post-World War II (Grosjean, 2014). Bauer et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of 16 early studies measuring the effects of war violence on social participation, cooperation, and trust. When it came to trust, no significant impact of exposure to violence was found. Cassar et al. (2013) found that Tajik civil war survivors exhibited lower trust in close neighbors but not distant villagers, suggesting that intra-community political divisions played a role. However, a small number of studies report positive effects, such as Hall & Werner (2022), who found that victimized Syrian and Iraqi refugees in Turkey exhibited higher generalized trust.
In terms of cooperation, early studies overwhelmingly support a positive effect, including the meta-analysis of Bauer et al. (2016). For example, Bauer et al. (2014) held experimental games in Sierra Leone and Georgia, demonstrating that those directly exposed to violence exhibited greater altruism and inequality aversion. More recent work has come to different conclusions, however. Hager et al. (2019) found that Uzbek victims of violence in Kyrgyzstan were less cooperative in experimental games with both in-group and out-group members. Similarly, Cecchi & Duchoslav (2018) found that violence-exposed caregivers in Uganda contributed less in public goods games.
When it comes to political engagement, most studies find a positive effect, including the meta-analysis by Bauer et al. (2016) looking at participation in social groups and political engagement. Early and influential studies by Bellows & Miguel (2006, 2009), found that individuals in Sierra Leone with direct war exposure were more likely to participate in community meetings, elections, and social or political groups. Interestingly, while Kijewski & Freitag (2018) found that violence reduced trust in Kosovo, Freitag et al. (2019) found increased political participation in the same setting. Grosjean (2014) also reported a negative effect on trust but found that conflict victims were more likely to engage in civic organizations and collective action. These findings suggest that broad measures of prosocial behavior may be overly simplistic.
A common, and important, finding in much of the literature is with regards to differential behavior towards in-groups and out-groups. Bauer et al. (2014) found that exposure to violence increased altruism and inequality aversion only when interactions occurred within the in-group. Similar findings emerge in studies on soccer players in Sierra Leone (Cecchi et al., 2016) and trust experiments in Colombia (Francesco et al., 2023). Calvo et al. (2019) found that in conflict-affected areas of Mali, participation increased in kinship-based groups while it decreased in more inclusive organizations. Similarly, Mironova & Whitt (2016) found that Kosovars exhibited greater altruism and cooperation when interacting with in-group members. These findings align with research on parochial altruism in general, where cooperation and altruistic behavior are evolutionarily linked to in-group solidarity in response to external threats (e.g. Bernhard et al., 2006, Tajfel et al., 1979). There is thus a risk that social identity becomes more based on a narrow in-group (defined by ethnicity, religion, or language) potentially exacerbating societal divisions.
Implications for Ukraine
What do these insights imply for Ukraine? Given the context-dependent nature of the literature, definitive conclusions are challenging. Two studies on conflict exposure in eastern Ukraine offer preliminary insights. Mironova & Whitt (2021) examined fairness preferences among young Ukrainian men in Donbas, finding that, while no bias against ethnic Russians existed at the onset of violence in 2014, such bias increased after a year of conflict – particularly among non-combatants, contradicting typical patterns in the literature. Coupe & Obrizan (2016) used survey data from November 2014, showing that direct exposure to violence affected political behavior: physical damage reduced voter turnout, while property damage increased support for Western-leaning parties and stronger opposition to Russian aggression.
The strong effect on non-combatants in Mironova & Whitt (2021) highlights a key limitation in the literature – findings on direct exposure may not generalize to entire populations under invasion. Comparing directly and indirectly exposed individuals does not capture the broader societal impact, potentially leading to an overly optimistic view of conflict-induced prosocial behavior. If everyone is negatively affected, those with direct exposure to violence may simply be impacted a little less.
Of particular interest is how the war shapes national identity, in-group perceptions, and political preferences. These dynamics matter for domestic cohesion, interethnic relations, and Ukraine’s foreign policy trajectory. Focusing on the latter, the EU and the U.S. have provided substantial support during the full-scale invasion but delays and insufficiencies in aid may influence perceptions of these allies. EU accession presents economic benefits but entails lengthy and costly reforms with uncertain outcomes. Additionally, shifting U.S. policies and emerging geopolitical alignments may alter Ukrainian attitudes toward Western institutions.
Terror management theory (Landau et al., 2004) suggests that fear strengthens support for charismatic leadership, which, in fragile democratic settings, may favor more authoritarian tendencies. If Western democratic institutions lose appeal, this could negatively impact Ukraine’s political engagement, trust in allies, and willingness to align with European values, which are crucial for successful EU integration.
Conclusions
This review examined the literature on exposure to violence and prosocial behavior, discussing implications for Ukraine’s societal resilience and international alignment. The findings suggest no universal relationship between conflict exposure and prosociality; instead, effects vary depending on the recipient of trust, cooperation, and engagement. Generally, prosocial behavior increases within in-groups, while attitudes toward out-groups may remain unchanged or worsen. In the Ukrainian context, this has ramifications for internal cohesion and external diplomatic relations, particularly regarding the country’s path toward EU membership.
References
- Bauer, M., Blattman, C., Chytilová, J., Henrich, J., Miguel, E., & Mitts, T. (2016). Can War Foster Cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 249–274.
- Bauer, M., Cassar, A., Chytilová, J., & Henrich, J. (2014). War’s Enduring Effects on the Development of Egalitarian Motivations and In-Group Biases. Psychological Science, 25(1), 47–57.
- Bellows, J., & Miguel, E. (2006). War and Institutions: New Evidence from Sierra Leone. American Economic Review, 96(2), 394–99.
- Bellows, J., & Miguel, E. (2009). War and Local Collective Action in Sierra Leone. Journal of Public Economics, 93(11–12), 1144–57.
- Bernhard, H., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). Group Affiliation and Altruistic Norm Enforcement. American Economic Review, 96(2), 217–221.
- Calvo, T., Lavallée, E., Razafindrakoto, M., & Roubaud, F. (2019). Fear Not for Man? Armed Conflict and Social Capital in Mali. Journal of Comparative Economics, 48(2), 251–76.
- Cassar, A., Grosjean, P. A., Khan, F. J., & Lambert, M. (2022). Mothers, Fathers and Others: Competition and Cooperation in the Aftermath of Conflict. UNSW Business School Research Paper.
- Cecchi, F., Duchoslav, J. (2018). The Effect of Prenatal Stress on Cooperation: Evidence from Violent Conflict in Uganda. European Economic Review, 101, 35–56.
- Cecchi, F., Leuveld, K., & Voors, M. (2016). Conflict Exposure and Competitiveness: Experimental Evidence from the Football Field in Sierra Leone. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 64(3), 405-435.
- Coupé, T., & Obrizan, M. (2016). Violence and political outcomes in Ukraine—Evidence from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(1), 201-212.
- Fiedler, C. (2023). What Do We Know about How Armed Conflict Affects Social Cohesion? A Review of the Empirical Literature. International Studies Review.
- Francesco, B., Gómez, C., & Grimalda, G. (2023). Crime-related exposure to violence and prosocial behavior: Experimental evidence from Colombia. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 104.
- Freitag, M., Kijewski, S., & Oppold, M. (2019). War Experiences, Economic Grievances, and Political Participation in Postwar Societies: an Empirical Analysis of Kosovo. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(4), 405–24.
- Grosjean, P. (2014). Conflict and Social and Political Preferences: Evidence from World War II and Civil Conflict in 35 European Countries. Comparative Economic Studies, 56(3), 424–51.
- Hager, A., Krakowski, K., & Schaub, M. A. X. (2019). Ethnic Riots and Prosocial Behavior: Evidence from Kyrgyzstan. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 1029–44.
- Hall, J., & Werner, K. (2022). Trauma and Trust: How War Exposure Shapes Social and Institutional Trust among Refugees. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 786838.
- Kijewski, S., & Freitag, M. (2018). Civil War and the Formation of Social Trust in Kosovo: Post-traumatic Growth or War-Related Distress? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(4), 717–42.
- Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., Miller, C. H., Ogilvie, D. M., & Cook, A. (2004). Deliver us from Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1136–1150.
- Mironova, V., & Whitt, S. (2016). Social Norms after Conflict Exposure and Victimization by Violence: Experimental Evidence from Kosovo. British Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 749–65.
- Mironova, V., & Whitt, S. (2021). Conflict and parochialism among combatants and civilians: Evidence from Ukraine. Journal of Economic Psychology, 86.
- Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56-65.
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.