Tag: Economic Policy

The Polish Presidential Elections 2025: Can the Democratic Coalition Complete Their 2023 Victory?

Posted on May 26, 2025 | Policy Brief

Presidential Palace, Warsaw, Poland - representing the Polish Presidential Elections 2025.

It is safe to say that the outcome of the second round of the Polish presidential elections, scheduled for June 1, 2025, will determine the potential for significant structural reforms in the country in the coming years. The two candidates are: Karol Nawrocki, officially declared as a ‘civic candidate’ (though for all practical purposes associated with the previous government’s Law and Justice party, Prawo i Sprawiedliwość – PiS), and Rafał Trzaskowski representing the main coalition party in the current government, the Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska), which came to power after the parliamentary elections in October 2023. In the first round of the 2025 presidential election, which took place on May 18, 2025, Rafał Trzaskowski came first with 31.4 percent of the votes and Karol Nawrocki second with 29.5 percent. This policy brief explores the mechanisms through which the Polish President can influence current policy, using past economic initiatives as illustrative examples. It also examines the results of the first round of the election in greater depth and highlights key areas where reforms would likely face significant obstacles, were Karol Nawrocki to win the decisive second round.

What Can the Polish President Do?

Although elected in a popular vote, the Polish President’s power in terms of influence on policies is highly limited. The President acts as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland and is officially responsible for representing Poland on the international arena. However, most of the executive power in Poland lies with the government, which in turn requires the support of the Parliament.

That said, the past ten years of Polish politics—the years under the outgoing President Andrzej Duda—have shown that a government with only a narrow parliamentary majority can be highly dependent on the President. Its effectiveness may be either enhanced by a cooperative President or significantly constrained through the use of the presidential veto on legislative initiatives.

Andrzej Duda, who was picked as a surprise candidate to represent the Law and Justice party—in a similar manner to Karol Nawrocki today— won the elections in 2015. He facilitated a series of destructive reforms in the areas of the judiciary, education, and the labor market in the years Law and Justice party headed the government; later he blocked many of the current government’s efforts to reverse those policies.

The outcome of the vote on June 1, 2025, will therefore be crucial for the prospects of a clear return to democratic standards in Poland, and for the deeper structural reforms needed to place the Polish economy on a long-term development path. The winning candidate will also either facilitate coordinated efforts in international policy and joint European initiatives, or act to obstruct the current government’s actions in this area—including key policies related to support for Ukraine.

The President’s Influence on Economic Policy: Electoral Promises vs. Implementation

The limited executive power of the Polish President does not stop the candidates from coming forward with rich electoral programmes. These cover many areas outside of the President’s direct sphere of influence, including economic policies.

Using Andrzej Duda’s presidency as an example, it seems that while some of these are eventually implemented (although typically not without political frictions involving the Parliament) others tend to be more of electoral slogans than areas of real concern:

In 2015, Andrzej Duda campaigned on two major economic initiatives: lowering the retirement age and substantially increasing the main income tax allowance. In the first case, he came forward with a legislative proposal to the Parliament almost immediately after being elected, aimed at restoring the lower retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men. Although the government had campaigned on the same reform before taking office, the Parliament froze Duda’s initiative for a year in an effort to introduce less drastic changes to pension eligibility criteria. Eventually, political considerations and the weight of the 2015 electoral promises prevailed. As a result, Poland is the only EU country with as big as a five-year gap in the retirement age between men and women. The electoral tax reduction proposal was, however, quickly abandoned. As shown in a recent commentary (Myck et al. 2025a), Duda not only failed to deliver on this promise but, over his ten-year presidency, largely ignored tax policy altogether—both in terms of initiating legislation and engaging in public debate on fiscal matters.

Initiatives by earlier presidents also show that while Polish presidents are always dependent on the Parliament, they can exert some influence over economic policy. For example, Bronisław Komorowski (in office 2010-2015) put forward a legislative initiative to change tax regulations for families with children, which the government later took on board. While the government’s implemented regulations differed from Komorowski’s proposal, they were still in line with his objectives (Myck et al. 2013).

These examples clearly illustrate that the success of any initiative from the president’s office ultimately depends on the parliamentary majority the President is able to mobilize. Based on the electoral promises of this year’s top candidates, such a majority seems highly unlikely regarding one of the major electoral promises of Law and Justice’s candidate, Karol Nawrocki. Nawrocki has proposed a substantial income tax reduction for families with 2 or more children, designed in a way that would heavily benefit the richest families (Myck et al. 2025b). The reform is estimated to cost about 19bn PLN (0.5 percent of GDP) per year, with over 60 percent of the total amount benefiting families in the top income quintile. Such a measure is extremely unlikely to gain support not only from the current government, but also—given its distributional consequences—from within Nawrocki’s own political base. One way to interpret this is that much like the deep tax cuts proposed by Andrzej Duda in 2015, Nawrocki’s tax proposal bears the hallmarks of a simple and appealing campaign slogan that is likely to be forgotten, whether or not he wins the election.

The First Round Results and Final Vote Prospects

While Rafał Trzaskowski placed first in the initial round of voting on May 18, 2025, the difference between the top two candidates came down to only 1.8 percentage points. This suggests a very close race in the second round and intensive electoral campaigning in the days leading up to the election. How close the runoff will be depends on the split of votes among those who supported other candidates in the first round, as well as their participation levels in the second round.

In the first round the top seven candidates collected 96.1 percent of the votes in total. Two candidates representing the current coalition parties received 5.0 percent (Szymon Hołownia) and 4.2 percent (Magdalena Biejat) of the votes, respectively. Two other main right-wing candidates collected a combined 21.2 percent: Sławomir Mentzen (Konfederacja party) received 14.8 percent, and Grzegorz Braun (Wolność party) received 6.3 percent. Adrian Zandberg, representing the left-wing opposition (Razem party), received 4.9 percent.

If those who voted for the government coalition candidates fully shift their votes to Trzaskowski in the second round, he could count for about 40.6 percent of the vote – still far short of the necessary majority. To secure the win, he would need to collect some support from both the left and the right. However, it is unlikely that voters in either of these cases unilaterally shift support to one of the top candidates.

As shown in Figure 1 below the main candidates will have to make strong appeals to the youngest voters (aged 18-29), the majority of whom supported Mentzen (34.8 percent) and Zandberg (18.7 percent). Trzaskowski is more likely to attract support from women and better educated voters. Based on the results of the first round, Nawrocki, can count on voters with less than tertiary education and on slightly more votes from men. While Biejat and Hołownia have already publicly endorsed  Trzaskowski, the other candidates have so far refrained from making any declarations of support.

The public debate ahead of the second round is likely to focus on military and economic security, migration and support for Ukraine (including its refugee population in Poland). The final round of the 2025 presidential race in Poland is likely to be extremely close and highly polarising.

Figure 1. Poll results from the first round in the Polish Presidential Elections 2025, by demographics

Source: TVP info. Note: Late poll results by IPSOS, based on the results from 90 percent of the polling stations.

Completing the 2023 Parliamentary Victory

The democratic, pro-European coalition that won a parliamentary majority in October 2023 has so far only been partly successful in restoring the rule of law and a functioning system of checks and balances after their dismantling by the previous government. Other electoral promises from 2023—such as the liberalization of abortion rules, legislation on same-sex partnerships, and reform of the public media—remain to be implemented.  The government implemented some important changes in the public media and judiciary, but broader reforms were either vetoed by President Duda or postponed due to the likelihood of his opposition.

On a number of occasions Duda also used a procedure called ‘preventive control’. Under such procedure, legislation is sent to the Constitutional Tribunal before the President decides whether to sign it or not. Since the Constitutional Tribunal has been central to controversies over judicial reforms introduced by the previous government, such decisions are simply another form of delaying the implementation of new legislation. There is thus little doubt that Rafał Trzaskowski’s victory on June 1st, 2025, is essential for the current government. It would enable reforms crucial for the return of the rule of law, for bringing back the Polish legal system in line with decisions of the European Court of Justice, and for advancing other major reforms in public media, women’s and minority rights, and more. From this point of view Karol Nawrocki’s win on June 1st, 2025, is key for the parties of the previous government, to stop these fundamentally important reforms.

The current government is facing important challenges in many policy areas and effective  cooperation with the new President will be fundamental. Given the current level of government debt and high budget deficits, it will have to take significant steps to consolidate public finances. At the same time, it has committed to increasing spending on healthcare and education, while maintaining one of the highest levels of military spending among NATO countries.  The government must also handle the challenges of demographic ageing and migration flows – all in the context of the continuing Russian aggression in Ukraine, and the overall global uncertainly. Even with strong presidential support, tackling all these issues will be challenging.Facing them under an antagonistic Head of State—in the case of Nawrocki’s victory—would not only make the government’s task significantly harder, it with also have serious implications for medium-term political stability in Poland and potentially other European countries.

References

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.

Agricultural Subsidies: The Case of Georgia

Posted on March 17, 2025 | Policy Brief

Fresh apples, pears, and grapes at a local market benefiting from agricultural subsidies in Georgia.

This brief explores the role of government subsidy programs in Georgia’s agricultural sector, with a focus on grapes, apples, and hazelnuts. These subsidies play a significant role in providing social assistance to the sector and in supporting farmers; however, their long-term impact on industry growth remains a subject of discussion. Key challenges include ensuring product quality, enhancing productivity, and expanding market opportunities, particularly regarding export market concentration and infrastructure constraints.

Introduction

Governments have historically intervened in agricultural markets under the pretext of promoting food security. At first, interventions aimed to provide affordable food for rapidly growing urban populations, afterwards more emphasis was put on enhancing agricultural productivity. Nowadays, agriculture remains a priority for policymakers due to its role in promoting inclusive growth and reducing poverty. Additionally, renewed concerns about food security have further driven these policy efforts (Gautam, 2015).

One of the key instruments of these interventions are subsidies in different forms – such as various input subsidies, price supports, and trade interventions. While their use has been widespread, the economic effectiveness of subsidies continues to be heavily debated. Economic theory suggests that subsidies are useful in resolving market failures; however, even in this case, the actual effect of subsidies is highly dependent on the specific implementation. Further, in many other cases, subsidies have led to distortions and have been detrimental to countries’ own economic interests (Gautam, 2015).

Another important concern arises from the political economy of subsidies use. Widening rural-urban income disparities create political pressure to implement measures that support the livelihoods of the large agricultural population. Subsidies, due to their visibility, are a convenient instrument to increase political support from this population group. Further, subsidies offer immediate or near-immediate gains to recipients, whereas public capital investments take longer to deliver results, therefore subsidies are often used as a political instrument. Since political decision-making is typically driven by short-term considerations, often aligned with electoral cycles, long-term investments do not always align with political incentives (Gautam, 2015).

Box 1. Subsidies

Subsidies are financial assistance provided by governments to support or promote specific sectors, industries, or activities within the economy. They can take various forms, including direct cash payments, tax relief, low-interest loans, and in-kind support, such as the provision of goods and services at below-market prices. Subsidies play a significant role as a tool in government expenditure policy. They influence resource allocation decisions, income distribution, and expenditure efficiency (Schwartz & Clements, 1999).

In the case of Georgia, subsidies are the main instrument for support to the agricultural sector, with direct subsidies accounting on average 45 percent of total government expenditure in the sector (2014-2024). The government provides subsidies for most of the country’s main crops, including wheat, grapes, hazelnut, tangerines and apples.

Given the scope of this policy brief, only subsidies for major perennial crops – grapes, hazelnuts and apples – are discussed. This as as the wheat sector involves additional food security considerations and due to lack of data for tangerines. Among perennial crops grapes have the highest share of total production (46 percent, including both white and red grapes), followed by tangerines at 14 percent, apples at 10 percent, and hazelnuts at 8 percent (2023, Geostat).

This policy brief firstly explains the Georgian context in more detail, followed by sub-sections discussing each major perennial crop sector, ending with conclusions and policy recommendations.

The Georgian Context

Agriculture plays a crucial role in Georgia’s economy. As of 2024, 39 percent of the population resides in rural areas (Geostat, 2024), where agriculture serves as the primary source of income. The sector employs the largest share of the country’s workforce—17 percent (Geostat, 2023)—yet it contributes to only 7 percent of Georgia’s GDP (Geostat, 2023).  At the same time, the disparity in income, and other major socio-economic indicators between the rural (agricultural) and urban population is large. For example, in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, the average monthly nominal earnings are 78 percent higher than the average for the rest of Georgia. Additionally, Tbilisi accounts for 70 percent of the total value added generated in the country (Geostat, 2023).

In recent year, the country has undertaken significant efforts to modernize and improve the agricultural sector, yet significant challenges remain. Georgian agriculture is largely characterized by small, fragmented family farms focused on subsistence farming with restricted market access. They are highly vulnerable to weather conditions, yet there is little awareness of or adoption of insurance and risk mitigation measures (State Audit Office of Georgia, 2023). Traditional farming methods remain dominant, with limited use of modern technology. Additionally, most farmers operate on a small scale and lack cooperation and coordination, further hindering efficiency and competitiveness. As a result, they often struggle with low productivity and have difficulty producing high-quality products in stable quantities. Lastly, a high dependency on the Russian market for most agricultural products poses significant risks, as Russia is not a stable trade partner.

Given this context, agricultural subsidies are a highly important topic in Georgia. The Georgian government implements various subsidy programs to support agricultural sectors such as fruit production, viticulture, hazelnut farming, and wheat production. These initiatives aim to promote the sales of grapes, non-standard apples, and tangerines, enhance hazelnut production, and ensure food security by subsidizing essential staples like wheat, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Starting from 2014 to 2024 (Figure 1), the share of subsidies in total agricultural expenditure has followed an increasing trend, ranging from 21.4 percent in 2014 to peaking at 67.5 percent in 2021. In 2024 the respective share is 54.1 percent.  A decline occurred in 2022–2023, following the stabilization of the Covid-19 pandemic. Apart from this, the share of subsidies within agricultural expenditures has been increasing over the last ten years.

Figure 1. Total and subsidy expenditures on agriculture, million GEL (2014-2024)

Graph showing total expenditures and agricultural subsidies in Georgia from 2014 to 2024.

Source: Geostat, 2025.

While these programs are designed to assist farmers and increase sales, how these subsidies support in addressing the mentioned structural challenges – therefore advancing the effectiveness of the sector – is under question.

The Grape Subsidy Programs

The grape subsidy programs in Georgia are primarily aimed at supporting viticulture in key wine-producing regions, such as Kakheti, Racha-Lechkhumi, and Kvemo Svaneti. These subsidies were designed to stabilize farmers’ incomes and ensure smooth harvests, to guarantee that even lower-quality grapes will be sold, particularly for grape varieties used in wine production. In general, the government uses two types of subsidies: direct and indirect. Direct subsidies involve paying farmers a certain amount of money per kilogram of grapes. Indirect subsidies are implemented through state-owned companies that are responsible for purchasing grapes from farmers.

Georgia’s grape subsidy program (direct subsidies) was introduced in 2008 and has been implemented every year except for in 2018 and 2019. Starting from 2014, the government provided substantial direct financial support to grape producers. However, starting in 2017, direct subsidies began to decline sharply, and by 2018–2019, the government announced that it would no longer directly subsidize the grape harvest. However, during this period, the state’s grape purchasing program remained in place, purchasing any surplus grapes left on the market after private acquisitions.

The Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 prompted a renewed surge in subsidies, with financial support reaching its highest levels in years. This elevated support continued until 2022 but was significantly reduced again in 2023 (by 63 percent), following a decline in production (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Grape production, subsidies and wine exports (2014-2023)

Source: Geostat, 2025.

Grape production has generally followed an upward trend, with record harvests in 2019 and 2020. Given the absence of direct subsidies in 2017 and 2018, the effect of subsidies on production levels is questionable. In more recent years, production has become more volatile, displaying a noticeable decline by 2023.

Wine exports, a crucial part of Georgia’s economy, have grown steadily, with volumes peaking in 2022, and persisting at high levels ever since. Export revenues have also increased consistently, reaching an all-time high in 2024, according to preliminary data.

The main destination for the Georgian wine sector is CIS countries. Russia accounts for the largest share among the CIS, with an average of 75.4 percent, between 2014-2024. Russia’s share has been increasing in recent years, reaching 85.8 percent in 2024 (among CIS countries). The average share of exports to the EU of total exports is 10 percent (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Wine exports by country groups (2014-2024)

Source: Geostat, 2025.

Although subsidies played a key role in revitalizing Georgia’s wine industry following the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially as grape production and processing have increased over the years, their long-term impact have been problematic (Ghvanidze, Bitsch, Hanf, & Svanidze, 2020). Since subsidies were introduced in 2008, Georgia’s grape market has become heavily distorted, with prices shaped by government support rather than supply and demand dynamics.

Even though a significant portion of government funding for the sector is allocated to subsidies, the way in which subsidies affect grape production levels is not obvious. Other sector insufficiencies, such as quality issues and exporting market diversification are inadequately addressed. Grape quality remains a key issue, as farmers lack incentives to improve production practices, knowing that the government will purchase their yield regardless. Additionally, Georgia’s heavy reliance on its main export partner, Russia, poses significant risks, and the share of exports to EU countries has not seen substantial growth. Overall, since the subsidies aim to stabilize producers’ income rather than to address structural issues in the sector, they may be considered social support.

The Apple Subsidy Program

The apple subsidy program in Georgia was introduced in 2014 to support the sale of non-standard apples after market prices dropped to a record low 0.02 GEL. Non-standard apples are damaged fruits that fall from trees due to wind, hail, or other natural factors. Typically unfit for direct consumption, these lower-quality apples are primarily used by factories to produce apple concentrate. The program aimed to stabilize prices and provide financial relief to farmers. Processing companies received financial support for each kilogram of non-standard apples purchased.

The program was discontinued between 2015 and 2019, before it resumed in 2020. The number of companies involved in purchasing non-standard apples for further processing ranges from 12 to15 over the years.

As for apple production levels, although there were significant production surges in 2016, 2018, and 2020, these increases have been volatile and unstable.

Figure 4. Apple production, subsidies and exports (2014-2023)

Source: Geostat, 2025.

In terms of exports, the volume increased sharply between 2018 and 2019, reaching its peak in 2021 before gradually declining. Most apple exports are directed to CIS countries, with Russia accounting for an average of 94 percent between 2018 and 2024. In contrast, the EU’s share remains minimal, averaging less than 1 percent, with no exports recorded to the EU in half of the considered years.

Figure 5. Apple exports by country group (2014-2024)

Source: Geostat, 2025.

While apple production is highly vulnerable to weather conditions, the adoption of insurance remains low. The provided subsidy program supports farmers in producing lower-quality non-standard apples, thus limiting the incentives to enhance product quality, productivity, or production practices, as farmers rely on the government to purchase their produce regardless. Similar to the grape industry, government support in the apple market functions more as a social assistance rather than a tool for industry advancement.

The Hazelnut Subsidy Program

Georgia introduced the Hazelnut Production Support Program in 2022 to enhance competitiveness, assist farmers, and improve disease management. The program registered hazelnut orchards in a national cadaster, enabling better monitoring and targeted support, to subsidize the purchase of pesticides and agrochemicals essential for hazelnut care and cultivation. The program has continued in 2023 and 2024, with subsidies amounting 22 and 22.6 million GEL, respectively.

Hazelnut production in Georgia has been highly volatile in the past decade. The sector experienced its most severe crisis in 2017-2018 when fungal diseases and an Asian stink bug (Pharosana) invasion devastated yields. Consequently, both the quantity and quality of hazelnut production declined. In 2019, the production began to recover, peaking in 2021. However, unfavorable weather conditions resulted in a decline in 2022, with only a partial rebound in 2023.

Figure 6. Hazelnut production and exports (2014-2023)

Source: Geostat, 2025.

Hazelnut is mainly exported to EU countries, with an average share of 65.3 percent, between 2014 and 2024. The share of CIS countries in this period is 20.2 percent. However, the share exported to EU countries has been declining 2023 and 2024, to 52.4 and 56.7 percent, respectively.

Figure 7. Hazelnut exports by country group (2014-2024)

Source: Geostat, 2025.

The subsidy scheme in the hazelnut sector seems to be more targeted at the issues the sector is facing, compared to the other discussed programs. The effects are however yet to be explored as the program began in 2022. However, several challenges remain, such as insufficient technical facilities for drying and storing goods essential for ensuring the quality of products (Gelashvili, Deisadze & Seturidze, 2023).

Conclusion and Recommendations

Although the government of Georgia provides substantial support for the agricultural sector, it still suffers from various challenges. Product quality, high vulnerability to weather events and export dependency on unstable partners are major issues for the grape and apple sectors. Further, the effectiveness of the direct financial support and the corresponding incentives within these sectors can be questioned.

For these crops, the subsidy programs seem to function more as social assistance rather than tools for industry development. In the grape sector, guaranteed government purchases reduce incentives for farmers to improve grape quality. Similarly, the apple subsidy program encourages the cultivation of non-standard apples, as farmers rely on state-backed purchases rather than market-driven quality improvements. Apple production has also shown significant volatility over the years, further highlighting the sector’s instability.

Additionally, heavy dependence on Russia as a primary export market for these crops presents economic risks. Diversification, particularly to the EU, has remained limited.

As for the hazelnut sector, the subsidy program aims to address some of the structural challenges, while this sector also relies less on the Russian market. However, some issues with infrastructural equipment remain unresolved.

Overall, the share of subsidies in agriculture is very high; further, the design of the programs mainly prioritizes short-term income stability for farmers rather than long-term market competitiveness and sectoral development. To address the discussed systemic challenges, it is essential to develop targeted policies tailored to the specific needs of each sector. While the priorities may differ across each crop, several key areas require focused attention:

  • Quality of Products – Enhancing product quality through ensuring food safety standards, improved farming and manufacturing practices, and better regulatory frameworks can help increase competitiveness in both domestic and international markets.
  • Market Diversification – Strengthening ties with new international partners and improving branding strategies can help industries access new markets and reduce risks associated with economic or political fluctuations in dominant trade partners.
  • Infrastructure Development – Poor infrastructure remains a challenge for the sector. Investments in post-harvest drying and storage facilities, as well as modern machinery and equipment, will enhance efficiency, reduce losses, and improve product quality.
  • Adoption of innovative farming practices– Adopting innovative farming practices boosts productivity, lowers costs, and enhances sustainability. It helps farmers adapt to changing weather conditions, making agriculture more efficient, environmentally friendly, and resilient.

By addressing these fundamental issues, policies can play a role in contributing to the long-term stability and growth of the agricultural sector, ultimately strengthening the economy and increasing global competitiveness.

References

  • Gautam, M. (2015). Agricultural Subsidies: Resurging Interest in a Perennial Debate. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics.
  • Gelashvili, S., Deisadze, S., & Seturidze, E. (2022). An Overview of the Georgian Wine Sector.
  • Gelashvili, S., Deisadze, S., & Seturidze, E. (2023). Overview of the hazelnut sector in Georgia: past trends and the way forward. Tbilisi: ISET Policy Institute.
  • Ghvanidze, S., Bitsch, L., Hanf, J. H., & Svanidze, M. (2020). “The Cradle of Wine Civilization” – Current Developments in the Wine Industry of the Caucasus. Caucasus Analytical Digest, 117, 9-15.
  • Jayne, T., & Rashid, S. (2013). Input Subsidy Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Synthesis of Recent Evidence. Agricultural Economics, 44, 547-562.
  • Schwartz, G., & Clements, B. (1999). Government subsidies. Journal of Economic Surveys, 13(2), 119-148. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00079
  • State Audit Office of Georgia. (2023). Audit Report on the Development and Management of the State Agricultural Insurance Program.

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.

OECD DevTalks: The Transformation and Reconstruction of Ukraine

Posted on May, 2022 | Videos

20220520 Transformation and reconstruction of Ukraine Video Poster 01

The war in Ukraine, caused by Russia’s invasion, remains a profound humanitarian crisis with far-reaching economic and social consequences worldwide. In response, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has strongly condemned Russia’s actions. Moreover, it is now advancing a new strategy to strengthen Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction efforts.

The OECD’s work builds on a Memorandum of Understanding first signed with Ukraine in 2014 and renewed in 2021. Since then, the organisation has deepened its collaboration with Ukrainian partners to rebuild the nation’s economy and institutions. In addition, the OECD Development Centre plays a crucial role by providing policy expertise and data-driven analysis. It supports multiple sectors, including governance, innovation, and sustainable growth. As a result, these coordinated efforts aim to help Ukraine achieve long-term stability and resilience.

Webinar on Ukraine’s Economic and Social Transformation

On Tuesday, 17 May 2022, the OECD DevTalks series hosted a high-level webinar focusing on Ukraine’s economic and social transformation, both before and after the full-scale invasion. The event gathered leading economists, policymakers, and development experts to discuss:

  • The state of Ukraine’s economy prior to 2022
  • The impact of the war on social and economic structures
  • Priorities for reconstruction and recovery
  • The role of international support and cooperation

This discussion contributed to shaping a shared vision for Ukraine’s future, highlighting the resilience of its people and institutions amid ongoing challenges.

Distinguished Speakers

  • Mathias Cormann, Secretary-General, OECD
  • Vadym Omelchenko, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Ukraine to France
  • Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Quantedge Presidential Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
  • Nataliia Shapoval, Head of KSE Institute & Vice President for Policy Research, Kyiv School of Economics
  • Tymofii Brik, Acting Wartime Vice-President of International Affairs & Head of Sociological Research, Kyiv School of Economics
  • Torbjörn Becker, Director, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE), Stockholm School of Economics
  • William Tompson, Head of Eurasia, Global Relations and Co-operation, OECD
  • Ragnheidur Elín Árnadóttir, Director, OECD Development Centre

About OECD DevTalks

OECD DevTalks is a continuing series of expert panel discussions and blogs organized by the OECD Development Centre. Each session brings together global thought leaders to exchange ideas on sustainable development, inclusive growth, and policy innovation.  For more #DevTalks – a series of online panel discussions, along with Development Matters blogs, follow the OECD #DevTalk page.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed during events and conferences are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.