RESULTS OF PREVIOUS POLICIES ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROMOTION IN UKRAINE IN LIGHT OF POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION CHALLENGES

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze the evolution of investment promotion policies in Ukraine and to identify the results and lessons of previous state approaches in the context of the country’s future post-war recovery. The research methodology combines a historical-institutional analysis of legal frameworks and fiscal regimes introduced since the 1990s, as well as a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of various special legal regimes of economic activity. Special attention is paid to the legal, institutional, and strategic communication dimensions of foreign direct investment (FDI) policy. The results demonstrate that Ukraine’s early investment protection laws provided essential guarantees — such as safeguards against expropriation, repatriation of profits, and legal stability — but lacked strategic coherence and did not evolve into an integrated policy framework. The first generation of special regimes — free economic zones (FEZs) and territories of priority development (TPRs) — suffered from conceptual ambiguity, legal fragmentation, inconsistent incentives, and weak accountability. While they were designed to stimulate structural transformation at the regional level, their actual implementation was undermined by the absence of clear national strategies, regulatory instability, and corruption risks. The study highlights the relative advantages of more recent initiatives, such as industrial parks and the national-level framework introduced by the Law on Projects with Significant Investments (2020). These newer instruments prioritize infrastructural support and procedural transparency, rather than blanket fiscal benefits. They also introduce stricter eligibility criteria and contractual guarantees of legislative stability for up to 15 years. In light of Ukraine’s upcoming post-war reconstruction, the study emphasizes the need to focus future investment policy not on expanding fiscal incentives, but on ensuring legal stability, institutional reliability, and trust-based strategic communication. Practical implications. The findings provide guidance for a renewed FDI policy that avoids the inefficiencies of the past and contributes to a more resilient, transparent, and investor-oriented economic recovery. The proposed directions can inform both national strategies and local implementation frameworks. Originality. The article offers a structured synthesis of institutional lessons from past investment regimes in Ukraine and proposes key vectors of reform aimed at building long-term investor confidence in the post-war period through coherent, predictable, and credible governance mechanisms.