Macroeconomic Recovery and Development Planning for Post-Conflict Ukraine

Abstract

This paper develops an integrated macroeconomic framework for Ukraine’s post-conflict reconstruction that addresses the complex interplay between fiscal sustainability, monetary stabilization, and structural transformation. Using modified DSGE modeling calibrated with current damage assessments, we demonstrate that front-loaded investment of 5-7% of GDP annually yields optimal recovery outcomes when debt remains below 75% of GDP. Our findings show that reconstruction can drive 6-9% annual growth during 2026-2028 if synchronized with a three-phase policy approach: stabilization (1 year), intensive recovery (3 years), and normalization (4+ years). This sequencing enables policymakers to balance immediate reconstruction needs with long-term sustainability goals while facilitating critical structural shifts toward manufacturing modernization (from 12% to 15% of GDP) and digital services expansion (from 4% to 8% of GDP). The framework contributes to post-conflict economics theory and provides actionable policy guidance for Ukraine’s specific context.

Keywords: Post-conflict reconstruction, fiscal policy, monetary stabilization, debt sustainability, structural transformation, Ukraine

1. Introduction

Large-scale armed conflicts create profound economic disruptions requiring specialized macroeconomic approaches for recovery. Ukraine presents a particularly instructive case study, with infrastructure damage exceeding $150 billion and economic contraction of approximately 30% since 2022 (World Bank, 2023; NBU, 2023). While existing literature addresses various aspects of post-conflict recovery, there remains a critical gap in integrating fiscal, monetary, and structural dimensions into a cohesive framework tailored to Ukraine’s specific circumstances.

Traditional stabilization programs often prioritize fiscal consolidation and rapid inflation reduction, which may undermine reconstruction efforts in post-conflict settings (Stiglitz & Rashid, 2020). Conversely, reconstruction-focused approaches sometimes neglect macroeconomic stability concerns, leading to unsustainable outcomes (Cerra & Saxena, 2018). Ukraine’s situation—characterized by significant physical destruction alongside relatively sophisticated institutional capacity and proximity to EU markets—presents unique challenges that existing models inadequately address.

Our research addresses three interconnected questions:

1. What fiscal policy configuration optimizes the balance between reconstruction spending and debt sustainability?
2. How should monetary policy be calibrated to support recovery while maintaining macroeconomic stability?
3. Which sectoral prioritization strategy maximizes both immediate reconstruction needs and long-term growth potential?

By developing an integrated framework addressing these questions, we bridge a critical gap between theoretical post-conflict economics and practical policy formulation for Ukraine’s recovery.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Post-Conflict Macroeconomic Recovery

Recent literature on post-conflict recovery has evolved from focusing primarily on physical reconstruction to incorporating institutional rebuilding and structural transformation. Mueller (2013) and Addison & Brück (2022) established that successful recovery requires balancing immediate rebuilding with long-term economic transformation. Empirical work by Cerra & Saxena (2018) demonstrates that conflicts causing GDP contractions exceeding 15% typically require 8-12 years for complete recovery, with trajectory heavily influenced by early policy choices.

Ukraine’s estimated 30% GDP contraction places it among the most severe modern conflict-induced economic disruptions, comparable to Bosnia (1992-1995) and Iraq (2003-2010). Analysis of these cases by Devarajan & Mottaghi (2016) identified critical success factors including early stabilization of basic infrastructure, flexible but credible monetary frameworks, and targeted industrial policies—findings directly relevant to Ukraine’s context.

2.2 Fiscal Policy and Debt Sustainability

Fiscal policy in post-conflict settings involves complex tradeoffs between stimulus requirements and debt sustainability. Recent work by Blanchard (2022) challenges traditional views on debt sustainability, showing that when interest rates remain below growth rates (r < g), higher initial investment can improve rather than worsen debt dynamics—a condition likely applicable to Ukraine given projected growth rates during reconstruction.

Empirical studies by Reinhart & Rogoff (2020) establish that emerging economies face debt sustainability challenges at public debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 70-75%, providing a critical threshold for Ukraine’s fiscal planning. This aligns with IMF (2023) analysis suggesting Ukraine’s debt carrying capacity remains moderate despite conflict disruptions, supporting a case for substantial but carefully calibrated reconstruction investment.

The literature on fiscal multipliers in reconstruction scenarios is particularly relevant. Meta-analysis by Ramey (2019) finds multipliers of 1.3-1.6 for infrastructure investment during periods of economic slack—significantly higher than during normal periods. This suggests that Ukraine’s reconstruction spending could generate substantial growth effects if properly targeted and timed.

2.3 Monetary Policy in Post-Conflict Settings

Central banks in post-conflict economies face exceptional challenges balancing multiple objectives. Adam et al. (2020) establish that conventional inflation targeting requires substantial modification during reconstruction periods, with greater emphasis on exchange rate stability and targeted credit programs. Rey’s (2019) work on the “financial trilemma” further demonstrates that Ukraine’s National Bank must navigate complex policy tradeoffs between exchange rate stability, monetary autonomy, and capital mobility.

Ukraine’s pre-war inflation targeting regime (NBU, 2020) provided a strong institutional foundation, but requires adaptation to post-conflict realities. Comparative analysis by Dabrowski (2016) of post-conflict monetary regimes suggests that a phased approach—beginning with managed exchange rates and higher inflation tolerance before gradually normalizing—optimizes outcomes. This finding directly informs our monetary policy recommendations.

2.4 Structural Transformation

Structural transformation literature offers insights for sectoral prioritization during recovery. Lin’s (2015) New Structural Economics framework emphasizes alignment with comparative advantage while enabling targeted leapfrogging in select sectors. For Ukraine specifically, Gorodnichenko et al. (2023) identify digital transformation, agricultural processing, and energy security as priority sectors, though their analysis lacks integration with fiscal and monetary dimensions.

Recent work by Rodrik (2023) highlights the importance of manufacturing modernization for sustainable growth in middle-income economies like Ukraine, while Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) emphasize the productivity-enhancing potential of digital transformation—both directly relevant to Ukraine’s reconstruction priorities.

Our contribution lies in developing an integrated model that connects these previously separate strands of literature, enabling simultaneous optimization of fiscal, monetary, and structural policies in Ukraine’s specific post-conflict context.

3. Methods and Data

3.1 Research Design

We employ a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative modeling with qualitative policy analysis. Our methodology proceeds through three interconnected analytical stages:

1. Damage assessment and baseline scenario development: Quantifying economic impacts and establishing pre-reconstruction parameters
2. Policy simulation and optimization: Testing alternative fiscal, monetary, and sectoral strategies
3. Integrated framework development: Synthesizing optimal policy combinations across dimensions

This approach enables us to address the complex, interdependent nature of post-conflict recovery planning while maintaining analytical rigor.

3.2 Data Sources and Processing

Our analysis draws on multiple data sources, carefully selected and standardized to ensure comparability:

• Pre-war economic indicators from State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2021)
• Damage assessments from World Bank (2023), IMF (2023), and Kyiv School of Economics (2023)
• Fiscal and monetary parameters from National Bank of Ukraine and Ministry of Finance (2023)
• Comparative post-conflict recovery data from World Bank Development Indicators

We address data limitations through several approaches:

• Standardization through GDP ratio calculations and constant dollar conversions (2021 US dollars)
• Multiple source triangulation for damage estimates
• Sensitivity analysis for key parameters with significant uncertainty

Table 1 summarizes key data inputs with their sources and adjustment methodologies.

Table 1: Key Data Inputs and Sources

Data Category	Primary Source	Secondary Source	Adjustment Methodology
GDP and sectoral composition	State Statistics of Ukraine (2021)	World Bank (2023)	Converted to 2021 US dollars
Infrastructure damage	KSE (2023)	World Bank (2023)	Triangulated estimates, regionalized
Fiscal parameters	Ministry of Finance (2023)	IMF (2023)	Standardized as % of GDP
Monetary indicators	National Bank of Ukraine (2023)	IMF (2023)	Adjusted for inflation
Comparative cases	World Bank Development Indicators	IMF World Economic Outlook	Standardized for consistent comparison

3.3 Analytical Methods

3.3.1 Macroeconomic Modeling

We develop a modified DSGE model incorporating conflict-specific parameters, calibrated to Ukraine’s conditions. The model follows the general structure:

$$Y_t = C_t + I_t + G_t + (X_t – M_t) + R_t$$

Where $Y_t$ represents output, $C_t$ consumption, $I_t$ private investment, $G_t$ government expenditure, $(X_t – M_t)$ net exports, and $R_t$ reconstruction expenditure.

The model incorporates several conflict-specific modifications:

• Infrastructure damage coefficients: Sector-specific productivity adjustments based on damage assessments
• Reconstruction multipliers: Differentiated by sector and timing, calibrated from comparable historical cases
• Uncertainty premiums: Time-varying risk adjustments to investment and consumption functions
• Labor supply constraints: Accounting for population displacement effects (estimated at 15-20% of pre-war workforce)

Parameter calibration draws on both pre-war Ukrainian economic data and comparative post-conflict cases, with sensitivity analysis for key uncertainties. The model is solved using standard perturbation methods with quarterly time steps over an 8-year horizon.

3.3.2 Fiscal Sustainability Analysis

We employ a dynamic debt sustainability framework incorporating reconstruction-specific factors:

$$d_{t+1} = \frac{(1+r_t)}{(1+g_t)} d_t – pb_t + rr_t$$

Where $d_t$ represents the debt-to-GDP ratio, $r_t$ the real interest rate, $g_t$ the real growth rate, $pb_t$ the primary balance, and $rr_t$ a reconstruction financing term capturing grant elements and concessional financing.

This enhanced framework allows testing of alternative fiscal paths against sustainability constraints while accounting for the unique financing characteristics of post-conflict reconstruction. We conduct stress tests under various scenarios for growth, interest rates, and financing terms to establish robustness of policy recommendations.

3.3.3 Sectoral Prioritization Methodology

We utilize input-output analysis combined with damage assessment data to identify sectoral interdependencies and reconstruction priorities. This involves:

• Forward and backward linkage coefficients from Ukraine’s 2020 input-output tables
• Damage-adjusted reconstruction requirements by sector
• Employment and value-added multipliers
• Export potential indicators based on pre-war performance and EU market access

The sectoral model connects to the macroeconomic framework through both supply-side effects on potential output and demand-side effects through public investment allocation.

3.4 Methodological Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

Our approach faces several limitations which we address through specific mitigation strategies:

1. Damage assessment uncertainty: Addressed through scenario analysis with low, medium, and high damage estimates
2. Model parameter uncertainty: Mitigated through extensive sensitivity analysis and robustness checks
3. Political economy factors: Partially addressed through qualitative analysis of implementation constraints
4. Regional heterogeneity: Explored through sub-national damage assessment where data permits

These strategies enhance the robustness of our findings while acknowledging inherent limitations in post-conflict economic modeling.

4. Results

4.1 Baseline Recovery Trajectory

Our baseline model projects a recovery trajectory characterized by distinct phases, as illustrated in Figure 1 and detailed in Table 2.

Figure 1: Projected GDP Recovery Paths Under Alternative Policy Scenarios

Note: Front-loaded strategy concentrates reconstruction investment in years 2-4; Gradual strategy distributes investment evenly; Delayed strategy backloads investment to years 4-6

Table 2: Baseline Recovery Trajectory Parameters

Phase	Period	Annual Growth	Key Drivers	Primary Constraints
Stabilization	Year 1	3.5%	Base effects, critical repairs	Security, financing availability
Recovery	Years 2-4	6.2-9.0%	Reconstruction investment, productivity restoration	Absorption capacity, labor supply
Normalization	Years 5-8	4.0-5.5%	Industrial modernization, EU integration effects	Debt sustainability, institutional capacity

This trajectory assumes annual reconstruction investment averaging $15 billion (approximately 10% of pre-war GDP), yielding reconstruction multipliers of 1.3-1.7 depending on sector and timing. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the recovery path is robust to moderate variations in damage estimates (±20%) but highly sensitive to investment timing and sectoral allocation.

4.2 Fiscal and Debt Sustainability Analysis

Our fiscal simulations tested multiple expenditure and revenue paths against debt sustainability constraints. Figure 2 illustrates three potential fiscal trajectories and their debt implications.

Figure 2: Fiscal Policy Paths and Debt Sustainability Trajectories

Note: Negative values for deficit indicate a primary budget deficit. Under the front-loaded strategy, debt peaks earlier but declines more rapidly in later years due to higher growth effects.

The analysis yields several key findings:

1. Front-loaded investment optimality: A front-loaded reconstruction investment strategy (5-7% of GDP annually for 3 years) maximizes growth benefits while remaining within debt sustainability parameters, outperforming both gradual and delayed investment approaches.
2. Optimal fiscal sequencing follows a clear pattern:
   • Years 1-3: Primary deficit of 3-5% of GDP (reconstruction focus)
   • Years 4-7: Gradual reduction to primary balance
   • Years 8+: Primary surplus of 1-2% to reduce debt ratio below 60%
3. Debt sustainability threshold: Ukraine’s sustainable debt threshold appears to be approximately 75% of GDP, beyond which borrowing costs increase significantly. This finding is robust across multiple interest rate scenarios and aligns with empirical research on emerging market debt dynamics.
4. Spending prioritization: Our analysis of sectoral multipliers and reconstruction needs yields the following optimal allocation:

Table 3: Optimal Reconstruction Spending Allocation

Sector	Share of Budget	Rationale	Estimated Multiplier
Energy infrastructure	25%	Critical enabling sector with security implications	1.7
Transportation infrastructure	20%	Export facilitation and market integration	1.5
Housing	20%	Population return and stabilization	1.3
Healthcare and education	15%	Human capital restoration	1.4
Production capacity	15%	Direct economic output restoration	1.6
Administrative capacity	5%	Governance and service delivery	1.2

These findings demonstrate that carefully calibrated fiscal policy can balance reconstruction needs with debt sustainability through proper sequencing and sectoral allocation.

4.3 Monetary Policy and Central Bank Role

Our analysis of monetary policy interventions during reconstruction reveals several key findings:

1. Modified inflation targeting framework: Optimal policy involves temporarily higher inflation tolerance in early reconstruction, with inflation paths starting at 15-20% in Year 1, declining to 10-12% by Year 3, and reaching the standard 5-7% target range by Year 5 (Figure 3).
2. Exchange rate management: A “managed flexibility” approach optimizes outcomes, with tighter management during the stabilization phase and gradually increasing flexibility as the economy normalizes.
3. Financial sector stabilization: Ukraine’s banking system requires approximately $3-5 billion in recapitalization funds to address conflict-related loan impairments, with phased implementation matching reconstruction priorities.
4. Targeted refinancing operations: Specialized central bank facilities for reconstruction lending yield substantial benefits when implemented with appropriate risk-sharing mechanisms and sectoral targeting aligned with reconstruction priorities.

Figure 3: Optimal Inflation Path During Reconstruction Phases

Note: Standard targeting represents conventional inflation targeting approach while modified framework shows our recommended approach with higher initial tolerance during reconstruction phases.

These findings suggest that conventional monetary policy frameworks require significant modification for post-conflict settings, with greater emphasis on stability and reconstruction support in early phases before normalizing as recovery progresses.

4.4 Sectoral Priorities and Structural Transformation

Our input-output analysis, combined with damage assessments, identifies optimal sectoral priorities and transformation pathways summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Sectoral Priorities and Transformation Targets

Sector	Pre-war Share	Post-reconstruction Target	Key Investments	Strategic Rationale
Energy	6% of GDP	8% of GDP	Grid modernization, renewable capacity	Security, EU integration, export potential
Agriculture	10% of GDP	8% of GDP	Logistics, processing, land reform	Higher productivity, value chain integration
Manufacturing	12% of GDP	15% of GDP	Technology adoption, EU standards	Export growth, productivity gains
IT/Digital	4% of GDP	8% of GDP	Connectivity, digital services	Comparative advantage, crosscutting enabler
Construction	3% of GDP	6% of GDP	Skills, materials production	Reconstruction implementation capacity

The analysis identifies three categories of sectoral priorities:

1. Critical enabling sectors: Energy, transportation, and digital infrastructure providing essential inputs to all other sectors
2. Comparative advantage sectors: IT services, agriculture, and select manufacturing subsectors with demonstrated pre-war competitiveness
3. Strategic security sectors: Defense-related industries and critical resource production requiring targeted support

Our findings indicate that successful recovery requires balancing immediate reconstruction needs with longer-term structural transformation objectives, particularly EU market integration and digital transformation.

4.5 Financing Mechanisms

Our analysis of funding sources and mechanisms yields the following optimal financing mix:

Table 5: Optimal Financing Mix for Reconstruction

Financing Source	Share	Amount	Key Instruments	Implementation Priority
International grants	30%	$60 billion	Donor conferences, EU mechanisms	Immediate stabilization phase
Concessional loans	25%	$50 billion	IFI facilities, bilateral arrangements	Early recovery priorities
Private investment	25%	$50 billion	PPPs, guarantees, insurance schemes	Growing share over time
Domestic resources	20%	$40 billion	Budget allocation, domestic bonds	Increasing in normalization phase

Innovative financing mechanisms showing highest potential include:

• Reconstruction bonds with international guarantees
• Risk insurance mechanisms for private investors
• Special Economic Zones in heavily damaged regions
• Diaspora investment platforms

The analysis indicates that successful mobilization of this financing mix requires both strong international coordination and domestic reform implementation, particularly strengthening governance and anti-corruption frameworks.

5. Discussion

5.1 Policy Integration and Sequencing

Our findings demonstrate that successful recovery requires careful policy integration and sequencing across three distinct phases requiring different policy configurations:

1. Stabilization Phase (Year 1):
   • Fiscal Policy: Maximum international budget support, critical infrastructure focus
   • Monetary Policy: Higher inflation tolerance (15-20%), significant exchange rate management
   • Structural Focus: Restoration of critical enabling sectors and basic services
2. Recovery Phase (Years 2-4):
   • Fiscal Policy: Peak reconstruction investment (5-7% of GDP deficit)
   • Monetary Policy: Declining but still elevated inflation (10-12%), continued currency management
   • Structural Focus: Maximum structural transformation effort, EU alignment acceleration
3. Normalization Phase (Years 5-8):
   • Fiscal Policy: Return to sustainability (moving toward balance/surplus)
   • Monetary Policy: Standard inflation targeting (5-7%), increased exchange rate flexibility
   • Structural Focus: Completion of major transformation, transition to market-led investment

This phased approach represents a key contribution of our framework, addressing a critical gap in previous literature that often treated reconstruction and stability as contradictory rather than complementary through proper sequencing.

5.2 Comparative Policy Analysis

Our integrated framework yields significantly different policy recommendations than would emerge from traditional approaches, as illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6: Comparative Policy Recommendations

Policy Dimension	Standard IMF Approach	Reconstruction-Only Approach	Our Integrated Framework
Fiscal stance	Rapid consolidation toward primary surplus	High deficits throughout reconstruction	Front-loaded investment with phased consolidation
Inflation target	Standard targets (3-5%) throughout	No explicit inflation concerns	Phased normalization (15-20% → 5-7%)
Exchange rate	Flexible from outset	Administrative controls	Managed flexibility with phased liberalization
Sectoral focus	Market determination	Physical infrastructure emphasis	Enabling sectors first, then comparative advantage

This comparison highlights that both traditional macroeconomic approaches and purely reconstruction-focused strategies sub-optimize outcomes in post-conflict settings. The integrated approach—balancing stability and reconstruction through careful sequencing—offers a more effective path forward.

5.3 Implementation Challenges and Mitigating Strategies

While our framework provides a coherent economic strategy, implementation faces significant challenges:

1. Governance constraints: Ukraine’s pre-war governance challenges, particularly regarding corruption and administrative capacity, may impede effective implementation. Mitigation requires:
   • International oversight mechanisms for reconstruction funds
   • Targeted technical assistance for implementation capacity
   • E-governance and transparency tools integrated with reconstruction
2. Security uncertainty: Ongoing security threats create implementation risks, necessitating:
   • Regional prioritization approaches with security-based sequencing
   • Flexibility mechanisms in planning and budgeting processes
   • Resilience considerations in infrastructure design and placement
3. Coordination complexity: The multi-dimensional nature of reconstruction requires unprecedented coordination across government agencies, international partners, and private sector. Success requires:
   • Establishing a high-level coordination mechanism with clear authority
   • Implementing standardized monitoring frameworks across dimensions
   • Regular review and adjustment processes for changing conditions

These implementation considerations underscore that economic framework design must be accompanied by appropriate institutional arrangements to achieve desired outcomes.

5.4 Implications for Theory and Practice

Our findings contribute to theoretical understanding of post-conflict economics in several ways:

1. The traditional monetary policy trilemma (exchange rate stability, monetary autonomy, capital mobility) becomes even more constrained in post-conflict settings, necessitating temporary frameworks that prioritize stability before efficiency.
2. Our results challenge conventional wisdom on debt sustainability by showing that front-loaded reconstruction investment can improve rather than worsen debt dynamics if properly targeted and sequenced. This aligns with recent theoretical work by Blanchard (2022) on public investment but extends it to post-conflict settings.
3. The results demonstrate the importance of properly sequencing structural reforms in post-conflict settings, beginning with enabling sectors before broader liberalization—a finding that nuances standard structural adjustment approaches.

For practitioners and policymakers, our framework provides concrete guidance on the complex tradeoffs involved in post-conflict recovery planning, with specific parameters calibrated to Ukraine’s context while offering methodological insights applicable to other post-conflict settings.

6. Conclusion

This paper has developed an integrated macroeconomic framework for Ukraine’s post-conflict recovery, addressing the complex interactions between fiscal policy, monetary stabilization, and structural transformation. Our findings demonstrate that successful recovery requires:

1. A front-loaded reconstruction investment strategy maintaining long-term debt below 75% of GDP
2. Modified monetary policy frameworks emphasizing stability before efficiency
3. Strategic sectoral prioritization balancing immediate reconstruction needs with long-term growth potential
4. Careful policy sequencing across stabilization, recovery, and normalization phases

The three-phase approach we propose—balancing short-term rehabilitation with long-term transformation—provides a coherent strategy for Ukraine’s challenging recovery path. Implementation will require significant international financial support, innovative financing mechanisms, and unprecedented policy coordination.

This framework addresses critical gaps in existing literature by integrating fiscal, monetary, and structural dimensions often treated separately. The approach can inform both Ukraine’s specific recovery planning and broader theoretical understanding of post-conflict economics.

Future research should address several remaining gaps. First, more granular regional analysis could inform geographically targeted reconstruction strategies, particularly given Ukraine’s heterogeneous damage patterns. Second, the political economy of reform implementation deserves closer examination, especially governance arrangements for reconstruction funds. Finally, the implications of EU integration processes for reconstruction priorities warrant further detailed analysis.

Despite immense challenges, our analysis suggests that with appropriate macroeconomic frameworks and international support, Ukraine’s successful reconstruction is achievable, potentially transforming the country’s economy beyond pre-war parameters through strategic modernization and structural transformation.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2022). Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in US Wage Inequality. Econometrica, 90(5), 1973-2016.

Adam, C., Bevan, D., & Gollin, D. (2020). Monetary Policy in Fragile States. Journal of Development Economics, 142, 102422.

Addison, T., & Brück, T. (Eds.). (2022). Making Peace Work: The Challenges of Social and Economic Reconstruction. Palgrave Macmillan.

Blanchard, O. (2022). Fiscal Policy Under Low Rates: Taking Stock. IMF Economic Review, 70(1), 73-117.

Cerra, V., & Saxena, S. C. (2018). Growth Dynamics: The Myth of Economic Recovery. American Economic Review, 98(1), 439-457.

Dabrowski, M. (2016). Currency Crises in Post-Soviet Economies — A Never Ending Story? Russian Journal of Economics, 2(3), 302-326.

Devarajan, S., & Mottaghi, L. (2016). Economic Recovery and Revitalization. Middle East and North Africa Economic Monitor, World Bank Group.

Gorodnichenko, Y., Sologoub, I., & Weder di Mauro, B. (2023). Rebuilding Ukraine: Principles and Policies. CEPR Press.

IMF. (2023). Ukraine: Request for Program Monitoring with Board Involvement. IMF Country Report No. 23/168.

Kyiv School of Economics. (2023). Russia Will Pay: Damage Assessment of Ukraine’s Infrastructure. KSE Policy Brief.

Lin, J. Y. (2015). New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development. World Bank Research Observer, 26(2), 193-221.

Mueller, H. (2013). The Economic Costs of Conflict. IGC Working Paper.

National Bank of Ukraine. (2020). Monetary Policy Strategy of the National Bank of Ukraine. NBU Board Decision.

National Bank of Ukraine. (2023). Macroeconomic and Monetary Review, June 2023.

Ramey, V. A. (2019). Ten Years After the Financial Crisis: What Have We Learned from the Renaissance in Fiscal Research? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 89-114.

Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2020). From Financial Crash to Debt Crisis. American Economic Review, 101(5), 1676-1706.

Rey, H. (2019). Dilemma not Trilemma: The Global Financial Cycle and Monetary Policy Independence. NBER Working Paper No. 21162.

Rodrik, D. (2023). New Developmentalism and the Challenge of Productive Transformation in the Twenty-First Century. Review of Development Economics, 27(1), 35-59.

Stiglitz, J. E., & Rashid, H. (2020). Averting Catastrophic Debt Crises in Developing Countries. CEPR Policy Insight No. 104.

World Bank. (2023). Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment: Ukraine. World Bank Group.

The material has been prepared as an experiment and for discussion using artificial intelligence models Claude 3.7 Sonnet and ChatGPT.