INSTITUTIONALIZING UKRAINE’S POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

Abstract

The devastation of war in Ukraine has triggered an urgent need for a comprehensive and sustained post-war recovery process. Yet, beyond rebuilding infrastructure and attracting foreign aid, the core challenge of recovery lies in institutionalization – the embedding of recovery efforts within resilient, accountable and inclusive governance frameworks. This research explores how institutionalizing recovery can serve not only as a mechanism for reconstruction, but as a foundation for reimagining Ukraine’s governance, state-society relations and long-term strategic direction. Drawing on interdisciplinary literature from post-war state-building, institutional economics and democratic governance, the paper outlines a conceptual model of institutionalized recovery that integrates legal reform, decentralization, public trust and strategic foresight. Paper emphasizes that successful reconstruction cannot be achieved through ad hoc projects or donor-driven initiatives alone; rather, it requires a systemic and deliberate effort to empower domestic institutions – both formal and informal – to lead, coordinate and adapt recovery strategies in response to evolving challenges. The analysis focuses on five interrelated dimensions: (1) the conceptual foundations of institutionalizing recovery in post-war settings; (2) the role of institutional resilience in enabling adaptive governance and citizen trust; (3) the design of core reforms, including the establishment of an autonomous national recovery coordination body and local capacity-building; (4) the centrality of civil society, transparency mechanisms and public participation in recovery oversight; and (5) the importance of balancing central and local government roles to ensure an inclusive and effective division of labor. Special attention is paid to Ukraine’s path toward Eurointegration and the opportunity to align recovery institutions with EU governance standards. The research draws on relevant international case studies, scholarly literature and the evolving Ukrainian context to argue that recovery must be deeply political and future-oriented, not merely technical. Environmental sustainability, digital innovation and protection against hybrid threats are also treated as essential components of institutional resilience. The paper concludes that institutionalizing recovery is Ukraine’s most strategic path toward rebuilding not only what has been destroyed, but also what was previously weak or dysfunctional. By embedding reconstruction within institutions that are transparent, participatory and adaptable, Ukraine can avoid the pitfalls of fragmented recovery and lay the groundwork for a democratic, secure and European future. Future research will focus on how to structure financial mechanisms for post-war recovery in alignment with Ukraine’s specific governance context.