Corruption constitutes a multifaceted socio-political issue that significantly impacts the political, economic, and social dimensions of society. Its emergence is rooted in the distortion of established management practices and mechanisms and persists as a global challenge, influencing nations irrespective of their levels of economic development. Notably, even the most developed democracies are susceptible to corruption. Since achieving independence in 1991, Ukraine has sought to develop a comprehensive anti-corruption framework. This endeavor has encountered substantial challenges, including a deeply entrenched culture of corruption and the influences of outdated Soviet-era legislation. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian government has made notable progress in establishing an effective anti-corruption system by enacting relevant legislation and launching national initiatives. In response to the full-scale military invasion, Ukraine has implemented various measures to promote transparency in post-war reconstruction efforts.
The Roots of Ukrainian Corruption
Ukraine has long been recognized for its pervasive corruption.[1] Additionally, numerous reports and scholarly articles have extensively documented the systematic nature of this issue, emphasizing its principal causes: a compromised justice system, an excessively controlling and non-transparent government, business-political affiliations with Russia, and a debilitated civil society. [2] [3] [4] Data surveys conducted in Ukraine have revealed differing perspectives on corruption within the country. In Central and Eastern Ukraine, corruption is perceived as a “shameful phenomenon with no objective grounds,” while in Southern and Western Ukraine, it is regarded as a “component of social traditions.” These contrasting views shed light on the varied perceptions of corruption across different regions of Ukraine.[5] However, the genesis of these problems has been disregarded. Therefore, prior to assigning the label of a corrupt country to Ukraine, it is essential to comprehend the fundamental grounds of corruption in Ukraine and its historical origins.
Upon achieving independence, Ukraine assimilated the state mechanisms, economy, and business practices of the Soviet Union. Alongside, Ukraine inherited a prevalent culture of corruption, stemming from the economic and behavioral characteristics of daily life in the Soviet Union. This implies that Ukraine did not cultivate its own mechanisms for corruption or embrace accommodating behavioral norms with regard to corruption; rather, it inherited these problems from the Soviet Union.
The economic landscape inherited by Ukraine was characterized by the coexistence of a formal, legal economy and an informal, unacknowledged “grey” economy. The emergence of the “grey” economy can be attributed to the constraints of over-centralization and ideological impositions enforced by Soviet Union leaders. Within this informal structure, various corrupt practices flourished, and a culture of tolerance towards corruption was established. The Soviet Union’s tolerance for corruption during the processes of privatization and the formation of a new elite served to legitimize systemic graft. The privatization process, in particular, facilitated the legalization of high-level graft, prompting lower-level state officials to emulate such practices. These officials exploited their positions to solicit gifts and favors in exchange for providing services, perpetuating a pervasive culture of corruption.[6]
Thus, the psychological and behavioral underpinnings of Ukrainian corruption emerged from this “grey economy.” During the post-Soviet era, there existed a distorted comprehension of corruption, coupled with a dichotomy in its perception along people—“the people of the post-Soviet era.” While corruption at the household level was often viewed as a traditional practice, societal condemnation was prevalent at the state level. Moreover, a pervasive distrust of law enforcement and judicial institutions, alongside a prevailing sense of legal nihilism, characterized the attitudes of this period. Furthermore, in the post-Soviet era, there was a prevalent perspective among the populace that corruption served as a facilitator, rendering their lives more manageable. This perspective underscored their perception of corruption as a “solution” as opposed to a “problem.”[7]
The concept of viewing corruption as a “solution” stemmed from the prevalent use of “corruption lobbyism” (blat) and the influence of “herd mentality.” “Corruption lobbyism” was driven by the aspiration to stand out and occupy a distinct position within the system under the guise of “equal rights for all.” With over half of the populace adopting this behavior, bribes swiftly became normalized, fostering the notion that everyone engages in such practices, thereby perpetuating the herd instinct. [8] For individuals in the Soviet era, offering bribes became a means of securing access to goods or services that were not always obtained through legal channels or acquiring goods or services unfairly (such as expediting the processing of documents or obtaining permits for scarce goods). This phenomenon has also persisted in Ukraine. [9]
Also, the case of Ukraine exemplifies how corrupt behavior can emerge from both economic and psychological factors, often arising from challenging life circumstances that individuals may not easily foresee. Psychologically, personal traits significantly influence the propensity for corruption, shaped by various deficiencies in moral, intellectual, emotional, and volitional domains. [10] [11] Following the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine inherited a deeply embedded corrupt system, exacerbated by widespread “corruption lobbying” and a prevailing “herd mentality” among the populace. Consequently, the government faced the critical task of addressing systemic corruption and instituting a robust zero-tolerance policy from the outset of its independence.
Changes Following the 2014 Revolution
In 2014, following the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine entered into an Association Agreement with the European Union. A fundamental aspect of this agreement was Ukraine’s commitment to establishing robust anti-corruption mechanisms. This development marked the beginning of a new phase in Ukraine’s efforts to combat corruption, which included the enactment of new legislation and the establishment of relevant anti-corruption institutions. Since 2014, the perception of corruption has shifted from being regarded as a “solution” to being recognized as a “problem.”
The period was dedicated to addressing a specific concern: the imperative to eradicate the impunity enjoyed by political elites. [12] This was pursued through the implementation of a preventive approach aimed at combating corruption in Ukraine, with a concentrated emphasis on legal and institutional measures. This approach yielded a comprehensive and efficacious system for penalizing instances of corrupt behavior.
Key Risks in Ukrainian Anti-Corruption
Despite these positive steps, significant challenges persist in translating anti-corruption reforms into effective implementation and cultivating a culture of accountability across all levels of governance. One of the inherent risks surrounding anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine lies in the “crisis-oriented” nature of corruption, wherein corrupt practices become even more pronounced during periods of political upheaval or economic instability. In such circumstances, individuals and entities may resort to corruption as a coping mechanism, creating a vicious cycle that entrenches corrupt behavior within society. This phenomenon necessitates the integration of crisis management strategies into Ukraine’s anti-corruption framework, ensuring that the country can respond adequately to the evolving landscape of corruption, particularly in times of crisis.
Moreover, the historical influence of the Soviet Union on Ukraine’s legal and political systems continues to hinder the effectiveness of contemporary anti-corruption initiatives. The remnants of Soviet-era practices have created an environment that allows for the perpetuation of corruption, as entrenched interests resist change. Familiarity with Russian legal mechanisms has rendered Ukraine vulnerable to being exploited as a conduit for money laundering and corrupt transactions. While the Ukrainian government is in the process of transitioning from Soviet-era legislation to more modern legal frameworks, this transition is fraught with challenges, as existing legal structures often reflect outdated practices. A comprehensive overhaul of the legal system is imperative to mitigate the legacy of Soviet influence and prevent the infiltration of foreign corrupt practices, particularly those stemming from Russia.
Furthermore, Ukraine’s heavy dependence on international funding for anti-corruption initiatives introduces significant risks to policy formulation and implementation. Relying on external donors can create vulnerabilities, as these initiatives may be subject to the shifting priorities of international stakeholders. To enhance the sustainability of anti-corruption efforts, Ukraine must develop strategies to finance these initiatives autonomously. For instance, reallocating funds recovered from confiscations back into anti-corruption programs could foster a sense of ownership and resilience. This approach not only contributes to financial independence but also strengthens public confidence in the government’s commitment to eradicating corruption.
Finally, the persistent threat of foreign corruption in Ukraine constitutes a significant obstacle to Ukraine’s economic growth and its capacity to attract foreign investment. Corruption undermines investor confidence and stifles innovation and entrepreneurship within the local economy. To effectively mitigate the risks associated with foreign corruption, Ukraine can implement several strategic measures, including the enhancement of local governance, the promotion of collaboration among relevant stakeholders, the establishment of robust whistleblower protection mechanisms, and the utilization of international support. By developing a transparent and accountable governance framework, Ukraine can foster a more conducive business environment, thereby facilitating economic development and promoting long-term stability.
Notes
[1] Bullough, O. (2015). Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe. The Guardian.
[2] Ukraine country risk report (2024). Gan Integrity.
[3] De Waal, T. (2016). Fighting a culture of corruption in Ukraine. Carnegie Europe.
[4] USAID (2024). Ukraine country report 2023. USAID.
[5] Ukrainska Pravda (2020). What is the crime, what is the punishment. Or why the “popular answer” to the president’s first question will surprise no one.
[6] USAID (2015). Changing Corrupt Behavior Assessment. USAID.
[7] USAID (2015). Changing Corrupt Behavior Assessment. USAID.
[8] Halkevych, O. (2019). Causes of corruption in Ukraine in 2000-2018 (collection of 25 essays).
[9] Naturkach, R. (2016). Corruption as a socio-psychological “phenomenon” of Ukrainian society. Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. No. 7. P. 34-40.
[10] Shynkarenko, I. (2016). Socio-psychological determinants of corrupt behavior of police officers. Scientific Bulletin of the Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs. No. 1. P. 316–321
[11] Kikalishvili M. (2020). Socio-psychological factors of corruption and corrupt environment. Actual problems of domestic jurisprudence No. 2. P. 136-140.
[12] The U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre (2024). Advancing corruption prevention in Ukraine: a constructive approach.
Dr. Olha Chernovol is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. She is also a fellow and member of the Scholars at Risk Program at the University of Ottawa Human Rights Research and Education Centre, and a member of the Royal Society of Canada College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists.
