As a result of the project “Building bridges in public policy: Ukraine”, in cooperation with experts from EU countries, the following was prepared:
Authors: Dmytro Yablonovskyy, deputy director CES; Yevhen Anhel, research fellow IER; Hlib Vyshlinskyy, executive director CES; Oksana Kuziakiv, chief executive IER; Bohdan Prokhorov, junior economist CES.
Reviewer: Dr. Niclas Rüffer, Research Fellow Mannheim University and Advisor Monitoring and Evaluation GIZ.
In this paper, we study the key internal factors of resource management in Mittelstand companies and the policy measures that contributed to the success of the German SME sector, as well as the applicability of the German experience to the Ukrainian SME sector. Our paper is based on desk research, previous research projects of the Institute of Economic Research (Kyiv), field visits to German SMEs and policymaking bodies, and in-depth interviews with Ukrainian and German policymakers and business.
To formulate policy recommendations for Ukrainian SME policy, we analysed the development of a business from being run by an individual entrepreneur to becoming an international champion. First, we compared absolute and relative numbers of population and businesses for the latest available years for both countries. The relative rate of operating businesses to 1,000 population at a certain moment of time shows both the willingness and the ability to run a business or to be an entrepreneur. Then we analysed the reasons why more businesses succeed and/or grow in Germany than in Ukraine at each level.
Research “Instruments for strengthening confidence in the courts in Ukraine”
Authors: Roman Kuibida, Centre for Policy and Legal Reform; Mykhailo Zhernakov, DEJURE Foundation; Maksym Sereda, Centre for Policy and Legal Reform.
Reviewer: Lino Brosius, Center for International Legal Cooperation (the Netherlands).
The belief that most judges are corrupt and dependent on politicians and oligarchs, as well as there being a mutual coverup in the judiciary dominated and remain dominant in Ukrainian society. The Netherlands has had success in achieving a relatively high degree of public confidence in the justice system. The Hague is recognized as the world capital for international justice. Dutch organizations have unique experience in implementing various judicial reform projects in other countries (including in Ukraine, countries in the Western Balkans, and Moldova). Therefore, the Netherlands’ experience was relied upon in the preparation of this document.
The document is divided into the following sections:
“Tradition”: does the level of confidence depend on the geopolitical location of the country, its history and culture? how does the confidence in the courts relate to the confidence in other public institutions? what are the trends in changing the level of confidence in courts over time and with respect to the experience of participation in judicial proceedings?
“Personnel”: how to ensure high quality of judicial personnel through the mechanisms of selection, training, and accountability?
“Service orientation”: how to make courts effective, convenient, clear, and focused on the needs of participants in court proceedings?
“Communications”: how to increase confidence in courts by providing quality information services?
The goal of this research paper is to facilitate an informed discussion with policymakers on improving confidence in Ukrainian courts. The research paper has been prepared based on: analytical desk research (including surveys conducted by Ukrainian and international organizations/institutions); discussions with practitioners from the justice sectors in Ukraine and the Netherlands.
Authors: Alexander Lemenov, StateWatch; Yevhen Krapyvin, Expert Centre for Human Rights; Iryna Shyba, DEJURE Foundation.
Reviewers: Anton Marchuk, Centre of Policy and Legal Reform; Kateryna Ryzhenko, Transparency International Ukraine; Victor Alistar, Transparency International Romania.
Policy brief is devoted to anti-corruption mechanisms in the field of criminal justice – the activities of the bodies conducting a pre-trial investigation of corruption crimes in Romania (the National Anti-Corruption Directorate – the DNA) and Ukraine (the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine – the NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office – the SAPO). The DNA and the NABU have a common conceptual model – to separate the investigation of corruption offenses committed by high-ranking officials from the system of pre-trial investigation agencies in the country. The purpose of this separation is to establish new institutions “from scratch”, i.e. to ensure independence through competitive recruitment from other agencies or from the persons who have never worked for them, to create legislative safeguards against abuse by politicians, etc. Both the Romanian Directorate and the Ukrainian Bureau share a common hypothesis that reducing corruption at a top-level should prevent smaller corruption offenses because of the fear of inevitable punishment. However, the damage caused by high-level corruption offenses is always greater than the aggregate of minor bribes, etc.
The Romanian Directorate is an example for Ukraine in the formation of such an agency. However, the model of “Pre-trial Investigation Agency + Prosecutor’s Office Agency”, which provides a procedural guidance for its activities peculiar to Ukrainian criminal justice, is far from the Romanian model, which has the completely independent Prosecutor’s Office. Thus, the Ukrainian political elites seek to create and to deepen a “conflict” between the two agencies in Ukraine – it’s a problem not faced by the Romanian counterparts. Meanwhile, the Romanian example has a number of reasonable allegations of non-transparency, violations of law and human rights, as well as “secret” cooperation with other law-enforcement agencies with law violations.
The results of the studies will be presented in International Conference: Lessons from the experience of EU countries for Ukraine.
Supported by a grant from the Foundation Open Society Institute in cooperation with the OSIFE of the Open Society Foundation