The Ukrainian economy has long needed not just incentives, but a strategic breakthrough. According to officials, the state image program «Made in Ukraine» should become just such an impetus: supporting manufacturers, reducing import dependence, and creating jobs. But is this enough to overcome the chronic problems of industry, investment climate and competition with foreign goods? Attempts to «reanimate» domestic production have been made before, but more than once ended in corruption schemes or bureaucratic traps. Whether this initiative will be able to avoid such scenarios and really change the economic landscape of the country is a question not only of political will, but also of harsh market realities.
Successful new program initiatives
«Made in Ukraine» program, which was initiated by President Volodymyr Zelenskyi on January 26, 2024, was an ambitious attempt to restart the country’s economy. It promises not only to support domestic manufacturers, but also to create conditions for attracting investments, developing production and expanding exports. The main goal of the program is to strengthen the economy, especially through the support of small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as through the active involvement of foreign investors. The program emphasizes the development of non-raw materials exports — something that Ukraine certainly needs.
This program began to give serious the results, and one of the most powerful initiatives was the «5-7-9%» preferential lending scheme. Since the beginning of 2024, this program has become wildly popular among businesses. More than 13,000 loans for a total amount of UAH 50.8 billion have already been granted. Moreover, not only to cover current expenses, but also for large investment projects. Almost UAH 10 billion was directed specifically to them, which gives a serious impetus to the development of Ukrainian enterprises and contributes to the modernization of production. Also, the volume of cargo transportation increased by 7.8%, passenger traffic — by 6.8%, cargo traffic — by 13.0%, passenger traffic — by 10.1%. For comparison: in 2023, the increase was 3.4%, 27.3%, a decrease of 2.0%, and an increase of 26.5%, respectively. This shows a noticeable improvement in the cargo sector, while the passenger sector is experiencing a slowdown.
But that’s not all. The program also offers grants for the processing industry. More than 1,000 decisions on granting grants in the amount of UAH 5 billion were issued during the year. It didn’t just help entrepreneurs. From now on, domestic plants and factories get a chance to update and modernize, creating new jobs and increasing efficiency. Ukrainian processing is experiencing real growth, and this has a long-term effect on the economy.
They did not forget about housing. The «eOselya» program has become a tangible help for families who dreamed of owning their own homes. In half a year, more than 5,000 families received affordable mortgage loans in the amount of UAH 8.9 billion. Such a step helped people solve the housing issue, and also became a powerful stimulus for the construction industry. And this, in turn, creates jobs and supports local economies.
And finally, agricultural machinery. In 2024, 3.4 thousand enterprises purchased more than 5 thousand units of new equipment, which is an important step in the development of agriculture. Such a technological update became a sign that Ukraine is ready for innovations in the agricultural sector. Restoration of the technical base of agriculture is something that can change the rules of the game in the country’s agro-industry.
As we can see, the year 2024 turned out to be ambiguous for the economy of Ukraine. Transport showed positive results, especially in the freight segment, construction maintains a stable, albeit reduced growth rate, and industry continues to grow, albeit at a slower pace. All these indicators reflect a general trend — gradual recovery after crisis periods, albeit with certain difficulties. It is important that in such conditions there are positive signals that give hope for stability and further recovery. After all, these initiatives create real opportunities for business, people and industries, which give a chance for stable economic development. The program proves that Ukraine has a powerful potential, and now is the time to make full use of these opportunities.
It is obvious that the business support program has become a chance for entrepreneurs, which promises significant help in development. It not only provides financial instruments, but also creates an environment for growth and innovation, but it has certain drawbacks. The program is presented as a tool for stimulating production, exports, investments and employment, but behind the beautiful wording is an old dilemma: is the state capable of creating an economic miracle through budgetary levers without getting bogged down in its own inefficiency?
Financial support appears to be the most compelling component. Soft loans, grants, compensation — all this finally ceased to be purely rhetoric and became a toolkit. The business gets not only access to resources, but also a certain predictability. However, precisely «certain», because the story of dozens of underfunded initiatives and protracted competitions is still fresh. Support on paper does not always equal money in the account.
Also, stimulating investment is a valid wording, but not a new one. Tax breaks, state guarantees, interest compensation are not magic, but standard practice. But investors are not interested in the form of the application for compensation, but the general conditions: the hryvnia exchange rate, forecasts for the year ahead, the court system and the risk of manual interference in the rules of the game. The program creates an envelope for capital, but does not guarantee that it will remain there. Exporting is even more difficult. Entering international markets is a strategy, not a short-term goal. Having a grant or support is just one item on a long list. The issues of logistics, certification, trade agreements, the country’s reputation, the stability of customs — all this remained behind the scenes. The program highlights the opportunity, but does not provide a route.
Jobs are also an argument that always sounds good. But how many of them will be long-term, and not created «for a report»? The Do-It-Yourself program, grants for veterans, loans to start a small business — all this sounds right, but without a systematic analysis of the real effect, it remains in the zone of good intentions. A workplace without a stable sales market is not a guarantee of employment, but is another potential debt.
At the same time, the social component looks the least controversial — at least at first glance. YeOselya really gave access to housing to thousands of soldiers, doctors, and teachers. But at the same time, this is point support, not an economic strategy. Housing is extremely important, but in a country where production is falling and business survives thanks to volunteers, square meters alone will not solve the situation.
In addition, despite the fact that the state promises deregulation, entrepreneurs still face bureaucratic barriers when receiving support. It is clear that this complicates the process and creates additional difficulties for businesses, especially for those who are not ready for administrative complexities. It is worth noting that when the amount of funding is huge, there is a risk of inappropriate use of resources. Corruption or inefficient management of funds can undermine the credibility of the program and reduce its effectiveness. Although the program is designed for everyone, it is often difficult for small businesses to meet all the requirements. This calls into question the availability of support for entrepreneurs who do not have large resources or administrative capacity.
So, “Made in Ukraine” has the potential to become more than just another slide show, but only if its mechanisms stop being a showcase for good news and turn into a real production incentive system — not in words, but in financial reports, statistics, and real markets. Because so far, the national product is still often not made in Ukraine.
Lessons from world experience for an economic breakthrough
When it comes to supporting domestic manufacturers, countries around the world choose different strategies based on their own economic realities and challenges. Let’s look at several vivid examples of such initiatives and learn useful lessons for Ukraine.
Following major economic reforms in the 1990s, Poland established the Polish Investment and Trade Agency (PAIH). The task of the agency was to find ways to enter international markets, and also helped to form a positive image of Polish goods abroad. PAIH has representative offices both in Poland and abroad, which allows active promotion of national products. This approach strengthens the country’s economic position on the world stage and stimulates domestic production.
The EU supports small and medium-sized businesses through the «Single Market» program, the budget of which is 4.2 billion euros for the period 2021-2027. It offers funding for research, consulting services, and supports the exchange of experience between entrepreneurs. Such initiatives help SMEs to increase their competitiveness on the European market, which, in turn, contributes to economic growth and stability.
Canada uses a “supply management” system to regulate the production of milk, eggs and other products. The established high tariffs on the import of these goods allow to maintain stable prices on the domestic market and ensure the income of national farmers. This is an important tool for supporting local producers and protecting national interests.
In the 1980s, New Zealand eliminated all agricultural subsidies, replacing them with investments in infrastructure and scientific research. Such actions forced farmers to increase production efficiency, contributing to high competitiveness and profitability of the agricultural sector. This is an example of how domestic manufacturers can be supported through innovation and development rather than through direct financial payments.
Turkey has revamped its agricultural support program, focusing on differentiated subsidies for different crops. Such a strategy helped not only to adapt production to environmental conditions, but also to increase the production of important products for the country, such as cereals, while reducing the excess supply of other crops.
In the second half of the 20th century, South Korea implemented an export-oriented development strategy. The government actively supported national companies through preferential lending and investments in scientific research, which allowed the country to become one of the world leaders in the economy. This approach became the basis for South Korea’s economic miracle.
But not all countries were able to achieve a breakthrough in economic development using similar programs. So, for example, Argentina in the 2000s introduced a policy of import substitution, which led to a decrease in the quality of products and a lack of innovation. High import duties did not stimulate competition, which worsened the economic situation.
Nigeria, despite significant investment in industry, failed to succeed due to corruption and inefficient management. Many projects remained unrealized, and the country continued to depend on imports.
Ukraine should create conditions for the transparent use of public funds to avoid corruption risks and ensure the effectiveness of the program. As the experience of Poland and South Korea shows, investments in scientific research and technology can significantly increase the competitiveness of national producers. But it is worth remembering that protectionism, although it may be important in the initial stages, should not be excessive. Entrepreneurs should be encouraged to innovate and improve quality, not to lower standards. Short-term measures should be part of a larger economic development strategy that takes into account global trends and domestic challenges.
Taking these lessons into account, Ukraine can implement the «Made in Ukraine» image program and promote the sustainable development of national production by choosing the right tools for business support and development. But it is worth understanding that in order to achieve a sustainable economic breakthrough, it is necessary to continue to improve support mechanisms, ensure the transparency of all processes, and adapt strategies to the real needs of entrepreneurs. Only a comprehensive approach and constant dialogue between the state and business will contribute to the transformation of this initiative from a temporary stimulus to a fundamental factor in the country’s economic revival.
