The events in Ukraine have now made effective external support for successful economic and political reform there even more crucial. The world community is rising to the occasion, with concrete indications of aid coming not just from the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions but also the United States, the European Union and the G20.
At one level, the Ukraine situation is unique - particularly the geopolitical aspects associated with Russia's presence in Crimea and the issues raised by Ukraine's strategically sensitive location between Russia and Europe.
At a broader level, the world community has seen many examples over the last generation where an illegitimate, or at least highly problematic, government was brought down and the world community sought to support economic reform and a new, presumably more democratic and legitimate one. Think of the transitions after the Berlin Wall fell or the Arab Spring.
As a broad generalization, the support efforts have been constructive but the results have often fallen short of the global community's aspirations. The Marshall Plan metaphor has been invoked close to a dozen times in the last quarter century. None was as successful as the original. It is true that well-functioning institutions cannot be imposed from the outside - countries and their peoples shape their own destinies. But experience does provide important lessons for the design of support programs.
Five lessons stand out.
First, immediate impact is essential. New governments will not last unless they deliver results that are felt on the ground. Conditions on assistance need to recognize political as well as economic reality. Resources must be delivered in a front-loaded way, where their impact is immediately visible.
For example, strengthening safety net programs and support for new businesses need to lead - not lag - the removal of subsidies. Too often the international community sets economically rational conditions that are more than the political process can bear, then fails to move aid and blames the country for its bad policies. This is surely a time for political concerns to trump technocrats' fears.
Second, avoid "Potemkin money." A combination of media excitement, recipients' desire to maximize support and donors' desire to appear visionary usually leads to the announcement of huge assistance packages, based on indiscriminate totaling of all project flows of all kinds. The result is disappointment followed by disillusionment, as recipients realize that not all assistance can materialize quickly or meet urgent local needs.
Remember, the Marshall Plan was announced without any figures or fact sheets. The goal for Ukraine should be to under-promise and over-perform in the months ahead.
Third, be realistic about debts. Ukraine's debt-income ratio is relatively low compared to the crisis countries of the European periphery, so encouraging full debt service may have benefits in terms of financial stability and maintaining existing fund flows that make it worthwhile. However, in light of the fact that private creditors of Ukraine have for years received risk premiums of 500 basis points or more suggests careful consideration should be given to rescheduling or restructuring Ukraine's debts.
As with Poland after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, debt relief can provide a strong signal of political support. In working through past debts, though, the international community needs to be careful about setting the stage for future problems by relying on debt finance rather than direct grants for projects where the benefits are non-pecuniary or the costs continuing.
Fourth, honest management is as critical as prudent policy. Traditionally, international financial institutions' focus has been on imposing conditions that go to the quality of policy. It is now understood, however, that the diversion and theft of public resources is a major source of poor economic performance. The international community should do everything it can to recover ill-gotten gains from former Ukrainian officials and put in place procedures that will prevent future fund diversions. The benefits here are both significant in narrow economic terms and salient in political terms.
Fifth, countries need to pursue broad polices in a way that benefits Ukraine. For example, Congress needs to bring the United States along with the rest of the world and approve full IMF funding if Washington is to maintain its leadership role with respect to financial crises. Ukraine's economic strength and autonomy would also improve if the United States were to permit natural gas and crude oil exports.
Ukraine is far closer to Europe than to America, so it has an even greater stake in Europe prospering and becoming a growing market for its exports. The most natural north star for Ukrainian economic reformers is the possibility of an ever closer partnership with the European Union.
Respect for these principles does not insure success. But failure to heed them almost insures failure. Given what is at stake with Russia in Crimea, the stakes in what we are trying to accomplish are immense.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.
5 Comments
Login to comment
edbardoe
The Marshall plan was successful because if was enforced by the US army. The plan outlined in this article is to assure that Ukraine will remain an economic basket case with the same socialist guarantee of economic failure now in force in all of Western Europe. When America succeeds in throwing out our present Marxist leadership, the economic engine reawakened will have the Euros whimpering and the clients like the bottle throwing Maidan government will be left high and dry.
NavyCDR
Ms Edbardoe must live in the People's Democratic Republic of Dununderstan, rather than in the USA. Otherwise I can not understand the faulty analysis of the Ukrainian problem, nor the bizarre characterization of the political leadership of the USA. Perhaps if she listened to Bob Gates, as well as Zbigniew Brzezinski, she might begin to appreciate reality.
frank07
Despite what you hear about intimidation at the polls during the Crimean referendum for independence, there is a large majority of Crimeans who want to join Russia. Since Ukraine's birth as a modern country, polls for the past fifty years show that a large majority want to secede from Ukraine. This is easily verifiable online.
Kabukilover
This is Ben Franklinesque advice would be perfect for a Japan or Iceland. But not the Ukraine. In the Ukraine you must toss your Poor Richard Alamanc for far more astringent advice.
One. Do not join the European Union. The EU is for rich countries. Join the Eu and you end up like Greece. Get it? Join the EU and poor miserable Ukraine will get royally screwed, glued and tattooed with debts generations of Ukrainians cannot repay.
Two.Call a general election. There is nothing like a fairly elected government to firmly establish nation credibility .
Three. Do something about your oligarchs, or klepogarchs.
Four. Stop honoring Ukrainian nationalist Nazi collaborators as heroes.it is bad for business as we'll as the soul.
Five. Gracefully say good by to Crimea. It is going to a better place. Russia is rich, the Ukraine is not. The avoid more trouble, consider partition. Between western and eastern Ukraine.
Сергій Снігур
One. It is "Ukraine". There is no *THE Ukraine."
Two. May 25 - the date of general presidential election (Ukrainians are not Putin's marionettes in Crimea who organized illegal separatist referendium in two weeks term.)
Three. This is what they are doing now in Kyiv, Ukraine.
Four. There are no Nazi collaborators in Ukraine.
Fiive. Ukraine is a unified country and Crimea is still a part of Ukraine.
Dear Kabukilover, to be rich is not enough in this world. Have a good day! ;)