The question of whether Ukraine will receive the next tranche of the IMF loan is the most topical in the domestic economic discourse. It is really important because the continuation of the IMF lending will help maintain macroeconomic and macrofinance stability in Ukraine, reduce the risks of fluctuating the hryvnia exchange rate, facilitate the return of external debts. However, this will not solve the structural problems of our country’s economy; it will not stop its de-industrialization too. Cooperation with the IMF is a window of opportunity, our “pass” into a globalized world. But life is development, not life support of its vital functions.
The main tool by which developed countries affect the state of the national economy is industrial policy. I am referring to the implementation by the state of measures to support or develop specific sectors of the national economy. At this moment, I am criticized by those who believe that the state should only deal with deregulation and the formation of the conditions for development. It is true, but we are not alone in this world, and we must fight to survive. The Norwegian economist E. Reinert in his “How Rich Countries Got Rich … and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor” book writes that certain countries achieved economic prosperity precisely because of the development of industrial production and international trade. The inappropriate question is whether Ukraine needs an industrial policy. The question should be posed as follows: what measures should be taken to ensure that the industrial policy was modern and successful in Ukraine.
