Recovery Beyond Infrastructure: Institutions and the Political Economy of Ukraine’s Reconstruction

Abstract

Purpose | The purpose of this article is to examine post-conflict reconstruction through an institutional political economy perspective, with particular attention to the role of institutions in shaping recovery trajectories under conditions of deep uncertainty. Using Ukraine’s reconstruction as a central reference point, the article seeks to identify which institutional arrangements are most conducive to balancing efficiency, legitimacy, and long-term resilience in post-conflict environments. Research method | The study adopts a conceptual and comparative research approach. It draws on insights from institutional economics, evolutionary political economy, and historical institutionalism, combined with a structured review of comparative post-conflict and post-disaster reconstruction experiences. The analysis integrates theoretical reasoning with evidence from selected international case studies and policy-oriented sources. Results | The analysis demonstrates that reconstruction outcomes depend rather on the institutional frameworks governing coordination, implementation, and accountability than on the scale or speed of rebuilding. Comparative evidence indicates that recovery is most resilient when central coordination is combined with credible local implementation, transparency mechanisms are embedded in routine administrative practice, and partnerships between the state, the market, and civil society operate within clear and enforceable rules. Conversely, donor-driven or parallel governance arrangements tend to undermine domestic ownership and institutional sustainability. Originality / value / implications / recommendations | The article frames post-conflict reconstruction as an institutional governance challenge rather than a purely technical task. It recommends that Ukraine’s reconstruction strategy prioritize strong central coordination of planning and financing, combined with decentralized implementation at the local level, embedded transparency mechanisms, and clear accountability for the use of donor funds.