REFORMING PUBLIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT IN UKRAINE’S RECONSTRUCTION CONTEXT: INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND INTERNATIONAL PROJECT APPRAISAL PRACTICES

Abstract

The article examines the transformation of Ukraine’s public finance system through the lens of reforming public investment management amid the full-scale war and large‑scale reconstruction. The purpose is to substantiate an institutional architecture and a procedural framework for prioritising, preparing and appraising public investment projects, taking into account recent regulatory changes, process digitalisation (including integrated information platforms) and donor requirements. Using publicly available damage and needs assessments, the study demonstrates the gap between reconstruction needs and constrained fiscal space, which increases the relevance of international financial assistance, grants and blended‑finance instruments. The novelty of the paper is the proposed coherent model of “selection - appraisal - financing - results monitoring” that connects Ukraine’s institutional solutions (the unified project pipeline, investment council, appraisal methodologies and financing guidelines) with the project cycle practices of multilateral financial institutions. The paper identifies core elements of project discipline: additionality and impact criteria, separation of economic and financial efficiency, formal readiness gates, risk scoring, measurable performance indicators and conditionality of financing. The practical value lies in recommendations to standardise project justification packages, integrate impact appraisal into medium‑term budget planning, and enhance transparency through publishing summarised outputs of independent reviews. The paper concludes that harmonising national public investment management with European Union and multilateral financial institution approaches is a prerequisite for mobilising resources at scale and improving the value‑for‑money of reconstruction investments. In addition, the study emphasises governance requirements: clear allocation of responsibilities among project initiators and spending units, mandatory verification of baseline data, and a shift from compliance‑based controls to results‑based management supported by auditable data trails.