The Status of Ukraine’s Fight Against Corruption (Part 2)

In this second of a two-part series with anticorruption leader and Ukraine expert Matthew Murray about the status of, and risks to, Ukraine’s anticorruption agenda, I explore where he thinks there are opportunities and resources to move that agenda forward. 

In particular, given Murray’s past experience working at USAID, I was curious where he thinks the West’s engagement stands now that USAID has been dismantled. He told me that the  World Bank, IMF, European Union, individual European governments, and other international bodies have all been stepping up their efforts and increasing support for Ukraine’s anticorruption institutions. Thus, he says, even without USAID, those institutions still have the benefit of mentoring, technical assistance, and funding, not to mention what Murray termed “continued moral support.” In fact, Murray told me, he still works with the National Agency for Corruption Prevention as an advisor on a pro bono basis. “It’s not that USAID is not missed,” Murray explained, “but the Ukrainians are busy adapting, becoming more self-reliant.”

Murray told me that he has been invited to make recommendations on how to continue strengthening the country’s anticorruption architecture. “Following the Revolution of Dignity, six different institutions were created,” he explained, “and they have somewhat overlapping missions.” The challenge is that these agencies need to avoid duplication, and be more coordinated, streamlined and efficient. This requires “change management” working with what he termed the “best practices and tools of collective leadership.” What is needed, Murray said, is an “inter-institutional strategy and a whole-of-government approach.”

Next, Murray said, a whole-of-government, Ukraine needs to improve its strategic communications with respect to the fight against corruption. He feels that “the facts about progress being made are not being communicated in a coordinated manner, according to agreed metrics.” While concrete steps taken under individual technical assistance programs to meet various milestones are being reported, the story needs to be told in what he terms “a more strategic and compelling way,” that emphasizes not just the positive progress, but also the missteps. 

Murray and I closed by talking about the critical role of the private sector in the Ukrainian reform, reconstruction and anticorruption effort. The US, he explained, is working in partnership with the Zelensky government, led by Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, to execute what Murray calls “a new form of economic statecraft designed to enable more strategic US investment in Ukraine,” including in critical minerals, oil and gas, and infrastructure. Examples of that partnership include the US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, signed in April, in which the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is making a seed equity investment. The US and Ukrainian governments, Murray told me “share a vision of the private sector as a change agent.”

From that point of view, Murray believes that if the fight against corruption is successful, Ukraine is positioned to become “a start-up nation.” He believes that foreign investors can help the country rebuild quickly with new industries, smart cities, renewable energy, smart transport, modernized agriculture, and more, while the local private sector can lessen the country’s reliance on foreign aid for economic growth. By the same token, citing new forms of collective action that are  emerging, he told me that Ukrainian entrepreneurs are working with donors and foreign investors to "advance an economic model that rejects oligarchic capitalism.” Working together, honest foreign and Ukrainian entrepreneurs can continue to reduce corruption, helping Ukraine “defend its sovereignty and rebuild."

Marc Schleifer

Governance, Democracy and Economic Development Expert