The full English version of the research will be published within a week.
According to the Ministry of Economy, Environment, and Agriculture, Ukraine currently has 333 strategic documents in force at the national level, yet only 21 specify the amount of state budget funding required for their implementation. This means that more than 94% of strategies have no clear resource linkage. In addition, 102 strategies together contain more than 600 goals. Such a volume of documents without a defined financial basis creates a substantial gap between declared priorities and the capacity to fulfil them.
This paper examines international models to identify practices that can strengthen the alignment of Ukraine’s strategic and budgetary planning system. The findings highlight the importance of a framework in which strategic goals are consistently defined, reflected in budget decisions, and supported by the necessary resources — both during wartime and in the post-war recovery period.
Effective strategic planning depends not on the number of documents produced, but on the quality of a coherent system that aligns long-term goals with programmes and budget decisions. In EU and OECD countries, this operates as a unified architecture where priorities are tested for resource feasibility and fiscal consistency.
European requirements set binding standards in areas supported by EU funding. The Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and sector-specific acts establish a clear chain linking objectives, indicators, measures and financing, and require programmes to be directly connected to budget decisions. Updated EU economic governance rules complement this approach with medium-term fiscal–structural plans that integrate reforms, investments and budget trajectories. As a result, strategic planning becomes an integral part of the budget process rather than a standalone exercise.
Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia use different models, yet all are built on structural alignment between strategies, programmes and multi-year budgeting. Poland’s Development Policy Act formalises a system of “strategy – operational programmes – financing.” Latvia allows for more political flexibility, but medium-term plans still define clear resource limits. Lithuania and Estonia embed programme documents within three- or four-year expenditure ceilings, ensuring stability of priorities.
New Zealand offers one of the most advanced examples of integration: the long-term fiscal statement, medium-term fiscal strategy and annual budget operate as a single cycle, supplemented by wellbeing impact assessments that add an additional dimension to decision-making. This demonstrates how fully connected strategic and budget processes can function.
The research highlights the need to create a comprehensive architecture for strategic and budgetary planning built on:
• a clear hierarchy of documents,
• rules for translating strategies into programmes,
• integration of medium-term financial frameworks and co-financing mechanisms,
• internal adaptation of European approaches, particularly the CPR.
Such an architecture transforms strategic documents from declarations of intent into an effective governance framework and helps avoid policy fragmentation.
The research is produced by Centre for Economic Strategy with the support of the Askold and Dir Fund as a part of the Strong Civil Society of Ukraine – a Driver towards Reforms and Democracy project, implemented by ISAR Ednannia, funded by Norway and Sweden.
