The resources of Ukrainian industry were already depleted prior to the start of Russia’s large-scale military aggression in February 2022; while the forthcoming physical destruction of manufacturing facilities and infrastructure, and the migration of qualified personnel and promising innovators further worsened the situation. Before the outbreak of war, only individual manufacturers of technologically complex products had research units, made innovation, and were able to compete in international markets. Some industries were only based on one or two companies, who mastered unique high-tech competence; these manufacturers paid taxes to budgets of all levels; provided employment, and helped to improve incomes and social stability.
At present, the resources possessed by Ukraine’s private sector are critically low; so the country’s leaders are pinning their hopes on foreign investment as a means to solve the complex postwar issues such as the restoration of basic conditions for economic growth, the promotion of stability and the creation of an enabling environment for sustainable development. The goal of the article is to demonstrate some historical examples as to the obstacles and threats of foreign direct investment for host countries, which Ukraine may face in its post-war economic recovery.
The author reveals that the foreign investments along with the well-known positive side, also have a lesser known negative side. The paper shows that transnational corporations as major investors, having economic power and political influence, have the potential not only to speed up but also to slow down the development of the host country’s companies, which can have an adverse impact on business results and lead to significant problems including the denationalization of assets, loss of technological competencies and industries, increased external dependence, and various threats to national security and economic sovereignty.
On the example of the pharmaceutical industry in Mexico, which appeared and started actively developing after the end of World War II, the key challenges and threats (caused by denationalization and transfer of production control to foreign business) are shown. The author formulates the basic warnings for Ukraine. It is substantiated that the determining factor whether foreign investment will stimulate economic modernization and structural changes or will slow down the country’s development, lead to de-industrialization, and denationalization of the economy and mass unemployment is the extent to which that investment will be integrated by the Government into national development plans, also to what extent the absorption potential of domestic economic entities will be able to implement investments and ensure their maximum effects.
Keywords:: post-war economic recovery, foreign direct investment, transnational corporations, industry, denationalization
1. Krehivskyi, O.V. (2022). Dependences and ways to eliminate them: a past that resonates with the present. Ekon. prognozuvannâ – Economy and forecasting, 1, 31-75.
doi.org/10.15407/eip2023.01.031 [in Ukrainian].
2. Kriuchkova, I.V. (2016). Macrostructural factors of the investment crises in Ukrainian economy during 1991–2015. Ekon. prognozuvannâ – Economy and forecasting, 1, 23-40.
doi.org/10.15407/eip2016.01.023 [in Ukrainian].
3. Shtepenko, K. P., Zaburaieva, O. Yu. (2019). Analysis of foreign direct investment in the economy of Ukraine and the prerequisites for the need to attract them. Efektyvna ekonomika – Efficient economy, 5.
doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105-2019.5.34 [in Ukrainian].
4. Kuznetsova, L.I. (2019). Structural indicators to monitor macroeconomic misbalances in the investment sphere of Ukraine. Economy and forecasting, 4, 52-66.
doi.org/10.15407/econforecast2019.04.052
5. Harkavenko, V., Yershova, G. V. (2020). Impact of foreign capital on the economic development of Ukraine. Economy and forecasting, 1, 43-56.
doi.org/10.15407/econforecast2020.01.043
6. Sidenko, V.R. (2014). Regulation of a country's balance of payments under global instability. Ekon. prognozuvannâ – Economy and forecasting, 3, 7-19 [in Ukrainian].
7. Kindzerskyi, Yu. (2012). Destruktyvy promyslovoi polityky v Ukraini ta mozhlyvosti yikh podolannia. Ekonomika Ukrainy, 12, 4–16 [in Ukrainian]
8. Gereffi, G. (1978). Drug Firms and Dependency in Mexico: The Case of the Steroid Hormone Industry. International Organization, 32(1), 237–286.
www.jstor.org/stable/2706200;
doi.org/10.1017/S002081830000391X
9. Gereffi, G. (2017). The Pharmaceutical Industry and Dependency in the Third World. Princeton University Press.
10. Salikhova, O.B., and Honcharenko, D.O. (2020). Pharmaceutical industry of Mexico: a lesson for Ukraine. Zovnishnia torhivlia: ekonomika, finansy, pravo – Foreign trade: economy, finances, right, 7, 47-69.
doi.org/10.31617/zt.knute.2020(111)04 [in Ukrainian].
11. Godinez Resendiz R., Aceves Pastrana P. (2014). El surgimiento de la industria farmacéutica en México (1917-–1940). Rev. mex. cienc. farm, Ciudad de México, 45: 2, 55-68 [in Spanish].
12. Hernandez‐Garcia, Y. I., et al. (2016). The scientific impact of mexican steroid research 1935-1965: A bibliometric and historiographic analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(5), 1245-1256.
doi.org/10.1002/asi.23493 [in English].
13. Brodovsky, J. (1995). La industria farmacéutica y farmoquímica mexicana en el marco regulatorio de los años noventa. Santiago: CEPAL [in Spanish].
14. Wonder Drugs: hearings before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Eighty-Fourth Congress, second session, on July 5, 6, 1956. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1957.
15. Report of the committee on foreign relations on Executive I, Eighty-fifth Congress, First Session (1957, June 14). United States Government Printing Office.
16. Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, made by its Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, pursuant to S. Res. 52 (1961). Eighty-seventh Congress, first session, together with individual views to study the Antitrust laws of the United States, and their administration, interpretation, and effect. Study of administered prices in the drug industry. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
17. Richard, S., Mueller, W. F. (1975). Multinational Corporations in Brazil and Mexico: Structural Sources of Economic and Noneconomic Power: Report to the Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
18. Guzman, A. (2009). Do pharmaceutical companies in Latin America have innovation capabilities? Evidence from Argentina, Brazil, Cuba and Mexico. Economics: theory and practice, 1, 131-173.
19. Salihova, O.B. (2012). From an agrarian to a high-tech state. Lessons from South Korea's integration into the global economy. Development strategy of Ukraine (economics, sociology, law), 1, 217-227 [in Ukrainian].
20. Salikhova, O., Bak, H. (2014). Strategies of Asian countries for the development of national industry through the involvement of TNC technologies. Zovnishnia torhivlia: ekonomika, finansy, parvo – Foreign trade: economy, finance, law, 3, 30-40 [in Ukrainian].
21. Krehivskyi, O.V. Salikhova, O.B. (2022). Post-war industrial modernization: external and domestic resources. Zovnishnia torhivlia: ekonomika, finansy, pravo. Seriia: Ekonomichni nauky – Foreign trade: economy, finance, law. Series: Economic Sciences, 6, 101-121.
doi.org/10.31617/3.2022(125)07 [in Ukrainian].
22. Salikhova, O., Bak, H. (2014). Development of a mechanism for managing the involvement of foreign technologies for the innovative development of Ukraine's economy. Nauka ta naukoznavstvo – Science and science knowledge, 3, 18-30. URL:
dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/132279/02-Salikhova.pdf?sequence=1 [in Ukrainian].
English
Русский 
Ukrainian 
