Olena Dronova, Tymofii Nahornyi. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTIONS OF UKRAINE ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT GLOBALIZATION SCENARIOS

DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2021.02.020
Ukr. geogr. z. 2021, N2:20-30
Ukrainian Geographical Journal 2021 (2)
Language of publication: 
Ukrainian
Full text: 
PDF icon UGJ-2-2021_20-30.pdf
Authors: 

Olena Dronova - Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv;
Tymofii Nahornyi - Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv.

Abstract: 

The paper identifies the features of participation of Ukraine in neoliberal globalization processes, as well as the course of the 2020-2021 Global hiatus related to the current world financial crisis, COVID-19 pandemic and the “great lockdown” as its consequence. Among others, the study methods include the analysis of relevant scientific publications, screening and content analysis of analytical sources, statistical reports and open media. The research goal is to forecast possible ways of socio-economic development of Ukraine after the COVID-19 crisis using the potential options of the global future proposed by A.T. Kearney (2016). Using SWOT analysis, the prospects for the development of Ukraine and its regions are detailed according to the four very different potential scenarios: globalization 3.0, polarization, islandization and commonization, that highlight the scientific novelty of the research. The most probable (symbiosis of globalization and polarization) and the most preferable (commonization) scenarios are determined. At the same time, a contribution to the international scientific discourse on the Global hiatus concept was made, as well as to the discussion on the importance of increasing the regulatory impact of state, in particular on social issues and environmental protection, and to the discourse on rejection of neoliberal fundamentalism with further transition to post-liberalism and alter-globalization.

Key words: 
globalization, global hiatus, scenarios of future, Ukraine
Pages: 
20-30
References: 

1. Moisio S. (2020). State power and the COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Finland. Eurasian Geography and Economics. Vol. 61, 4-5, 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1782241
https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1782241
 
2. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard (2021). World Health Organization. URL: covid19.who.int/
 
3. Gopinath G. (2020). The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn since the Great Depression. IMFBlog. URL: blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the-great-lockdown-worsteconomic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/
 
4. World Economic Outlook, October 2020: A Long and Difficult Ascent. URL: imf.org/ru/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/09/30/world-economic-outlook-october-2020
 
5. ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Seventh edition. Updated estimates and analysis. URL: ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_767028.pdf
 
6. Makarychev A., Romashko T. (2020). Precarious sovereignty in a post-liberal Europe: The COVID-19 emergency in Estonia and Finland. Chinese Political Science Review. 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00165-y
 
7. Pleyers G. (2013). Alter-Globalization: Becoming Actors in a Global Age. London, 336 p.
 
8. Krysovatyy A., Mokiy A., Zvarych R., Zvarych, I. (2018). Alterglobalization via the inclusive circular economy paradigm. EkonomicAnnals-XXI. Vol. 174, 11-12, 4-9.
https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V174-01
 
9. Cherkaoui M. (2020). The Shifting Geopolitics of Coronavirus and the Demise of Neoliberalism (Part 2). Aljazeera Center for Studies, march, 19. URL:studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/shifting-geopolitics-coronavirus-and-demise-neoliberalism---part-2
 
10. Laudicina, P.A., Peterson, E.R. (2016). From globalization to islandization. URL: atkearney.com/gbpc/
 
thought-leadership/detail/-/asset_publisher/03JmqNRaRZj7/content/from-globalization-to-islandization/10192
 
11. Fukuyama F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York, 432 p.
 
12. Birch K. (2017). A research agenda for neoliberalism. Cheltenham, UK, 208 p.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433596
 
13. Naim M. (2000). Washington consensus or Washington confusion? Foreign policy, 118, 87-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1149672
https://doi.org/10.2307/1149672
 
14. Williamson J. (2009). A short history of the Washington Consensus. Law & Business Review of Americas. Vol. 15, 1, 7-23.
 
15. Korablin S.O. (2017) Washington consensus: then and now. Economics of Ukraine, 11 (672), 17-32. [In Ukrainian]. [Кораблін С.О. Вашингтонський консенсус: тоді та тепер // Економіка України. 2017/ № 11 (672). С. 17-32]
 
16. Batalov, O. (2018). Ukraine as periphery of world-economy and prospects for its transition to semi-periphery. Journal of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Issues of Political Science, 33, 137-140. [In Ukrainian]. [Баталов О. Україна як периферія світ-економіки і перспективи її переходу до напівпериферії // Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В.Н. Каразіна. Серія "Питання політології". 2018.
 
№ 33. С. 137-140.]
 
17. Robinson J., Parnell I. (2011). Traveling Theory: Embracing Post-Neoliberalism through Southern Cities. In The New Blackwell Companion to the City. Ed. G. Bridge and S. Watson. Chichester, 521-531.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395105.ch46
 
18. Rodrik D. (2006). Goodbye Washington Consensus, hello Washington Confusion? A Review of the World Bank's Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform. Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 44, 973-987. URL: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.471.2094&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.44.4.973
 
19. Stiglitz D.Yu. (2003). Globalization: alarming trends. Moscow, 304 p. [In Russian] [Стиглиц Д.Ю. Глобализация: тревожные тенденции. Москва, 2003. 304 с.]
 
20. Harvey D. (2008). The Right to the City. New left review.URL: newleftreview.org/issues/ii53/articles/david-harvey-the-right-to-the-city
 
21. Kolodko G.W. (2009). The World on the Move. New York: Columbia University Press (forthcoming).
 
22. Kolodko G.W., McMahon W. (1987). Stagflation and Shortageflation: A Comparative Approach. Kyklos, 40 (2), 176198.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1987.tb02671.x
 
23. Chelcea L., Druţǎ O. (2016). Zombie socialism and the rise of neoliberalism in post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe. Eurasian Geography and Economics. Vol. 57 (4-5), 521-544.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2016.1266273
 
24. External statistics data. National Bank of Ukraine. URL: https://bank.gov.ua/en/statistic/sector-external/data-sector-external
 
25. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. URL: ukrstat.gov.ua
 
26. Nahornyi T. Lockdown transit: how it was and what it led to. Rubryka. URL: https://rubryka.com/en/article/lockdown-transit/
 
27. Global System on the Brink: Pathways Toward a New Normal. Atlantic Council. URL: atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Global_System_on_the_Brink_0203_web.pdf
 
28. Bonaparte Y. (2020). Pricing the Economic Risk of Coronavirus: A Delay in Consumption or a Recession? URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3549597
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3549597
 
29. Sułkowski, Ł. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic; recession, virtual revolution leading to de-globalization? Journal of Intercultural Management. Vol. 12, 1, 1-11
https://doi.org/10.2478/joim-2020-0029
 
30. The prospect is frightening: the UN is concerned about the confrontation between the United States and China (2021). Fakty,25.01.2021. URL: fakty.com.ua/ua/svit/20210125-lyakaye-taka- perspektyva-v-oon-sturbovani-protystoyannyam-ssha-ta-kytayu/ [In Ukrainian] [Лякає така перспектива: в ООН стурбовані протистоянням США та Китаю (2021). Факти, 25.01.2021. URL: fakty.com.ua/ua/svit/20210125-lyakaye-taka-perspektyva-v-oon-sturbovani-protystoyannyam-ssha-ta-kytayu/]
 
31. Hira, A., Reilly, K. (2017). The Emergence of the Sharing Economy: Implications for Development. Journal of Developing Societies. Vol. 33. Iss.2, 175-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X17710071.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X17710071