Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Three Seas Economic Journal
49
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2021
DOI: hps://doi.org/10.30525/2661-5150/2021-4-9
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES AND DYNAMICS
OF PRODUCT COMPETITIVENESS IN UKRAINE
Oleh Pustovoit1
Abstract. The purpose of this article is to theoretically clarify the content of the concept of "competitiveness", to
summarize the main results of institutional reforms in Ukraine, to test approaches to a more accurate macroeconomic
assessment of the dynamics of competitiveness of major domestic commodity groups and technological complexity
of foreign trade. Methodology. The article proposes to consider the concept of "competitiveness" as the level of
compliance of goods (services) with consumer preferences of market participants. This conceptual position is
used to interpret the basic competitiveness of large product groups and determine methods for its evaluation.
The results of the assessment of the methodology and technique showed that in 2017-2019 the basic competitiveness
of Ukrainian exports gradually increased, but in its composition the shares of certain types of raw materials
and products of their shallow processing increased. At the same time, the competitiveness of consumer and
investment products in the domestic market decreased and was gradually replaced by imported analogues. These
trends suggest that Ukraine is selling more raw materials on international markets and producing fewer goods
of higher technological sophistication with innovative or higher quality characteristics. Despite this, Ukraine's
specialization in the global economy remains economically justied and eective. However, in the long run, this
position of Ukraine is socially undesirable, as it holds back the development of the economy and throws it to the
margins of technological progress. Practical implications. It is substantiated that, despite institutional changes,
Ukraine has not approached the goal of increasing the level of competitiveness of products of high technological
complexity, which have a relatively large share of added value. Value/originality. The study uses the dynamics of
macroeconomic competitiveness of large commodity groups as a criterion of the eectiveness of institutional
reforms in the country.
Key words: institutional transformations, competitiveness, consumer preferences, market shares, foreign trade by
technology complexity, unit value.
JEL Classication: E66, F14, O14
1. Introduction
Since the beginning of the economic crisis of
2014-2015, institutional reforms have accelerated
in Ukraine. e strategy of institutional reforms is
oen declared by ocials as aimed at the formation
of a competitive economy without bureaucracy and
corruption with favorable conditions for business
development (fair justice, low taxes, availability of
investment guarantees). e rst steps in formulating
the strategy were taken in 2014-2015, when state
agencies reduced the number of taxes, the scale of
redistribution of nancial resources through the state
budget, reduced the number of procedures, time and
money spent on registration and creation of new
businesses.
In the second half of 2019 and the rst half of 2020,
these measures were actively supplemented by new
measures aimed at revising certain approaches to the
taxation of income of employees and certain categories
of entrepreneurs, simplifying the conditions for
investing in the production of traditional products.
At the same time, the main means of improving
economic expectations in the economy were: mitigation
of ination, reduction of the discount rate of the
National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) in order to reduce the
cost of bank loans for businesses.
At the end of 2019 the ination rate in Ukraine
decreased to 4.1%, in the fourth quarter of that year the
NBU lowered the discount rate twice, and Ukrainian
banks lowered interest rates on loans by 2.4 points –
Corresponding author:
1 State Organization “Institute of the Economy and Forecasting
of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”, Ukraine
E-mail: avvit@ukr.net
ORCID: hps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2095-064X
is is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Aribution CC BY 4.0
Three Seas Economic Journal
50
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2021
to 15.7% per annum. ese consequences of
institutional changes gave hope that business, having
received access to cheaper credit resources, in the nearest
future will decide itself: what kind of economic activity
is expedient to develop for renewal of production
structure, increase of output of new kinds of competitive
products of higher technological complexity with
innovative and higher quality properties. is direction
of economic development was to lead to an acceleration
of Ukraine's economic growth, an increase in the
standard of living of the population and an end to its
labor migration.
It is dicult to gather facts about the level of
implementation of this scenario, if we rely on the
data of international organizations. For example, in
2013-2014, Ukraine ranked 84th out of 148 countries
in the annual Global Competitiveness Index (GCI)
compiled by the Geneva-based World Economic
Forum (WEF). In 2016, Ukraine began to experience
economic growth. According to the Global
Competitiveness Index, in 2016-2017 Ukraine ranked
85th out of 138 countries, in 2017-2018 it ranked
81st out of 140 countries, and in 2019 it ranked
85th out of 141 countries. ese data reect changes in
Ukraine's competitiveness compared to other countries.
At the same time, the question arises, how has the level
of competitiveness of the Ukrainian economy changed
in 2019 compared to the pre-crisis year of 2013, aer
which institutional changes accelerated?
is formulation of the question has actualized
a number of theoretical and applied problems that
scientists have to solve. e most complicated among
them are related to the development of state policy
measures to improve the competitiveness of the
economy. However, issues related to macroeconomic
evaluation of the level and dynamics of competitiveness
of national products on domestic and foreign markets
have acquired no less scientic importance. e purpose
of this article is to theoretically clarify the content of the
concept of "competitiveness", to summarize the main
results of institutional transformations in Ukraine, to
test approaches to a more accurate macroeconomic
assessment of the dynamics of competitiveness of
major domestic product groups and the technological
complexity of foreign trade.
2. e search for approaches
to the study of competitiveness
"Competitiveness" is a widely used economic
concept, which has no unambiguous generally
accepted interpretation. Based on the achievements
of scientists such as R. Martin (Martin, 2003),
K. Aiginger, S. Berentaler-Sieber, and J. Vogel (Aiginger,
Bärenthaler-Sieber, Vogel, 2013), M. Delgado, K. Ketels,
M. Porter, and S. Stern (Delgado et al., 2012), and
T. Syudek, and A. Zavoyska (Siudek, Zawojska, 2014),
it can be argued that over the past y years, the
contents of "competitiveness" is oen explained by
such general terms as ability, potential, probable future
opportunities of rms and countries to successfully
sell goods and services under the conditions of
market competition. However, the scientists faced
the problem of evaluating such characteristics as
"capabilities", "potential", "opportunities", which
reect not the essence, but the accidental nature of
competitiveness. A way out of this situation was found.
Economists began to describe not competitiveness as
a phenomenon, but its factors and features.
Analysis of studies has shown that historically the
main characteristics of competitiveness of rms and
countries were considered: the share of sales of their
products in the market, relatively lower local production
costs, decit-free trade balance or current account,
GDP per capita. Today, some economists are of the
opinion that the ability of a country or region to export
more value added than to import should be considered
as such a characteristic (Atkinson, 2013), as well as the
expected level of production per person of working age
(Delgado et al., 2012), that is, the possible productivity
of a potential worker.
At the same time, some European scholars call
for a rethinking of the traditional characteristics of
competitiveness. ey propose to include not only
the contribution to production (production costs,
productivity), but also the results of economic activity,
as well as the level of their focus on solving modern
problems associated with the transition of countries
to socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable
growth. According to them, the main of such results
is the ability of the country (region, local formations)
to achieve for its citizens the goals that go "beyond
GDP". e need to use this characteristic to determine
competitiveness is justied by the fact that the social
system and environmental aspirations of public and
private institutions can become a "productive force.
e contribution of rms and countries to its
development goes beyond the goals of GDP (Aiginger,
Bärenthaler-Sieber, Vogel, 2013).
e peculiarities of competitiveness were actively
analyzed rst at the level of rms, industries and
countries, and then – economic regions. is process
was combined with the search for and renement of
factors of competitiveness. In this regard, economists
have noted that the real issue of competitiveness analysis
is not to describe its results, but to identify the factors
that explain it (Martin, 2003). Some advances in these
areas of research can be summarized as follows.
e basic analysis of the basic signs and factors
(sources) of competitiveness of rms was carried out
by Indian scientists A. Ambastha and K. Momaya.
On the basis of their researches, they came to a
conclusion that the signs of competitiveness of rm
can be the following results of its activity: increase
Three Seas Economic Journal
51
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2021
in customer satisfaction, productivity, protability,
market share, as well as product range, development of
new products, generation of value. According to these
scientists, the sources of results can be combinations
arising from the combination of tangible and intangible
assets available in rms (human resources, technology,
production structure, reputation, brands) with the
processes of strategic management, operational
management, quality, product design, technology
improvement and marketing activities (Ambastha,
Momaya, 2004).
Macroeconomic competitiveness is quite actively
analyzed. In particular, the experts of the World
Economic Forum (WEF) proposed a research method
for the Global Competitiveness Index, developed to
assess the integrated contribution of macroeconomic
factors (favorable environment, human capital,
markets and innovation ecosystem) to aggregate factor
productivity. e laer was considered as the main
characteristic of competitiveness, the factors of which
were assessed and described using 103 indicators
(World Economic Forum, 2019).
In turn, scientists of the International Institute for
Management Development (IMD) in the World
Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) suggested that the
main characteristic of macroeconomic competitiveness
is the presence of a favorable competitive environment
for enterprises. e most inuential factors of
its formation include indicators of the economic
environment, state eciency, business eciency, and
infrastructure. More than 330 criteria were used to assess
them (IMD World Competitiveness Center, 2019).
e scientic search for signs and factors of
macroeconomic competitiveness has been a maer of
debate and is far from over today. Discussions about
the features and factors of regional competitiveness are
no less contrasting. Generalizing scientic research in
this area, R. Martin proposed the concept, according
to which the features of the competitiveness of regions
with dierent levels of development can be the facts of
their transformation into sites (places) of production,
increasing prots or knowledge centers. e most
inuential factors shaping the rst of these types of
regions include: production factors (labor, land, capital),
the second type – the regional investment climate
(infrastructure, human resources and production
environment), and the third type – institutions,
availability of technology, scientic infrastructure,
social capital, demographics, qualitative characteristics
of the area and the environment (Martin, 2003).
Croatian scholar D. Borozan proposes to consider
technological, social, infrastructural and institutional
assets as features of regional competitiveness. Among
the factors determining the emergence of these features
are unique regional characteristics that can be used
to create reliable conditions for living and working
(Borozan, 2008).
Dierent understandings of the factors of
competitiveness increasingly confuse the issue of
shaping appropriate policies. If we consider
competitiveness as a random phenomenon that
emerges each time under the inuence of a new
combination of micro-, meso- and macroeconomic
factors, it is impossible to determine exactly what their
future combination should be, which will not only
increase the capabilities, potential and opportunities of
economic entities, but will also ensure their guaranteed
success in market competition on the market.
Diculties in policymaking are likely to persist
until economists begin to view competitiveness not
as a random phenomenon, but as a legitimate one.
In our opinion, science has already accumulated enough
evidence to change the view of this phenomenon.
e most important of them is the following: the
main criterion of a random phenomenon is not the
unpredictability of its occurrence, but the totality of
factors which cause it. According to this assumption,
a random phenomenon is caused each time by a new
combination of factors that will never be repeated in the
future. If scientists describe and specify a set of constant
factors causing a particular economic phenomenon
(including competitiveness), this means that the
phenomenon is inherently deterministic and occurs
logically under the action of certain forces.
If it is realized that competitiveness is a natural
phenomenon, then the problem of a more precise
denition of the content of its generalizing concept
inevitably arises. e search for its solution should
begin with an analysis of the hierarchy in the system of
concepts which the term "competitiveness" contains.
It is advisable to recognize as fundamental among
them the concept that is used to characterize goods
and services. e argument in favor of this approach is
simple. It is impossible to prove or imagine that there can
be competitive rms, industries, regions or countries
which do not produce competitive goods or services.
ey are the main condition for the competitiveness of
all other economic actors.
However, this approach to describing the hierarchy
of concepts containing the term "competitiveness"
raises the question of understanding what makes goods
and services competitive. At rst glance, the answer is
simple – the special unique properties of the product
and its availability. In this context, it should be noted
that every year a large number of aordable products
with new properties are produced around the world.
However, only a few of them become sales leaders
in the markets and bring big prots to companies and
countries. e above-mentioned fact can be used
as an argument in favor of the conclusion that only
the consumer's priority to buy a product makes it
competitive. us, the concept of "competitiveness"
should be generalized to nothing more than the
conformity of a good (service) with the consumer
Three Seas Economic Journal
52
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2021
preferences of market participants. In other words, this
approach can be described as follows. In the market
any good (service) remains competitive as long as its
properties and price are within the limits of consumer
preferences of buyers. e proposed conceptual
understanding of competitiveness allows us to interpret
a common feature of all relevant studies.
It can be assumed that the compliance of goods
(services) to consumer preferences of market
participants can have both minimum and maximum
values, which vary, for example, in the range of 1-100%.
At the same time, the accumulated empirical facts
give grounds to assert that conformity of the goods
(services) to consumer preferences of buyers can reach
the maximum possible values only under condition of
activation in economy of all available micro-, meso- and
macroeconomic factors of competitiveness. erefore,
applied research should use the concept of "basic
competitiveness. It is expedient to use it to describe in
the economy the compliance of goods (services) with
consumer preferences of market participants maximized
with the help of micro-, meso- and macroeconomic
factors.
3. e method for assessing
the competitiveness of basic products
e proposed conceptual treatment of the concept
"basic competitiveness" allows to nd methods of
direct estimation of the phenomenon generalized by it.
In particular, in economics, the maximum conformity
of goods (services) to consumer preferences of buyers
can be accurately enough described by a quantitative
assessment of its share in the total volume of market
sales of products of similar purpose. e analytical
possibilities of this indicator are described in economic
science (Wilson et al., 2002). Its peculiarity lies in the
fact that it contains information that the purchase of
a particular good (service) is perceived as a priority by
consumers generating a separate part of market demand.
e authors believe that in order to assess the
macroeconomic dynamics of the basic competitiveness
of a country's goods, it is advisable to use three main
indicators and one additional indicator. In particular,
to assess the competitiveness of consumer goods in
the domestic market, it is advisable to use the indicator
"goods of the country in the structure of retail turnover."
By analogy, the indicator "goods of the country in the
structure of capital investment" can be used to evaluate
investment products.
And at the same time to assess the basic
competitiveness of export goods we can use the indicator
"a country's share in world merchandise exports.
In order to understand whether this indicator reects an
increase in the share of raw materials or technologically
sophisticated products in the structure of exports, it is
advisable to use the unit value index (UV). Although
there are other approaches to assessing the technological
sophistication of trade (Broekel, 2019), such as the
analysis of international trade ows by technological
intensity (Panagiotis, Constantina, Georgiou, 2010).
However, for the purposes of our macroeconomic
analysis, the UV index looks preferable, as its dynamics
can be interpreted more unambiguously and considered
as a vector of development of the commodity structure
of the country's exports.
e UV index measures the change in the average cost
of units that are not homogeneous and can be aected
by uctuations in both the range of goods and their
prices. In this study, the average unit value of a country's
exports (imports) is estimated in U.S. dollars per
kilogram weight of a set of goods of a certain group j
or set of commodity groups t. e value of 1 kilogram
of weight is described by the indices UVіх and UVіт,
which reect the unit value of exports and imports
of commodity groups of country i. Some analytical
possibilities of these indices can be presented as
follows.
e UVіхt and UVітt indices can be used to compare
the cost of a unit of a set of exports and imports.
If the index UVіхt / UVітt >1, indicates that the unit
of export commodity group t of country i has a higher
average price in foreign markets and technological
complexity than its imported counterparts in the
domestic market, and vice versa, if UVіхt / UVітt <1.
4. Main results of the study
Basic competitiveness of investment and consumer goods
in the domestic market of Ukraine. Domestic investment
goods enter the sphere of production in the form of
capital investments. In 2014-2015, Ukraine's capital
investment index declined from the previous year,
and in 2016-2019, it rose between 115.5 and 121.1%.
e laer trend indicates an increase in demand for
means of production. In order to meet the demand,
entrepreneurs had the opportunity to buy domestic
or imported products. eir choice is characterized by
the data of Table 1, reecting the shares of domestic
and imported products in the structure of capital
investments of Ukraine in 2015-2019.
e data in Table 1 show that in 2015-2019, the share
of domestic investment products in the structure of
capital investments decreased from 37.6% to 32.2%,
while the share of imported products increased from
37.0% to 47.4%. ese trends indicate a decrease in
the competitiveness of domestic investment goods
compared to their imported counterparts.
e dynamics of consumer goods sales can be analyzed
with the help of indicators characterizing uctuations
in the shares of domestic and imported products in the
structure of retail turnover. For this purpose, we will
use the data of Table 2, reecting the share of domestic
products in the structure of retail turnover of Ukraine.
Three Seas Economic Journal
53
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2021
e data in Table 2 show that in the post-crisis
period of 2016-2019 in Ukraine in the structure of
retail turnover the share of sales of domestic food
products decreased from 85.2% to 80.0%, and non-
food products – from 39.3% to 32.0%. is means that
in the domestic market the level of competitiveness
of domestic consumer goods decreased compared to
imported counterparts.
e basic competitiveness of Ukrainian exports.
Today, economists view exports as a "facade" of the
economy, a "showcase" of its possibilities. e laer is
conrmed by empirical facts showing that exporting
companies are 8-12% more productive than those
supplying products to domestic markets (De Loecker,
2004). e level of basic competitiveness of Ukraine's
export goods can be determined by assessing their share
in world merchandise exports. In 2013-2019, Ukraine's
share in world merchandise exports decreased from
0.34% to 0.27% (World Bank, 2020; State Statistics
Service of Ukraine, 2020). At the same time, this data
also shows that basic export competitiveness has been
trending upward since 2017 compared to 2015-2016.
So, what caused the increase in the share of Ukrainian
goods in world exports, namely the increase in sales
of raw material or technologically complex products?
e search for an answer to this question should
begin with an analysis of the change in the unit value
of products that Ukraine imported and exported in
2013-2019. To do this, we will use the data in Table 3.
e data in Table 3 show that in 2013-2019, the cost
per kilogram weight of the entire set of goods that
Ukraine exported and imported decreased. In particular,
the value of the unit of total merchandise exports
(UVіхt)) decreased from $0.36 to $0.30US/kg.
For comparison, it should be noted that in developed
countries this gure is about 7.5 US dollars/kg
(Kostoska et al., 2012). Ukraine's signicant lag in
this indicator is evidence of the low technological
sophistication of this country's exports.
At the same time, the unit value of total merchandise
imports (CU) decreased from 1.02 to 0.80 USD/kg.
is meant that the Ukrainian consumer further
reduced requirements to the properties of imported
products, and Ukrainian businesses did not try to
import modern, expensive technological equipment
to modernize their own enterprises to expand the
production of innovative and higher-quality products.
Despite this, in 2013-2019 the average specic value of
total merchandise imports to Ukraine was more than
2.6 times higher than the value of total merchandise
Table 1
Domestic and imported products in the structure of capital investments of Ukraine in 2015-2019
Year s 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Capital investments, million UAH 273116 359216,1 448462 578726,4 623978,9
Share of imported products, % of capital investments 37,0 46,3 51,0 46,0 47,4
Share of national products, % of capital investments 37,6 32,6 34,0 32,0 32,2
Source: compiled by author based on data for relevant years: (State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2021)
Table 2
National products in the structure of retail turnover of Ukraine in 2013-2019
Year s 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Consumer goods in the structure of retail trade, % 57,2 57,8 58,1 55,8 52,3 53,2 52,4
including food products, % 85,5 85,6 85,2 84,8 82,2 81,4 80,0
non-food products, % 39,0 39,5 39,3 35,6 32,6 31,7 32,0
Source: compiled by author based on data for relevant years (State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2021)
Table 3
Dynamics of the specic value of exports and imports of Ukraine in 2013-2019
Year s
Total merchandise imports Total merchandise exports
Value (Mіt),
thousand USD Net weight, ton Unit value (UVітt),
USD/kg
Value (Xіt),
thousand USD Net weight, ton Unit value (UVіxt),
USD/kg
2013 76850494 75344171 1.02 63264122 174392468 0.36
2014 52533379 59475536 0.88 54044054 174031481 0.31
2015 36569603 57782723 0.63 38170630 159897001 0.24
2016 38869503 60690174 0.64 36364059 150323936 0.24
2017 49537383 73829551 0.67 43260180 153155757 0.28
2018 56875461 73277660 0.78 47328962 149107552 0.32
2019 60414393 75413733 0.80 50061057 166976286 0.30
Source: compiled by author based on data for relevant years (State Fiscal Service of Ukraine, 2020)
Three Seas Economic Journal
54
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2021
exports. is indicates that the laer had a lower
technological complexity compared to imports.
In order to understand how Ukraine compares to
other countries in terms of UVіхt / UVіmt, the data
from Table 4, which provides estimates of the average
unit value of export and import commodity groups in
the top 10 in individual countries in 2019, is used.
e data in Table 4 show that in 2019, Ukraine's
average unit cost of the top 10 export product groups
exceeded that of only the Russian Federation, and its
import product groups exceeded that of Kazakhstan.
In addition, with the exception of Russia, Ukraine
diered in that within the top 10 product groups it
imported products of much higher technological
sophistication than it exported. is is evidenced by the
ratio of the average unit cost of the 10 largest export and
import product groups, which is less than unity, namely
UVіхj / UVіmj = 0.24. e most pronounced inverse
trend was observed in Sweden, which exported much
more technological products in the top 10 product
groups than it imported (UVіхj / UVіmj = 1.53).
5. Conclusions
e Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the
IX convocation at the 1st and 2nd sessions (August
2019 – January 2020) adopted 155 laws. Do modern
Ukrainian reforms create opportunities for products
with increased competitiveness and technological
complexity to become part of the largest commodity
groups in the near future? is question is becoming
more and more relevant today. e results of the
study prove that in 2017-2019 the competitiveness
of Ukrainian exports gradually increased, but in its
composition the share of certain types of raw materials
and products of their shallow processing increased.
At the same time, the competitiveness of consumer and
investment goods in the domestic market decreased
and was gradually replaced by imported analogues.
ese trends suggest that Ukraine is selling more raw
materials on international markets and producing
fewer goods of higher technological sophistication with
innovative or higher quality characteristics. Despite
this, Ukraine's specialization in the global economy
remains economically justied and eective. However,
in the long run it is socially undesirable, as it holds
back the development of the economy and throws it
to the margins of technological progress. It follows
that, despite institutional transformations, Ukraine is
no closer to realizing the goal of increasing the level of
competitiveness of products of increased technological
complexity, which have a relatively large share of added
value.
Ukraine's economy can get out of this situation only
if entrepreneurs begin to actively acquire additional
comparative advantages in the production and sale
of technologically complex goods. Skilled labor and
quality institutions can serve as additional sources of
comparative advantage. Considering that qualied
workers actively migrate from Ukraine, the state has
only one way to bring the economy to a new level of
competitiveness – to create a favorable institutional
environment for innovative activities of enterprises.
References:
Aiginger, K., Bärenthaler-Sieber, S., & Vogel, J. (2013). Competitiveness under new perspectives. WWW for Europe
Working paper, 44. Available at: hp://www.oecd.org/economy/Competitiveness-under-New-Perspectives.pdf.
Ambastha,A., & Momaya,K. (2004). Competitiveness of rms: review of theory, frameworks and models. Singapore
management review,26:1, 45–61. Available at: hps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146487.
Atkinson, R. D. (2013, August). Competitiveness, Innovation and Productivity: Clearing up the Confusion.
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Washington, D.C. 7.р.
Borozan, D. (2008, May). Regional competitiveness: some conceptual issues and policy implications.
Interdisciplinary management research, 4, 50–63. Available at: hp://www.efos.unios.hr/repec/osi/journl/PDF/
InterdisciplinaryManagementResearchIV/IMR4a03.pdf.
Table 4
Average unit value of the 10 largest export-import commodity groups in selected countries in 2019
Country e average unit cost of the 10 largest product groups jUVіхj/UVіmj, times
Export groups j (UVіхj), USD/kg Import groups j (UVіmj), USD/kg
Russian Federation 0.52 31.75 0.02
Ukraine 2.37 9.94 0.24
Kazakhstan 6.54 9.48 0.69
Spain 8.50 15.34 0.55
Greece 10.67 11.08 0.96
Sweden 27.04 17.66 1.53
France 61.71 82.26 0.75
Note: e average unit cost was calculated only for those product groups that were valued in USD/kg and did not contain rare resources.
Source: compiled by author based on statistics data (United Nations, 2020)
Three Seas Economic Journal
55
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2021
Broekel, T. (2019, May). Using structural diversity to measure the complexity of technologies. PLOS Sustainability
and Transformation. DOI: hps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216856.
Delgado, M., Ketels, С., Porter, M.E., & Stern, S. (2012, July). e determinants of national competitiveness. NBER
Working paper, 18249. Available at: hps://www.nber.org/system/les/working_papers/w18249/w18249.pdf.
De Loecker, J. (2004). Do exports generate higher productivity? Evidence from Slovenia. Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven. LICOS Discussion Paper, 151. Available at: hps://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/74870/1/dp151.pdf.
IMD World Competitiveness Center (2019). IMD World competitiveness yearbook 2019. International
institute for management development. Lausanne. Available at: hps://www.nesdc.go.th/article_aach/article_
le_20191114160558.pdf.
Kostoska,O., Mitrevski,P. J., Angeleski,M., & Mancheski,G. (2012). Measuring the qualitative competitiveness
of the Macedonian economy. In: Proc. of the 2nd International scientic conference "Researching economic development
and entrepreneurship in transition economies" (REDETE 2012). Banja Luka. Available at: hps://www.researchgate.
net/publication/257880591_Measuring_the_Qualitative_Competitiveness_of_the_Macedonian_Economy.
Martin, R. L. (2003). A Study on the factors of regional competitiveness. A dra nal report for the European
commission directorate-General regional holicy. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Available at:
hps://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/3cr/competitiveness.pdf.
Panagiotis, A. P., Constantina, B., & Georgiou, E. A. (2010). Export Performance, Competitiveness and Commodity
Composition. Working Papers, 114. Available at: hps://www.bankofgreece.gr/Publications/Paper2010114.pdf.
Siudek, T., & Zawojska, A. (2014). Competitiveness in the economic concepts, theories and empirical research.
Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia, 13 (1): 91–108. Available at: hp://www.oeconomia.actapol.net/
pub/13_1_91.pdf.
State Fiscal Service of Ukraine (2020). Total volume of imports and exports in terms of commodity items by
UKTZED codes. Kyiv. Available at: hp://sfs.gov.ua/ms/f11.
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020) Dynamics of the geographical structure of foreign merchandise trade.
Kyiv. Available at: hp://www.ukrstat.gov.ua.
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2021). Capital investment by assets; Retail turnover of retail trade enterprises.
Kyiv. Available at: hp://www.ukrstat.gov.ua.
United Nations (2020). 2019 International Trade Statistics Yearbook. Vol. I., New York. Available at:
hps://comtrade.un.org/pb/downloads/2019/VolI2019.pdf.
Wilson, P., Chem, T. S., Ping, T. S., & Robinson, E. (2002, September) Assessing Singapore’s Export Competitiveness
through Dynamic Shi-Share Analysis. Occasional Paper, 23. Available at: hps://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/
MAS/resource/publications/sta_papers/MASOP023_ed.pdf.
World Bank (2020). Goods exports (BoP, current US$): World Bank national accounts data. Washington, D.C.
Available at: hps://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.GSR.MRCH.CD.
World Economic Forum (2019). e global competitiveness report 2019. Geneva. Available at:
hp://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_eGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf.