Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 196 Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017 Corresponding author: 1 Department of Business Economy, Mykolayiv National Agrarian University. E-mail: kotikova@i.ua 2 Department of Business Economy, Mykolayiv National Agrarian University. E-mail: aalbeschenko@gmail.com DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-5-196-202 AN INDICATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF UKRAINE IN GLOBAL DIMENSIONS Olena Kotykova1, Oleksii Albeshchenko2 Mykolayiv National Agrarian University, Ukraine Abstract. The urgency of the research. In the early 90s of the last century, economists and scientists attributed Ukraine to the undisputed leaders due to the existing resource potential and predicted its rapid economic growth. Unfortunately, the predictions have not come true: over the last 25 years, Ukraine has lost its advantages on certain indicators. As for the positions, which have been saved, Ukraine should pay the unreasonably high price by the ecological and social conditions deterioration. Target setting. The question is how the other countries have coped with these problems. Moreover, in our opinion, the most valuable experience is the experience of post-socialist countries, which had the same problems as Ukraine had like adaptation problems to the market environment. Recent scientific researches and issues analysis. The most authoritative foreign researchers on the sustainable development problems are Donella H. Meadows, G. Brundtland, М. Ashby, N. Droste, K. Fiorella and others. The most authoritative researchers on the sustainable development problems in Ukraine are Mykhailo Zghurovskyi and his project performers. Uninvestigated parts of general matters defining. However, these researchers did not conduct the investigations of indication of the sustainable development of Ukraine in comparison with the countries of post-socialist camp. The research objective. The survey target is a comprehensive study of Ukraine in the global dimension of sustainable development index: the implementation of post-socialist countries ranking placement in the indices of economic, social and environmental dimension, the index of a sustainability, the index of economic measurement and index of harmonization, the components of quality of life and safety of life; the analysis of placement in these spaces in order to find patterns and distinctive features for a particular group of countries; setting of the countries’ placement features in the above mentioned spaces and the comparison of groups with Ukraine. The statement of basic materials. The article deals with the author’s research results about Ukraine’s place in the sustainable development measuring global index. The valuation is performed by measuring metric indices of sustainable development in the space of three pillars (economic, environmental, and social) in the context of quality and safety of life. Conclusions. Performed the ranking of the post-socialist states’ placement in the space of sustainable development index. The analysis of placement in these spaces in order to find patterns and distinctive features for a particular group of countries is made. Peculiarities of the placement in the abovementioned spaces are outlined, and the comparison of these groups with Ukraine is given. Key words: sustainable development, quality of life, safety of life, social measurement index, economic measurement index, environmental measurement index. JEL Classification: Р27, О57 1. Introduction In the early 90s of the last century, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, assessing the prospects for the future development of the countries, the former republics, economists and scientists (Heiets at al., 2003; Shulha, 2009; Petryshyna, 2014; Harvard University, 1998; Oxford University Press, 2000) attributed Ukraine to the undisputed leaders due to the existing resource potential and predicted its rapid economic growth. Unfortunately, the predictions have not come true: over the last 25 years, Ukraine has lost its advantages on certain indicators. As for the positions which have been saved, Ukraine should pay the unreasonably high price by the ecological and social conditions deterioration. For example, among the countries of the former Soviet Union, Ukraine, along with Russia and Belarus, has still a negative rate of natural population growth. However, if the population decline in Belarus decreased from 41 to 11 thousand people from 2000 to 2012 (National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus, Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 197 Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017 2016), the population decline in Russia decreased from 958 to 4 thousand people (Russian Federation Federal State Statistics Service, 2016), but in Ukraine for this period of time the population decline decreased from 373 to 142 thousand people (State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2015). And the reason for this population decline in Ukraine is a prevailing rate of mortality compared to birth. This fact can have both objective and subjective preconditions. The objective preconditions are as follows: the country’s low level of medical care and physical culture, poor quality of food and drinking water, no proper living conditions for life. The subjective preconditions are as follows: young people do not want to give birth, and not because they do not like children, but because they do not see their children’s prospects. The question is how the other countries have coped with these problems. Moreover, in our opinion, the most valuable experience is the experience of post-socialist countries, which had the same problems as Ukraine had like problems of adaptation to the market environment, the formation of the political system, the establishment of private ownership, inefficient administrative management, irrational use of natural resources (use of energy-intensive technologies) and so on. 2. Research objective and methodology The survey target is a comprehensive study of Ukraine in the global dimension of sustainable development index: the implementation of post-socialist countries ranking placement in the indices of economic, social and environmental dimension, the index of a sustainability, the index of economic measurement and index of harmonization, components of quality of life and safety of life; the analysis of the placement in these spaces in order to find patterns and distinctive features for a particular group of countries; setting of the countries’ placement features in the abovementioned spaces, and the comparison of groups with Ukraine. The assessment is carried out by the sustainability measuring metrics indices in the space of three components (economic, environmental, and social) in the context of quality and safety of life. The abovementioned metrics is developed by the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. The methodology of evaluation and the analysis of sustainability, which is used in this study, include a model of sustainability, which is an interdisciplinary generalization of the models, which are known in the scientific, economic, and social fields of science and the technique of applying formal statistical methods and methods for expert evaluation to analyse the processes of sustainability. According to this methodology, the process of sustainability will be characterized by two main components: safety (Csl) and quality (Cql) of life (ICSU, 2013). The index of sustainability is a quantitative measure of sustainability, taking into account the safety and quality of life. The quality of life component is an integrated assessment that considers together all the three dimensions of sustainability and, thus, reflects the inseparable relationship between the three spheres of society: economic, environmental, and social. The degree of sustainability harmonization reflects the balance between the economic, environmental, social, and institutional dimensions. The security of life component is an integrated assessment, which takes into account the total aggregate threats impact to the regions’ sustainability, and the index of the region’s vulnerability, in addition to the impact of the aggregate threats, reflects the degree of approximation of the region both to all threats in space, defined by Minkowski norm (ICSU, 2013). 3. Research result According to the index of sustainability (Table 1), in 2007, Ukraine ranked the 72nd place among all the world countries. The index of sustainability in the country was 1,808, which is close to the index in South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Tanzania. Table 1 Indexes of sustainability, quality and safety of life in post-socialist countries for 2007 Country code for Alpha-2 Index of sustainability Quality of life component Index of life safety Su st . D ev el op m en t In de x va lu e R an k am on g a ll co un tr ie s o f t he w or ld Q ua lit y of li fe co m po ne nt v al ue R an k am on g a ll co un tr ie s o f t he w or ld en vi ro nm en ta l m ea su re m en t in de x ec on om ic m ea su re m en t in de x so ci al m ea su re m en t in de x Th e de gr ee o f ha rm on iz at io n Sa fe ty o f L ife In de x va lu e R an k am on g a ll co un tr ie s o f t he w or ld LT 2,397 23 1,159 21 0,676 0,683 0,649 0,978 1,238 36 BG 2,112 43 0,887 47 0,435 0,474 0,627 0,840 1,225 38 CZ 2,206 37 0,959 40 0,345 0,623 0,693 0,735 1,247 34 PL 1,949 55 0,788 59 0,306 0,425 0,634 0,711 1,162 57 HR 2,300 32 1,035 32 0,690 0,402 0,699 0,773 1,265 32 SK 2,324 28 1,038 31 0,513 0,630 0,656 0,897 1,285 26 Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 198 Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017 Among the group of post-socialist countries, Ukraine took the 16th place, ahead of the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. According to the quality of life component value in 2007, Ukraine ranked the 75th place in the world, giving the way to such countries as the Republic of Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania by the index. The worst value was recorded in the index of economic and environmental dimensions, where Ukraine was ahead of only two countries – Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. According to the safety of life index value in 2007, Ukraine ranked the 64th place in the world and the 13th place among the post-socialist countries, ahead of Romania, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Then, in 2007, Ukraine was among five outsiders in terms of sustainability and quality of life component for all indicators except the social dimension index (Fig. 1). 0 1 2 3 EE LV LT SK HR AM CZ RU BG PL RO GE KZ MD AZ UA KG TJ UZ Index of sustainability Quality of life component Index of life safety Fig. 1. Indexes of sustainability, quality, and safety of human life rated in post-socialist countries for 2007 Source: made by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) In 2010, Ukraine’s place in the global ranking on the index of sustainability increased by three points. Among the group of post-socialist countries, Ukraine ranked just the 16th place, and like last year, it was at the top of five outsiders in all indicators except social dimension and life safety indices (Table 2). EE 2,531 19 1,246 16 0,659 0,820 0,679 0,900 1,285 26 LV 2,412 22 1,145 23 0,712 0,605 0,667 0,934 1,267 30 RO 1,941 57 0,815 55 0,335 0,474 0,602 0,772 1,126 70 MD 1,876 65 0,759 64 0,469 0,355 0,490 0,866 1,117 77 UA 1,808 72 0,659 75 0,299 0,331 0,511 0,759 1,149 64 GE 1,911 59 0,832 54 0,477 0,514 0,450 0,945 1,080 88 AM 2,237 35 1,050 29 0,761 0,344 0,712 0,702 1,188 48 RU 2,142 40 0,795 58 0,604 0,337 0,435 0,764 1,347 18 KG 1,703 85 0,611 83 0,392 0,351 0,315 0,911 1,092 85 AZ 1,820 69 0,621 78 0,315 0,369 0,392 0,911 1,199 44 UZ 1,516 101 0,412 104 0,119 0,279 0,316 0,655 1,104 81 KZ 1,896 60 0,699 69 0,397 0,427 0,387 0,958 1,197 45 TJ 1,555 99 0,437 101 0,177 0,288 0,291 0,793 1,118 75 Source: made by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) Table 2 Indexes of sustainability, quality, and safety of life in post-socialist countries for 2010 Country code for Alpha-2 Index of sustainability Quality of life component Index of life safety Su st . D ev el op m en t In de x va lu e R an k am on g al l c ou nt ri es o f th e w or ld Q ua lit y of li fe co m po ne nt va lu e R an k am on g al l c ou nt ri es o f th e w or ld en vi ro nm en ta l m ea su re m en t in de x ec on om ic m ea su re m en t in de x so ci al m ea su re m en t in de x Th e de gr ee o f ha rm on iz at io n Sa fe ty o f L ife In de x va lu e R an k am on g al l c ou nt ri es o f th e w or ld LT 2,350 31 1,125 26 0,646 0,615 0,686 0,955 1,225 39 BG 2,129 45 0,932 47 0,525 0,472 0,617 0,892 1,197 46 CZ 2,425 22 1,214 21 0,709 0,669 0,725 0,967 1,211 41 PL 2,235 38 1,009 37 0,538 0,535 0,675 0,888 1,226 38 HR 2,268 34 1,000 38 0,653 0,435 0,645 0,827 1,267 29 SK 2,408 23 1,176 23 0,757 0,611 0,669 0,912 1,232 33 EE 2,392 25 1,121 27 0,553 0,703 0,686 0,896 1,271 27 LV 2,325 33 1,095 30 0,724 0,526 0,646 0,872 1,230 34 RO 2,091 50 0,992 40 0,620 0,510 0,589 0,920 1,099 84 MD 1,713 83 0,619 83 0,445 0,146 0,481 0,602 1,094 87 UA 1,866 69 0,714 73 0,432 0,294 0,511 0,786 1,152 65 GE 2,015 56 0,876 49 0,549 0,535 0,432 0,897 1,139 67 AM 2,051 52 0,860 52 0,493 0,325 0,671 0,723 1,191 48 RU 2,093 49 0,740 69 0,497 0,358 0,427 0,868 1,353 15 End of Table Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 199 Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017 In 2011–2012, Ukraine’s position in the global dimension according to the sustainability index remained unchanged (Table 3). Among the post-socialist countries, Ukraine climbs one step in the ranking index of environmental measurement with simultaneous fall in the unit of the rating value according to the index of the economic dimension. During this period in the overall ranking, Ukraine’s position improved significantly according to the social dimension indicator, but the index value decreased. In the period of 2010–2011, Ukraine closed the top five outsiders rating among the post-socialist countries. In 2013, according to the global rating, Ukraine lost five positions, but the sustainability index value increased from 1,836 to 1,865 (Table 4). Thus, Ukraine was among top five outsiders according to the quality of life components, namely, the economic dimension index and the degree of harmonization (Fig. 2). 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 LV CZ EE LT PL SK HR BG GE RO AM RU KZ UA AZ MD KG UZ TJ Index of sustainability Quality of life component Index of life safety Fig. 2. Indexes of sustainability, quality, and safety of life rated in post-socialist countries for 2013 Source: grouped by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) From 2005 to 2013, Ukraine’s position in the rating table on sustainability decreased from the 47th place in 2005 to the 74th place in 2013 (Fig. 3). KG 1,774 75 0,653 78 0,463 0,359 0,308 0,830 1,121 77 AZ 1,961 60 0,761 65 0,451 0,474 0,394 0,923 1,199 44 UZ 2,636 13 1,268 16 0,546 0,851 0,801 0,819 1,368 13 KZ 1,907 64 0,720 72 0,413 0,464 0,370 0,907 1,187 50 TJ 1,562 97 0,493 92 0,295 0,264 0,296 0,948 1,069 94 Source: made by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) Table 3 Indexes of sustainability, quality, and safety of life in post-socialist countries for 2011–2012 Country code for Alpha-2 Index of sustainability Quality of life component Index of life safety Su st . D ev el op m en t In de x va lu e R an k am on g al l co un tr ie s o f t he w or ld Q ua lit y of li fe co m po ne nt va lu e R an k am on g al l co un tr ie s o f t he w or ld en vi ro nm en ta l m ea su re m en t in de x ec on om ic m ea su re m en t in de x so ci al m ea su re m en t in de x Th e de gr ee o f ha rm on iz at io n Sa fe ty o f L ife In de x va lu e R an k am on g al l co un tr ie s o f t he w or ld LT 2,328 33 1,118 29 0,647 0,630 0,659 0,982 1,210 43 BG 2,101 47 0,965 44 0,527 0,503 0,642 0,892 1,136 70 CZ 2,425 22 1,206 18 0,709 0,660 0,720 0,962 1,220 38 PL 2,282 35 1,039 37 0,539 0,571 0,690 0,892 1,243 31 HR 2,244 39 1,003 39 0,654 0,437 0,647 0,828 1,241 32 SK 2,396 24 1,161 23 0,757 0,585 0,670 0,895 1,235 34 EE 2,400 23 1,131 26 0,554 0,715 0,690 0,892 1,269 28 LV 2,336 32 1,098 31 0,725 0,517 0,661 0,864 1,238 33 RO 2,149 44 1,003 39 0,621 0,508 0,610 0,912 1,145 66 MD 1,790 74 0,695 73 0,447 0,337 0,421 0,884 1,094 88 UA 1,836 69 0,686 74 0,434 0,255 0,500 0,745 1,149 64 GE 2,032 54 0,884 49 0,550 0,517 0,464 0,930 1,147 65 AM 2,029 55 0,805 58 0,481 0,490 0,423 0,937 1,224 36 RU 0,296 50 0,743 67 0,498 0,359 0,429 0,868 1,353 15 KG 1,755 77 0,660 77 0,465 0,339 0,339 0,845 1,095 87 AZ 1,913 64 0,792 62 0,452 0,470 0,449 0,980 1,121 73 UZ 1,438 103 0,390 100 0,162 0,204 0,310 0,730 1,048 100 KZ 1,962 60 0,741 68 0,415 0,466 0,403 0,936 1,221 37 TJ 1,624 89 0,473 91 0,296 0,256 0,266 0,938 1,151 62 Source: made by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) End of Table Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 200 Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017 0,485 0,668 1,808 1,913 1,894 1,866 1,836 1,865 47 51 72 65 71 69 69 74 0 20 40 60 80 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 -2 01 2 20 13 Index of sustainability The rating place of Ukraine Fig. 3. Dynamics of Ukraine’s rating place in the global dimension according to the index of sustainability (2005–2013) Source: grouped by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) Though the value of the indicator increased to 2008, the rating fell. This situation is explained by two factors: firstly, to 2007 the calculation method of sustainability index was somewhat different, but this factor does not affect the rating of the country’s place in the world; secondly, in other countries the increase of sustainability index is well ahead of the pace in Ukraine, which allows them to climb the rating table. Ukraine has reached a rather high level according to the components of inequality between countries and people and the limit of water use compared to other post-socialist countries. According to these indicators, the country takes the third place. Ukraine has average values according to the components of energy security and child mortality – the 7th and the 9th places in the ranking, respectively. The worst situation in the country, according to the components of quality of life, is with the indicators of corruption level and the level of global diseases. According to these indicators, Ukraine ranked the 16th and the 15th places respectively, and it is slightly ahead of the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan (Fig. 4). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 E ne rg y se cu ri ty T he b io lo gi ca l ba la nc e C or ru pt io n le ve l In eq ua lit y be tw ee n co un tr ie s an d pe op le C O 2 em is si on s C hi ld m or ta lit y N at ur al d is as te rs Po lit ic al s ta bi lit y T he le ve l o f g lo ba l di se as es T he li m it of th e w at er us e min UA max rating place Fig. 4. The rating place of Ukraine among the post-socialist countries according to the safety of life components Source: grouped by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) Table 4 Indexes of sustainability, quality, and safety of life in post-socialist countries for 2013 Country code for Alpha-2 Index of sustainability Quality of life component Index of life safety Su st . D ev el op m en t In de x va lu e R an k am on g al l c ou nt ri es o f th e w or ld Q ua lit y of li fe co m po ne nt va lu e R an k am on g al l c ou nt ri es o f th e w or ld en vi ro nm en ta l m ea su re m en t in de x ec on om ic m ea su re m en t in de x so ci al m ea su re m en t in de x Th e de gr ee o f ha rm on iz at io n Sa fe ty o f L ife In de x va lu e R an k am on g al l c ou nt ri es o f th e w or ld LT 2,437 29 1,209 25 0,772 0,642 0,674 0,917 1,227 42 BG 2,156 47 1,018 43 0,558 0,540 0,659 0,907 1,138 80 CZ 2,480 23 1,237 21 0,758 0,648 0,732 0,931 1,243 37 PL 2,437 29 1,171 29 0,732 0,591 0,698 0,907 1,266 33 HR 2,301 40 1,090 35 0,746 0,435 0,665 0,780 1,211 46 SK 2,403 32 1,177 27 0,792 0,547 0,678 0,845 1,226 43 EE 2,478 24 1,142 31 0,552 0,709 0,708 0,885 1,336 18 LV 2,499 21 1,225 22 0,851 0,559 0,682 0,822 1,273 30 RO 2,069 54 0,869 54 0,350 0,503 0,616 0,771 1,200 50 MD 1,778 90 0,626 91 0,278 0,346 0,442 0,805 1,152 66 UA 1,865 74 0,669 85 0,303 0,299 0,517 0,721 1,196 51 GE 2,149 49 0,957 49 0,573 0,585 0,494 0,924 1,193 53 AM 2,020 56 0,771 65 0,330 0,536 0,444 0,800 1,249 35 RU 2,008 57 0,660 86 0,283 0,357 0,447 0,778 1,349 16 KG 1,652 98 0,562 99 0,303 0,317 0,351 0,935 1,090 96 AZ 1,824 84 0,713 74 0,236 0,491 0,461 0,706 1,110 89 UZ 1,428 112 0,402 111 0,088 0,211 0,331 0,537 1,025 111 KZ 1,923 68 0,691 81 0,094 0,534 0,429 0,488 1,232 40 TJ 1,600 104 0,451 107 0,162 0,305 0,289 0,740 1,149 70 Source: grouped by the author (Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life, 2016) Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 201 Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017 4. Conclusion From the abovementioned, we can conclude the following. Ukraine, which in the late 80s had one of the best starting points for the countries of the group, was constantly losing the advantages of its economy, basic science, advanced education, quality of human capital. Thus, according to the World Data Center for Geoinformatics and Sustainability (WDC-IASA- FORESIGHT, 2016), during the years of independence, the Ukraine’s economic downturn was at around 60% of the achieved production in 1991, which is comparable to the losses during the Second World War of the German, Japan, and the USSR economy. However, the economies of these countries reached the pre-war level indicators for about seven years, but the economy of Ukraine during the years of its independence fell from the 8th-10th places in Europe in 1991 to almost the last one. The fact that worries is that Ukraine almost according to all defining indices, indicators, and sustainability indicators is significantly inferiors not only to the world leaders but to the most post-socialist countries, which were taken for comparison. During the study period, the Republic of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia (except 2010) kept a stable position of five post-socialist countries with the highest rating according to the index of sustainability. Instead, Ukraine (except 2013) according to the index of sustainability was one of the five outsiders of the group of countries with the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan (except 2010). To determine the future orientations of Ukraine’s development, both threats and possibilities should be considered. Ukraine’s objective advantage is its favourable geographical and geopolitical position. As for the labour potential availability and use, Ukraine has significant advantages compared to other post- Soviet countries – 42 million of the highly educated population (according to the UNO the education enrolment rate in Ukraine is 94%). Being located on the shores of the Black and Azov seas, with a powerful gas and transport network in transit, Ukraine is a “Silk Road” for energy, cultural, and commercial exchange between East and West. As for its territory, Ukraine ranks the second place in Europe (over 600 thousand square kilometres), which determines the optimal size for the accelerated development of the area. The availability of the significant land resource potential (a fertile soil and its large area), an impressive diversity of soil and climatic conditions provide considerable advantages in the development of agrarian and food sectors of the country’s economy. A high capacity by the bioclimatic potential for the people’s life creates the necessary conditions for the growth of the quality of life social component of the country’s population. It is important for Ukraine to avoid fundamental mistakes. The risk is that much easier to prefer the successful “template”, particularly a visually attractive economic development, without a united, holistic model of environmental and social spheres. Moreover, the implementation of sustainability concept does not guarantee the rapid growth of human welfare but will require hard work and consolidated efforts of politicians, managers, scientists, and all progressive people of Ukraine. Another condition for sustainability is the political will of the state’s senior management to go a hard, but the only correct way. The crisis of Ukraine’s national ideology and strategy of development, which is delayed, can play a positive role. This is the role of the “blank page”, which gives Ukraine a chance to use the best of the acquired by the international community. This is the experience of a harmonious and sustainable development of the society, in which people’s welfare, the environment, natural resources, and human capital embodied in the achievements of science, education, advanced technologies, and high moral values are the inseparable, equal, and mutually complementary categories, the ones that enrich each other. Based on the results of the research and relying on the expert opinions of such international organizations and scientific and educational centres as the International Council for Science (ICS, 2011), UNIDO (UNIDO – United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2001) and the world’s leading universities and research universities such as Oxford University, NISTEP (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Japan), Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (Virginia Tech), Wageningen UR (Research University, the Netherlands), it should be noted that for Ukraine the solution of the defined socio-economic and environmental problems involves changing the technological structure of the country’s development. These technologies include those associated with alternative energy (in the ranking of the world’s countries, according to the share of renewable energy, Ukraine is among ten countries-outsiders), biotechnology, information and communication technology, the study of life and new materials. The priority areas for the development of these technologies should be the following: information and communication; electronics; the study of life; health care, medical care, and social security (Ukraine ranks the 61st place in the world according to the global diseases indicator); agriculture, forestry, fishery and food; energy and resources; environment; nanotechnology and new materials; production and industrial infrastructure; social infrastructure; social technologies. We are deeply convinced (and this is confirmed by the results of the study) that corruption is one of the major obstacles to the economic growth and social development of Ukraine’s society. Corruption is one of the most pressing social problems, a phenomenon, which is formed as a method of government officials, politicians, and public officials, established for a considerable period of time on the level of mentality. However, to solve this problem without the political Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 202 Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017 will of those who are in power is impossible. So, the immediate measures should be directed to: extensive economy liberalization (the cancellation of the most matching bodies in the economy and society, the reduction in the number of employees in these units); strengthening of responsibility for the avoiding of public reporting on profits and expenditures made by persons connected with the public service, for their close family members, or persons treated like them; tax reform and liberalization of the tax system should be carried out simultaneously with the increasing responsibility of individuals and entities for the violation of tax legislation; the transition to a civilized land market with the simultaneous solving of problems on the creation of local financial and credit system and insurance system for AIC, including land bank, small and medium farmers, agribusiness transition to higher technological modes. References: Zghurovskyi, M. (2016). Foresight and construction of the strategies of socio-economic development of Ukraine in the mid-term (up to 2020) and long-term (up to 2030) time horizons, Ukraine: NTUU "Igor Sikorsky KPI", Publ. house "Polytechnica". Retrieved from: http://wdc.org.ua/sites/default/files/WDC-IASA-FORESIGHT- 2016-EN.pdf Shulha, M. (2009). Geopolitical attitudes and security of Ukraine. According to sociologists, Ukraine: Typography "Biznespolihraf ". Zghurovskyi, M. (2014). Global analysis of the quality and safety of human life. Retrieved from: http://wdc.org.ua/ uk/services/country-profiles-visualization (accessed 17/09/2017) National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus 2016 Demography. Retrieved from: http://www.belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnaya-statistika/solialnaya-sfera/demografiya_2/g/obschie-koeffitsienty- smertnosti-naseleniya-po-oblastyam-i-g-minsku/ (accessed 17/09/2017) Heiets, V., Aleksandrova, V., Artomova, T., Bazhal, Yu., Baranovskyi, O., Blyzniuk, V., Bolkhovitinova, O., Brydun, Ye., Vakhnenko, T., Holikov V. (2003). Ukraine's economy: strategy and long-term development policy, NAS of Ukraine : Feniks. Federal State Statistics Service of Russian Federation 2016. Demography. Retrieved from: http://www.gks.ru/bgd/ regl/b13_13/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d4/26-05.htm (accessed 17/09/2017) Petryshyna, N. (2014). Problems of economic transformation in Ukraine. Retrieved from: http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/ cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&IMAGE_FILE_ DOWNLOAD=1&Image_file_name=PDF/Nchnpu_018_2014_24_7.pdf. (accessed on 17/09/2017) State Statistics Service of Ukraine 2014 Statistical Yearbook of Ukraine. Retrieved from: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ (accessed 17/09/2017) Zghurovskyi, M. (2016). Foresight and construction of the strategies of socio-economic development of Ukraine in the mid-term (up to 2020) and long-term (up to 2030) time horizons, Ukraine: NTUU «Igor Sikorsky KPI», Publ. house «Polytechnica». Retrieved from: http://wdc.org.ua/sites/default/files/WDC-IASA-FORESIGHT- 2016-EN.pdf Ben, M. (2001). Technology foresight in a rapidly globalizing economy, University of Sussex: Brighton. Retrieved from: http://www. unido.org/fileadmin/import/12224_01Martinslide. pdf. ICSU (2011). Strategic Plan II, 2012–2017 (including a summary of progress made in implementing the Strategic Plan I, 2006–2011), Paris: ICSU. Lubomyr, A. (1998). Ukraine in the World, Harvard: Harvard University. Sharon, L., Zviglyanich, V. (2000). Ukraine. The Search for a National Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.