INSTITUTIONAL INERTIA AND THE RESILIENCE OF UKRAINE’S POLITICAL SYSTEM UNDER WARTIME CONDITIONS: A PATH DEPENDENCE PERSPECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/2519-481X/2025/89-09Keywords:
political system, institutional inertia, path dependence, institutional resilience, resilience, public administration, security, critical junctures, decentralization, warAbstract
The article examines the impact of institutional inertia and path dependence on the effectiveness and resilience of Ukraine’s political system during the full‑scale war. It argues that the Soviet administrative legacy, informal governance practices, patron–client networks, and a centralized decision‑making model have shaped long‑term trajectories of institutional development that significantly constrain the adaptability of the public administration system and its ability to respond rapidly to crisis challenges. The analysis demonstrates that the war functions as a critical juncture that simultaneously exacerbates structural vulnerabilities of the political system and opens opportunities for institutional renewal, accelerated digitalization, security sector reform, strengthened interagency coordination, and the expansion of horizontal state–society interaction.
Special attention is devoted to the role of decentralization, civic mobilization, volunteer networks, and the development of local democracy as key factors in building institutional resilience capable of offsetting the negative effects of path dependence and ensuring state stability under prolonged threats. Drawing on contemporary approaches to resilience, crisis governance, systemic security, and institutional capacity, the study identifies the conditions under which Ukraine’s political system can overcome institutional constraints, enhance governance effectiveness, and ensure sustainable development in the medium and long term. The practical relevance of the research lies in its applicability for designing institutional resilience policies, modernizing public administration, improving state security policy, and strengthening the state’s capacity to operate under prolonged wartime and hybrid threats.
The ongoing scholarly debate concerns the extent to which path dependence limits institutional transformation during war and whether crisis events can serve as catalysts for profound structural change. A promising direction for further research is the analysis of interactions between institutional inertia and resilience mechanisms, particularly the role of digital tools, local democracy, interagency coordination, and civic mobilization in overcoming structural constraints. Equally important are questions of long‑term reform sustainability, institutional learning, and the formation of a new governance culture capable of ensuring the effective functioning of the political system under protracted military and hybrid threats.
References
1. Ansell, C., Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2021) Public governance as co‑creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Ansell, C. & Trondal, J. (2018) ‘Governing tumultuous times: Rethinking the nature of resilience’, Governance, 31(1), pp. 5–20.
3. Bachmann, V. & Bruns, B. (2023) War and resilience in Ukraine: Institutional and social perspectives.
4. Bertelsmann Stiftung (2024) Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2024. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
5. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E. & Sundelius, B. (2017) The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bruns, B. & Migliorati, M. (2024) Governance under uncertainty: The case of Ukraine.
7. Capoccia, G. & Kelemen, R.D. (2007) ‘The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism’, World Politics, 59(3), pp. 341–369.
8. Comfort, L.K. et al. (2020) ‘Crisis Management Revisited: A Research Agenda for a Volatile World’, Public Administration Review.
9. D’Anieri, P. (2019) Ukraine and Russia: From civilised divorce to uncivil war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. David, P.A. (1985) ‘Clio and the Economics of QWERTY’, The American Economic Review, 75(2), pp. 332–337.
11. Duit, A. (2016) ‘Resilience thinking: Lessons for public administration’, Public Administration, 94(2), pp. 364–380.
12. Freedom House (2024) Freedom in the World 2024. Washington, DC.
13. Greitens, S.C. (2022) National Security and Institutional Resilience.
14. Hale, H.E. (2015) Patronal Politics: Eurasian Regime Dynamics in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Krawchenko, T. (2023) Decentralization and Resilience in Ukraine.
16. Kuzio, T. (2017) Putin's War Against Ukraine: Revolution, Nationalism, and Crime. Toronto: Chair of Ukrainian Studies.
17. Levitsky, S. & Way, L.A. (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Mahoney, J. (2000) ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society, 29(4), pp. 507–548.
19. Murtazashvili, I. & Murtazashvili, J.B. (2021) Self‑governance and resilience: The case of Ukraine.
20. North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. OECD (2022) Building Resilience: Lessons from Ukraine. Paris: OECD Publishing.
22. Pierson, P. (2000) ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics’, American Political Science Review, 94(2), pp. 251–267.
23. Siddi, M. (2023) Governance and resilience in the European neighborhood.
24. Thelen, K. (1999) ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2, pp. 369–404.
25. UNDP (2023) Resilience and Recovery in Ukraine.
26. V‑Dem Institute (2024) Democracy Report 2024: Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot Box. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
27. Way, L.A. (2015) Pluralism by Default: Weak Autocrats and the Rise of Competitive Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. Pyrozhkov, S.I., Bozhok, Y.P. & Khamitov, N.V. (2021) Civilizational subjectivity of Ukraine: From potential to reality. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka.
29. Sytnyk, H.P., Zavoritnia, H. & Pavlinets, A. (2025) ‘National resilience as a scientific category and the priorities of public administration actors in ensuring it’, Public Administration and Administration in Ukraine, (2), pp. 211–223.
30. Sytnyk, H.P., Komakha, L.H. & Zubchyk, O.A. (2024) ‘Conceptual understanding of the institutional capacity of the state: A public administration perspective’, Scientific Journal of NPU Dragomanov.
31. Sytnyk, H.P., Komakha, L. & Tkachenko, I. (2024) ‘System analysis of public administration and administration in the context of the relationship between public policy, national security and institutional capacity’, Public Administration and Administration in Ukraine, (4), pp. 18–29.
