| Popis: |
The author analyzes the processes occurring in the banking sector of Ukraine from the standpoint of "non-economic" policy, the theory of which is currently being discussed in modern economics. According to the author, the impact of such a policy does not allow Ukraine to find the optimal strategy for its development, in particular regarding the regulation in the banking sector. One of the reasons for this is the shortage of public administration, which is generally characteristic of countries with economies in transition. It is proved that the NBU's "settlement" of the banking market after 2014 was extremely unsuccessful from an economic point of view. Quantitative estimates of losses suffered by the Ukrainian economy as a result of the campaign to clean up the banking sector during 2014-2016 are presented and analyzed. Through the prism of the typology of "non-economic" policy, the author considers the processes of demonetization of Ukraine's economy and current problems of the national stock market. It is determined that during the reforms in the banking sector, the adoption by the ruling elite, as well as the by the judiciary, of a series of uncalculated and unconsidered decisions poorly consistent with Ukraine’s specific features led to destructive consequences, which affect the long-term development of the country's economy. In addition to economic losses (more than 10 billion USD) and the planting of a ticking bomb under the future lending, the "bankfall" brought about social damage, which is the loss, by the most active segment of the population, of the confidence in the economic strategy proposed by government officials. In recent years, after the crisis of 2014, no banking institutions have been registered, while the number of banks’ separate branches is rapidly declining, along with the corresponding number of jobs. The author concludes that the current practice of selling liquidation assets of bankrupt banks will have a long-term negative effect, because it benefited bad creditors who bought their overdue debt at a discount through third parties, while the most active part of the population (depositors "200+" and small and medium businesses) suffered losses and lost confidence in banks. It is noted that the main reason for Ukraine to choose the "non-economic" policy is the separation of the management decisions from real socio-economic needs. As a result, the economic decisions initiated in this area not only cause material damage, but also hinder this country’s civilizational advancement. |
