The latest IMF Memorandum has once again served as a signal: we continue to live on borrowed funds. But the debt itself is not the greatest threat. The real risk lies in our public policy’s inability to make this debt sustainable and manageable.

Debt sustainability is not about numbers – it’s about trust.
When investors see that policies are working, reforms are producing results, and laws are driving change, trust increases. Along with it grows the state’s ability to attract financing, preserve financial independence, and enhance economic security. However, one systemic problem remains neglected for decades: there are no effective tools for assessing the real-world impact of legislation.

The post-Soviet model of lawmaking still follows the logic: once a law is passed, it’s considered implemented. But was the goal achieved? Did anything change in the lives of people, in business, in the economy? These questions are rarely asked. And even when they are, there are no mechanisms to answer them.

Ukrainian legislative drafting still lacks a basic requirement: every law should have a clearly defined objective and a timeframe for its achievement.
A law is not a formality, nor is it a self-contained regulatory process. It is an instrument that must lead to measurable outcomes . This is already a standard in international practice. For instance, IMF Memorandums employ SMART criteria — objectives must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. This approach enables not only planning but also monitoring what exactly has been achieved and when.

In contrast, in Ukraine, laws are often treated as symbolic acts: "adopted" = "implemented". Reform is reduced to the adoption of a legal act, without any mechanism for impact assessment. This leads to legislative spam – a flood of laws with little or no connection to real changes in the economy or citizens’ lives. As a result, Ukraine now has over one million regulatory acts and no correlation between their volume and the pace of economic growth.

Even Ukraine’s existing methodology for regulatory impact analysis (RIA) and performance monitoring in Ukraine is focused more on procedural formalities than on forecasting the expected measurable outcomes. It fails to answer the key questions:
What economic, social, or legal impact will a particular law have – or is currently having?

According to international OECD/SIGMA standards, RIA is a tool for analyzing the consequences of all laws for society. In Ukraine, however, this tool is applied only to acts related to economic (business) activity.
But who then evaluates the impact of all other laws?
And based on what criteria — if no such criteria are actually enshrined in legislation?
These are fundamental questions, yet they remain systemically unanswered.

Take, for example, the bankruptcy reform of 2018, adopted as part of IMF conditionality. Ukraine passed the Bankruptcy Procedure Code, but what came next?
Seven years later, we still do not have answers to basic questions such as:

• Has the recovery rate on defaulted loans improved?
• Has the number of companies that restored solvency through court-supervised restructuring (instead of being liquidated) increased?
• Has legal certainty and predictability of court practice in this area improved?

There are more questions than answers — a symptom of the deeper systemic issue: the absence of structured, results-based evaluation of legislation.

But this is no longer a problem only on the Ukrainian side.
A key question must also be asked of the IMF itself:
Did the IMF achieve its own goal when financing the bankruptcy reform? Were the macroeconomic indicators in the Memorandum well-defined and relevant? And ultimately – were the funds allocated for this reform used effectively?

A similar pattern emerges in the EU integration process.
Ukraine receives EU funding to support bankruptcy reform, passes new legislation to implement the EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring — yet again, with no clear mechanism to assess when and how this reform will change judicial practice or the business environment.

This raises a direct question to the EU: Is the mere formal adoption of a law "for the record" truly an effective use of European taxpayers’ money? And are we not repeating the same mistake — replacing real outcomes with formal compliance?

Bankruptcy legislation is more than a technical issue – it reflects a country’s debt sustainability. Why? Because the risk of non-repayment is embedded into the cost of borrowing. The higher the risk, the more expensive the financing. This directly affects a business’s ability to secure loans, invest, grow, and contribute to GDP. And GDP drives everything: budget revenues, the debt-to-GDP ratio, and the ability to access new loans.

Ultimately, this is not just about economics – it's about the financial independence and defense capacity of the state, which, in wartime conditions, critically depends on the quality of governance and the ability to deliver reform results.

At the same time, it must be acknowledged: Ukraine still lacks a systematic approach to assessing the economic impact of insolvency procedures.
There are no performance indicators to measure their effectiveness in the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth.

Such indicators could include:

• the recovery rate for creditors,
• the percentage of businesses that restored solvency through court proceedings,
• the share of liquidated enterprises, and other measurable data.

Similarly, the consistency of judicial practice – both overall and specifically in insolvency cases – remains unmeasured. Yet this directly relates to SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, because predictability in the application of law is not only a pillar of the rule of law, but also a key element of the investment environment.

The time has come to replace immeasurable reform goals that produce immeasurable laws with a new approach to public policy planning – one that is based on:

• clearly defined expected outcomes,
• fixed timelines for achieving them,
• and transparent monitoring mechanisms.

This is why justice reform remains at the center of public and political discourse.
The President of Ukraine has publicly expressed concern over the protracted transformation of the judicial system . Although the Judicial Reform Strategy has been presented multiple times, the key question remains unanswered:
What is its ultimate goal, and how exactly will trust in the judiciary be restored?

The President is right to insist on:

• concrete implementation mechanisms,
• real tools to assess progress,
• and shared responsibility across all branches of power.
  The "we are reforming" narrative has exhausted itself. It is time to adopt a new principle: "we have achieved".

Because if a goal cannot be measured – it does not exist.
And if it does not exist, it cannot be monitored, funded, evaluated, or even verified. That is why we need a new quality standard for legislative work.

What must change?

First and foremost – the structure of the law itself.
Each draft law should include:

• Measurable objectives and clear performance indicators;
• A specific implementation timeframe;
• Expanded analytical content in the explanatory note, detailing how and when the declared objectives are expected to be achieved.

This approach is necessary not only for the Cabinet of Ministers or the Verkhovna Rada. It should also become the foundation of effective work by the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine, which, during audits, must focus not only on verifying compliance with procedures and formal requirements, but above all — on assessing whether the goals of adopted laws have been achieved, as defined in strategic and operational development plans.

This is where the Chamber’s recommendations for improving the efficiency of public authorities should be directed. When goals are measurable, tracking the implementation of the Chamber’s recommendations becomes simpler, more transparent, and more results-oriented. Most importantly, it becomes a key to the responsible and rational use of financial resources, both domestic and international.
Because funding should serve not the maintenance of the system, but the achievement of real change.

What does this require?

In fact, not much. It would be sufficient to introduce several targeted changes to the Rules of Procedure of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Verkhovna Rada, namely:

• Unify the rules of legislative drafting (law-making techniques);
• Introduce analytical legal expertise with impact assessment;
• Make it mandatory to include measurable goals directly in the text of draft laws, not just in explanatory notes.

It is time to enshrine a simple but fundamental formula of results-based public policy : Reform objective = Law objective = Measurable result + Clearly defined deadline.

This logic must apply not only to new legislative initiatives but also to the review of existing laws. Without this, Ukraine will continue to adopt laws without knowing what they change and when.

The dynamics of investment – both domestic and foreign — is the baseline metric of public governance efficiency and debt sustainability.
Because investors don’t fund uncertainty – they invest in predictable outcomes, clear rules, and responsible policymaking.

The introduction of measurable goals in legislation may seem like a technical solution, but in reality, it is a foundational, system-shaping reform. It shifts the focus of law-making from form, structure, and legal content to what matters most – the expected impact of regulatory acts. This enables a transition from declarative policy to action-based policy, from a 'pass-and-forget' model to an 'implement-and-deliver' approach.

This is the cornerstone of results-oriented governance, where every law functions as a tool for change – not just a marker of political activity.
It is also the key to efficient use of public and international resources, to accountability, trust, and resilience.

In a world where credit is issued on trust, and trust is built on results, laws become the real currency of trust and reform.  And only laws with measurable goals can turn Ukraine’s debt from a vulnerability into a strategic advantage – and restore control over the economy.

Oleksandr Gavryliuk, PhD in Law, Senior Research Fellow State Organization "V. Mamutov Institute of Economic and Legal Research of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine"