ENDOGENOUS MODELS OF ECONOMSC GROWTH AND THEIR APPLICATUON FOR THE POST-WAR RECOVERY OF UKRAINE'S ECONOMY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32689/2523-4536/81-2Keywords:
endogenous economic growth, human capital, innovation, research and development (R&D), government expenditure, technological progress, Romer model, Lucas model, Barro model, Aghion–Howitt model, post-war economy of UkraineAbstract
The post-war recovery of Ukraine’s economy necessitates the reconsideration of growth strategies and the adaptation of theoretical approaches to new realities. This study emphasizes the importance of endogenous growth models, which interpret economic development as the outcome of internal factors such as human capital, investments, research, and innovation. The research applies methods of theoretical analysis, synthesis, and comparison of growth models to assess their applicability in the Ukrainian context. Special attention is devoted to identifying the capacity of knowledge accumulation, innovation, and competition to stimulate structural modernization under conditions of uncertainty, infrastructural destruction, and labor force migration. The results demonstrate that endogenous models offer valuable tools for understanding Ukraine’s long-term recovery prospects. The Romer model highlights the role of knowledge accumulation in technological progress, while Lucas stresses the importance of human capital formation. Jones refines the dynamics of research productivity, and Barro underlines the impact of state policy and investment. The Schumpeterian model of Aghion and Howitt, which explains growth through innovation-driven “creative destruction,” is found to be particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it reflects the need for rapid modernization and replacement of outdated industries with innovative sectors. The study further shows that the integration of certain elements from other models—such as Solow’s focus on physical capital accumulation, Lucas’s emphasis on learning-by-doing, and Barro’s insights into public investment—makes it possible to design a hybrid approach adapted to the specific challenges of post-war development. The practical value of the article lies in offering a conceptual framework for policymakers to set priorities in education, R&D, and infrastructure investment, as well as to stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship. By adapting endogenous growth models to Ukraine’s realities, the study provides tools for elaborating strategies that enhance internal growth drivers, accelerate technological renewal, and ensure sustainable post-war economic recovery.
References
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951599
Aghion, P., & Griffith, R. (2007). Competition and growth: Reconciling theory and evidence. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262033848/competition-and-growth/
Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2015). Innovation and top income inequality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00492
Barro, R. J. (1990). Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S103–S125. https://doi.org/10.1086/261726
Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407–443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937943
Benhabib, J., & Spiegel, M. (1994). The role of human capital in economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 34(2), 143–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(94)90047-7
Bilenko, Y. (2016). Endogenous mechanisms of economic growth of the states: Possibilities for Ukraine [Endohenni mekhanizmy ekonomichnoho zrostannia derzhav: mozhlyvosti dlia Ukrainy]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290938134_The_regional_dimension_of_economic_growth_in_Ukraine
Blomberg, S. B., Hess, G. D., & Orphanides, A. (2004). The macroeconomic consequences of terrorism. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51(5), 1007–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2004.03.003
Hryshchenko, O., & Gryshchenko, D. (2023). Innovation, institutions and economic growth in transition economies: The case of Ukraine. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 26(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2023.2170845
Instytut ekonomiky ta prohnozuvannia NAN Ukrainy. (2023). Otsinka ta prohnozy endohennoho zrostannia ekonomiky Ukrainy [Assessment and forecasts of endogenous economic growth in Ukraine]. https://ief.org.ua/publication/monohrafii/2023/ocinka-ta-prohnozy-endohennoho-zrostannjaekonomiky-ukrainy
Jones, C. I. (1995). Time series tests of endogenous growth models. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(4), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946697
Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
Minea, A. (2008). The role of public spending in the growth of the economy. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 2, 7–18. https://ipe.ro/rjef/rjef2_08/rjef2_08_7.pdf
Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOEG.0000031425.72248.85
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
Sachs, J. (2015). The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-age-of-sustainable-development/9780231173148
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP doesn’t add up. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/statistics/mismeasuring-our-lives-9789264074193-en.htm
Šundarević, Č., Vuksanović, V., & Kharlamova, G. (2024). Post-war transition and economic resilience: Evidence from Ukraine. Economic Systems, 48(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2023.101283
World Bank. (n.d.). Gross capital formation (% of GDP) – Ukraine. Trading Economics. https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/gross-capital-formation-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
World Bank. (n.d.). Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) – Ukraine. Trading Economics. https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/research-and-development-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
RBC-Ukraine. (n.d.). Ukraine ranked 50th in the human capital index. https://www.rbc.ua/ukr/news/ukraina-zanyala-50-e-mesto-reytinge-chelovecheskogo-1539257611.html
Statista. (n.d.). Government expenditure (% of GDP) – Ukraine. https://www.statista.com/outlook/co/macroeconomic-indicators/ukraine
World Bank. (n.d.). Human capital index (HCI) – Poland. World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/HD.HCI.OVRL?locations=PL
World Bank. (n.d.). Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) – Poland. World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locations=PL
Trading Economics. (n.d.). Gross fixed capital formation (% of GDP) – Poland. https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/gross-fixed-capital-formation-at-current-prices-eurostat-data.html
TheGlobalEconomy.com. (n.d.). Government spending (% of GDP) – Poland. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Poland/government_size/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Н.І. Тімко

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.








