DOI: https://doi.org/10.62204/2336-498X-2025-1-4

ECONOMIC NATIONALISM AND EUROPEAN INTEGRATION:

A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO UKRAINE’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 

Daria Serogina,

Ph.D. in Economics,
Associate Professor at the Department of Economics and Marketing,
M. Beketov National University of Urban Economy in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
serogina@kname.edu.ua; ORCID: 0000-0001-8795-199X

Tetiana Pushka,

Ph.D. in Economics,
Associate Professor at the Department of Economics and Marketing,
M. Beketov National University of Urban Economy in Kharkiv, Ukraine,
tetyana.pushkar@kname.edu.ua; ORCID: 0000-0003-2067-7484

 

Annotation. This study explores the implications of economic nationalism, economic patriotism, and European integration on Ukraine’s socio-economic development. By examining domestic initiatives and drawing parallels with successful global practices, the research identifies actionable strategies to foster economic resilience and sustainable growth. Additionally, the study evaluates three strategic scenarios for Ukraine – protectionism, a balanced approach, and market liberalization – highlighting their trade-offs and potential outcomes. The findings provide a comprehensive framework for policy design, emphasizing the optimal mix of strategies to support domestic industries while ensuring competitiveness in global markets.

Keywords: economic nationalism, economic patriotism, European integration, Ukraine, socio-economic development.

 

Introduction. In the contemporary globalized economy, Ukraine is positioned at a critical juncture, navigating the dual imperatives of economic recovery and deeper integration into the European Union (EU). The interplay of these objectives is further complicated by the impacts of ongoing military conflict, which have significantly reshaped the country’s socio-economic priorities, disrupted industrial capacities, and placed heightened demands on both public and private sectors. Addressing these multifaceted challenges necessitates a comprehensive exploration of how economic nationalism, economic patriotism, and European integration can inform and shape Ukraine’s economic policies to ensure sustainable growth while safeguarding its strategic economic interests.

Recent developments in Ukraine demonstrate a proactive approach to economic resilience, with notable initiatives aimed at stimulating domestic production and fostering economic patriotism. Programs such as the “National Cashback” initiative, which incentivizes the purchase of Ukrainian-made goods, and the broader “Made in Ukraine” campaign underscore efforts to strengthen local industries and reduce reliance on imports. Additionally, the promotion of industrial patriotism, particularly in strategic sectors such as defense, agriculture, and energy, reflects a deliberate strategy to enhance economic sovereignty and fortify critical industries.

These domestic efforts align with international practices that have proven effective in other economies. Economic nationalism, exemplified by the United States’ “Buy American Act” and India’s “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiative, highlights the utility of policies aimed at protecting and nurturing local industries through mechanisms such as trade barriers, targeted subsidies, and strategic incentives. Adapting such approaches, Ukraine could prioritize the development of key sectors, including agriculture and manufacturing, while ensuring alignment with international trade agreements to mitigate the risks of economic isolation.

Conversely, economic patriotism offers a balanced framework that prioritizes national industries within an open-market context. Nations such as France have demonstrated the effectiveness of safeguarding strategic sectors, such as telecommunications and energy, from foreign acquisitions while maintaining compliance with EU regulations. For Ukraine, such policies could focus on the development of high-growth sectors like information technology and renewable energy, leveraging domestic expertise while attracting foreign direct investment (FDI).

European integration provides an opportunity for Ukraine to modernize its economy and access the EU’s single market, comprising over 450 million consumers. The experience of Poland serves as a salient example of how alignment with EU standards and the utilization of structural funds can facilitate infrastructure modernization, enhance competitiveness, and drive GDP growth. However, integration also imposes stringent regulatory requirements and necessitates significant economic adjustments, posing challenges for less competitive domestic industries.

This analysis underscores the importance of tailoring economic strategies to Ukraine’s unique conditions, informed by global best practices and grounded in the need for both economic resilience and long-term growth. A balanced approach that combines elements of nationalism, patriotism, and integration may offer the most viable pathway for Ukraine’s socio-economic development in a rapidly evolving global context.

Literature Review. Economic nationalism emphasizes the primacy of domestic industries through protective policies such as subsidies, tariffs, and restrictions on foreign ownership. Scholars argue that these measures are critical for fostering local capacity and achieving economic independence, particularly in times of crisis [1, 3].

Clift and Woll (2012) [3] analyze how European states have strategically deployed nationalist policies to protect critical industries, even within the constraints of open market systems. For instance, strategic subsidies in manufacturing and agriculture have been utilized to mitigate external competition and support local employment [6]. The United States’ “Buy American Act” further illustrates the role of procurement policies in prioritizing local industries, particularly in sectors with high public investment [3].

In Ukraine, economic nationalism could serve as a viable strategy for protecting key industries, particularly agriculture and defense manufacturing, which are pivotal to national security. However, literature warns of the risks associated with prolonged protectionism, including market inefficiencies and diminished competitiveness in international trade [2].

Economic patriotism offers a more flexible approach, prioritizing national economic interests while maintaining openness to global markets. This concept, as explored by Clift and Woll (2012) [3], encompasses measures that align domestic industrial policies with international trade norms, allowing states to safeguard strategic sectors without resorting to overt protectionism [6].

France provides a compelling example of economic patriotism, where targeted policies have protected industries such as telecommunications and energy from foreign takeovers while remaining compliant with EU regulations. This approach has enabled France to maintain control over critical sectors while leveraging global capital for growth [6].

Ukraine’s “National Cashback” program aligns with this framework, incentivizing domestic consumption through financial rebates while promoting transparency and reducing the shadow economy [1, 3]. Such policies could be extended to strategic industries like renewable energy and IT, where Ukraine has significant growth potential.

European integration represents a comprehensive framework for modernization, offering access to the EU’s single market and structural funds. Poland’s experience serves as a benchmark, with EU membership facilitating infrastructure development, increased FDI inflows, and sustained GDP growth [4, 5].

However, integration is not without challenges. Studies highlight the economic and social costs of aligning domestic industries with EU standards, particularly for less competitive sectors. For example, Romania faced significant structural adjustments in agriculture and small-scale manufacturing during its accession process, underscoring the need for strategic planning and phased reforms [5].

For Ukraine, integration offers a pathway to diversify its trade partnerships and modernize regulatory frameworks. Yet, the literature emphasizes the importance of balancing these reforms with policies that protect vulnerable industries from immediate exposure to EU competition [4].

Ukraine’s socio-economic policies reflect a blend of economic nationalism, patriotism, and integration. The Ministry of Economy has highlighted programs aimed at fostering industrial patriotism, particularly in defense and agriculture, as part of its broader strategy to enhance economic resilience [3]. Additionally, the “Made in Ukraine” initiative underscores efforts to stimulate domestic production while promoting national identity in global markets [1, 3].

Research by the Institute for Economic Forecasting further explores how Ukraine can leverage regional trade agreements and global trends to enhance its economic competitiveness. This requires a balanced approach that integrates domestic priorities with global opportunities, particularly in the context of ongoing geopolitical and economic uncertainties [2].

Nevertheless, integrating global best practices into Ukraine’s socio-economic landscape remains a complex task, requiring tailored solutions that consider both immediate and long-term goals.

Despite the valuable insights provided by the literature, several unresolved questions remain. While economic nationalism can protect critical industries, how can Ukraine mitigate the risks of inefficiency and isolation associated with such policies? Economic patriotism offers a balanced approach, but what mechanisms can ensure its effective implementation in Ukraine’s open-market context? Similarly, while European integration presents opportunities for modernization, what strategies can help Ukraine balance the demands of alignment with EU standards while protecting less competitive domestic sectors? These questions form the foundation of this study, guiding its analysis of how Ukraine can navigate these frameworks to achieve sustainable growth and resilience.

Research Objective. This study evaluates the implications of economic nationalism, patriotism, and European integration on Ukraine’s economic trajectory. By analyzing domestic initiatives and drawing parallels with successful global practices, the research aims to offer actionable strategies for fostering economic resilience and growth.

This research investigates how Ukraine can balance different economic strategies to achieve sustainable growth and economic resilience. The study focuses on analyzing the effectiveness of approaches based on economic nationalism, economic patriotism, and European integration in influencing Ukraine’s socio-economic development. Particular attention is given to their impacts on key indicators such as GDP growth, foreign direct investment, and industrial modernization. The research also examines global best practices, drawing insights from countries that have successfully implemented similar strategies, and explores how these approaches can be adapted to Ukraine’s specific economic context and development priorities. Additionally, the study considers the optimal mix of policies needed to support domestic industries while ensuring competitiveness in global markets, emphasizing Ukraine’s potential to leverage its unique resources and geographical position to maximize the benefits of these approaches.

Methodology. This study employs a mixed-methods approach to analyze the implications of economic nationalism, economic patriotism, and European integration for Ukraine’s socio-economic development. The methodology is designed to evaluate these frameworks’ impacts on key economic indicators and provide actionable recommendations for fostering resilience and growth. The analysis integrates qualitative and quantitative methods, drawing on global best practices and adapting them to Ukraine’s specific context.

  1. Research Design

The research is structured into two main components:

– Comparative Analysis: Evaluates the effectiveness of economic nationalism, patriotism, and European integration in achieving socio-economic objectives, using case studies from countries like the United States, France, and Poland.

– Scenario Analysis: Explores three potential economic strategies for Ukraine —protectionism, a balanced approach, and liberalization—assessing their trade-offs and outcomes.

  1. Data Collection

The study utilizes secondary data from a variety of sources:

– Academic Literature: Articles and studies on economic frameworks, including Clift and Woll (2012) [3], Choudhury et al. (2024) [2], the Centre for European Reform (2024) [1], Medve-Bálint and Éltető (2024) [7], and Yue et al. (2024) [11], provide a comprehensive basis for analyzing the implications of economic nationalism, patriotism, and integration in diverse contexts.

– Policy Reports: Government publications, including Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy reports, EU integration assessments, and international policy briefs.

– Economic Indicators: Data on GDP growth, FDI inflows, trade balances, and industrial output from organizations such as the World Bank [10], OECD [8], and Ukraine’s State Statistics Service [9].

  1. Evaluation Criteria

To ensure a consistent analysis, the study adopts the following evaluation criteria:

– Support for Domestic Industries: Measured by the level of subsidies, tax incentives, and programs aimed at fostering local production.

– Investment Attraction: Assessed by FDI inflows, their distribution across sectors, and their alignment with strategic economic priorities.

– Energy Independence: Evaluated based on the share of renewable energy, domestic production capacities, and dependence on energy imports.

– Regulatory Alignment: Examined through compliance with international trade agreements and alignment with EU standards.

  1. Comparative Analysis

The study employs a comparative framework to analyze the effectiveness of economic frameworks in different contexts:

– Economic Nationalism: Case studies include the United States’ “Buy American Act” and India’s “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiative, focusing on their impacts on industrial self-reliance and job creation.

– Economic Patriotism: France’s policies on strategic sector protection serve as a model for balancing national interests with global market integration.

– European Integration: Poland’s use of EU structural funds and its regulatory alignment illustrate the potential benefits and challenges of integration.

  1. Scenario Analysis

The study models three potential scenarios for Ukraine’s economic trajectory:

  1. Protectionism: Prioritizes domestic industry protection through tariffs and subsidies, with high isolation risks.
  2. Balanced Approach: Combines selective protectionism with regulatory alignment and strategic EU integration.
  3. Liberalization: Emphasizes open markets and foreign investment attraction, with risks of social inequality and economic dependency.

Each scenario is analyzed against the evaluation criteria, focusing on trade-offs between growth, stability, and competitiveness.

  1. Data Normalization and Aggregation

To facilitate comparison, the study normalizes quantitative data to a unified scale (e.g., 0–10). Aggregated scores are calculated for each approach and scenario, enabling direct comparison of their relative effectiveness across evaluation criteria.

  1. Visualization

The findings are presented through radar Charts: Comparative analysis of economic frameworks and scenario-based evaluations.

  1. Limitations

The study acknowledges potential limitations, including reliance on secondary data, variability in economic conditions across case studies, and the challenges of directly extrapolating global practices to Ukraine’s unique context. These limitations are addressed by incorporating expert insights and sensitivity analyses.

Results and Visualizations. This study evaluates economic nationalism, economic patriotism, and European integration in Ukraine’s socio-economic development, incorporating insights from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, China, India, and the United States. By analyzing these countries’ strategies across criteria such as support for domestic industries, investment attraction, energy independence, and regulatory alignment, we establish a framework for policy development tailored to Ukraine’s needs.

Poland exemplifies the successful integration of economic nationalism and European integration. Since joining the EU in 2004, Poland’s GDP per capita has increased from 48% to 82% of the EU average (2024), accompanied by a drop in unemployment from 20% to 2.9%. These improvements are largely attributed to the strategic use of EU structural funds for infrastructure development and industrial modernization. Poland has also taken proactive measures to mitigate foreign influence by expanding its strategic company list to include sectors such as media and telecommunications (2024). This careful balance between integration and safeguarding domestic industries has enabled Poland to achieve rapid convergence with EU economic standards while maintaining national control over critical sectors.

Hungary’s approach to economic nationalism involves selective state intervention, particularly in strategic industries such as energy and automotive manufacturing. The automotive sector contributes around 6% of Hungary’s GDP, with additional contributions from suppliers amounting to 8–9% (2024). Government policies have focused on fostering national champions in pharmaceuticals and technology, emphasizing resilience and sovereignty. However, Hungary’s economic strategy also underscores the importance of maintaining trade relationships to sustain growth. The country’s reliance on foreign markets highlights the trade-offs between economic nationalism and external market access.

The Czech Republic takes a cautious approach to economic nationalism, with a focus on energy independence. Recent investments in renewable energy have reduced vulnerabilities associated with external energy dependence, aligning the country with EU energy standards. The Czech automotive industry, which has attracted significant foreign investment, exemplifies a balanced strategy that supports both local suppliers and foreign investors. This dual focus on fostering domestic industries while complying with EU integration requirements provides valuable insights for Ukraine’s efforts to modernize its economy.

Slovakia’s economic strategy reflects its historical context of dependency and its transition toward industrial modernization. The country has effectively leveraged foreign investment in its automotive sector, which accounts for approximately 13% of GDP (2024), to build local industrial capacity. By balancing sovereignty with external partnerships, Slovakia has become a major player in Europe’s automotive supply chain. However, challenges remain in reducing dependency on foreign actors and ensuring long-term competitiveness.

China’s economic nationalism is defined by its industrial policies and global engagement. The “Made in China 2025” initiative focuses on reducing reliance on foreign technology and achieving dominance in high-tech industries such as semiconductors and renewable energy. Although China accounts for only 5% of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity (2024), the government has heavily invested in domestic innovation to close this gap. However, China’s aggressive export strategy has led to trade tensions, highlighting the challenges of balancing domestic priorities with global integration. For Ukraine, adopting aspects of China’s industrial strategy could accelerate growth in IT and advanced manufacturing.

India’s Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) initiative promotes self-reliance by incentivizing domestic manufacturing while maintaining integration into global value chains. The production-linked incentives (PLI) scheme has driven a 30% increase in electronics exports between 2021 and 2022. By 2023, electronics exports were expected to reach ₹1.76 lakh crore. This model illustrates how domestic production goals can coexist with global trade opportunities. For Ukraine, India’s experience offers a framework for reducing dependency on imports while attracting foreign investment in strategic sectors like electronics and pharmaceuticals.

The United States provides a robust model of economic nationalism through policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Buy American Act. The IRA, introduced in 2022, allocated $369 billion in subsidies and tax incentives to support clean energy production, fostering the growth of domestic industries like solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. By 2024, 3.4 million Americans had benefited from $8.4 billion in tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades. The U.S. also employs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to protect strategic industries like semiconductors and telecommunications from foreign control. However, the U.S. model highlights trade-offs, including higher production costs and trade tensions, underscoring the need for careful policy design to ensure competitiveness.

The analysis of global practices provides valuable insights into the strengths and challenges of various economic frameworks. Poland demonstrates the advantages of leveraging EU resources while safeguarding key industries. Hungary highlights the potential and risks of state intervention in strategic sectors. The Czech Republic showcases a balanced approach to fostering energy independence and complying with EU standards. Slovakia illustrates the effective use of foreign investment to strengthen domestic industries. China emphasizes the importance of ambitious industrial policies in achieving global competitiveness. India illustrates how incentives can align domestic production with global trade integration. The United States demonstrates the effectiveness of targeted subsidies and industrial policies in fostering innovation and securing strategic sectors.

This comparative evaluation highlights distinct patterns across the key criteria. Economic nationalism excels in supporting domestic industries and achieving energy independence, as seen in China’s “Made in China 2025” initiative and Hungary’s focus on energy sovereignty. However, it often faces challenges in attracting foreign investment and aligning with international regulatory standards. Economic patriotism offers a middle ground, providing moderate support for domestic priorities while fostering global market engagement, exemplified by France’s and India’s strategic sector policies. European integration stands out in attracting investment and enhancing competitiveness through regulatory alignment, as demonstrated by Poland’s and the Czech Republic’s success within the EU framework.

For Ukraine, these findings emphasize the trade-offs inherent in each approach. Economic nationalism, while beneficial for energy independence and local industry, may limit Ukraine’s access to foreign capital. Economic patriotism provides a pragmatic pathway to leverage domestic strengths while integrating selectively into global markets. European integration offers long-term benefits in market access and investment but requires significant structural adjustments. 

  The radar charts illustrate these trade-offs and synergies. The first radar chart compares the performance of economic nationalism, economic patriotism, and European integration across support for domestic industries, investment attraction, energy independence, regulatory alignment, and competitiveness. The second radar chart evaluates the scenario-based outcomes for Ukraine under three potential strategies: protectionism, a balanced approach, and liberalization. These visualizations provide a clear framework for understanding the implications of each approach and scenario, guiding strategic decision-making.

Radar Chart 1: Economic nationalism excels in supporting local industries and achieving energy independence (as seen in China and Hungary). However, it scores lower in regulatory alignment and competitiveness. Economic patriotism provides a balanced score across all criteria (France’s model). European integration excels in regulatory alignment and investment attraction (Poland) but struggles with domestic industry protection.

Radar Chart 2: Scenario outcomes highlight that:

– Protectionism achieves high scores for domestic industry support but falters in investment attraction and regulatory alignment.

– Balanced approach offers consistent scores across criteria, balancing domestic priorities with global integration.

– Liberalization excels in investment attraction and competitiveness but lags in protecting domestic industries and energy independence.

The analysis of global practices reveals several recurring patterns that highlight the strengths and trade-offs of different economic strategies. Strong nationalist policies, such as those adopted by the U.S., China, and Hungary, provide significant short-term boosts by protecting domestic industries and fostering self-reliance. These policies enhance critical sectors like energy and manufacturing but often encounter challenges in attracting foreign investment and maintaining compliance with international trade standards.

Integration-focused policies, exemplified by Poland and the Czech Republic, demonstrate the long-term benefits of aligning with global markets. These strategies leverage trade and investment opportunities while ensuring regulatory modernization. However, such approaches demand extensive structural reforms and adjustments, which may place short-term strain on less competitive domestic industries.

Balanced models, such as India’s mix of self-reliance and trade integration, illustrate the potential for gradual alignment with global markets while preserving national interests. India’s production-linked incentives (PLI) programs, for example, attract foreign investment in strategic sectors like electronics and pharmaceuticals while fostering local enterprise growth.

For Ukraine, these insights suggest that a hybrid approach offers the most sustainable path forward. By combining elements of economic nationalism and European integration, Ukraine can craft a strategy that maximizes benefits while mitigating risks. Targeted subsidies should focus on strategic industries, including defense and energy, to strengthen critical infrastructure and ensure national security. Simultaneously, policies should prioritize integration into EU trade structures to leverage market access and attract foreign direct investment (FDI).

A careful balance must be maintained to avoid undermining local enterprise resilience. While foreign investment is essential for modernization, overly liberalized markets could harm domestic industries unable to compete with international players. Ukraine should adopt regulatory measures that ensure FDI aligns with national priorities, particularly in sectors like IT and agriculture.

Different economic strategies are likely to have varied impacts on Ukraine’s regions, depending on their industrial strengths and resource availability.

Regions with strong agricultural bases, such as Vinnytsia, Kherson, and Poltava, would benefit most from targeted subsidies in farming technologies and export-oriented production.

IT hubs, including Kyiv, Lviv, and Kharkiv, could thrive with increased investment in digital infrastructure and skill development programs, fostering innovation and creating high-value jobs.

Energy independence initiatives would likely shift investments toward regions with renewable energy potential, such as wind farms in Zaporizhzhia and Mykolaiv or solar energy projects in Dnipro and Odesa.

Developing local energy infrastructure could reduce reliance on imported energy and boost regional economies by creating jobs and fostering local industry.

By tailoring these strategies to regional strengths, Ukraine can promote balanced economic growth while addressing local needs. A hybrid approach that considers both national and regional priorities will ensure resilience and inclusivity in Ukraine’s economic transformation.

To effectively implement a hybrid approach, it is crucial to visualize how the combination of targeted subsidies and integration into EU trade structures can collectively foster sustainable growth. The flowchart below outlines the interconnected pathways of the hybrid strategy, demonstrating how support for strategic industries and regulatory alignment work together to achieve national and regional economic objectives.

The flowchart illustrates the dual impact of targeted subsidies and EU integration. By strengthening critical sectors like defense and energy through subsidies, Ukraine can enhance national security and energy independence. Simultaneously, aligning with EU trade structures and attracting FDI will modernize infrastructure, improve market access, and bolster competitiveness. This interconnected approach ensures that economic growth is not only sustainable but also inclusive, addressing both national and regional priorities. Adopting this framework allows Ukraine to balance domestic resilience with global integration, creating a robust foundation for long-term development.

The hybrid approach is not without challenges. Structural reforms required for EU integration may strain government capacity and resources, while efforts to bolster domestic industries may face resistance from global trade partners. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated policy effort, strong institutional frameworks, and international support.

By aligning national priorities with global opportunities, Ukraine can create an economic strategy that is not only resilient but also inclusive. Targeted investments in key sectors and regions, coupled with regulatory reforms and strategic partnerships, can drive sustainable growth, improve living standards, and position Ukraine as a competitive player in the global economy.

   Conclusions. This study underscores that Ukraine’s most viable economic strategy lies in a hybrid approach, blending elements of economic nationalism and European integration. Strong nationalist policies, as seen in the United States and China, offer short-term benefits for domestic industries and energy independence but risk limiting foreign investment. Conversely, integration-focused strategies, exemplified by Poland, provide long-term growth through market access and regulatory alignment, albeit with significant reform challenges.

A hybrid strategy enables Ukraine to leverage the strengths of both frameworks. Targeted subsidies for strategic sectors, such as defense and energy, can enhance national resilience, while integration into EU trade structures unlocks market opportunities and attracts foreign direct investment. This approach also addresses regional disparities, ensuring that policies benefit diverse sectors, from agriculture to IT.

By balancing domestic priorities with global engagement, Ukraine can foster sustainable growth, strengthen competitiveness, and build a resilient economy capable of meeting both national and international challenges.

 

References:

 

  1. Centre for European Reform. (2024). Europe and the Superpowers: Responding to Economic Nationalism. Retrieved from https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2024/europe-and-superpowers-responding-economic-nationalism
  2. Choudhury, A., Jandhyala, S., & Nandkumar, A. (2024). Economic Nationalism and the Home Court Advantage. Strategic Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3658
  3. Clift, B. and Woll, C. (2012). Economic patriotism: reinventing control over open markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(3), pp. 307-323. Retrieved from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/42043/
  4. de Bolle, M., & Zettelmeyer, J. (2019). Measuring the Rise of Economic Nationalism. SSRN. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3441747
  5. Girard, T. (2024). National Identity and the Limits of Platform Power in the Global Economy. International Studies Quarterly, 68(3). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381802492_National_Identity_and_the_Limits_of_Platform_Power_in_the_Global_Economy
  6. Maxwell, W. (n.d.). Economic Patriotism: France’s Regulations More Bark Than Bite. Hogan Lovells. Retrieved from https://www.hoganlovells.com/-/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publication/ecopatriotismenglish_pdf.pdf
  7. Medve-Bálint, G., & Éltető, A. (2024). Economic nationalists, regional investment aid, and the stability of FDI-led growth in East Central Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2305834
  8. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2024). OECD Data. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/data.html
  9. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2024). Official website. Retrieved from https://stat.gov.ua/en
  10. World Bank. (2024). World Bank DataBank. Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/home.aspx
  11. Yue, L. Q., Zheng, J., & Mao, K. (2024). Firms’ Rhetorical Nationalism: Theory, Measurement, and Evidence from a Computational Analysis of Chinese Public Firms. Management and Organization Review, 20(2), 161–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2024.6