Author I. Lytvynova, PhD Student, ORCID ID 0000-0001-5858-1686,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
Annotation: Studies have been conducted on whether the basic functions of the customs and tariff mechanism changed during martial law and whether the priority of the functions of the customs and tariff mechanism was determined during the war. It is proved that the
impact of customs tariffs on the sustainable development of Ukraine is essential, looking at the super-large import component of
most Ukrainian goods, as well as the significant effect of imported goods on the domestic market during the downtime of their
production. During the war, there are destructive processes associated with the impossibility, in most cases of competing in the
market of finished products worldwide. Most of the finished products in Ukraine went to domestic consumption during the war,
contrary to global development and globalization trends.
A hypothesis has been put forward that these destructive processes are mostly due to the lack of working capital of Ukrainian enterprises during the state of war, and the increase in the cost of the logistics component, which is part of the tax base for imports. Even though the Ukrainian market is increasingly open to foreign manufacturers, it is a complex and long-term competition between Ukrainian and foreign producers in both domestic and foreign markets. One of the most significant factors of influence is customs tariffs, and VAT is one of the most significant burdens on imports. With the help of comparison, a possible reduction in the burden on Ukrainian enterprises during import and export was
analyzed, and possible tools were identified that would create new jobs or reinvest earned business funds in the country’s
economy. The tools were found when conducting a comparative analysis of the customs tariff mechanism before and during the
war in Ukraine, considering the goals of sustainable development. Quantitative and qualitative impact to selected macroeconomic
indicators of Ukraine after implementing deferred payment for VAT in import of goods analyzed. The qualitative impact was
analyzed to show us the result of calls on surveys to understand business attitudes, and interests according to the implementation
of deferred payment for VAT in import of goods in Ukraine.
Keywords: customs duties, customs tariffs, customs tariff mechanism, sustainable development, sustainable development
of Ukraine.
Received: 24/04/2022
1st Revision: 15/05/2022
Accepted: 25/05/2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2022/218-1/3
References
1. Sachs J., Kroll C., Lafortune G., Fuller G., Woelm F., 2021. Sustainable Development Report 2021.The Decade for Action for the SGDs.
2. Dantasa T., de-Souzab E.D., Destrob I.R., Hammesb G., Rodriguezb C.M.T, Soaresa S.R., 2021. How the combination of Circular Economy
and Industry 4.0 can contribute towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, pp. 213-227.
3. Nundya S., Ghoshb A., Mesloubc A., Ghazy A. A., Alnaimc M.M., 2021. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on socio-economic, energy-environment
and transport sector globally and sustainable development goal (SDG). Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 2021, pp.127-705.
4. Lauretta R., Paзob A., Wagner Mainardes E., 2021. Sustainable Development in Agriculture and its Antecedents, Barriers, and Consequences –
An Exploratory Study. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, pp. 298-311.
5. Van der Waal J. W.H., Thijssens T., Maas K.,2021. The innovative contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development
Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, pp. 125-319.
6. Luis A. Gil-Alana, Robert Mudida, Eleazar Zerbo. 2021. GDP per capita IN SUB-SAHARAN Africa: A time series approach using long memory.
International Review of Economics & Finance, 72, pp 175-190.
7. Clodfelter M. 2002 Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500–2000.
8. Gadea M.D., Gomez-Loscos A., Perez-Quiros G., 2017. Dissecting US recoveries. Economics Letters, 154, pp.59-63.
9. Bellows, J., & Miguel, E. 2006. War and institutions: New evidence from Sierra Leone. American Economic Review, 96(2), pp.394-399.
10. Blattman, C. 2009. From violence to voting: War and political participation in Uganda. American political Science review, 103(2), pp.231-247.
11. Bohlken, A. T., & Sergenti, E. J. 2010. Economic growth and ethnic violence: An empirical investigation of Hindu–Muslim riots in India. Journal of Peace research, 47(5), pp. 589-600.
12. Collier, P. 1999. On the economic consequences of civil war. Oxford economic papers, 51(1), pp. 168-183.
13. Djankov, S., & Reynal‐Querol, M. 2010. Poverty and civil war: Revisiting the evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4),
pp.1035-1041.
14. Einolf, C. J. 2007. The fall and rise of torture: A comparative and historical analysis. Sociological Theory, 25(2), pp.101-121.
15. Herbst, J. 2014. States and power in Africa. In States and Power in Africa. Princeton University Press.
16. Arcand, J. L., & Wouabe, E. D. 2009. Households in a time of war: Instrumental variables evidence for Angola. The Graduate Institute, Geneva Working Paper.
