State authorities and coordination, public
awareness on the implementation of measures to
prevent and combat this phenomenon, interaction
of civil society institutions with public
authorities in the field of formation and
implementation of State anti-corruption policy,
support of anti-corruption measures by civil
society. Therefore, the effectiveness of the
implementation of measures to prevent
corruption crimes cannot be achieved through
isolated and non-systematic actions at different
levels, but requires long-term socio-economic,
political and legal transformations. This activity
should be based on a combination of a number of
prophylactic and repressive measures. Thus, anti-
corruption strategy, as a tool for ensuring the
performance of the state anti-corruption policy,
is the main and most progressive way to achieve
the corresponding goals in a legal way, which,
accordingly, is what a modern democratic, legal
society needs.
According to Hrechaniuk (2019), the anti-
corruption strategy is a normatively determined
reference point, which is specified by a certain
period of time, identified problem and predicted
result. However, this document is a declarative
act without negative consequences for non-
compliance, which leads to its ignoring or
improper execution. Therefore, we believe that in
the process of forming the Anti-corruption
Strategy, it is necessary to provide for guarantees
of its proper implementation, including measures
of responsibility, as well as to determine the
mechanisms of relevant control in this area.
Analyzing the provisions of one of the anti-
corruption strategies already in force in Ukraine
(Decree No. 1001/2011, 2011), attention should
be paid to the main terminological burden in its
content. The tasks of the National Anti-
corruption Strategy were as follows:
outlining the range of causes and conditions that
lead to corruption, determining ways to minimize
the factors that determine its occurrence and
negative consequences;
determining the main directions of state policy in
the field of corruption prevention and
counteraction this phenomenon;
increasing the degree of trust in State authorities
and local self-government bodies;
implementation of the system for monitoring the
effectiveness of anti-corruption legislation and
ensuring its implementation.
This strategy has already become history and
allows to establish its complete non-compliance.
The reasons were the objective circumstances of
the transition of the State to legal anarchy,
ignoring the principles of the rule of law by
representatives of the authorities, law
enforcement agencies, and courts. The events of
the Revolution of Dignity and subsequent
revolutionary and military events demonstrated
the absolute failure of the State’s anti-corruption
policy and strategy, as well as the unification of
power institutions with criminal ones, which
became the basis for the impossibility of
democratic development of Ukraine. The
revolution that took place in Ukrainian society
and the state significantly changed the moods,
desires of people, as well as the tools of state and
public anti-corruption activities.
Later, the principles of the state anti-corruption
policy in Ukraine (Anti-corruption Strategies)
have begun to be approved by a special law of
Ukraine. According to the results of their expert
analysis, these documents are of high quality, but
do not fully cover the prevention and
counteraction of corruption in some specific
areas. In addition, there are some inconsistencies
between the measures of the Anti-corruption
Strategy and the tasks of the State Program
regarding its implementation. Individual blocks
of measures were left out of the attention of the
State Program. Analyzing the state of realization
of the State Program, it was found that
quantitative indicators are the clearest illustration
of the scope of its implementation: out of 210
identified tasks, 82 are completed, 66 are
partially completed or are in the process of being
implemented. Thus, it can be noted that the
implementation of the tasks is taking place,
although not always fully and on time. A
significant number of unfulfilled and partially
completed tasks indicate that not all assignments
are carried out efficiently and conscientiously. A
considerable quantity of tasks performed were
essentially legislative changes or the adoption of
by-laws – and these are the objectives that have
been largely accomplished. At the same time,
measures for their practical realization and
proper implementation of legislation are still
problematic (Marchuk & Nesterenko, 2017,
p. 64).
Thus, previous Anti-corruption Strategy (Law of
Ukraine No. 1699-VII, 2014) focused on
priorities related to the creation of a system of
modern anti-corruption tools (legal institutions)
and the development of a system of anti-
corruption bodies that were supposed to ensure
the effective implementation of these tools. At
the same time, thanks to the adoption of other
program documents by the Government,