From Idea to Agenda: How Government Acts Move Forward

Examples from several European countries—Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania—illustrate the concrete steps that support a high-quality and transparent process for drafting and adopting government acts. These steps include establishing a single center for legal review (in Ukraine’s case, this could be the Ministry of Justice, the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, or a new standalone body); requiring the publication of the entire package of documents accompanying a draft act on a unified portal; expanding impact assessments to cover all policy domains; conducting genuine public consultations; and ensuring systematic post-adoption monitoring.

Drawing on international research—primarily the European Commission’s 2025 Enlargement Package Progress Report on Ukraine and SIGMA’s Public Administration in Ukraine report for 2023—as well as business surveys and expert assessments by the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR) and the Better Regulation Delivery Office (BRDO), five core problems emerge that impede the quality of government rulemaking, from drafting legislation to adopting cabinet resolutions.

The first problem is the absence of a complete policymaking cycle. The European Commission (p. 26 of the EC Report) notes that the government must strengthen its monitoring of policy and legislative implementation. It also highlights the absence of a strategic planning system (p. 25 of the EC Report) and the limited application of evidence-based policymaking (p. 25 of the EC Report). Experts from the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform stress that high-quality rulemaking is possible only when the government adheres to the whole cycle—from problem analysis through consultations and impact assessment to subsequent monitoring of results. Without this, decisions remain superficial, and the resulting documents lack thoroughness and rigour.

The second problem is the blurred accountability of ministries for their legislative initiatives. The European Commission highlights the government’s limited role in the legislative process (p. 25 of the EC Report): most draft laws are submitted by members of Parliament, and bills prepared by ministries are often introduced not on behalf of the government but through individual MPs. This allows draft acts to bypass mandatory interagency clearance (the coordination process is discussed later in the article). According to the SIGMA report (p. 37), this practice limits ministries’ responsibility for legislative initiatives. As a result, the government loses control over the quality and consistency of its decisions.

The third major problem concerns impact analysis during the preparation of normative acts. The European Commission notes that the quality of explanatory notes and impact assessments accompanying legislative proposals remains low and needs improvement (p. 25 of the EC Report). Formally, Ukraine has a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) procedure, but it applies only to documents that affect businesses. Ideally, such analysis should encompass not only the business environment but also all policy areas affected by a draft act—from social policy to public finance and governance—and evaluate how proposed decisions will impact citizens, the budget, or state institutions. In 2022, MPs removed from the legislation the requirement to conduct an RIA for acts implementing EU regulations. This exemption can be explained by the need to accelerate the adoption of acts required for implementing the Association Agreement, since preparing an RIA demands additional effort and time. However, it created a risk that a significant share of EU-integration–related bills and resolutions would be adopted without a proper assessment of their consequences. The SIGMA report (p. 37) emphasises that Ukraine’s impact-assessment system remains fragmented: ministries prepare explanatory notes and regulatory impact analyses in parallel, often containing overlapping information. As a result, decisions are taken without a single, comprehensive analysis of risks, options, and consequences.

The fourth problem is the largely formal nature of public consultations. Ministries often publish draft laws and resolutions, but they do so selectively, without clear rules, and only for documents that affect businesses. The SIGMA report (p. 68) notes that “public consultation in Ukraine is insufficiently regulated, as the obligation to consult on all draft laws and bylaws adopted by the Government has not been established.” As a result, some documents are not discussed with the public at all, and the process appears largely perfunctory—especially during wartime. In fact, public consultations on government bills or resolutions that concern human rights and freedoms, budget expenditures, the country’s socioeconomic situation, or strategic documents are mandatory. Still, this requirement may be waived under martial law.

The fifth problem is weak discipline in adopting secondary legislation. After the Verkhovna Rada passes a law, the government often fails to adopt the necessary resolutions promptly. According to SIGMA’s calculations, in 2021, the government adopted only 33% of the required secondary acts, and in 2022, just 11%. As a result, a significant share of laws remain “on paper” and do not function in practice as intended.

The sixth problem is regulatory pressure and the misuse of legislative norms in practice. A BRDO survey of 807 companies found that 56.3% of business representatives consider the legislation imperfect, and 25% believe that officials abuse regulatory norms. Among the main barriers they cite are convoluted sectoral regulation and an excessive number of permits. This indicates not only problems of implementation but also the low quality of the rules themselves, which create opportunities for manipulation.

To understand the causes of the problems identified by experts and international partners, it is worthwhile to examine the types of documents the government produces and how this process is supposed to function under its Rules of Procedure. 

The Cabinet of Ministers drafts bills, which must then be registered in Parliament. It also independently prepares and adopts resolutions and ordinances. (Internal Cabinet documents—such as decisions, protocols, and similar records—are not considered normative legal acts.)

The Constitution stipulates that laws regulate human rights and freedoms, citizenship, taxes, the budget system, the foundations of property, the organisation of executive power, defence and security, foreign policy, labour, education, healthcare, and other areas. Therefore, when new rules are involved, the government prepares a draft law.

Resolutions are secondary legislation—documents that detail, clarify, and supplement laws by setting clear rules for their implementation. For example, resolutions determine how state programs operate, how subsidies are calculated, and what procedures public authorities must follow. In addition, resolutions may introduce experimental or pilot projects, the results of which later inform the development of legislation.

Ordinances are one-off organisational decisions—for example, allocating funds, establishing a commission, or approving an action plan.

Historically, the government once had broader powers: in 1992–1993, it adopted decrees that were effectively equivalent to laws. After the transitional period ended, this practice ceased, and today the Cabinet operates solely within the framework of secondary legislation.

Ministries draft the vast majority of documents. In some cases, normative acts may be prepared by the Cabinet Secretariat or by working groups composed of representatives of central executive bodies (CEBs). These entities draft proposed resolutions, ordinances, and bills (see Figure 1).

According to legislative data from the Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers processes thousands of normative acts annually, encompassing draft laws, resolutions, ordinances, and ministerial orders. The total number of acts prepared by ministries reaches several thousand annually. In 2024, for example, the government adopted 1,494 resolutions, 1,319 ordinances, and drafted and registered 176 bills in Parliament. On average, this amounts to roughly 12 acts per day, placing a substantial organisational and analytical burden on ministries and the government apparatus. In addition, ministries develop their own acts and orders. With such volumes, every subsequent stage—from initiation to adoption—requires a straightforward procedure and coordinated workflow.

Below, we examine how government documents move through three key stages: initiation, coordination, and adoption.

Starting work on a draft

Every government document begins with a trigger. It may be a legal requirement that directly instructs the Cabinet to draft a specific document. It may be a decision of the Verkhovna Rada or the President, or international obligations undertaken by Ukraine—such as implementing the EU Association Agreement or the IMF Memorandum. It may also be a need identified by ministries, for example, to regulate a new sphere (such as the taxation of virtual assets) or to amend existing regulatory procedures (such as the pension payment process).

At this stage, the government determines the type of document required. The Constitution stipulates that laws regulate human rights and freedoms, citizenship, taxes, the budget system, the foundations of property, the organisation of executive power, defence and security, foreign policy, labour, education, healthcare, and other areas. Therefore, when new rules are needed, the government prepares a draft law and submits it to Parliament.

If the framework has already been defined by law, and what remains is to set out the rules for its implementation, the government prepares a resolution or an ordinance.

Next, the Cabinet appoints the body responsible for drafting the act. This is usually the line ministry. For example, the Ministry of Defence is the lead developer on matters related to defence enterprises; the Ministry of Economy is responsible for issues concerning public sector wages; and the Ministry of Finance leads on matters about state-owned banks. If a topic spans several sectors, the government designates one ministry as the lead, with others joining as co-developers.

To ensure that the text is not drafted “in one person’s office,” the lead ministry may establish a working group to prepare the draft law or draft resolution. The Rules of Procedure set no requirements or criteria for selecting members of such a group (meaning the lead ministry invites participants at its discretion). However, they stipulate that representatives from various ministries, academics, experts, and occasionally civil society organisations may participate. For example, if a document concerns education, it makes sense to involve not only officials from the Ministry of Education but also representatives of educational institutions.

In parallel with drafting the bill or draft resolution, the lead ministry prepares an initial package of accompanying documents, including an explanatory note, a compliance statement regarding Ukraine’s EU integration commitments and EU law (the EU acquis), and, if the draft act amends other acts, a comparative table. The explanatory note outlines why the document is necessary and the specific problems it aims to address. If implementation requires funding, the developer attaches financial and economic calculations, which the Ministry of Finance later reviews. If the document affects businesses, the developer prepares a regulatory impact analysis—that is, an explanation of how the conditions for entrepreneurs will change—which is subsequently reviewed by the State Regulatory Service. If the document concerns human rights, gender equality, or non-discrimination, the developer must explicitly indicate this, and the Ministry of Justice will later review the relevant provisions.

Coordination (aligning positions and expert review)

Once the text is prepared, the coordination stage begins. Coordination is not required for government acts of a technical or staffing nature—such as appointments, changes in the composition of delegations and commissions, management changes in state-owned enterprises and banks, the creation of government commissions, or the designation of an authorised person to sign an international agreement. For all other acts, the lead ministry must collect the positions (opinions and proposals) of all public bodies affected by the document. To do this, it sends the draft, along with the explanatory note and accompanying documents, to the Ministries of Economy, Finance, and Digital Transformation. At the same time, the meeting of state secretaries determines which additional bodies—beyond these three “mandatory” ministries—must receive the draft, depending on the policy area being regulated. For example, if a draft concerns education, it is sent to the Ministry of Education; if it concerns the social sphere, to the Ministry of Social Policy, and so on. All draft acts must also be reviewed by the Ministry of Justice and the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACP); further details are provided below.

The Ministry of Economy evaluates the impact on economic development and social indicators; the Ministry of Finance reviews the financial and monetary calculations and assesses the burden on the state or local budgets; the Ministry of Digital Transformation checks compliance with the principles of the state’s digital development policy; and the Ministry of Justice conducts the legal review of the draft normative act.

The principles of digital development policy require public authorities to ensure that government services are convenient, secure, and accessible for users. This includes guaranteeing open data (making government information available in open formats), simple online services (straightforward and user-friendly digital tools), the reuse of solutions (so that public institutions do not build the same systems from scratch), technological neutrality (services functioning regardless of device or software), and the protection of personal data (ensuring that individuals’ information is reliably safeguarded). These principles also require that services be accessible to people with diverse needs, provided in multiple languages, and supported by digital tools that help public bodies make decisions and streamline bureaucratic procedures.

The NACP reviews every draft normative act to determine whether it requires an anti-corruption assessment. If it does, the NACP conducts the evaluation and sends its conclusions to the developer. The NACP also regularly publishes these conclusions. The public body must respond to the NACP in writing—either supporting its conclusions without comments, supporting them with comments, or not supporting them.

Coordination is the most complex and time-consuming stage of preparing a draft document for political approval. It shows whether the draft aligns with legislation and Ukraine’s obligations to the EU, whether it is affordable for the budget, whether it complies with digital development principles, whether it avoids creating corruption loopholes, and how society responds to it. Once these filters are passed, the package moves to the Cabinet for consideration.

In addition, the Cabinet’s Rules of Procedure stipulate that the developer must submit draft acts affecting social and labour relations to nationwide associations of trade unions and employers. If a draft concerns local self-government, it must be sent to nationwide associations of local self-government bodies. Documents regulating the rights of persons with disabilities are sent for approval to the government’s Commissioner for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to nationwide disability organisations. However, no list of such organisations exists, so these documents are likely distributed at the developer’s discretion. If an act pertains to science and technology, it must be submitted to the Scientific Committee of the National Council for the Development of Science and Technology. If it concerns the state language, it must be submitted to the Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language.

A separate area of scrutiny is compliance with EU law. If a document relates to obligations under the Association Agreement, the developer prepares a compliance statement and a conformity table. The Government Office for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration then reviews the accuracy of this table and, if necessary, provides recommendations for revising the draft act. If an annexe to the Association Agreement mandates the development of an act, the Cabinet Secretariat sends the draft to the European Commission for consultation. The EC’s comments are either incorporated or the author provides a written justification explaining why they are not.

For drafts that affect businesses (except for those arising from the Association Agreement), the initiator must prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis. The text of the act and the analysis are published on the developer’s website, where businesses and the public can leave comments for at least one month. The developer then reports which comments were taken into account. After that, the State Regulatory Service (SRS) conducts its own assessment of whether the draft complies with the principles of state regulatory policy and issues its conclusion. If the SRS’s recommendations are not incorporated, the Service may return the draft act for revision.

Public consultations are a mandatory part of the coordination process (suspended during martial law) for decisions related to the country’s socioeconomic development, human rights and freedoms, administrative services, budget expenditures, and strategic documents. The ministry publishes the draft on its website, collects feedback from citizens and organisations for at least 15 days, and incorporates this input into its work. During wartime, exceptions to this rule may be made for defence-related and urgent decisions.

The coordination procedure with interested bodies takes place in the System of Electronic Interaction of Executive Authorities (SEI EA), where it is clear who approved what and what comments were submitted. In total, there are three possible outcomes: approved without comments, approved with comments, and not supported.

In practice, ministries rarely receive formally negative conclusions from other bodies—most often, they receive recommendations and comments that are taken into account during the revision process.

When positions differ, and representatives of various public bodies cannot agree on the wording of the document, the author of the draft holds coordination meetings. These meetings may also be organised by the Cabinet Secretariat or by government committees, which comprise several involved ministries and do not require convening the full Cabinet. The outcome is a protocol of disagreements: a list of the provisions on which the parties failed to reach agreement, accompanied by alternative formulations.

If, after incorporating comments, the document changes significantly and this affects previously agreed-upon provisions, the developer must carry out repeat coordination for the parts that were revised. During martial law, however, members of the government may submit draft acts to the Cabinet for consideration without having to repeat the coordination process.

The timelines for coordination depend on the complexity of the document, typically requiring no fewer than 10 days. If the document is an initiative act (that is, a draft prepared by a public body on its own initiative when it identifies a problem in its area and proposes a solution without any external mandate), the period is 20 days. For emergencies (drafts related to emergencies or threats to life or public health), the deadline is one day. During wartime, for defence-related or “life-threatening” issues, it may be as short as six hours. Silence (failure to submit conclusions) within the established period is considered approval without comments.

Based on the results of coordination, a second package of accompanying documents is formed. To the first package (the explanatory note, the conformity table, the financial and economic calculations, the information sheet on compliance with EU requirements, and the European Commission’s conclusions) are added the coordination materials—letters containing comments, proposals, and conclusions, as well as protocols of disagreements and alternative versions. This entire package is then submitted for legal review by the Ministry of Justice, which examines the draft’s compliance with the Constitution and laws, the quality of legal drafting, and its conformity with Council of Europe standards on human rights, non-discrimination, and gender equality. If inconsistencies are found, the Ministry returns the draft with its conclusions for revision. Even if the conclusion is negative, however, the final decision rests with the Cabinet; the Ministry’s materials must be presented to the government.

In addition to the Ministry of Justice, which can return documents for revision, the Cabinet Secretariat plays a key role in advancing the document forward. It monitors adherence to procedural rules, including the presence of all required approvals, completion of consultations, completeness of the document package, and the accuracy of interagency coordination. If the Secretariat detects procedural violations, it may return the draft to the developer for correction.

The SIGMA report (p. 38) stresses that despite a formal division of powers, the functions of the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Secretariat partially overlap. This is because the Secretariat conducts not only procedural checks but also its own legal scrutiny—that is, it evaluates the general legal soundness of the document, even though complete legal expertise falls within the competence of the Ministry of Justice. As a result, the same document is reviewed by several legal teams—within the drafting ministry, within the Ministry of Justice, within the Cabinet Secretariat, and later, if it is a government bill, in Parliament as well. The absence of a single centre for legal review and the partial duplication of roles between the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Secretariat complicate the passage of government decisions, potentially leading to delays.

Cabinet review and final decision

Once all approvals and expert assessments have been gathered, the draft proceeds to a Cabinet meeting. The Secretariat checks the completeness of the package and places the item on the agenda. During the meeting, the developer gives a brief presentation, Cabinet members ask questions, and then they vote immediately. A majority of the Cabinet adopts decisions; if half of its members vote “for,” the Prime Minister’s vote determines the decision.

When it comes to resolutions and ordinances, it is essential to understand when they take effect. Suppose the document itself does not specify an effective date. In that case, a resolution enters into force on the day of its official publication, while an ordinance takes effect at the moment of its adoption. The official publications used for this purpose are Uriadovyi Kurier and the Official Gazette of Ukraine, as well as the government’s online portal.

If the document is a government bill, it is submitted to the Verkhovna Rada after approval at the Cabinet meeting on behalf of the Cabinet. A government rapporteur is then appointed to present the government’s position in committees and at the plenary session. The bill is then registered in Parliament and referred to the lead committee.

The government accompanies its bill at every stage: it provides explanations to parliamentary committees, responds to comments from the Main Scientific and Expert Department of Parliament, and helps formulate agreed-upon amendments between the first and second readings.

After the bill is submitted to Parliament, the government may withdraw it at any time before it is added to the session agenda. If it has already been added but the first reading has not yet taken place, the bill can be removed from consideration only by a decision of the Verkhovna Rada. If the Cabinet resigns, all bills it submitted that have not passed the first reading are considered withdrawn—and, if necessary, the new government must resubmit them. During its term from March 4, 2020, to July 16, 2025, the Shmyhal government registered 1,070 bills, of which 370 were adopted, 355 were removed from consideration on the day of the government’s resignation, and the remainder were either withdrawn earlier by the Shmyhal government or passed the first reading and are now awaiting further consideration.

Thus, for secondary legislation, the “finish line” is the Cabinet’s vote and official publication, after which the rules take effect. For bills, the Cabinet’s “finish line” is merely the starting point in Parliament: submission, committee work, readings, and revision leading to the final vote in the Verkhovna Rada.

The procedure for drafting and coordinating ministerial orders is the same as for preparing draft resolutions (ordinances) and bills. The only difference comes at the final adoption stage: orders are not approved by the Cabinet—they are signed by the minister or the head of the agency. Orders constitute internal rulemaking by a ministry or by a state service, agency, or inspectorate, not acts of the Cabinet. Therefore, there is no stage involving submission to the Cabinet Secretariat, inclusion on the Cabinet agenda, review by a government committee, or verification by the Secretariat. The only external “controller” for orders is the Ministry of Justice. The developer must submit the prepared draft order, together with all accompanying documents (the text, explanatory note, coordination statement, and conclusions from interested bodies), for state registration to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry reviews the order (within up to 15 days) for compliance with laws, Cabinet resolutions, and drafting rules, and then registers it. If the Ministry of Justice returns the draft for revision, the registration timeline may stretch to several months. After registration and official publication, the order takes effect.

International experience with government rulemaking

For comparison, we selected five European countries similar to Ukraine in terms of government structure and political system: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania. In all of them, the government has the right of legislative initiative and drafts secondary legislation. The overall logic of the process is similar: the line ministry prepares a draft, it goes through interagency coordination, legal and technical review, and consultations with interested stakeholders, after which it is submitted to the government for consideration; the government then either adopts the act or submits it to Parliament with an appointed government rapporteur. At the same time, each country has its own particularities that shape different levels of transparency and openness in government decision-making.

A comparative analysis of governmental legislative activity in Poland and Ukraine (see Figures 3–4 below) reveals that in Ukraine, government bills account for approximately 20% of all registered drafts on average. In contrast, in Poland, they comprise nearly half (≈49%) (see Figure 4).

At the same time, the adoption rate of government initiatives in Poland is exceptionally high, with more than 93% of government drafts becoming law. In Ukraine, this figure is approximately 33%, which is still twice as high as the overall adoption rate for bills (≈17%).

This means that, although government initiatives do not dominate in Ukraine, government bills tend to be of higher quality and are much more likely to pass through the parliamentary process than MPs’ initiatives.

The difference stems from the fact that government drafts are prepared with the involvement of line ministries, include financial and economic justifications, undergo review by the Ministry of Justice and other public bodies, and have a higher degree of technical readiness and alignment with the budget.

Where Ukraine Should Aim

Ukraine already has the basic elements of a rulemaking process—the Cabinet’s Rules of Procedure, explanatory notes, regulatory impact assessments, and public consultations—yet they operate only in a fragmented way. The European experience demonstrates that effective rulemaking is founded on three core principles: quality, transparency, and accountability. Quality depends above all on having a single professional centre for legislative drafting expertise, robust legal drafting standards, and mandatory consultations. Transparency means that the decision-making process is open and understandable to the public: it is clear what positions ministries put forward and what comments they receive. Accountability requires government bodies not only to publish draft acts, but also to explain why they are proposing specific provisions, which arguments they have taken into account, and what results they expect. These principles should guide the design of Ukraine’s system for adopting normative acts.

To achieve a high-quality process, Ukraine should initiate a comprehensive policy cycle. Every government decision should begin with an analysis of the problem, its objectives, and the potential policy options. For major reforms, the government should publish a concept paper or a “policy intent” before drafting a bill—a clear document outlining the problem, the tasks, and the expected outcomes. After a law or resolution is adopted, it is essential not to “forget” about it but to return to it after six months, one year, and five years to assess whether the decision worked, whether the goals were achieved, which indicators were met, what problems arose, and what needs to be adjusted. This approach enables the assessment of the actual effects of decisions, rather than merely noting that they were adopted.

Additionally, Ukraine should strive to enhance the quality of its draft laws and resolutions. This requires establishing a single centre responsible for ensuring the legal quality of government acts. That function could be assigned to the Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet Secretariat, or a new specialised body modelled on Poland’s Government Legislation Centre. Such an institution should accompany a draft from the initial idea to adoption, ensuring consistent terminology, maintaining proper document structure, and verifying compliance with legislative drafting standards and procedural rules. This model would eliminate duplication among institutions, speed up document preparation, and reduce the risk of errors.

It is equally important to turn impact assessment into a substantive document rather than a formality. Today, impact evaluations primarily focus on business, but they should encompass all areas, including the economy, budget, environment, social consequences, human rights, and public administration. Draft acts with significant impact should be accompanied by a single, comprehensive analysis, rather than a collection of separate memos in different fields.

Public consultations also require special attention. They must become a genuine means for the government to hear society, not a box-ticking exercise. The government should not only publish drafts but also explain what proposals it received, which ones it incorporated, and which it rejected. In urgent situations, timelines may be shortened, but this should be done openly and with a clear justification.

Another step is to bring order to secondary legislation. For example, according to media reports, testing of the e-Excise system did not begin earlier this year because not all the secondary acts regulating the Electronic System’s operation had been adopted. Laws do not work if the government fails to adopt the necessary implementing resolutions. Clear deadlines for coordination, consultations, and expert reviews need to be established and monitored through the government’s electronic system.

At the same time, Ukraine should reduce regulatory confusion and the burden on businesses. Complete transparency is essential here. A single government web portal where all draft acts are published—together with explanatory notes, impact assessments, conclusions from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economy, the State Regulatory Service, the NACP, and other authorities, as well as the results of consultations—would impose discipline on the entire process. Moving to the next stage should be possible only after all documents are available online. If the document package is incomplete or submitted in violation of the rules, it should not be placed on the government’s agenda.

This entire system must be supported not only by formal procedures but also by consistent practice. Only then will government decisions become coherent, well-reasoned, transparent, and capable of functioning effectively after they are adopted.