Thirty Years of Government Experiments — How Many Ministries Are “Normal”?

Since regaining independence, Ukraine has experimented with the architecture of executive power. In the early 1990s, the number of ministries was fairly large (up to 27), a legacy of the Soviet model, in which almost every sector had its own separate representation. At that time, there were even ministries such as the Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Ministry of Machine Building, the Military-Industrial Complex, and Conversion (see Figure 1).

Despite numerous transformations, the basic “framework” of executive power remained unchanged. The ministries of Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs, Defense, Finance, Health, and Justice functioned consistently in every government. They never changed their names and remained the core elements of the state apparatus. By contrast, other ministries were repeatedly reorganized. Youth, sports, and culture were at times combined into a single ministry and at other times split into separate ones. A similar pattern applied to the economy, the environment, and agriculture: sometimes they were three independent ministries, while today they are merged into a single consolidated body.

Despite the stability of the core ministries, every new prime minister, in one way or another, adjusted the government’s architecture to their own vision. Some began with the set of ministries inherited from their predecessor and only later initiated cuts or reorganizations. Others, by contrast, used the moment of Cabinet formation to expand the number of ministries and create new policy areas. In the 2000s, the first wave of reductions took place: the governments of Yushchenko, Kinakh, and Yanukovych reduced the number of ministries from more than 20 to 15-16 (see Figure 2).

Global experience does not suggest an optimal number of ministries or provide clear criteria for determining it. In the European Union, the number of ministers ranges from 7 to 25. For example, Serbia, Montenegro, and the Netherlands have the largest cabinets with 25 ministers; Sweden has 23; Italy has 22, while Switzerland manages with just 7. Although small, Malta has 17 ministers, the same as Germany and Croatia (see Figure 3).

Today, Ukraine has 15 ministries headed by 15 ministers — a ratio that appears logical. In some countries, however, the structure is quite different: the number of ministers exceeds the number of ministries. The clearest examples are Sweden and Finland. Finland has 12 ministries, yet its government is made up of 18 ministers. Sweden follows a similar model: with 10 ministries, its government includes 22 ministers. This arrangement is possible because functions within a single ministry are divided among several ministers. For example, in Sweden’s Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, three different ministers serve simultaneously, each with a distinct specialization: the Minister for Social Affairs and Public Health, the Minister for Health Care, and the Minister for Older People and Social Security. All three are full members of the government, yet they operate under the umbrella of one ministry. This model allows governments to be more flexible, highlight priority areas without inflating bureaucracy, and distribute responsibilities more precisely.

In some countries, alongside regular ministers, there are also Ministers of State or State Secretaries. They do not head ministries but have clearly defined areas of responsibility (for example, overseeing a specific policy issue or coordinating work within one of the line ministries). This arrangement allows the government to cover more areas without creating new structures, while still maintaining ministerial accountability.

Ukraine also has similar positions. In particular, several governments have included the Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, a government official who does not head a separate ministry but performs important coordinating and organizational functions within the Cabinet. However, when Yuliia Svyrydenko’s government was formed, this position was not included in the Cabinet of Ministers. Instead, the corresponding responsibilities were assigned to the State Secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers, who will head the Government Secretariat.

The composition of ministries in different European countries reflects current political challenges, social structures, and state policy priorities. In countries facing large numbers of migrants, specialized ministries are created. For example, Greece has the Ministry for Immigration and Asylum, which was established against the backdrop of the migration crisis on the EU’s borders. In Slovenia, there is the Minister for Relations between the Republic of Slovenia and the Autochthonous Slovenian National Community in Neighbouring Countries, and between the Republic of Slovenia and Slovenians Abroad).

In countries with specific demographic structures, specialized ministries are established. For instance, in Malta, where 24.9% of the population is over the age of 60, there is the Ministry for Health and Active Ageing.

The names of ministries in several countries also reflect environmental priorities. For example, France has established the post of Minister for the Ecological Transition, Energy, the Climate, and Risk Prevention, while the Netherlands has a Minister of Climate Policy and Green Growth. This reflects a strategic vision of the “green transition” as a key element of economic development, security, and social stability in the EU.

Ukraine is not lagging behind global trends. For example, in the 1990s, there was the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety, which reflected the security agenda in the context of nuclear disarmament. Until 1996, there was also the Ministry for the Protection of the Population from the Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident. After the Revolution of Dignity and the outbreak of the war, the Ministry of Veterans’ Affairs was established in response to a new social reality. In 2019, another institutional innovation appeared — the Ministry of Digital Transformation, which is responsible for digitizing public services, ensuring cybersecurity, and advancing e-governance. Ministries of this kind are generally not created “for show”, but as a response to specific challenges: military, demographic, informational, or technological.

Yuliia Svyrydenko’s Cabinet was formed with 15 ministries — a moderate number that aligns with European examples. Yet even this government began with reorganization. Some ministries were abolished, and their functions were redistributed among existing structures. For instance, state industrial policy, the defense industry, and the aviation and space sectors were placed under the Ministry of Defense, which resulted in the dissolution of a separate ministry that had overseen strategic industries. The Ministry of Economy significantly expanded its scope: it now also covers environmental and agricultural issues, leading to the disappearance of two independent bodies: the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agrarian Policy. Another change took place in the social sphere: the recently created Ministry of National Unity was merged into the Ministry of Social Policy. The result was the establishment of a new agency with an expanded mandate — the Ministry of Social Policy, Family, and Unity of Ukraine. Thus, although some ministries formally disappeared, their core functions were integrated into new institutions.

In addition to functional transformation, the personal composition of the government has also changed. Today, as in the previous year, it consists primarily of representatives from Ukraine’s central and western regions. At different times, such regional concentration reflected not so much coincidence as the influence of particular political and business groups (see Figure 4). For instance, the governments under Pavlo Lazarenko were marked by a strong presence of figures from the Dnipropetrovsk region, explained by the rise of a powerful “Dnipropetrovsk clan”. During the tenures of Viktor Yanukovych and Mykola Azarov, ministers from the eastern regions (above all Donetsk) gained significant influence. It was then that individuals closely linked to Russia most frequently entered government. By contrast, after 2014, when the governments of Volodymyr Groysman, Oleksii Honcharuk, and Denys Shmyhal were formed, the recruitment base gradually shifted toward the central and western regions.

There is no gender balance in the current government: only three out of 15 ministers are women, or 20%. This is below the European average of 32% (see Figure 5). For comparison, in Finland, the majority of ministerial posts are held by women (56%). Women also make up the majority in the governments of Albania (53%), Norway (53%), and Sweden (52%). The most gender-balanced Сabinet is in Iceland, with an equal number of men and women. At the other extreme, Bosnia and Herzegovina holds the record for the lowest representation: not a single woman in the government.

Although the current 20% of women ministers is still far from European standards, for Ukraine, it marks a significant step forward. For a long time, women’s participation in government was almost symbolic: in most Cabinets before 2014, it did not exceed 10%, and often, it was 0% (see Figure 6). Only a few governments showed more substantial progress; the record was set by Oleksii Honcharuk’s Cabinet, where women made up 40% of ministry heads.

Ultimately, the number of ministries alone is not an indicator of effectiveness. What matters is not only how many there are, but also why they exist and how they carry out their work. To evaluate the quality of governance, international tools are available — most notably the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) developed by the World Bank. This instrument draws on a wide range of sources: surveys of citizens, businesses, and experts, as well as data from international organizations. Each year, WGI compiles six aggregate indicators that capture different governance dimensions: accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. To enable cross-country comparisons, the values of these indicators are expressed on a 0-100 scale (a percentile rank). The percentile reflects a country’s relative standing among others: the higher the score, the better the government’s performance.

Among the six components of WGI, the Government Effectiveness indicator deserves particular attention. Within this dimension, all countries are divided into six groups based on their percentile values: the higher the index and the group, the stronger the government is assessed to be (see Figure 7). Ukraine falls into the “25-49” group with a score of 37.7. This means its government is rated as more effective than those of about 38% of countries worldwide, but less effective than those of the remaining 62%. Ukraine lags significantly behind its EU neighbors, yet it is not in the category of outright outsiders, whose governments often or almost entirely lose functionality due to conflict or pervasive corruption.

Thus, the answer to the question “How Many Ministries Are ‘Normal’?” is not straightforward. International experience demonstrates that no single “optimal” number exists. Far more important is whether these institutions are able to operate in a professional, independent, and consistent manner — thereby fostering trust among citizens and partners alike.