Economic Bulletin of the National Mining University

 

IssuesSectionsAuthorsKeywords

Article

Issue:2026 №3 (95)
Section:Economics and International Economic Relations
UDK:334.722:004.738.5:338.246.025.2(477)
DOI:https://doi.org/10.33271/ebdut/95.084
Article language:Ukrainian
Pages:84-101
Title:Destructive digital entrepreneurship in shaping the systemic vulnerability of Ukraine’s economy: challenges to resilience and development security
Author:Kindzerskyi Yu. V., Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the NAS of Ukraine
Annotation:Methods. The institutional, systemic and comparative approaches, causal analysis and analytical typology are applied. Destructiveness is assessed through the structure of private incentives, the externalisation of social harm and the ability of a digital business model to create systemic indispensability. Resilience is considered as the capacity of the economy, society and the state to preserve critical functions, adapt and recover after a shock. Results. The meaning of destructive digital entrepreneurship is specified and distinguished from technological risk, digital divides, criminal activity and external dependence as such. The mechanisms of market power, information asymmetry, behavioural exploitation, risk externalisation, regulatory arbitrage and technological lock-in are systematised. Their effects on economic, technological, social and informational resilience are disclosed. EU and US approaches are compared, and the risks that are critical for Ukraine during the war and post-war digital reconstruction are identified. Private efficiency does not guarantee resilience when lower costs are accompanied by fewer alternatives, reserves and key recovery channels. The boundary between manageable interdependence and supplier indispensability is defined. Novelty. A cross-cutting causal framework is proposed: private incentive generates a business practice; the practice produces a negative externality; its concentration in a critical function creates systemic vulnerability and reduces resilience. Ukraine’s digital autonomy is substantiated not as autarky, but as the manageability of critical dependencies and preservation of the freedom of critical decision-making. Practical value. Guidelines are formulated for competition, procurement, innovation, social, information and security policies. A diagnostic test for regulators and public purchasers is proposed. It focuses on supplier indispensability, data portability, contestability of high-impact decisions, allocation of error costs, redundancy and continuity of critical functions. 
Keywords:Destructive entrepreneurship, Digital business models, Resilience, Systemic vulnerability, National security, Technological dependence, Digital platforms, Artificial intelligence, Government regulation, Post-war reconstruction
File of the article:EV20263_084-101.pdf
Literature:
  • 1. Baumol, W.J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), Part 1, 893-921. https://doi.org/10.1086/261712
  • 2. OECD. (2025). Economic security in a changing world (Chapter 6: Building stronger defences for a digital future). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/09/economic-security-in-a-changing-world_78f3b129/full-report/building-stronger-defences-for-a-digital-future-the-role-of-cybersecurity_484bcb90.html
  • 3. Naudé, W. (2023). Destructive digital entrepreneurship. IZA Discussion Paper, 16483. https://docs.iza.org/dp16483.pdf
  • 4. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., & Song, L. (2022). Digital addiction. American Economic Review, 112(7), 2424-2463. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210867
  • 5. Stiglitz, J. E., & Ventura-Bolet, M. (2025). The impact of AI and digital platforms on the information ecosystem. NBER Working Paper, 34318. https://doi.org/10.3386/w34318
  • 6. Orben, A., Meier, A., Dalgleish, T., & Blakemore, S. -J. (2024). Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability. Nature Reviews Psychology, (3), 407-423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00307-y
  • 7. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044
  • 8. Hyman, B. G., Lahey, B., Ni, K., & Pilossoph, L. (2025). How retrainable are AI-exposed workers? NBER Working Paper, 34174 (rev. May 2026). https://doi.org/10.3386/w34174
  • 9. OECD. (2026). Competition in the age of AI: Initial evidence from microdata. OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, 64. https://doi.org/10.1787/6f88a1ea-en
  • 10. OECD. (2025). Competition in artificial intelligence infrastructure. OECD Roundtables on Competition Policy Papers, 330. https://doi.org/10.1787/623d1874-en
  • 11. Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (2026). AI Index Report 2026. Stanford University. Retrieved from https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/ai_index_report_2026 .pdf
  • 12. Kostenko, O. (2026, August 22). Yak shtuchnyi intelekt zminiuie uiavlennia pro nezalezhnist derzhav: shcho pokazav Stanford AI Index 2026. ZN.UA. Retrieved from https://zn.ua/ukr/TECHNOLOGIES/jak-shtuchnij-intelekt-zminjuje-ujavlennja-pro-nezalezhnist-derzhav-shcho-pokazav-stanford-ai-index-2026.html
  • 13. World Bank. (2026). World Development Report 2026: The promise of artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2026
  • 14. European Commission. (2026, June 3). Communication on European tech sovereignty, accompanied by an EU Open Source Strategy (COM(2026) 503). Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/communication-european-tech-sovereignty-accompanied-eu-open-source-strategy
  • 15. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2022-2024). Digital Services Act (EU) 2022/2065; Digital Markets Act (EU) 2022/1925; Artificial Intelligence Act (EU) 2024/1689. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  • 16. The White House. (2025, July 23). Winning the AI race: America’s AI Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan/
  • 17. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2001). Pro zakhyst ekonomichnoi konkurentsii. (Law No. 2210-III) Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2210-14
  • 18. Antymonopolnyi komitet Ukrainy. (2026). AMKU dozvolyv PrAT «Kyivstar» nabuty kontrol nad TOV «HIHAKLAUD» za umovy vykonannia zoboviazan. Retrieved from https://amcu.gov.ua/news/amku-dozvolyv-prat-kyivstar-nabuty-kontrol-nad-tov-hihaklaud-za-umovy-vykonannia-zoboviazan
  • 19. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2026). Pro pub- lichni zakupivli [On public procurement] (Law No. 4888-IX). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4888-20
  • 20. Kostenko, O. (2026, August 6). Shchyt maie buty deshevshym za mech: yak viina zminiuie filosofiiu shtuchnoho. ZN.UA. Retrieved from https://zn.ua/ukr/TECHNOLOGIES/shchit-maje-buti-deshevshim-za-mech-jak-vijna-zminjuje-filosofiju-shtuchnoho-intelektu.html
  • 21. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2026). Deiaki pytannia realizatsii eksperymentalnoho proektu shchodo rozvytku tovariv viiskovoho pryznachennia u sferi tekhnolohii shtuchnoho intelektu. (Resolution No. 310). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/310-2026-%D0%BF
  • 22. Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (2026). AI Index Report 2026: Responsible AI. Stanford University. Retrieved from https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-report/responsible-ai
  • 23. World Bank. (2026, June 9). Trust by design: Securing digital development. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2026/06/09/trust-by-design-securing-digital-development
  • 24. OECD. (2024). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024: Strengthening connectivity, innovation and trust (Vol. 2). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3adf705b-en
Home Archive Copyright © 2026 Economic Bulletin of the National Mining University. All Rights Reserved. Designed by JoomlArt.com. Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU General Public License.