Rethinking how a state measures its social security
This urgency underscores the need to rethink methodological frameworks for assessing social security — a concept that extends beyond living standards, employment levels, and access to essential services to also include the state's capacity to respond to hybrid threats and internal social tensions.
The primary aim of this study is to theoretically ground and practically refine national-level social security assessments by systematizing relevant indicators and constructing an integrated evaluation model informed by multi-disciplinary perspectives.
The research adopts a tripartite analytical approach — indicator-based, institutional, and integrative — leveraging secondary statistical data, including international instruments such as the Social Progress Index (SPI), alongside robust mathematical techniques including normalization, aggregation, and multidimensional statistical analysis.
As a result, a multi-tiered system of social security indicators was formulated, encompassing welfare, social protection, education, life safety, and self-preservation metrics. A comparative analysis of SPI data for Ukraine and Poland from 2014 to 2023 highlights consistent structural disparities in social potential development.
The developed model facilitates quantitative measurement of social security, enabling the identification of systemic weaknesses and the projection of potential social risks. The originality of the study lies in adapting global indicator frameworks to wartime conditions, tailoring international methodologies to national specificities, and integrating economic, social, and psychological dimensions within a cohesive analytical apparatus.
Notably, this is the first Ukrainian scholarly work to utilize SPI comparisons between Ukraine and Poland to evaluate social security resilience. The systematic, indicator-based approach provides policymakers with a rigorous foundation for crafting social strategies during complex crises and a strategic platform for future-oriented social development planning aimed at enhancing national resilience.
Why social security needs a new analytical lens
As a component of national security, social security reflects the state's ability to guarantee citizens stable access to basic social goods, protection from social risks, and support in periods of heightened vulnerability. Hybrid challenges demand a rethinking of traditional analytical tools.
From a scholarly standpoint, the problem lies in the need to build a holistic system for assessing social security on the basis of complex indicators — one capable of integrating international and national monitoring standards. In practical terms, such assessment is an essential instrument for shaping social policy, strategically planning the development of human capital, preventing destabilizing processes, and strengthening the state's resilience under uncertainty.
Domestic scholars treat the social security of the enterprise as a state of protection of personnel and citizens from social threats. According to this line of work it is not merely a function of social protection, but a system that ensures the sustainable development of human capital, with emphasis on the organizational and economic mechanisms that form it.
Foreign authors — North, Maslow, Wright, Tajfel and Turner — approach social security through the lens of institutional sustainability, motivation, identity, and class structures. The work of Shore et al. and of Nembhard and Edmondson introduces the concepts of inclusive leadership and psychological safety as closely tied to the internal stability of an organization.
Measuring efficiency under war
Methods for quantitatively measuring the economic efficiency of social security under uncertainty and war remain insufficiently developed.
Adapting international systems
A persistent challenge is adapting international indicator systems to the national context of Ukraine.
Cross-country comparison
There is no systematic comparison of Ukraine's social development with other Central and Eastern European countries on unified indicators.
The study is directed at filling these gaps in the scholarly and analytical base, and at examining how social security affects macroeconomic resilience, institutional capacity, and trust in social policy.
Four approaches to assessing social security
The scholarly literature has formed several approaches, among which the indicator, institutional, index, and integrative approaches dominate. Each has its strengths and limits — combined models give the fullest picture.
Social security of the enterprise is a complex category that reflects the protection of the vital social interests of the enterprise — its employees, owners, and community — from internal and external threats.
— An integral component of national security that safeguards the interests of the state, society, and the individual, and prevents social tension.
Indicator approach
Builds a system of quantitative and qualitative indicators reflecting the level of social security — unemployment, poverty, access to healthcare, education. Allows problem zones to be identified, but requires reconciling units of measurement.
Institutional approach
Originating with North, it emphasizes the role of formal and informal institutions — laws, norms, values — in sustaining a stable social environment. Focused on long-term factors, but less sensitive to short-term change.
Index approach
Constructs composite indices that aggregate several indicators into one — such as the Social Progress Index or the UN Human Development Index. Convenient for international comparison, yet can mask important local specifics.
Integrative approach
Reduces all numeric indicators to a single evaluative value — usually through normalization and weighted aggregation. Provides the most complete picture when these approaches are combined into one model.
In the modern economy, social security is increasingly linked not only to wages and social insurance but to deeper factors — psychological comfort, the level of trust, the transparency of managerial decisions, and the opportunity for employees to participate in important decisions. This raises the role of inclusive management models that account for the needs of different groups: veterans, persons with disabilities, internally displaced persons, youth, and people of pre-retirement age. Within ESG strategies increasingly implemented in Ukrainian companies, it is precisely the Social component that demands well-grounded approaches to monitoring and assessment.
The indicator-based approach, step by step
The methodology rests on a systematic, quantitative analysis of socio-economic indicators reflecting the security of citizens across spheres of life. Its application follows a clearly structured algorithm — each stage carrying its own function and scholarly justification.
For analysis of empirical data, the study applies methods of normalization and aggregation to bring indicators of different types onto a single evaluation scale. The use of an integral index makes it possible to build a generalized picture of social security across time and regional distribution. Forecasting of key indicators for 2022–2024 was carried out using trend extrapolation, accounting for foreign-policy and economic shocks.
To build a comprehensive indicator set, the study draws on the leading international methodology — the Social Progress Index. SPI rests on three dimensions: Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing, and Opportunity, and uses 57 clearly formulated indicators built on a single methodology that ensures comparability across countries and regions. SPI deliberately avoids economic proxy indicators, keeping the focus on social and ecological aspects.
Basic Human Needs
Nutrition, basic medical care, water, sanitation, shelter and personal safety.
Foundations of Wellbeing
Access to knowledge, information, health and environmental quality.
Opportunity
Personal rights, freedom of choice, inclusiveness and access to education.
Trend extrapolation
2022–2024 values projected from 2018–2021 trends with external-shock adjustment.
A six-stage algorithm
Define the conceptual model
Clarify the essence, structure, functions, and links of social security with other subsystems of national security — establishing the coordinate system for the whole assessment. Key components: employment security, income, housing, access to social services, demographic stability, and protection of vulnerable groups.
Form the system of indicators
Quantify each subsystem, ensuring representativeness, reliability, and availability. Indicators include the poverty rate (share of population below the subsistence minimum), unemployment, the Gini coefficient, life expectancy, healthcare coverage, education metrics, the number of internally displaced persons, and the level of social assistance and subsidies.
Normalize the indicators
Because indicators carry different units and scales, normalization or index transformation reduces them all to a single scale — for example [0;1] or [0;100] — a step that is critical for subsequent aggregation.
Compute the integral indicator
Aggregate the normalized indicators — by simple arithmetic mean (equal weights) or by weighted coefficients defined through expert judgment or analytical models such as the analytic hierarchy process or entropy analysis.
Comparative analysis
Compare results across regions, across time, and against threshold values or international analogues — identifying strengths and weaknesses, crisis regions and high-risk groups, and the resilience of the social system to exogenous shocks such as economic crises, pandemics, or military action.
Interpret & recommend
Interpret results within their political, economic, and socio-cultural context, and form practical recommendations for state authorities, local self-government, and international partners supporting Ukraine's social sector.
A social environment reshaped by war
The period 2018–2024 spans the transformation from post-2014/2015 stabilization through the COVID-19 pandemic to the full-scale invasion of 2022. Owing to incomplete official statistics for 2022–2024, those values are projected via trend extrapolation and carry a forecast character.
Poverty rate
Fig. 1Share of population with incomes below the actual subsistence minimum, %
Rose to 47.2% in 2020 (COVID-19), eased to 39.1% in 2021, then climbed through the forecast period to 55.0% by 2024.
Unemployment rate
Fig. 2Unemployment by ILO methodology, % of the labour force
A noticeable rise after 2020, driven by the destruction of the labour market, emigration of the working-age population, and outflow of labour resources.
Gini coefficient
Fig. 3Income inequality index (0 = equality, 1 = maximum inequality)
Improved through 2021 (0.312 → 0.289), then deteriorated under falling welfare and concentration of resources: 0.310, 0.320, 0.330.
Life expectancy
Fig. 4Average life expectancy at birth, years
Constrained access to medical services, psychological strain, and worsening living conditions drove expectancy from 71.0 (2018) to 69.0 (2024).
Key social indicators of Ukraine, 2018–2024
| Year | Poverty % | Unempl. % | Gini | Pop. growth % | Net migration, k | Life exp. | Income ratio 10% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 43.2 | 9.3 | 0.312 | −0.5 | −32.220 | 71.0 | 5.6 |
| 2019 | 41.3 | 8.7 | 0.295 | −0.6 | −6.908 | 71.2 | 5.4 |
| 2020 | 47.2 | 10.1 | 0.295 | −0.6 | −4.167 | 70.8 | 5.5 |
| 2021 | 39.1 | 10.5 | 0.289 | −0.9 | −1.129 | 70.5 | 5.7 |
| 2022 | 45.0 | 11.0 | 0.310 | −7.6 | −5699.445 | 70.0 | 6.0 |
| 2023 | 50.0 | 12.0 | 0.320 | −8.4 | −2999.61 | 69.5 | 6.2 |
| 2024 | 55.0 | 13.0 | 0.330 | +0.34 | −1146.012 | 69.0 | 6.5 |
Births in Ukraine fell steadily — from 335 thousand in 2018 to only 87 thousand in 2024 — while deaths declined less intensively, from 298 thousand to 250.9 thousand. According to Worldometer (on UN recommendations), in 2024 the population grew by +0.34% to roughly 37,860,221, a notable recovery after the sharp 2022–2023 decline tied to war and mass migration. The income ratio of the most and least well-off groups rose from 5.6 (2018) to 6.5 (2024), signalling intensifying social inequality. These trends point to a general worsening of the social situation, demanding active state intervention in social policy.
A structural gap in social progress
The Social Progress Index — a composite measure built from more than 50 indicators across health, education, access to basic services, and human rights, scored from 0 to 100 — offers a representative integral view of social security and a basis for international comparison.
Social Progress Index dynamics, 2014–2023
Fig. 5SPI for Ukraine and Poland (0–100; higher means better quality of life and social security)
Ukraine rose steadily from 66.75 (2014) to its peak of 71.51 in 2022, before declining to 70.47 in 2023 — a fall attributed to large-scale infrastructure destruction and reduced access to medical and educational services under full-scale war. Poland held SPI near 79–80 throughout.
Comparative analysis across 2014–2023 reveals a systemic lag of Ukraine behind Poland of 8–12 points, reflecting substantial differences in welfare, social protection, and the overall security of citizens. Until 2021, the gap in Ukraine was gradually narrowing; the full-scale war then reversed several social indicators.
Poland, by contrast, demonstrates stability even amid global challenges — the 2015 migration crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic — thanks to effective social policy. This points to the effectiveness of institutional policy aimed at preserving social standards and guarantees.
Ukraine is therefore at a complex but gradual stage of recovering its social environment, requiring strengthened institutional capacity, modernization of social infrastructure, and sustained reforms in key sectors. The Polish experience can serve as a benchmark for strategic policy aimed at reducing social disparities and raising national resilience.
SPI dynamics — Ukraine & Poland
| Year | Ukraine | Poland | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 66.75 | 78.99 | −12.24 |
| 2016 | 67.83 | 79.85 | −12.02 |
| 2018 | 69.54 | 80.07 | −10.53 |
| 2020 | 71.21 | 80.27 | −9.06 |
| 2022 | 71.51 | 79.74 | −8.23 |
| 2023 | 70.47 | 79.53 | −9.06 |
A quantitatively grounded approach to social security
Social security is a fundamental factor of the sustainable development of the state — especially under a prolonged crisis caused by armed conflict, socio-economic instability, and external threats. Traditional approaches to its assessment require revision and adaptation to present-day realities.
A multi-tier indicator model
The authorial methodology enables a comprehensive assessment of social security at the level of the national economy, integrating social, economic, and behavioural indicators.
Vulnerabilities made visible
Building the indicator system and computing an integral indicator made it possible to identify the most vulnerable directions of state social policy.
Benchmarked against Poland
The SPI comparison of Ukraine and Poland for 2014–2023 revealed structural gaps and set orientation points for raising the effectiveness of social governance.
Preventive, future-oriented
Assessing the economic efficiency of social security allows the state not only to track the current situation but to design preventive measures that strengthen national resilience.
The proposed methodology carries practical value for state bodies, analytical centres, researchers, and international partners. Its use will contribute to a more grounded, flexible, and adaptive social policy under conditions of high turbulence. Ultimately, the study underscores the need for a systematic, quantitatively grounded approach to managing social security in Ukraine as a precondition for the welfare of the population, economic stability, and effective recovery in the post-war period.
Sources cited
The study draws on a multidisciplinary base spanning institutional economics, social psychology, national statistics, and international social-progress frameworks. The full reference list (32 entries) is provided below.
- Antoniuk, P. P. (2013). Teoretyko-kontseptualʹni pidkhody do poniattia "sotsialʹna bezpeka" pidpryiemstva. Visnyk ZhDTU. Ekonomichni nauky, 1(63), 214–217.
- Bazhenova, O. V., Varnalii, Z. S., Cheberyako, O. V. (2022). Human social security under conditions of military aggression: indicators and evaluation (case of Ukraine). Ekonomika i derzhava, (5), 34–39.
- Country Economy. Ukraine — Social Progress Index (2014–2023).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2021).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2023).
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Incomes and living conditions.
- Havlovska, N., Matiukh, S., & Liubokhynets, L. (2023). Assessment of the state of economic security of the industrial enterprise. Development Service Industry Management, (1), 6–12.
- International Labour Organization. Social protection (social security).
- Kharazishvili, Yu. M., Hrishnova, O. A. (2018). Quality of life in the system of social security of Ukraine: indicators, level, threats. Ekonomika Ukrainy, (11–12), 157–171.
- Kozachenko, H. V., Bukolova, V. V. (2018). Analysis of approaches to assessing the socio-economic security of the region. Problemy ekonomiky, (1), 150–157.
- Kozmenko, S. M. (2020). National security: economic and social dimensions. Kyiv: NADU, 234 p.
- Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
- Matviienko-Biliaieva, H. L. (2022). Economic security of modern business in conditions of digitalization. Ekonomika. Finansy. Pravo, (4), 24–30.
- Mykytiuk, O. (2024). Analysis of social security in enterprises: from state programs to employee participation. The Theoretical and Applied Issues of Economics, 2(49), 94–105.
- Mykytiuk, O. P. (2025). Methodological transformation of economic security research in the context of globalization. Problemy suchasnykh transformatsii. Seriia: ekonomika ta upravlinnia, (18).
- Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.
- North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
- Novikova, O. F., Ostafiichuk, Ya. V. (2023). Ensuring balanced socio-labour development of Ukraine: challenges and opportunities. Ekonomika promyslovosti, 2(102), 62–77.
- Novikova, O. F., Sydorchuk, O. H., Pankova, O. V. (2018). State and prospects of social security in Ukraine: expert assessments: monograph. Lviv: LRI NADU, 184 p.
- Onyshchenko, S., Masliy, O., Zahorulko, T. (2023). Challenges and threats to the socio-economic security of Ukraine under martial law. Ekonomika i rehion, 1(88), 135–143.
- United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine (UNDP). Human Development Indicators.
- Semenchenko, M. V. (2020). Social security of enterprises: content, factors, mechanisms of provision. Kyiv: KNEU, 278 p.
- Shevchenko, I. O. (2022). Strategy for the development of the digital economy in the context of globalization. Zhurnal stratehichnykh ekonomichnykh doslidzhen, 6(11), 79–86.
- Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: a review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.
- Social Progress Imperative. (2020). 2020 Social Progress Index Methodology Report.
- Social Progress Imperative. (2023). Methodology and data sources.
- Social Progress Imperative. Social Progress Index: Ukraine.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
- Varnalii, Z., Bazhenova, O., Mykytiuk, O., & Onysenko, T. (2024). Creativity in the system of ensuring human social security at the enterprise during times of war and economic recovery in Ukraine. Academy Review, 2(61), 85–100.
- World Bank. (2023). Ukraine Country Data.
- Worldometer. (2025). Ukraine Population.
- Wright, E. O. (1997). Class counts: comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge University Press.