Modern Aspects of the State Anti-Crisis Policy of Improving the Investment Attractiveness of Retail Trade in Ukraine

The article addresses the issue of providing retail entities with investments, including in conditions of instability caused by the consequences of the ongoing full-scale war. The aim of the study is to analyze modern aspects of aspects of the State anti-crisis policy in the context of developing solutions to improve the investment attractiveness of retail trade in Ukraine. It is shown that the results of analyzing the quality and efficiency of the State investment policy, its effectiveness, shortcomings and risks, serve as an information basis for determining priority areas for its improvement. This, in turn, allows us to form the basis for using more effective investment management tools, which is especially relevant in the context of war, post-war reconstruction and transformation of the Ukrainian economy, in particular to increase the investment attractiveness of the retail sector as one of the key segments of the national economy. A number of positive practices and shortcomings and dysfunctions in the implementation of the state anti-crisis policy aimed at increasing the investment attractiveness of the industry have been identified and defined. It is substantiated that the formation of a new paradigm of the State investment policy in the conditions of anti-crisis development of retail trade should be focused on overcoming systemic flaws in the State regulation, the most critical of which include the lack of regulatory acts that would specifically regulate the investment development of trade and the service sector, and the lack of strategic approaches to reforming domestic trade, lack of coordinated mechanisms for implementing investment policy at the regional and local levels, weak level of investment interaction between the trade sector and the production sector. Systemic problems of the State regulation in the analyzed area have been identified, namely, unresolved issues of the functioning of food markets, unsystematic development of trade infrastructure, limited use of the State investment guarantee instruments, insufficient prevalence of public-private partnership mechanisms, public investment and state investment orders, including those of a social nature.