INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE OF BIOECONOMY POLICIES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UKRAINE AND THE VISEGRAD GROUP COUNTRIES

Introduction. In the context of the European Green Transition, the development of effective bioeconomy policies has become increasingly important, necessitating the adaptation of national institutional architectures to the challenges of sustainable development. For Ukraine, which is undergoing structural transformation and post-war recovery, the design of a functional institutional model aligned with best European practices – particularly those of the Visegrad Group countries – is of paramount importance. Methods. The research applies an institutional approach, qualitative comparative analysis, structural-functional method, and content analysis of official strategies, regulations, and programmes (2015–2025). It also introduces an original typology of institutional architecture based on two dimensions: the degree of strategy formalisation and the level of cross-sectoral coordination. Results. The Visegrad Group countries significantly outperform Ukraine in terms of institutional prerequisites for bioeconomy policy formation. Slovakia demonstrates the most advanced model, combining an approved strategy with multi-actor coordination through clusters and hubs. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have implemented various formats of platform-based interaction and political integration of the bioeconomy into other strategic domains, such as the circular economy, agricultural policy, and R&I agendas. In contrast, Ukraine still possesses a fragmented institutional framework with no unified national strategy. A roadmap is proposed for the implementation of relevant practices, including the establishment of a platform under the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, the development of cluster initiatives, and integration into the BIOEAST initiative. For the first time, this study offers a structured typology of bioeconomy institutional architectures across five countries using a two-dimensional analytical framework. It highlights key components suitable for institutional borrowing, along with justifications for their implementation. Discussion. Further research should focus on developing indicators of institutional capacity in the bioeconomy domain, assessing the effectiveness of multi-level coordination, and deepening the sector-specific evaluation of policy outcomes (e.g. agriculture, biotechnology, renewable energy). Keywords: bioeconomy, institutional architecture, institutional economics, Visegrad Group, sustainable development policy, cross-sectoral coordination, institutional borrowing, cluster model, policy platforms, bioeconomy strategy.