Decision-making methods at the top-level of the government never were trustworthy for knowledgeable people. In public, no doubt, the “official” label always served as a sign of quality and common people were used to mantra “boss knows better”. However, the truth is that behind loud claims and arguments of high officials one will not necessarily find some fundamental analysis. The quality of government decisions speaks for itself: repeated economic crisis and steadily poor economic stance. An alternative to this practice is an evidence-based policy (which translates in Ukrainian as “measure thrice and cut once”). Unfortunately, this practice was adopted in our country only nominally while the essence of decision-making remains unchanged – selecting convenient facts for justifying needed decisions. In this report, we use example of “antitrust” investigation against “Megapolis-Ukraine” (the wholesale tobacco operator) to demonstrate which kind of arguments are usually used for lobbying government decisions.
For more details about investigation, please, see report “Why do we need evidence-based policy: an investigation story?”