Institutional, technological, and financial drivers of national cyber resilience under armed conflict and post-conflict recovery
-
Author(s)Inna ShkolnykLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5359-0521
,
Inna TiutiunykLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5883-2940
,
Andrii SemenogLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3222-9574
,
Yuliia KovalenkoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5678-3185
,
Liudmyla PavlenkoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4724-7567
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(4).2025.45
-
Article InfoVolume 23 2025, Issue #4, pp. 665-683
- 30 Views
-
2 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Military and economic turbulence transform the relationships between factors shaping national cyber resilience. This study aims to analyze the impact of technological, institutional, and financial determinants on cyber resilience under armed conflict and post-conflict recovery. The empirical analysis covers neighboring European non-EU countries within the European security space that are exposed to armed conflict or post-conflict instability (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Serbia) from 2010 to 2024, using panel data from the World Bank, IMF, and ENISA. Cyber resilience is measured by the Global Cybersecurity Index. Institutional, technological, and financial factors are proxied by standard governance, digitalization, and the financial sector and estimated using a fixed-effects model with Driscoll-Kraay robust standard errors. The results reveal pronounced regime-dependent effects. Institutional capacity plays a decisive role during armed conflict: government effectiveness shows a strong positive association with cyber resilience (β ≈ 1.04) but becomes statistically insignificant in post-conflict and stable environments. Technological factors exhibit context-sensitive effects: digital government development is positively associated with cyber resilience during armed conflict (β ≈ 0.95) and relative stability (β ≈ 1.78), while its impact weakens in post-conflict recovery. Macroeconomic conditions exert systematic influences across regimes: higher unemployment reduces cyber resilience (β ≈ −0.027), whereas inflation shows a positive association (β ≈ 0.008). Financial indicators display mixed and predominantly negative effects under relative stability. Accordingly, cybersecurity policy should be explicitly regime-sensitive: institutional and digital interventions should dominate during armed conflict, while governance and risk-management mechanisms should prevail in post-conflict and stable environments.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge with gratitude the financial support provided by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine for the research project “Modeling mechanisms for countering organized and transnational cybercrime in wartime and post-war times” (state registration number 0124U000550).
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G28, С33, О33, G21
-
References35
-
Tables7
-
Figures2
-
- Figure 1. Predicted values of the Global Cyber Resilience Index across three security regimes (relative stability, armed conflict, and post-armed conflict recovery), estimated from a full fixed-effects model capturing within-country transitions over time
- Figure 2. Average marginal effect of government effectiveness (GEF) on cyber resilience across relative stability, armed conflict, and post-conflict recovery security regimes
-
- Table 1. Security regime attribution across selected countries and periods (2010–2024)
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics of cyber resilience determinants by security regime
- Table 3. Significance of cyber resilience determinants across model specifications and security regimes (dependent variable – Global Cybersecurity Index)
- Table 4. Fixed-effects regressions of cyber resilience: overall sample and security regimes
- Table 5. Summary of correlation structure and variable selection
- Table 6. Results of diagnostic tests to substantiate the fixed effects model
- Table 7. Robustness check: fixed-effects model with digital and cybersecurity determinants (overall sample and security regime)
-
- Adams, J. N. (Ed.). (2016). Letter of Claudia Severa from Vindolanda (Tab. Vindol. 291), of the Early Second Century. In An Anthology of Informal Latin, 200 BC–AD 900: Fifty Texts with Translations and Linguistic Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256-264.
- Agrafiotis, I., Nurse, J. R. C., Goldsmith, M., Creese, S., & Upton, D. (2018). A taxonomy of cyber-harms: Defining the impacts of cyber-attacks and understanding how they propagate. Journal of Cybersecurity, 4(1), tyy006.
- Aldasoro, I., Gambacorta, L., Giudici, P., & Whyte, K. (2020). The drivers of cyber risk (BIS Working Papers No. 865).
- Arroyabe, M. F., Arranz, C. F.A., De Arroyabe, I. F., & De Arroyabe, J. C. F. (2024). Revealing the realities of cybercrime in small and medium enterprises: Understanding fear and taxonomic perspectives. Computers & Security, 141, 103826.
- Atkins, S., & Chappell, L. (2021). An Improvised Patchwork: Success and Failure in Cybersecurity Policy for Critical Infrastructure. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 847-861.
- Bampinas, G., & Panagiotidis, T. (2024). How would the war and the pandemic affect the stock and cryptocurrency cross-market linkages? Research in International Business and Finance, 70, 102272.
- Buil-Gil, D., Miró-Llinares, F., Moneva, A., Kemp, S., & Díaz-Castaño, N. (2021). Cybercrime and shifts in opportunities during COVID-19: a preliminary analysis in the UK. European Societies, 23(S1), S47-S59.
- Carlo, A., & Obergfaell, K. (2024). Cyber attacks on critical infrastructures and satellite communications. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 46, 100701.
- Carr, M. (2016). Public-private partnerships in national cyber-security strategies. International Affairs, 92(1), 43-62.
- CERT-UA. (2025). Cyber incidents overview.
- Cook, S., Giommoni, L., Trajtenberg Pareja, N., Levi, M., & Williams, M. L. (2023). Fear of Economic Cybercrime Across Europe: A Multilevel Application of Routine Activity Theory. The British Journal of Criminology, 63(2), 384-406.
- Dodel, M., & Mesch, G. (2019). An Integrated Model for Assessing Cyber-safety Behaviors: How Cognitive, Socioeconomic and Digital Determinants Affect Diverse Safety Practices. Computers & Security, 86, 75-91.
- European Commission. (2022). Digital Public Administration factsheet 2022.
- European Parliament. (2022). Russia’s War on Ukraine: Timeline of Cyber-Attacks.
- European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2023). ENISA Threat Landscape 2023.
- Frandell, F., & Feeney, M. (2022). Cybersecurity Threats in Local Government: A Sociotechnical Perspective. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(8), 558-572.
- Fyshchuk, I., Mette Strange N., & Jeppe Agger N. (2025). Managing Cyberattacks in Wartime: The Case of Ukraine. Public Administration Review, 85(3), 619-627.
- Guitton, M. J., & Frechette, J. (2023). Facing cyberthreats in a crisis and post-crisis era: Rethinking security services response strategy. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 10, 100282.
- Hui, K. L., Seung, H. K., & Qui-Hong, W. (2017). Cybercrime Deterrence and International Legislation: Evidence from distributed denial of service attacks. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), 497-524.
- Lynch, III, T. F. (2024). Cyberspace: Great Power competition in a fragmenting domain. Orbis, 68(4), 607-623.
- Mamediieva, G., & Moynihan, D. (2023). Digital Resilience in Wartime: The Case of Ukraine. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1512-1516.
- Miadzvetskaya, Y. (2024). EU sanctions in response to cyber-attacks as crime-based emergency measures. Computer Law & Security Review, 54, 106010.
- Moore, T. (2010). The economics of cybersecurity: Principles and policy options. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 3(3), 103-117.
- Nobles, C. (2024). The Weaponization of Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity: A Systematic Review. Procedia Computer Science, 239, 547-555.
- Norris, D. F., Mateczun, L., Hatcher, W., Meares, W., & Heslen, J. (2023). Local Government Cyber Insecurity: Causes and Recommendations for Improvement. Public Administration Review, 84(4), 651-59.
- Rogoff, K. (2022). The Long-Lasting Economic Shock of War. International Monetary Fund.
- Sanders, P., Bronk, C., & Bazilian, M. D. (2022). Critical energy infrastructure and the evolution of cybersecurity. The Electricity Journal, 35(10), 107224.
- Smith, B. (2022). Defending Ukraine: Early lessons from the cyber war. Microsoft Digital Threat Analysis Center.
- Song, U., Hur, G., Lee, S., & Park, J. (2024). Unraveling the dynamics of the cyber threat landscape: Major shifts examined through the recent societal events. Sustainable Cities and Society, 103, 105265.
- Streltsov, L. (2017). The System of Cybersecurity in Ukraine: Principles, Actors, Challenges, Accomplishments. European Journal for Security Research, 2(2), 147-184.
- Tiutiunyk, I. (2025). Cyber Resilience Determinants in Wartime and Post-Conflict Conditions: Evidence from a Six-Country Panel Dataset [Data set]. Zenodo.
- Ubowska, A., & Królikowski, T. (2022). Building a cybersecurity culture of public administration system in Poland. Procedia Computer Science, 207, 1242-1250.
- United Nations. (2025). Global Programme on Cybercrime.
- Virtanen, S. M. (2017). Fear of Cybercrime in Europe: Examining the Effects of Victimization and Vulnerabilities. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24, 323-38.
- Yilma, K. M. (2014). Developments in cybercrime law and practice in Ethiopia. Computer Law & Security Review, 30(6), 720-735.
-
Fintech in the eyes of Millennials and Generation Z (the financial behavior and Fintech perception)
Mohannad A. M. Abu Daqar ,
Samer Arqawi ,
Sharif Abu Karsh
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.15(3).2020.03
Banks and Bank Systems Volume 15, 2020 Issue #3 pp. 20-28 Views: 10609 Downloads: 3079 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study investigates the Millennials and Gen Z perception toward Fintech services, their usage intention, and their financial behavior. The study took place in the Palestinian context with a global comparison among these generations. The authors used the questionnaire-based technique to meet the study objective. West Bank respondents were selected for this purpose; the study instrument was distributed through different social media channels. The findings show that reliability/trust and ease of use are the main issues in using a financial service. Millennials are more aware (48%) of Fintech services than Gen Z (38%), which is different from the global view where Gen Z is the highest. The smartphone penetration rate is 100% among both generations, while the financial inclusion ratio in Palestine is around 36.4%; these clear indicators are the main Fintech drivers to promote Fintech services in Palestine, and these are global indicators for Fintech adoption intention. Both generations (84%) intend to use e-wallet services, Millennials (87%) and Gen Z is (70%) prefer using real-time services. Half of the respondents see that Fintech plays a complementary role with banks. The majority see that Fintech services are cheaper than bank services. Wealth management, and robot advisor services, and both generations are looking to acquire them in the long run. The authors revealed that 85% of respondents from both generations trust banks, so it is recommended that banks digitize their financial services to meet the customers’ needs, considering that 90% of respondents see that promotions are a key issue in adopting Fintech services. Promoting e-wallet services by banks is highly recommended due to the massive rivalry with Fintech parties.
-
Life insurance companies marketing strategy in the digital world
Olena Prymostka
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ins.09(1).2018.06
Insurance Markets and Companies Volume 9, 2018 Issue #1 pp. 70-78 Views: 4183 Downloads: 1414 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe research is aimed to evaluate the internet marketing strategies in of life insurance companies in Ukraine. The insurance service in the time of digitalization faces scenarios of implementation in the marketing strategy on-line component. The main challenge for Ukrainian life insurance companies comparatively with the world practice is non-obligatory status of such kind of insurance contracts. So, on the one hand, costs of operation, regulatory pressures and inflexible technology infrastructure are increasing, and, on the other hand, economic recession does not allow to increase the number of insured persons, premiums and profit growth.
Sector of financial services is characterized by an increase in the level of competition, life insurance compelled to compete with pensions funds, banks and other financial institutions in order to defend their market share. Insurance companies marketing strategy determines how an insurer can best achieve its goals and objectives, keep existing customers and attract new ones with minimal costs.
Keeping all the above problems around the study would attempt to study all the factors that contributed to the effective marketing strategies. This paper presents different marketing strategies that are taken up in life insurance services keeping in view external and internal environment of the company. -
The role of financial literacy, digital literacy, and financial self-efficacy in FinTech adoption
K. M. Anwarul Islam ,
Muhammad Saifuddin Khan
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.21(2).2024.30
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 21, 2024 Issue #2 pp. 370-380 Views: 3735 Downloads: 1115 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe primary aim of this study is to delve into the factors influencing individuals’ readiness to embrace financial technology (FinTech) services in Bangladesh. Specifically, the study focused on Bangladeshi fintech consumer’s knowledge about contemporary digital financial tools, such as mobile-based payment service apps. Data collection was carried out using a survey questionnaire tailored to the Bangladeshi context. Participants were invited to participate in the survey, and their responses were gathered upon their consent. A five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘1’ for ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘5’ for ‘Strongly Agree,’ was employed to gauge the questionnaire items. The final sample size was 450 respondents. To assess the hypotheses, a 5% significance level was employed, with data analysis conducted using SPSS software. The findings underscore a positive and statistically significant impact of financial literacy, digital literacy, and financial self-efficacy on the adoption of FinTech services in Bangladesh. Collectively, these variables elucidate 48.20% of the variance (R2=0.482) in predicting individuals’ adoption behavior of FinTech. Financial self-efficacy (β = 0.574; t-value = 8.394) has the highest effect on FinTech adoption compared to the other two factors. Additionally, a substantial correlation coefficient (r=0.634) is present between digital literacy and FinTech adoption. This study contributes to the extant literature on FinTech services by providing valuable insights that enhance scholars’ understanding of the emerging financial technologies’ significance and their predominant impacts within the Bangladeshi FinTech ecosystem. These findings hold implications for policymakers, financial institutions, and stakeholders seeking to promote FinTech adoption and foster financial inclusion in Bangladesh.
