A week and a half ago, the president announced possible dismissals in the gubernatorial corps. Such a step was expected: the change of the Cabinet and the rapid approach of parliamentary elections could not but force the head of state to review regional policy and comb through the ranks of regional chiefs. At the same time, Viktor Andriyovych reported: the presidential punishment will affect those heads of regional administrations who "failed to fulfill tasks, did not build trust, did not deliver effective results..." Which of the local chiefs "fulfilled," "built," and "delivered," and who did not? There are as many opinions as there are people. For example, Socialist Party leader Moroz is convinced that his associates Stepan Bulba and Vasyl Tsushko are not threatened by a presidential vote of no confidence, since they cope with their duties and have authority. According to the statement of the SPU leader (voiced on National Radio), "Poltava region today is among the top 3—4 regions based on economic performance for the previous period of the current year. Indicators have also improved in Odesa region..." Along the way, Oleksandr Oleksandrovych noted that the socialists could propose their own candidates for leadership positions in a whole number of regions: "I mean those where instead of management they engage in politicking..." It is not easy to objectively measure the level of politicking demonstrated by one or another leader. However, one can try to determine the degree of effectiveness of gubernatorial work. To do this, it is necessary to turn to statistical data summarized by the Cabinet of Ministers. Which is what we did. We hope the information below will help you form your own assessment not only of Oleksandr Moroz's yesterday's words but also of Viktor Yushchenko's tomorrow's deeds. According to data from the State Statistics Committee, the highest rates of growth in industrial output for January—August 2005, compared with the same period of the previous year, are observed in Khmelnytskyi (by 26.4%), Kyiv (17.7%), Volyn (16.8%), Sumy (14.2%), and Vinnytsia (13.2%) regions. The lowest rates of growth in industrial output were recorded in Donetsk (-9.5%), Ternopil and Lviv (-5.1%), Poltava (-0.5%), Luhansk (3.2%), and Chernivtsi (3.5%) regions. The highest rates of growth in agricultural output for January—August 2005, compared with the same period of 2004, are observed in Vinnytsia (123.9%), Poltava (116.9%), Kharkiv (115.3%), Luhansk (114.1%), and Donetsk (111.6%) regions. The least successful economic management was distinguished respectively by Mykolaiv (77.6%), Odesa (86.2%), Khmelnytskyi (93.2%), Kirovohrad (94.7%), Lviv (95.8%), and Kherson (96%) regions. Sumy (96.9%), Ternopil (96.6%), Volyn (98.9%), and Ivano-Frankivsk (99.4%) regions also failed to maintain last year's rates. The governors of Zhytomyr (149.1% of last year's indicators), Kirovohrad (148.2%), Luhansk (129.3%), Mykolaiv (124.6%), and Sumy (120.7%) regions attracted the most capital investment to the regions under their authority in the first half of 2005. The least successful in this regard were Rivne (40.3%), Khmelnytskyi (55%), Cherkasy (80.4%), Chernivtsi (85.1%), and Ivano-Frankivsk (86.9%) regions. If we consider the indicators of housing commissioning by developers of all forms of ownership for January—June 2005, they exceed last year's achievements in such regions as Kherson (126%), Dnipropetrovsk (122.2%), Volyn (115.8%), Chernivtsi (115.1%), and Chernihiv (114.4%). The lowest indicators are in Zakarpattia (85.3%), Vinnytsia (85.4%), Kharkiv (86.7%), Zaporizhzhia (88.1%), and Rivne (89.4%) regions. As for the volumes of retail trade turnover, they grew in all regions of Ukraine. But the most successful here were Donetsk (130.1%), Dnipropetrovsk (125.3%), Zaporizhzhia (124.9%), Mykolaiv (123.1%), and Lviv (122.9%) regions. The governors of Zakarpattia (84.7% of all enterprises — profitable), Donetsk (70.7%), Poltava (66.7%), Ivano-Frankivsk (66.6%), and Lviv (65.6%) regions managed to provide the best business climate. Business develops worst in Kherson (45.2% of enterprises suffered losses in the first half of 2005), Luhansk (43.4%), Zhytomyr (41.2%), Chernivtsi (40.2%), and Zaporizhzhia (39.9%) regions. Real wages grew the most in western regions, such as Ternopil (124.5% of last year's index), Volyn (123.9%), Chernivtsi (121.7%), Vinnytsia, Zakarpattia, and Dnipropetrovsk (all three at 120.4%). Wages also grew, but not as substantially, in Zaporizhzhia (109.7%), Mykolaiv (114.4%), Poltava (115.5%), Donetsk (116.1%), and Kirovohrad regions. The largest exporting regions of Ukraine: Poltava (134.4%), Dnipropetrovsk (123.2%), Volyn (122.4%), Odesa (122%), Sumy (120.1%). The largest importers: Khmelnytskyi (142% of last year's indicators), Donetsk (140.7%), Ternopil (140.1%), Mykolaiv (137.2%), Volyn (135.7%). The highest trade balance for the first half of 2005: Donetsk (3402.1), Dnipropetrovsk (1983), Luhansk (874), Poltava (771.3), Zaporizhzhia (655.9) regions. The lowest trade balance: Kyiv (-491.4), Kharkiv (-334.7), Lviv (-154.4), Odesa (-104.2), Rivne (-50.5) The worst governors-managers: Cherkasy, Rivne, Ivano-Frankivsk, Khmelnytskyi, Chernivtsi, Lviv, Ternopil, Odesa, Kharkiv, Kherson. The best governors-managers: Volyn, Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Donetsk, Poltava "Average performers": Zakarpattia, Zaporizhzhia, Kirovohrad, Luhansk, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Mykolaiv. The top five most successful regions of Ukraine: 1. Dnipropetrovsk, 2. Poltava, 3. Donetsk, 4. Vinnytsia, 5. Volyn The top five most neglected regions: 1. Khmelnytskyi, 2. Rivne, 3. Ternopil, 4. Kherson, 5. Chernivtsi. The pattern — governors work worst where there is the greatest support for the current government. In particular, in Western Ukraine. The paradox: the regions that received the most investment have the worst business climate. In particular, this applies to Zhytomyr and Luhansk regions.