Development of public-private partnership: managerial aspects/Viesojo ir privaciojo sektoriu bendradarbiavimo gerinimas: vadybiniai aspektai.

Tuncikiene, Zivile ; Grencikova, Adriana ; Skackauskiene, Ilona 等

Introduction

Under the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Lithuania seeks to follow the path of proportionate development, create and develop a modern, dynamic and competitive economy. These goals can be accomplished with the help of legal, economic, social and other means, such as private-public partnerships. The active attendance and collaboration are one of the topical elements of modern public management; therefore, the partnership between different sectors fundamentally becomes an essential strategic tool in pursuit of the growth in the quality of social life and thus a sustainable development of a state. Partnership programmes initiated and maintained by the public sector are increasingly applied not only to strengthen political and economic relations but also to inculcate both social and cultural changes (Jakaitis et al. 2011; Pauliukeviciute 2010).

The relevance of the topic is explained by changes of life standards in a state. Like never before, the contemporary society expects effective work and high quality of the public sector, which causes change in operations of institutions and companies. For proper satisfaction of societal needs, the use of private capital for the creation of public infrastructure and quality improvement of public services has to be based on perspective-oriented principles. In this case, the ability of institutions to rationally manage the partnership with the business sector is important. The value created by collaborate activities of companies and institutions, while increasing the capacity of fulfilling the social needs, depends on managerial abilities of institutions. Inadequate management of partnership processes or intentional ignoring might have serious consequences not only for their participants but also for the society itself (Duda 2010).

There is a growing trend of scientific interest in research of public-private partnership, which results in analyses from different perspectives. From the perspective of modern public management, this category has been analysed in the studies written by researchers M. Duda, J. Jakaitis and N. K. Paliulis, D. Gudelis, V. Rozenbergaite, A. Pauliukeviciene, A. Raipa, E. Skietris, V. A. Bartkus and others. The articles focus on the genesis of the partnership between sectors in the world and in Lithuania, as well as both theoretical and practical aspects of its impact, partnership forms and other topical questions. Subsequent to analysis of both theoretical and practical aspects of public-private partnership and its management, the research aims to present milestones pertaining to the development of the latter. The tasks for achieving goals are as follow: the analysis of the concept of public-private partnership, the examination of the partnership principles and forms, the analysis of management models, the study of legal and administrative partnership aspects, the evaluation of key partnership problems and the search of their solutions. Methods applied in the research are as follow: analysis of professional literature, synthesis, comparison, generalization and interpretation.

The role of public-private partnership

1. The concept of public-private partnership

Various definitions of public-private partnership are presented in professional literature. It should be borne in mind that the partnership of sectors is being increasingly applied in most countries; however, neither international nor the EU law has the accepted definition for it. Public-private partnership is defined as any agreement of sectors that allows private organisations to operate in fields that previously were operated solely by the public sector (Savas 2000). L. Steven and C. Steven (2001) claim that it is an abstract statement highlighting the relationship between structures of business and public sectors while seeking to incorporate resources and experience of the private sector in order to ensure an active development of the public sector services. D. Gudelis and V. Rozenbergaite (2004) interpret sector partnership as a partnership between public and private sectors whose goal is to render services that are traditionally attributed to the competence of the public sector and to develop the infrastructure relevant for the rendering of such services. D. Vaitiekuniene (2006) agrees to the latter opinion and adds that a partnership is the collaboration of sector representatives based on a long-term agreement.

V. Nakrosis (2005) states that a partnership is frequently understood as consulting; however, it can also be an innovative way of public procurement when a long-term agreement is signed between sectors for the development of public infrastructure or rendering of public services. Defining collaboration, the author highlights relationships between different sectors, which approximates his understanding to the concept by Steven and Steven (2001). L. V. Karlavicius, B. Karlaviciene (2004), L. V. Karlavicius et al. (2006) have a similar understanding of collaboration. According to the authors, the term "partnership" is commonly used to define a wide range of professional relationships between the public and private sectors: from a free, informal and strategic partnership to exact service contracts. A sector partnership is treated as complex means of public procurement having a longer winner selection procedure with the ultimate goal to arrange a long-term, complex and large-scale agreement between objects that are fundamentally different (Guidebook on Promoting ... 2008; Vaitiekuniene 2009). Professional literature also presents other sector partnership definitions (Table 1).

According to V. Kavaliauskaite and R. Jucevicius (2009), some of the concepts are very wide, i.e. defining collaboration between the public and private sectors for rendering of goods or services for a short-term and having a certain goal based on various agreements. According to the authors, the most accurate and the least wide sector partnership concept covers innovative ways for rendering of public services and developing infrastructure.

Additionally, public-private partnership can be defined as a public sector reform strategy based on modern public management. The partnership is increasingly used in reforming the public sector on the basis of market principles. However, the most common assumption for partnership becomes not the need to reform the public sector but the opportunity to engage private capital in financing of public infrastructure projects (Duda 2010; Jakaitis et al. 2011; Sutaviciene 2011).

To conclude, the definition of public-private partnership could be most commonly understood as a long-term relationships between fundamentally different sectors that are focused on the development of infrastructure required for rendering of services and a more effective rendering of public services, seeking to ensure social economic development at national, regional and local levels. The partnership concept is more often understood as a joint activity aimed at helping the community following the principles of modern public management.

2. Goals and tasks of public-private partnership

Public-private partnership is increasingly considered as an important aspect in the economy of any state and an attractive solution in pursuit of public policy goals (Kavaliauskaite, Jucevicius 2009). In order to define sector partnership functions, it is advisable to establish factors that impact on the necessity for sectors to collaborate. J. E. Lane (2001) claims that higher expenses of the public sector and inadequately rendered public services are the key reasons for sector collaboration. As the basic factor determining the necessity for sector partnership, D. Gudelis and V. Rozenbergaite (2004) name the inability of the public sector to satisfy the increasing needs of the public infrastructure due to limited resources. According to L. V. Karlavicius et al. (2006), the discontent of the society with high taxes and inadequate quality of public services promotes the rise of new structures that could enlist private investments to economy but primarily to infrastructure. D. Vaitiekuniene (2009), J. Jakaitis et al. (2011) agree to this opinion indicating several reasons: the increasing need of investment, limited financial opportunities of the governmental sector and inadequate experience of the public sector while seeking to ensure the sufficient quality of public services.

Thus, the main factor that influences the necessity of sector partnership is the discontent of the society with activities of the public sector. More specifically, the discontent of the society is determined by high expenses of the public sector and the inadequate quality of public services.

In the National Audit Report on Public-Private Partnerships, the National Audit Office of Lithuania (2008) claims that the sector partnership allows the state: to decrease the budgetary expenses for rendering of public services and establishment of required assets without increasing liabilities of the state; to increase the quality and decrease the expenditure of rendered public services rendered. Moreover, creation of new jobs and stimulation of economic growth while developing market mechanisms in the service sector as well as increasing the competitiveness of services are considered as assumptions for sector partnership.

D. Gudelis and V. Rozenbergaite (2004), L. V. Karlavicius et al. (2006), D. Vaitiekuniene (2009) and others agree to most of the indicated assumptions. Sector partnership not only creates basic assumptions for improvement of the quality of public services and decrease in expenditure related to rendering of services as well as facilitates rational distribution of risks between project partners, but also allows implementing not one kind but a set of activities with one undertaking and protecting ownership rights of the public sector (Gudelis, Rozenbergaite 2004). The Public Policy and Management Institute agrees that the sector partnership allows creating a higher added value and the long-term benefit as it improves the quality of public services and the effectiveness of their rendering; helps decreasing the expenditure for public services as the private partner can fully or partially fund the establishment and modernisation of infrastructure; allows avoiding the budgetary deficit or the increase of state debt while developing infrastructure; and decreases the need for basic financing of EU structural funds. Apart from typical functions, the Public Policy and Management Institute notes that the sector partnership stimulates innovations and the distribution of good practice while establishing public infrastructure and rendering services. According to L. V. Karlavicius et al. (2006), the adequate sector partnership would guarantee: an additional capital, alternative skills of management and introduction, a benefit for consumers and society, an opportunity to more clearly indicate needs and take optimal use of reserves. V. Kavaliauskaite and R. Jucevicius (2009), J. Jakaitis et al. (2011) agree that partnership can promote higher effectiveness of the public sector and increase the level of rendered public services.

Countries name different sector partnership goals. It is most often indicated that the essential goal is the use of private capital for public needs, which includes rendering of public services and/or the establishment of relevant infrastructure. Some countries, for example, Germany indicates not the rendering of public services overall but a more effective exercise of public functions. Most governments of EU member states have arranged strategic programmes in which partnership is indicated as one of the essential means to enlist investments. The summary of partnership goals is given in Fig. 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The essence of any form of partnership is to make management more effective while coordinating the formation of common goals and preferences that cover different sectors (Pauliukeviciute 2010). The success of public-private partnership depends on the ability of parties to evaluate the expedience and effectiveness of partnership bearing in mind that the most suitable partnership variant as well as its means of implementation has to be selected. Therefore, a public sector institution entering into a partnership with the business sector solution has to closely evaluate the need and use economic calculations to estimate the expected benefit, effectiveness and possible threats.

3. Principles of public-private partnership

Principles of public-private partnership can be perceived as the aggregate of common activity logic, rules and reasons. Professional literature (Labour Code of Lithuania 2006; Local partnership organisations ...) claims that activities of sector partnership have to be related to the development of the state. It is rational to strengthen the relationship between partnership activities and development of the state using common rules of activity: volunteering and self-sufficiency while incurring liabilities that relate the states; invulnerability of the effective legal system; real exercise of obligations; supply of objective information; control and responsibility, equality and reliability of parties, goodwill and respect for interests of other parties. In this case, other principles should also be borne in mind: righteousness and clarity, dignity, quality and effectiveness, professionalism, punctuality (Principles of partnership...; Local partnership organisations ...). Under the Interpretative Communication of the European Commission (2007), principles of nondiscrimination, equality, mutual recognition and proportionality are also significant.

N. K. Paliulis (2008) highlights principles of clarity, equal treatment, proportionality and mutual recognition, flexibility and subsidiarity. The principle of clarity is based on evidence and accuracy. The principle of equal treatment connects principles of equality and non-discrimination. Proportionality means that institutions have to maintain the right proportion between sought goals and means. The principle of mutual recognition allows suppliers to demand for their qualification and product to be recognised by a member state, provided it was accepted in one other member state. The principle of flexibility covers creativity and open-mindedness towards new ideas that could ensure the maximum fulfilment of interests of both parties. The principle of subsidiarity means that decisions have to be taken and implemented at the level of administrative system capable of addressing the matters most effectively.

Rules are abstract; however, the application of rules is much more important (Fig. 2). Sector partnerships should be initiated considering changes in national development and following partnership principles.

4. The variety of public-private partnership forms

Effective fulfilment of increasing needs of the contemporary society requires finding a rational way to connect resources of fundamentally different sectors and taking use of their advantages. A successful sector partnership not only depends on the economic, legal and political situation, the adjustment of interests or distribution of risks but also--on the adequately selected form of partnership (Public and private ... 2009). The form of partnership indicates means and the degree to which companies are allowed to act in fields that were previously solely operated by the public sector.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Bearing in mind that international organisations (INTOSAI, the European Parliament) have indicated different forms of public-private partnership and separate member states have regulated different forms of partnership, in conformity with the practice of foreign states and the European Commission, two main partnership forms are commonly specified:

--institutional with an established mixed capital company to complete the activity;

--arbitrary, in which case the activity is exercised on the basis of concession, partnership agreements that are subject to public procurement.

Such classification of sector partnerships connects various forms of partnerships from the perspective of the organisation of common activity.

From the perspective of management, M. Smith and M. Beazley presented an important classification of partnerships, indicating types according to the influence partners have on decision-making. Considering the position of leaders and the status of partners, partnerships can be of four types (National Audit Report 2008; Public and private... 2009):

--shell: partners have little involvement at any level of the process, the leader is dominant;

--consultative: partnership is strongly controlled by the leader yet partners have the right of consulting;

--participative: partners have increased and sometimes equal capacity to impact on decisions;

--autonomous: the independent partnership is formed in which partners are fully integrated.

Under the logical goal two distinctive forms of sector partnerships are indicated:

--management partnership: the type of partnership created for delivery of various projects and programmes and is most often limited by time.

--partnership coordinating the development or protection of place identity: focused on a long-term maintenance, development and support of a certain field.

Professional literature presents other classifications. E. S. Savas (2000), D. Gudelis and V. Rozenbergaite (2004) indicate the particularity of a sector partnership using the image of a public-private sector scale. The left hand side of the scale holds purely public institutions; moving towards the middle, the public element continues decreasing until the right hand side is reached where service rendering, infrastructure development, financing, control and responsibility for the entire process belong exclusively to the private sector. Presenting the spectrum of partnership forms, H. Zarco-Jasso (2005) follows the system that evaluates the degree of risk transferred to the public sector from the private sector (Kavaliauskaite, Jucevicius 2009).

Forms of public-private partnership can be discriminated according to the kind of institution (governmental, municipal) that initiates joint projects. Forms can be discriminated according to the way public services are rendered and the financing infrastructure. Expenditure can be covered by public institutions, consumers and private entities (Gudelis, Rozenbergaite 2004).

Most authors classify partnership forms providing a very similar number and titles; however, they indicate a different background for such classification. There is no answer regarding the best form for a sector partnership. Attempts to answer this question end up in comparison of existing forms (Karlavicius et al. 2006; Vaitiekuniene 2006). L. V. Karlavicius et al. (2006) analyse sector partnerships from the point of view of requirements raised by stakeholders. The complex feature allows making conclusions regarding the forms that are expedient and beneficial for distinct partnership members. Moreover, it allows identifying forms that are more suitable for different surroundings, forms are applied and the higher clarity is ensured etc. According to M. Duda (2010), the selection of forms is influenced by specificity of public goods and strategic relevance.

A wide variety of forms is encountered in specialist literature that deals with partnership problems. It can be analysed from different perspectives: the influence of the partner and the degree of competence, impact of partnership on taxpayers, position on the public-private sector scale, and transfer of risk from the public to private sector, way of rendering public services and financing infrastructure. The selection of partnership form is influenced by various factors: financial status of public institutions, basics of services rendered, legal and economic environment, needs of the society. Bearing in mind the aggregate of factors, the selected and implemented form that joins competences of sectors allows reaching various public policy goals.

5. Management of public-private partnerships

V. Lowndes and C. Skelcher (1998) relate the management of public-private partnerships with the cycle of partnership existence. Such cycle is composed from pre-partnership collaboration, establishment of a partnership, arrangement of the partnership programme, the end of partnership or stages of continuity that include distinct management methods. In pre-partnership collaboration, partners are related by intention to work together, trust and voluntary inclusion into the pursuit of common goals. In a developing partnership, at first questions of authority and the distribution of roles are discussed. Then, the partnership receives a status of a certain organisation. Such informal systems as informal authority are turned into hierarchical structures with formal proceedings of decision-making and implementation. There is an increase of trust and initiation; however, opinions might differ regarding the means selected for implementation of tasks. In this case, not only compromises but also control is beneficial. The implementation of common goals strengthens not only responsibility but also reciprocal trust. If organisations work together, they can implement new activity plans or continue with already started work. A partnership that is based on formal requirements becomes a trust-based collaboration, open to self-expression of each participant. Formal decision-making procedures and the control of their implementation become impossible without open discussions and informal communication. The development of a partnership depends on motivation of partners, mutual understanding, financial resources and other internal and external factors.

E. H. Klijn et al. (2002) claim that difficulties of task distribution are encountered while implementing common goals, which influences each partner's further actions in modelling management. In this case, a partnership can be developed as the result of two courses of actions: if all partners decide upon the complex activity plan, a partnership based on the balanced distribution of authority is developed; clear boundaries between partners are made, which decreases the effectiveness of common goal implementation (The Challenge of Public-Private ... 2005).

R. Petrauskiene and A. Raipa (2007), A. Pauliukeviciute (2010) agree to the opinion that decision-making and distribution of tasks is a complicated procedure. Authors explain the variable distribution of tasks and participation in decision-making through different statuses of partners. Sector representatives are not equal partners as the public sector has more power and privileges. Otherwise, the role of the private sector does not decrease; it is still significant due to its financial status and independence, which the public sector actually lacks. Circumstances under which the partnership was established have an impact on its further development. It is important to conceive that the effectiveness of goal implementation depends on tasks formulated to achieve those goals and their rational distribution between partners. This can only be ensured by proportional and clear distribution of authority, which determines the application of a certain method of partnership management (traditional contract system, combined model, partnership model).

Management of public and private sector is the process when means to start and maintain effective, productive and sustainable relations with partners are foreseen (Partnerships and Partnership ... 2007). Managerial aspects are analysed from the perspective of the partnership development cycle: to foresee and revise partnership, define authority, process partnership and maintain close relations with partners. In stage one, discussions are initiated by interested organisations; later, the partnership is processed and both its policies and proceedings are foreseen, partnership goals are defined as well as the organisational structure of goals and the activity plan of goal implementation are arranged, and control aspects as well as altogether the assessment of results are expected.

Overall, the term "management" is related to the processes, structures, rules, norms and values that allow the management of collective activities. Such understanding of management defines a new model of coordination between various participants: governmental and public institutions, private suppliers, academic community, scientific research institutes, media, etc. All participants take part in the complex process of decision arrangement, acceptance and implementation of policies; thus, it is not the administrative hierarchy, which is the most important in making and implementing decisions, but complex reciprocal relations between partners (Hamedinger et al. 2008).

In order to ensure a successful implementation of partnership projects, authorities have to establish an adequate system of process management, select appropriate financial means and ensure the systematic implementation of policies from the perspective of a partnership. Before starting to form a partnership, it is rational to determine whether there is a need for it. It is also rational to base the decision regarding the partnership not on political or ideological motives but on a thorough economic and legal analysis. It is necessary to answer the following key questions: will partnership allow the public sector to reach the expected goals; is a partnership a financially cheaper alternative compared to the traditional method for rendering of public services; what additional economic and social value will be created by the partnership. If analysis shows the advantage of the partnership, it is rational to proceed with interrelated stages and implementing the partnership: to decide upon its structure, define its boundaries, capacity, select participants, define and distribute risks between partners and arrange an agreement. It is noted that there is no best model for implementation of a partnership as the process emerges naturally from long negotiations and compromises (Duda 2010).

To conclude, it is common to reveal the managerial aspect of sector partnership in the context of partnership existence and managerial models of sector partnership are commonly based on the traditional attitude towards the content of management.

6. Legal and administrative aspects of public and private sector management

Any activity that is exercised in order to increase social welfare is regulated by various legal acts from the Constitution to ministerial orders. Sector partnership activity is also regulated. Action Programme on the Fifteenth Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Law on Concession, Law on Investments, Government Resolution on Rules for preparation and implementation of the public-private partnership projects, Government Resolution adopting the Programme for Promotion of PPP in the years 2010-2012, Order of the Minister of Economy on Approval of the plan of measures implementing the Programme for Promotion of PPP in the years 2010-2012, Order of the Minister of Economy on Establishing the criteria for expediency of public-private partnerships and methodological recommendations on approval of criteria on expediency of the use of public-private partnership, and other legal acts regulate various managerial aspects related to expediency criteria of public-private partnerships. The list of legal acts expressing the political will in terms of partnership development nationally is provided in the research by Z. Sutaviciene (2011) as well as the analysis of legal act provisions.

It is clear that regulation on partnerships is developing. For example, the Law on Investments has been amended by aspects of public-private partnership, current versions of the legal acts require the relevant public sector entity to complete the expediency evaluation of the planned partnership proving that the partnership project is more effective than other methods used for establishing public assets, improving or rendering public services etc. (Fig. 3). However, the inadequate relationship between legal acts regulating sector partnerships and legal acts regulating strategic planning in the public sector are evident, which shows the need for further development of legal regulation on sector partnership. The cycle of arranging, evaluating and implementing partnership projects that are regulated by the rules established by the Government Resolution, is considered an inappropriately rational way of solving tasks. The expediency evaluation of a partnership is legally restricted in time that can condition inexpedient expenditure of the public sector for the opportunities to organise studies. Legal acts and official methodological documents on public-private partnership of this field (for example, the established methodological recommendations on approval of criteria on expediency of the use of public-private partnership (LRV ... 2010), recommendations on opportunities to organise studies on public and private partnership projects (Recommendations for public and private ...) are suggested to for improvement due to inadequate reasoning for arranging assumptions (National Audit Report ... 2013).

It is logical that an expanding legislative framework results in negative aspects related to the redundant regulation of the field, the increase of bureaucracy, economic inefficiency (Bivainis et al. 2011). Sector partnership would be more effective and clearer if current legal acts were improved following the principle of organisation. However, it has to be stated that the main principles of sector partnership from the perspective of content and process are more or less regulated by legal acts yet the legal regulation of this field should be improved from the perspective of principle implementation.

7. Improvement assumption of public-private partnerships

The need for public and private sector partnerships arises from the situation in sectors when each of the sectors seeks for collaboration that would help solve problems related to ensuring of continuous activity. In the context of change, the need to exercise sector partnership projects aimed at fulfilment of societal needs is objective (Pauliukeviciute 2010; Sutaviciene 2010; Jakaitis et al. 2011). Undoubtedly, legal, administrative and methodological (e.g. teaching, consulting) assumptions are significant in search of an effective sector partnership. It is agreed that these conditions are being improved; however, questions of managing sector partnership are in merits not solved. In this case, problems of both strategic and operative levels can be noted:

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

There is neither unanimous and sustainable policy, nor formulated effective strategy of sector partnership. This situation raises essential doubts regarding the expediency of state partnership projects.

It is important to understand that a partnership is not comprised of separate public and private sectors but rather, it is two collaboratively interacting elements seeking for common goals. Common goals should be sought for before the joint strategy is created. However, the latter would be a strong foundation to develop sector partnership. Defining strategic goals and priority directions from the perspective of legal regulations, a partnership would become one of the generic elements of the state economy, which would promote the development in the most necessary fields.

Inadequate reasoning of public-private partnership decisions (projects). Current methodologies of arranging, accepting and implementing sector partnership projects are considered inadequately rational from the perspective of decision reasoning.

The risk arises if an objective complex evaluation is not completed. Institutions thus might not select the most efficient way of implementing sector partnership. Moreover, they would for decades incur agreed liabilities under which the resources of public sector would be used inefficiently.

It is necessary to consider indicated reasons, which aggravate partnership development in the state. Therefore:

At first, it is necessary to arrange the effective strategy on sector partnership. In other words, to make strategic decisions on the direction for the development of sector partnership. Such strategy should be linked to the solution of prioritised national socioeconomic problems. In order to select the most suitable strategy, it is expedient to follow the established methodological strategic potential of management (Bivainis, Tuncikiene 2009; Tuncikiene, Skackauskiene 2012) whose purpose is to determine strategic goals and priorities of sector partnership following the analysis of public sector environment and resources, then generate strategic alternatives for the implementation of goals and priorities, evaluate them from the perspective of opportunities for implementation of goals and priorities, and select the optimal strategy after having analysed the evaluation results;

Next, planning of the strategy for implementation of sector partnership should be rationally developed. The activity plan should help implementing the sector partnership strategy at a low cost and ensure maximum performance. In this case, the multicriteria evaluation is very important as its results show whether common proj ects delivered by sectors are essentially more effective than other ways of establishing public assets, improving or rendering public services.

Conclusions

In the context of political, economic and cultural changes, public-private partnerships are treated as strategic means that create conditions for rational reformation of the public sector aimed at effective improvement of the social welfare. The concept of the partnership between fundamentally different sectors is still developing. It expresses assumptions related to the improvement of public sector activities in pursuit of the sustainable national development while permanently improving the implementation of essential joint activities delivered in collaboration with business companies.

From the perspective of content and process, the assumptions related to public-private partnership principles are based on the rational solution for combination of sector competences, which is selected from a wide variety of choices considering the entirety of external and internal factors. The question of selecting forms of sector partnership is indicated as a common element of the partnership management model; however, the model is commonly formed undertaking the following basic tasks: reasoning of partnership needs while seeking for a purposeful implementation of the partnership policy; establishment of partnership goals and priorities; arrangement of decisions to achieve goals and priorities; admission and planning of implementation; the control of partnership projects.

The main principles pertaining to public-private partnerships from the perspective of content and process are more or less regulated by legal acts; however, legal regulation in this field should be improved from the point of view of models and methods used for implementation of principles. The formation of the effective sector partnership strategy and rational planning of the implementation of the strategy following the established potential of methodological management, whose purpose is perspective-oriented decision-making based on a thorough analysis and multicriteria evaluation, are treated as basic assumptions for the essential development of public-private partnership.

Caption: Fig. 1. Summary of public and private sector partnership goals (compiled by the authors)

Caption: Fig. 2. Principles of public-private partnership (compiled by authors)

Caption: Fig. 3. Non-finite aggregate of legal acts legitimating principles of public-private partnership (compiled by authors)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/btp.2014.02

References

A Review of Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development in Europe [online]. Economic and Social Council, Committee for Trade, Industry and Enterprise Development. Available on the Internet: http://www.unece.org/operact/wp5/ docs/trade.wp5.2002.13e.pdf

Bivainis, J.; Chlivickas, E.; Gaule, E.; Juraleviciene, J.; Kaziliunas, A.; Melnikas, B.; Mikalauskas, A.; Palidauskaite, J.; Pivoras, S.; Raipa, A.; Smalskys, V.; Senavicius, A.; Snapstiene, R.; Tuncikiene, Z.; Vitkauskas, K.; Zilinskas, G. 2011. Biurokratija demokratineje visuomeneje [Bureaucracy in a Democratic Society]. Kaunas: Technologija. 278 p. ISBN 9786090201763.

Bivainis, J.; Tuncikiene, Z. 2009. Viesojo sektoriaus instituciju strateginis planavimas [Strategic Planning in Public Institutions]. Vilnius: Technika. 240 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1586-M

Duda, M. 2010. Teoriniai viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes igyvendinimo aspektai [Theoretical Aspects ofthe Implementation of Public-Private Partnership], Viesoji politika ir administravimas [Public Policy and Administration] 33: 139-151.

Europos komisijos aiskinamasis komunikatas. Del viesuji pirkimu ir koncesijas reglamentuojanciu Bendrijos teises aktu taikymo oficialiai patvirtintai viesojo ir privaciojo sektoriaus partnerystei (OPVVP). Europos bendriju komisija [Commission interpretative communication on the application of Community law on Public Procurement and Concessions to Institutionalised PPP. Commission of the European Communities], [online]. Available on the Internet: http:// ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/ppp/ comm_2007_6661_lt.pdf

Gudelis, D.; Rozenbergaite, V. 2004. Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes galimybes [Opportunities for public-private partnerships], Viesoji politika ir administravimas [Public Policy and Administration] 8: 58-73.

Guidebook on Promoting Good Governance in Public-Private Partnerships. 2008. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Available from Internet: http://www.unece.org/ fileadmin/DAM/ceci/publications/ppp.pdf

Hamedinger, A.; Frey, O.; Dangschat, J.; Breitfuss, A. (Eds.). 2008. Strategieorientierte Planung im kooperativen Staat. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Jakaitis, J.; Paliulis, N. K.; Meidute, I. 2011. Viesojo ir privaciojo sektoriu partneryste: miesto teritoriju pletros perspektyvos [Public private partnership: perspectives for development of urban territories], Business: Theory and Practice 12(3): 246-257.

Karlavicius, L. V.; Karlaviciene, B. 2004. Privataus ir viesojo sektoriaus partnerystes komunikaciju strategijos principai [Strategic communication principles for public-private partnership], Business: Theory and Practice 5(4): 189-194.

Karlavicius, L. V.; Karlaviciene, B.; Grigoriene, I. 2006. Viesoji ir privati partneryste--naujas budas pritraukti investicijas [Public-private partnership as a new way to attract investments], Business: Theory and Practice 7(1): 32-36.

Kavaliauskaite, V.; Jucevicius, R. 2009. Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes svarba realizuojant regiono konkurencine strategije [Role of public-private partnership in realizing competitive strategy of the region], Ekonomika ir vadyba [Economics and Mangement] 14: 809-818.

Lane, J. E. 2001. Viesasis sektorius. Savokos, modeliai ir poziuriai [Public Sector. Concepts, Models and Approaches]. Vilnius: Margi rastai. 463 p.

Lowndes, V.; Skelcher, C. 1998. The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance', Public Administration 76(2): 313-333.

LR valstybes kontrole. 2008. Valstybinio audito ataskaita. Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu bendradarbiavimas. 2008 m. sausio 15 d. Nr. VA-P-30-5-1 [National Audit Report. Public-Private Partnership. 15 January 2008. No VA-P-30-5-1]. Vilnius. Available on the Internet: www.vkontrole.lt

LRS. 1996. LR Koncesiju istatymas, Valstybes zinios, 1996, 92-2141 [SRL. 1996. Law on Concessions. Official Gazette, 1996, 92-2141].

LRS. 1998. LR Valstybes ir savivaldybiu turto valdymo, naudojimo ir disponavimo istatymas, Valstybes zinios, 1998, 54-1492 [SRL. 1998. Law on the Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Assets. Official Gazette, 1998, 54-1492].

LRS. 1999. LR Investiciju istatymas, Valstybes zinios, 1999, 662127 [SRL (1999). Law on Investments. Official Gazette, 1999, 66-2127].

LRS. 2008. 2008 m. gruodzio 9 d. nutarimas Nr. XI-52 "Del penkioliktosios LR Vyriausybes veiklos programos", Valstybes zinios, 2008-12-20, 146-5870 [SRL. 2008. Resolution No XI-52 of 9 December 2008, of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on the Action Programme on the Fifteenth Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette. 2008-12-20, 146-5870].

LRUM. 2010a. Lietuvos Respublikos ukio ministro 2010 m. birzelio 4 d. isakymas Nr. 4-431 "Del viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes skatinimo 2010-2012 metu programos igyvendinimo priemoniu plano patvirtinimo", Valstybes zinios, 2010, 67-3376 [MERL. 2010a. Order No 4-431 of the Minister of Economy of the Republic of Lithuania of 4 June 2010, on Approval of the plan of measures implementing the Programme for Promotion of PPP in the years 2010-2012. Official Gazette, 2010, 67-3376].

LRUM. 2010b. Lietuvos Respublikos ukio ministro 2010 m. liepos 16 d. isakymas Nr. 4-538 "Del viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes tikslingumo kriteriju nustatymo ir metodiniu rekomendaciju del viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes taikymo tikslingumo kriteriju patvirtinimo", Valstybes zinios, 2010, 87-4620 [MERL. 2010b. Order No 4-538 of the Minister of Economy of the Republic of Lithuania of 16 July 2010Establishing the criteria for expediency of public-private partnerships and methodological recommendations on approval of criteria on expediency of the use of public-private partnership. Official Gazette, 2010, 87-4620].

LRV. 2009a. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybes 2009 m. spalio 14 d. nutarimas Nr. 1290 "Del metodine ir konsultacine pagalba teikiancio viesojo juridinio asmens igaliojimo ir jo funkciju nustatymo", Valstybes zinios, 2009, 124-5339 [GRL. 2009a. Resolution No 1290 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 14 October 2009 on authorisation and establishment of functions of a public legal entity providing methodological and consultative support. Official Gazette, 2009, 124-5339].

LRV. 2009b. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybes 2009 m. lapkricio 11 d. Nr. 1480 "Del viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes", Valstybes zinios, 2009, 137-5998 [GRL. 2009b. Resolution No 1480 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 11 November 2009 on Public-Private Partnerships. Official Gazette, 2009, 137-5998].

LRV. 2010. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybes 2010 m. balandzio 7 d. nutarimas Nr. 415 "Del viesoj o ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes skatinimo 2010-2012 metu programos patvirtinimo", Valstybes zinios, 2010, 46-2212 [GVL. 2010. Resolution No 415 of the G overnment of the Republic of Lithuania of 7 April 2010on adopting the Programme for Promotion of PPP in the years 2010-2012. Official Gazette, 2010, 46-2212].

LRVRM. 2009. Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalu ministro 2009 m. geguzes 29 d. isakymas Nr. 1V-235 "Del 20072013 m. Zmogiskuju istekliu pletros veiksmu programos 4 prioriteto "Administraciniu gebejimu stiprinimas ir viesojo administravimo efektyvumo didinimas" igyvendinimo priemones VP1-4.1-VRM-06-V "Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partneryste" projektu finansavimo salygu apraso patvirtinimo", Valstybes zinios, 2009, 70-2852 [MIARL. 2009. Order No 1V-235 of the Minister of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania of 29 May 2009 on Approval of the description of financial conditions for projects under the Measure VP14.1-VRM06-V "Public-Private Partnership" of the Priority No 4 "Strengthening administrative capacities and increasing efficiency of public administration" of the Operational Program for the Development of Human Resources 2007-2013. Official Gazette, 2009, 70-2852].

Nakrosis, V. 2005. Nevaldinga vyriausybe [Non-Authoritative Government] [online]. Available on the Internet: http://www. politika.lt/index.php?cid=9299&new_id=8371

Paliulis, N. K. 2008. "Lietuvos transporto sistemos modernizavimo ir pletros galimybes taikant viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes (PPP) finansavimo modeli"studija [The study on the possibilities to develop and modernise the Lithuanian transport system applying the public-private partnership (PPP) funding model] [online]. Available on the Internet: http://www.transp. lt/files/uploads/client/PPP_ataskaita_Galutine.pdf

Partnerships and Partnership Management. 2007. [Online]. Available on the Internet: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/3_4_partner_management___may_20__2007.pdf

Paskevicius, L. 2008. Viesasis ir privatus sektorius: nuo konfrontacijos iki partnerystes [Public and private sectors: from confrontation to partnership], [online]. Available on the Internet: http://www. privatimedicina.com/failai/vies_priv_partner.pdf

Pauliukeviciute, A. 2010. Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partneryste bei kulturos valdymas [Public-Private Partnership in the Context of Cultural Governance], Viesoji politika ir administravimas [Public Policy and Administration] 32: 61-73.

Petrauskiene, R.; Raipa, A. 2007. Partnerystes principo taikymas igyvendinant "Naujaja viesaja vadyba" [Application of the partnership principle for implementation of the New Public Management]. Naujoji viesoji vadyba: mokomoji knyga [New Public Management: schoolbook]. Ats. red. Alvydas Raipa. Kaunas: Technologija. 245 p.

Rekomendacijos viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes projektu galimybiu studiju rengimui. Projektas [Guidelines on preparation of feasibility studies of public-private partnership projects. Draft], [online]. Available on the Internet: http:// www.ppplietuva.lt/images/files/metodikos/07_21_PGS_rengimo_rekomendacijos.pdf

Savas, E. S. 2000. Privatizations and Public-Private Partnerships. New York: Chatham House Publishers. 239 p.

Skietrys, E.; Raipa, A.; Bartkus, E. V. 2008. Dimensions of the Efficiency of Public--Private Partnership, Inzinerine Ekonomika --Engineering Economics 3(58): 45-50.

Sutaviciene, Z. 2011. Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes poreikis ir galimybes Lietuvoje [Need and Possibilities of Public-Private Partnership in Lithuania], Socialiniu mokslu studijos [Societal Studies] 3(3): 789-815.

The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships. Learning from International Experience. 2005. [Online]. Edited by Graeme Hodge, Carsten Greve. Available on the Internet: http:// books.google.lt/books?id=pKAvNQmpXkUC&pg=PA11 6&lpg=PA116&dq=E.+H.+Klijn,+Koppenjan,+Ham+pa rtnership&source=bl&ots=5XBBnPWl8j&sig=IogkiW-is Ou2DZGUTtMFq-Ps5W4&hl=lt&sa=X&ei=UJuYUqv3H 9GShQea54CoDw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q =E.%20H.%20Klijn%2C%20Koppenjan%2C%20Ham%20 partnership&f=false

Tuncikiene, Z.; Skackauskiene, I. 2012. Viesojo sektoriaus instituciju strateginio planavimo bukle ir jos gerinimo prielaidos [The situation of strategic planning in public sector institutions and improvement assumptions], Socialiniu mokslu studijos [Social sciences studies] 4(1): 97-110.

Vaitiekuniene, D. 2009. VPSP situacija ir teisinis reglamentavimas Lietuvoje. Pranesimas 2009 m. gruodzio 10 d. konferencijoje "Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes perspektyvos Lietuvoje" [Report on the situation and legal regulation of PPP in Lithuania at the conference "The Perspectives of Public-Private Partnership in Lithuania" 10 December 2009], [online]. Available on the Internet: http://www.lntpa.lt/index.php?id=483

Vaitiekuniene, D. 2006. Viesojo ir privataus sektoriaus partnerystes dabartis bei perspektyvos Lietuvoje [Report on public-private partnerships: the present and the future perspectives in Lithuania], [online]. Available on the Internet: http://sena2.sam.lt/ images/Dokumentai/Konferencijos/1%20ministry%20of%20 finance%20lit%202.ppt

Valstybinio audito ataskaita. 2013. Valdzios ir privaciu subjektu partneryste [National Audit Report 2013. The Public-Private Partnership]. Available on the Internet: https://www.vkontro le.lt/failas.aspx?id=3046

Vietos partnerystes organizavimas [Organisation of a local partnership], [online]. Available on the Internet: http://www. zum.lt/min/failai/partnerystes_organizavimas.pdf

Viesojo ir privataus sektoriu partnerystes perspektyvos Lietuvoje: Konferencijos, vykusios LITEXPO Vilniuje 2009 m. gruodzio 10 d., medziaga [Proceedings of the conference "The Perspectives of Public-Private Partnership in Lithuania'! LITEXPO, Vilnius, 10 December 2009], [online]. Available on the Internet: http://www.3p.lt/konferencija

Zarco-Jasso, H. 2005. Public-private partnerships: a multidimensional model for contracting, International Journal of Public Policy 1(1/2): 22-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPP.2005.007791

Zivile Tuncikiene (1), Adriana Grencikova (2), Ilona Skackauskiene (3)

(1,3) Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

(2) University of Alexander Dubcek in Trenctn, Studentska 3, 91150 Trenctn, Slovakia

E-mails: (1) zivile.tuncikiene@vgtu.lt (corresponding author); (2) adriana.grencikova@tnuni.sk; (3) ilona.skackauskiene@vgtu.lt

Received 10 September 2013, accepted 11 December 2013

Zivile Tuncikiene (1), Adriana Grencikova (2), Ilona Skackauskiene (3)

(1,3) Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lietuva

(2) Trenctno Aleksandro Dubceko universitetas, Studentska 3, 91150 Trenctnas, Slovakija

El. pastas: (1) zivile.tuncikiene@vgtu.lt; (2) adriana.grencikova@tnuni.sk; (3) ilona.skackauskiene@vgtu.lt

Pateikta 2013-09-10, priimta 2013-12-11

Zivile TUNCIKIENE. Associate Professor. Department of Social Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. Research interests: management of socioeconomic development, strategic management of public sector.

Adriana GRENCIKOVA. Associate Professor. Department of Management and Development of Human Resources, Faculty of SocialEconomic Relations, University of Alexander Dubcek in Trencin. Research interests: microeconomics, macroeconomics, organisational behaviour, labour market an employment policy, human resource management, personnel management.

Ilona SKACKAUSKIENE. Associate Professor. Department of Social Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. Research interests: taxes, taxation, tax system evaluation, budget revenue formation.

Table 1. Variety of public-private partnership definitions (compiled
by the authors)

Authors                Year   Definition

H. Zarco-Jasso         2005   Agreements of public sector companies
                                with private sector institutions for
                                construction or management of public
                                sector infrastructure objects, or
                                rendering of services to the
                                community on behalf of a public
                                sector institution.
Organisation of        2007   The formation of the system of mutual
  local partnership             unity relationships at a regional
                                level whose key goal is to properly
                                develop opportunities of the region
                                and enrich it activities by
                                discussions between separate sectors.
L. Paskevicius         2008   A public-private partnership based on
                                a long-term agreement including
                                assets, knowledge and experience of
                                the private sector relevant in
                                creating or modernising
                                infrastructure by rendering services
                                that are traditionally attributed to
                                the public sector.
Law on Concessions,    2009   Collaboration tools established by
  Law on Investments   2009     state or municipal institutions and
                                laws on private undertakings by which
                                a state or municipal institution
                                assigns its activity to a private
                                undertaking while the private
                                undertaking makes investments into
                                this activity and assets required for
                                its implementation in exchange for
                                the fee established by laws.