1392-2758-2008-3-58-45_inzinerine ekonomika

8/2/2019 1392-2758-2008-3-58-45_Inzinerine ekonomika

1/6

- 45 -

ISSN 1392-2785 ENGINEERING ECONOMICS. 2008. No 3 (58)

THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONING

Dimensions of the Efficiency of Public - Private Partnership

Eugenijus Skietrys, Alvydas Raipa, Edverdas Vaclovas Bartkus

Kauno technologijos universitetasK. Donelaiio g. 20, LT 44239, Kaunas

Efficiency of public administration is recognized as arather broad concept encompassing a variety of areas,therefore instruments and optimal solutions it requires

must be selected individually for a single case. However,efficiency is always related to application of limited

financial resources, minimal organizational costs andefforts in pursue of target results. Despite the limitation of financial possibilities, needs of society in the context of

global and regional changes are constantly growing. Anincreased demand both for quantity and quality of servicesand infrastructure is observed.

For complex and permanent modernization of public

sector, a complex strategy of modernization is required(vision, mission, provisions, and concepts of modernization). Partnership is recognized as one of the factors ofinfrastructure development and service efficiency. Thenature of partnership is revealed when the public sectorrecognizes its dependence on other sectors and starts solving governance problems by decentralizing activity.Thus the principle of partnership is consolidated both

vertically (by relating different levels of administration) and

horizontally (inter-sectoral).For efficient partnership three key constituents should

be taken into consideration: 1) need; 2) political, legal,administrative environment; 3) communication. Thisenables both the compatibility of natures of differentsectors and development of partnership reaching ultimate synergy. Precise identification of needs enables

preparation of plans and strategies of actions. Possibilitiesof performance of the latter are limited by political, legaland administrative environment. Communication needs toact in two directions: between partners (internal) andtowards the society (external). Internal communication strengthens interrelation and trust whereas the external

one enhances approval of the society for ongoing changes. Partnership can assume a variety of forms; however

roles and obligations must be clearly defined. It isrecognized that each of the sectors pursues not only commongoals of the project (better quality services, development ofinfrastructure), but personal ones as well: the public sectorlaying its accounts on political and economic benefits,whereas the private one striving for recognition, profit,possibilities for development.

Philanthropy from the private sector or governmentbenevolence is not a reliable foundation for a partnership.

Central governments decentralize some decision-makingand financial power to local tiers or share them with

community members and the private sector.

Keywords:partnership, Public-Private Partnership (PPP),efficiency, new public management, communication.

Introduction

The issues of the efficiency of public administrationhas been, and still is, relevant both in theoretical and

practical level. Efficiency is recognized as a rather broad

concept encompassing a variety of areas, therefore,implements and optimal solutions it requires must beselected individually for a single case. However, efficiencyis always related to utilization of limited financialresources, minimal organizational costs and efforts in

pursue of target results (Backnait, 2006, Raipa, 2001).Despite the limitation of financial possibilities, needs ofsociety in the context of global and regional changes areconstantly growing. An increased demand both for quantityand quality of services and infrastructure is observed.

In pursuit of the efficiency of public sector, a consistentmodernization of activity of public institutions is seen as themain task. For complex and permanent modernization of the

public sector, a complex strategy of modernization isrequired (vision, mission, provisions, and concepts ofmodernization). Partnership is recognized as one of thefactors of infrastructure development and service efficiency.

Partnership covers a wide range of different forms ofinteractions among different organizations and sectors(public, private, NGO), as well as interest groups. Everysingle partnership is aimed at definite goals to be achievedwith presence of the same, limited resources, however,combining a potential of different sectors.

As the object of the article is dimensions of theefficiency of public private partnership (PPP), it will notcover the analysis of efficiency of interaction of other

sectors.PPP is related to the theory and practice of NewPublic Management (NPM) which originated in Anglo-Saxon countries. To achieve maximum exploitation of new

possibilities of cooperation and partnership of public and private sectors governments of many of these countrieshave established organizations for development andmonitoring of partnership of public and private sectors.PPP issues have become an inseparable part of the publicsector research and discussions. Separate studies arededicated to the analysis of this area and dissemination ofgood and bad practice in particular, and case analysis,however, they fail to answer the principal question, i.e.what are the criteria for the evaluation of PPP efficiency,

even though many authors emphasize partnership being an


2/6

- 46 -

efficient and progressive instrument to satisfy socialdemands. Hood (1991), for example, points out thatcooperation of public and private sectors under thecircumstances of reforms of new public management willensure an increased quality of public services and enhancethe efficiency of public administration. While analyzing

public and private partnership in the context of theWelfare state, Wilson (2002) argues that combining ofresources of public and private sectors can result ineffectively functioning social infrastructure, defeat ofeconomic crisis and improved life. Gudelis and Rozenbergait(2004) present some theoretical aspects of risk managementhaving impact on PPP efficiency. Petrauskien and Raipa(2007) notice that NPM approaches partnership as aninstrument of particular importance for efficient

performance of bureaucracy. However, some generalizingexplicitness of efficient partnership is still missing despitethe fact that its separate constituents have been broadlydiscussed.

The objective of this article is to present basic

constituents of effective and efficient PPP management.The main tasks are to:1. reveal the essence of PPP;2. present essential prerequisites for efficient PPP

management.Research methods to solve the scientific problem are

scientific literature review, analysis of analytical andempirical studies and synthesis of fragmentary knowledgeon the subject.

The Essence of Partnership

In the world of global changes any organization(private, public or NVO) can predominate as long as it is

open to interaction with its environment. Political,economic and social changes make organizations constantlyreview their vision, mission and renew adapting toenvironmental changes. To enhance their significance they areforced to reallocate tasks and missions among organizations.Therefore, in dynamic environment partnership serves as ameans to adopt and implement reallocated tasks andmissions considering social, political and economic context.

Decentralization which can be functional, geographic,etc. is one of the crucial conditions for PPP development.Political, administrative, fiscal and market decentralizationin different countries and their sectors can often varyassuming fresher and diverse forms. However, decentralization

is always marked with development of institutions of lowerlevel, their autonomy in public or any other dimensionrelated to preparation and implementation of managingsolutions (Raipa, Backnait, 2004).

Given the variety of contexts the concept of partnership isused in, an absence of uniform conception is natural. Thenature of partnership is revealed when the public sectorrecognizes its dependence on other sectors and starts solvinggovernance problems by decentralizing activity. Thus, the

principle of partnership is consolidated both vertically (byrelating different levels of administration) and horizontally(inter-sectoral).

According to Petrauskien and Raipa (2007), partnership participants oblige to accept new values: controlledcompetitiveness, emphasis on consumer needs, andimplementation of responsibility and quality systems.Therefore the concept of partnership is often seen ascommon performance with the society and for the sake ofsociety rather than its supervision from above.

Miraftab (2004, p.92) states that possibility of apartnership depends on the nature of the associated action:how the partnership is conceived, why it is initiated andcarried out, and whether the power imbalances amongst

participants can be dealt with to secure equitable,horizontal power relations. Therefore it is important torealize who is participating in partnership on whose terrainand in whose process. This is a main and crucialconceptual difference, defining on whose premises the

partnership develops and will operate.In discussions of modern society and its development

PPP theoreticians lay stress on inter-sectoral partnership.Partnership is seen as purposeful and balanced use ofunique natures, competences, resources and capacities ofseparate sectors with the aim of solving problems of thesociety or its part.

The term PPP covers a range of different structureswhich can be used to deliver a project or a service (seeTable 1). Depending on the country and the politics of thetime, the term can cover a spectrum from relatively shortterm management contracts (with little or no capitalexpenditure); through concession contracts (which mayencompass the design and build of substantial capitalassets along with the provision of a range of services and

the financing of the entire construction and operation); to joint ventures and partial privatizations where there is asharing of ownership between the public and privatesectors (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2004).

In most general meaning, PPP is an intermediatevariant between traditional public procurement via publicinstitutions and total privatization (see Table 1). Theessence of this collaboration can be defined as procurementsof the public sector, but rather than buying long-term assetsand paying the entire sum in advance by applying PPPmechanism the public sector is enabled to buildindependent business funded and managed by the private

sector. Thus a customer of the public sector is provided withservices in exchange of a payment conforming to level andquality of the service. Attempts have been made to identifya variety of PPP with privatization of public assets.

Summarizing the essence of PPP it is noteworthy thatit is a NPM theory that can be realized in practice contractual, time-defined means of interaction between the

public and private sector capacitating consolidation ofresources to reach a new quantitative or qualitative level.The reasons for establishing PPPs vary but generallyinvolve the financing, design, construction, operation andmaintenance of public infrastructure and services.


3/6

- 47 -

Table 1

Definitions of PPP

Author/source PPP description

Gerrard, 2001 cooperative business ventures built on long-term contracts in which public services are delivered on the basis of clearly definedpublic needs.

Carroll, Steane, 2000 an instrument of modernization and renewal for state intervention allowing public enterprises to adopt new organizational

forms in order to establish different types of relationships with private sector organizations.Loew, McLindon PPP arrangements are basically contracts between a private sector entity and the government that call for the private partner todeliver a desired service and assume the associated risks.

4Ps, UK local

government

procurement agency

generic term for the relationships formed between the private sector and public bodies often with the aim of introducing privatesector resources and/or expertise in order to help provide and deliver public sector assets and services. The term PPP is used todescribe a wide variety of working arrangements from loose, informal and strategic partnerships to design build finance andoperate (DBFO) type service contracts and formal joint venture companies.

EC, COM(2004) 327 forms of cooperation between public authorities and the world of business which aim to ensure the funding, construction,renovation, management or maintenance of an infrastructure or the provision of a service.

Gudelis,

Rozenbergait, 2004;Savas, 2000

creation and development of quality services traditionally described to the competence of the public sector, and the requiredinfrastructure. The main objective of the partnership is an efficient implementation of the task defined.

Constituents and Content of Efficient PPP

A variety of studies while reasoning the PPP efficiencyshare an opinion of the public sector being inflexible in themeaning of productivity due to institutional arrangement.Experience has proved that structure and methods ofactivity of a private organization is more efficient enablingan achievement of target objectives. Therefore a capacityof the private sector to offer lower price, better efficiencyand improved customer service as compared to managers(administrators) of the public sector is mentioned as the

prime argumentation for privatization or cession of the public sector to private operator (Karlaftis et al. (1997, p.76). However, examples of individual countries and projects resulted in the identification of three essential

problems causing assumptions as to benefits provided byPPP. At the same time they enable the identification of themain constituents of efficient management (see Fig. 1).

It is a need for services, infrastructure or their complexthat should be named a key factor. All articles dealing with

practical application of PPP or presenting theoreticalconsiderations emphasize limitation of the state to meetarising and changing needs of members of the society.

Sometimes need is defined in quite an abstract mannerindicating a need to increase competitiveness of thecountry which in turn, is related to quantitative andqualitative development of infrastructure, human resourcesand other spheres. In many cases needs are defined in

strategic documents and are evident whereas in some casesthey can emerge suddenly (e.g. in the case of forcemajore). In all cases need is defined as striving for higherquality. Therefore, it is vital that full compatibility ofapproaches on the same issue (need) between the publicand private sector be achieved. Both parties concernedmust be guided by a common vision, objectives to achieveultimate results by reconciling their actions.

A need can as well be viewed from the perspective ofpartnership development. According to Mbodj (1999), theterm of partnership has become more generalized and

presented a profound challenge to traditional structures ofcooperation, because it meets a threefold need:

a needto use an innovative form to bring differentsectors together, so that the strengths andweaknesses of each can be reconciled as a result of the

complementary nature and solidarity of the sectorsinvolved;

a need to re-think cooperation by reaffirmingexisting partnerships and creating new ones, takinginto account existing or potential players in the

process of development in order to improve ourstandard of living;

a need finally to achieve a balance, bydemocratizing the relationships between playersthrough an extension of cooperation to allinstitutions, whether public or private, national orlocal, in a way which is appropriate forconsolidating and strengthening the capacity foraction of social agencies characterized bytraditional vertical-type relationships, substituting

horizontal-type relationships based on partnership,instead of support. (by Sedjari, 2004).

Figura 1. Prerequisites for efficient PPP

Another important factor is political, legal andadministrative environment encompassing:

1. consistent and stable policy;2. legal form of PPP contracts:

a. concession;b. public procurement and agreement;c. civil law contract regulations (franchise,

management or service contracts, etc);3. institutional unit.

The case of Melbourne franchising has revealed anexample of reckless political instruments tax increase(Williams et al., 2005) which resulted in crisis of the public

EPPP

Need

Political, legal andadministative Communication


4/6

- 48 -

transport system. However some other reasons accounted forthat as well, including groundless assumptions of theoperator as to increase in number of customers and costdecrease and contractual drawbacks (Mees, 2003) .

Therefore central or local institutional unit must draftmodel tender and contractual documents that reconcilerequirements and international best practices in thecommon forms of PPP contracts: management contracts,leases, concessions, and other arrangements (such as off-take agreements) that constitute BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) and similar types of "project finance" projects.Tender documents should be designed to accommodateinternational competitive bidding when appropriate, andshould ensure that the bid and evaluation process istransparent and equitable to all bidders. PPP contracts mustinclude workable payment, termination, and dispute-resolution procedures and be enforceable.

Efficiency in this context should be understood as agovernments ability to establish predictability in theinstitutional and policy environment.

Finally, the last support of the efficient partnership playing a vital role is communication. According toKarlaviius and Karlaviien (2004) communication caneither contribute to or ruin a project. Communication canhelp:

solve problems related to conveyance of the societyand opinion-making;

identify possible risks and eliminate them on time; ensure dissemination of timely information between

partners.PPP communication should be directed to disclose

project reality and utility. Bearing in mind PPP practice,communication cannot be primitive carried out by mere

messages; it needs a definite beginning and ending. Asduration of some projects exceeds a period of 10 years along-termed strategy is required aimed both to ensureavailability of information and contribute to disseminationof experience. The strategy of communication mustinclude clearly defined objectives, the list of which by allmeans shall indicate:

1.meeting with the members of society to rendergood or improved information service;

2. in mass media create positive image of projectimplementation;

3. in dimension of partnership enhance reciprocalunderstanding in core issues.

The need of society to be aware of essential details ofthe contract makes crucial moment of communication(Ghere, 2001). However, it may contain some confidentialinformation particularly related to new technologies thatare used. Therefore, critical success can be achieved by

balancing between the right of the society to informationand protection of intellectual property.

Communication between partners should be based ontrust and reconciled positions rather than exhibition of

powers from any of the sectors (Tomlinson, 2005).According to Bachmann (2001), all social relations involvea mixture of trust and power but each produces differentqualities of relationships. The author states that power is

generally the second best choice, but it is a good choice iftrust seems not affordable (Bachmann, 2001). According

to analysis of the Best Value partnership model in theMelbourne City Council is relatively successful in developingworking relationships between council members, appointedmanagers, private service providers and localcommunities (Teicher et al., 2006, p.96-97). The BestValue model is viewed as efficient, transparent, accountable,and it engages community participation. The workingrelationships between partners appear to be based on trust.

All partnerships serve the purpose when they make useof advantages of the parties involved and thus a synergyeffect is achieved.

However, it is noteworthy that to achieve synergy both partners must have reciprocal benefits and holdcomplementary roles. Philanthropy from the private sectoror government benevolence is not a reliable foundation fora partnership. Central governments decentralize somedecision-making and financial power to local tiers or sharethem with community members and the private sector, notout of benevolence, but in the expectation of political oreconomic return. The same is true of other partners.

Business supports local development through donationsand development funds out of the conviction thatdevelopment of the area where it is based also helps itsown business. Thus, all partners have the expectation togain and are more likely to sustain the partnership when its

benefits are mutual (Miraftab, 2004).As many objects implemented by means of PPP alter

established means of service delivery forming new practices, a plan of communications has to define bothmaterial and non-material things. In any case, it isdemonstration of project transparency what makes the keyobjective of communication.

Summarizing it should be noted that additional factors

of success and efficiency can be found. However, itdepends on a particular project, its type and sector(transport, water, education, etc.), cultural environment,

procedural factors: reconciliation of interests, forecastingof demand, and evaluation of value for money, risk sharingand management, etc. However, it needs identification andranging, relevant political and legislative environment andexternal and internal communication that should rank as

prime factors for the efficient partnership.

Conclusions

1.The term partnership varies according to the context being analyzed, participants of interaction, their

roles and allocation of powers. In the context of NPM theory and practice an emphasis on private public partnership is placed. By summing up practice of different countries a conclusion can bedrawn that it is a contractual, timely definedmeans of interaction enabling joining of resourcesto enhance quantitative and qualitative volume ofservices and infrastructure.

2.The analysis conducted enables identification of thethree prime prerequisites for efficient partnership:need; political, legislative and administrativeenvironment; communication. Identified and rankedneeds together with harmonious environment andinternal and external communication capacitate bothefficient development of projects and would


5/6

- 49 -

encourage development of such projects thusenhancing common horizontal approach of the

public and private sectors.

References

1. 4Ps., UK local government procurement agency. Glossary [2007-12- 15].

2.

Backnait

, E. Administracini

reform

vieajame sektoriuje raida:konvergencijos ir divergencijos paiekos // Vieoji politika ir

administravimas, 2006, Nr. 18, p. 1725.3. Bachmann, R. Trust, power and control in trans-organizational

relations // Organization Studies, 2001, Vol. 22, No. 2, p. 337365.

4. Brown, K. Are PublicPrivate Transactions the Future ofInfrastructure Finance? // Public Works Management & Policy,

2007, Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 320324.5. Carroll, P. and Steane, P. PublicPrivate Partnerships: Sectoral

Perspectives // in S. P. Osborne (ed.) PublicPrivate Partnerships:Theory and Practice in International Perspective. London and NewYork: Routledge, 2000, p. 3657.

6. Developing Public Private Partnerships in New Europe.PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2004.

7. Domarkas, V. Naujj vieojo administravimo raidos tendencijkritin analiz // Naujoji vieoji vadyba: mokomoji knyga / ats. red.A. Raipa. Kaunas: Technologija, 2007, p. 624.

8. Gerrard, M.B. PublicPrivate Partnerships: What are Public PrivatePartnerships, and How Do They Differ from Privatization? //Finance and Development, 2001, Vol. 38. No. 3, p. 44151.

9. Ghere, R. K. Ethical Futures and Private Partnerships: Peering FarDown the Track // Public organization review. A Global Journal,

Vol. 1, p. 309319.10. Green Paper on Public-Private. Partnerships and Community Law

on Public Contracts and Concessions. COM(2004) 327 finalBrussels, 2004.

11. Gudelis, D., Rozenbergait, V. Vieojo ir privaiojo sektoripartnerysts galimybs. // Vieoji politika ir administravimas,

2004, Nr. 8, p. 5873.12. Hood, S. A. Public Management for All Seasons? // Public

Administration, 1991, No. 69, p. 319.13. Karlaftis, M. G., Wasson, J. S., ir Steadham, E. S., Impacts of

Privatization on the Performance of Urban Transit Systems //Transportation Quarterly, 1997, Vol. 51, No. 3.

14. Karlaviius, L. V., Karlaviien B. Privataus ir vieojo sektoriauspartnerysts komunikacij strategijos principai // Verslas: teorija ir

praktika, 2004, Nr. 4, p. 189194.15. Loew, J., McLindon M. A P3 Primer: Why are Countries Interested in

P3? // [2007 12 12].16. Mees, P. Public transport privatisation in Melbourne: What went

wrong? // State of Australian rities national conference, Sydney, 2003.

17. Miraftab, F. Public-Private Partnerships: The Trojan Horse of Neoliberal Development? Journal of Planning Education and

Research, 2004, Vol. 24, No 1, p. 89101.18. Petrauskien, R., Raipa, A. Partnerysts principo taikymas

gyvendinant Naujj viej vadyb // Naujoji vieoji vadyba:mokomoji knyga / ats. red. Alvydas Raipa, Kaunas: Technologija,

2007, p. 245259.19. Raipa, A. Naujoji vieoji vadyba efektyvumo metodologijoje //

Naujoji vieoji vadyba: mokomoji knyga / ats. red. A. Raipa.

Kaunas: Technologija, 2007, p. 2538.20. Raipa, A., Backnait, E. Fiskalins decentralizacijos tikslai ir

instrumentai // Vieasis administravimas: teoriniai sprendimai irpaangs modeliai, 2003, Nr. 3.

21. Raipa, A. Vieojo administravimo efektyvumas: monografija / ats.red. A. Raipa, Kaunas: Technologija, 2001.

22. Savas, E. S. Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. NewYork: Chatham House, 2000.

23. Sedjari, A. PublicPrivate Partnerships as a Tool for ModernizingPublic Administration // International Review of Administrative

Sciences, 2004, Vol. 70, No. 2, p. 291306.24. Smaliukien, R. Vieojo ir privataus sektori bendradarbiavimo

taka socialinei atsakomybei versle // Vieoji politika ir

administravimas, 2005, Nr. 12, p. 6976.25. Teicher, J., Alam, Q., Gramberg, V. B. Managing Trust and

Relationships in PPPs: Some Australian Experiences //

International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2006; Vol. 72,No. 1, p.85100.26. Tomlinson, F. Idealistic and Pragmatic Versions of the Discourse

of Partnership // Organization Studies 2005, Vol. 26, No. 8, p.

11691188.27. Williams, R., Greig, D., Wallis, I. Results of Railway Privatization

in Australia and New Zealand. The World Bank, Washington,D.C., 2005.

28. Wilson, R. Private Partners and the Public Good. Belfast: Instituteof Governance, Public Policy and Social Research, 2002, WorkingPaper QU/GOV/1/2002.

Eugenijus Skietrys, Alvydas Raipa

Vieosios ir privaiosios partnerysts efektyvumo dimensijos

Santrauka

Vieojo administravimo efektyvumo klausimai buvo ir tebraaktuals tiek teoriniu, tiek praktiniu lygmeniu. Pripastama, kadefektyvumas gana plati ir daugelsriiapimanti svoka, todl priemonsir optimals sprendimai kiekvienu atveju turi bti parenkami atskirai.Taiau efektyvumas visuomet siejamas su ribot finansini itekli,minimali organizacini kat bei pastang panaudojimu siekiantplanuojam rezultat (Backnait, 2006, Raipa, 2007, 2001). Nepaisantfinansini galimybi ribotumo, visuomens poreikiai, vykstantglobaliems ir regioniniams pokyiams, nuolat did ja. Poreikiai did ja netik paslaug ir infrastruktros kiekybei, bet ir kokybei.

Pagrindinis udavinys siekiant, kad vieasis sektorius bt efektyvus,yra sistemingai modernizuoti viej institucij veikl. Norint permanentikai, kompleksikai modernizuoti viej sektori, reikalingasisteminga modernizavimo strategija (modernizavimo vizija, misija,nuostatos, koncepcijos). Vienas i infrastruktros pltros bei paslaugefektyvumo skatinimo veiksniyra partneryst.

Partneryst apima pakankamai plat skirting organizacij beisektori (vieojo, privataus, NVO), taip pat ir interes grupi vairisveikos form spektr. Kiekviena partneryste siekiama apibrt tiksl,kurie turi bti pasiekti esant tiems patiems ribotiems itekliams, tiksujungiant skirtingsektoripotencial.

io straipsnio objektas vieosios ir privaiosios partnerysts(VPP) efektyvumo dimensijos, todl bus atsiribota nuo kit sektorisveikos efektyvumo analizs.

VPP yra siejama su naujosios vieosios vadybos (NVV) teorija ir praktika,kuri kilo anglosaksikose valstybse. Daugelio i ali vyriausybs,nordamos maksimaliai i naudoti atsiverianias vieojo ir privaiojosektori bendradarbiavimo ir partnerysts galimybes, steig vieojo irprivaiojo sektoripartnerysts pltojimo ir prieiros organizacijas. VPP problemos tapo neatsiejama vieojo sektoriaus tyrinjim ir diskusij

dalimi. ios srities analizei, ypa gerosios ir blogosios praktikossklaidai, atvej analizms skiriamos atskiros studijos, taiau joseneatsakoma esmin klausim: Kokiais kriterijais reikt matuoti PVPefektyvum? Nors daugelis autori ir pabria, kad tai yra paangi irefektyvi priemon socialiniams poreikiams patenkint.

Pavyzdiui, S. A. Hood (1991) teigia, kad vieojo ir privaiojosektori bendradarbiavimas naujosios vieosios vadybos reformslygomis ilgam utikrins geresn viej paslaug kokyb ir padidinsvieojo administravimo veiksmingum. R. Wilson (2002), analizuodamasvieojo ir privaiojo sektori partneryst Gerovs valstybs kontekste,teigia, kad sujungus i sektori iteklius galima sukurti veiksmingaifunkcionuojani socialin infrastruktr, veikti ekonomines krizes ir pagerinti moni gyvenim. V. Domarkas (2007) velgia poreik, o R.Smaliukien (2005) galimyb padidinti privaiojo sektoriaus socialinatsakomyb VPP projektuose. Abu autoriai sutinka, kad taip galimapadidinti produktyvum, kartu su vyriausybs vykdoma kryptinga politika

ir nacionalinio kio konkurencingum. D. Gudelis ir V. Rozenbergait(2004) pateikia kai kuriuos rizikos valdymo teorinius aspektus, kurie darotakPVP efektyvumui.


6/6

- 50 -

R. Petrauskien ir A. Raipa (2007) pastebi, kad NVV teorijojepartneryst traktuojama kaip itin svarbus instrumentas, skirtas reformoms,siekianioms priversti biurokratij veikti efektyviau, valdyti. Taiau pasigendama apibendrinanio efektyvios partnerysts apibrtumo, norsatskiros jo dedamosios yra gana plaiai aptartos.

io straipsnio tikslas iskirti esmines efektyvaus PVP valdymodedamsias.

Pagrindiniai udaviniai:1. atskleisti VPP esm;2. iskirti esmines efektyvaus VPP valdymo prielaidas.Globalipokyipasaulyje nei viena organizacija (privati, vieoji ar

visuomenin) negali dominuoti, jei ji nra atvira sveikauti su aplinka.Politiniai, ekonominiai, socialiniai pokyiai veria organizacijas nuolatperirti savo veiklos vizij, misij bei atsinaujinti prisitaikant prieaplinkos pokyi. Siekdamos sustiprinti savo reikm, jos privalo perskirstytiuduotis ir misijas organizacijoms. Todl dinamikoje aplinkoje partneryst padeda prisitaikyti irgyvendinti perskirstytas uduotis bei misijasatsivelgiant socialin, politinir ekonominkontekst.

Partnerysts svoka vartojama skirtinguose kontekstuose, todl nrair negali bti vieningos sampratos. Partnerysts prigimtis atsiskleidia, kaivieasis sektorius suvokia savo priklausomyb nuo kit sektori irvaldymo problemas pradeda sprsti decentralizuodamas veikl. Taippartnerysts principas tvirtinamas tiek vertikaliai (susiejant skirtingusadministravimo lygius), tiek ir horizontaliai (tarp vairisektori).

Anot R. Petrauskiens ir A. Raipos (2007), partnerysts dalyviai

sipareigoja priimti naujas vertybes: valdom konkurencij, vartotojporeiki iklim, atsakomybs ir kokybs sistem diegim. Todlpartnerysts koncepcija daniau suprantama kaip bendra veikla suvisuomene ir jos labui, o ne vadovavimas jai i viraus.

Partneryst gali turti vairias formas. Taiau turi bti aikiaiapibrti vaidmenys ir sipareigojimai. Pripastama, kad kiekvienassektorius siekia ne tik bendr projekto tiksl (kokybikesni paslaug,infrastruktros pltojimo), bet ir asmenini tiksl: vieasis sektorius tikisipolitins ir ekonomins naudos, privatusis sektorius pripainimo, pelno,pltros galimybi.

Daugelyje studijgrindiant VPP efektyvumpateikiama nuomon,kad vieasis sektorius yra nelankstus produktyvumo prasme dl institucinssrangos. Patirtis rodo, kad privaiosios organizacijos struktra ir veiklosmetodai yra labiau efektyvs ir leidia pasiekti usibrt tiksl. Todl pagrindiniu vieojo sektoriaus privatizavimo ar perleidimo privaiamoperatoriui argumentu daniausiai minima privataus sektoriaus galimybpasilyti emesn kain, didesn efektyvum bei geresn klientaptarnavimo kokyb, nei tai pavyksta padaryti vieojo sektoriausvaldytojams (administratoriams) (Karlaftis et al., 1997, p. 76).

Taiau remiantis atskir ali vykdyt projekt pavyzdiais leidiaiskiriamos trys esmins problemos, kurios sudaro prielaidas abejoti VPPteikiamais privalumais.

Kartu iskiriamos pagrindins efektyvaus valdymo dedamosias:1. poreikis;2. politin, teisin, administracin aplinka;3. komunikacija.Esminiu veiksniu reiktvardyti poreikpaslaugoms, infrastruktrai

ar j kompleksui. Visuose straipsniuose, analizuojaniuose VPP taikympraktikoje, ar teoriniuose svarstymuose pirmiausia pabriamas valstybsribotumas tenkinti didjanius bei kintanius visuomens nariporeikius.

Kartais poreikis apibriamas gana abstrakiai nurodant alieskonkurencingumo didinimo poreik, o tai savo ruotu susijsu infrastruktros,mogikj itekli ir kit sfer kiekybine ir kokybine pltra. Daugeliuatveju poreikiai pateikiami strateginiuose dokumentuose, todl yra aiks.

Kai kuriais atvejais, poreikis gali atsirasti netiktai (pvz., forcemajore atveju). Visais atvejais poreikis apibrtinas kaip auktesnskokybs siekinys. Todl labai svarbu, kad vieojo ir privaiojo sektoripoiris paiproblem (poreik) sutapt. Abi suinteresuotos grups turivadovautis bendra vizija, tikslais, kad derindamos savo veiksmus pasiektmaksimalirezultat.

Taip pat poreik galima pavelgti ir partnerysts pltojimopoiriu. Nes pats terminas partneryst apima trilypporeikio aspekt:

poreikpanaudoti inovatyviformsiekiant sujungti skirtingussektorius, kad kiekvieno i j stiprybs ir silpnybs, kylaniosi skirtingsektoriprigimi, btsuderintos;

poreik i naujo apsvarstyti bendradarbiavimo bdusatsivelgiant esamus ir potencialius proceso dalyvius,siekiant pagerinti gyvenimo standartus;

poreik pagaliau pasiekti balans kuriant demokratiniusdalyvi santykius, pltojant vis institucij bendradarbiavim,stiprinant partneryste paremtus vertikalius ir horizontaliusryius (Sedjari, 2004, p. 293).

Antrasis, svarbus veiksnys, yra politin, teisin ir administracinaplinka, kuri apima:

1. Kryptingir stabilipolitik;2.

VPP projekto form

teisinim

:a. Koncesij,

b. vieuosius pirkimus ir susitarimus,c. civilins teiss sutarireguliavim(franizavim, valdymo

ir paslaugsutartis ir t. t.).3. Institucijos krimir jos veiklos palaikym.Melburno franizavimo atvejis atskleid vien i neapgalvot

politikos priemoni mokesipadidinim (Williams et al., 2005, p. 37 -38). Dl to vieojo transporto sistema igyveno kriz. Taiau buvo irdaugiau prieasi: nepagrstos operatori prielaidos dl keleivi skaiiausdidjimo ir katmajimo bei trkumai kontraktuose (Mees, 2003).

Institucija centriniu arba vietiniu lygmeniu nustato kokybsstandartus, standartizuoja tipini sutarikontraktus ir juos keiia pakitusaplinkybms, organizuoja derybas dl kontrakto slyg, atlieka vykdomprojekt kontrolbei monitoring, vykdo kitas su PVP projekt rengimubei gyvendinimu susijusias funkcijas.

Treiasis, taiau ypatingai svarbus efektyvios partnerysts ramstis, komunikacija. L. V. Karlaviius ir B. Karlaviien (2004) teigia, kadkomunikacija gali prisidti prie projekto arba j sulugdyti. Reikia skirtividin ir iorin komunikacij. Vidin komunikacija skirta pasitikjimugrstiems santykiams tarp partnerysts dalyvi tvirtinti ir pltoti. Iorinkomunikacija skirta visuomens informavimui, teigiamos nuomonsformavimui, projekto skaidrumui utikrinti.

VPP skms ir efektyvumo veiksnigalima iskirti ir daugiau. Taiautai jau priklauso nuo konkretaus projekto, jo tipo ir sektoriaus (transporto,vandens, vietimo ir t. t.), kultrins aplinkos, procesiniveiksni (interessuderintumo, paklausos prognozavimo, verts u pinigus vertinimo, rizikos pasidalijimo ir valdymo ir kt). Taiau esminiais efektyvios partnerystsveiksniais reikt laikyti poreiki identifikavim ir rangavim, tinkampolitinir teisinaplinkbei iorinir vidinkomunikacij.

Raktaodiai: partneryst , vieoji ir privati partneryst (VPP),efektyvumas, naujoji vieoji vadyba, komunikacija.

The article has been reviewed.

Received in March, 2008; accepted in June, 2008.

1392-2758-2008-3-58-45_inzinerine ekonomika

Documents