Analysis of global experience in using public-private partnerships in various sectors of the economy. Practical application of PPP mechanisms in various countries of the world Public-private partnership in Russia

Public-private partnership, municipal-private partnership, regional public-private partnership project.

Yurieva Tatyana Vladimirovna

Public-private partnership projects in Russia and foreign countries// Regional economics and management: electronic scientific journal. ISSN 1999-2645. — . Article number: 4833. Date of publication: 2016-12-12. Access mode: https://site/article/4833/

Jur"eva Tat"jana Vladimirovna
Doctor of Economics, professor, Head of the Department of project and program management
Russia, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
[email protected]

Abstract

The article deals with the mechanism of functioning of public-private partnership in the modern economy. Is analyzed the world practice implementation of projects on the principles of a-public-private partnerships. It’s shown the main trends in the development of public-private partnership projects at the regional and local levels.

Public-private partnerships, municipal-private partnership, regional project of public-private partnership.

Jur"eva Tat"jana Vladimirovna

Projects of public-private partnerships at regional level. Regional economy and management: electronic scientific journal. . Art. #4833. Date issued: 2016-12-12. Available at: https://site/article/4833/

Public-private partnership is a legally formalized for a certain period and based on the pooling of resources, distribution of risks, cooperation between a public partner, on the one hand, and a private partner, on the other hand, carried out on the basis of a public-private partnership agreement, in order to attract private investments, ensuring accessibility and improving the quality of goods, works, services, the provision of which to consumers is subject to the powers of state authorities and local governments.

The use of public-private partnership (PPP) mechanisms is currently becoming widespread in the Russian Federation.

PPP includes a number of forms of cooperation that allow the government and the private sector to derive mutual benefits.

PPP refers to innovative methods used by the public sector to contract with the private sector, which uses its capital and management capacity to implement projects according to a specified time frame and budget. The public sector remains responsible for providing these services to the public in a manner that benefits them and has a positive impact on economic development and improving the quality of life of the population.

PPP is considered as specific projects implemented jointly by government agencies and private companies on federal, regional and municipal property.

The Ministry of Economic Development of Russia entered into an agreement with CJSC TRANSPROEKT Group on cooperation in the field of PPP

February 5, 2015

The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation represented by the Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation A.V. Ulyukaev and CJSC TRANSPROEKT Group, represented by the Chairman of the Board of Directors V.V. Maksimova, on January 30, 2015, signed an agreement on cooperation in the field of export of engineering and consulting services for the preparation and support of investment projects implemented on the basis of the public-private partnership (PPP) mechanism to the CIS countries.

As part of the agreement, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia and JSC TRANSPROEKT Group plan to exchange information necessary for the preparation and conduct of joint events, as well as provide mutual expert, consulting and organizational assistance in the implementation of foreign economic projects of JSC TRANSPROEKT Group, including those aimed at expanding export of products, services and intellectual property and attraction of investments and technologies to the Russian Federation.

For the same purposes, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation will provide assistance in the implementation of activities of JSC "TRANSPROEKT Group" within the framework of the relevant intergovernmental commissions on trade, economic, scientific and technical cooperation between the Russian Federation and foreign countries.

The conclusion of an agreement on interaction with the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia is an effective support for the active export activities of the TRANSPROEKT Engineering and Consulting Group (TRANSPROEKT Group) and its management company - TRANSPROEKT Group CJSC, in the markets of the CIS countries. TRANSPROEKT Group, as a consultant to state and municipal authorities (OGMU), over the past 10 years has successfully prepared and implemented dozens of largest infrastructure projects in Russia and the CIS countries with a total volume of public and private investments of more than 1.7 trillion rubles, proving in practice their effectiveness and efficiency various models of partnership between government and business.

Representatives of TRANSPROEKT Group have been repeatedly involved as expert practitioners to improve federal and regional legislation on public-private partnerships and concession agreements in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Moldova.

In 2014, TRANSPROEKT Group, commissioned by the European Union and the United Nations Development Program, acted as a National Consultant to the Government and National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus on training in the field of public-private partnership.

Public-private partnership (PPP) is a set of forms of medium- and long-term interaction between the state and business to solve socially significant problems on mutually beneficial terms.

Story

Interaction between the state and the private sector to solve socially significant problems has a long history, including in Russia. However, PPP has become most relevant in recent decades. On the one hand, the complication of socio-economic life makes it difficult for the state to perform socially significant functions. On the other hand, business is interested in new investment properties. PPP is an alternative to the privatization of vital, strategically important state-owned assets.

The most indicative experience of public-private partnerships has been gained in the UK.

The concept of public-private partnership

There is no consensus among experts about what forms of interaction between government and business can be classified as PPP. A broad interpretation implies that PPP is a constructive interaction between government and business not only in the economy, but also in politics, culture, science, etc.

Among the basic features of public-private partnerships in a narrow (economic) interpretation are the following:

the parties to PPP are the state and private business;

interaction between the parties is fixed on an official, legal basis;

interaction between the parties is equal;

PPP has a clearly expressed public, social orientation;

in the process of implementing projects on the basis of PPP, resources and contributions of the parties are consolidated;

financial risks and costs, as well as the results achieved, are distributed between the parties in predetermined proportions.

As a rule, PPP assumes that it is not the state that is involved in business projects, but, on the contrary, the state invites business to take part in the implementation of socially significant projects.

Forms of public-private partnership

In a broad sense, the main forms of PPP in the field of economics and public administration include:

any mutually beneficial forms of interaction between the state and business;

government contracts;

rental relations;

financial lease (leasing);

public-private enterprises;

production sharing agreements (PSA);

concession agreements.

In Russia in 2004, seven main types of concession agreements were considered. However, in connection with the inclusion in a number of international treaties of the Russian Federation of certain provisions from the documents of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and preparations for accession to the WTO, other terms characterizing other types of concession agreements were also included in Russian legislation.

As of 2012, Russian law provided for the following 3 forms (types of contracts) of PPP:

Management contract and lease agreements;

Operation and maintenance contract;

Concession.

Areas of application of public-private partnership

The main area of ​​application of PPP in the world is the construction of highways. Among the remaining ones, the largest share is occupied by projects in housing and communal services. In Russia, projects in the field of water supply and wastewater treatment have been operating since the 1990s.

Public-private partnership in Russia

In Russia, the concept of PPP first appeared in legislation in the Law of St. Petersburg dated December 25, 2006 No. 627-100 “On the participation of St. Petersburg in public-private partnerships.” To date, similar laws have been adopted in 69 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, but most of them are declarative documents. In addition to regional acts, the scope of PPP is also regulated by the Federal Law of July 21, 2005 No. 115-FZ “On Concession Agreements” and the Federal Law of April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to ensure state and municipal needs." To some extent, PPP is regulated by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of July 22, 2005 No. 116-FZ “On Special Economic Zones in the Russian Federation” (providing benefits to businesses in a certain territory is also a variant of PPP in a broad sense). However, all these regulations do not cover all possible forms of PPP.

Of the above types of PPP, only three are enshrined in Russian legislation (BOT, BTO, BOO). However, PPP in Russia operates without a well-developed legislative framework: at the beginning of 2013, about 300 such projects were launched and implemented in Russia.

The federal law on PPP in Russia has been discussed since the mid-2000s, but its first edition was prepared only by June 2012. The second version of the law appeared 4 months later. On March 13, 2013, the Government submitted to the State Duma the third version of the bill “On the Fundamentals of Public-Private Partnerships in the Russian Federation.” In previous editions, housing and communal services and defense facilities were excluded from the scope of application of the law. Now there will be no such restrictions. Among the innovations, the introduction of a single competition for the entire PPP project (instead of separate ones for each type of work) is also noted, as well as, conversely, the abolition of the competition for the transfer of land plots necessary for the construction of a PPP facility. There is currently no generally accepted definition, as well as a federal law on PPP. On April 26, 2013, the State Duma adopted in the first reading bill No. 238827-6 “On the fundamentals of public-private partnerships in the Russian Federation,” which defines the fundamentals of public-private partnerships. The second reading is scheduled for the autumn session. However, Russia has already concluded a number of international treaties that provide for the principles of public-private partnership, and in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, such provisions take precedence over Russian laws.

The development of PPP in Russia is hampered not only by the lack of well-developed legislation. Equally important is the lack of long-term financing mechanisms. Russian business (in particular, banks) are not ready to participate in long-term projects (PPP agreements are usually concluded for 10-50 years). Nowadays, most large PPP projects are implemented in a “manual control” mode. Thus, the construction of the Western High-Speed ​​Diameter became possible only after the intervention of Vladimir Putin.

In 2007, the Development Bank was created on the basis of Vnesheconombank of the USSR. The Basic Law regulating the activities of this institution directly assigns to it the functions of a participant in the PPP market. The PPP Directorate of Vnesheconombank is a structural division of the Development Bank.

In world practice, specialized non-governmental organizations involved in methodological support of PPP projects and the development of the infrastructure investment market in general appeared in the early 2000s. The first can be considered PartnershipsUK in the UK, then similar centers arose in South Africa, Australia (Victoria), etc. The emergence of PPP development centers was preceded by government structures that performed the functions of methodological support and development of the primary regulatory framework in the field of PPP. Most PPP development centers are responsible for developing feasibility studies and drawing up implementation plans for PPP projects, and also provide subsequent consulting support for PPP projects. Some centers, for example, Parpublica and Partnerships BC, help ministries develop business plans and conduct cost-benefit analysis. Others, such as MAPPP, Partnerships SA and SouthAfricaPPPUnit, deal exclusively with the analysis of documents and feasibility studies for PPP projects written by government organizations.

By analogy with foreign centers, the Center for the Development of Public-Private Partnerships was established in Russia to establish and develop the PPP market. The PPP Development Center publishes the electronic journal “Public-Private Partnership in Russia”, established the first PPP Institute, and actively participates in legislative and other activities to establish and improve public-private partnerships in Russia.

In No. 1 of the “PPP-magazine” (February 2013), the “PPP-Start” rating was published, characterizing the readiness of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the construction of public infrastructure facilities with the involvement of private investors on the principles of PPP. The “readiness of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to implement PPP projects” means the fulfillment of a number of conditions that provide a favorable climate for the implementation of investment projects on PPP principles.

Public-private partnership in St. Petersburg

Regional authorities in Russia are also adopting their own PPP programs in order to build long-term and mutually beneficial cooperation between OIGV and the private sector to implement large public projects. So, according to the head of the Committee on Investments and Strategic Projects A. Chichkanov: “The PPP mechanism allows not only to attract funds for the implementation of socially significant projects for the city, but also to find the most modern technical solutions and effectively manage the created objects.”

According to the World Bank, St. Petersburg is currently implementing one of the largest programs in the world to implement projects using public-private partnership schemes. The city has developed its own legislative framework allowing investors to interact with regional authorities as efficiently as possible:

So in 2006, the Law of St. Petersburg dated December 25, 2006 No. 627-100 “On the participation of St. Petersburg in public-private partnerships” was adopted.

In addition to it, 3 years later, Decree of the Government of St. Petersburg dated March 31, 2009 No. 346 “On measures to develop public-private partnerships in St. Petersburg” was issued.

As part of the administrative reform, the administrative regulations of the Committee on Investments and Strategic Projects were created. in the same 2009, the Order of the Committee on Investments and Strategic Projects of the Government of St. Petersburg dated December 8, 2009 No. 92 “On approval of the administrative regulations of the Committee on Investments and Strategic Projects for the performance of the state function of conducting an examination of materials necessary to determine the existence of grounds for making a decision on the implementation of an investment project through the participation of St. Petersburg in a public-private partnership"

Finally, in order to facilitate the implementation of the adopted documents, Resolution of the Government of St. Petersburg dated March 31, 2009 No. 347 “On measures to implement the Law of St. Petersburg “On the participation of St. Petersburg in public-private partnerships” was developed.”

Current PPP projects in St. Petersburg

Based on the Law of St. Petersburg “On the participation of St. Petersburg in public-private partnerships,” two large projects are being implemented: the development of the Pulkovo airport and the construction of a plant for processing solid household waste in the village of Yanino. Preliminary preparation of PPP projects in the field of housing is also underway. public utilities (water and heat supply, energy saving, etc.), development of transport infrastructure and in the social sphere (construction of socially significant facilities - schools, hospitals, etc.).

Competitions for PPP projects in St. Petersburg

On March 31, 2011, the results of an open competition were summed up for the right to conclude an agreement on the creation and operation, on the basis of a public-private partnership, of buildings intended to house educational institutions in the Pushkinsky district of St. Petersburg and a lease agreement for plots. LLC “Management Company “Peremena”” was recognized as the winner of the Competition. Currently, the Committee has announced competitions for the implementation of the following projects:

construction of the Palace of Arts on Vasilyevsky Island

creation and operation of the Western High-Speed ​​Diameter highway

reconstruction and construction of facilities at the Northern water pumping station of St. Petersburg with the introduction of two-stage water purification technology

Public-private partnership in Moscow

Moscow, unlike most other constituent entities of the Russian Federation, does not have its own law on PPP. According to the mayor of the capital Sergei Sobyanin, its adoption is not planned in the future, since the existing regulatory framework is sufficient for work. However, Moscow is now in 13th place in the PPP-start ranking of regions.

PPP projects in Moscow

Under the PPP scheme, the Myakinino metro station was built, and the construction of the Moscow-St. Petersburg expressway and the reconstruction of other federal highways diverging from the capital are currently underway.

A landmark PPP project in Moscow will also be the Solntsevo-Butovo-Vidnoye road in the territories annexed in the summer of 2012. The developer MDGroup, which is building a microdistrict in Butovo, will participate in its implementation. Together with private investors, it is planned to build the northern backup of Kutuzovsky Prospekt, as well as reconstruct the 63rd city hospital.

Previously, another large PPP project in the healthcare sector was implemented in Moscow. Deal between the Medsi clinic chain, controlled by AFK Sistema, and the Moscow government. In 2012, in exchange for 25% of the shares of the merged company, the Moscow government transferred 5 clinics, 3 hospitals and 3 sanatoriums to Medsi. The American investment fund ApaxPartners, specializing in medical assets, and RDIF, which together will invest about 6 billion rubles in the development of the network, were also invited to participate in the deal. The shares of the participants will be distributed as follows: half will be received by AFK Sistema, a quarter by the Moscow government, and one-eighth each by Apax Partners and RDIF.

Another example of cooperation between Moscow authorities and business in the field of medicine is the program to open private medical clinics on the first floors of city-owned buildings.

Public-private partnership in Ukraine

In October 2010, the Law of Ukraine “On Public-Private Partnership” came into force - a law that reflected the point of view of the Ukrainian state regarding the principles, forms and conditions of interaction between business and the state.

Public-private partnership as a way of organizing public-private legal relations has been known to Ukrainian business for a long time. In practice, it is expressed in the forms of joint activities, management of state property, leasing of state property, concessions and others. The new law actually reproduces the picture of public-private partnership that exists in practice, adding to it the desired touches for the state. The term “public-private partnership” was introduced as a political and managerial rather than a legal category. It is defined as cooperation between the state, represented by its bodies, and business entities, based on an agreement. More details about public-private partnerships in Ukraine can be found on the Ukrainian-language page/

Sectors of application of public-private partnership

It is important to identify the highest priority sectors for the application of PPP for each country and region. Attracting investments in all sectors of the economy at once in full is practically impossible, and besides, there are those sectors that need to be invested in the first place. In addition, the industries in countries with different levels of economic development in which the government of the country believes should be invested through the involvement of the private sector differ significantly.

The relevance of PPP is also determined by the fact that currently in Russia concession agreements are used mainly in housing and communal services, in the construction of roads, railways and ports. However, PPP can be effectively used in other industries. At the stage of formation of concession legislation and the development of new methods of relations between the state and business in Russia, an important point is the identification of all priority sectors for the development of partnership.

To create a detailed industry picture reflecting the possibility of using PPP in the economy of the Russian Federation, foreign PPP experience should be analyzed.

An analysis of such experience in the use of PPP in countries with different levels of socio-economic development, implemented using the concession form of PPP, showed that such partnerships are successfully used in transport (roads, railways, airports, ports, pipeline transport) and social infrastructure (health care, education, entertainment, tourism), housing and communal services (water supply, electricity supply, water purification, gas supply, etc.), in other areas (prisons, defense, military facilities). At the same time, transport infrastructure is leading, followed closely by social infrastructure.

If we analyze the use of PPP by country, then depending on the level of socio-economic development of the country, the picture will change. Thus, in comparison with the overall picture in the G7 countries (USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Japan), transport infrastructure projects are far from being in first place. In the G7 countries, healthcare is in 1st place (184 out of 615 projects), education is in 2nd place (138 projects), and roads are in 3rd place (92 projects).

An analysis of foreign experience in the use of PPP has shown that each of the G7 countries has its own highest priority industry for the use of PPP. Thus, in the USA, such an industry is roads (32 out of 36 projects), in the UK - healthcare (123 out of 352 projects) and education (113 out of 352 projects), in Germany - education (24 out of 56 projects), in Italy, Canada and France - healthcare.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion: in those countries that are characterized by the presence of a market economy, a high level of labor productivity and the level of GDP per capita consumption, where the state guarantees a high level of social protection, where the average life expectancy is high and there is a high quality of medical care and education, PPP is used more often in the healthcare and education sectors, which is dictated by state policy.

In other developed countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Australia, Israel, Ireland, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, South Korea, Singapore), the industry related to the construction and reconstruction of highways ranks first in terms of the number of PPPs used (93 project), followed by healthcare (29 projects), education (23 projects) and accommodation facilities (22 projects) with a very significant margin.

Thus, there is a correlation between the level of development of a country and the industry that is selected to attract investment into it through PPP. Due to the high level of socio-economic development of the G7 countries and other developed countries, the priority of the healthcare and education sectors is also determined by the policies of these states and their socio-economic development.

In contrast, in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, these sectors (with the exception of roads) will not be a priority. Considering the lower level of economic development in these countries, transport infrastructure, namely the construction and reconstruction of roads, ports, railways, etc., should take first place in terms of priority for attracting investments with the help of PPP.

Thus, in countries with transition economies (37 out of 915 projects) - countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Poland, Romania); Baltic countries (Latvia); CIS countries (Ukraine), the Healthcare and Education sectors are no longer in first place in the use of PPP - roads, the construction of bridges and tunnels, light metro, and airports are in the lead. In countries with transition economies, attention is paid to them first and funds are invested in them.

In developing countries (22 out of 915 projects) - India, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, as in the previous group of countries, roads are in 1st place by the number of PPPs, and in 2nd place - airports, prisons and water treatment plants. This distribution primarily reflects the interest of countries in the development of these industries (individual for each type of country), since PPP makes it possible to attract private sector investment, reduce public sector costs, and distribute risks between partners.

In a number of Eastern European countries in the late 1990s and early 2000s, in connection with preparations for joining the EU, PPP methods began to be actively used in the transport infrastructure sectors and in urban areas. Projects to attract private investment in expanding the highway network, modernizing ports and airports are being implemented on the basis of structural assistance from the EU.

Moreover, the specific experience turned out to be ambiguous: along with successful ones, there were also cases of problematic, not always successful solutions.

An example of an effective PPP project is the expansion and modernization of the international airport in Warsaw. More than 85% of passengers on international flights used Warsaw airport, which required almost doubling the airport’s passenger and cargo turnover in a relatively short time. Without attracting private capital and know-how, it would be impossible to implement such a project.

Based on the results of an open European competition, the German company Hochtief AG, which developed a special PPP financing model for airports in Central and Eastern Europe, acted as a private partner of the project. A consortium was formed (the general contractor is Hochtief Airport GmbH), which included small and medium-sized enterprises from Poland and Germany as partners. Private financing was provided by a consortium of banks led by JSC Citibank. The recipient of the loans and the government partner of the project was the Polish Airports PPL agency.

The cost of the project amounted to 153.4 million euros, up to 80% of its financing (according to the cash-flow model) came from the private side. The state-owned Polish airline LOT was included in the private loan guarantee agreement and the airport use agreement. The successful completion of the work contributed to the fact that the general contractor subsequently took part in reconstruction projects on PPP principles at airports in the cities of Dusseldorf, Hamburg and Sydney.

There are frequent examples of ineffective PPP projects due to miscalculations on the part of the state.

Thus, a problematic infrastructure project was implemented in the Czech Republic. Attracting private investment in this country is carried out according to the British model of private financial initiative (PFI). The Czech experience demonstrates the potential for risks and challenges faced by an inexperienced and ill-prepared government partner. For the construction of an 80 km section of the strategically important highway D47, a foreign private developer proposed an attractive project at first glance and was awarded the contract with virtually no competition.

The public partner’s team, lacking sufficient PPP experience, was unable to adequately assess the intentions of the private contractor, who, as practice has shown, was not very keen to implement the project. The financing structure he proposed ultimately boiled down to shifting all risks to the state. As a result, the Czech government was forced to terminate the project and pay a significant penalty.

The project to reconstruct Germany's largest airport in Frankfurt am Main has been recognized as a successful model for effectively combining the interests of public and private partners. The project assumed a preliminary stage of privatization - the issue of shares, 29% of which were sold on the stock exchange (analogous to “people's IPOs”). The remaining shares were held by the state of Hesse (32.1%), the city of Frankfurt (20.5%) and the state (18.4%). Fraport JSC, formed in this way, deliberately retained the control of public investors. At the same time, the company is a private shareholder of other German airports, i.e. the private side of partnerships in them is represented by a structure with predominantly government participation.

Currently, budget financing for the development of transport infrastructure is carried out in two ways: firstly, directly - for large projects (for the reconstruction of highways and airports); secondly, indirectly - through the state infrastructure development fund.

Application of public-private partnership in Russia

Currently, the Government of the Russian Federation considers the following as priority areas for PPP:

Development of production and transport infrastructure;

Department of Housing and Utilities;

Health and Human Services;

Funding of scientific research with prospects for commercialization;

Development of innovation infrastructure.

At the same time, in Russia the risks of miscalculations by both public and private partners in PPP projects are obviously very high. A tendency has already emerged for projects to become more expensive than their original cost. The rate of increase in prices can reach 20% per year, and the reasons are not only in simple mistakes and miscalculations of the authors, but also in completely objective circumstances - the constant rise in prices for raw materials, supplies, and services. World experience shows that the only way out of this situation is to attract private capital, which means creating more attractive conditions for it compared to ordinary commercial activities.

Nevertheless, Russia has large-scale potential for the development of many forms of PPP, but for its practical implementation it is necessary to resolve a number of fundamental issues.

First, both parties to the partnership should clearly understand that effective PPP cannot be viewed simply as attracting additional resources to capital-intensive projects of governments at all levels. It is necessary to take into account the real interests of both sides. Specific partnership mechanisms, developed by international experience, create the basis for a mutually beneficial and responsible distribution of the powers of the parties, without infringing on the interests of each of them. However, the possible benefits do not materialize on their own after the adoption of the appropriate regulatory package. It is necessary to understand the features of the Russian model of interaction between the state and business.

Effective partnership is possible only if the strategy for the country's further development is completely clear and predictable. Without this, without confidence in the stability of the “rules of the game,” nothing can be expected from business other than ostentatious interest and formal participation in large-scale state projects for the purpose of self-preservation. In this case, the factor of effective entrepreneurship may be lost.

Secondly, significant progress is needed in the understanding and practical implementation of the public legal functions of the state. So far, Russian legislation does not specifically identify public legal functions and does not establish a connection between them and public property. The design of law is such that public legal functions are implemented either administratively or through civil legal functions. It is impossible to organize the distribution of powers between the parties to the partnership on such a basis. Countries with developed market economies have accumulated extensive experience in successfully finding answers to the “paradoxes of public goods,” which, taking into account domestic specifics, can be used in Russia.

Providing state support for the implementation of investment projects of national importance and carried out on PPP terms is the goal of creating the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation. In accordance with the Regulations on the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation, the following forms of providing state support as part of the implementation of PPP projects are possible:

Co-financing on contractual terms of an investment project with registration of property rights of the Russian Federation, including financing the costs of managing the investment project, as well as financing the development of project documentation;

Directing funds to the authorized capital of legal entities;

Providing state guarantees of the Russian Federation for investment projects, as well as other methods provided for by budget legislation to ensure obligations that are within the competence of the Government of the Russian Federation. State guarantees are provided to commercial organizations participating in an investment project in favor of credit institutions, including credit institutions with foreign investment;

Transfer of part of the risks to a private investor. The idea of ​​PPP makes it possible to intelligently share risks between the parties to the agreement.

When implementing state support for the private sector under PPP conditions, one should take into account the problem of determining the optimal share of investor participation in profits and in the total volume of investments, regardless of the industry in which the project is being implemented. It is necessary to establish that:

each project participant independently sets goals for himself and determines the interests in accordance with which he evaluates the profitability of the project (as a rule, this is the profit that the participant expects to receive from the investment);

The project developer should, whenever possible, understand the goals and interests of the participant and justify the benefits of his participation in the project with those indicators that better reflect these goals and interests. In this case, the investor’s share of participation in capital costs can range from 0 to 100%.

The formation of incentives for investment activity should be based on the creation of opportunities to achieve maximum profitability. Investors do not need temporary benefits, but long-term guarantees of return on invested capital. If this is not the case, then an increase in business risk leads to a reduction in investment supply and the “flight” of capital from the country. In turn, in exchange for the provided legal guarantees of stability, the state can insist on new forms of control and transparency of reporting.

In order to attract investors in investment projects implemented under the PPP scheme, the state can apply investor incentive measures (subsidies, subventions, direct reimbursement of investment costs, etc.) to ensure the return required by the investor. It is important to take into account that the state, when concluding an agreement with an investor, is guided not only by purely entrepreneurial, “business” motives, but also by public interests, socially necessary goals, public utility, which often require a deviation from market, private law criteria for state behavior.

Thus, a new mechanism for attracting investment has been launched in Russia and a dialogue between the state and business has begun. The state is ready to provide financial assistance to PPPs and also assume some of the risks. There remains a need for the public sector to ensure that the selection of financing options and project implementation is carried out at a highly professional level, since Russian PPPs will have to compete with PPPs already operating in the global market.

The PPP toolkit allows for more efficient spending of public funds for the implementation of infrastructure projects in the field of transport, housing and communal services, education, healthcare, the creation of innovative technologies, etc.

All over the world, PPP projects are implemented through the participation of financial development institutions. The maximum multiplier effect is achieved in those projects where PPP tools are used comprehensively.

During the Second World War, in small American towns, business and government successfully cooperated to achieve common goals, relying on the traditions of communal cooperation. The actualization of the idea of ​​partnership between the state and business occurred as a result of the privatization policy pursued in the USA and Great Britain in the 1980s.

The state, which sought to exit the sphere of production of public goods, saw in such a partnership an opportunity to improve the quality of public goods while simultaneously reducing the cost of their production for society.

Despite the fact that neoliberal economic policy was generally based on programs to increase competition, public-private partnerships, which are based not on competition, but on cooperation and risk sharing between the state and business, have become one of the mechanisms for transferring part of government functions to private enterprises. An inevitable consequence of the partnership was the blurring of the boundaries between the public and private sectors, since for its successful implementation, government agencies were forced to start thinking and acting in the logic of private enterprises, and private businesses were forced to master the state logic and open their internal kitchens to public control.

Currently, the idea that PPP is an integral part of neoliberal privatization programs, the withdrawal of an ineffective state from those areas where it can be replaced by effective private business, is shared by fewer and fewer researchers, and primarily because the sectors themselves have changed, and there was a mutual rapprochement between them.

Thus, in the private sector, practices of social corporate responsibility appeared and began to rapidly develop, while in public administration, negotiations began to increasingly precede, and in some cases replace, orders and directives. As a result, the conceptual basis of PPP becomes the task of reforming management in both the private and public sectors, coming from the needs of countries to adapt to the global economy, the development of information technology and growing pressure from consumers interested in quality products and services. Talk about an ineffective state that should transfer the production of public goods to efficient private business is a thing of the past.

In world practice, the most successful experience, widespread application and high level of development of forms of PPP are observed, as a rule, in highly developed countries of Western Europe and North America. As for the promising economic leaders (China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc.), they are still noticeably inferior to them both in the degree of development of PPP forms and in the breadth of application.

Interest in public-private partnerships arose quite a long time ago: the first construction of a canal on a concession basis in France dates back to 1552. PPP in concession form has been actively used by many countries, especially for the construction of railways. Active interaction between business and the state took place in the 30s of the twentieth century, but in pre-war and war times such interaction was more of a forced nature, associated with overcoming the global economic crisis, the organization of the war economy, and the post-war restoration of the national economy.

Many developing countries that adopted PPPs in the mid-1990s faced chronic inefficiencies, poor pricing policies, and corruption in critical infrastructure departments. This meant that service providers in these sectors were financially insolvent and could not provide adequate services to their consumers, let alone expand services. Governments were forced to take financial recovery measures because... could no longer support unprofitable enterprises. Private sector participation in infrastructure development was a way to reduce the leakage of public funds. It was expected that private sector participation would lead to more efficient service delivery. On the other hand, government authorities intended to take measures to rationalize pricing methods and improve companies' access to private capital.

Expectations led to a boom in PPPs in developing countries in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2001, more than 130 low- and middle-income countries adopted programs to involve the private sector in infrastructure projects.

At the same time, the private sector participated in 2.5 thousand infrastructure projects, attracting an investment volume of 750 billion US dollars. The peak of the boom occurred in 1997 - the beginning of the financial crisis in East Asia. The financial crisis, catastrophic currency devaluation and subsequent economic slowdown have had a negative impact on many PPP contracts. If before 1997 there was a constant increase in private investment in infrastructure projects, then after the financial crises of 1997-1998 there was a decrease in it.

In particular, in Europe and Central Asia in 2001 there was a sharp drop in private investment in infrastructure - to 6.5 billion dollars, which is 3.5 times less than the level of the previous year and 2.5 times less than the level of 1997.

Between 2003 and 2005, an increase in private sector investment in infrastructure projects based on the PPP principle was observed in most developed countries.

Table 2.1. Dynamics of development of the market for PPP projects in some countries of the world (millions of dollars)

In the UK there are a total of 725 PFI projects valued at over £100 million since 1987, with a total capital value of £47.5 billion (approximately 500 of these were underway in mid-2006).

Currently, in most countries of the world, economic development is characterized by the consolidation of the efforts of the state and the private sectors in finding new forms and methods of creating, managing and regulating infrastructure. PPP projects are a real mechanism for interaction between the public sector and private capital in the field of creation, modernization, maintenance and operation of infrastructure facilities. As a rule, various countries begin their program for the development of public-private partnerships with concession projects in the road industry (toll roads, bridges, tunnels).

The "self-financing" nature of such projects (at least from a government budget perspective) makes them very attractive. However, in world practice, PPP mechanisms are used in many other areas

History of the development of public-private partnerships in the world

In world practice, the most successful experience, widespread application and high level of development of forms of PPP are observed, as a rule, in highly developed countries of Western Europe and North America. As for the promising economic leaders (China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc.), they are still noticeably inferior to them both in the degree of development of PPP forms and in the breadth of application.
Interest in public-private partnerships arose quite a long time ago: the first construction of a canal on a concession basis in France dates back to 1552. PPP in concession form has been actively used by many countries, especially for the construction of railways. Active interaction between business and the state took place in the 30s of the twentieth century, but in pre-war and war times such interaction was more of a forced nature, associated with overcoming the global economic crisis, the organization of the war economy, and the post-war restoration of the national economy.
Many developing countries that adopted PPPs in the mid-1990s faced chronic inefficiencies, poor pricing policies, and corruption in critical infrastructure departments. This meant that service providers in these sectors were financially insolvent and could not provide adequate services to their consumers, let alone expand services. Governments were forced to take financial recovery measures because... could no longer support unprofitable enterprises. Private sector participation in infrastructure development was a way to reduce the leakage of public funds. It was expected that private sector participation would lead to more efficient service delivery. On the other hand, government authorities intended to take measures to rationalize pricing methods and improve companies' access to private capital.
Expectations led to a boom in PPPs in developing countries in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2001, more than 130 low- and middle-income countries adopted programs to involve the private sector in infrastructure projects.
At the same time, the private sector participated in 2.5 thousand infrastructure projects, attracting an investment volume of 750 billion US dollars. The boom peaked in 1997, the start of the East Asian financial crisis. The financial crisis, catastrophic currency devaluation and subsequent economic slowdown have had a negative impact on many PPP contracts. If before 1997 there was a constant increase in private investment in infrastructure projects, then after the financial crises of 1997-1998 there was a decrease in it.
In particular, in Europe and Central Asia in 2001 there was a sharp drop in private investment in infrastructure - to 6.5 billion dollars, which is 3.5 times less than the level of the previous year and 2.5 times less than the level of 1997.
Between 2003 and 2005, an increase in private sector investment in infrastructure projects based on the PPP principle was observed in most developed countries:
Table 1. Dynamics of development of the market for PPP projects in some countries of the world. (million dollars)

In the UK there are a total of 725 PFI projects valued at over £100 million since 1987, with a total capital value of £47.5 billion (approximately 500 of these were underway in mid-2006).
Currently, in most countries of the world, economic development is characterized by the consolidation of the efforts of the state and the private sectors in finding new forms and methods of creating, managing and regulating infrastructure. PPP projects are a real mechanism for interaction between the public sector and private capital in the field of creation, modernization, maintenance and operation of infrastructure facilities. As a rule, various countries begin their program for the development of public-private partnerships with concession projects in the road industry (toll roads, bridges, tunnels).
The "self-financing" nature of such projects (at least from a government budget perspective) makes them very attractive. However, in world practice, PPP mechanisms are used in many other areas (Table 2).
Table 2. Areas of application of PPP mechanisms in different countries of the world.

Generalization of world experience in the process of establishing a new role for the state within the framework of PPP allows us to develop specific proposals for the implementation of PPP in the Republic of Kazakhstan, which already has some experience in providing concessions in the field of infrastructure to private foreign companies.

Housing and communal services are one of the most important sectors of the economy of any country. The housing and communal services industry covers a diversified industrial and technical complex, the need for products of which is practically unlimited, and also has an important impact on all spheres of society. The situation today is such that the housing and communal services industry is in a difficult technical and economic state. The systemic crisis of this industry is manifested in the emergency state of communications, low quality of services provided, and inefficient use of material, labor and financial resources. Therefore, the need to reform the industry is obvious. The article analyzes the experience of reforming public utilities abroad. The features and general approaches to managing housing and communal services in foreign countries are considered. The directions for reforming the housing and communal services sector in Russia have been identified.

financial relations

reform

privatization

financing

Foreign experience

Department of Housing and Utilities

1. Bashmakov I.A. The indicator of payment discipline is an integral parameter for the success of the Russian housing and communal services reform // Housing and communal services reform. – 2005. – No. 2. – P. 8–15.

2. Vitebchuk O. The power of housing and communal services in Finland or why real estate is managed by owners. // TS “Ochag”, March 22, 2008 – Access mode: http://оchag7.narоd.ru.

3. VTsIOM: “Summer 2014: Russians about the country’s problems” [Electronic resource] – Access mode: http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=459&uid=114889 (access date 10/01/2014).

4. Gentsler I.G. On some issues of managing apartment buildings. International experience // Laws of Russia. Experience, analysis, practice. – 2008. – No. 8. – P. 12–18.

5. Kirsanov S.A. Foreign experience in managing apartment buildings // Housing and communal services: magazine of the manager and chief accountant. – 2011. – No. 10. – P. 12–23.

6. Chinese diesel engines. Food for thought. // “Apartment Row”: No. 41 (716) dated October 9, 2008 – Access mode: www.moskv.ru.

The state of housing and communal services in Russia at present still remains extremely unsatisfactory, despite more than twenty years of market reforms in all sectors of the national economy. Problems in the housing and communal services sector (lack of timely repairs in houses, interruptions in the supply of water, heat and electricity, etc.), according to sociological surveys in recent years, are among the most important in importance for Russian citizens. Thus, according to a survey conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) on June 28-29, 2014, the situation in the spheres of housing and communal services is considered the most important problem by 54% of citizens after the problem of inflation and rising prices (59% of respondents). In third place is the standard of living (45%), which strongly correlates with problems in the housing sector. It is unlikely that the current situation can be attributed to the low payment discipline of Russians. The latter is only a derivative of an ineffective tariff policy. Contrary to the established opinion about the inelasticity of demand for housing and communal services, some authors quite convincingly show that “payment discipline is the result of compliance of the tariff policy with the threshold values ​​of the population’s ability and willingness to pay for housing and communal services; it determines the financial stability of the housing and communal services and its attractiveness for private business, and ultimately - reliability of operation of all life support systems.” Thus, the preservation of administrative methods of managing housing and communal services against the background of low investment interest of private business indicates that the reform of housing and communal services in Russia is far from its logical conclusion.

An analysis of foreign experience in the financial provision of housing and communal services allows us to conclude that the most successful form of management in the housing and communal services sector is public-private partnership. In some countries, such as Sweden, France, Finland, the state and private business have effectively distributed roles in the management of housing and communal services. Understanding that private enterprise is more motivated to successfully manage housing and communal services, being in a competitive environment, the state often acts only as an overseer. In this case, the most often used approach is in which the owners make management decisions within the framework of the association they created - a legal entity, and the execution of decisions is entrusted to a professional management organization on the basis of an agreement. The undoubted advantage of this approach is that house management activities are carried out at a professional level, the quality of services corresponds to the needs and capabilities of homeowners, while democratic norms for making management decisions by homeowners are observed. An important aspect here is the ability of homeowners to control the expenditure of funds that they contribute to the maintenance of common property.

When a management organization (manager) is involved in management, management functions are distributed between the homeowners association and the management organization as follows.

The Partnership ensures the participation of premises owners in the management of an apartment building, being responsible for:

1) coordinating the interests of owners;

2) making general decisions on management goals and the amount of general expenses;

3) accumulation of funds for the maintenance of the house on the current account of the partnership;

4) selection of the most effective management organization;

5) ordering a certain volume and quality of management services (maintenance work, control over the execution of contracts with payment to the manager) to performers “based on results”;

6) effective control over the implementation of the management contract (quality of service) through the permanent management body of the partnership - the board.

By turning to a specialized company, the partnership reduces its costs through more efficient use of the financial resources of the owners. The positive effect here is due to the low cost of services of a specialized organization due to the large volumes of services provided. At the same time, competitive business conditions will not allow the company to inflate prices for its services.

The management organization, having the necessary qualifications and experience to manage the house, is responsible for the professional performance of such functions as:

1) monitoring the technical condition of the house and assessing priority needs for current and major repairs of the building;

2) development of tactical and strategic plans for maintenance and repairs, including capital ones;

3) preparation of organizational, technical and financial proposals for owners;

4) organization of work execution, selection of contractors and control over their work;

5) ordering utility resources, monitoring their quantity and quality;

6) ensuring payment collection, etc.

Depending on the form of organization of work on the maintenance and repair of common property in an apartment building in foreign practice, several methods of “management and maintenance” can be distinguished, in which management is carried out by the manager or management organization on the basis of an agreement with the partnership, and maintenance and repairs are carried out:

1) full-time personnel of the partnership employed on a hiring basis;

2) the staff of the management organization itself;

3) contractors (individuals or legal entities) on the basis of agreements with partnerships;

4) contractors (individuals or legal entities) on the basis of agreements with management organizations.

The last three methods are most often used.

Studying world practice, we can identify a number of characteristics of relationships in the housing triangle “state↔homeowners↔private business” that are characteristic of different countries. Thus, currently in the USA, Great Britain and a number of other countries, governments support the development of private entrepreneurship and free choice and try not to interfere in the housing services market. In the Scandinavian countries (especially Sweden), the social orientation of economic policy is also manifested in the widespread state regulation of services in the housing market, especially in the area of ​​supporting low-income segments of the population. In addition, almost all industrialized countries are characterized by highly efficient market relations, which ensure coordination and interaction, first of all, of the interests of subjects of the housing services market. In Sweden, for example, fees for housing services are established after negotiations between the organization of tenants and the company providing these services. If the parties are unable to agree, they can go to a special court.

Finland has accumulated a wealth of experience in the functioning of joint-stock companies created for the joint management of residential buildings. There is practically no municipal housing left there anymore. All residential properties are managed by owners. The housing and communal system here is regulated by business. The state has actually withdrawn from helping homeowners. For example, if a house needs major repairs, a joint-stock company has the right to take out a long-term loan, which is distributed among all members of the company and repaid over 15-20 years. The only thing in which the state participates is the repayment of interest on the loan. In this country there are practically no fixed and strictly regulated tariffs for housing services. At the same time, the efficiency of the management organization largely depends on the experience and ability of the chairman of the joint-stock company to negotiate to minimize payments for the use of heat, gas and water by residents. Orders for contract work for operation and construction in the housing and communal services sector are clearly distributed through tenders held by municipalities.

At the government level, state standards are established for what should be adequately provided to residential buildings (for example, for water quality). Also, each agreement (contract) between municipalities and operating companies determines the appropriate and specific conditions of work in the housing system.

The Finns pay very strict and strict attention to the problem of non-payments. If a defaulter accumulates a certain amount of debt, he faces eviction from his place of residence. In this case, residents are not deprived of the right to their property, but members of the joint-stock company are deprived of their right to use this property.

In France, infrastructure in the public utilities sector is not transferred to private ownership, but for the most part remains municipal and is operated by private operators under a concession agreement. Housing services are provided at the expense of the concessionaire, who has the right to collect appropriate payments from consumers for the provision of these services. In this case, orders for both operation and construction are distributed by the municipalities themselves through tenders and are strictly controlled at the appropriate stage of construction and operation. At the government level, state standards are established for all the necessary services that should be provided to residential buildings (for example, water quality). The same contract for the services provided determines future tariffs

It should be noted that in France, in most cases, a decentralized scheme is used for the use of heat supply. Thus, when operating a local heat source, the costs for current heat supply needs are significantly reduced, although the additional installation of boiler equipment during the construction of residential buildings requires certain additional investments. Owners of individual houses in private property can maintain their houses themselves (for example, minor repairs). But at the same time, they enter into agreements in the form of contracts with the municipality for the provision of public services.

Poland became one of the first post-communist countries to begin reforming the housing and communal services sector. Currently, in the field of maintenance and service of the housing stock in Poland, in addition to municipal, official and privatized housing, homeowners' associations (HOA) are widely developing. Partnerships, in turn, pay all utilities (heating, water supply, electricity, etc.) on time, and deal with defaulters on their own. The maximum period of non-payment is no more than three months. At the same time, even in residential buildings located close to each other, utility tariffs can differ significantly from each other. This is due to the fact that when setting tariffs, a wide and detailed list of criteria is taken into account: the structure of the building itself, the material from which window and door openings are made, the roof, the service life of the building and much more. In Poland, a preferential program is used, which provides assistance in paying for housing and communal services for those in need, and targeted subsidies are allocated for the poor. Their amount depends on family income, family composition, living space and the amount of housing expenses.

In many developed countries, management in the housing and communal services sector is carried out by a joint-stock company with 100% state or city capital. In this case, all types of public services are provided by a single holding company.

In China, the management of housing and communal services is largely decentralized - regions are given greater independence. Districts have their own budget, so funds for the maintenance of households are allocated not from the city budget, but from district budgets, the main source of replenishment of which is commercial structures. The latter, in addition to general deductions, pay a special “housing” tax of about 1%, which is spent exclusively on the maintenance of residential buildings. In addition, rental fees from various commercial organizations also go to the districts, and part of them is sent to homes. Repairs and maintenance of buildings are carried out at the expense of the city treasury. And extra-budgetary funds are spent on maintaining managers in the houses. The Chinese Party sees the main directions of housing and communal services reform in the commercialization of housing and the transition to market forms of managing the housing stock on the principles of local government, through housing partnerships and joint-stock companies.

Thus, even a superficial analysis of the practice of functioning of communal enterprises in many foreign countries (France, Finland, Poland, etc.) shows that the success of housing and communal policy in these countries is determined by the presence of flexible forms and methods of managing public property using the mechanism of free competition , using the opportunities of private initiative, private capital, etc. In general, the most significant and promising concepts associated with the provision of public services in the above countries are concessions, privatization and corporatization.

In most foreign countries, management in the field of housing and communal services is considered as a separate type of business, for which the management organization receives remuneration from home owners, and the association (association, partnership) of home owners is responsible to them for maintaining the property. All the most important management decisions (primarily regarding the management of finances and the conclusion of contracts for the purchase of goods and services) are made by the management of the HOA, and the manager prepares the appropriate decisions for the board of the partnership.

Practice shows that the most favorable areas for the development of private business in the municipal economy system are:

1) organizing the operation of the housing stock;

2) household, including repair, services to the population, landscaping of courtyard areas, collection, removal and recycling of household waste;

3) landscaping, cleaning work;

4) road repair and maintenance of the surrounding area.

The study of advanced foreign experience reveals the following main directions of its application in Russian conditions:

1) development of free competition in the housing and communal services market;

2) improvement of antimonopoly regulators;

3) separation of the functions of the customer and the contractor;

4) use of funds for their intended purpose;

5) control over the activities of homeowners;

6) attracting private capital to the field of maintenance and provision of public services.

Idigova L.M., Doctor of Economics, Professor, Leading Researcher of the Department of Economics and Law of the Institute of Humanitarian Research of the Academy of Sciences of the Chechen Republic, Grozny;

Tasueva T.S., Doctor of Economics, senior researcher at the laboratory of economic research of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Comprehensive Research Institute named after. H.I. Ibragimov Russian Academy of Sciences", Grozny.

Bibliographic link