Innovative approaches to the formation and implementation in intersectoral cooperation

Figure 2 Conditions for ensuring efficiency in the process of establishing intersectoral cooperation [8]

The Canadian experience describes the following conditions for effective intersectoral cooperation [8]:

- a stable political environment that encourages cooperation and investment based on consensus and trust, which are achieved at the planning stage;

- shared values, interests and alignment of goals when each participant sets objectives and tasks;

- involvement of key players interested in cooperation; horizontal and vertical links both within and between organisations;

- joint management and accountability, which does not imply separate responsibility of each participant;

- ensuring teamwork and support;

- focus on specific goals and tangible results.

For the development of an intersectoral partnership, its institutional structure is of great importance, which implies the existence of an institution for contracting the relationship between its agents, i.e. the format of a contractual partnership between the parties. The institutional structure can be represented as follows (Figure 3). The combinatorial submechanisms of intersectoral partnership reflect the possibilities of combining the resources of its participants. These possibilities are determined by the action of optimising sub-mechanisms of such partnership, both formal and informal. The institutional structure of an intersectoral partnership is an element of a higher-order institution - a development matrix the guidelines of which are aimed at socialising economic and rationalising social processes in society. In intersectoral partnerships, there are also external (institutional foundations of partnership) and internal norms (principles according to which the partnership is implemented) [7].

Intersectoral partnerships at the regional level are seen as a factor in enhancing the competitiveness of areas. Taking into account the advantages of intersectoral cooperation, such as avoiding duplication of resource costs when solving complex problems, and maximising the potential in achieving the previously set goals, intersectoral cooperation is seen as a strategy that optimises the strengths of sectors and limits the impact of particular weaknesses due to their sectoral origin. The various competitive advantages of each sector can compensate for the shortcomings identified by other participants.

At the regional level, the effectiveness of partnerships is determined to a greater extent by the nature of the communication environment than by government policy. In the regional dimension, intersectoral partnerships can be considered as an innovative approach, where each sector is traditionally active in its own field of activity, but together they act as an effective tool for regional development.

Today, social partnership is being actualised as an intersectoral interaction between the state, civil society and socially responsible business. It is understood that the subject of such partnership is a range of social problems, which, in our opinion, is important for the regional level. Modern scientific approaches to social partnership include a number of perspectives, including network, managerial, axiological and modus-oriented approaches [2].

The managerial or administrative approach substantiates social partnership as a set of interconnected and sequenced methods of solving social problems through the implementation of contacts between institutions formed in the course of human activity in various fields. The axiological approach is grounded on the value aspects of the functioning of such a partnership, which is based on the systemic theory of the society structure and, at the same time, on the dominant and determining role of the cultural sphere in shaping social interaction. The modus-oriented approach defines social partnership as a complex, multi-subjective sociocultural phenomenon in the social sphere, which is conditioned by the existence, activity and interaction of social actors who perform certain social roles and have certain value orientations. Scientific and methodological approaches to the development of a network approach to assessing the essence of intersectoral social partnerships involve consideration of social networks as a basic element when the partnership is aimed at improving the quality of life of the local community and provides a synergistic effect from the integration of resources of participants and the local community.

The objective prerequisites for the emergence of partnerships at the regional level for a territorial community are: a shortage of community funding from the state budget, achieving a higher degree of satisfaction of the needs of the local population, offering better quality goods and services using all available resources, ensuring a greater degree of utility and efficiency in the provision of public goods.

Figure 3 Institutional structure of intersectoral partnerships

The motivations for joining intersectoral partnerships on the part of businesses include the geographical location of the region, the desire to expand their market positions, gain experience in project implementation, and join best practices. For the public sector, the reasons are the desire to spread its positive influence and to respond to changes in the external environment that lead to such cooperation.

Partnership in this aspect should be seen as providing assistance, implementing marketing strategies, developing socially useful projects, and engaging young people in practical activities [3]:

- involvement of businesses and NGOs in cooperation helps local authorities to overcome the budget crisis by receiving investments in the form of external financial resources for development projects;

- combining the experience of each partner to find solutions to certain problems;

- enterprises and the public sector are more flexible than government agencies, thus providing an additional opportunity to take advantage of all opportunities more quickly, which has a positive impact on the readiness to respond to the needs of citizens;

- higher degree of transparency in decision-making by public administration bodies;

- possibilities of strengthening innovation processes and acquiring skills outside the organisational base of individual institutions.

The experience of intersectoral partnership in EU member states takes the form of publicprivate partnerships, which means that relations involving a certain combination of the private, public and state sectors are called "partnerships". In that context public-private partnerships are considered as arrangements under which private entities participate or provide support in the provision of infrastructure, and the essence of the project is to contract with a private organisation to provide services to serve community facilities.

If we look at the specifics of intersectoral partnerships in the context of individual European countries, in Bulgaria, the most successful was the concession project for water supply and sewage in the capital city. As for Croatia, the government's policy in this area is favourable for the development of transport infrastructure, energy and water supply. In the Czech Republic, the form of partnership used in practice is joint ventures operating in the energy sector, telecommunications, water supply and wastewater treatment.

France has a long tradition of public-private cooperation, especially in sectors such as water supply and high-speed cross-border highways, using concession agreements, while public-private partnerships are not allowed in social infrastructure. Ireland has implemented projects for the construction of roads, railways, toll bridges, and public institutions based on official programmes and a clear legal framework. Portugal is also implementing a variety of road and infrastructure projects (motorways, railways, airports, water, parking, underground railway, local transport, and museums). Spain has a programme to develop railway lines, healthcare, and waste management.

If we look at the global experience of intersectoral cooperation at the sectoral level, we can find certain features. While partnerships at the transport policy level involve the development of a set of rules for investing in transport infrastructure projects such as urban transport, railways, highways and inland waterways, project-level partnerships focus on specific projects or situations.

Technology partnerships usually take two forms. The first involves government funding for industrial R&D carried out by private institutions, such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programme and the Advanced Technology Programme (ATP), to commercialise new scientific discoveries and inventions. The second type of technology partnership involves direct cooperation between the government and scientists in a particular industry sector. Examples include Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), which include formal agreements between national laboratories and private firms, the Partnership for the Next Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) to develop an environmentally friendly car, etc. In the area of social security, various programmes are being implemented with the involvement of private sector entities, such as the electronic transfer of food stamps, maternal and child health services and other state aid. In other words, private contractors are involved in the development and implementation of electronic systems, thus entering the social security market. There are cases of successful urban renewal partnerships where private sector developers and local authorities have been involved in joint ventures at the project level to build public institutions, housing and sports facilities. Examples include Battery Park City, Times Square redevelopment, Boston Housing Partnership, Cleveland Tomorrow, Rebuild LA, Dev Co New Jersey.

Intersectoral partnerships can take many different forms, the most common of which are BOT, BOO, joint ventures, leasing, contracting, management contracts, and various forms of public-private cooperation. These examples are among the most common types of partnerships. In addition, in terms of the available acronyms, there are also BLT (build, lease, transfer), BLTM (build, lease, transfer, maintain), BTO (build, transfer, operate), BOOR (build, own, operate, remove), BOOT (build, own, operate, transfer), LROT (lease, refurbish, operate, transfer), DBFO (design, build, finance, operate), DCMF (design, build, manage, finance) and DBFOM (design, build, finance, operate, manage) [10].

Thus, there are many different types of publicprivate partnerships in global practice, and the models used vary from country to country. In practice, the concept of intersectoral partnerships is developing in each country by identifying its own characteristics. Some countries have a central body that deals with such cooperation (e.g., the Netherlands), some create it for specific cases (e.g., the United Kingdom), while others leave these functions to individual states or municipalities (Australia, the United States).

Despite the variety of partnership types, the following common characteristics can be identified:

A defined circle of participants. A partnership involves two or more parties and is at least a public body, while each is an equal partner and is able to negotiate and enter into contracts on its own behalf, and such activities involve the fulfilment of organisational obligations.

- Established relationships. Partnerships should be built on a long-term, continuous basis.

- Resource provision. Each of the participants must make its own contribution to the partnership (money, property, authority, reputation), and it involves the best available skills, knowledge and resources, regardless of whether the participants belong to the public or private sector.

- Mutual responsibility, interest, obligations and risk sharing. Partnerships involve sharing responsibilities and risks in order to achieve the results (financial, economic, environmental or social) of the cooperation.

- Normativity. The partnership is based on a framework contract that establishes rules and regulations and provides certainty. Its existence enables partners to make decisions based on already agreed and fixed standards, which are considered as the basic architecture of the agreement.

- Functionality. There are significant differences between the functions performed by different types of partnerships, which are mostly economic in nature, as opposed to those that deal with social, educational and other policies.

- Calculating the cost of projects over the entire life cycle. The types of costs include both design and construction costs and ongoing costs of providing services, operation, maintenance and repair.

- Innovation. Partnerships provide participants with the opportunity to develop innovative solutions to achieve their goals.

Practice shows that intersectoral cooperation can generate innovative solutions to existing problems, cause a catalytic or multiplier effect that leads to deep and sustainable social transformations. It can also build multisectoral social capital and the potential for joint action between government, business and civil society. Historically, attempts to overcome poverty have largely failed to deliver far-reaching or sustainable results. Governments, markets and civil society have been found to be unable to effectively address key development challenges related to health, nutrition, housing and education on their own, prompting actors from these sectors to undertake joint actions with partners from other sectors. Many of these cross-sectoral initiatives have been led or driven by leading business people, influential government officials or civil society leaders who have recognised the failures of previous mono-sectoral efforts. These facts are entirely true and impartial, as certain development challenges may be too complex and unwieldy for any one sector to successfully address. They can cover political, economic and social dimensions that will require a variety of resources, such as information and technical expertise, legislative authority, and access to funding. Intersectoral cooperation is a special type of inter-organisational relationship, the dynamics of which are determined not only by the number of actors interacting with each other, but also by differences in the sectoral affiliation of the actors.

Conclusions

Intersectoral cooperation can be seen as an appropriate strategy to address many important development challenges, as the intertwining of economic, social and political aspects require resources and innovation to develop and implement effective solutions. Today, there is a clear need for new institutional mechanisms to support development. The risks of a reduction in foreign aid further highlight the need for solutions that can generate their own resources and meet the needs of local stakeholders. An important aspect of intersectoral cooperation is that local actors are the main decision-makers, implementers and beneficiaries of social and economic transformations and development.

International experience also shows that intersectoral cooperation is most appropriate when previous mono-sectoral problem-solving has failed; successful problem-solving requires information and resources that are available in more than one sector. Starting intersectoral cooperation requires building trust between the participants, a clear problem statement that emphasises mutual benefit, reconciliation of differences and initial investments.

Managing intersectoral cooperation requires organisational measures to develop joint plans that define roles, responsibilities and resources; ensure mutual influence on decision-making; manage conflicts; and seek mutual benefits. Risks of intersectoral cooperation include: co-optation, which can reduce the opportunities to take advantage of the diversity of participants; unfair distribution of costs and benefits; and the use of previous experience, which can slow down problem solving.

Positive outcomes of intersectoral cooperation include innovative approaches to solving unsolved problems, catalyst or multiplier effects for achieving broad and sustainable social change, the formation of multi-sectoral social capital and new capacity for joint action at the local level.

References

1. Bondar V. V., Smolennikov D. O. (2016) Rozroblennia mekhanizmu partnerstva vlady, biznesu ta hromady dlia realizatsii ekoloho-oriientovanykh proektiv [Development of a mechanism of partnership between government, business and the community for the implementation of ecologically oriented projects]. Visnyk SumDU. Seriia “Ekonomika”, noю 4, pp. 21-27.

2. Meshchan I., Kuzmin V., Kuzmina M. (2021) Teoretyko-metodolohichni aspekty sotsiolohichnoho vyvchennia sotsialnoho partnerstva v upravlinni sotsialnymy zakladamy [Theoretical and methodological aspects of the sociological study of social partnership in the management of social institutions] Aspekty partnerstwa instytucji panstwowych i organizacji pozarz^dowych: monografia. Red. nauk.: H. Bejger, O. Lisovets, S. Borysiuk. Chelm: Panstwowa Wyzsza Szkola Zawodowa w Chelmie; Chelmskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, pp. 9-21.

3. Matovka T. V. (2021) Potreby u mizhsektornomu partnerstvi hromad rehionu. [Needs for intersectoral partnership of communities in the region]. Naukovyi visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu, noю 44, pp. 57-65.

4. Mykolaiets A. P. (2018) Pidkhody do rozvytku mizhsektornoho sotsialnoho partnerstva v systemi publichnoho upravlinnia [Approaches to the development of intersectoral social partnership in the system of public administration]. Derzhava ta rehiony, no. 4(64), pp. 107-110.

5. Olenkovska L. P. (2013) Shliakhy stanovlennia mizhsektornoho partnerstva na mistsevomu rivni v Ukraini. [Ways of establishing intersectoral partnership at the local level in Ukraine]. Investytsii: praktyka ta dosvid, no. 10, pp. 168-171.

6. Poliuliakh R. A. (2020) Zarubizhni kontseptualni pidkhody shchodo partnerstva v sferi hromadskoho zdorovia [Foreign conceptual approaches to partnership in the field of public health]. Pravo ta derzhavne upravlinnia, no. 2, pp. 223-228.

7. Simak S. V. (2018) Formuvannia instytutsiinykh mekhanizmiv vzaiemodii hromadianskoho suspilstva ta biznesu [Formation of institutional mechanisms of interaction between civil society and business]. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Seriia Derzhavne upravlinnia, no. 29, pp. 169-174.

8. Dick M. (2002) Intersectoral collaboration theory as a framework to assist in developing a local government food and nutrition policy. URL: https://core.ac.uk/reader/41229877.

9. Evans P. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton University Press, 1995. 336 p.

10. Grimsey D., Lewis M. K. Public Private Partnerships. The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project FinanceEdward Elgar Publishing Limited. USA: Massachusetts, 2004. 285 pp.

11. Kalegaonkar A., Brown L. David. Intersectoral Cooperation: Lessons For Practice. Institute for Development Research. Boston, 2000. Volume 16, Number 2. 28 p.

12. Wuthnow R. Between States and Markets: The Voluntary Sector in Comparative Perspective Paperback. Princeton University Press, 1991. 328 p.

Список використаних джерел

1. Бондар В. В., Смоленніков Д. О. Розроблення механізму партнерства влади, бізнесу та громади для реалізації еколого-орієнтованих проектів. Вісник СумДУ. Серія “Економіка". 2016. № 4. С. 21-27.

2. Мещан І., Кузьмін В., Кузьміна М. Теоретико-методологічні аспекти соціологічного вивчення соціального партнерства в управлінні соціальними закладами. Aktualne problemy spoleczne Ukrainy i Polski. Aspekty partnerstwa instytucji panstwowych i organizacji pozarz^dowych: monografia. Red. nauk.: H. Bejger, O. Lisovets, S. Borysiuk. Chelm: Panstwowa Wyzsza Szkola Zawodowa w Chelmie; Chelmskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 2021. С. 9-21.

3. Матьовка Т. В. Потреби у міжсекторному партнерстві громад регіону. Науковий вісник Херсонського державного університету. 2021. Вип. 44. С. 57-65.

4. Миколаєць А. П. Підходи до розвитку міжсекторного соціального партнерства в системі публічного управління. Держава та регіони. 2018. № 4(64). С. 107-110.

5. Оленковська Л. П. Шляхи становлення міжсекторного партнерства на місцевому рівні в Україні. Інвестиції: практика та досвід. 2013. № 10. С. 168-171.

6. Полюлях Р А. Зарубіжні концептуальні підходи щодо партнерства в сфері громадського здоров'я. Право та державне управління. 2002. № 2. С. 223-228.

7. Сімак С. В. Формування інституційних механізмів взаємодії громадянського суспільства та бізнесу. Вчені записки ТНУ імені В. І. Вернадського. Серія Державне управління. 2018. Том. 29. С. 169-174.

8. Dick M. Intersectoral collaboration theory as a framework to assist in developing a local government food and nutrition policy. 2002. URL: https://core.ac.uk/reader/41229877.

9. Evans P. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton University Press, 1995. 336 р.

10. Grimsey D., Lewis M. K. Public Private Partnerships. The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project FinanceEdward Elgar Publishing Limited. USA: Massachusetts, 2004. 285 p.

11. Kalegaonkar A., Brown L. David. Intersectoral Cooperation: Lessons For Practice. Institute for Development Research. Boston, 2000. Volume 16, Number 2. 28 р.

12. Wuthnow R. Between States and Markets: The Voluntary Sector in Comparative Perspective Paperback. Princeton University Press, 1991. 328 р.

Размещено на Allbest.ru