Public–Private Partnerships

When scholars and practitioners in Kazakhstan and Russia consider PPPs, the discussion often becomes unbalanced. In addition to noting traditional justifications for PPP deployment, such as a lack of budget for the provision of much-needed public services, a long list of advantages is assigned to partnerships. These advantages are discussed in a manner that diminishes the value of the context in which a PPP is formed, launched and managed. In these cases, the legal and institutional frameworks of other countries are not incorporated into the discussion, whilst the contextual environment of the specific industry and the nation’s management practices and financial arrangements underpinning PPPs are simply disregarded. This means that advantages and benefits that PPPs demonstrated in other nations’ contexts are often automatically applied—in the discussion, rather than in reality—to the Kazakhstani or Russian context, with an anticipation that similar advantages will be received in these two countries. In addition, scholars also assign another feature to PPPs in Kazakhstan and Russia: that a PPP implements a socially significant project. This chapter aims to investigate what advantages are associated with partnerships in the two nations, and the accuracy of these perceptions and opinions.

Academics and practitioners in Kazakhstan and Russia pay significant attention to the legal aspects of PPP formation and implementation. PPP policy documents, such as the laws on concessions and PPPs within each country, and the Russian-language literature, emphasise a contract to be the only document that can ensure successful management for the partnership’s duration. As a result of this, another common topic is how, and in which direction, to amend legal provisions that determine PPP contract terms. Many scholars (Zusman 2008; Azizov 2009; Glumov 2009; Gusev 2009; Firsova 2012) conclude their studies with observations that the major reason for PPP shortfalls, both existing and potential, is that PPP-governing laws and regulations are underdeveloped, lack specifics and include ‘grey areas’ that are subject to differing interpretations. The most common conclusion is that the laws on concessions and partnerships in each country, and other PPP-related laws and regulations, require further improvement. For example, Glumov (2009) emphasises the need to draft a law on PPPs that would set the guiding principles and the legal basis for PPP formation and management specifically designed for Russia’s regions (oblasti), rather than at the federal level. This law would allow regional governments to use legally defined procedures and instruments to initiate PPP projects, select a private partner and understand how far they can extend their own participation.