Valstybės ir savivaldybių turto valdymas ir privatizavimas. T. 2, Patirtis ir praktika

• Obrazcovas, Vladimiras
• Savas, Emenuel Steve
• Jančauskas, Eduardas

LTTai pirmosios knygos apie privatizavimo teoriją ir praktiką tęsinys. Monografijoje nagrinėjama pasaulio ir Lietuvos geležinkelių, telekomo, paštų, kalėjimų, komunalinių ūkių, naftos, dujų ir jūrų uostų privatizavimo patirtis. Monografija skirta valstybės ir savivaldybių institucijų darbuotojams, verslininkams, dėstytojams, taip pat magistrantūros studijų studentams, studijuojantiems teisę ir valdymą bei viešąjį administravimą. [Anotacija knygoje]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Privatizavimas; Privatizavimo prielaidos; Privatizavimo teorijos; Teisinis privatizacijos reguliavimas; Pasaulinė privatizacijos patirtis; Privatisation; Privatisation assumptions; Privatization theory; The legal regulation of privatization; Global privatization experience.

ENPrivatization phenomenon is popular and growing throughout the world, and thus proceeds for purely pragmatic reasons. When carried out sensibly, it leads to greater productivity and better economic per formance. Numerous convincing studies of competitive contracting and divestment provide overwhelming and unambiguous evidence of the effectiveness of privatization. The book State and Local Government Properties Privatization: Practice and Experience is divided into two parts: the world privatization practice and the Lithuanian privatization. Part 1 covers British and Japanese railways privatization proceses; private prisons experience in USA; post office privatization process and it's future; telecom priva tization in Mexico, Singapore, Peru, Indonesia and France; transport privatization and local government restructuring. Part 2 presents the Lithuanian privatization practice: AB „Mažeiki nafta" (oil company), AB „Lietuvos telekomas" (telecom), Lithuanian gas, railways and seaport. In the book two examples of privatization - British rail and Japa nese railways - are presented. One of them is an example of a good and successful privatization (Japanese railways) and the second is pre sented as an example of successful privatization (British rail). We tried to describe these processes in both countries. Private prisons is not a novelty in U.S. history. Privatization is en croaching ever further on what had been state responsibilities, and prison systems are the target of private interests.The shift to privatization coalesced in the mid-1980s when three trends converged: the ideological imperatives of the free market; the huge increase in the number of prisoners and the concomitant increase in imprison ment costs. We discussed all arguments for and against private prisons. Proponents of privatized prisons put forward a simple case: the private sector can do it cheaper and more efficiently and public sector correc tion systems are in a state of chronic failure by any measure and no other politically or economically feasible solution is on the table. By 1990, 421 Americans out of every 100,000 were behind bars, easily outdistancing closest competitors, South Africa and the former USSR. By 1992, the U.S. rate had climbed to 455. From 1975 to 1985, serious crime rate actually decreased by 1.42 per cent while the number of State and federal prisoners nearly doubled. The private prison industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the U.S. In 1977 it has set its sights on California. In just ten years, the industry has grown thirty-fold, form owning 3,122 prison beds in 1987 to owning 85,201 at the end of 1996. It has tripled in size just since 1993. Private prisons have emerged as an expedient solution, helping to neutralize the opposing forces impinging on government to do move with less. But is it reasonable public policy? Governments all over the world nowadays are taking a serious look at privatizing their postal service. For example, the Swedish govern ment has deregulated mail delivery so that Sweden Post is now forced to compete with two private firms. The labor party in Great Britain has agreed to end the monopoly on mail that costs less than one pound. Though the U.S. Postal Service competes with companies like FedEx and Airborne Express for some services, the Post Office maintains its monopoly in key areas. [...]. [From the publication]