Issue: № 6, 2026
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2026.6.1e
Introduction. In the context of war and post-war recovery, the economic security of the state and its regions increasingly depends on the ability to maintain critical infrastructure, ensure continuity of public services and mobilize additional resources for recovery. Public-private partnership (PPP) is considered not as a universal substitute for budget financing, but as a mechanism that can strengthen resilience when properly designed and implemented. The purpose of the paper is to substantiate the role of public-private partnership as an instrument of state and regional economic security and to determine the conditions under which PPP projects can contribute to infrastructure modernization, fiscal sustainability, service quality improvement and regional resilience to internal and external shocks. Results. The study systematizes scientific and regulatory approaches to understanding PPP and clarifies its relationship with fiscal, infrastructural, social, energy, environmental, institutional and regional dimensions of economic security. The comparative analysis of Ukrainian and European cases demonstrates that the most predictable positive effect is achieved in sectors with clearly measurable outputs, such as urban energy efficiency, waste management, water supply, healthcare infrastructure and selected logistics projects. At the same time, transport, logistics and digital PPPs are more vulnerable to military, political, macroeconomic and technological risks. The suspended Olvia port concession and the underperformance of the Irish broadband project confirm the importance of realistic demand forecasts, risk allocation and contract flexibility. Conclusion. PPP can strengthen state and regional economic security only when project objectives are clearly defined, risks are fairly allocated, performance indicators are fixed, public control is ensured and contracts contain adaptation mechanisms. For Ukraine, PPP should be applied selectively in projects with a clear security effect, supported by force majeure clauses, step-in rights, war-risk insurance, international guarantees and transparent monitoring mechanisms.
Keywords : public-private partnership, economic security, regional security, post-war recovery, risks, assessment indicators
References:
1. Hodge G.A., Greve C. On Public–Private Partnership Performance. Public Works Management & Policy. 2016. Vol. 22, no. 1. pp. 55–78. DOI: 10.1177/1087724x16657830
2. Roehrich J.K., Lewis M.A., George G. Are public–private partnerships a healthy option? A systematic literature review. Social Science & Medicine. 2014. Vol. 113. pp. 110–119. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.037
3. Quan X., Solheim M. C. W. Public-private partnerships in smart cities: A critical survey and research agenda. City, Culture and Society. 2023. Vol. 32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccs.2022.100491
4. Joseph E., Shyamala M., Nadig R. Understanding Public-Private Partnerships in the Modern Era. Public Private Partnership Dynamics for Economic Development. 2025. DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-9153-2.ch001
5. Critical risk management strategies for the operation of public–private partnerships: a vulnerability perspective of infrastructure projects / W. Jiang et al. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2024. DOI: 10.1108/ecam-12-2023-1292
6. Mazher K.M. Review of studies on risk allocation and sharing in public-private partnership projects for infrastructure delivery. Frontiers in Built Environment. 2025. Vol. 11. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2025.1505891
7. A scoping review of ethical aspects of public-private partnerships in digital health / M. A. R. Bak et al. npj Digital Medicine. 2025. Vol. 8, no. 1. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-025-01515-3
8. Chaltseva O.M., Loboda D.O. Public private-partnership as a prospective post-war recovery mechanism of Ukraine. Public networks and communications. 2024. №2. pp. 11–18. DOI: 10.31558/3083-5895.2024.2.2 (in Ukrainian).
9. Concession Agreement for the Specialized Sea Port “Olvia” Signed. Ministry of Economy, Environment and Agriculture of Ukraine. 20 August 2020. URL: https://me.gov.ua/News/Detail/631d0d38-5f3c-493a-ab3b-36ef3c5eed14?lang=uk-UA&title=PidpisanoDogovirKontsesiiSpetsializovanogoMorskogoPortuolviia&showMenuTree=true (in Ukrainian).
10. European Investment Bank. European Investment Bank Annual Report 2018 on the European Investment Advisory Hub. Luxembourg, 2019. 40 p. URL: https://www.eib.org/files/publications/thematic/eiah_annual_report_2018_en.pdf
11. Public Private Partnerships Unit. Solid Waste Management Facilities for the Region of Epirus. Ministry of Economy & Finance. URL: https://pppunit.minfin.gov.gr/en/sdit/erga/solid-waste-management-facilities-for-the-region-of-epirus
12. European Investment Bank. Croatia: EIB supports Zagreb Airport expansion PPP project with EUR 80 million. 6 December 2013. URL: https://www.eib.org/en/press/all/2013-215-eib-supports-zagreb-airport-expansion-ppp-project-with-eur-80-million
13. Entidade Reguladora da Saúde. Estudo de Avaliação das Parcerias Público-Privadas na Saúde. Porto, 2016. 79 p. URL: https://www.ers.pt/uploads/writer_file/document/1841/ERS_-_Estudo_PPP.pdf
14. European Court of Auditors. Public Private Partnerships in the EU: Widespread Shortcomings and Limited Benefits. Special Report No. 09. Luxembourg, 2018. 79 p. URL: https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr18_09/sr_ppp_en.pdf