Article

Received 15.11.2025

Revised 28.02.2026

Accepted 26.03.2026

Published 05.04.2026

Retrieved from Vol. 30, No. 1, 2026

Pages 43 -50

Bondar, N., & Sagaidak, Ie. (2026). Reconciliation of economic interests of participants in concession projects for the development of transport infrastructure. The National Transport University Bulletin, 30(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.33744/2308-6645-2026-1-30-43-50

Reconciliation of economic interests of participants in concession projects for the development of transport infrastructure

Nataliia Bondar Ievheniia Sagaidak

This study aimed to identify the key aspects of vertical and horizontal coordination of economic interests among participants in concession projects for the development of transport infrastructure. The research methods included a critical review of existing literature, alongside analysis, comparison, systematisation, and generalisation of information. The study defined the circle of participants in concession projects and examined the crucial elements of their vertical coordination (state-concessionaire) and horizontal coordination (concessionaire – shareholders – creditors – project organisation – subcontractors – service companies). For each participant in a transport infrastructure development project based on a concession model, a set of interests and target indicators was formulated. These indicators were designed to ensure the stability of the implementation coalition. The primary issues underlying the coordination of economic interests related to the distribution of income, profits, responsibilities, and risks. The coordination of these interests relied on selecting mutually agreed-upon values for the following management parameters: 1) for the public partner – the economic benefit (profit) derived from transferring the asset to the concession; 2) for the private partner – income and profit from constructing the motorway and its subsequent operation; 3) for investors/creditors – the required funds to meet contractual obligations and project implementation, along with their cost; 4) for the designer – the scope and price of design work; 5) for contractors (subcontractors) – the scope and cost of construction and installation work; 6) for operators (road maintenance organisations) – the volume and cost of management services. The practical significance of the results lay in the fact that attention to these indicators during the establishment of the concessionaire organisation and its subsequent operation would have incentivised participants to pursue successful project implementation

economic effect; public-private partnership; coordination of interests; profit; distribution
  1. Aladayleh, K.J., & Aladaileh, M.J. (2024). Applying analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to BIM-based risk management for optimal performance in construction projects. Buildings, 14(11), article number 3632. doi: 10.3390/buildings14113632.
  2. Anderson, B.B., & Ratiu, C. (2019). Stakeholder considerations in public-private partnerships. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 15(3), 212-221. doi: 10.1108/WJEMSD-04-2018-0046.
  3. Andrusіv, U.Ya., & Kulik, T.P. (2025). Conceptual principles for the formation of a comprehensive system of financial and economic security for economic entities. Current Issues in Economic Science. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14957432.
  4. Dykes, B.J., & Uzuegbunam, I. (2022). Foreign partner choice in the public interest: Experience and risk in infrastructure public-private partnerships. Journal of International Business Policy, 6(1), 47-66. doi: 10.1057/s42214-022-00134-z.
  5. Dzhereleiko, S. (2022). Instruments for improving financial results in the system of strengthening the economic security of the enterprise. Bulletin of Khmelnytsky National University, 6(l), 67-74. doi: 10.31891/2307-5740-2022-312-6(1)-10.
  6. Elraaid, U., Badi, I., & Bouraima, M.B. (2024). Identifying and addressing obstacles to project management office success in construction projects: An AHP approach. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 1(1), 33-45. doi: 10.31181/sdmap1120242.
  7. Halushka, Z.I. (2020). Strategic stakeholder – management: Theoretical concept and features of application. Scientific Bulletin of the University of Chernivtsi, 829, 52-58. doi: 10.31861/ecovis/2020-829-1.
  8. He, L., Wang, B., Xu, W., Cui, Q., & Chen, H. (2022). Could China’s long-term low-carbon energy transformation achieve the double dividend effect for the economy and environment? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 20128-20144. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14195-9.
  9. Jayasuriya, S., Zhang, G., & Yang, R.J. (2024). Towards successful economic infrastructure partnership project delivery through effective stakeholder management. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 26, article number 101173. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2024.101173.
  10. Klymchuk, M., Kukharuk, A., Ivanova, T., & Redko, K. (2022). Content and principles of economic harmonization of interests of industrial enterprises. Economic Bulletin of NTUU “KPI”, 24, 7-11. doi: 10.20535/2307-5651.22.2022.259832.
  11. Kopańska, A., Osinski, R., & Korbus, B. (2024). Private entities motivations to participate in public-private partnerships. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 92, article number 101841. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2024.101841.
  12. Law of Ukraine No. 4510-IX “On Public-Private Partnerships”. (2025, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4510-20#Text.
  13. Mahame, C., Kikwasi, G.J., & Baruti, M.M. (2024). Barriers to the effective selection of sustainable materials for residential building projects: A qualitative study. Sustainability, 16(21), article number 9526. doi: 10.3390/su16219526.
  14. Osіpova, L. (2025). Theoretical aspects of the process of harmonising economic interests in economic systems. Economic Space, 198, 209-214. doi: 10.30838/EP.198.209-214.
  15. Ovchinnіkova, V.O., & Diakov, M.І. (2025). Formation of a mechanism for interaction between the enterprise and stakeholders. Bulletin of Transport and Industry Economics, 90, 274-281. doi: 10.18664/btie.90.337702.
  16. Sun, G., Zhang, W., Dong, J., Wan, S., & Feng, J. (2023). Behavioral decision-making of key stakeholders in public-private partnerships: A hybrid method and benefit distribution study. CMES – Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences, 136(3), 2895-2934. doi: 10.32604/cmes.2023.025652.
  17. Tavana, M., Nasr, A.Kh., Mina, H., & Michnik, J. (2022). A private sustainable partner selection model for green public-private partnerships and regional economic development. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 83, article number 101189. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101189.
  18. Toochukwu, A.C. (2025). Sustainable construction practices: Balancing cost efficiency, environmental impact, and stakeholder collaboration. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 7(1), 4118-4140. doi: 10.56726/IRJMETS66703.
  19. Tropeano, T., Bellazzecca, E., & Bengo, I. (2025). Exploring the functions and role of social impact measurement in enhancing the social value of public-private partnerships: A systematic literature review. Public Policy and Administration, 40(4), 535-560. doi: 10.1177/0952076724123864.
  20. Tytykalo, V.S. (2021). Determinants of state regulation of economic interests of enterprises. Business Inform, 5, 96-102. doi: 10.32983/2222-4459-2021-5-96-102.
  21. Węgrzyn, J., & Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A. (2022). Stakeholder analysis and their attitude towards PPP success. Sustainability, 14(3), article number 1570. doi: 10.3390/su14031570.

https://doi.org/10.33744/2308-6645-2026-1-30-43-50