Uncoupling Inter-Municipal Cooperation Capacity: Lithuanian Municipalities’ Efforts To Sustain Services Provision

Jurga Bučaitė-Vilkė 1 , Remigijus Civinskas 2 , and Aistė Lazauskienė 3
  • 1 Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lithuania
  • 2 Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Political Science & Diplomacy, Lithuania
  • 3 Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Political Science & Diplomacy, Lithuania


Despite the absence of the long-term tradition of inter-municipal cooperation in Lithuania, the country represents a compelling case of cooperative solutions which are mostly focused on public services delivery design imposed by the central government. The article provides theoretical and empirical insights on the inter-municipal cooperative capacities and their scope in the case of Lithuania, with reference to the size of the municipality. The results reveal that the large size municipalities are more likely to benefit from collaborative arrangements in comparison to small size municipalities which have less institutional ability for collaboration. In this respect, the external influences imposed by the central authorities’ agenda on implementing economy of scale principles and strong municipal service delivery regulations is extremely important for understanding the municipal efforts for collaboration.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Askim, Jostein, Jan E.Klausen, Irene S. Vabo, and Karl Bjurstrøm. “What Causes Municipal Amalgamation Reform? Rational Explanations Meet Western European Experiences 2004-13”: 59–79. In: Gerhard Bouckaert and Sabine Kuhlmann, eds. Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

  • 2. Bel, Germa, Xavier Fageda, and Melania Mur. “Does cooperation reduce service delivery costs? Evidence from residential solid waste services.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 24, No. 1 (2012): 85–107 // DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mus059.

  • 3. Bel, Germa, Xavier Fageda, and Melania Mur. “Why do municipalities cooperate to provide local public services? An empirical analysis.” Local Government Studies Vol. 9, No. 3 (2013): 435–454 // DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2013.781024.

  • 4. Brown, L. Trevor, and Mattew Potoski. “Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions.” Journal of Public Administration research and theory Vol. 13, No. 4 (2003): 441–468 // DOI: 10.1093/jpart/mug030.

  • 5. Civinskas, Remigijus, and Eglė Laurušonytė. “Viešųjų paslaugų tobulinimas: Jungtinių paslaugų centrų steigimas” (Modernization of the Public Services: Establishment of the Shared Public services Centers). Management 20(1) (2012): 103–110.

  • 6. Civinskas, Remigijus, and Jaroslav Dvorak. “Viešųjų paslaugų teikimo centrų steigimo galimybės Lietuvoje” (The Opportunities of Establishment the Public Services Centers in Lithuania). Tiltai 57(4) (2011): 77–93.

  • 7. Dijkgraaf, Elbert, and Raymond Gradus. “Collusion in the Dutch waste collection market.” Local government studies Vol. 33, No. 4 (2007): 573–588 // DOI: 10.1080/03003930701417601.

  • 8. Eythórsson, Gretar Thor, Pekka Kettunen, Jan E. Klausen, and Siv Sandberg. “Reasons for Inter-municipal Cooperation: A Comparative Analysis of Finland, Iceland and Norway”:106–117. In: Filipe Teles and Pawel Swianiewicz, eds. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

  • 9. Feiock, C. Richard, Annette Steinacker, and Hyung Jun Park. “Institutional collective action and economic development joint ventures.” Public Administration Review Vol. 69, No. 2 (2009): 256–270 // DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01972.x.

  • 10. Feiock, C. Richard. “Rational choice and regional governance.” Journal of Urban Affairs Vol. 29, No. 1 (2007): 47–63 // DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00322.x.

  • 11. Feiock, Richard C., Jill Tao, and Linda Johnson. “Institutional collective action: Social capital and the formation of regional partnerships”: 147–158. In: Richard C. Feiock, ed. Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2004.

  • 12. Franzke, Jochen, Daniel Klimovský, and Uroš Pinterič. “Does inter-municipal cooperation lead to territorial consolidation? A comparative analysis of selected European cases in times of crisis”: 81–98. In: Gerhard Bouckaert and Sabine Kuhlmann, eds. Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

  • 13. Frischtak L. Leila. “Governance capacity and economic reform in developing countries.” World Bank Technical Paper No. WTP 254 (Washington, D.C., The World Bank, 1994) // http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/765591468739783001/Governance-capacity-and-economic-reform-in-developing-countries.

  • 14. Goldsmith, J. Michael, and Edward C. Page. “Introduction”: 8–35. In: J. Michael Goldsmith and Edward C. Page, eds. Changing government relations in Europe: from localism to intergovernmentalism. Vol. 67, London: Routledge, 2010.

  • 15. Gradus, Raymond, Elbert Dijkgraaf, and M. Schoute “Is there still collusion in the Dutch waste collection market?” Local Government Studies Vol. 42, No. 5 (2016): 689–697 // DOI: 10.1080/03003930701417601.

  • 16. Hulst, Rudie, and Andre van Montfort. “Institutional features of inter-municipal cooperation: Cooperative arrangements and their national contexts.” Public Policy and Administration Vol. 27, No. 2 (2012): 121–144 // DOI: 10.1177/0952076711403026.

  • 17. Hulst, Rudie, and Andre Van Montfort. “Inter-municipal cooperation: A widespread phenomenon”: 1–27. In: Rudie Hulst and Andre Van Montfort, eds. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe. Netherlands: Springer, 2007.

  • 18. Hulst, Rudie, Andre Van Montfort, Arto Haveri, Jenni Airaksinen, and Josephine Kelly. “Institutional shifts in inter-municipal service delivery.” Public Organization Review 9(3) (2009): 263–285.

  • 19. Kanapinskas, Virginijus, Žydrūnas Plytnikas, and Agnė Tvaronavičіenė. “In-house procurement exception: Threat for sustainable procedure of public procurement?” Journal of Security & Sustainability Issues 4(2) (2014): 147-158.

  • 20. Ladner, Andreas, Nicolas Keuffer, and Harald Baldersheim. “Measuring local autonomy in 39 countries (1990–2014).” Regional & Federal Studies Vol. 26, No. 3 (2016): 321–357 // DOI: 10.1080/13597566.2016.1214911.

  • 21. Lamothe, Scott, Meeyoung Lamothe, and Richard C. Feiock. “Examining local government service delivery arrangements over time.” Urban Affairs Review Vol. 44, No. 1 (2008): 27–56 // DOI: 10.1177/1078087408315801.

  • 22. Lithuanian Free Market Institute. “What Municipal Enterprises are doing?” Report (2018) // https://www.llri.lt/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PB-savivaldybi-----mon--s_20180118.pdf.

  • 23. Mayntz, Renate. “Modernization and the logic of interorganizational networks.” Knowledge and Policy Vol. 6, No. 1 (1993): 3–16.

  • 24. Nelles, Jen. “Cooperation and Capacity? Exploring the Sources and Limits of City-Region Governance Partnerships.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Vol. 37, No. 4 (2013): 1349–1367 // DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01112.x.

  • 25. Osterrieder Holger. Joining Forces and Resources for Sustainable Development. Cooperation among Municipalities – A Guide for Practitioners. Bratislava: UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre, 2006.

  • 26. Raišienė, Agota. “Tarporganizacinės sąveikos turinys Lietuvos vietos savivaldos praktikų požiūriu” (Inter-organizational Relations in Lithuanian Self-governance Practice). Jurisprudencija 106(4) (2008): 50–60.

  • 27. Ščeponavičius, Audrius. Visuomenės sveikatos priežiūros aktualijos savivaldybėse (Public Health Services Problems in Municipalities). Ministry of Health Care of the Republic of Lithuania, 2012.

  • 28. Sellers, M. Jefferey, and Anders Lidström. “Decentralization, local government, and the welfare state.” Governance Vol. 20, No. 4 (2007): 609–632 // DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00374.x.

  • 29. Silva, Patricia, Filipe Teles, and Joanna Ferreira. “Intermunicipal cooperation: The quest for governance capacity?” International Review of Administrative Sciences (2018) // DOI: 10.1177/0020852317740411.

  • 30. Soukopová, Jana, and Daniel Klimovský. “Local Governments and Local Waste Management in the Czech Republic: Producers or Providers?” NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 9(2) (2016): 217–237.

  • 31. Soukopová, Jana, and Gabriela Vaceková. “Internal factors of intermunicipal cooperation: what matters most and why?” Local Government Studies Vol. 44, No. 1 (2018): 105–126 // DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2017.1395739.

  • 32. Swianiewicz, Pawel, and Filipe Teles. “Inter-municipal Cooperation Diversity, Evolution and Future Research Agenda”: 340–344. In: Filipe Teles and Pawel Swianiewicz, eds. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

  • 33. Tavares, F. Antonio, and Richard C. Feiock. “Applying an institutional collective action framework to investigate intermunicipal cooperation in Europe.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance Vol. 1. No. 4 (2018): 299-316 // DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvx014.

  • 34. Teles, Filipe. Local governance and intermunicipal cooperation. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

  • 35. Urvikis, Marius. Vietos savivaldos institucijų organizuojamų viešųjų paslaugų sistemos tobulinimas (Improvement of the System of Public Services Organized by Local Self-government Institutions). Doctoral Dissertation. Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University, 2016.

  • 36. Visser, A. James. “Understanding local government cooperation in urban regions: toward a cultural model of interlocal relations.” The American Review of Public Administration Vol. 32, No. 1 (2002): 40–65 // DOI: 10.1177/0275074002032001003.

  • 1. Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 1994, No. I-533, last amended in 2018, No. XIII-1064.

  • 2. Republic of Lithuania Law on State and Municipal Enterprises. Official Gazette, 1994, No I-722.


Journal + Issues