IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p11672-d662210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of Sustainable Partnership Organizational Mechanism (POM): Case of Local Action Groups (LAG)

Author

Listed:
  • Vilma Atkociuniene

    (Business and Rural Development Management Department, Bioeconomy Development Faculty, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, Universitetas Str. 10-402, 53361 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Sigitas Vaitkevicius

    (Business and Rural Development Management Department, Bioeconomy Development Faculty, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, Universitetas Str. 10-402, 53361 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Egle Stareike

    (Department of Law, Public Security Academy, Mykolas Romeris University, Maironio Str. 27, 44211 Kaunas, Lithuania)

Abstract

The study of the partnership organization mechanism (POM) aims to answer the question of how an organization manages the mechanical operation of the partnership and how the partnership system shapes itself in order to achieve a fairer balance across all junctions of the POM, through shafts connected into a single mechanism. The study has led to a deeper understanding of the empirical operation of the POM and has led to the identification of 20 POM configuration principles, the harmonization of which, in accordance with the principle of coherence, enables sustainability to be achieved and managed. The study is exploratory and therefore empirical facts supporting theoretical insights were sought. The information database of the study consists of 5-year observation data of Lithuanian local action groups, exploratory survey data and in-depth interviews for verification of the phenomenon. The empirical study allowed us to verify the theoretical operation of the POM and helped us to determine the content and purpose of the relationships between different groups of stakeholders in the region. A total of 10 POM empirical models have been detected, which confirmed the fundamental thesis of the study that sustainability can be managed by ensuring the harmonious operation of the system and by controlling the level of system coherence.

Suggested Citation

  • Vilma Atkociuniene & Sigitas Vaitkevicius & Egle Stareike, 2021. "Development of Sustainable Partnership Organizational Mechanism (POM): Case of Local Action Groups (LAG)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11672-:d:662210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11672/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11672/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martina K. Linnenluecke & Brent McKnight, 2017. "Community resilience to natural disasters: the role of disaster entrepreneurship," Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(1), pages 166-185, March.
    2. Baliga, Sandeep & Maskin, Eric, 2003. "Mechanism design for the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 305-324, Elsevier.
    3. Hurwicz, Leonid, 1973. "The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 1-30, May.
    4. Maskin, Eric S., 2008. "Mechanism design: how to implement social objectives," Revista de Economía Política de Buenos Aires, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas., issue 3-4, pages 9-19, December.
    5. Eric S. Maskin, 2008. "Mechanism Design: How to Implement Social Goals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 567-576, June.
    6. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    7. Jakki Mohr & Robert Spekman, 1994. "Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 135-152, February.
    8. Sisto, Roberta & Lopolito, Antonio & van Vliet, Mathijs, 2018. "Stakeholder participation in planning rural development strategies: Using backcasting to support Local Action Groups in complying with CLLD requirements," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 442-450.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ronald Jiménez Aliaga & Ignacio De los Ríos-Carmenado & Felipe San Martín Howard & Sonia Calle Espinoza & Amparo Huamán Cristóbal, 2022. "Integration of the Principles of Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems CFS-RAI from the Local Action Groups: Towards a Model of Sustainable Rural Development in Jauja, Peru," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Dagmar Škodová Parmová & Jana Novotná, 2022. "Implementation of quality improvements and innovations in agricultural enterprises," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(6), pages 207-218.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van Basshuysen, Philippe, 2023. "Markets, market algorithms, and algorithmic bias," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Tobias Widmer & Paul Karaenke & Vijayan Sugumaran, 2021. "Two‐sided service markets: Effects of quality differentiation on market efficiency," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(3), pages 588-604, April.
    3. Pu-yan Nie, 2014. "Penalty mechanism design," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 417-429, December.
    4. Accinelli, Elvio & Martins, Filipe & Pinto, Alberto A., 2020. "Evolutionary dynamics for the generalized Baliga–Maskin public good model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    6. Fujun Hou, 2024. "A new social welfare function with a number of desirable properties," Papers 2403.16373, arXiv.org.
    7. Izabela Delabre & Joss Lyons‐White & Clara Melot & Eirik Ingwardo Veggeberg & Anthony Alexander & Martin C. Schleper & Robert M. Ewers & Andrew T. Knight, 2023. "Should I stay or should I go? Understanding stakeholder dis/engagement for deforestation‐free palm oil," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5128-5145, December.
    8. Panzone, Luca A., 2022. "Conditional Promotion With A Costly Reward: An Evaluation Of A Campaign To Motivate Consumption Of Fruit And Vegetables," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322058, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Jan Balaguer & Raphael Koster & Ari Weinstein & Lucy Campbell-Gillingham & Christopher Summerfield & Matthew Botvinick & Andrea Tacchetti, 2022. "HCMD-zero: Learning Value Aligned Mechanisms from Data," Papers 2202.10122, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    10. Sun, Huan & Wang, Haiyan, 2024. "Data-driven incentive mechanism design for chronic disease prevention from the perspective of government," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 652-668.
    11. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    12. Tayfun Sonmez, 2023. "Minimalist Market Design: A Framework for Economists with Policy Aspirations," Papers 2401.00307, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    13. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2020. "The Social Costs of Side Trading," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1608-1622.
    14. Sjauw-Koen-Fa, August R. & Blok, Vincent & Omta, S.W.F. (Onno), 2016. "Critical Success Factors for Smallholder Inclusion in High Value-Adding Supply Chains by Food & Agribusiness Multinational Enterprise," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-30, February.
    15. Robert Cooter & Winand Emons, 2004. "Truth-Bonding and Other Truth-Revealing Mechanisms for Courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 307-327, May.
    16. Warr, Peter G., 1974. "The Economics Of Shadow Pricing: Market Distortions And Public Investment," Staff Papers 14116, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    17. Tian, Guoqiang, 2004. "On the Informational Requirements of Decentralized Pareto-Satisfactory Mechanisms in Economies with Increasing Returns," MPRA Paper 41226, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2006.
    18. Gallear, David & Ghobadian, Abby & Chen, Weifeng, 2012. "Corporate responsibility, supply chain partnership and performance: An empirical examination," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 83-91.
    19. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    20. Changbyung Yoon & Keeeun Lee & Byungun Yoon & Omar Toulan, 2017. "Typology and Success Factors of Collaboration for Sustainable Growth in the IT Service Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11672-:d:662210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.