The relevance of the topic is primarily related to the increase in the amount of used electrical and electronic equipment in the world. Most of this equipment has a complex configuration, namely it consists of both non-toxic and toxic materials, making it difficult to define a common approach to legal regulation of its storage, transportation and disposal. The object of the study is the transboundary movement of e-waste, the subject is international legal and regional standards in the field of transboundary movement. The purpose of this work is to study existing international and regional regulatory acts to establish international standards applicable to the transportation of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), as well as to identify their shortcomings and to study best practices to improve the existing approach to managing e-waste. The main tasks of the work: to determine the content of the concept "waste electrical and electronic equipment", as well as to identify the reasons why they create problems not only at the environmental level, but also at the societal, political and legal ones; investigate in detail and apply extended producer responsibility (EPR) to management of e-waste. Using such methods as comparative, as well as the method of generalization and system analysis, it was concluded that EPR is a very important tool for implementing the principles of reducing toxicity, reuse and recycling, because of its ability to stimulate "upstream" changes in product design by imposing obligations on "downstream" WEEE management. It is revealed that the individual responsibility of the manufacturer is most acceptable in the design of environmentally friendly products. Ultimately, an effective e-waste management framework in developed countries will help reduce the illegal transboundary movement of e-waste to developing countries. Master's work can be useful to legal scholars specializing in environmental issues, in particular - waste generation and management practices, law teachers, law students, and practicing lawyers. This is the first Russian-language study of such kind, where, in the course of studying mainly English scientific/legal literature and international treaties, the issue of applying extended producer responsibility when dealing with WEEE was investigated. Even such an extensive topic at first glance, as the problem of electronic waste, is not well studied in the literature of Russian-speaking authors.
The first international agreement inter alia establishing minimum standards for protections of geographical indications and designations of origin – the Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property - was adopted in 1883. However, for quite a long time geographical indications were considered to be the kind of intellectual property that nobody really understood and the advantage of their protection was wantonly depreciated. The resurgence of legal protection of geographical indications is considered to be a result of coming into force of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Law (TRIPS) of 1994. Since then the possibilities of using the protection of geographical indications in commercial activity were finally realized. Therefore, European Union as well as developing countries took the initiative to strengthen the protection of traditional geographical names. Nonetheless, this institute is rather new for Lithuania. That is why there is almost no case law on this issue. The distinctive feature of protection of geographical indication is that there is a big variety of concepts for their protection. Various forms of protection of geographical indications might be used on international and national level: starting with sui generis protection of registered geographical indications and designations of origin as well as protections under laws on fair competition and ending with protection based on existing trademark registration systems. Taking into account the variety of protection systems, global development of protection of geographical indications is now at a cross road: European Union with a proposal to enhance the protection of geographical indications currently established by TRIPS Agreement as well as to adopt its registration system is on the one side and United States of America along with other countries making an opposition to the mentioned proposal on the other. It must be noted that a deep division between Europe and the United States as to the manner in which geographical indications should be regulated and big differentiation between of member states of World Trade Organization are likely to lead to a consequence that enhancing of the protection of geographical indications remains the object of ongoing global discussion. Moreover, it is not likely that a compromise will be reach in the nearest future.
The first international agreement inter alia establishing minimum standards for protections of geographical indications and designations of origin – the Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property - was adopted in 1883. However, for quite a long time geographical indications were considered to be the kind of intellectual property that nobody really understood and the advantage of their protection was wantonly depreciated. The resurgence of legal protection of geographical indications is considered to be a result of coming into force of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Law (TRIPS) of 1994. Since then the possibilities of using the protection of geographical indications in commercial activity were finally realized. Therefore, European Union as well as developing countries took the initiative to strengthen the protection of traditional geographical names. Nonetheless, this institute is rather new for Lithuania. That is why there is almost no case law on this issue. The distinctive feature of protection of geographical indication is that there is a big variety of concepts for their protection. Various forms of protection of geographical indications might be used on international and national level: starting with sui generis protection of registered geographical indications and designations of origin as well as protections under laws on fair competition and ending with protection based on existing trademark registration systems. Taking into account the variety of protection systems, global development of protection of geographical indications is now at a cross road: European Union with a proposal to enhance the protection of geographical indications currently established by TRIPS Agreement as well as to adopt its registration system is on the one side and United States of America along with other countries making an opposition to the mentioned proposal on the other. It must be noted that a deep division between Europe and the United States as to the manner in which geographical indications should be regulated and big differentiation between of member states of World Trade Organization are likely to lead to a consequence that enhancing of the protection of geographical indications remains the object of ongoing global discussion. Moreover, it is not likely that a compromise will be reach in the nearest future.
The first international agreement inter alia establishing minimum standards for protections of geographical indications and designations of origin – the Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property - was adopted in 1883. However, for quite a long time geographical indications were considered to be the kind of intellectual property that nobody really understood and the advantage of their protection was wantonly depreciated. The resurgence of legal protection of geographical indications is considered to be a result of coming into force of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Law (TRIPS) of 1994. Since then the possibilities of using the protection of geographical indications in commercial activity were finally realized. Therefore, European Union as well as developing countries took the initiative to strengthen the protection of traditional geographical names. Nonetheless, this institute is rather new for Lithuania. That is why there is almost no case law on this issue. The distinctive feature of protection of geographical indication is that there is a big variety of concepts for their protection. Various forms of protection of geographical indications might be used on international and national level: starting with sui generis protection of registered geographical indications and designations of origin as well as protections under laws on fair competition and ending with protection based on existing trademark registration systems. Taking into account the variety of protection systems, global development of protection of geographical indications is now at a cross road: European Union with a proposal to enhance the protection of geographical indications currently established by TRIPS Agreement as well as to adopt its registration system is on the one side and United States of America along with other countries making an opposition to the mentioned proposal on the other. It must be noted that a deep division between Europe and the United States as to the manner in which geographical indications should be regulated and big differentiation between of member states of World Trade Organization are likely to lead to a consequence that enhancing of the protection of geographical indications remains the object of ongoing global discussion. Moreover, it is not likely that a compromise will be reach in the nearest future.
The first international agreement inter alia establishing minimum standards for protections of geographical indications and designations of origin – the Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property - was adopted in 1883. However, for quite a long time geographical indications were considered to be the kind of intellectual property that nobody really understood and the advantage of their protection was wantonly depreciated. The resurgence of legal protection of geographical indications is considered to be a result of coming into force of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Law (TRIPS) of 1994. Since then the possibilities of using the protection of geographical indications in commercial activity were finally realized. Therefore, European Union as well as developing countries took the initiative to strengthen the protection of traditional geographical names. Nonetheless, this institute is rather new for Lithuania. That is why there is almost no case law on this issue. The distinctive feature of protection of geographical indication is that there is a big variety of concepts for their protection. Various forms of protection of geographical indications might be used on international and national level: starting with sui generis protection of registered geographical indications and designations of origin as well as protections under laws on fair competition and ending with protection based on existing trademark registration systems. Taking into account the variety of protection systems, global development of protection of geographical indications is now at a cross road: European Union with a proposal to enhance the protection of geographical indications currently established by TRIPS Agreement as well as to adopt its registration system is on the one side and United States of America along with other countries making an opposition to the mentioned proposal on the other. It must be noted that a deep division between Europe and the United States as to the manner in which geographical indications should be regulated and big differentiation between of member states of World Trade Organization are likely to lead to a consequence that enhancing of the protection of geographical indications remains the object of ongoing global discussion. Moreover, it is not likely that a compromise will be reach in the nearest future.
Until the last major recession, there was an approach in macroeconomics that income distribution was not significant for macroeconomic processes. However, the recent major recession has prompted policymakers and economists to take into account the phenomenon of income inequality, its economic and social causes and consequences related to poverty, social inclusion, social trust, support of democratic institutions, economic growth, financial and other issues. In recent years, income inequality has been rising in many countries, and the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and other organizations underline the importance of addressing this problem. It is important to choose the right measures to make the right decisions in order to address the issues of growing income inequality. Their choice is influenced by the identification of factors influencing the change of income inequality and the impact assessment. The scale and change of income inequality can be influenced by the factors related to the market economy (globalization, technological progress) and the institutional factors (setting the rules of the game on the market, creating a certain environment). According to the factors analysed in the research, three groups of authors can be distinguished. Some authors (Asteriou, Dimelis, Moudatsou, 2014, Cabral, García-Díaz, Mollick, 2016, Lim, McNelis, 2016, Sheng, 2015, Haan, Sturm, 2017, Wade, 2004, Alvarez, 2015, Elmawazini, Sharif, Manga, Drucker, 2013, Jaumotte, Lall, Papageorgiou, 2013, Çelik, Basdas, 2010, Hermes, 2014, Richmond, Triplett, 2017, Franco, Gerussi, 2013, Stockhammer, Guschanski, Köhler, 2016, Soons, 2016, Jaumotte, Lall, Papageorgiou, 2008) investigate and assess the impact of market factors (globalization, financialization, technological progress) on income inequality, while other authors or the group of authors (IMF, 2014, Arestis, Gonzalez-Martinez, 2016, Checchi, Josifidis, Supic, Beker Pucar, 2017, Feld, Schnellenbach, 2014, Obadić, Šimurina, Sonora, 2014, Calderón, Chong, 2009, Checchi, García-Peñalosa, 2008, Saez, 2017, Jaumotte, Buitron, 2015, Bastagli, Coady, Gupta, 2012, Kenworthy, Pontusson, 2005) distinguish the impact of institutional factors (labour market institutions, welfare state) on income inequality. According to J. E. Stiglitz (2016), the market does not operate in a vacuum – it operates within an institutional setting. Therefore, the third group of authors can be identified that assess the impact of both market and institutional factors on inequality (Stiglitz, 2016, Atkinson, 2003, Josifidis, Supic, 2017, Josifidis, Mitrović, Supić, Glavaški, 2016, Huber, Stephens, 2014, Darcillon, 2015, Lin, Fu, 2016, Ghossoub, Reed, 2017, Kristal, Cohen, 2017, Alderson, Nielsen, 2002, Kus, 2012, Tridico, 2015, Dabla-Norris, Kochhar, Ricka, Suphaphiphat, Tsounta, 2015, Jain-Chandra, Kinda, Kochhar, Piao, Schauer, 2016). The results of empirical studies assessing the impact of different factors on income inequality are contradictory. There is a disagreement on the distinction between different factors influencing the change of inequality as well as the direction and strength of their impact. Therefore, it is relevant to determine what factors determine income inequality and what is their impact on income inequality. The aim of the research is on the basis of empirical research to analyse the impact of factors influencing the change of income inequality, to identify which factors have the greatest impact. Research methods are as follows: analysis, grouping and generalization of scientific articles. On the basis of the analysis of the studies, which evaluated the factors determining income inequality, five groups of factors determining income inequality have been identified: 1) globalization; 2) technological progress; 3) financialization; 4) labour market institutions; 5) welfare state. It is possible to state that some studies assess the impact of only one set of factors on the change of income inequality: globalization, financialization, labour market institutions or technological progress, while other studies assess more than two groups of factors. This reflects the authors' differing views on the factors and how they influence the change of income inequality. On the basis of the empirical results analysed in this research, it can be concluded that globalization tends to increase income inequality. However, the results of some studies show that globalization increases income inequality in both developed and developing countries, while the results of other studies show that globalization reduces income inequality in developing countries. The research assessing the impact of factors determining income inequality in EU countries (Asteriou, Dimelis, Moudatsou, 2014) found that in some countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain) the globalization led to the decrease in income inequality and in other countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and the new EU countries) it led to the increase. It has been found that: 1) the impact of trade globalization on changes of income inequality is ambiguous: in some studies it reduces income inequality, in others it increases income inequality or the impact is insignificant; 2) the impact of financial globalization on changes of income inequality is usually positive. Summarizing the impact of technological progress on income inequality, it has been found that technological progress increases income inequality, but the use of information and communication technologies (Internet and mobile communication) reduces income inequality. The impact of the group of financialization factors on income inequality is also ambiguous: 1) financial deepening increases income inequality by investigating the impact in many countries of the world, but it decreases it in developed countries; 2) if the impact of some financial development indicators on inequality is insignificant, then the impact of ratio between bank credits and GDP increases income inequality; 3) financial liberalization increases income inequality; 4) banking crises increase income inequality; 5) the intensity of microfinance reduces income inequality. One of the indicators of labour market institutions (trade union membership) is mentioned in the studies as both reducing and increasing (through channels of wage differences and unemployment rate) income inequality. The results of empirical research show that income inequality is reduced by labour protection laws, bargaining power in wage setting, and it is increased by labour market flexibility, capital per worker (through part of work and unemployment channels) and the ratio of minimum and average wage (through the gap of pay and unemployment rate channels). The factors of welfare state have a positive impact and reduce income inequality. The results of the research do not provide an unambiguous answer, but most evidence shows that labour market institutions and welfare state factors reduce income inequality, while factors of technological progress and financialization increase income inequality. In summary, technological advances, labour market institutions and globalization have the greatest impact on changes of income inequality.
Until the last major recession, there was an approach in macroeconomics that income distribution was not significant for macroeconomic processes. However, the recent major recession has prompted policymakers and economists to take into account the phenomenon of income inequality, its economic and social causes and consequences related to poverty, social inclusion, social trust, support of democratic institutions, economic growth, financial and other issues. In recent years, income inequality has been rising in many countries, and the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and other organizations underline the importance of addressing this problem. It is important to choose the right measures to make the right decisions in order to address the issues of growing income inequality. Their choice is influenced by the identification of factors influencing the change of income inequality and the impact assessment. The scale and change of income inequality can be influenced by the factors related to the market economy (globalization, technological progress) and the institutional factors (setting the rules of the game on the market, creating a certain environment). According to the factors analysed in the research, three groups of authors can be distinguished. Some authors (Asteriou, Dimelis, Moudatsou, 2014, Cabral, García-Díaz, Mollick, 2016, Lim, McNelis, 2016, Sheng, 2015, Haan, Sturm, 2017, Wade, 2004, Alvarez, 2015, Elmawazini, Sharif, Manga, Drucker, 2013, Jaumotte, Lall, Papageorgiou, 2013, Çelik, Basdas, 2010, Hermes, 2014, Richmond, Triplett, 2017, Franco, Gerussi, 2013, Stockhammer, Guschanski, Köhler, 2016, Soons, 2016, Jaumotte, Lall, Papageorgiou, 2008) investigate and assess the impact of market factors (globalization, financialization, technological progress) on income inequality, while other authors or the group of authors (IMF, 2014, Arestis, Gonzalez-Martinez, 2016, Checchi, Josifidis, Supic, Beker Pucar, 2017, Feld, Schnellenbach, 2014, Obadić, Šimurina, Sonora, 2014, Calderón, Chong, 2009, Checchi, García-Peñalosa, 2008, Saez, 2017, Jaumotte, Buitron, 2015, Bastagli, Coady, Gupta, 2012, Kenworthy, Pontusson, 2005) distinguish the impact of institutional factors (labour market institutions, welfare state) on income inequality. According to J. E. Stiglitz (2016), the market does not operate in a vacuum – it operates within an institutional setting. Therefore, the third group of authors can be identified that assess the impact of both market and institutional factors on inequality (Stiglitz, 2016, Atkinson, 2003, Josifidis, Supic, 2017, Josifidis, Mitrović, Supić, Glavaški, 2016, Huber, Stephens, 2014, Darcillon, 2015, Lin, Fu, 2016, Ghossoub, Reed, 2017, Kristal, Cohen, 2017, Alderson, Nielsen, 2002, Kus, 2012, Tridico, 2015, Dabla-Norris, Kochhar, Ricka, Suphaphiphat, Tsounta, 2015, Jain-Chandra, Kinda, Kochhar, Piao, Schauer, 2016). The results of empirical studies assessing the impact of different factors on income inequality are contradictory. There is a disagreement on the distinction between different factors influencing the change of inequality as well as the direction and strength of their impact. Therefore, it is relevant to determine what factors determine income inequality and what is their impact on income inequality. The aim of the research is on the basis of empirical research to analyse the impact of factors influencing the change of income inequality, to identify which factors have the greatest impact. Research methods are as follows: analysis, grouping and generalization of scientific articles. On the basis of the analysis of the studies, which evaluated the factors determining income inequality, five groups of factors determining income inequality have been identified: 1) globalization; 2) technological progress; 3) financialization; 4) labour market institutions; 5) welfare state. It is possible to state that some studies assess the impact of only one set of factors on the change of income inequality: globalization, financialization, labour market institutions or technological progress, while other studies assess more than two groups of factors. This reflects the authors' differing views on the factors and how they influence the change of income inequality. On the basis of the empirical results analysed in this research, it can be concluded that globalization tends to increase income inequality. However, the results of some studies show that globalization increases income inequality in both developed and developing countries, while the results of other studies show that globalization reduces income inequality in developing countries. The research assessing the impact of factors determining income inequality in EU countries (Asteriou, Dimelis, Moudatsou, 2014) found that in some countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain) the globalization led to the decrease in income inequality and in other countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and the new EU countries) it led to the increase. It has been found that: 1) the impact of trade globalization on changes of income inequality is ambiguous: in some studies it reduces income inequality, in others it increases income inequality or the impact is insignificant; 2) the impact of financial globalization on changes of income inequality is usually positive. Summarizing the impact of technological progress on income inequality, it has been found that technological progress increases income inequality, but the use of information and communication technologies (Internet and mobile communication) reduces income inequality. The impact of the group of financialization factors on income inequality is also ambiguous: 1) financial deepening increases income inequality by investigating the impact in many countries of the world, but it decreases it in developed countries; 2) if the impact of some financial development indicators on inequality is insignificant, then the impact of ratio between bank credits and GDP increases income inequality; 3) financial liberalization increases income inequality; 4) banking crises increase income inequality; 5) the intensity of microfinance reduces income inequality. One of the indicators of labour market institutions (trade union membership) is mentioned in the studies as both reducing and increasing (through channels of wage differences and unemployment rate) income inequality. The results of empirical research show that income inequality is reduced by labour protection laws, bargaining power in wage setting, and it is increased by labour market flexibility, capital per worker (through part of work and unemployment channels) and the ratio of minimum and average wage (through the gap of pay and unemployment rate channels). The factors of welfare state have a positive impact and reduce income inequality. The results of the research do not provide an unambiguous answer, but most evidence shows that labour market institutions and welfare state factors reduce income inequality, while factors of technological progress and financialization increase income inequality. In summary, technological advances, labour market institutions and globalization have the greatest impact on changes of income inequality.
Knowledge economy is becoming the most important factor conditioning the economy evolution of developing countries, and the industries susceptible to information as well as the evolution of information technologies are an essential condition in country's advancement, prosperity and wellbeing. In order to implement these priorities purposeful governmental effort and political willpower are needed. The topic I have chosen for my MA paper is a topical one, because the future of European Union is associated with the creation of the knowledge based society and knowledge based economy. The object of the MA work is Lisbon's strategy in knowledge economy. The main purpose of the work is to find out if Lisbon's knowledge occupation encouragement, enterprise and education goals are suitable to the conditions of knowledge economy. To implement the goal of the MA work the following main tasks were proposed: 1. To reveal the peculiarities of strategic management in knowledge economy. 2. To discuss Lisbon's strategy, its structure, the goals and the segments of occupation, enterprise and education in knowledge economy aspects. 3. To analyze the chosen Lisbon's strategy segments on the level of purposes and goals and to make a conclusion if these purposes and goals correspond to knowledge economy's strategic characteristics. Trying to achieve the goals and purposes of this work I had to follow these MA work's methods: the quantitative scientific publications' analysis, the comparative method, and the model of industrial and knowledge economy. Having analyzed the purposes of enterprise and education according to the model of industrial and knowledge economy in Lisbon's strategy, we can make a conclusion that only a part of goals fully meet the knowledge economy's strategic criteria. Since the majority of goals meet the industrial economy's criteria, we can make a conclusion that we are still living in the industrial era where labor force, material resources and the financial capital remain to be the most important, whereas in the knowledge economy the most important are knowledge and intellectual capital, innovations, innovative products, ideas, and capability to realize them.
Knowledge economy is becoming the most important factor conditioning the economy evolution of developing countries, and the industries susceptible to information as well as the evolution of information technologies are an essential condition in country's advancement, prosperity and wellbeing. In order to implement these priorities purposeful governmental effort and political willpower are needed. The topic I have chosen for my MA paper is a topical one, because the future of European Union is associated with the creation of the knowledge based society and knowledge based economy. The object of the MA work is Lisbon's strategy in knowledge economy. The main purpose of the work is to find out if Lisbon's knowledge occupation encouragement, enterprise and education goals are suitable to the conditions of knowledge economy. To implement the goal of the MA work the following main tasks were proposed: 1. To reveal the peculiarities of strategic management in knowledge economy. 2. To discuss Lisbon's strategy, its structure, the goals and the segments of occupation, enterprise and education in knowledge economy aspects. 3. To analyze the chosen Lisbon's strategy segments on the level of purposes and goals and to make a conclusion if these purposes and goals correspond to knowledge economy's strategic characteristics. Trying to achieve the goals and purposes of this work I had to follow these MA work's methods: the quantitative scientific publications' analysis, the comparative method, and the model of industrial and knowledge economy. Having analyzed the purposes of enterprise and education according to the model of industrial and knowledge economy in Lisbon's strategy, we can make a conclusion that only a part of goals fully meet the knowledge economy's strategic criteria. Since the majority of goals meet the industrial economy's criteria, we can make a conclusion that we are still living in the industrial era where labor force, material resources and the financial capital remain to be the most important, whereas in the knowledge economy the most important are knowledge and intellectual capital, innovations, innovative products, ideas, and capability to realize them.
Knowledge economy is becoming the most important factor conditioning the economy evolution of developing countries, and the industries susceptible to information as well as the evolution of information technologies are an essential condition in country's advancement, prosperity and wellbeing. In order to implement these priorities purposeful governmental effort and political willpower are needed. The topic I have chosen for my MA paper is a topical one, because the future of European Union is associated with the creation of the knowledge based society and knowledge based economy. The object of the MA work is Lisbon's strategy in knowledge economy. The main purpose of the work is to find out if Lisbon's knowledge occupation encouragement, enterprise and education goals are suitable to the conditions of knowledge economy. To implement the goal of the MA work the following main tasks were proposed: 1. To reveal the peculiarities of strategic management in knowledge economy. 2. To discuss Lisbon's strategy, its structure, the goals and the segments of occupation, enterprise and education in knowledge economy aspects. 3. To analyze the chosen Lisbon's strategy segments on the level of purposes and goals and to make a conclusion if these purposes and goals correspond to knowledge economy's strategic characteristics. Trying to achieve the goals and purposes of this work I had to follow these MA work's methods: the quantitative scientific publications' analysis, the comparative method, and the model of industrial and knowledge economy. Having analyzed the purposes of enterprise and education according to the model of industrial and knowledge economy in Lisbon's strategy, we can make a conclusion that only a part of goals fully meet the knowledge economy's strategic criteria. Since the majority of goals meet the industrial economy's criteria, we can make a conclusion that we are still living in the industrial era where labor force, material resources and the financial capital remain to be the most important, whereas in the knowledge economy the most important are knowledge and intellectual capital, innovations, innovative products, ideas, and capability to realize them.
Knowledge economy is becoming the most important factor conditioning the economy evolution of developing countries, and the industries susceptible to information as well as the evolution of information technologies are an essential condition in country's advancement, prosperity and wellbeing. In order to implement these priorities purposeful governmental effort and political willpower are needed. The topic I have chosen for my MA paper is a topical one, because the future of European Union is associated with the creation of the knowledge based society and knowledge based economy. The object of the MA work is Lisbon's strategy in knowledge economy. The main purpose of the work is to find out if Lisbon's knowledge occupation encouragement, enterprise and education goals are suitable to the conditions of knowledge economy. To implement the goal of the MA work the following main tasks were proposed: 1. To reveal the peculiarities of strategic management in knowledge economy. 2. To discuss Lisbon's strategy, its structure, the goals and the segments of occupation, enterprise and education in knowledge economy aspects. 3. To analyze the chosen Lisbon's strategy segments on the level of purposes and goals and to make a conclusion if these purposes and goals correspond to knowledge economy's strategic characteristics. Trying to achieve the goals and purposes of this work I had to follow these MA work's methods: the quantitative scientific publications' analysis, the comparative method, and the model of industrial and knowledge economy. Having analyzed the purposes of enterprise and education according to the model of industrial and knowledge economy in Lisbon's strategy, we can make a conclusion that only a part of goals fully meet the knowledge economy's strategic criteria. Since the majority of goals meet the industrial economy's criteria, we can make a conclusion that we are still living in the industrial era where labor force, material resources and the financial capital remain to be the most important, whereas in the knowledge economy the most important are knowledge and intellectual capital, innovations, innovative products, ideas, and capability to realize them.
In this article it is sought to evaluate the need and the matter of the strategic partnership of Poland and Lithuania in showing the importance of this partnership for the implementation of the EU Eastern neighborhood policy. Officially the strategic approach of Poland and Lithuania has been developing for more than decade (from 1997) and today this collaboration of the relationship is noticed in several spheres: political, security, economical. Also, Lithuania and Poland are the most active new members of the EU in developing the EU Eastern policy. Today these common activities fulfill the matter of the strategic partnership as well. On the other hand, foreign policy goals of these two countries involve the democratization of CIS area in such countries like Ukraine and Georgia. Consequently such a kind of policy seeks to restrict Russian power in the Eastern European countries, and has a very negative attitude from the Russian side. The strategic partnership of Poland and Lithuania started because of foreign and security policy's interest and goals. For Lithuania Poland was very important in her way to the Western structures – the EU and NATO. Poland was first to join NATO and she had better relationship and experience in communicating with the big European powers. For Poland the partnership with Lithuania was useful because of her Eastern policy which became a very visible part of strategic partnership from 2004. The strategic duet of Poland and Lithuania mostly coordinates the activities in developing the democratization processes in Eastern Europe region. This active performance of the strategic partnership was noticed on the wider international stage – not just between the EU members, but also in Russia. The latter's interests contradict with the ideas of Polish Eastern dimension and because of this the strategic partnership creates the confrontation with Russia.[.]
In this article it is sought to evaluate the need and the matter of the strategic partnership of Poland and Lithuania in showing the importance of this partnership for the implementation of the EU Eastern neighborhood policy. Officially the strategic approach of Poland and Lithuania has been developing for more than decade (from 1997) and today this collaboration of the relationship is noticed in several spheres: political, security, economical. Also, Lithuania and Poland are the most active new members of the EU in developing the EU Eastern policy. Today these common activities fulfill the matter of the strategic partnership as well. On the other hand, foreign policy goals of these two countries involve the democratization of CIS area in such countries like Ukraine and Georgia. Consequently such a kind of policy seeks to restrict Russian power in the Eastern European countries, and has a very negative attitude from the Russian side. The strategic partnership of Poland and Lithuania started because of foreign and security policy's interest and goals. For Lithuania Poland was very important in her way to the Western structures – the EU and NATO. Poland was first to join NATO and she had better relationship and experience in communicating with the big European powers. For Poland the partnership with Lithuania was useful because of her Eastern policy which became a very visible part of strategic partnership from 2004. The strategic duet of Poland and Lithuania mostly coordinates the activities in developing the democratization processes in Eastern Europe region. This active performance of the strategic partnership was noticed on the wider international stage – not just between the EU members, but also in Russia. The latter's interests contradict with the ideas of Polish Eastern dimension and because of this the strategic partnership creates the confrontation with Russia.[.]
In this article it is sought to evaluate the need and the matter of the strategic partnership of Poland and Lithuania in showing the importance of this partnership for the implementation of the EU Eastern neighborhood policy. Officially the strategic approach of Poland and Lithuania has been developing for more than decade (from 1997) and today this collaboration of the relationship is noticed in several spheres: political, security, economical. Also, Lithuania and Poland are the most active new members of the EU in developing the EU Eastern policy. Today these common activities fulfill the matter of the strategic partnership as well. On the other hand, foreign policy goals of these two countries involve the democratization of CIS area in such countries like Ukraine and Georgia. Consequently such a kind of policy seeks to restrict Russian power in the Eastern European countries, and has a very negative attitude from the Russian side. The strategic partnership of Poland and Lithuania started because of foreign and security policy's interest and goals. For Lithuania Poland was very important in her way to the Western structures – the EU and NATO. Poland was first to join NATO and she had better relationship and experience in communicating with the big European powers. For Poland the partnership with Lithuania was useful because of her Eastern policy which became a very visible part of strategic partnership from 2004. The strategic duet of Poland and Lithuania mostly coordinates the activities in developing the democratization processes in Eastern Europe region. This active performance of the strategic partnership was noticed on the wider international stage – not just between the EU members, but also in Russia. The latter's interests contradict with the ideas of Polish Eastern dimension and because of this the strategic partnership creates the confrontation with Russia.[.]
Infrastructure has been traditionally viewed as a natural monopoly under the management, control, financial responsibility of the central and local government. However, various countries of the world have shown a growing interest in Concessions (one of the Public Private Partnership model) over the last two decades. Concession is arrangement in which the public and private sectors join together to produce and deliver goods and services. It is a sufficiently new phenomenon in Lithuania and some shortcomings are noticeable in its application. The object of this thesis is Concession. The aim of work is to analyze possibilities to apply the concession in Lithuania. Three tasks were established for the realizing the goal meanwhile determining the structure of thesis. In the first part of thesis there is analysed Public Private Partnership, as phenomena, using analysis of academic literature. In the second part, by using analysis of special and statistical literature, there are analysed subjects influencing Public Private Partnership and experience of various countries of the world in the developing Partnership policy. Situation in Lithuania by excluding main prerequisites for developing concessions is analysed in the third part, using qualitative analysis of academic and special literature, laws, conference materials, comparative, case study methods and quantitative analysis by carrying out a survey of Municipalities opinion. Analysis of theoretical and practical aspects has shown that Concessions is applied in many countries; however, it is not well developed in Lithuania. The main reason of problems is passivity of Government manifested by state's inactive partnership stimulation policy. Therefore, almost all projects appear by the initiatives of municipalities'. Development would be more efficient if the law base were improved, department, which executed Concession policy, was established, private sector would be involved in this projects and, lastly, our society would realize, that Concession would be effective method to deliver public goods, if it is used rightly.
