Not every respondent realised the process of change in activities, performed by state sector. It is expected that the state sector would control and distribute the state resources and, at the same time, guarantee the realisation of the production fabricated. Active involvement of private sector has compensated partially the expectations of the inhabitants, which were directed to the state sector.

The intensification of private sector in the spheres of real and personal estates as well as inadequately big influence to initial distribution of resources minimised the role of state sector in further stages.

The objective of the compulsory collectivisation and industrialisation, which was performed in Soviet Lithuania, was to diminish the private sector, which produced the surplus production. Officially, the private commercial practice was treated as a pathology of the property relations. Realistically, the soviet government did not succeed in total elimination of the private sector as the producer of the surplus production.

The shadow status of the private sector influenced a perverted evolution of property relations, when the private sector developed while dubbing the functions of the state. This is reflected by increasing quantities of the individual farms and the transformation of the collective and state farms into co-operative associations by the end of the collapse of Soviet Union.

After recovery of independence, the conception of propriety relations has transformed only partially. The extant tradition of private business influenced more speedy formation of farmers and businessmen. However the shift in understanding of state and private sectors takes much more time.

During Postsovietism, the functions of distribution of resources and production as well as its control is ascribed to state sector. The functional conception of private sector encompasses the relicts of shadow state, when the existence of private sector necessitates the injections form state sector. The realisation of the reformed status of private and state sectors in the market economy is still being processed.

Understanding of private sector as of independent actor in market economy is still accompanied by a conviction that private sector must have possibilities to use state owned resources for its own sake. The implantation of collectivism in a part of “New Europe” countries has influenced the key principles and norms of society, though it did not destroy the tradition of private business. This resulted from the different scope of collectivism incorporation and intensity of marginalisation of commercial business, which was harder and more systematic in the Soviet states.