U.S. ports: evolution and structure

U.S. ports are facing competitive pressures similar to those being felt by ports elsewhere around the world. Despite the public enterprise nature of U.S. port authorities, they tend to function as 'business-like' organizations. This enterprise-like approach stems from their evolution from being primarily private railroad ports in the 19th century to public competitive port authorities in the 20th century. This paper provides an overview of the evolution of U.S. ports and the ongoing effect of earlier legislation, the varied resulting institutional structures, and current national and regional level issues. Although there is no national ports plan or strategy in the U.S.A. (the Constitution limits federal actions in the ports field) the federal government is involved in providing dredging services through the Army Corps of Engineers, navigation aids via the Coast Guard and other minor port-related services. U.S. ports typically come under the jurisdiction of state or local governments. Increasing competition coupled with other port issues (growing financial constraints, difficulties in obtaining dredging permits, environmental concerns and restricted landside access) is forcing some U.S. ports to enter into strategic alliances with others at a regional level.     

Economic policies and seaports: Strategies for port authorities

This paper discusses the strategies which might be adopted by port authorities, given that modern port technologies have considerably limited the scope for competition. It therefore analyses the several forms of competition relevant to ports, any or all of which may apply in any given instance.

It describes the 'minimalist strategy, which consists of recognizing that public sector bodies have many faults, may make many mistakes and that well-intentioned attempts to rectify faults in the private sector may make matters worse. Second, it describes the 'pragmatic' strategy, which involves establishing committees to examine problems and to recommend actions, if they can reach a consensus. Third, it describes the 'public sector' strategy, which involves the port authority taking over all port functions. Finally, it describes the 'competitive' strategy, which involves a careful reproduction of the circumstances of competition, even though there may be room for only one efficiently-sized operator at a time. Franchising, or short-term leasing on any of a variety of competitive bases, so as to produce serial competition is described. Each of these strategies is presented as having its own advantages and disadvantages, and each may be suitable to particular circumstances.     

Regional governance of port development in China: a case study of Shanghai International Shipping Center

When China enters the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and becomes more involved in the global economy, her major seaports will be pivotal places where the international shipping and terminal operators interact, conflict and co-operate with the local and the central governments. To demonstrate and understand these interactions, this article analyzes the case of the Yangtze River Delta (YRD), where the competition, co-operation and governance of Shanghai and Ningbo, the two largest ports on Chinese mainland, concern all stakeholders from the central and local governments of China to the container terminal operators and shipping lines overseas.

This paper first develops a conceptual framework for analyzing port development in a regional context. The article then introduces the case of the Shanghai International Shipping Center with a focus on the efforts of the Shanghai Government to establish a regional hub port, which also involves two nearby provinces. This case study reveals the course of the decision-making processes and the power networks currently governing the port development in the YRD. Two domains of port governance are discussed: the role of port authorities in port internal governance, and the crucial influences of local and central governments on the port external governance. It provides evidence that the power of shipping lines and international terminal operators are not as prevalent as in many ports in western countries. It is suggested that the lack of good regional port governance in the region is due to structural problems in administration.     

Book Reviews

The ever-changing environment in which ports operate has put strong pressure on the traditional role of public port authorities. Market developments have created the need for ports to be part of wider logistics networks and to provide value-added services. Powerful private players who are organised on a global scale, such as carriers, terminal operators and logistics service providers, struggle to gain control over port-oriented logistics networks whereas port authorities very often seem to remain local spectators with limited influence on these market-driven processes. Port authorities are on the other hand, the focal point of criticism from societal interests such as local government, NGOs and citizens for negative externalities related to port development and port operations even if these do not always fall within their direct responsibility. In 1990, Richard Goss questioned, albeit rather rhetorically, the need to have public sector port authorities. Since then scholars have demonstrated a true renaissance or renewed interest in the role of port authorities, recommending repositioning and development of new strategies. Parallel to the concept of the ‘renaissance man’, which is defined as a person who is well educated and excels in a wide variety of subjects or fields, a kind of ‘renaissance port authority’ is emerging from literature which may take on a variety of facilitating and even entrepreneurial tasks. The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual framework for the various options at hand, based on an extensive literature review of port authority functions. The framework also identifies the principal governance-related factors that may in practice enable or prevent port authorities, particularly in Europe, from assuming the renaissance ambitions advocated by scholars. The hypotheses developed in this article form the basis of a wider empirical research agenda into reform of port governance in Europe and elsewhere in the world.     

Economic policies and seaports: Are port authorities necessary?

This paper first presents arguments for having public sector port authorities. They can deal, flexibly and permanently, with property rights within their own areas. They can plan and regulate port areas comprehensively. They can provide 'public goods'. They can deal, in various ways, with externalities. They can promote efficiency, whether their own (if they operate as a comprehensive port) or that of the private sector (if they are largely landlords). For example, if their policy is to rely on the private sector to produce efficiency through competition then they can see to it that there actually is competition and not any kind of cartel or monopoly. Examples are cited where this last function has not been performed. The exception for single-user ports is noted.

Against them are the general disadvantages of public authorities (or bureaucracies)—though examples are cited where port authorities had very small staffs. The common instances of 'market failure' may thus be contrasted with those of 'government failure'. Finally, a pragmatic approach is advocated, tailored to the needs and resources of the country in question. The increasing effect of the economies of scale in port technology, and its limitation on competition, is, however, noted and to be discussed in the next paper.     

Small ports in Northern Ireland: A method of study

This paper discusses the strategies which might be adopted by port authorities, given that modern port technologies have considerably limited the scope for competition. It therefore analyses the several forms of competition relevant to ports, any or all of which may apply in any given instance.

It describes the 'minimalist strategy, which consists of recognizing that public sector bodies have many faults, may make many mistakes and that well-intentioned attempts to rectify faults in the private sector may make matters worse. Second, it describes the ‘pragmatic’ strategy, which involves establishing committees to examine problems and to recommend actions, if they can reach a consensus. Third, it describes the ‘public sector’ strategy, which involves the port authority taking over all port functions. Finally, it describes the ‘competitive’ strategy, which involves a careful reproduction of the circumstances of competition, even though there may be room for only one efficiently-sized operator at a time. Franchising, or short-term leasing on any of a variety of competitive bases, so as to produce serial competition is described. Each of these strategies is presented as having its own advantages and disadvantages, and each may be suitable to particular circumstances.     

The privatization of United Kingdom seaports

The background is described to U.K. port administration and the implementation of the Conservative Goverment's privatization policy is reivewed. The objectives of privatization and the ways in which it has been achieved with trust and municipal port authorities are discussed. The paper goes on to discuss the difficulties encountered in privatizing statutory undertakings and concludes by examining the benefits port managers claim have arisen from the introduction of teh policy.     

Shipper's councils: role and responsibility—a western view

This paper first presents arguments for having public sector port authorities. They can deal, flexibly and permanently, with property rights within their own areas. They can plan and regulate port areas comprehensively. They can provide ‘public goods’. They can deal, in various ways, with externalities. They can promote efficiency, whether their own (if they operate as a comprehensive port) or that of the private sector (if they are largely landlords). For example, if their policy is to rely on the private sector to produce efficiency through competition then they can see to it that there actually is competition and not any kind of cartel or monopoly. Examples are cited where this last function has not been performed. The exception for single-user ports is noted.

Against them are the general disadvantages of public authorities (or bureaucracies)—though examples are cited where port authorities had very small staffs. The common instances of ‘market failure’ may thus be contrasted with those of ‘government failure’. Finally, a pragmatic approach is advocated, tailored to the needs and resources of the country in question. The increasing effect of the economies of scale in port technology, and its limitation on competition, is, however, noted and to be discussed in the next paper.     

Port reform in Australia: issues in the ownership debate

Australia port reform initiatives have taken on a variety of forms — from out-right sale and transfer of ownership, to the sale of particular assets of infrastructure or services, or to long-term lease arrangements; or in some cases state governments, unable to relinquish control, have opted for corporatization or commercialization strategies. Reform is driven by the belief that ownership impacts on efficiency and efficiency is perceived to suffer if governments either retain ownership or direct control. As a result a major aim of reform is to either remove or distance governments from day to day port operations. The sale of ports removes government control outright and privatized ports are subject to identical regulatory constraints as any company in the private sector. But corporatization strategies are such that government ownership is retained and ports have been transformed into statutory state owned corporations. Effectiveness of this strategy requires legislation to be such that port corporations are free to operate like their private sector counterparts. To date this has not occurred and some serious impediments are emerging which are embedded in legislation and which, rather than reduce, have indeed, increased government control.     

An analysis of the overcapacity problem under the decentralized management system of container ports in Japan

This article is concerned with an analytical summary of how the Japanese container ports have been taking place overcapacity problem in a systematic way. It focuses on institutional aspects of the overcapacity problem from the viewpoint of accounting cost and opportunity cost. The first issue arises due to the port authority's accounting system and insufficient disclosures of financial statements of port business to the port users and taxpayers. The second issue is inherently related to resource allocation between the state government and local governments through the budget system and income distribution programmes. Since a proper allocation of economic resources in the port sector as a whole will depend on investment decisions being taken within a coherent framework for ensuring that costs are passed on to port users, these issues are closely related to each other in reality. Although the budget system is completely controlled by the state government, the local governments have authoritative power over port planning, financing, and management, which is assured by the Ports and Harbours Law. The overcapacity problem appears to be an inevitable result.     

An analysis of the overcapacity problem under the decentralized management system of container ports in Japan

This article is concerned with an analytical summary of how the Japanese container ports have been taking place overcapacity problem in a systematic way. It focuses on institutional aspects of the overcapacity problem from the viewpoint of accounting cost and opportunity cost. The first issue arises due to the port authority's accounting system and insufficient disclosures of financial statements of port business to the port users and taxpayers. The second issue is inherently related to resource allocation between the state government and local governments through the budget system and income distribution programmes. Since a proper allocation of economic resources in the port sector as a whole will depend on investment decisions being taken within a coherent framework for ensuring that costs are passed on to port users, these issues are closely related to each other in reality. Although the budget system is completely controlled by the state government, the local governments have authoritative power over port planning, financing, and management, which is assured by the Ports and Harbours Law. The overcapacity problem appears to be an inevitable result.     

Hinterland strategies of port authorities: A case study of the port of Barcelona

Port authorities generally focus on the development of the local port area and play a minor role in the development of port hinterlands, whereas shippers, forwarders, barge and rail operators have always been involved in the port-hinterland connection. The increasing importance of intermodal hinterland networks for the competitive position of ports has urged port authorities to become active in the hinterland. This new role has already been suggested by different academics. However, limited empirical evidence exists of port authorities taking stakes in inland terminals or developing transport services. Barcelona, as one of the leading port authorities in this respect, is used as a case study in this paper. The case study provides insight in the components and execution of the hinterland strategy of Barcelona. It shows that the strategy of the port authority of Barcelona and the consequent active involvement in the hinterland has had a significant impact on attracting container volumes from distant hinterlands and improving the accessibility of the port.     

Towards a meta-analysis and toolkit for port-related socio-economic impacts: a review of socio-economic impact studies conducted for seaports

Port authorities increasingly need to communicate with a variety of external stakeholders in order to maintain and strengthen the societal acceptance of seaport activities. The availability of socio-economic impact studies on port authority and regional development agency websites has often made this information accessible to the public at large. However, the differences in methodologies adopted, in terms of selecting, defining and measuring various types of socio-economic impacts, sometimes lead to misconceptions as well as misleading comparisons across ports within and between regions. In this paper, we suggest guidelines for the design and application of a potential best practice from an interregional perspective (UK, France and Belgium), based on research in the framework of a European Commission co-funded project, ‘IMPACTE’. The paper also aims to develop guidelines for comparing the socio-economic impacts of ports across regional and national borders and discusses the development of a European port economic impact measurement toolkit. We analyse a sample of 33 recent socio-economic impact assessment reports in terms of methodologies adopted and types of impacts measured. The review shows a great diversity among these studies, leading to important differences between the impacts of port activity communicated to stakeholders.     

Vertical integration and its implications to port expansion

ABSTRACT

Over the years many shipping lines have established terminal operation companies, with some set up as independent firms. However, port authorities and local governments have not always welcomed external investment and control with open arms. The economic implications and each stakeholder’s best strategies remain unclear. This study develops an analytical model in order to study the effects of vertical integration, with a focus on shipping lines’ investment in ports’ capacity. Modelling results suggest that vertical integration between terminal operator and a shipping line leads to higher port capacity, port charge, market output and consumer surplus. It also reduces delay costs. All these results suggest that vertical integration can be an important source of synergy for the maritime industry. Although vertical integration increases the participating carrier’s output at the expenses of non-integrating rival shipping firms, our numerical analysis suggests that the overall social welfare is likely to increase. Preliminary empirical tests confirm that vertically integrated ports handle more traffic volumes and are associated with better infrastructure and equipment. Therefore, port authorities and government regulators should carefully review the market competition status as well as port expansion plans.     

Maritime search and rescue: Benefit or burden for society?

Just twenty five years have passed since the International Maritime Organization (IMO) provided the legal and internationally harmonized framework for maritime search and rescue operations. While a number of nations only had to adapt their well-established national services it took great efforts for other nations to develop agencies able to fulfil or outstrip minimum requirements. However, the majority of nations (well aware of the humanitarian nature of that task) have been afraid to cope with this challenge and the related financial burdens since the benefits to local, regional, or even national economies are not always clear to the relevant national administrating authorities.     

The Indian dry ports sector, pricing policies and opportunities for public-private partnerships

At the time of writing (2010), the world is witnessing the aftermath of the most severe financial sector meltdown in modern economic history caused by the real estate bubble in the United States. Its consequences on the real economy, especially in Europe, are yet to be fathomed, and this of course includes the longer-term impacts on international ocean transportation, ports and the distribution of global production.The economic recession has left the international shipping and port sectors with substantial overcapacity. This has resulted in drastic cost cutting measures on the one hand, and voluntary, often consensual, and coordinated reduction of supply on the other. These measures, together with a noticeable recovery in demand, are gradually leading again to improvement in prices charged by carriers and other transport service providers.In view of the country’s expanse; size of population; and regional inequalities, India’s dry ports (inland cargo consolidation and distribution centres) are seen by the government as a pivot of export-led growth and economic development (Haralambides & Gujar, 2011). Moreover, public and private sectors alike see the coordinated development of dry ports as the only way forward in terms of easing pressures at congested coastal ports, thus improving supply chain efficiency. In spite of this, dry port development and operations are still dominated by the public sector, under prices, capacity, land acquisition policies and other conditions that make private sector participation risky and comparatively unattractive. In order to rationalize dry port capacity and prices, this paper argues in favour of greater devolution through competition-enhancing Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). The paper puts forward recommendations for the necessary legal, regulatory and general economic policy interventions based on international best practice, while keeping Indian specificities in the right perspective.     

Seaports and the structural implications of the economic crisis

The 2008 credit crunch and the subsequent economic crisis ended a period that lasted over two decades wherein international seaports around the globe experienced double-digit volume increases. This chapter provides an analysis of the structural effects that the crisis has on seaports, focusing mostly on developments in Europe. It does so via an examination of (a) the crisis implication for each of the four major types of transport flows that account for the vast majority of port throughput worldwide; (b) the prospects for future capacity organisation and development, given the realignment of the involvement strategies that the various stakeholders (i.e., governments, port authorities, service providers, users, investors) endorse in reaction to the financial tsunami; and (c) the adjustment opportunities, that the trade downturn unintentionally provides, allowing for correction of existing misallocations in the sector via the deployment of relevant adjustment strategies by the related actors. Recapping the identified structural consequences, the final section concludes on the changing role and responsibilities of port authorities and the ‘new issues’ that will require further investigation in the post-financial tsunami era.     

Sustainable development in seaports: a multi-case study

Seaports are a vital part of the maritime transport industry and have a key role in integrated transport chains and regional economies. However, ports are also sites of environmental pollution originating from land-based activities, ship movements and ports’ own activities. It is, therefore, increasingly recognised that economic growth in ports must be balanced with environmental protection and social progress. This has led to enhanced appreciation of the need for sustainable development (SD) in ports. Whilst much has been written about port environmental practices in European and American ports, there is limited synthesis and comparison of sustainable port practices from different parts of the world. Furthermore, in-depth case analysis and critical examination of the practices and challenges of sustainable port development in a globalised era is limited. This paper presents findings from a qualitative multi-case study that aimed to compare sustainable policies and practices of ports in four different continents and to understand the dilemmas, challenges and opportunities they face in attaining SD. This paper reports findings pertaining to the following research questions: (1) What policy frameworks do ports adopt to attain sustainable development? (2) What specific sustainable practices do ports utilise to manage environmental aspects such as air pollution, water quality, ballast water, dredging and disposal of dredged materials, waste disposal, hazardous substances and land/resource use? (3) What are the driving and constraining forces in achieving sustainable development in ports? Port authorities were studied by reviewing documents and secondary data. The following ports were studied: Port of Long Beach (USA), Port of Rotterdam Authority (The Netherlands), Sydney Ports Corporation (Australia) and Transnet Limited that owns and manages South African ports. Findings of the study demonstrate that the SD paradigm has gained momentum, albeit to differing degrees, in the functioning, organisation and the very ethos of case study ports. An important theme from all case studies is that, whilst there is definite progress towards SD, several practices deemed to be sustainable can be controversial and must be critically examined from the perspectives of different stakeholders including shippers, port-related businesses and the local and global community. Lack of data to monitor environmental impacts, economic costs of implementing sustainable practices and complexities of international, regional and national regulations were other constraining factors. On the other hand, reconciling differences between stakeholders and capitalising on economic opportunities, operational efficiencies and cost savings offered by environmental friendliness can advance port SD. Public–private partnerships and policies negotiated by involving all stakeholders were found to foster port sustainability. Most importantly, this study found that, with globalisation, environmental impacts of ports are not always localised. ‘Sustainable’ practices can have unintended consequences in other parts of the world. Therefore, globalisation necessitates a more critical and global analysis of port operations and environment practices in order to be truly sustainable. Although the scope of the research findings is limited to case study ports, the lessons drawn can be constructively applied to any port operating within an institutional system of structured SD.     

Deregulation policy and revitalization of Singapore's bunker supply industry: An appraisal

High bunkering standards are important for ship operators and port authorities for a variety of reasons. When problems arise they may have serious consequences for a port's image. Faced with a range of difficulties, since 1985 Singapore has attempted to revitalize and modernize its bunkering industry, deploying market deregulation to raise service quality and expand consumption. This policy is assessed in terms of its quantitative and qualitative consequences, and as an example of the outcomes of deregulation. Early price reductions achieved substantial market growth, but low-cost bunkering has more recently been significant as a counterbalance to new quality problems generated by unsupervized competition. These have necessitated substantial policy responses in the 1990s which are only now overcoming the setbacks caused by the unregulated market.     

Modelling port choice in an uncertain environment

Port choice is an important issue to be investigated to ensure the effective integration of container supply chains and the sustainable development of regional economy. The selection of appropriate ports to facilitate shipping activities and international trade is crucial for many stakeholders, including shipping lines, port administrators, cargo shippers and national governments. The task is essentially a process of multiple criterion decision-making (MCDM) under uncertainty, requiring analysts to derive rational decisions from uncertain and incomplete data related to different quantitative and qualitative determinants. This paper aims at proposing a new conceptual port choice method by explaining the role fuzzy logic in evidential reasoning in a complementary way, in which various forms of raw data (either objective or subjective) collected to evaluate port performance can first be converted into and presented as fuzzy grades defined using linguistics terms with degrees of belief (DoBs) and second be combined using evidential reasoning to produce a port choice preference score. The method is applied to analyse the selection of major Northeast Asian (NEA) container ports from a shipping line’s perspective. The outcome, a port choice preference score, is calculated using evidential reasoning to directly synthesize the true estimation of the port with respect to each criterion and therefore, unlike a relative ranking index, keeps the ‘goodness’ of port evaluation, capable of benchmarking a specific port’s performance and monitoring the increase of its competitiveness in a longitude study with respect to an individual criterion or all the criteria as a whole.