基于投入产出模型的区域内多港口经济贡献测算

度量港口对经济发展的贡献,可以科学地评价港口在国民经济中的地位,合理引导港口投资、规划和建设,促进港口健康、稳定、可持续发展。从构建包含港口产业独立部门的角度出发,建立转换矩阵,将122个部门投入产出表转换为包含港口部门的45个部门投入产出表。基于该投入产出表,提出区域内多港口经济贡献的衡量指标,并构建区域内多港口对经济贡献的度量模型。以某区域内多个港口作为实例,证明该方法可避免多港口数据收集困难等问题,既能较为全面地考虑港口全部贡献,又能满足投入产出表部门同质性要求。结果表明,该方法较为合理、可行。     

第四代港口对中国港口建设的启示

旨在探讨第四代港口对中国港口建设的重要启示,以期为新形势下的中国港口建设提供理论支撑。基于前期研究及联合国贸发会的港口代际发展模型,研究并指出第四代港口是积极主动参与国际经贸决策和组织各类经济活动的前方调度总站,分析了第四代港口的主要特征及其对我国港口建设的重要启示。主要结论是：中国港口建设应大力发展和吸引陆向腹地物流,进一步加强国际航运中心建设以及优化港口布局。     

Container terminals in South Korea: problems and panaceas

Korea has achieved remarkable economic growth over the last three decades. This has largely been due to the adoption of export-oriented economic policies. This economic development has resulted in a rapid increase in export and import cargos. Since the foreign trade of Korea is carried predominantly by sea transport (approximately 99.8% in terms of volume), ports play a crucial role in this process. Although recent port developments are aimed at keeping pace with ever-growing seaborne cargoes, problems persist, especially insufficient port capacity and inefficient management and operations. As a consequence, the ports of Korea suffer from serious port congestion. This problem is particularly acute in Pusan, the fifth largest container port in the world. In the past, all ports in Korea were controlled and administered by the Korea Maritime and Port Administration which was a public port authority. In August 1996, the Korean government established a new government organization, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), with a remit to control and manage its seaports and other related activities and to improve management efficiency in the maritime area. As a way of solving problems related to port congestion and other sources of inefficiency, the new MMAF has launched several new port development schemes. In this context, this paper will discuss (1) the extent of congestion in Korean ports, especially Pusan, the major seaport of the country; and (2) governmental and commercial reaction to solving the problems, including measures such as new port development schemes aimed at attracting private and foreign finance. From this analysis, a strategy for port development in developing countries may be inferred.     

Workshop report - Public policy and transport

This workshop considered the wider public policy goals of a range of transport interventions. Particular attention was paid to assessing the role of integration of the different components of the transport system and of the integration of transport with other economic sectors. This assessment was informed by Ray Pawson’s realist evaluation approach, with its emphasis on the inter-relationships between context, process and outcome. The context was provided by case studies covering small urban areas, large urban areas and inter-urban corridors. The three key processes identified related to a regulated system with public ownership and control, a deregulated system with private sector ownership (‘competition in the market’) and a system in which there was public planning of the transport system but private provision (‘competition for the market’). Outcomes can be assessed using cost-benefit analysis tools to determine impacts on economic welfare or more qualitative approaches can be used to determine the extent to which accessibility or sustainability goals have been achieved. The evidence provided suggests that wider public policy goals are more important for urban than for inter-urban transport and it thus in urban areas where integration should be pursued with most vigour. The most relevant process for achieving this would seem to be variants of the competition for the market model. Some policy recommendations are made and implications for further research and for future conferences assessed.     

The political economy of ports in the United States and Great Britain

Abstract

This is an exploration of the political economy of ports in the United States and Great Britain. A number of technical, economic, and political issues concerning ports are examined. Particular attention is paid to the institutional evolution of ports from private to public ownership, and its consequences for port efficiency. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations designed to reverse the trend toward port nationalization in both countries.     

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.     

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.     

Comparative analysis of port competency requirements in Vietnam and Korea

ABSTRACT

Much research has been conducted recently on the changing role of ports in the context of international logistics and supply chain management focusing on issues such as port efficiency and competitiveness. However, little research has been found on the critical aspect that contributes to making a port efficient and effective, especially, in the new era: the port human capital. As seaports play a critical role in the supply chain, it is thus important that the port personnel possess necessary competencies to contribute to port efficiency and turn the port into an effective supply chain partner. In this paper, this research issue is explored through a conceptual model of competencies and validated empirically by a survey with port executives in Vietnam and Korea. As a result, important managerial insights are drawn to the design and implementation of human resource development policy for ports.     

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: The diversity of port policies

This paper contrasts the economic policies adopted towards seaports by different countries in terms of their approaches to national, regional or local control. Various examples are presented and described, together with some of the difficulties that have been encountered. Examples are cited where national, regional and local governments have become involved, even though constitutional provisions appeared to present this. It is argued that national, regional and local governments all have interests in the efficiency of ports from various points of view; hence all should be involved. The arguments for and difficulties experienced in centralized planning and co-ordination are also discussed.

The variety of activities directly undertaken by port authorities is discussed, with the extreme positions labelled 'landlord' and 'comprehensive'. The remarkable variety of intermediate positions is also described. Whilst oversimplification is dangerous, the opportunities for expanding the private sector are analysed, even to the extent of wondering whether public sector port authorities are needed at all. This, therefore is the subject of the next paper.     

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.     

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.     

上海国际航运中心内港口的区域协同发展研究

上海洋山深水港的开港,浙江宁波舟山两港的一体化以及江苏8大港口的资源整合,使长三角港口群的竞争与合作关系成为各地政府和企业关注的重要课题。以聚合度这一重要的经济学指标回顾这一地区港口发展的历史情况,并以大量的数据和竞争情报分析来探讨三地港口发展的深层次矛盾,即各地大力发展港口产业的利益着眼点不一致。为了解决这一矛盾,使上海国际航运中心内港口群能够协同发展,不但需要在经济层面上照顾到各方面的利益,更重要的是如何对3个地区的港口进行科学的定位发展。     

港口的区域垄断和竞争:圆周模型

港口具有一定的地理垄断性,同时港口竞争也日益加剧,交叉腹地日益扩大。区域垄断和竞争成为港口共同的发展特征,协调两者之间的关系对于港口产业发展具有重要意义。圆周模型对于分析港口产业经济特性非常恰当。通过运用圆周模型来理解港口的区域垄断和竞争特性,可以为实现港口产业规模型竞争的公共政策制定提供基础性的理论依据。具体的政策建议包括港口业务的垂直分解及构建地主港模式、加快港口民营化进程、在放松规制的同时重建规制及推动形成区域内邻近港口间的协同竞争关系。     

Sustainability and national policy in UK port development

Given the private sector character of the UK port system it might well be thought that, so far as port development is concerned, the market ruled. There are of course permissions to be obtained, including planning consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts; but this process has not so far been considered to interfere with market function. Ports are already well used to the process of obtaining approval, to negotiations with objectors and environmental interests, and to mitigating the effects of development when defining projects and seeking approval.

However, as ports policy is being brought into line with transport policy generally, and in particular with Government policy for sustainable development, ports are being faced with a more challenging regulatory framework. The search for sustainable transport is leading Government towards a broader based approach to the approval of development applications in which market need and commercial viability are simply two of a number of considerations which ports must take into account in designing projects which also meet environmental concerns.

There has been a long standing requirement for developers of major projects to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments. In addition Government policy is set out in a number of publications, applying sustainability and the associated “New Approach to Transport Assessment” (NATA) to the ports sector. In a separate and broader initiative it has also considered a radical reform of the planning system and the establishment of national priorities for infrastructure combined with a simplification of the Public Inquiry process. In the event it has been decided not to establish national priorities in the ports sector, although the aim of simplification of the Inquiry process remains.

The aim of this paper is to explore the emerging theoretical and practical issues arising within the development approval process. These are of most concern in the development of major projects for cargoes which have broad hinterlands, and where there are competing locations for new facilities. The most important example of this is in the deep sea container sector where there is a demand for new capacity and a choice of widely spaced locations in the south east of the UK. Some comment will be made on this sector and on the issues arising at the Public Inquiries for the proposed container port developments at Dibden Bay (Southampton) and the London Gateway at Shellhaven on the north bank of the Thames.     

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.     

Public goods and the public financing of major European seaports

Seaports are recognized for their importance in facilitating trade growth and associated economic development. These attributes often give rise to the notion that seaports, or infrastructure elements of seaports, are public goods. Public goods are regarded as goods or services which a market acting in isolation might have difficulty in providing, or at least providing in sufficient quantity and/or at a competitive price. An important element of a public good relates to its non-rival consumption, the implication being that it is impossible to exclude anyone, whether they pay or not. Key questions this paper seeks to address are, what constitutes public goods in seaports, to what extent is it necessary for the public sector to provide these goods, and can such intervention lead to market distortion in respect of competing ports? The paper describes the more common examples of public goods in seaports. This is followed by discussion of public and private sector investment at major north European seaports. The paper considers the potential for market distortion due to public sector expenditure on so-called public goods in seaports, and proposes that a more cohesive policy for major ports, particularly those very large containerports serving a common European hinterland, is necessary in order to deliver a sustainable transport system in the long term.     

The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy and management

The increased competition faced by ports is more focused than previously on the performance of logistics systems of which the individual terminals in ports are critical hubs. The changes in competitive conditions raise issues about appropriate public port policies and strategies of port managements. This paper argucs that the port industry should (and is) moving in the direction of more harmonized policies based on economic principles. Port policies based on cost recovery from users of port facilities and services need to be adopted as the international standard. The competitive environment favours considerable local autonomy. Port management, in addition to possible direct responsibility for terminal management, needs to focus on activities with economies of scale or scope. Such activities, which span the requirements of terminals and may even warrant inter-port cooperation, enhance the services available for many port users.     

Factoring a real value of cargo in port investment and funding decisions

Ports are marine gateways to economic activities. Ports’ ability to perform services depends on their facilities, harbor conditions, and other factors. Generally, ports have control over their facilities but must compete for funding to improve them. As for waterways, in the U.S., a Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was established to fund dredging, which levies a 0.125% cargo value tax on most shippers using U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors. Yet, commonly, a gross tonnage metric is used to allocate the fund’s resources, resulting in under-maintenance of some harbors. This, reportedly, deters additional port funding and hinders valuable commerce. Supplemental economic metrics, such as value of commerce or cargo, can improve port financing decisions, but such data is not readily available. Container ports collect cargo value data in nominal terms, but bulk ports do not. When making economic decisions, however, real values must be used. Further, when allocating resources, decision-makers must be able to assess ports over time and relative to each other. Conforming to these criteria, this paper develops three port financing indicators based on a real value of cargo and illustrates their calculations using the U.S. Port of Duluth-Superior as a case study.     

Privatization trends at the world's top-100 container ports

Over recent years, the role of the private sector in seaports has been greatly expanded. Yet, in practice, the extent of privatization in ports can vary significantly, in part due to the different methods employed to bring about private sector participation. This paper identifies and analyses, through a survey of ports, recent trends in regard to privatization at the world's top-100 container ports. The survey has benefitted from, and seeks to extend, a previous survey undertaken by the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH). Findings suggest that, although the influence of private sector actors in ports is growing, the role of public sector agencies also remains significant.