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.