A measurement and Comparison of Cost Competitiveness of Container Ports in Southeast

Asia. Lam, J.S.L. & Yap, W.Y. Transportation (2006) 33: 641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-
006-7474-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11116-006-7474-4

Terminal users face a variety of costs associated with the container terminal and those
that are harder to quantify should not be ignored for they might represent a larger component
of the overall costs associated with using a particular terminal. Similarly, the competitive
advantage of a container terminal operator goes beyond the elements that can be quantified.
The paper uses and modifies Cournot’s simultaneous quantity-setting model to derive the
overall costs of using the terminal. The application of this model to the perspective of
competition between container terminal operators in Singapore, Port Klang and Tanjung
Pelepas finds that the increasingly cost competitive operators in Port Klang and Tanjung
Pelepas were able to close the gap with PSA Corporation in Singapore in the overall costs of
using their terminal facilities between 1998 and 2002 although PSAC conti nued to enjoy a
dominant share of the container-handling market in the region. The paper also highlights the
tremendous amount of opportunities available to these terminal operators to advance and
capitalise on their competitive advantages beyond aggressive price competition.

Brian Slack & Antoine Fremont. 2005. Transformation of port terminal operations: from the local
to the global, Transport Reviews, 25:1, 117-130, DOI: 10.1080/0144164042000206051

The bases for the internationalization of the port terminal industry are explored. While the
industry is being transformed by the penetration of transnational companies, there are important
regional differences between Europe and North America. In Europe, the lead actors are companies
that have arisen out of the industry itself, whereas in North America, most of the new actors are
shipping lines. The consequences of this differentiation are substantial, since they represent
fundamentally different types of organization, one being a product of horizontal integration based
on multi-user berth operations, the other being an outcome of vertical integration and oriented
towards dedicated berth use. The dissimilarities are explained in terms of governance, competition
and capacity. Intraregional differences are also examined through the case of France, where an
unwillingness to open French ports to global operators has affected the performance of those ports.
The paper concludes by discussing some of the implications of the findings, including the issue of
monopoly control of ports and the potential for conflict between the two models of contemporary
cargo handling.

Cheon, S., Dowall, D. E., & Song, D.-W. (2010). Evaluating impacts of institutional reforms on
port efficiency changes: Ownership, corporate structure, and total factor productivity changes of
world container ports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
46(4), 546–561. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2009.04.001

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554509000416?via%3Dihub

This paper evaluates how port institutional reforms influenced efficiency gains between
1991 and 2004. We constructed a panel data for port ownership, corporate structure, and port inputs
and outputs for 98 major world ports, and we implemented the Malmquist Productivity Index
(MPI) model. The MPI provides efficiency measures for input combinations that allow for
obtaining the outputs in the presence of institutional reforms, ownership changes, main agent
problems, technological progress, efficient scale growth, and many other reasons for efficiency
and the lack of it. The results illustrate that ownership restructuring contributed to total factor
productivity gains. The restructuring induced optimized operation of container terminals,
especially for large ports, as it allowed specialized private entities to concentrate on terminal
operation and cargo handling services.

Cullinane, K., & Song, D.-W. (2001). The Administrative and Ownership Structure of Asian
Container Ports. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 3(2), 175–197.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100013

Despite the impressive development and progress they have exhibited over recent years,
Asian ports still suffer from a number of problems including insufficient port and/or terminal
capacity, inefficient management and operation, and bureaucratic administration, all of which add
significantly to the logistics costs of the region's foreign trade. To deal with these problems, the
port authorities of a number of countries in the region have launched programmes which aim to
attract private capital into both existing and new facilities. In many instances, this has engendered
the perception that organisational restructuring (including privatisation) is not only desirable but
necessary. The most obvious are the trends towards increasing private sector participation in the
ownership and operation of container ports and/or terminals, the proliferation of dedicated, carrier-
operated container terminals, the globalisation of port operators and the existence of joint ventures
in port operation. It has to be said that these are not features that are unique to the Asian context.
It might be suggested, however, that the phase of development which these trends have reached
within the Asian port sector is currently unique within the world's port industry.

Bichou, K., & Gray, R. (2004). A logistics and supply chain management approach to port
performance measurement. Maritime Policy & Management, 31(1), 47–
67.doi:10.1080/0308883032000174454
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0308883032000174454

Although there is widespread recognition of the potential of ports as logistics centers,

widely accepted performance measurements for such centers have yet to be developed. The
essence of logistics and supply chain management is an integrative approach to the interaction of
different processes and functions within a firm extended to a network of organizations for the
purpose of cost reduction and customer satisfaction
[1Stank, TP, Keller, SB and Daugherty, PJ. 2001. Supply chain collaboration and logistics service
performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(1): 29–47.]. The logistics approach often adopts a
cost trade-off analysis between functions, processes and even supply chains
[Rushton A Oxley J Croucher P 2000The Handbook of Logistics and Distribution
Management (2nd Edn) London The Institute of Logistics and Transport, Kogan Page]. This
approach could be beneficial to port efficiency by directing port strategy towards relevant value-
added logistics activities. This paper seeks to show that through conceptualizing ports from a
logistics and supply chain management approach, it is possible to suggest a relevant framework of
port performance. A proposed framework is tested in a survey of port managers and other
international experts.
Cullinane, K., Ji, P., & Wang, T. (2005). The relationship between privatization and DEA
estimates of efficiency in the container port industry. Journal of Economics and Business, 57(5),
433–462.doi:10.1016/j.jeconbus.2005.02.007
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148619505000433

A major objective of port privatization is to improve the efficiency of the sector. This paper
presents the pros and cons of port privatization and provides an empirical examination of the
relationship between privatization and relative efficiency within the container port industry. Data
envelopment analysis (DEA) is justified as the chosen methodology for analysing the relative
efficiency of container ports and is applied in a variety of configurations to industry panel data.
The paper concludes with the rejection of the hypothesis that greater private sector involvement in
the container port sector irrevocably leads to improved efficiency.

Fawcett, J. A. (2006). Chapter 10 Port Governance and Privatization in the United States: Public
Ownership and Private Operation. Research in Transportation Economics, 17, 207–235.
doi:10.1016/s07398859(06)170109 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0739
885906170109

Owing to its history as a nation fashioned from a federation of relatively autonomous

states, port governance in the United States is largely in the hands of those 50 states rather than
the federal government. Evolving from accustomed private ownership in the 18th and 19th
centuries, seaports in the US are now commonly owned by public agencies, governed by public
boards and yet often operated by tenants who are lessees of those agencies. The following
discussion unravels the complex ties of governance and privatization in US seaports.

Brooks, M. (2004). The Governance Structure of Ports. Review of Network Economics, 3(2), pp.
.Retrieved 14 May. 2019, from doi:10.2202/1446-9022.1049
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/rne.2004.3.issue-2/rne.2004.3.2.1049/rne.2004.3.2.1049.xml

The recent worldwide trend towards devolution in the port industry has spawned
considerable variety in the types of governance structures now in place around the world. This
paper discusses the range of devolution alternatives adopted in the global ports sector, as identified
by the World Bank and academic researchers. It then examines the Canadian model more closely
as it attempts to follow a more novel path, that of the not-for-profit organization.

Everett, S., & Robinson, R. (1998). Port reform in Australia: issues in the ownership debate.
Maritime Policy & Management, 25(1), 41–62. doi:10.1080/03088839800000044
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03088839800000044

Australia port reform initiatives have taken on a variety of forms — from out-right sale and
transfer of ownership, to the sale of 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.

Cullinane, K., Song, D.-W., & Gray, R. (2002). A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of
major container terminals in Asia: assessing the influence of administrative and ownership
structures. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 36(8), 743–
762. doi:10.1016/s0965-8564(01)00035-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856401000350

This paper applies a `port function matrix' to analyze the administrative and ownership
structures of major container ports in Asia. The relative efficiency of these ports is then assessed
using the cross-sectional and panel data versions of the `stochastic frontier model'. The estimated
efficiency measures are broadly similar for the two versions of the model tested. From the results
of the analysis, it is concluded that the size of a port or terminal is closely correlated with its
efficiency and that some support exists for the claim that the transformation of ownership from
public to private sector improves economic efficiency. While this provides some justification for
the many programmes in Asian ports which aim to attract private capital into both existing and
new facilities, it is also concluded that the level of market deregulation is an important intervening
variable which may also exert a positive influence.

Heaver, T., Meersman, H., & Van De Voorde, E. (2001). Co-operation and competition in
international container transport: strategies for ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 28(3),
293–305.doi:10.1080/03088830110055693.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03088830110055693?src=recsys

This paper focuses on the response of port authorities to the changing market environment
in which they operate. It documents the changes taking place in the relationships between port
authorities and terminal management companies and considers the strategic issues faced by these
groups and other port interests. It investigates the potential conflicts of interest for a port authority
in matters related to the level of competition amongst terminals within a port and the amount of
competition amongst ports.

Midoro, R., Musso, E., & Parola *, F. (2005). Maritime liner shipping and the stevedoring
industry: market structure and competition strategies. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(2), 89–
106.doi:10.1080/03088830500083521
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03088830500083521?src=recsys

Globalization, liberalization, competition and spatial interaction are significant factors

affecting the transformation of manufacturing industries worldwide. In the transportation and
logistics industry, however, cooperation is becoming even more critical than competition in
determining firms' efficiency. Cooperation has always characterized the liner sector in which
strategic alliances, mergers and acquisitions have generated twin effects: notable increases in ship
size and falls in freight rates. Meanwhile, the stevedoring industry is undergoing privatization-
driven consolidation and the emergence of global pure terminal operators. This article focuses on
vertical integration between global carriers and terminal operators. We address the following key
current issues:

1. Dedicated terminals as a strategy for cutting costs and controlling integrated transport
chains;

2. The struggle for supply chain control, involving global carriers versus global terminal
operators, driven by financial power and technical and managerial capability.

We close analyzing one of the core problems of the market, namely the evolving role of the
dedicated terminals. For the pure stevedores they represent an opportunity to secure a cargo, while
in the hands of the liners they enable cost stability and the possibility to put pressure on pure
terminal operators.

Jussi Rönty, Marko Nokkala & Kaisa Finnilä. (2011). Port ownership and governance models in
Finland. Working Papers 164. https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/workingpapers/2011/W164.pdf

Ports are an important part of municipalities’ infrastructure networks. Their ownership and
governance models in Finland range from traditional municipal departments to enterprise and
company structures and to private-sector owned ports. There are external pressures to move ports
to company model from other municipality ownership models in the coming years. At the same
time potential to more elaborated landlord model could be explored as municipalities need steady
revenues from ports without necessary being involved in any operative work. Financial analysis
reveal that ports are at present a good revenue source for municipalities, and that specialized ports
are in general producing better results than those with several types of cargo and/or passenger
transport. Ports tend to finance a bulk of their investment from cash flow, in some cases without
compromising the owners need to receive a fixed amount of return in any given year. The
ownership and governance model does not seem to contribute decisively to financial performance,
which makes it more challenging for municipalities to change their current business model. The
physical number of ports should be determined by the market. However, for many municipalities
the port and its economic impacts are significant and it is unlikely that a municipality would close
its port even in the current economic downturn. For the competitiveness of a port the supporting
basic infrastructure is the key to ensure that it will be able to compete with other ports and even
alternative modes of transport.