Port competitiveness: Do container terminal operators and liner shipping companies see eye to eye?


Bastug S., Haralambides H., ESMER S., Eminoglu E.

MARINE POLICY, vol.135, 2022 (SSCI) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 135
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104866
  • Journal Name: MARINE POLICY
  • Journal Indexes: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, Periodicals Index Online, Aerospace Database, Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA), Artic & Antarctic Regions, Communication Abstracts, Environment Index, Geobase, Metadex, PAIS International, Pollution Abstracts, Public Affairs Index, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Keywords: Port competitiveness, Liner shipping, Ports, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Port location, Operational efficiency, ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS, SELECTION CRITERIA, FUZZY, CHOICE, REGION, MODEL
  • Kocaeli University Affiliated: No

Abstract

Most of the literature on port choice has focused mostly on the views of carriers (and indirectly of cargo owners). We venture here to discover whether the choice criteria used by carriers are in line with what the ports themselves consider as important for their competitiveness. We undertake a 20-year-long literature search in peerreviewed journals to identify the competitiveness criteria of both carriers and terminal operators. To that end, survey methods and (Fuzzy) Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) are employed. Our findings establish that the factors port operators consider important for the competitiveness of their port are not necessarily of equal importance for shipping companies when selecting a port. This is our main contribution to the academic literature. For port operators, the most important criterion for competitiveness is port location, followed by service level, port tariffs, and port facilities. In contrast, the most important criterion for carriers is (port) operational efficiency. The least important criteria for both groups of actors are the institutional framework of the port and its ownership status, respectively. Opposite to earlier research, our innovation here is in confronting ports and carriers with each other's priorities. In competitive markets, such knowledge ought to influence decisions and the added value of this research is in the benefits of a 'better mutual understanding': when demand (carriers) and supply (ports) understand each other better, the result is a more pareto-efficient economic system, not only for the two players but for the greater society by and large.