Port Governance Reforms in Diversified Institutional Frameworks: Generic Solutions, Implementation Asymmetries

Abstract

Abstract. Bringing in neo-institutional perspectives, this paper investigates the recent corporatisation process of three seaports in Asia and Europe. We focus on whether the newly established seaport governance structures follow a path largely affected by the local/national institutional frameworks and the political traditions in place. Findings confirm that path-dependent decisions largely preserve the institutional characteristics of local/national systems, resulting in implementation asymmetries when different countries seek generic governance solution.

The role of intermodal transport in port regionalisation

“…strategy reproductions by global terminal operators) and regional specificities. The "lumpiness" of investment in both port and intermodal infrastructure means that institutional asymmetries can produce divergent trajectories (Ng & Pallis, 2010). Transport autopoiesis is likely to have an especially high inertia when it comes to changing system variables (see Maturana, 1994, p.77;Jantsch, 1982, p.64).…”

“…The key distinction is that port development is path dependent, heavily constrained by past actions and institutional design, but also contingent, in relation to private investment and public planning. Ng and Pallis (2010) showed how port governance is largely determined by local/regional institutional characteristics, despite attempts to implement generic governance solutions. Notteboom et al (2013) applied the concept of institutional plasticity (Strambach, 2010) to port development, arguing that, while port development is path dependent, a port authority can achieve governance reform by a process of adding layers to existing arrangements.…”

“…In order to achieve this, port actors are required to expand their institutional capacity beyond their core competency of container handling and restructure their business models through, for example, processes of privatisation or corporatisation (Notteboom & Rodrigue, 2005;Ng & Pallis, 2010;Sanchez & Wilmsmeier, 2010;Jacobs & Notteboom, 2011;Notteboom et al, 2013).…”

Gateway and hinterland dynamics: The case of the Southern African container seaport system

“…There is also an increasing interest in academic literature on the role of political, institutional, regulatory and environmental factors in shaping port system development (Ng and Pallis, 2010;Notteboom et al, 2012) as these factors have to some extent been undervalued by existing models. Iheduru (1996) assessed the impact of geopolitical reforms (the dismantling of apartheid) to the maritime industry on the Southern African region.…”

O Contributo de Sines na Eclosão de um Cluster Regional

“…Em Sines, o terminal de contentores foi concessionado à PSA, um operador mundial especializado na movimentação de terminais de contentores, o qual fixa os preços dos serviços por ele realizados. O determinante por detrás da opção de concessionamento destas atividades parte da redução da postura burocrática e da aplicação da flexibilidade laboral e do empreendedorismo (Ng, e Pallis, 2010), porque as autoridades portuárias apresentam tipicamente maus níveis de desempenho na gestão destas superestruturas, (The World Bank, 2007), por motivos da redução do esforço financeiro público (Tovar, Trujillo e Jara-Díaz, 2004) e da alteração da cultura empresarial (Verhoeven, 2011), embora a teoria económica não consiga provar de forma inequívoca estes pressupostos (Tongzon e Heng, 2005).…”