Collective action regimes in seaport clusters: the case of the Lower Mississippi port cluster

doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.04.010

Journal of Transport Geography

Volume 13, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 173-186

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.04.010 Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper analyses the competitiveness of the Lower Mississippi seaport from a cluster perspective, discussing the importance of local governance and collective action regimes for the competitiveness of the cluster. The case study of the Lower Mississippi port cluster shows that collective action regimes are relatively poorly developed in this cluster, compared with the seaport cluster of Rotterdam. Furthermore, the case shows these ineffective regimes are one of the reasons explaining the declining market share in overall throughput in the Gulf region. Houston, its nearest and main competitor, has grown much more than the Lower Mississippi port cluster. A number of collective action problems require effective collective action regimes that render significant benefits at the cluster level. Several proposals are formulated to improve the quality of the collective action regimes and hence enhance the performance of the Lower Mississippi port cluster.

Introduction

This paper discusses the importance of collective action regimes for the competitiveness of ports. The paper builds on earlier work, where it was argued that ports can be fruitfully analysed as clusters of economic activities, related to the arrival of cargo and ships, and where a framework to analyse governance in port clusters was developed (de Langen, 2004). Furthermore, it was shown that five important collective action problems exist in seaports: training and education, innovation, marketing and promotion, hinterland access and internationalisation. Effective regimes that free resources for investment in these five areas do not develop automatically, despite the positive effects of these investments for the cluster as a whole. Individual firms may have difficulties providing the resources required to develop effective collective action regimes, because of the free rider problem, externalities, and other market failures (Visser and Boschma, 2004).

This paper presents a case study of the port complex of the Lower Mississippi. The study reveals the importance of collective action regimes for the competitiveness of the port cluster, and shows the complexity of creating effective regimes. We analyse the shortcomings of the existing regimes and opportunities to improve the quality of the regimes. Empirical evidence from a case study in Rotterdam is used as a `benchmark' for the Lower Mississippi port cluster (LMPC).

The paper is structured in the following way. The relevance of the concept `collective action regimes' in seaports is discussed in Section 2. A framework to analyse the quality of collective action regimes is discussed in Section 3. Case study evidence on the LMPC is presented in Section 4. Initiatives to improve the quality of governance in the LMPC are discussed in Section 5. A concluding section finalises the paper.

Section snippets

The relevance of analysing collective action regimes

A port cluster consists of all economic activities and public (-private) organisations related to the arrival of ships and cargo in ports.¹ Cargo handling, transport, logistics, manufacturing and trade activities are included in the port cluster (de Langen, 2004).

The bulk of the literature on

Collective action regimes

Five variables that influence the quality of a collective action regime can be identified, based on a literature review (see de Langen, 2004 for a detailed discussion). Various actors have to contribute resources to the regimes. These resources can be financial and managerial, but also `political' and relational. The more resources are invested in a regime, the higher the quality of such a regime. A first variable relevant to the quality of regimes is the presence of leader firms. Such firms

Case study: the Lower Mississippi port cluster

In this section, we present the results of a case study of the Lower Mississippi port cluster (LMPC). A similar case study was made for the port cluster in Rotterdam. Rotterdam and the LMPC are the largest ports of their continents in terms of throughput volume. Both have a diversified traffic base, and a relatively large number of activities related to cargo handling. Therefore, Rotterdam is used here as a `benchmark' for the LMPC. Table 1 shows some basic features of the two seaports.

Initiatives to improve the collective action regimes

The survey data show that the collective action regimes in the LMPC are not effective. Strategic partnerships have hardly developed, and no funds are available for investments with benefits for the whole cluster. The level of trust is low, compared to Houston, and there is hardly any leader firm involvement in the port cluster. The general perception among the consulted cluster experts is that the LMPC is declining, and that the lack of strategic co-operation is one of the main reasons for the

Conclusions

In this paper, we analysed collective action regimes in the LMPC. A number of conclusions can be drawn on the basis of this case study. First, according to the experts, effective regimes are important for the performance of the LMPC. The validity of this expert opinion is confirmed by the description of the five collective action regimes. Second, the collective action regimes in the LMPC are not effective. This conclusion is based on the expert opinions, the description of the regimes and a

References (22)

Bennett et al.
Explaining the membership of voluntary local business associations: the example of British Chambers of Commerce
Regional Studies
(1998)
J.L. Campbell et al.
Governance of the American Economy
(1991)
de Langen, P.W., 2004. The performance of seaport clusters, a framework to analyze cluster performance and an...
R.O. Goss
Economic policies and seaports: 2. The diversity of port policies
Maritime Policy and Management
(1990)
E. Haezendonck
Essays on Strategy Analysis for Seaports
(2001)
A.O. Hirschmann
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States
(1970)
LATTS (Latin America Trade and Transportation Study), 2003. State Report Louisiana. Available from...
Louisiana Ports Association, 2003. Data from website and links to member ports, available from...
Nationale Bank van Belgie, 2003. Het economische belong van de Belgische havens (boekjaar 2001). Available from...
Nationale Havenraad, 2003. Statistics. Available from...

B. Nooteboom

Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures

(2002)

Cited by (67)

Effects of ports on urban economic geography: A study based on the natural experiment of decentralization reform in China
2023, Journal of Transport Geography
Ports are usually regarded as hubs for resource allocation, and the identification of port impacts is still worthy of further study. Using 1998–2007 panel data on all 146 ports and 282 cities in China and a quasi-experimental empirical design involving port decentralization reform in China from 2001 to 2004, this work studies the impacts of the decentralization reform on ports and port cities with a time-varying difference-in-differences (DID) regression model. The results show that since the management of ports was transferred from the central government to local governments, the growth rate of port investment has increased by approximately 1%, and the agglomeration of manufacturing and financial industries in port cities has been significantly enhanced. Furthermore, the results reveal that the impacts of decentralization reform on ports and industries have been stronger in China's coastal and southern port cities and weaker in inland and northern port cities. These findings show that decentralization reform can promote port development, in turn shaping the economic geography by driving the agglomeration of related industries.
The strategy of the port development company; a framework based on the business ecosystems perspective and an application to the case of Port of Rotterdam
2023, Maritime Transport Research
This paper advances the conceptual understanding of strategies of port development companies (PDCs) through applying the business ecosystem perspective. This leads to a distinction between four stylized strategies for PDCs and associated types of services: minimalist (six services), integrator (six services) and ecosystem services (six services). An analysis of the services provided by a PDC reveals which strategy they follow. This approach is tested through a case study of Port of Rotterdam Authority (PoR for short) the state-owned PDC in charge of developing Rotterdam's port complex. This case study yields three important conclusions: first the relevance of the identified service types is confirmed, as PoR is or has been active in providing 15 of the 18 identified service types, more specifically all six ‘minimalist services’, all six ‘ecosystem services’ and three of the six ‘integrator services’. Second, PoR follows a ‘platform provider’ strategy. Third, the provision of ‘ecosystem services’ seems to become a more important part of PoRs activities. The number of provided ecosystem services has grown between 2006 and 2021 and investments in ecosystem services account for an increasing share of PoRs total investments. These results provide a basis for further research, amongst others to better understand factors that may influence the strategies of PDCs.
Latest challenges to ports in public-private partnership: Case of Dandong Port (China)'s bankruptcy
2021, Transport Policy
The investment environment in port infrastructure appeared fluctuating in recent years, which threw more uncertainties and challenges in port Public-Private Partnership (PPP). Among ports in PPP, Dandong Port is the first case for port bankruptcy in China. In this contribution, the Interpretative Structural Model (ISM) is employed to investigate why the bankruptcy of Dandong Port happened and analyze the causes from different perspectives. The ISM-based model interprets the interrelationships among those causes and their positions in the structural hierarchy from high- to low-level. Results reveal that: (i) these factors ( i.e. the economy slowing down in the hinterland, ambitious port plan of local government and unprofessional top management) were the most direct factors to Dandong Port’s bankruptcy; (ii) these factors ( i.e. the economy slowing down in the hinterland, ambitious port plan of local government and unprofessional top management) were the most fundamental causes to this failure; (iii) these factors ( i.e. the ambitious port plan of local government, inappropriate strategic positioning, continuous expansion in port investment and unprofessional top management) were the most core causes for this collapse. Findings provide lessons to be learned from the bankruptcy for port PPP and offer managerial insight into port management policy.
Seaports as Clusters of Economic Activities
2021, International Encyclopedia of Transportation: Volume 1-7
Companies related directly or indirectly to ships and international commodity chains and located in the port area can jointly be considered as a port cluster. The colocation of such interrelated companies in ports creates synergies, such as the shared use of infrastructure and services and the availability of specialized knowledge and skills. The port cluster concept has proven to be a useful “lens” for analyzing ports. With the cluster “lens” scholars address research issues that are complementary to the established lens of treating a port as a transport node. A port cluster consists of four components, transport-related activities, logistics and value-added activities, manufacturing activities, and leisure and tourism-related activities. A port cluster is in various ways different from the more widely studied “tech clusters.” This has important implications for the analysis of port clusters. First, port clusters are vulnerable to technological change. Second, the core challenge for port clusters lies in the absorptive capacity. R&D activities in port clusters are limited; the dominant innovation challenge is the (early) application of new knowledge (e.g., regarding digitalization, recycling technologies, bio-based chemicals, and smart grids). Third, contrary to most “tech clusters,” in which governance is rather loose, chaotic, and decentralized, structured governance mechanisms may be critical to enhancing the competitiveness of port clusters. A state-owned commercially run “port cluster developer” often plays a central role.
Maritime cluster research: Evolutionary classification and future development
2020, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
Maritime clusters have spawned considerable scholarly work in recent years owing to their crucial effect on regional economic development and global shipping resource allocation. The present study re-examines the research on maritime clusters by completely reviewing the relevant literature and thus developing a clear profile of the main views, initiating new and noteworthy research topics, and presenting challenges to maritime cluster–related studies. First, a framework for categorising maritime cluster research topics is proposed, which is well structured in terms of ‘what’ (descriptions of a maritime cluster), ‘why’ (the effect of clusters on regional or industrial development), and ‘how’ (the formation and development of maritime clusters). Second, following this what–why–how logic, the related literature has been reviewed to summarise and compare the diverse views on each research topic, including composition, function and governance; effect and contribution; competitiveness, evolution, policy and innovation. Third, new and noteworthy research topics such as the global spillover of maritime clusters, disruptive innovation, and developmental pathways of emerging maritime clusters are presented by considering the gaps in the current academic research and actual developing trends of global maritime clusters. Finally, the main challenges to the maritime cluster– related studies, reflected in the adaption to the changing environment, theory building, and empirical analysis, are presented. In particular, the absence of consensus on ‘what is a maritime cluster’ has increased the difficulty in further expansion of maritime clusters–related studies; and the limited number of maritime clusters and relevant customised data has hindered the verification, generalisation, and applicability of the conclusions drawn from the conventional research.
Allometric relationship and development potential comparison of ports in a regional cluster: A case study of ports in the Pearl River Delta in China
2020, Transport Policy
The development potential of a regional port cluster (RPC) is subject to the internal and external factors influencing port development. Port cargo throughput is an important internal factor, whereas import and export volume is a significant external factor. The growth rate of import and export volume is disproportionate to that of port cargo throughput. This study aims to measure the allometric relationship between the two abovementioned factors and establish a comprehensive development potential evaluation system on the basis of the RPC growth rate. This work uses a case study of the ports in China's Pearl River Delta, which is being greatly influenced by the framework agreement and outline of the development of the Greater Bay Area (GBA) in China. Findings reveal that import and export volume has a higher impact on port development potential than does port cargo throughput. In addition, Shenzhen has the highest development potential in terms of import and export volume, while Zhuhai Port has the highest potential in terms of port cargo throughput. Finally, an evaluation using the comprehensive development potential evaluation system shows that Shenzhen Port has the best comprehensive port development potential. Evaluating the development potential of ports in RPCs will offer useful insights that can be used by regional port company groups and relevant governmental authorities in making scientific decisions on port development and planning, especially in the crucial stage of the establishment of the GBA, and in rationally coordinating their development and minimizing unfair competition.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Collective action regimes in seaport clusters: the case of the Lower Mississippi port cluster

Abstract

Introduction

Section snippets

The relevance of analysing collective action regimes

Collective action regimes

Case study: the Lower Mississippi port cluster

Initiatives to improve the collective action regimes

Conclusions

Explaining the membership of voluntary local business associations: the example of British Chambers of Commerce

Regional Studies

Governance of the American Economy

Economic policies and seaports: 2. The diversity of port policies

Maritime Policy and Management

Essays on Strategy Analysis for Seaports

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States

Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures