Chapter 3 Port Privatisation in the United Kingdom

Baird, Alfred; Valentine, Vincent

doi:10.1016/s0739-8859(06)17003-1

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the past two decades, development of a common policy framework regulating the governance of major European seaports has been in progress. Simultaneously, several governments of European Union member states have implemented own institutional reforms in their port sectors (Chlmoudis and Pallis, 2005;Baird and Valentine, 2007;Pallis and Syriopoulos, 2007;Valleri et al, 2006). A recurring objective of proposed common port policies has been to increase the autonomy and transparency of port finances, imposing stricter control on national subsidization to achieve greater competitive pressure between ports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive intensity and inefficiency in European container ports

Merkel

2018

MABR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the relationship between intensity of competition and technical efficiency of large European container ports, accounting for regional diversities and spatial aspects of inter-port competition. Design/methodology/approach-The analysis consists of applying a stochastic production frontier approach to a dataset of 77 large European container ports over the period 2002-2012, with inefficiency terms simultaneously modeled as a function of (among other factors) a constructed index of competitive intensity at different spatial levels. Findings-The results indicate that there is no significant negative effect of competitive intensity on efficiency. In fact, for competing European ports within a proximity of 300 km, a higher level of competition is found to be associated with a higher level of technical efficiency. Originality/value-The originality of the paper stems from its particular focus on European port regions and its novel findings in this context, which have implications for the discussions regarding pro-competitive port policy and regulation in the European Union.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive intensity and inefficiency in European container ports

Merkel

2018

MABR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier research pointed to the widely adopted landlord port model in western economies (Goss, 1990 and1997;Baird and Valentine, 2007;Everett and Robinson, 2007;Parola et al, 2012) which was subsequently emulated in emerging economies (Galvão et al, 2013 andWang et al, 2004). This constituted the beginning of privatisation as port authorities became landlords and responsibilities for commercial operations were transferred to the private sector.…”

Section: Select Literature Review and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By the 1990s, however, the landlord model was widespread in developed economies and privately owned ports were gaining momentum. Baird and Valentine (2007) identified two distinct phases of the sale of state-owned ports in the UK. The first involved the sale of state-owned ports in the 1980s and phase 2 saw the disposal of major trust ports.…”

Section: The Context Of Changementioning

confidence: 99%

National port development policies: same problems, different solutions?

Galvão

Tei

Everett

et al. 2017

RASI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National governments in different trade and shipping environments often face a number of common critical issues in port systems but government policies, processes and associated regulation may differ significantly. Why is it so? Ports are essential elements in trade oriented supply chains and during the past thirty years have undergone widespread reform globally. This has resulted in a deregulated market generally associated with denationalisation, privatisation or corporatisation programs, which aimed, inter alia, to increase efficiency; to attract additional investments, from the private sector; and to smooth land/port interfaces developing integrated supply chains. The port reform issue has attracted significant research globally with a focus generally on particular countries or regions. There has been less emphasis comparing countries in different contexts. This paper seeks to fill this gap and compares the main features of reform, government policy and regulation in three national jurisdictions: Australia, Brazil and Italy. It highlights differences, similarities and common aspects: full or partial privatisation, the landlord port model and regulatory regimes enacted. It examines the degree of private sector involvement; government intermediation roles and regulation in an increasingly deregulated market. It concludes that port privatisation policy remains, regrettably but not surprisingly, an intensively divisive and deeply political and politicised issue. KEYWORDS: Port reform; public policy; regulation; deregulation; supply chain integration. RESUMO:Os governos nacionais em diferentes contextos comerciais e marítimos muitas vezes enfrentam uma série de questões críticas comuns aos sistemas portuários, mas as políticas governamentais, os processos e a regulamentação associadas podem diferir significativamente. Por que isto ocorre? Os portos são elementos essenciais nas cadeias de abastecimento orientadas para o comércio e, nos últimos trinta anos, foram submetidos a uma ampla reforma global. Isso resultou em um mercado desregulamentado geralmente associado a programas de desnacionalização, privatização ou corporativização que visavam, entre outros objetivos, aumentar a eficiência; atrair investimentos adicionais do setor privado; e para facilitar as interfaces terra / porto, desenvolvendo cadeias de suprimentos integradas. A questão da reforma portuária atraiu pesquisas importantes em todo o mundo com foco em países ou regiões particulares, no entanto, houve menos ênfase na comparação de países em diferentes contextos. Este artigo procura preencher essa lacuna e compara as principais características da reforma, da política governamental e regulação em três jurisdições nacionais: Austrália, Brasil e Itália. Destaca as diferenças, semelhanças e aspectos comuns: a privatização total ou parcial, o modelo landlord e os regimes regulatórios promulgados. Examina ainda o grau de envolvimento do setor privado; os papéis de intermediação do governo e regulação em um mercado cada vez mais desregulado. Conc...

show abstract

“…Following the example of the UK, many countries have moved-or are moving-toward the privatization of some public ports. In the UK, many major ports, including Grimsby, Immingham and Teesport are company ports created by their own Act of Parliament (Baird and Valentine, 2007). Furthermore, port practitioners have provided many sound reasons for the move toward the privatization of public ports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 They consider the following model setting. There are two airlines that supply final products to passengers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Port Privatization in an International Oligopoly

Matsushima

Takauchi

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractWe investigate how port privatization affects port charges, firm profits, and welfare. Our model consists of an international duopoly with two ports and two markets. When the unit transport cost is large, privatization of ports decreases the prices for port usage, although neither government has an incentive to privatize its port. The equilibrium governmental decisions are inconsistent with the desirable outcome if the unit transport cost is not large enough. The smaller country's government is more likely to privatize its port, although the larger country's government is more likely to nationalize its port to protect its domestic market.

show abstract

Chapter 3 Port Privatisation in the United Kingdom

Cited by 32 publications

References 9 publications

Competitive intensity and inefficiency in European container ports

Competitive intensity and inefficiency in European container ports

National port development policies: same problems, different solutions?

Port Privatization in an International Oligopoly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About