If it ain't bust, don't fix it: the proposed EU directive on market access to port services

Farrell, Sheila

doi:10.1080/03088830110055675

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The European Commission has taken steps towards a European port policy (Verhoeven, 2009). While a stronger involvement of Europe in port policy formulation remains controversial (see Pallis (1997), Farrell (2001) and Psaraftis (2005)), the European Commission made two attempts in the early 2000s to come to a Directive on the access to port services. While both attempts failed, it has created a more European perspective on port and transport policy issues in particular in relation to port pricing and financing (e.g.…”

Section: Structural Changes In the Port Environment Since 1994mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: an update

Notteboom

2010

Journal of Transport Geography

210

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Structural Changes In the Port Environment Since 1994mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: an update

Notteboom

2010

Journal of Transport Geography

210

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The broad objective of this draft proposal is to increase market competition and enhance transparency of port ®nance; the latter is pursued as a method of identifying the extent and variety of state aid available to diVerent ports. Despite this laudable aim, as Sheila Farrell (2001) pointed out in a recent comment in this Journal:…”

Section: Editorial: Eu Port Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If``the market'' is de®ned as a single port or terminal, then the DirectiveÐif implemented as intendedÐcould cause upheavals in many ports' (p. 308) [2].…”

Section: She Comments Further Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: EU Port Policy

McConville¹

2002

Maritime Policy & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both national and cross-national inter ests have resisted change so far but the argument reflects an underlying governance failure in policy-making with sub-jurisdictions at regional and even local level, colla borating with supra-national representatives and national organisations from labour unions, shipowning bodies, pressure groups and politicians to resist the downward movement of policies through the traditional hierarchical network (Farrell 2001). In this and other disputes, there is evidence of the nation state becoming increasingly marginalized.…”

Section: Jurisdiction Policy Models and Shippingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety, security, the environment and shipping: The problem of making effective policies

Roe

2008

WMU J Marit Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines where problems of shipping policy jurisdiction between international, supra-national and national levels have occurred. These range across the issues of public goods -safety, security and environment -and show up inadequacies in the current shipping policy-making processes. New frameworks -commonly termed "polycentric governance" and "multi-level governance" -sensitive to the complexities of the maritime industry and its associated political structure urgently need to be adopted. The paper is based upon research work recently carried out across the European Union supported by a number of publications and will include examples from Greece, the United King dom, Spain, France and also the new member states. Suggestions for improvements in policymaking structures will be made and recommendations put forward for consideration by policy-makers in the maritime sector at all jurisdictional levels IntroductionPublic involvement in shipping is directed into two main areas -that of economic support in the form of subsidies, promotion of the shipping sector with especial reference to the creation of employment, and market issues -essentially the maintenance of a competitive environment and protection from monopoly tendencies; and the protection of public goods which the market would otherwise neglect. The latter category includes three widely agreed major items -maintenance of safety in shipping and ports, ensuring security within the industry and protection of the environment from the harmful effects of air, water and noise pollution. Effective development of each of these public concerns is dependent upon a meaningful and sensitive process of policy-making within all political institutions that allows the development of policies at various jurisdictional levels, most appropriate to the issue in question. These policy-levels are exemplified by international (IMO), supra-national (EU), national (for example Greece and the UK), regional (for example Attica and Devon) and local (for example Piraeus and Plymouth) jurisdictions which in theory work most effectively in a nested hierarchy. Each needs to speak to the other and to agree cross-jurisdictional policies for safety, security and the environment in shipping and ports or else their implementation will be largely ineffectual and the impact may be even worse than having no policies at all.

show abstract

If it ain't bust, don't fix it: the proposed EU directive on market access to port services

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: an update

Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: an update

Editorial: EU Port Policy

Safety, security, the environment and shipping: The problem of making effective policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About