National port development policies: same problems, different solutions?

Abstract

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...

Policy in the Port Services Industry for Regional Empowerment in Indonesian Maritime Defense

“…In contrast to Hakim's research (2022) which found that the Implementation of the Policy on the Management of Integrated Areas and the Deepening of Shipping Channels when implemented in the field was not following its designation. Meanwhile, Galvao et al (2017) showed that the management of river ports to be effective and efficient is to comply with Government Regulation No. 38 of 2007 consistently and understand their respective roles in the management of river ports.…”

Características individuais da inovação:

“…Strong literature evidence has shown that culture can influence individual's values, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Motta & Gomes, 2019;Gomes et al, 2016;Oliveira & Alves, 2015;Andery, 2011), and this study explores how compatible national cultural characteristics can be with innovation characteristics of individuals in these two countries. The purpose of this study was to explore individual innovation differences in further detail instead of emphasizing differences between organizations (e.g., Rauta, 2020;Silva, Leite, & Oliveira, 2016) or between countries in a macro level as most public data commonly announced in the media do (e.g., Galvão et al, 2017). More importantly, it is necessary to reflect about the benefits of developing comparisons like this one.…”