Understanding the development of port and regional relationships: a new cooperation/competition matrix

Abstract

This thought-piece article was developed as part of an international expert forum review for ports planning and maritime logistics. We examine some of the key ways in which seaports have developed from a position of direct competition to increasing collaboration in order to remain competitive in a fast-changing world. Strategic port cooperation is considered through a new conceptual cooperation/competition matrix, which can be used to evaluate the response strategies of ports to inter-port rivalry and changing maritime competitive dynamics. We address key discussion questions: What are the major types of cooperation in which ports are now engaged? What are the major maritime competitive dynamics? How should port authorities cooperate and plan moving forward towards 2030? The cooperation/competition matrix is not meant to be prescriptive, but rather offers a useful tool for holistic evaluation, to identify the way in which port strategy has changed over recent decades and indicate a direction for ports and regional planning in the twenty-first century.

Approaching the Relational Nature of the Port‐City Interface in Europe: Ties and Tensions Between Seaports and the Urban

“…Is there more room for such a efforts in strategic coupling that balance the goals and interests of both the maritime industries on the one hand, and city and region on the other hand (cf. McLaughlin & Fearon ), or will the port‐city interface fall victim of one‐sided business solutions? Popular trajectories that adjust the port setting to the needs of growing container throughput, or the needs of the cruise industry, are not justified at any cost, as they often have significant downsides.…”

Investigating the strategies for Australian regional ports' involvement in regional development

“…However, international port studies relating to the port-region relationship are mainly centred on metropolitan ports or major container hub ports, and pay little attention to regional ports in a national context. The port literature has used various terms for regional ports, such as local ports, small and medium size ports and small peripheral ports (Vleugels, 1969, UNESCAP, 2002, Monios and Wilmsmeier, 2012, McLaughlin and Fearon, 2013. Adopting the definition of an Australian region as 'non-metropolitan and rural areas', this study focuses on regional ports in a national context and defines regional ports as the ports outside metropolitan centres serving regional businesses.…”

“…The relationship between ports and their host regions is gaining increasing attention from maritime logistics experts (McLaughlin and Fearon, 2013). However, international port studies relating to the port-region relationship are mainly centred on metropolitan ports or major container hub ports, and pay little attention to regional ports in a national context.…”

Strategic beliefs of port authorities

“…At the same time, PAs depend on the companies in the port and also on the overseas and inland links in the ports-related transport system. On one hand, then, PAs pursue competition; on the other hand, there are clear reasons as to why they would cooperate, such as strengthening the wider transport system of which they are a part, achieving cost advantages via synergy, and advancing their position in the network (Donselaar & Kolkman, 2010;McLaughlin & Fearon, 2013). Therefore, PA executives may not necessarily assign more weight to competition or cooperation relative to "regular" executives.…”