Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content Classification and Survey

Abstract

This paper presents a taxonomy and analysis of the content of published research in port economics, policy and management (port studies). The recent increase of these publications suggests a growing interest in the study of ports. However, the research characteristics and directions of this research field are unidentified. This paper provides a systematic analysis of port studies published during the period 1997–2008. A comprehensive cross-citation and analysis of the themes, approaches and findings of all 395 relevant journal papers identifies the extent to which the research field is maturing, and the leading papers. This paper also presents an extensive analysis of the content, based on the classification of all port studies into seven research themes. For each theme, research topics, widely used research questions, concepts and research methods and the most important research findings are discussed. Finally, we identify emerging research challenges and research questions that still need to be answered.

Notes

The database contains port studies in international journals published in English. Conference papers, book chapters, research thesis, in-house published journals, etc., have been excluded (for more details regarding the method followed to build the database, and a discussion of the results of the cross-citation exercise see Pallis et al., 2010).

For instance, a number of papers measure terminal productivity (Category 1: Terminal studies) and link the results to port governance (Category 3: Port governance). In this case, the papers are classified in Category 1, as their contribution is mostly in the field of terminal studies.

The references from all 395 papers were plotted in a 395 × 395 matrix; self-citations were excluded; and a two-year ‘publication time gap’ between submitting a paper and the final publication was assumed; for a discussion of the results of the cross-citation exercise in: Pallis et al., 2010).

For an extensive overview of conceptual and practically oriented papers on the optimizations of logistic operations at port container terminals, we refer to the work of Stahlbock and Voss (2008). They identified nearly 200 papers dealing with the application of OR-techniques to container terminal planning and optimization. Much discussed topics in OR include berth allocation, stowage planning, crane assignment, crane split (e.g. dual hoist systems), storage and stacking logistics and landside gate operations (also Steenken et al., 2004).

In the mid-1990s, Tongzon (1995) applied factor analysis to assess the efficiency of leading container terminals, but according to Ashar (1995) with little success.

This study was preceded by a study using the SFM method conducted by Song and Cullinane (1999) that was published in a publication of the Eastern Asia Transport Society containing the papers presented at the third conference of EASTS. The paper is not included in the database as it was not published in an academic journal.

Hayuth and Roll (1993) were the first to suggest DEA for comparing port performance, but it took some years before other scholars picked up the technique.

In some studies of this group (i.e. Choi et al., 2003; Dragovic et al., 2006, but also the preceding DEA and SFMs analyses) the dividing line between OR studies and research in economics and management is very thin. Some OR-based techniques are often used to address economic issues to the extent that are published in journals that do not cover OR. The decisions of these ‘non-OR’ journals to publish them, along with the fact that reviews of OR studies do not include them in their analysis (see Stahlbock and Voss, 2008) led to the inclusion of these studies in our database.

We refer in this respect for example to capacity issues in export-based coal and iron ore terminals in Australia and Brazil, the rapid growth of new LNG terminals around the world or the land use dilemma at car terminals.

This debate is associated with research on port performance: see the analysis of Category 6.

Fleming and Baird (1999) stipulated that the term ‘port competition’ is a rather puzzling expression that needs clarification. They outline six sets of factors that influence port competitiveness: port tradition and organization, port accessibility by land and sea, state aids and their influence on port costs, port productivity, port selection preferences of carriers and shippers and comparative locational advantage.

Haezendonck, Pison et al. (2000) suggest an alternative port performance indicator (output): value added generated in ports. They also provide with a method to calculate value added on the basis of the throughput of a port.

A longstanding literature in port geography exists on the spatial development of seaport systems in relation to maritime and hinterland networks (cf. the models developed in the 1960s and 1970s: Taaffe et al., 1963; Ogundana, 1970). In the 1980s, scholars introduced a process of port system deconcentration (cf. Hayuth, 1981).

The ‘pre-paradigmatic’ phase of a research field is characterized by: (1) the presence of several small research communities working on their own problems; (2) little references to other researchers (or only within the own research group); and (3) the lack of common problem definitions, hypothesis, definitions and concepts. The characteristics of both the ‘pre-paradigmatic’ phase and the ‘mature’ phase are those defined by the science philosopher Kuhn, and applied amongst others by Bontekoning et al. (2004) in their study of intermodal transportation research.