Criteria for the management partnership model in Croatian seaports

Figures & data

Table 1. List of experts/institutions involved in the online questionnaire.

Experts/institutions involved in the online questionnaire

Public institutions: Agency for Public–Private Partnerships, Agency for Export and Investment Promotion, Croatian Chamber of Economy, Ministry of Finance – Department for concessions and PPPs, Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Regional DevelopmentUniversity/Faculty: Faculty of Economics – University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics – University of Split, Faculty of Civil Engineering – University of Osijek, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management – University of Rijeka, Faculty of Maritime Studies – University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law – University of Split Private companies: AGIPLAN d.o.o. Zagreb, Agit d.d., Adriatic Gate d.d., Jadroagent d.d., Luka Rijeka d.d., MAERSK, Enhancing SME Performance Project

Port authorities for ports of outstanding (international) economic importance to the Republic of Croatia – Rijeka, Zadar, Šibenik, Split, Ploče and Dubrovnik Port authorities for ports of county importance: Bakar-Kraljevica, Cres, Crikvenica, Korčula, Krk, Mali Lošinj, Novalja, Novi Vinodolski, Opatija-Lovran, Poreč, Pula, Rab, Rabac, Rovinj, Senj, Umag – Novigrad, Vela Luka, Port Authority of the County of Dubrovnik – Neretva, Port Authority of the County of Split – Dalmatia, Port Authority of the County of Šibenik – Knin, Port Authority of the County of Zadar

Source: Authors.

Figure 1. Potential criteria for PPP evaluation in the port system.

Source: Authors.

Table 2. Results of criteria analysis for the evaluation of PPPs in Croatian ports by interest groups (stakeholders).

Criteria	Criteria value by the public sector			Criteria value by the private sector
	mean	Sd	Sdm	mean	Sd	Sdm
Economic-financial criteria
Facilitated capital raising	7,73	1.94	−0.21	6.29	3.82	−1.65
Economic growth acceleration	7.53	1.85	−0.16	5.57	2.64	−2.12
Invested capital return	7.00	2.27	−0.68	6.71	2.06	−0.97
Smaller public expenditure	7.36	1.65	0.09	6.00	2.31	−1.27
Allocation of risk management	7.53	1.46	0.34	5.86	1.68	−1.33
Long−term budgetary sustainability	6.64	2.47	−0.38	5.57	1.62	−1.45
Contribution to GDP	6.86	1.66	0.45	4.00	2.58	−2.41
Average of the group	7.24	1.90	−0.08	5.71	2.39	−1.60
Organisational criteria
Management improvement	7.80	1.21	−0.05	7.43	2.30	−0.42
Intellectual capital	7.40	1.99	−0.35	7.43	2.07	−0.32
Partnership duration	7.67	1.35	0.13	6.71	1.70	−0.83
Business processes control	7.40	2.53	−0.06	7.71	1.98	0.25
Average of the group	7.57	1.77	−0.08	7.32	2.01	−0.33
Technical-technological criteria
Port service quality improvement	8.47	1.51	−0.08	8.00	1.79	−0.55
Port mobile machinery modernisation	8.07	1.44	−0.45	8.17	1.83	−0.35
Port superstructure modernisation	8.36	1.22	−0.13	7.67	1.63	−0.82
Development and application of innovative technologies	7.86	1.51	−0.54	8.17	1.83	−0.23
Port infrastructure modernisation	8.13	1.73	−0.11	8.50	1.76	0.26
Average of the group	8.18	1.48	−0.26	8.10	1.77	−0.34
Social criteria
Ecological development	7.20	2.31	−0.18	7.00	2.58	−0.38
Legal regulations change	7.71	1.64	0.79	6.43	1.99	−0.49
Local government involvement	7.64	1.60	0.70	5.71	2.93	−1.23
Reducing the impact of public sector	6.73	1.87	−0.22	5.71	1.80	−1.24
Average of the group	7.32	1.86	0.27	6.21	2.33	−0.84
Criteria of harmonisation with European Union policies
Protection of public interest	8.20	1.15	0.18	7.86	2.41	−0.16
Ensuring open access to the market	7.47	2.00	−0.30	6.57	1.72	−1.20
Defining optimal level of subsidies	8.00	1.46	0.79	7.43	1.81	0.22
Privatisation	7.20	1.61	0.45	5.86	2.12	−0.89
Average of the group	7.72	1.56	0.28	6.93	2.02	−0.51

Criteria	Criteria value by the broader community			Average criteria value by all stakeholders
	mean	Sd	Sdm	mean	Sd
Economic-financial criteria
Facilitated capital raising	8.45	1.48	0.51	7.94	2.10
Economic growth acceleration	7.93	1.67	0.24	7.69	2.17
Invested capital return	8.17	1.49	0.49	7.68	1.88
Smaller public expenditure	7.52	1.88	0.25	7.27	1.94
Allocation of risk management	7.34	1.67	0.15	7.19	1.64
Long-term budgetary sustainability	7.61	1.45	0.59	7.02	1.91
Contribution to GDP	6.64	2.13	0.23	6.41	2.25
Average of the group	7.67	1.68	0.35	7.31	1.98
Organisational criteria
Management improvement	7.93	1.80	0.08	7.85	1.70
Intellectual capital	8.03	1.70	0.28	7.75	1.82
Partnership duration	7.71	1.70	0.17	7.54	1.59
Business processes control	7.34	2.04	−0.12	7.46	2.16
Average of the group	7.75	1.81	0.10	7.65	1.82
Technical-technological criteria
Port service quality improvement	8.68	1.02	0.13	8.55	1.27
Port mobile machinery modernisation	8.82	1.47	0.30	8.52	1.49
Port superstructure modernisation	8.67	1.36	0.18	8.49	1.36
Development and application of innovative technologies	8.71	1.18	0.31	8.40	1.37
Port infrastructure modernisation	8.18	1.47	−0.06	8.24	1.54
Average of the group	8.61	1.30	0.17	8.44	1.41
Social criteria
Ecological development	7.57	1.95	0.19	7.38	2.10
Legal regulations change	7.50	2.25	0.58	6.92	2.09
Local government involvement	6.96	2.15	0.02	6.94	2.18
Reducing the impact of public sector	7.33	1.86	0.38	6.95	1.96
Average of the group	7.34	2.05	0.29	7.05	2.08
Criteria of harmonisation with European Union policies
Protection of public interest	7.96	1.64	−0.06	8.02	1.63
Ensuring open access to the market	7.18	2.28	−0.59	7.77	2.08
Defining optimal level of subsidies	7.89	1.75	0.68	7.21	1.71
Privatisation	6.70	2.13	−0.05	6.75	2.04
Average of the group	7.43	1.95	0.00	7.44	1.87

Legend: Mean – Average criteria value.

Sd – Standard Deviation.

Sdm – Standard deviation between mean value of all stakeholders and mean value of each group of stakeholders.

Source: Author’s calculation.

Figure 2. Comparative view of average criteria values for all interest groups.

Source: Authors.