The size effect of a port on the container handling efficiency level and market share in internation transshipment flow

References

• Choudhri and Schembri . 1999 . Productivity Performance and International Competitiveness: A new test of an old theory . Canadian Journal of Economics , 35 : 341 – 362 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin and Sabourin . 2001 . Impact of the adoption of advanced Information and Communication Technologies on firm performance in the Canadian manufacturing sector . Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch, Research paper Series , 174 : 1 – 34 .
   Google Scholar
• Veldman and Vrookmen . 2007 . A Model of Container Port Competition: An Application for the Transshipment Market of the Mediterranean (IAME 2008 Annual Conference Paper)
   Google Scholar
• Baird . 2002 . The economics of container transshipment in Northern Europe . International Journal of Maritime Economics , 4 : 249 – 280 .
   Google Scholar
• Coto-millan . 2000 . Economic efficiency in Spanish ports: some empirical evidence . Maritime Policy & Management , 27 ( 2 ) : 169 – 174 .
   Google Scholar
• Tongzon . 2001 . Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using data envelopment analysis . Transportation Research Part A , 35 : 107 – 122 .
   Google Scholar
• Cullinane . 2002 . A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures . Transportation Research Part A , 36 : 743 – 762 .
   Google Scholar
• Turner . 2004 . North American container port productivity: 1984–1997 . Transportation Research Part E , 40 : 339 – 356 .
   Google Scholar
• Cullinane . 2004 . An application of DEA windows analysis to container port production efficiency . Review of Network Economics , 3 ( 2 ) : 184 – 206 .
   Google Scholar
• Tongzon and Heng . 2005 . Port privatization, efficiency and competitiveness: some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals) . Transportation Research Part A , 39 : 405 – 424 .
   Google Scholar
• Cullinane . 2006 . The technical efficiency of container ports: comparing date envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis . Transportation Research Part A , 40 : 354 – 374 .
   Google Scholar
• Wang and Cullinane . 2006 . The efficiency of European container terminals and implication for supply chain management . Maritime Economics & Logistics , 8 : 82 – 99 .
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales and Trujillo, 2005, Reforms and infrastructure efficiency in Spain's container ports. World Bank Research Working Paper 3515, February
   Google Scholar
• Veldman and Vrookmen . 2003 . A model on container port competition: an application for the West European container hub-ports . Maritime Economics & Logistics , 5 : 3 – 22 .
   Google Scholar
• Korea Maritime Institute, 2003, Policy and Implement Strategy of Korea as a Global Logistic Hub, Korea Container Terminal Authority Research paper (10)
   Google Scholar
• Jung . 2005 . Structure and demand shift of international container transshipment in north-east Asia . KMI Monthly Maritime Review , 247 : 45 – 56 .
   Google Scholar
• Han . 2005 . An empirical study on estimation of the Chinese northern ports’ transshipment cargo: focusing on transpacific route . Journal of Shipping and Logistics , 44 : 41 – 61 .
   Google Scholar
• Jeon . 2007 . Study on the container transshipment estimation of Korea . KMI Monthly Maritime Review , 272 : 6 – 28 .
   Google Scholar
• Zohil and Prijon . 1999 . The MED rule: the interdependence of container throughput and transshipment volumes in the Mediterranean ports . Maritime Policy & Management , 26 ( 2 ) : 175 – 193 .
   Google Scholar
• Prijon and Zohil . 1999 . The MED rule: the interdependence of container throughput and transshipment volumes in the Mediterranean ports . Maritime Policy & Management , 26 ( 2 ) : 175 – 193 .
   Google Scholar
• Winggale . 1981 . The port behavior of short-sea ship operators: theory and practice . Maritime Policy & Management , 8 ( 2 ) : 109 – 120 .
   Google Scholar
• Culinane and Toy . 2000 . Identifying influential attributes in freight route/mode choice decisions: a content analysis . Transportation Research Part E , 36 : 41 – 53 .
   Google Scholar
• Yeo . 2004 . An evaluation of the competitiveness of Chinese container ports . Journal of Shipping and Logistics , 34 : 39 – 60 .
   Google Scholar
• Heo . 2005 . Busan Port's Strategy in Response to the Change of Port Competitiveness Busan Development Institute Research paper (11)
   Google Scholar
• Guy and Urli . 2006 . Port selection and Multicriteria Analysis: An application to the Montreal-New York Alternative . Maritime Economics & Logistics , 8 ( 2 ) : 169 – 186 .
   Google Scholar
• Malchow and Canafani . 2004 . A discrete analysis of port selection . Transport Research Part E , 40 : 317 – 337 .
   Google Scholar
• Veldman and Buckmann . 2003 . A model on container port competition: an application for the West European container Hub-ports . Maritime Economics & Logistics , 5 ( 1 ) : 3 – 22 .
   Google Scholar
• Ocean Shipping Consultants (2006) East Asian container port markets to 2020
   Google Scholar
• In the OSC report, the volume of transshipment in each Asian port is recorded from 1995 to 2005, so that port efficiency estimations and transshipment regressions are carried out for that period
   Google Scholar
• Many Asian ports recently introduced tax reduction and financial aid for container transshipment to increase their market share in international container transshipment
   Google Scholar
• Malchow and Kanafani . 2004 . A discrete analysis of port selection . Transport Research Part E , 40 : 331 – 337 .
   Google Scholar
• Gouvernal . 2005 . Dynamics of change in the port system of the western Mediterranean . Maritime Policy & Management , 32 ( 2 ) : 107 – 121 .
   Google Scholar
• Jo . 2000 . “ Comparative analysis of port tariff levels in ESCAP region and development of port tariff setting model ” . In Regional Tripartite Forum among Shipowners, Shippers and Ports , International Symposia of KMI .
   Google Scholar
• Park and Kim . 2006 . The Comparative Analysis of Port Tariff on the World Major Ports and the Empirical Analysis between Port Tariff and Macro Economic Indicators . Journal of Korea Port Economic Association , 22 ( 4 ) : 81 – 98 .
   Google Scholar
• We personally contacted one of the authors and were told that obtaining any additional cost data is virtually impossible
   Google Scholar
• Comparative studies of SFA and DEA in maritime fields include 11, 37, 38
   Google Scholar
• Cooper and Tone . 1997 . Measures of inefficiency in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation . European Journal of Operational Research , 99 : 72 – 88 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syrjanen et al., 2006, Efficiency benchmarking project B: analogous efficiency measurement model based on stochastic frontier analysis. Gaia Final Report
   Google Scholar
• Although number of steve-doring workers should be used for labor input for precise estimation, it is not easy to get related labor data for each port 12, p. 89]. Cullinane et al. 9 suggested that with a fairly stable and close relationship between the number of gantry cranes and the number of staff in a container terminal, labour information can be determined as a function of the facilities of a port with caution (p. 190)
   Google Scholar
• Puig-Junoy , J . 2001 . Technical inefficiency and public capital in US states: a stochastic frontier approach . Journal of Regional Science , 41 ( 1 ) : 75 – 96 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• In MacFadden's study, pseudo-R square is calculated by . Here, M Full and M intercept represent the log likelihood function of the designed specification of a model and the model with only the intercept
   Google Scholar
• The efficiency level of Keelung port in Taiwan cannot be determined because of a lack of available data
   Google Scholar
• Tongzon . 1995 . Determinants of port performance and efficiency . Transportation Research A , 29 ( 3 ) : 245 – 252 .
   Google Scholar
• These are chosen from the study ports (16 ports) of the efficiency model. We could not include eight other ports in the model because of the unavailability of container handling costs. Additionally, the Shanghai port is not included in the transshipment model because the container transshipment volume of Shanghai is not consistent between reports (OSC report and Drewry's annual report)
   Google Scholar
• Moreover, cargo handling costs are not comparable between ports with different tariff systems, nor are they published annually. Difficulty in gaining cargo handling costs is well expressed in Malchow & Canafani 26 and Gouvernal et al. 32
   Google Scholar
• Han, 2003, Development pattern of container port and its implication for the mega hub port strategy. KMI Market Analysis, Korea Maritime Institute
   Google Scholar