Advertisement

Relative size and technical efficiency in peripheral port markets: evidence from Irish and North Atlantic Spanish ports

  • Stephen Hynes
  • Ingrid Mateo-Mantecón
  • Eamonn O’ConnorEmail author
  • Andreas Tsakiridis
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

In peripheral port markets, a limited volume of traffic creates challenges in sustaining multiple competing port authorities (PAs). With a limited size, smaller ports have difficulty in attracting the necessary traffic flows to leverage capital for development. In many European jurisdictions, recent policy reform has sought to concentrate resources in dominant ports or amalgamate smaller PAs to increase competitiveness and rationalise investments. This paper formally examines the link between port size and achievable efficiencies through an efficiency analysis of Irish and Atlantic Spanish ports. To achieve this, the paper applies a two-step, double-bootstrap data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach to examine the effect of relative size on technical efficiency across the two port systems during the period 2000–2015. The results indicate a positive relationship between size and technical efficiency amongst ports in peripheral regions. As the time period covers the last global financial crisis, it is possible to further explore the effect of the recession and subsequent contraction in the market for port services on the relationship between size and technical efficiency. The findings indicate that the effect of size on technical efficiency becomes even stronger when market contraction is accounted for. Results also show that the efficiency gap between the larger and smaller ports increased considerably after the recession.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis Port authorities Peripheral port markets Simar and Wilson approach 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out with the support of the Marine Institute and funded under the Marine Research Programme of the Irish Government (Grant-Aid Agreement No. PBA/SE/16/01). The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive comments provided by two anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Badunenko, O., and H. Tauchmann. 2018a. Simar and Wilson two-stage efficiency analysis for Stata (No. 08/2018). FAU Discussion Papers in Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Badunenko, O., and H. Tauchmann. 2018b. SIMARWILSON: Stata module to perform Simar & Wilson (2007) efficiency analysis. Boston, MA: Boston College Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  3. Balcombe, K., I. Fraser, L. Latruffe, M. Rahman, and L. Smith. 2008. An application of the DEA double bootstrap to examine sources of efficiency in Bangladesh rice farming. Applied Economics 40: 1919–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barros, C.P. 2006. A benchmark analysis of Italian seaports using data envelopment analysis. Maritime Economics & Logistics 8: 347–365.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barros, C.P. 2003. The measurement of efficiency of Portuguese sea port authorities with DEA. International Journal of Transport Economics 30: 335–354.Google Scholar
  6. Barros, C.P., and M. Athanassiou. 2004. Efficiency in European seaports with DEA: Evidence from Greece and Portugal. Maritime Economics & Logistics 6: 122–140.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergantino, A.S., E. Musso, and F. Porcelli. 2013. Port management performance and contextual variables: Which relationship? Methodological and empirical issues. Port Performance Strategy 8: 39–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.07.002.Google Scholar
  8. Bonilla, M., A. Medal, T. Casaus, R. Sala, and T. Sala. 2002. The traffic in Spanish ports: An efficiency analysis. International Journal of Transport Economics/Rivista Internazionale di Economia dei Trasporti 215–230.Google Scholar
  9. Brooks, M., R. J. McCalla, A. A. Palla, L. M. Van der Lugt. 2010. Strategic cooperation in peripheral ports: The case of Atlantic Canada’s ports. Canada Journal of Transpotation 4.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, M.R., and K. Cullinane. 2006. Devolution, Port governance and port performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks, M.R., K.P. Cullinane, and A.A. Pallis. 2017. Revisiting port governance and port reform: A multi-country examination. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Cariou, P., C. Ferrari, and F. Parola. 2014. Addressing special challenges in maritime and port logistics. Maritime Policy & Management 41: 425–429.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.932557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coelli, T.J., C.J. O’Donnell, and D.P. Rao. 2005. An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Coto-Millan, P., J. Banos-Pino, and A. Rodriguez-Alvarez. 2000. Economic efficiency in Spanish ports: some empirical evidence. Maritime Policy & Management 27: 169–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/030888300286581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coto-Millán, P., X.L. Fernández, S. Hidalgo, and M.Á. Pesquera. 2016. Public regulation and technical efficiency in the Spanish Port Authorities: 1986–2012. Transport Policy 47: 139–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Langen, P.W., and C. Heij. 2014. Corporatisation and performance: A literature review and an analysis of the performance effects of the corporatisation of port of Rotterdam authority. Transportation Revolution 34: 396–414.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.905650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Oliveira, G.F., and Pierre Cariou. 2015. The impact of competition on container port (in) efficiency. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 78: 124–133.Google Scholar
  19. Debrie, J., V. Lavaud-Letilleul, and F. Parola. 2013. Shaping port governance: the territorial trajectories of reform. Journal of Transport Geography 27: 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drichoutis, A. 2011. Interpreting interaction terms in linear and non-linear models: A cautionary tale. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33251/. Accessed 11 Oct 2018.
  21. Farrell, M.J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society 120: 253–290.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferretti, M., F. Parola, M. Risitano, and I. Vitiello. 2018. Planning and concession management under port co-operation schemes: A multiple case study of Italian port mergers. Research in Transportation Business & Management 26: 5–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonzalez, M., and L. Trujillo. 2007. Efficiency measurement in the port industry: a survey of the empirical evidence (Working Paper No. 07/08). Department of Economics, City University London, London.Google Scholar
  24. Gonzalez, M.M., and L. Trujillo. 2008. Reforms and infrastructure efficiency in Spain’s container ports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42: 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gouvernal, E., J. Debrie, and B. Slack. 2005. Dynamics of change in the port system of the western Mediterranean. Maritime Policy & Management 32: 107–121.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830500083539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haralambides, H. 2017. Globalization, public sector reform, and the role of ports in international supply chains. Maritime Economics & Logistics 19: 1–51.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0068-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haralambides, H.E. 2002. Competition, excess capacity, and the pricing of port infrastructure. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4: 323–347.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hidalgo Gallego, S., R. Núñez Sánchez, and P. Coto Millán. 2015. Demand uncertainty and overcapacity in port infrastructures: The role of passengers and the effect of regulation. REPPP 4: 17–35.  https://doi.org/10.5944/reppp.4.2015.13151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inglada, V., and P. Coto-Millán. 2010. Analysis of technical efficiency and rate of return on investment in ports. Contributions to Economics.Google Scholar
  30. Medal-Bartual, A., M. Molinos-Senante, and R. Sala-Garrido. 2016. Productivity change of the Spanish port system: Impact of the economic crisis. Maritime Policy & Management 43: 683–705.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1182653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Ports Policy|DTTAS Department of Transport, Tourism And Sport. 2013. http://www.dttas.ie/maritime/english/national-ports-policy-0. Accessed 21 Oct 2018.
  32. Ng, A.K.Y., and A.A. Pallis. 2010. Port governance reforms in diversified institutional frameworks: Generic solutions, implementation asymmetries. Environment and Planning A 42: 2147–2167.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a42514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nguyen, H.-O., H.-S. Nghiem, and Y.-T. Chang. 2018. A regional perspective of port performance using metafrontier analysis: The case study of Vietnamese ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 20: 112–130.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0061-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Notteboom, T., C. Coeck, and J. van den Broeck. 2000. Measuring and explaining the relative efficiency of container terminals by means of Bayesian stochastic frontier models. International Journal of Maritime Economics 2: 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Notteboom, T., G. Knatz, and F. Parola. 2018. Port co-operation: Types, drivers and impediments. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  36. Notteboom, T., F. Parola, and G. Satta. 2014. State of the European port system-market trends and structure update. Partim Transshipment Vol.Google Scholar
  37. Notteboom, T.E. 2010. Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: An update. Journal of Transport Geography: Special Issue on Comparative North American and European gateway logistics 18: 567–583.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Notteboom, T.E. 1997. Concentration and load centre development in the European container port system. Journal of Transport Geography 5: 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Notteboom, T.E., and W. Winkelmans. 2001. Structural changes in logistics: How will port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy & Management 28: 71–89.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830119197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Panayides, P.M., C.N. Maxoulis, T. Wang, and K.Y.A. Ng. 2009. A critical analysis of DEA applications to seaport economic efficiency measurement. Transportation Revolution 29: 183–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640802260354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schøyen, H., and J. Odeck. 2013. The technical efficiency of Norwegian container ports: A comparison to some Nordic and UK container ports using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Maritime Economics & Logistics 15: 197–221.  https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2013.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simar, L., and P.W. Wilson. 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Economic 136: 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tongzon, J. 2001. Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35: 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tovar, B., and A. J. Wall. 2017. Specialisation, diversification, size and technical efficiency in ports: An empirical analysis using frontier techniques. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research. Google Scholar
  45. Wanke, P.F., and C.P. Barros. 2015. Public-private partnerships and scale efficiency in Brazilian ports: Evidence from two-stage DEA analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 51: 13–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2015.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu, J., H. Yan, and J. Liu. 2010. DEA models for identifying sensitive performance measures in container port evaluation. Maritime Economics & Logistics 12: 215–236.  https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2010.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yuen, A.C., A. Zhang, and W. Cheung. 2013. Foreign participation and competition: A way to improve the container port efficiency in China? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 49: 220–231.Google Scholar
  48. Zahran, S.Z., J.B. Alam, A.H. Al-Zahrani, Y. Smirlis, S. Papadimitriou, and V. Tsioumas. 2017. Analysis of port authority efficiency using data envelopment analysis. Maritime Economics & Logistics 19: 518–537.  https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2015.330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Hynes
    • 1
  • Ingrid Mateo-Mantecón
    • 2
  • Eamonn O’Connor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Tsakiridis
    • 1
  1. 1.Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit (SEMRU)National University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CantabriaCantabriaSpain

Personalised recommendations