Examining Container Port Resources

Examining Container Port Resources
G G Gand
G Environments to Enhance
Volume 31 Number Competitiveness:
3 September 2015 pp. 341-362
A Cross-Country Study from Resource-Based and Institutional PerspectivesG
Examining Container Port Resources and

Environments to Enhance Competitiveness:
A Cross-Country Study from Resource-Based and
Institutional Perspectives*
Hyuksoo CHO** Sangkyun KIM***
ContentsG
I. Introduction IV. Determinants and Effects of
Container Port Competitiveness
II. Overview of the Container Port Industry
V. Methodology
III. Theoretical Foundations of Container
Port Competitiveness VI. Contribution and Conclusion
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the competitiveness of container ports using

a cross-country analysis with theoretical foundations. Tangible and
intangible resources are discussed as determinants of container port
competitiveness using the resource-based view and the institutional theory.
This study analyzes the relationships among six variables: container port
competitiveness, traffic volume, quality of infrastructure, linear shipping
connectivity, operating efficiency, and institutional influence. This study
retrieved country-level data on different indicators and countries from
several trade and maritime databases. Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) is used to test various hypotheses and to evaluate the casual
relationships among six variables. Additionally, Ordinary Least Squares
(OLS) regression is used to test the moderating effects of institutional
influence.
Key Words : Container Port, Competitiveness, Institutional Theory, RBV

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Copyright 2015, The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
All rights Reserved. Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.
* This work was supported by research fund of 2014 Chungnam National University.
** Associate Professor, Chungnam National University, Korea, Email: hscho@cnu.ac.kr (First Author)
*** Associate Professor, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea, Email: sangkkim@skku.edu (Corresponding Author)
341
G
Examining Container Port Resources and Environments to Enhance Competitiveness:
I. Introduction
We have experienced that globalization affects various areas around the

world. Globalization has brought considerable benefits to individual
countries. In the maritime industry, tremendously positive effects could be
possible by globalization. The vast arrays of routes that connect container
seaports are responsible for transporting containers around the globe
(Fleming, 2005). Thus, the container port industry has been a key
contributor to and beneficiary of globalization.
Historically, container was introduced in the United States. Also,
container shipping was first adopted in the U.S. in the 1960s. Container
shipping is specialized cranes, storage areas, and railheads.
Containerization was adopted on the most heavily traded routes in
developed countries (Hummels, 2007). The container port industry may be
representative of a countrys trade development. Further, container traffic
volume has become a key element in determining a countrys seaport
performance. Containerization has increased competition among seaports
(Cullinane and Song, 2007; Luo and Grigalunas, 2003). Many studies have
investigated the factors affecting container traffic volumes and seaport
competitiveness.
Since the 1980s, dependence of shipping companies on particular
seaports has declined (Liu et al., 2013). This has led to fiercer competition
among seaports around the world (Yuen et al., 2012). It is not easy for
seaports to obtain sufficient container cargo volume to justify massive
investments. Also, aggressive competition has created overcapacity in the
container port sector.
II. Overview of the Container Port Industry
Many major container ports are located in Asia and Europe. According
to Table 1 collected from World Development Indicators (WDI), seven
Asian, two European, and one North American countries are included in
the top 10 regarding container traffic volume. Korea, Malaysia, and UAE
have experienced increased volume. However, the traffic volumes of Japan
and Germany have decreased. In the past, Singapore, Hong Kong, Busan,
and Kaohsiung were dominant players in Asia (Liu et al., 2013). However,
342G
G
there are strong emerging competitors. In recent, many Chinese ports such
as Shanghai, Shenzhen, Qingdao, and Ningbo are plying an important role
in the maritime industry. Among them, Shanghai and Shenzhen have been
new transshipment and gateway hub ports (Yap and Lam, 2006). Thus,
container ports in Asia are facing intensifying competition.
XP
<Table 1> Major countries by container traffic volume
Country/Year 2007 2014
China 103,823,024 174,080,330
United States 44,839,390 44,255,378
Singapore 28,767,500 33,516,343
Korea 17,086,133 22,582,700
Hong Kong 23,998,449 22,352,000
Malaysia 14,828,836 21,426,791
Japan 19,164,522 19,688,382
United Arab Emirates 13,182,412 19,336,427
Germany 16,644,222 19,039,315
Spain 13,346,028 14,020,162
Most seaports, particularly container ports, face intense competition in

the maritime industry. Without effective and concrete strategies, they have
difficulty competing and even surviving. Given that competition among
container ports has become global, we explore the various determinants
that contribute to port competitiveness. Most previous studies analyzed
data from few users to investigate port competitiveness. And, they were
usually conducted at the port level (Yuen et al., 2012). This study analyzes
the competitiveness of container ports using different approaches, and is
designed to identify the key container port resources that increase
competitiveness. One of major limitations of previous studies was the lack
of a theoretical foundation. Without a theoretical background, empirical
findings cannot be justified enough. This study is designed to analyze a
cross-country data using theoretical foundations. Figure 1 represents a
conceptual model of this study and presents three variables that are
discussed as determinants of container port competitiveness using
theoretical foundations such as the Resource-Based View (RBV) and the
1) Container port traffic volumes (TEU: 20-foot equivalent units)
343
G
Institutional Theory. Container port performance is measured using traffic
volume. In addition, there is one moderator: institutional influence.
<Figure 1> Container port resources and environments to enhance competitiveness
III. Theoretical Foundations of Container Port

Competitiveness
1. The Institutional Theory and Container Port Competitiveness
The container port industry has been a major component of the overall
trade competitiveness. Well-developed infrastructure and the managerial
efficiency of container ports may directly stimulate exports and imports.
According to statistics, most of international cargo moves through seaports.
Moreover, most of seaborne cargo moves in containers (Ramani, 1996).
The improved capabilities of container ports can increase the
competitiveness of exports and imports, indicating the importance of
seaborne trade using containers. Therefore, many economic and political
policies of individual countries focus on the container port industry.
Sometimes these activities cannot be explained only through economic
perspectives. Economic theory is insufficient for explaining the regulatory
environments with respect to the container port industry.
This study is designed to investigate container port competitiveness
using the institutional theory, a part of the behavioral branch. This theory
does not overtly stress the internal resources of organizations but places
greater emphasis on interactions with the external environment. A central
344G
G
tenet of the institutional theory is that organizations sharing the same
environment employ similar practices and, thus, become isomorphic with
one another (Hoskisson et al., 2000). Adoption of practices is explained by
organizations conformity to institutional environments driven by
legitimacy motives (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Additionally,
organizations achieving isomorphism attain legitimacy in their
environments. Attaining legitimacy increases the organizations chances of
survival and success because it enhances external constituencies
confidence in the organizations viability of and reduces the uncertainty
surrounding them (Kostova and Roth, 2002). Container port activities
regulated by government policies and laws are explained using the
institutional theory.
2. The Resource-Based View and Container Port Competitiveness
With the institutional perspective, a special interest to this paper is the RBV.
The RBV has broadly provided a theoretical foundation in business areas such
as marketing and management. RBV theorists argue that firms enable
themselves to improve their efficiency and effectiveness by using their own
tangible and intangible resources (Peteraf, 1993). However, research on the
RBV has only scratched the surface of the maritime industry. This lack of
research seems particularly true for the container port industry.
Container ports of individual countries have different levels of resources
such as facilities, infrastructures, and operational systems. These resources
may be indicators of ports capabilities. Container ports using distinct
resources may gain several advantages. As with any industry, competitive
resources play an important role in the battle to gain and defend container
traffic volume in the maritime industry. Container ports may use various
resources such as port infrastructure to acquire market share and gain
customers. On using a tangible resource, some intangible resources may be
found to be of importance to port competitiveness. Specifically, intangible
but important resources such as linear shipping connectivity and operating
efficiency may enhance competitive advantages and performance.
Therefore, we rely on the RBV as the theoretical foundation for our study
and focus on various resources as possible determinants of port
competitiveness.
345
G
IV. Determinants and Effects of Container Port

Competitiveness
1. Effects of Container Port Competitiveness
The topic of competitiveness is broadly covered in the literature on the

maritime industry. Most previous studies concentrated primarily on the
internal components of port competitiveness. However, container port
competitiveness may be determined by both their internal quality and
external environments. In particular, the changing business environment is
of importance when container ports face fierce competition (Yeo et al.,
2008). Peters (1990) revealed varying internal and external factors that
influence port competitiveness. Service level, available facility capacity,
facility status, and port operation policy were discussed as internal factors,
while external factors included international politics, changes in the social
environment, trade markets, economic factors, and features of competitive
ports (Peters, 1990). According to Rugman and Verbeke (1993), regulatory
influence like government intervention can be an important determinant.
Container ports may use various tangible and intangible resources to
enhance their performance. This activity may correspond to the role of
firms strategy in marketing territories. Performance usually depends on
how a strategy may be utilized to increase container traffic volume, a key
indicator for container ports ability to survive and compete in the dynamic
marketplace. In general, the object of a firms strategy is to achieve
performance that can be enhanced through generated competitiveness
(Narver and Slater, 1990). The foregoing discussion was on the theoretical
relationship among strategy, competitiveness, and performance, which has
been well studied in marketing territories (Porter, 1996). Based on this
theoretical foundation, this study aims to discuss the relationships among
the determinants, competitiveness, and performance of container ports.
Container ports are likely to enhance traffic volume by creating and
utilizing their competitive advantages. These arguments lead to the
following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: Container port competitiveness is positively associated with

ports traffic volumes.
346G
G
2. Determinants of Container Port Competitiveness
Many previous studies discussed the determinants of port

competitiveness. McCalla (1994) revealed inland transportation networks,
port facilities, and container transport routes as factors that improve port
competitiveness. Starr (1994) identified the geographic location of ports,
inland railway transportation, investment in port facilities, and stability of
port labor as major determinants. According to Haezendonck and
Notteboom (2002), quality, productivity, hinterland accessibility, and
cargo-generating effect were emphasized to strengthen the competitiveness
of container ports. According to Yeo et al. (2008), hinterland condition,
port service, logistics costs, and connectivity were insisted to contribute to
port competitiveness. Last, Tongzon and Heng (2005) identified eight
determinants including efficiency, handling charges, and reliability.
Based on the foregoing literature reviews, the determinants of
competitiveness may be classified into internal and external factors.
Among them, this study pays attention to various container port resources.
We rely on the RBV as our theoretical base for guiding the selection of the
possible determinants of container port competitiveness justifying the
hypothesized relationships. According to RBV theorists, resources include
assets, capabilities, organizational processes, information, knowledge, firm
attributes, and are classified in terms of tangible and intangible resources
(Barney, 1991). In particular, intangible resources have been emphasized.
Tangible resources can be imitated and acquired by competitors, while
intangible resources are not easily imitated or acquired. This study discusses
infrastructure as a tangible resource for container ports and reviews linear
shipping connectivity and operating efficiency as intangible resources.
1) Infrastructure Quality
Most seaports including container ports have a history of rivalry with

competitors near and far. Container ports around the world are thus facing
competition from leading and emerging ports (Cho and Yang, 2011). The
competition has been much severe in Asia. Hong Kong, Busan, Shanghai,
and Singapore are leading container ports and those in Northern China are
representative emerging ports. Massive investments have been required for
container ports to compete each other. With the investments, various
347
G
infrastructures such as terminals, docks, storage areas and hinterlands were
constructed. As the result, size of container port infrastructure in Asia has
climbed significantly. However, it is not easy for container ports to have
sufficient cargo volumes to justify the massive investments.
According to the literature reviews, infrastructure is a crucial resource
for container ports and an indicator of their competitiveness. Table 2
illustrates the quality of the port infrastructure of major countries. In Asia,
Hong Kong and Singapore provide high levels of port infrastructure. The
level of port infrastructure in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Finland was
relatively higher than that of other European countries.
<Table 2> Major countries by quality of port infrastructure2) 3)

Netherlands 6.66714022 6.8
Singapore 6.83057426 6.7
United Arab Emirates 5.99067736 6.5
Hong Kong 6.53982924 6.5
Belgium 6.38395591 6.4
Finland 6.19292879 6.4
Panama 5.65009511 6.3
Iceland 5.7416333 5.9
Denmark 6.41393124 5.8
Spain 5.34423845 5.8
Based on the arguments of previous studies, we can conclude that

infrastructure may be regarded as a fundamental resource or asset for the
competitiveness of container ports. This study thus proposes the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: The infrastructure quality of container ports is positively

associated with the ports competitiveness.
\
2) World Development Indicators (WDI) (2014), The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator
3) Quality of port infrastructure: 1=extremely underdeveloped and 7=well developed and efficient by international
standards.
348G
G
2) Linear Shipping Connectivity
In the maritime industry, connectivity among linear shipping can be

regarded as a component of competitiveness. The development of
container ports may represent the point of convergence among intermodal
transportation and transshipment cargoes (Lee and Flynn, 2011). Major
shipping conglomerates have made an effort to globalize their service
coverage (Low et al., 2009). Also, container ports have strengthened their
shipping connectivity. Networking of container shipping companies may
represent the degree of internationalization. Well-developed networks
made it possible without transshipment. Therefore, incorporating a global
service network could be very important for the global logistics system
(Gadhia et al., 2010).
The major container ports and many of the smaller ports in every region
around the world are connected and depend on one another. Each container
port possesses different levels of resources. Linear shipping connectivity is
one such resource. All container ports are connected through shipping
companies, but some container ports are more connected than others. The
differences in connectivity among container ports may represent their
dissimilar levels of internationalization. Additionally, most container ports
have various networks and some have many more networks than others.
Therefore, connectivity may be an indicator of the port competitiveness.
According to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) statistics (2014), number of ships, carrying capacity, number
of companies, and number of services are major components to measure
liner shipping connectivity. Table 3 shows major countries in terms of liner
shipping connectivity. The connectivity indices of Germany and
Netherlands have been decreased. In other words, these countries links
have been weakened. However, those of Asian countries such as Korea
and Malaysia have improved. In other words, these countries links have
been strengthened. Based on the arguments, well-developed linear
shipping connectivity is an important resource of container ports and may
indicate the capability of individual container ports. Therefore, this study
develops the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: The liner shipping connectivity of container ports is

positively associated with the competitiveness of ports.
349
G
<Table 3> Major countries by liner shipping connectivity4) 5)

China 127.85 165.05
Hong Kong 106.2 115.984
Singapore 87.53 113.155
Korea 77.19 108.059
Malaysia 81.58 104.015
United States 83.68 95.0881
Netherlands 84.79 94.1526
Germany 88.95 93.9751
United Kingdom 76.77 87.9508
Belgium 73.93 80.7448
Based on the literature reviews, well-developed linear shipping

connectivity is an important resource of container ports and may indicate
the capability of individual container ports. Therefore, this study develops
the following hypothesis.
3) Operating Efficiency
Demand for advanced container ports, such as deep-water infrastructure,

has long existed in the maritime industry. However, the supply of such
berths is constrained by the current economic recession. Container port
investment delays and possible curtailment are perhaps inevitable. In the
present market circumstances, efficiency can be an important alternative to
improving port competitiveness. Container port operating efficiency is an
essential component of frequent liner shipping links with the rest of the
world (Asteris et al., 2012). No container port enjoys dominant freedom
over the handling of cargoes; instead, ports must compete for cargoes. In
such a competitive environment, efficient management of container ports
is crucial. Therefore, the competitiveness of a container port depends on
the level of operating efficiency. Yeun et al. (2013) argued that intra- and
4) World Development Indicators (WDI) (2014), The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator
5) The index shows how well countries are connected to global shipping networks, and is computed by the United Nations.
350G
G
inter-port competition might enhance container terminal efficiency (Yeun

et al., 2013). Additionally, Tongzon (2009) noted that port choice is closely
associated with its level of efficiency.
Major shipping conglomerates are attempting to enhance cost efficiency
by reaping scale economies such as the deployment of increasingly large
vessels (Cullinane and Khanna, 1999). Therefore, shipping companies
should prefer a container port that provides efficient cargo-handling
services at the berth. These arguments lead to the development of the
following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4: Operating efficiency of container ports is positively

associated with the competitiveness of ports.
As container ports gain better tangible and intangible resources, such as

infrastructure, connectivity, and efficiency, their performance is expected
to increase in terms of competitiveness and traffic volumes. This paper
develops a new approach for the role of regulatory institutions as
moderators of port competitiveness and of tangible and intangible
resources of container ports.
3. Moderating Effect of Institutional Influence
In the past, the center of global maritime industry was North America
and Europe. According to Lee and Flynn (2011), seven American ports and
fourteen European ports were ranked in the top 25 in 1970. There were
only two Asian ports ranked in the top 25. The market circumstances have
been dramatically changed. Fifteen Asian ports were in the list in 2010.
North American and European ports have been slipping relative to other
countries, indicating a weakening of ports competiveness. The number of
container ports ranked in the top 25 ports decreased from seven to three
and from fourteen to five, respectively, in North America and Europe (Lee
and Flynn, 2011).
In Asia, many governments have made hard efforts to maintain the
competitiveness of their container ports. For example, there have been
various government-aided programs in the maritime industry. Korean port
authorities have constructed berths, infrastructure and superstructure, and
351
G
developed hinterlands of major container ports (Yeo et al., 2008). In other

Asian countries, the role of the government has been emphasized as well.
They are actively pursuing the competitiveness of their container ports.
According to Lee et al. (2008), there are some differences between Asian
and European container ports. The maximization of economic efficiency
has been the most important theme in European container ports. However,
Asian container ports have not followed the European approach. Instead,
the multi-dimensional roles of central governments have driven container
port developments in Asia (Lee and Flynn, 2011). The institutional theory
is able to theoretically explain interactions with regulatory institutions,
such as government policy and law. According to institutional theorist,
institutional influences may represent challenges as well as opportunities.
Market risk or uncertainty may grow with such influences; yet, these
influences may also provide opportunities and not constraints. Previous
studies noted that institutional influence favors the container port industry
in many countries. Based on theese arguments, this study develops the
following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5: The degree of institutional influence positively moderates

the relationship between the competitiveness and traffic volumes of
container ports.
the relationship between the infrastructure quality and competitiveness of
container ports.
the relationship between liner shipping connectivity and the
competitiveness of container ports.
the relationship between operating efficiency and the competitiveness of
container ports.
352G
G
V. Methodology
1. Samples of Nations
This study aims to investigate the internal and external determinants of

container port competitiveness. Unlike previous studies using port-level
and survey data, this study identifies the components that influence port
competitiveness based on country-level data. The academic literature
offered very little on container port competitiveness at the country-level of
analysis. Data used for this study were retrieved from several trade and
maritime databases that contain country-level data on different indicators
and countries. Specific sampling frames were the WDI of the World Bank
and UNCTAD statistics. The 120 countries studied represent parts of
Europe, America, and Asia, and further included Africa, Australia, and
New Zealand.
2. Measures
This study analyzes the relationships among six variables: container

port competitiveness, traffic volume, infrastructure quality, linear shipping
connectivity, operating efficiency, and institutional influence. Container
port competitiveness refers to ports competitive advantage in the maritime
industry. The World Bank assesses the quality and efficiency of
trade-related infrastructure. In particular, the index represents the
improvement in the management of key trade gateways, such as container
ports, and indirectly measures container port competitiveness. Traffic
volumes represent the performance of container ports. The WDI shows the
container traffic volumes of individual countries.
Port infrastructure quality measures business executives perception of
their countrys port facilities, and data were from the World Economic
Forums Executive Opinion Survey. Linear shipping connectivity captures
how well countries are connected to global shipping networks. The index
was measured using the (UNCTAD) based on five components of the
maritime transport sector: number of ships, their container-carrying
capacity, maximum vessel size, number of services, and number of
companies that deploy container ships in a countrys ports. The efficiency
353
G
of a ports operation represents a business intangible resource of container
ports. Additionally, the index may be used to measure whether a business
environment is conducive to the container port industry.
Lastly, institutional influence is the moderator used in this study.
Institutional environments comprise a large part of a firms environment.
Among them, regulatory institutions are representatives. This study was
able to gather regulatory institution data on individual countries from the
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) by the World Bank. In specific,
the data were calculated using the average normalized scores on three key
variables: tariff and non-tariff barriers, regulatory quality, and rule of law.
3. Statistical Results
Table 4 shows the correlation matrix for all variables. The directions of
the relationships between port competitiveness and determinants are
generally consistent with the proposed hypotheses. In addition, a strong
correlation exists between port operating efficiency and competitiveness.
<Table 4> Correlation matrix6)

CT PC PI PL PE
PC 0.3477)
(0)
PI 0.185 0.676
(0.065) (0)
PL 0.714 0.661 0.451
(0) (0) (0)
PE 0.314 0.759 0.725 0.601
(0.001) (0) (0) (0)
II 0.03 0.557 0.547 0.098 0.606
(0.748) (0) (0) (0.294) (0)
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with SPSS and AMOS 19 was

used to test the hypotheses. Through SEM, this study evaluated a causal
model using the maximum likelihood estimation model, including the
casual relationships among six variables. Additionally, Ordinary Least
6) PI: Port infrastructure; PL: Linear shipping connectivity; PE: Efficiency of port operation; PC: Port competitiveness;
CT: Container traffic volumes; II: Institutional influence.
7) Cell contents: Pearson correlation (p-value).
354G
G
Squares (OLS) regression was used to test the moderating effects of
institutional influence. Table 5 represents the SEM estimations of the
proposed model and shows that, given the values of GFI, NFI, and CFI,
and the TLI close to 1, the overall fit of the model is good. The chi-square
is also statistically significant. The fit indices indicate an adequate fit for
the overall model.
<Table 5> SEM estimations of the proposed model

Standardized
Hypothesis Relationships
coefficient
1 Port competitiveness Container traffic volume 0.345***
2 Quality of port infrastructure Port competitiveness -0.071**
3 Linear shipping connectivity Port competitiveness 0.119***
4 Efficiency of port operation Port competitiveness 0.939***
Goodness-of-Fit-Index
Chi-Square 19.295***
GFI 0.837
NFI 0.811
CFI 0.812
Hypothesis 1 suggests a positive relationship between container port

competitiveness and traffic volume. The coefficient is positive (0.345) and
statistically significant, which supports hypothesis 1. Hypotheses 2, 3, and
4 address the positive relationship between container port resources and
port competitiveness. The coefficients for linear shipping connectivity and
operating efficiency are positive, which supports Hypotheses 3 and 4.
However, the coefficient for infrastructure quality is negative (0.071),
which does not support Hypothesis 2. Some possible answers may explain
the problem. First, the result illustrates that infrastructure quality may not
be important to container port competitiveness. Second, users of container
ports such as ship owners, shipping company executives, shippers,
logistics-related companies, and freight forwarders, may not comprehend
the quality of port infrastructure. Lastly, sampling error may be involved.
This study used OLS regression to test four moderating effects. OLS
regression uses linear combinations of independent variables to compute
expected values of the dependent variable. Table 6 shows the detailed
355
G
results of the regression analysis. Hypothesis 5 argues that institutional

influence enhances the relationship between port competitiveness and
traffic volumes. However, hypothesis 5 is not supported because the
coefficient is not statistically significant. Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 predict
that the level of institutional influence positively moderates the
relationships between port resources and competitiveness. The coefficient
for operating efficiency is positive (0.101) and statistically significant,
empirically supporting Hypothesis 8. This result explains that the positive
effect of operating efficiency on container port competitiveness is more
likely strengthened in ports and countries in which institutional influence
is strong. However, hypotheses 6 and 7 are not supported due to
statistically insignificant coefficients.
<Table 6> Results of OLS regression analysis

Standardized
Hypothesis Independent variables
coefficient
Dependent variable: Container traffic volumes
5 Institutional influence Port competitiveness -0.054
Dependent variable: Port competitiveness
Institutional influence Quality of port
6 -0.045
infrastructure
Institutional influence Linear shipping
7 -0.036
connectivity
Institutional influence Efficiency of port
8 0.101**
operation
R-squared 0.934
Although this study focuses on four positive moderating effects of

institutional influence, three of the effects are not supported. Moreover,
some coefficients were negative. Although we cannot make conclusions
using the insignificant results, we surmise that institutional influence may
play a negative role in port competitiveness. In other words, institutional
influence is likely to decrease the effects of container port resources on
competitiveness given its uncertain characteristics. Further studies should
test specific hypotheses concerning the effects of institutional influence in
the container port industry.
356G
G
VI. Contribution and Conclusion
Under the globalization, economies, politics, culture, and technology of

individual countries are interrelated. Trade or commerce with maritime
industry is not away from the phenomenon. A large proportion of the
worlds trade is being carried by sea transportations. Moreover, Most of
seaborne cargo moves in containers. The improved capabilities of
container ports can increase the competitiveness of exports and imports,
thus indicating the importance of seaborne trade using containers. We aim
to identify the determinants of container port competitiveness and
performance. We first review tangible and intangible resources of port
competitiveness addressed by previous studies, and then determine the
moderating effects of institutional stability.
Unlike previous studies, we incorporate empirical analyses into
theoretical foundations such as the resource-based and institutional
perspectives. This study is also designed to empirically test theoretical
hypotheses based on country-level data. Despite its contributions, this
study has certain limitations. Future research should investigate a broader
domain of determinates and effects to further improve generalizability.
Clearly, in terms of port competitiveness, these relationships may be
moderated by numerous other port characteristics or environments. Future
research should further examine various moderating effects. Additionally,
we suggest that combining country-level and firm-level data regarding
container ports is an interesting topic for future research. Typically,
container ports offer regular, reliable, and frequent services. However, we
did not measure the depth of the container port industry. We hope that this
research inspires further theoretical or empirical studies on the
competitiveness of container port industry.
Date of Contribution ; July 2, 2014
Date of Acceptance ; August 1, 2015G
357
G
References
ASTERIS, M., COLLINS, A. and JONES, D.F. (2012), Container port

infrastructure in north-west Europe: Policy-level modeling, Journal of Policy
Modeling, Vol.34, pp.312324.
BAIRD, A. (2002). Privatization trends at the worlds top-100 container ports,

Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.29, No.3, pp.271284.
BARNEY, J. (1991), Firm Resources and Sustainable Competitive Advantage,

Journal of Management, Vol.17, No.1, pp.99-120.
BROOKS, M.R. and CULLINANE, K. (2007), Devolution, port governance and

port performance, Research in Transport Economics, Vol.17, Oxford, Elsevier.
CULLINANE, K.P., WANG, B. and CULLINANE, T.S.L. (2004), Container

terminal development in Mainland China and its impact on the competitiveness of the
port of Hong Kong, Transport Reviews, Vol.24, No.1, pp.3356.
CULLINANE, K.P and KHANNA, M. (1999), Economies of scale in large

container ships, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol.33, No.2,
pp.185-207.
CULLINANE, K.P. and SONG, D.W. (2007), Asian container ports: Development,
competition and co-operation (Eds), London, Palgrave.
CULLINANE, K.P. and SONG, D.W. (2002), Port privatization policy and
practice, Transport Reviews, Vol.22, pp.5575.
DIMAGGIO, P.J. and POWELL, W.W. (1983), The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields,
American Sociological Review, Vol.48, pp.147-160.
FLEMING, D.K. (2005), Patterns of international ocean trade. In: Grammenos, C.

(Ed.), The Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, LLP Press, London,
pp.6589.
358G
G
GADHIA, H.K., KOTZAB, H. and PROCKL, G. (2011), Levels of

internationalization in the container shipping industry: an assessment of the port
networks of the large container shipping companies, Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol.19, pp.14311442.
HA, M. (2003), A comparison of service quality at major container ports:

Implications for Korean ports, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.11, No.1,
pp.131137.
HA, M. and ZHANG, L.H. (2000), A Study on the historical developments of

Chinese ocean shipping, The Journal of the Korean Association of Shipping Studies,
Vol.30, pp.253280.
HAEZENDONCK, E. and NOTTEBOOM, T. (2002), The competitive advantage of

seaports, in: Huybrechts, M. et al. (Ed.) (2002). Port competitiveness: An economic
and legal analysis of the factors determining the competitiveness of seaports, pp. 67-87.
HOSKISSON, R.E., EDEN, L., LAU, C.M., and WRIGHT, M. (2000). Strategy in
emerging economies, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.43, No.3, pp.249-267.
HUMMELS, D. (2007), Transportation costs and international trade in the second

era of globalization, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.21, No.3, pp.131-154.
KOSTOVA, T. and ROTH, K. (2002), Adoption of an organizational Practice by

Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol.45, No.1, pp.215-233.
LEE, P.T and FLYNN, M. (2011), Charting a new paradigm of container hub port
development policy: The Asian doctrine, Transport Reviews, Vol.31, No.6,
pp.791806.
LEE, P.T., FLYNN, M., CHANG, Y.T., KIM, H. J., CHEN, T., LEE, T.C., and
CHASOMERIS, M. (2008), Port Economics Study, Hong Kong: Flynn Consulting
Ltd.
359
G
LEVINSON, M. (2006), Container shipping and the economy: Stimulating trade

and transformations worldwide, TR News, Vol.246, SeptemberOctober, pp.1012.
LIU, L., WANG, K.Y., and YIP, T.L. (2013), Development of a container port
system in Pearl River Delta: Path to multi-gateway ports, Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol.28, pp.3038.
LOW, J.M.W., LAM, S.W., and TANG, L.C. (2009), Assessment of hub status
among Asian ports from a network perspective, Transportation Research, Vol.43,
Part A, pp.593606.
LUO, M., and GRIGALUNAS, T. (2003), A spatial-economic multimodal

transportation simulation model for US coastal container ports, Maritime Economics
and Logistics, Vol.5, pp.158-178.
MCCALLA, R. (1994), Canadian container: How have they fares? how will they
do?, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.21, No.3, pp.207-217.
NARVER, J.C., and SLATER, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on
business profitability, Journal of Marketing, Vol.54, pp.20-35.
NOTTEBOOM, T.E. and RODRIGUE, J.P. (2005), Port regionalization: towards a

new phase in port development, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.32, No.3,
pp.297313.
PAROLA, F. and MUSSO, E. (2007), Market structures and competitive strategies:

The carrier-stevedore arm-wrestling in northern European ports, Maritime Policy
and Management, Vol.34, No.3, pp.259278.
PEARSON, R. (1980), Container line Performance and Service Quality. University

of Liverpool.
PETERAF, M. (1993), The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource

based view, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.14, No.3, pp.179-192.
PEREZ-LABAJOS, C. and BLANCO, B. (2004), Competitive policies for
360G
G
commercial sea ports in the EU, Marine Policy, Vol.28, No.6, pp.553556.
PETERS, H. (1990), Structural changes in international trade and transport

markets: the importance of markets, In: The 2nd KMI International Symposium:
5875.
PORTER, M. (1996), What is strategy? Harvard Business Review,

November-December. pp.61-78.
RAMANI, K.V. (1996), An interactive simulation model for the logistics planning
of container operations in seaports, Simulation, Vol.66, pp.291-300.
RUGMAN, A.M. and VERBEKE, A. (2004), A perspective on regional and global

strategies of multinational enterprises, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol.35, pp.3-18.
STARR, J. (1994), The mid-Atlantic load centre: Baltimore or Hampton Road?

Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.21, No.3, pp.219227.
TONGZON, J.L. (2009), Port choice and freight forwarders, Transp Res E, Vol.45,
No.1, pp.185-195.
WANG, Y. and CULLINANE, K. (2006), Inter-port competition and measures of

individual container port accessibility, International Association of Maritime
Economists Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
YAP, W.Y. and LAM, J.S.L. (2006), Competition dynamics between container
ports in East Asia, Transportation Research, Vol.40, Part A, pp.35-51.
YEO, G.T., ROE, M., and DINWOODIE, J. (2008), Evaluating the competitiveness
of container ports in Korea and China, Transportation Research, Vol.42, Part A,
pp.910-921.
YUEN, C.L.A., ZHANG, A., and CHEUNG, W. (2012), Port competitiveness from
the users perspective: An analysis of major container ports in China and its
neighboring countries, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol.35, pp.34-40.
361
G
__________ (2014), World Development Indicators, The World Bank,

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator
__________ (2014), UNCTAD stat, UNCTAD, http://unctadstat.unctad.org
362G
G

Examining Container Port Resources

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Examining Container Port Resources

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Examining Container Port Resources

Examining Container Port Resources and

This study aims to analyze the competitiveness of container ports using

Key Words : Container Port, Competitiveness, Institutional Theory, RBV

We have experienced that globalization affects various areas around the

II. Overview of the Container Port Industry

Most seaports, particularly container ports, face intense competition in

<Figure 1> Container port resources and environments to enhance competitiveness

III. Theoretical Foundations of Container Port

1. The Institutional Theory and Container Port Competitiveness

2. The Resource-Based View and Container Port Competitiveness

IV. Determinants and Effects of Container Port

1. Effects of Container Port Competitiveness

The topic of competitiveness is broadly covered in the literature on the

Hypothesis 1: Container port competitiveness is positively associated with

Many previous studies discussed the determinants of port

Most seaports including container ports have a history of rivalry with

<Table 2> Major countries by quality of port infrastructure2) 3)

Netherlands 6.66714022 6.8

Singapore 6.83057426 6.7

United Arab Emirates 5.99067736 6.5

Hong Kong 6.53982924 6.5

Belgium 6.38395591 6.4

Finland 6.19292879 6.4

Panama 5.65009511 6.3

Iceland 5.7416333 5.9

Denmark 6.41393124 5.8

Spain 5.34423845 5.8

Based on the arguments of previous studies, we can conclude that

Hypothesis 2: The infrastructure quality of container ports is positively

In the maritime industry, connectivity among linear shipping can be

Hypothesis 3: The liner shipping connectivity of container ports is

<Table 3> Major countries by liner shipping connectivity4) 5)

Based on the literature reviews, well-developed linear shipping

Demand for advanced container ports, such as deep-water infrastructure,

inter-port competition might enhance container terminal efficiency (Yeun

Hypothesis 4: Operating efficiency of container ports is positively

As container ports gain better tangible and intangible resources, such as

3. Moderating Effect of Institutional Influence

developed hinterlands of major container ports (Yeo et al., 2008). In other

Hypothesis 5: The degree of institutional influence positively moderates

This study aims to investigate the internal and external determinants of

This study analyzes the relationships among six variables: container

<Table 4> Correlation matrix6)

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with SPSS and AMOS 19 was

<Table 5> SEM estimations of the proposed model

Hypothesis 1 suggests a positive relationship between container port

results of the regression analysis. Hypothesis 5 argues that institutional

<Table 6> Results of OLS regression analysis

Although this study focuses on four positive moderating effects of

VI. Contribution and Conclusion

Under the globalization, economies, politics, culture, and technology of

ASTERIS, M., COLLINS, A. and JONES, D.F. (2012), Container port

BAIRD, A. (2002). Privatization trends at the worlds top-100 container ports,

BARNEY, J. (1991), Firm Resources and Sustainable Competitive Advantage,

BROOKS, M.R. and CULLINANE, K. (2007), Devolution, port governance and

CULLINANE, K.P., WANG, B. and CULLINANE, T.S.L. (2004), Container

CULLINANE, K.P and KHANNA, M. (1999), Economies of scale in large

FLEMING, D.K. (2005), Patterns of international ocean trade. In: Grammenos, C.

GADHIA, H.K., KOTZAB, H. and PROCKL, G. (2011), Levels of

HA, M. (2003), A comparison of service quality at major container ports:

HA, M. and ZHANG, L.H. (2000), A Study on the historical developments of

HAEZENDONCK, E. and NOTTEBOOM, T. (2002), The competitive advantage of

HUMMELS, D. (2007), Transportation costs and international trade in the second