Integration of inland and maritime logistics is vital for ports in the growing port competition landscape and for ports aspiring to be part of international logistics networks. In the present work, the question of how port authorities can play a role in the development of inland logistics markets has been addressed. Literature indicates that port authorities have an ideal position for intervention, but they often do not have suitable instruments to intervene beyond their traditional jurisdiction and mission. A typology based on the theoretical framework of Verhoeven [Marit Policy Manag 37(3):247–270, 2010], which categorises landlord port authorities as conservators, facilitators or entrepreneurs, along with their corresponding roles, types of actions and instruments has been introduced in this study. Three cases have been studied, namely Rotterdam (The Netherlands), Le Havre (France) and Marseille-Fos (France). The case studies rely on in-depth interviews with port authorities and public administrations to complete our desk research. The results of this study reveal a shift from a conservator to a facilitator model. Port authorities stimulate inland logistics markets through non-commercial incentives, such as organisational aid or subsidies, but they do not sell logistics services inland. In both dynamic (Rotterdam) and less dynamic hinterlands (Le Havre and Marseille-Fos), port authorities experience difficulties in assuming a more entrepreneurial behaviour, and a further shift towards the entrepreneurial model is not a likely trend. In this light, the thesis of Verhoeven (2010), concerning the renaissance of port authorities, can only be partially validated.

Hinterland, Inland logistics, Le Havre, Marseille-Fos, Port governance, Rotterdam
dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00140-8, hdl.handle.net/1765/125126
Maritime Economics & Logistics
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Magnan, M. (Marion), & van der Horst, M.R. (2020). Involvement of port authorities in inland logistics markets: the cases of Rotterdam, Le Havre and Marseille. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 22(1), 102–123. doi:10.1057/s41278-019-00140-8