Skip to main content
Log in

Concession Agreements and Market Entry in the Container Terminal Industry

  • Article
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

In this paper, we describe the capabilities and strategies required for obtaining a concession to operate a terminal in a seaport. The extent to which concession procedures create entry barriers and lower the contestability of the market is assessed. Recent studies and policy initiatives have stressed the importance of lowering economic, institutional, and locational entry barriers in seaports. Concession procedures have an effect on market entry. Tenders may lower entry barriers by ensuring transparency, restricting discrimination and exclusivity, and limiting concessions to certain periods. However, tender procedures may also introduce entry barriers in a number of ways, including the requirement of capabilities and track records to win a tender. This paper examines relevant empirical material of recently completed or intended concessions in major European ports to evaluate these issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An earlier version of this paper won the Palgrave-Macmillan MEL Best Paper Prize at the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference, Dalian, PRC, April, 2008.

  2. However, even in the British case, where both the regulatory and port-ownership role of the public sector have been minimised, government influence is significant at various levels (national, regional, or local) in port development (Gilman, 2004). Recent examples are the UK government decisions to grant approval for the London Gateway development and to reject the proposal for the expansion of the port of Southampton.

  3. Liquid bulk cargo ports often do not require large infrastructure investments and may simply consist of infrastructure to connect a ship at anchor through pipelines with storage facilities on shore. Containers require specialised gantry cranes and further maritime and hinterland infrastructures.

  4. This conclusion is irrespective of the way in which their performance was measured – throughput per quay metre, TEU per ship-to-shore gantry, or TEU per hectare.

  5. The concentration of terminal operators may be considered as an effective means to counterbalance the power of liner shipping companies and alliances. On the other hand, the concentration is sufficiently large to question whether terminal operators have market power. EU competition regulations have affected Hutchison's expansion in North Europe, and it is likely that the regulatory authorities will also carefully scrutinise future expansions by the major players.

  6. See the general literature on concessions in infrastructure and the related (re)negotiation processes between public actors and private interests (Kerf et al, 1998; Guasch, 2004; Guasch et al, 2006).

  7. In several cases, a minimum percentage of transhipment containers is also agreed upon in the concession contract.

  8. The nature of the container-handling business (notably the high fixed costs and lack of service differentiation, except in terms of location) in theory creates significant opportunities to improve service through cooperation. However, forms of operational cooperation in the market do not come about easily and they usually end up in mergers or acquisitions (Notteboom, 2002; Musso et al, 2001; Slack and Frémont, 2005).

  9. Terminal operators that operate more than one terminal in the same port area (each terminal with different concession stipulations regarding throughput guarantees) are very creative in redistributing volumes over the different terminals in order to meet minimum throughput guarantees and optimise terminal operations.

References

  • Bain, J . 1956: Barriers to new competition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, AJ . 2002: Privatization trends at the world's top-100 container ports. Maritime Policy and Management 29: 271–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlton, D and Perloff, J . 1994: Modern industrial organization. HarperCollins College Publishers: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, PW and Pallis, AA . 2007: Entry barriers in seaports. Maritime Policy and Management 34: 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, PW and Pallis, AA . 2006: The effects of intra-port competition. International Journal of Transport Economics 33: 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defilippi, E . 2004: Intra-port competition, regulatory challenges and the concession of Callao port. Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics 6: 279–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H . 1968: Why regulate utilities. Journal of Law and Economics 11: 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drewry Shipping Consultants. 2007: Annual review of global container terminal operators 2006. Drewry: London.

  • Engel, EMRA, Fischer, RD and Galetovic, A . 2004: How to auction a bottleneck monopoly when underhand vertical agreements are possible. Journal of Industrial Economics 52: 427–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESPO (European Sea Port Organisation). 2004: Impact assessment of the proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on market access to port services Mimeo. ESPO: Brussels.

  • ESPO. 2005: European ports-factual report. ESPO: Brussels.

  • ESPO. 2007: Annual report. ESPO: Brussels.

  • European Commission. 2007: Communication on a European ports policy. COM(2007) 616 final. Brussels: European Commission.

  • FEPORT. 2005: FEPORT position paper presented at the public hearing of the European parliament and the European commission. FEPORT: Brussels.

  • Flor, L and Defilippi, E . 2003: Port infrastructure: An access model for the essential facility. Maritime Economics and Logistics 5: 116–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P, Gilbert, R and Jacquemin, A . 1990: Barriers to entry and strategic competition. Taylor and Francis: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, S . 2004: Sustainability and national policy in UK port development. Maritime Policy & Management 30: 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss, R . 1990: Economic policies and seaports – part 3: Are port authorities necessary? Maritime Policy and Management 17: 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guasch, JL . 2004: Granting and renegotiating infrastructure concessions: Doing it right. The World Bank: Washington.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guasch, JL, Laffont, JJ and Straub, S . 2006: Renegotiation of concession contracts: A theoretical approach. Review of Industrial Organization 29: 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juan, C, Olmos, F, Casasus, T, Pérez, JC, García, L, Feo, M, Monfort, A, Pérez, E and Torregrosa, A . 2004: Concession agreements in the shipping industry. 8th Annual International Conference on Real Options, Montréal Canada, 17–19 June 2004.

  • Kerf, MR, Gray, D, Irwin, T, Levesque, C and Taylor, R . 1998: Concessions for infrastructure: A guide to their design and award. Paper No. 389. Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • Moglia, F and Sanguineri, M . 2003: Port planning: The need for a new approach? Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics 5: 413–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musso, E, Ferrari, C and Benacchio, M . 2001: Co-operation in maritime and port industry and its effects on market structure. 9th World Conference on Transport Research (proceedings in CD-Rom format), Seoul, Korea, July 2001.

  • Notteboom, T . 2002: Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry. Maritime Policy and Management 29: 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T . 2007: Concession agreements as port governance tools. In: Brooks, MR and Cullinane, K (eds). Devolution, Port Governance and Performance. Elsevier: London. pp. 449–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2006: Global forum on competition: Roundtable on concessions, contribution from Turkey. OECD: Paris.

  • Olivier, D . 2005: Private entry and emerging partnerships in the container terminal operations: Evidence from Asia. Maritime Economics and Logistics 7: 87–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivier, D, Parola, F, Slack, B and Wang, JJ . 2007: The time scale of internationalisation: The case of the container port industry. Maritime Economics and Logistics 9: 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallis, AA . 2007a: Whither port strategy? Theory and practice in conflict. In: idem (ed). Maritime Transport: The Greek Paradigm. Elsevier: London. pp. 345–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallis, AA . 2007b: EU Port policy developments: Implications for port governance. In: Brooks, MR and Cullinane, K (eds). Devolution, port governance and performance. Elsevier: London. pp. 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Port of Barcelona. 2006: Bid specifications for the Muelle Prat Wharf Container Terminal concession. BPA: Barcelona.

  • Port Strategy. 2006: No way to do business. August 2006.

  • Slack, B and Frémont, A . 2005: Transformation of port terminal operations: From the local to the global. Transport Reviews 25: 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G . 1968: The Organization of Industry. Irwin: Homewood, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Niekerk, HC . 2005: Port reform and concessioning in developing countries. Maritime Economics and Logistics 7: 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Weizsäcker, CC . 1980: Barriers to entry: A theoretical treatment. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2007: Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) database. < http://rru.worldbank.org/PPI >, viewed 22 April 2007.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pallis, A., Notteboom, T. & De Langen, P. Concession Agreements and Market Entry in the Container Terminal Industry. Marit Econ Logist 10, 209–228 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2008.1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2008.1

Keywords

Navigation