Network effects in the East Asia container ports industry

Maritime Policy and Management

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 369-386

  Low, Joyce M W ^a   Tang, Loon Ching ^b  

^a Hankuk Aviation University   (South Korea)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTAINER TERMINAL; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; PORT DEVELOPMENT; TRAFFIC CONGESTION;

FAR EAST;

EID: 84863523867     PISSN: 03088839     EISSN: 14645254     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2012.689879     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Parola, F and Musso, E. 2007. Market structures and competitive strategies: The carrier-stevedore arm-wrestling in northern European ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 34(3): 259-278.
2. Laird, J, Nellthorp, J and Mackie, P. 2005. Network effects and total economic impact in transport appraisal. Transport Policy, 12: 537-544.
3. Notteboom, TE. 2004. Container shipping and ports: an overview. Review of Network Economics, 3(2): 86-106.
4. Notteboom, TE. 2006. The time factor in liner shipping services. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8: 19-39.
5. Slack, B. 1985. Containerization, inter-port competition and port selection. Maritime Policy and Management, 12: 293-303.
6. Cullinane, K, Wang, TF and Cullinane, S. 2004. Container terminal development in Mainland China and its impact on the competitiveness of the port of Hong Kong. Transport Reviews, 24: 33-56.
7. Weisman, DL. 2005. Market concentration, multi-market participation and mergers in network industries. Review of Network Economics, 4(2): 129-141.
8. de Fontenay, CC and Gans, JS. 2005. Vertical integration and competition between networks. Review of Network Economics, 4(2): 4-18.
9. Katz, ML and Shapiro, C. 1985. Network externalities, competition and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75: 424-440.
10. Church, J and Gandal, N. 1992. Network effects, software provision, and standardization. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(1): 85-103.
11. Goolsbee, A and Klenow, PJ. 2002. Evidence on learning and network externalities in the diffusion of home computers. Journal of Law and Economics, 45(2): 317-344.
12. Ohashi, H. 2003. The roles of network effects in the US VCR market 1978-1986. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12(4): 447-494.
13. Nair, H, Chintagunta, P and Dube, J.-P. H. 2004. Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistances. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2: 23-58.
14. Shy, O. 2001. The Economics of Network Industries, 216-229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Yan, J., Fu, X. and Oum, T., 2009, Exploring network effects of point-to-point networks: An investigation of the spatial entry patterns of Southwest Airlines. In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economist Conference, June 24-27, Copenhagen, Denmark, International Association of Maritime Economist
16. Wang, M. 2005. "The rise of container transport in East Asia". In World Shipping and Port Development, Edited by: Lee, T. W. and Cullinane, K. 10-35. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Wang, Y. and Cullinane, K., 2006, Inter-port competition and measures of individual container port accessibility. In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists Conference, July 12-14, Melbourne, Australia, International Association of Maritime Economists
18. Cullinane, K and Wang, Y. 2009. A capacity-based measure of container port accessibility. International Journal of Logistics, 12(2): 103-117.
19. Tang, LC, Low, JMW and Lam, SW. 2011. Understanding port choice behavior: A network perspective. Networks and Spatial Economics, 11: 65-82.
20. Low, JMW, Lam, SW and Tang, LC. 2009. Assessment of hub status among Asian ports from a network perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43: 593-606.
21. The axioms of probabilities establish that complementary and/or mutually exclusive events are not independent of one another. However, since the network forms the foundation for each of the 4Cs indices variables, independency (in the statistical sense) between the variables cannot be assured even though each index is computed from different data sources. Rather, by independence and exclusivity, we refer to the situation whereby each variable can be used to examine a specific and unique dimension without eliciting "inputs" of other variables. For the purpose of conservatism, the analyses use ridge regressions model (as opposed to multiple regressions model) to verify the suitability of the indices as predictors in estimating the number of vessel calls in a port (from which, the importance of the network effect can also be inferred). The comprehensiveness of the dimension coverage by the indices is further confirmed through the explanatory power of the models as the percentage of the variance in the number of vessel calls at ports being explained.
22. Alderighi, M, Cento, A, Nijkamp, P and Rietveld, P. 2007. Assessment of new hub-and-spoke and point-to-point airline network configurations. Transport Reviews, 27(5): 529-549.
23. Stopford, M. 2009. Maritime Economics, 3rd, Abingdon: Routledge.
24. Takada, K., 2004, Airport competition in terms of inter-network's relationship. In Seminar of the GARS: Slots, Airport Competition and Benchmarking of Airports, November 19-20, Bremen, German Aviation Research Society
25. Talley, W. 2006. "Economic theory of a port". In Port Economics, Research in Transportation Economics, Edited by: Cullinane, K. and Talley, W. Vol. 16, 43-66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
26. Blonigen, B. A. and Wilson, W. W., 2006, International trade, transportation networks and port choice. Unpublished paper
27. Malchow, MB and Kanafani, A. 2004. A disaggregate analysis of port selection. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 40: 317-337.
28. Goyal, S. 2007. Connections: An Introduction to the Economics of Networks, 16Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Verny, J and Grigentin, C. 2009. Container shipping on the northern sea route. International Journal of Production Economics, 122(1): 107-117.
30. Baird, AJ. 2002. The economics of transshipment in northern Europe. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 4: 249-280.
31. Lirn, TC, Thanopoulou, HA, Beynon, MJ and Beresford, AKC. 2003. An application of AHP on transshipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6: 70-91.
32. Black, WR. 2003. Transportation: A Geographical Analysis, 89New York: The Guilford Press.
33. Tiwari, P, Itoh, H and Doi, M. 2003. Shipper's port and carrier selection behavior in China: A discrete choice. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5(1): 23-29.
34. Low, J. M. W. and Tang, L.C., 2009, Economics of port development strategy in Asia. In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economist Conference, June 24-27, Copenhagen, Denmark, International Association of Maritime Economist
35. Notteboom, TE. 2005. Concentration and load centre development in the European container port system. Journal of Transport Geography, 5(2): 99-115.
36. Wang, M. 2005. "The rise of container transport in East Asia". In World Shipping and Port Development, Edited by: Lee, T. W. and Cullinane, K. 10-12. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
37. Marquez-Ramos, L., Martinez-Zarzoso, I., Perez-Garcia, E. and Wilmsmeier, G., 2008, Connectivity, transport costs and maritime trade. Unpublished paper
38. Lloyd's List Ports of the World, 2010 (London: Informa)
39. Wang, Y and Cullinane, K. 2008. Measuring container port accessibility: An application of the Principal Eigenvector Method (PEM). Maritime Economics and Logistics, 10(1): 75-89.
40. The expected demand is a function of its catchment area, trade volume and other unique port qualities. The capacity flows, considered in the centrality index, thus represent a good surrogate of important factors relating to the business environment of a port
41. Containerization Competitiveness Yearbook, 2010 (Lausanne, Switzerland: International Institute for Management Development)
42. Song, DW and Yeo, KT. 2004. A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytical hierarchy process. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6: 34-52.
43. Hoerl, AE and Kennard, RW. 1970. Ridge regression: Biased estimation for non-orthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1): 55-82.
44. Bonacich, P. 1972. Factoring and weighting approaches to clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2: 113-120.
45. Bonacich, P. 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 1170-1182.
46. 1(i, j) will be ambiguous with such treatment.
47. Nir, AS, Lin, K and Liang, GS. 2003. Port choice behavior: from the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy and Management, 30(2): 165-173.
48. Table A.1 shows that the capacity flows from HKG port to NE Asia is about seven times greater than those from Singapore port to NE Asia. Whereas, the capacity flows from Singapore port to SE Asia is about nine times greater than those from HKG port to SE Asia
49. If our objective is to measure network effects from the liner shipping company's perspective, the level of congestion on the link will be important and the associated index should express demand as a fraction of supply capacity for a specified O-D pair
50. The port industry is a network industry, not just among ports but also between ports and shipping lines. High utilization of port facilities entails cost savings to port operators, which are likely to be passed onto users under intense price competition. However, existing literature also recognized that high capacity utilization can imply shortage of facilities, which in turn result in longer waiting time. Therefore, liner shipping companies weigh the benefits of lower port charges against the tardy service when considering whether to use the port [4].
51. Meanwhile, the stronger significance of the congestion index at the loading port may be explained from its one-to-many relationships with other downstream ports. As the loading port connects to various destination ports, it is unsurprising that the individual influence of the latter on the port traffic dilutes.
52. Cullinane, K and Song, D. 2006. "Estimating the relative efficiency of European container ports: A stochastic frontier analysis". In Port Economics, Research in Transportation Economics, Edited by: Cullinane, K. and Talley, W. Vol. 16, 85-115. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
53. Imai, A, Nishimura, E and Papadimitriou, S. 2001. The dynamic berth allocation problem for a container port. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 35(4): 401-417.
54. Jansson, JO and Shneerson, D. 1982. "The existence of congestion cost". In Port Economics, Transportation Studies Series, Edited by: Manheim, M. L. 50-60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.