Stakeholder management and path dependence in large-scale transport infrastructure development: The port of Antwerp case (1960-2010)

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 27, Issue , 2013, Pages 14-25

  Dooms, Michael ^a   Verbeke, Alain ^b   Haezendonck, Elvira ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Antwerp; Infrastructure planning; Institutional analysis; Path dependence; Seaports; Stakeholder management

Indexed keywords

INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; POLICY MAKING; PORT DEVELOPMENT; PORT OPERATION; STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGIC APPROACH; TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

EID: 84872378108     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ball R. Local sensitivities and the representation of peripherality. Journal of Transport Geography 1996, 4(1):27-36.
2. Banville C., Landry M., Martel J.M., Boulaire C. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. System Research 1998, 15:15-32.
3. Beaulieu S., Pasquero J. Reintroducing stakeholder dynamics in stakeholder thinking: a negotiated-order perspective. Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 1: Theory, Responsibility and Engagement 2002, 101-118. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield. J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.).
4. Bennett A., Elman C. Complex causal relations and case study methods: the example of path dependence. Political Analysis 2006, 14(3):250-267.
5. Bickerstaff K., Tolley R., Walker G. Transport planning and participation: the rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography 2002, 10(1):61-73.
6. Campbell A. Stakeholders: the case in favour. Long Range Planning 1997, 30(3):446-449.
7. Caruana V., Simmons C. The development of Manchester Airport, 1938-1978: central government subsidy and local authority management. Journal of Transport Geography 2001, 9(4):279-292.
8. Charlton C., Gibb R., Lowndes T. Rail privatization and local authority reorganization. Journal of Transport Geography 1995, 3(3):221-226.
9. De Brucker K., Verbeke A. The institutional theory approach to transport policy and evaluation. The collective benefits of a stakeholder's approach: towards an eclectic multi-criteria analysis. Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social Cost-benefit Approach 2007, 56-94. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. E. Haezendonck (Ed.).
10. de Langen P., Visser E.-J. Collective action regimes in seaport clusters: the case of the Lower Mississippi port cluster. Journal of Transport Geography 2005, 13(2):173-186.
11. Debrie J., Gourvernal E., Slack B. Port devolution revisited: the case of regional ports and the role of lower tier governments. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(6):455-464.
12. Eden C., Huxham C. Action research for management research. British Journal of Management 1996, 7:75-96.
13. EROV (Economic Council of East Flanders), 1966. The development of the Left Bank of the river Scheldt in East Flanders. Working Document (in Dutch).
14. Feldhoff T. Japan's regional airports: conflicting national, regional and local interests. Journal of Transport Geography 2002, 10(2002):165-175.
15. Friedman A.L., Miles S. Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies 2002, 39(1):1-21.
16. Gleave M.B. Port activities and the spatial structure of cities: the case of Freetown, Sierra Leone. Journal of Transport and Geography 1997, 5(4):257-275.
17. Hall P.V. Regional institutional convergence? Reflections from the Baltimore Waterfront. Economic Geography 2003, 79(4):347-363.
18. Hall P.V., Jacobs W., Koster H. Port, corridor, gateway and chain: exploring the geography of advanced maritime producer services. Integrating Seaports and Trade Corridors 2011, 81-98. Ashgate, Farnham. P.V. Hall, R.J. McCalla, C. Comtois, B. Slack (Eds.).
19. Heaver T.D. The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy and management. Maritime Policy and Management 1995, 22(2):125-133.
20. Jacobs W. Political economy of port competition. Institutional Analyses of Rotterdam, Southern California and Dubai. PhD Thesis 2007, Academic Press Europe, Nijmegen.
21. Kay A. A critique of the use of path dependence in policy studies. Public Administration 2005, 83(3):553-571.
22. Kostova T., Zaheer S. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review 1999, 24(1):64-81.
23. Levi M. A model, a method, and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure 1997, 19-41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M.I. Lichbach, A.S. Zuckerman (Eds.).
24. Martin R.L., Sunley P. Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography 2006, 6(4):395-437.
25. May M., Hill S.B. Questioning airport expansion - a case study of Canberra International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography 2006, 14(6):437-450.
26. Moglia F., Sanguineri M. Port planning: the need for a new approach?. Maritime Economics and Logistics 2003, 5(4):413-425.
27. Mu R., de Jong M., Koppenjan J. The rise and fall of public-private partnerships in China: a path-dependent approach. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19(4):794-806.
28. Munda G. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research 2004, 158:662-677.
29. Ng A.K.Y., Pallis A.A. Port governance reforms in diversified institutional frameworks: generic solutions, implementation asymmetries. Environment and Planning A 2010, 42(9):2147-2167.
30. Nicqué, A., 1990. Economic Analysis of the Left Bank of the River Scheldt. Master Thesis UFSIA - University of Antwerp. Academic Year 1989-1990 (in Dutch).
31. Notteboom T., Rodrigue J.-P. Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management 2005, 32(3):297-313.
32. Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W., 2002. Stakeholder Relations Management in ports: dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in a changing competitive environment. Paper Presented at IAME Panama 2002: Maritime Economics: Setting the Foundations for Port and Shipping Policies. Panama City, Panama, 13-15 November 2002.
33. O'Connor K. Global city regions and the location of logistics activity. Journal of Transport and Geography 2010, 18(3):354-362.
34. Page S.E. Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2006, 2006(1):87-115.
35. Pearson P. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review 2000, 94(2):251-267.
36. Rodrigue J.-P., Debrie J., Fremont A., Gouvernal E. Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography 2010, 18(4):519-529.
37. Schein E.H. Clinical inquiry/research. The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice 2008, 266-279. SAGE Publications, London. P. Reason, H. Bradbury (Eds.).
38. Stough R.R., Rietveld P. Institutional issues in transport systems. Journal of Transport Geography 1997, 5(3):207-214.
39. Susman G.I., Evered R.D. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 1978, 23:582-603.
40. Suykens, F., 1965. Some Considerations about Former Port Expansion Projects on the Left Bank of the River Scheldt. City of Antwerp, Port Authority, General Management. Policy Document (in Dutch).
41. van Tulder R., van der Zwart A. International Business-Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalisation 2006, Routledge, Oxon.
42. Westbrook R. Action research: a new paradigm for research in production and operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1995, 15(12):6-20.
43. Wiegmans B.W., Louw E. Changing port-city relations at Amsterdam: a new phase at the interface?. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19(4):575-583.
44. Winn M.I. Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology. Business & Society 2001, 40(2):133-166.