Collective action regimes in seaport clusters: the case of the
Lower Mississippi port cluster
Peter W. de Langen，Evert-Jan Visser
1、Analysis of the competitiveness of the Mississippi River downstream port
the paper analyses the competitiveness of the Lower Mississippi seaport from a cluster perspective,discussing the importance of local governance and collective action regimes for the competitiveness of the cluster.The case study of the Lower Mississippi port cluster shows that collective action regimes are relatively poorly developed in this cluster,compared with the seaport cluster of Rotterdam.Furthermore,the case shows these ineffective regimes are one of the reasons explaining the declining market share in overall throughput in the Gulf region.Houston,its nearest and main competitior,has grown much more than the Lower Mississippi port cluster.A number of collective action problems require effective collective action regimes that render significant benefits at the cluster level.Several proposals are formulated to improve the quality of the collective action regimes and hence enhance the performance of the Lower Mississippi port cluster.
（1）Introduction
This paper discusses the importance of collective action regimes for the competitiveness of ports. The paper builds on earlier work, where it was argued that ports can be fruitfully analysed as clusters of economic activities, related to the arrival of cargo and ships, and where a framework to analyse governance in port clusters was developed (de Langen, 2004). Furthermore, it was shown that five important collective action problems exist in seaports: training and education, innovation, marketing and promotion, hinterland access and inter-nationalisation. Effective regimes that free resources for investment in these five areas do not develop automati-cally, despite the positive effects of these investments for the cluster as a whole. Individual firms may have difficulties providing the resources required to develop effective collective action regimes, because of the free rider problem, externalities, and other market failures.
This paper presents a case study of the port complex of the Lower Mississippi. The study reveals the importance of collective action regimes for the competitiveness of the port cluster, and shows the complexity of creating effective regimes. We analyse the shortcomings of the existing regimes and opportunities to improve the quality of the regimes. Empirical evidence from a case study in Rotterdam is used as a lsquo;benchmarkrsquo; for the Lower Mississippi port cluster (LMPC).
The paper is structured in the following way. The relevance of the concept lsquo;collective action regimesrsquo; in seaports is discussed in Section 2. A framework to analyse the quality of collective action regimes is dis-cussed in Section 3. Case study evidence on the LMPC is presented in Section 4. Initiatives to improve the quality of governance in the LMPC are dis-cussed in Section 5. A concluding section finalises the paper.
（2）The relevance of analysing collective action regimes
A port cluster consists of all economic activities and public (-private) organisations related to the arrival of ships and cargo in ports. Cargo handling, transport, logistics, manufacturing and trade activities are included in the port cluster. The bulk of the literature on port competitiveness deals with ports as transport nodes (see, e.g., Teurelincx, 2000). The lsquo;typicalrsquo; performance indicator in these kinds of studies is the volume of throughput. This indicator, however, is inadequate to capture a wide range of (direct, indirect and spillover) effects generated by ports, at different spatial scales. The value added generated in a port region is a better performance indicator, for the (local) port authority, local governments and local businesses.
In general, the competitive position of the transport node and the port cluster are complementary. An effective node increases the attractiveness of the port region for logistics and industrial activities, and a growing port cluster leads to a larger captive cargo base and, therefore, more cargo passing through the port. However, the value added per ton throughput is not similar for all ports, and changes over time. In Antwerp for example, value added per ton increased by 7% from 1990 to 2000 (Nationale Bank van Belgie, 2003). In Rotterdam, value added per ton increased by 31%, in the same period (RMPM, 2003; Nationale Havenraad, 2003). The widespread use of the volume of throughput as a performance indicator for ports ignores the performance of the port as a cluster of economic activities.In turn, this leads to an overemphasis of factors such as depth, location and terminal handling charges, at the expense of factors that have an indirect, but increasingly important effect on the performance of the port cluster, such as the presence of knowledge, the quality of the hinterland access, and the quality of the labour pool. Upgrading these factors requires joint efforts of various actors in the port cluster in a lsquo;collective action regimersquo;.
The effectiveness of collective action regimes is important for port clusters, because cargo owners make investment, routing and logistic decisions on the basis of the price and quality aspects of a port. A variety of firms, such as pilots, terminal operators, hinterland transport companies, transport service providers, ware-housing firms, and transport intermediaries contribute to the quality of the port service. Each firm benefits from a competitive port service, but none can fully appropriate (internalise) the benefits of a competitive port service. Hence, coordination is required to bolster investments in the long-term interest of all actors in a port cluster.
The analysis of seaport governance is often limited to the role of the po
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
附录A 外文文献译文
在港口集群集体行动制度的案例
--密西西比河下游的港口群
Peter W. de Langen，Evert-Jan Visser
1、分析密西西比河下游港口的竞争力
本文从集群的角度分析了密西西比河下游港口群的竞争力，并讨论了地方治理和集体行动制度对于集群竞争力的重要性。密西西比河下游港口产业集群案例研究显示，密西西比河下游港口集群与鹿特丹港口集群相比，它的集体行动制度很不发达。此外，案例展示了这些无效的制度并且解释海湾地区的整体吞吐量是导致市场份额下降的原因之一。休斯顿是离密西西比河下游港口集群最近的的竞争对手，同时也是最重要竞争对手，它的成长速度已经远远超过密西西比河下游港口集群。因此要解决集体行动的问题需要有有效的集体行动机制，在集群级别提供显著的好处。本文建议制定改善集体行动机制质量的策略，从而提高密西西比河下游的港口集群的性能。
- 介绍
本文讨论了集体行动制度对港口竞争力的重要性。基于早期作品的研究，有人认为端口是可以对货物与船只到达相关的经济活动进行有效地分析的集群，并构建一个框架来分析港口集群的治理与开发(de Langen, 2004)。此外，结果表明，在海港存在培训与教育、创新、营销与推广、内陆地区访问和国际化等五个重要的集体行动问题。尽管这五个问题的存在对作为一个整体的产业集群产生了积极的影响，但这些免费资源的投资无法自动形成有效的制度。由于”搭便车“以及外部市场失灵问题的存在，个体企业可能为有困难的企业提供发展有效的集体行动机制所需要的资源。
本文对密西西比河下游港口这个复杂的案例进行了研究。这项研究揭示了集体行动机制对港口产业集群竞争力的重要性，同时显示创建有效的制度的复杂性。我们分析了现有的制度的不足，以从鹿特丹案例研究中所得到的经验证据作为密西西比河下游的港口群“基准”。制定提高制度质量的策略。
本文的结构方式如下，即在第二节讨论港口集体行动机制的相关概念；在第三节构建一个框架来分析集体行动机制的质量问题；在第四节列举案例研究的证据；在第五节探讨如何提高制度的质量；最后一节敲定本文所得到的结论。
（2）集体行动制度的关联性分析
港口集群由所有经济活动和公共（私人）在港口的船只和货物相关组织活动构成，包括在港口群货物装卸、运输、物流、制造业和贸易活动等。交通节点是经济发展特别是物流产业发展的重要资源，这里大量文献研究了港口作为交通节点对港口竞争力的影响。这类研究中“典型”的性能指标是港口吞吐量，但是这个指标是不足以盖全由港口所产生的各种各样的（直接，间接和溢出）影响。在不同的空间尺度上，如何有效的为（局部）港务局，地方政府和当地企业增值是能否为港口区域产生的更好的绩效指标的关键依据。
一般来说，港口集群和港口的转运节点的竞争地位是互补的。一个有效节点可以增加港口在区域物流和工业活动方面的吸引力，同时不断增长的港口集群也会导致更大的货运基地，因此，会有更多的货物通过港口运输。然而所有端口的货物吞吐量增值是不相似的，并随时间的变化。以安特卫普为例，从1990年到2000年每吨增值7%（(Nationale Bank van Belgie, 2003）；在同一时期，鹿特丹每吨增值31%。目前，港口把吞吐量作为一个重要指标并广泛应用，却忽略了港口端口的性能在集群经济活动中的表现。反过来，这将导致对深度、位置和终端处理费用等因素的过分强调，但还有一些间接的因素对港口集群的性能有着越来越重要的影响，如知识的存在、内地的访问质量以及劳动力的素质。升级这些因素需要港口集群中的各行为主体的共同努力。
对港口集群而言，最重要的是集体行动机制的有效性,因为对一个港口而言，货主投资、路径选择和物流决策都是建立在货物价格和质量的基础上的。许多企业的出现有助于提升港口的服务质量，比如船员、码头运营商、内陆运输公司,运输服务提供商、仓储公司和运输中介等等。虽然每个企业得益于竞争港口服务,但又不能够完全将好的港口服务作为提升港口竞争力的唯一策略。因此,要想取得长期的利益，港口群间必须加强协调，共同发展。
海港治理的分析往往局限于港务局的作用(Goss, 1990 and Stevens, 1999)和公共投资与私人投资的适当组合(see the port reform toolkit of the World Bank, 2002)。尽管港口当局处在中心地位,但是这些不过是一个“演员”,旨在提高港口集群的集体行动机制质量；其他“演员”，如领导公司和分支机构协会,在港口集群的治理变革中也起着重要作用。
（3）集体行动机制
从文献研究上，可以发现有五个因素影响集体行动的制度质量（see de Langen, 2004）。不同的角色必须为集体行动的制度贡献一定的资源，这些资源可以是金融和管理资源，但也要和“政治”相关。政治制度会随着资源投入的增多而使质量提升。第一个影响制度质量的变量是领导企业的存在。这样的企业能用激励机制和资源投资来完善各项制度，并在联盟的发展中起主导作用。因此，他们对提高集体行动制度质量很重要（Olson，1971）。
第二个影响制度质量的变量是参与公共机构的活动。公共组织的财务对集体行动制度贡献极大（Porter，1990）。第三个影响制度质量的变量是存在于集体行动中的组织基础作为相关合作和收集所需要的资源的一种手段。集体行动的基础设施包括协会、公共－私营机构以及集群内部网络结构。但这些基础设施不会自动地发展，必需与各种类型的客户建立信任，来降低合作的交易成本，以及打破任何超出市场价格的交易“潜规则”（nooteboom，2002）。一旦开发成功，集体行动的组织基础设施便可以为创建和发展有效制度提供依据。
第四个影响制度质量的变量是社区论坛的存在（Bennett，1998）。一个港口社区的医院可以促进社区论坛更好的发展。最后，个别企业的声音有助于提升制度质量（cf. Hirschmann，1970）。私营企业的声音可以有效的施加协会、公众和私人机构（面临没有市场选择的压力）的压力。这种压力，能够提高这些机构的机能。
Collective action regimes in seaport clusters: the case of the
Lower Mississippi port cluster
Peter W. de Langen，Evert-Jan Visser
1、Analysis of the competitiveness of the Mississippi River downstream port
the paper analyses the competitiveness of the Lower Mississippi seaport from a cluster perspective,discussing the importance of local governance and collective action regimes for the competitiveness of the cluster.The case study of the Lower Mississippi port cluster shows that collective action regimes are relatively poorly developed in this cluster,compared with the seaport cluster of Rotterdam.Furthermore,the case shows these ineffective regimes are one of the reasons explaining the declining market share in overall throughput in the Gulf region.Houston,its nearest and main competitior,has grown much more than the Lower Mississippi port cluster.A number of collective action problems require effective collective action regimes that render significant benefits at the cluster level.Several proposals are formulated to improve the quality of the collective action regimes and hence enhance the performance of the Lower Mississippi port cluster.
（1）Introduction
This paper discusses the importance of collective action regimes for the competitiveness of ports. The paper builds on earlier work, where it was argued that ports can be fruitfully analysed as clusters of economic activities, related to the arrival of cargo and ships, and where a framework to analyse governance in port clusters was developed (de Langen, 2004). Furthermore, it was shown that five important collective action problems exist in seaports: training and education, innovation, marketing and promotion, hinterland access and inter-nationalisation. Effective regimes that free resources for investment in these five areas do not develop automati-cally, despite the positive effects of these investments for the cluster as a whole. Individual firms may have difficulties providing the resources required to develop effective collective action regimes, because of the free rider problem, externalities, and other market failures.
This paper presents a case study of the port complex of the Lower Mississippi. The study reveals the importance of collective action regimes for the competitiveness of the port cluster, and shows the complexity of creating effective regimes. We analyse the shortcomings of the existing regimes and opportunities to improve the quality of the regimes. Empirical evidence from a case study in Rotterdam is used as a lsquo;benchmarkrsquo; for the Lower Mississippi port cluster (LMPC).
The paper is structured in the following way. The relevance of the concept lsquo;collective action regimesrsquo; in seaports is discussed in Section 2. A framework to analyse the quality of collective action regimes is dis-cussed in Section 3. Case study evidence on the LMPC is presented in Section 4. Initiatives to improve the quality of governance in the LMPC are dis-cussed in Section 5. A concluding section finalises the paper.
（2）The relevance of analysing collective action regimes
A port cluster consists of all economic ac
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[504978]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
