A theoretical framework for conceptualizing seaports as institutional and operational clusters

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation Research Procedia 25C (2017) 261–278
2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.393
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
2214-241X © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
A theoretical framework for conceptualizing seaports as
institutional and operational clusters
Krenar Ibrahimi a
*
a
University Luarasi, Rruga Dritan Hoxha, Tirana 1023, Albania
Abstract
This paper shows how and why a theoretical framework to (re)conceptualize seaports as institutional and operational clusters
may be constructed. Using a thorough review and content analysis of the seaport literature, six interrelated contextual dimensions
will be fixed to comprehensively examining seaports: space, time, social-economic, functional, institutional and organisational,
shrinkable to 2 clearly separable institutional and operational contexts. A port (re)conceptualization via a graphical representation
and definition is needed to rightfully consider the relevant seaport institutional and operational actors and activities related to the
port principal function, laying down fundamental bases for devising and implementing a successful seaport development strategy.
Keywords: classification of seaport research; seaport contextual dimensions; conceptualization framework; seaport cluster; seaport institutional
and operational systems and nodes; seaport development strategy and reform; seaport governance, administration and management
1. Introduction
An increased emphasis among researchers on rethinking the nature, boundary and role of the port is listed as the
first trend in the ports sector (Mangan, 2008). However, a more than a century literature review and content analysis
is making clear that there are few if no research temptations up today to fully explain how and why conceptualizing
seaports, although there are surely made so many efforts to conceptualize seaports in a certain way or another.
More than researches in how to conceptualize seaports, one may find up today only a few serious studies, which
are based on and furnish a rich literature review, serving as pure classifications of former seaport studies. But, very
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +355-69-75-82-989; fax: +355-33-22-30-57.
E-mail address: krenaribrahimi@gmail.com
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
2214-241X © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
A theoretical framework for conceptualizing seaports as
institutional and operational clusters
Krenar Ibrahimi a
*
a
University Luarasi, Rruga Dritan Hoxha, Tirana 1023, Albania
Abstract
This paper shows how and why a theoretical framework to (re)conceptualize seaports as institutional and operational clusters
may be constructed. Using a thorough review and content analysis of the seaport literature, six interrelated contextual dimensions
will be fixed to comprehensively examining seaports: space, time, social-economic, functional, institutional and organisational,
shrinkable to 2 clearly separable institutional and operational contexts. A port (re)conceptualization via a graphical representation
and definition is needed to rightfully consider the relevant seaport institutional and operational actors and activities related to the
port principal function, laying down fundamental bases for devising and implementing a successful seaport development strategy.
Keywords: classification of seaport research; seaport contextual dimensions; conceptualization framework; seaport cluster; seaport institutional
and operational systems and nodes; seaport development strategy and reform; seaport governance, administration and management
1. Introduction
An increased emphasis among researchers on rethinking the nature, boundary and role of the port is listed as the
first trend in the ports sector (Mangan, 2008). However, a more than a century literature review and content analysis
is making clear that there are few if no research temptations up today to fully explain how and why conceptualizing
seaports, although there are surely made so many efforts to conceptualize seaports in a certain way or another.
More than researches in how to conceptualize seaports, one may find up today only a few serious studies, which
are based on and furnish a rich literature review, serving as pure classifications of former seaport studies. But, very
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +355-69-75-82-989; fax: +355-33-22-30-57.
E-mail address: krenaribrahimi@gmail.com

262 Krenar Ibrahimi et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25C (2017) 261–278
2 Krenar Ibrahimi/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
serious efforts of the global seaport research community have formed long lists of scientific contributions since
more than a century contemplating seaports and purposefully devising various concepts and models related to one or
a limited number of seaport aspects or contextual dimensions.
Accordingly, all these former studies concern more sporadically than purposefully the why question regarding a
seaport conceptualization. A clear definition of the seaport concept and an understanding of the institutional context
is [retained to be] – every phrase or sentence in brackets within a referenced sentence is from the Author of this
paper – the starting point for any economic analysis of seaport activity, related to port management, governance and
policymaking (Meersman et al. 2007), the main challenge of the latter being the establishment of an appropriate
legislative framework to guarantee an efficiency-oriented approach (Notteboom, 2007).
This paper aims to realize a twofold objective: (1) How may be constructed a theoretical framework for seaport
conceptualization; and (2) Why is the seaport conceptualization necessary?
As it is easily comprehensible, the seaport concept will be the central focus of this paper. Readers may find long
and detailed analyses on ideas, thoughts, notions, terms or concepts on the writings of illustrious philosophers as
Locke, Kant, Hegel, Stuart Mill, etc. Contemporary concept analysis sits uneasily between the idea that concepts are
theory-formed (contextualism) and the other [paradigmatically different] idea that they are theory-forming (building
blocks), the philosophical questions being both epistemological and ontological (Risjord, 2009).
By being formed theoretically, the seaport concept will be undoubtedly based on a certain number of contexts,
more specifically on a certain number of concepts and models contextually discovered by now, thus giving answer
to the how question of this paper. Otherwise, serving as a building block of other theories, the conceptualization of
seaports through the respective theoretical framework will be the basis for responding the why question of the paper.
This is why the most important why question, depending on how the how question is explained and concluded, will
be treated after the latter.
This paper sections will be structured as follows. Section 2 will provide a literature review and content analysis
concerning the former seaport classifications studies, the only existing way comparable to this paper mission, based
on selecting the needed seaport contextual dimensions. Section 3 will then address this paper‟s first fundamental
issue, how constructing a theoretical framework to conceptualize seaports through passing to a fixed number of
interrelated contextual dimensions, which may then be condensed to only two clearly separable contexts that are the
institutional and operational ones. In this section, a literature review will help to select the most significant seaport
concepts and models devised up today, to be included in the new seaport concept. Section 4 will provide the new
theoretical framework for seaport conceptualization, while a new port concept through a new graphical presentation
and definition will be presented and interpreted in §5. The other fundamental issue of why conceptualizing seaports
will be raised at §6. Conclusions and some directions for further research will close the paper.
2. Literature review and content analysis of former seaport context-related studies
Other than a myriad of studies conceptualizing seaport in singular contexts, the most relevant of which will be
reviewed in the next section, few former studies attempted to how and why conceptualize seaports comprehensively.
Seaport context-related researches do not still conclude with a seaport re-conceptualization through a new graphical
presentation and/or definition. This paper retains as relevant for review and content analysis the following five
seaport context-related papers, not considering Suykens and Van de Voorde‟s (1998) paper, which reviews a century
quarter on seaport management, focused merely on port management objectives and tools, ports as „public goods‟,
and port competition and strategic alliances. The first two papers are more related to this paper‟s mission, while the
three others are focused on classifying former seaport studies on research themes/directions (or contexts).
1. Robinson (2002) asked a fundamental question, „perfectly relevant‟ as he qualifies it: What is the role of ports
in a new logistics-restructured environment? In Kuhn‟s terms, Robinson takes a paradigmatic approach or
conceptual box, clearly context-based. In earlier paradigms, seaport research since 1970 was concerned more
with ports per se rather than with port authorities or governance, and ports are seen as (Robinson):
 Places that handle ships and cargo;
 Operating systems that are concerned by the operational efficiency;
 Economic units that underline the economic principles and efficiency;
 Administrative units that reexamine port governance – or administration and organization – and policy.

Krenar Ibrahimi et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25C (2017) 261–278 263
Krenar Ibrahimi/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3
In a new paradigm of a globalized, corporatized, privatized, exceptionally competitive, but also logistics-
restructured environment, other elements make ports to be seen as functional elements in logistics systems,
where end-to-end freight movement systems and operational efficiency may not be an adequate positioning
strategy for growth, needing also central notions as market-focused rather than internally- or customer-driven
firms. Considering concepts and elements, upon which a new paradigm/conceptual box depends, Robinson
discusses on port-related firms and service providers intervening in freight and passenger movements:
 they exist on a trade demand basis – as transport is a derived demand – and intervene only because are able
to deliver and enjoy competitive advantage and value;
 they create and sustain competitive advantage by differentiating their position related to costs, products or
services, and markets, as in Porter‟s (1980, 1985) view;
 they must act as market-focused firms, what is asking to clarify pathways or logistics pathways‟ notions;
 the cross-functional integration of their business processes in the value-chain constellation is of crucial
importance in chain systems or supply chains, which considerably differ in emphasis and context;
 ports compete not simply on operational efficiency or location basis, but also because they are embedded in
value-driven chain systems or supply chains (Fig. 1); chains compete, not individual ports;
 control and power in capturing and delivering value in the restructured supply chains are critical to their
strategic goals and ports‟ efforts at strategic repositioning.
Fig. 1. Port-oriented value-driven chain systems (Source: Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2004).
2. Olivier and Slack (2006) note the theoretical discourse on how the modern seaport could be conceptualized as
a consequence of technological breakthroughs in cargo handling and advances in naval engineering that gave
rise to containerization and bulk shipping. For Olivier and Slack, the research trajectory initiated with the
seminal works of Bird (1963) and Taaffe et al. (1963); a second re-conceptualization wave emerged with
Slack (1993), with ports becoming mere „pawns of the game‟ of global interests and intermodal networks; a
third trend is related to port governance and reforms, approaching ports not as spaces but as communities,
where authors cite Robinson‟s (2002) paper, arguing for a paradigm shift, as discussed above.
The rationale and purpose of Olivier and Slack‟s paper is threefold: (1) outlining the recent macro-level
empirical trends that necessitate a re-evaluation of the port; (2) reviewing the existing models and conceptual
approaches and discussing how they are inadequate to deal with the new empirical results, suggesting a more
thorough epistemological analysis; and (3) exploring what the former analysis might involve.
Olivier and Slack theorize the port to cope with the port industry‟s institutional change by the emergence of
the transnational corporation. First, they try to interpret waterfront and industrial empirical changes in 3
contextual dimensions: (1) port spatial analysis; (2) port-carrier-shipper complex via behavioral studies; and
(3) port governance approaches to shift from port as spaces to ports as places. Then, they seek to draw
theoretical implications on port terminalization in 3 core research areas: (1) institutional interpretation of the
spatial and temporal internationalization process, putting the firm as a key locus of analysis; (2) East Asia role
in global port developments, with future capital requirements estimated to be three times larger than North
America and twice larger than Western Europe; and (3) organizational change and logistics, suggesting that a

[hypothetical] relational framework theorizing a port firm entering in network relations would require the
insertion of power asymmetries to explain how and why networks and partnerships take place.
Olivier and Slack sustained an expansion of the intra-disciplinary dialogue by reconnecting transport with
economic geographies, not only through logistics, as suggest Hesse and Rodrigue (2004), but also through
corporate networks of emerging transnational port operating firms. However, theorizing about how the port re-
conceptualization could be, they not created a new port graphical presentation or definition.
3. Heaver (2006) focused on 68 papers on port economics since 1973, of which 51 were published since 1997.
“Given the interdependence among aspects [various contexts] of port economics, identifying categories of
topics involves arbitrary divisions. However, for convenience, developments and issues in port economics are
discussed under 6 topics (Heaver, 2006)”: (1) relationship of ports with ship costs; (2) port costs and pricing;
(3) industrial organization related to ports, divided in 2 topics: (i) public administrative organization of ports,
and (ii) strategic issues in the new industrial organization; (4) competitive relationship among seaports; (5)
assessing port performance; and (6) specialized studies, including these 4 topics: (i) labour wage rates, (ii)
economic rents in the port context, (iii) services of harbor tugs, and (iv) maritime security.
4. Pallis et al. (2008) reviewed 287 research papers from 35 journals for the period 1997-2006, while Pallis et al.
(2009) and Pallis et al. (2011) – Pallis et al. (2008, 2009) do not include the same authors as Pallis et al. (2011)
– analyzed 395 relevant research papers from 51 journals during 1997-2008 in port economics, policy and
management. In all these three studies, Pallis et al. identified 7 categories of port studies, shown in Fig. 2, a)
interrelated by one-sense arrows according to core themes [or contexts].
Fig. 2, a) suggests that port governance is based on port planning and development, which is based on
spatial analysis of seaports and all 3 categories concern seaports in transport and supply-chains; port policy
and regulation takes in account port governance, port planning and development, and port competition and
competitiveness, which concerns also terminal studies and is related to port planning and development.
5. Woo et al. (2012) analyzed and classified in 8 categories (Fig. 2, b) 840 relevant academic papers from 125
journals for the period 1980-2009. Referring to existing categories (e.g., Pallis et al., 2009), in order to avoid
classification à priori and ambiguity, and to make categories exhaustive and as mutually exclusive as possible,
Woo et al. (2012) undertake a content analysis in an inductive and iterative way.
Fig. 2, b) shows 8 non-related port research categories, none of which depending on port spatial analysis,
planning and development, and terminal operation. Meanwhile, government-based themes as port policy and
governance and reform, and port authority-/company-based themes as management and strategy, competition
and performance, and ports in supply chains have no more inter-dependency. Would it be possible that 8
categories create mutual exclusive relationships, when: governance is both government-/market-based and
port authority-/company-based; ports in space and supply-chains, terminal operation, strategy and planning
and development are both governance (approval) and management (implementation) issues; port policy is
inter-related to governance and reform; etc?
The 3 classifying seaport studies detailed above do not have a common denominator at their core subject: port
economics (Heaver, 2006), port economics, policy and management (Pallis et al., 2008, 2009, 2011), and port
research (Woo et al., 2012), even though all denote various categories of seaport research. This is a very clear
indicator, the interdependency being another, for arbitrariness among categories in context-related researches.
a) b)
Fig. 2. Relations among various categories of seaport studies: a) seven, b) eight.

As the above classifications of seaport research are focusing more at the end-result or output of all seaport related
activities, letting aside relevant inputs and processes/functions, it is difficult to be based on for purposes of seaport
conceptualization. On the other side, the great complexity of concepts and models related to 7-8 already classified
categories makes very difficult their combination in a sole and unique seaport concept, to which they make part.
3. Literature review of actual seaport studies in six different contexts selecting relevant concepts and models
Following the above seaport context-related studies, a contextual examination of seaports for conceptualization
purposes is feasible. This paper will adopt another context-related classification of former seaport studies, which
intends to be more structured, comprehensive, and easily exploitable for seaport conceptualization purposes. Also, it
will no more depend on the most recent developments, but reviews seaport research since more than a century.
3.1. The methodology for a seaport contextual examination
The term context is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as: (i) the parts of a discourse that surround a
word or passage and can throw light on its meaning; or (ii) the interrelated conditions in which something exists or
occurs. For this paper, a context is a point/angle of view, perspective or area of knowledge over an object, event,
phenomenon or concept with a certain zoom-in or -out. For a social-economic concept as a port, zooming-in or -out
means going from a micro to a macro social-economic perspective.
Each seaport context will be examined and reviewed in the selected and relevant port literature since more than a
century. The methodology to be used is a structured procedure containing the following steps:
1. Determination of the unit of analysis.
This paper will consider a port cluster as a unit of analysis, as it is including very comprehensively every
port activity. Not considered by Pallis et al. (2008, 2009, 2011), the port cluster will be defined later (§3.4.1).
2. Determination and examination of the interrelated areas of knowledge.
Port geographers and port economists look at the way ports develop and perform, as their core intention is
to explain why some ports grow, the answer being related to historic, geographic, economic and political
factors on various scales (Ducruet et al., 2009). The quantity of contexts to be selected may be somewhat
arbitrary, as it depends from the research scope, availability of former researches, research advancement scale
in a field, researcher inspiration, number of models and concepts to be investigated, etc. Considering a long
list of more than a century in port writings, not fully referenced for respecting the paper‟s maximum page
number, it results that a full and comprehensive view of a seaport activity may be usefully and sufficiently
ensured and decrypted by examining these six interrelated contexts, which together may imply any other one:
space, time, social-economic, functional, institutional and organizational.
3. Finding out all possible issues covered in/by each context.
Even though there are interrelations among various contexts under examination, care will be furnished in
order that issues covered in/by each context be as much as possible mutually exclusive.
4. Selection of the most relevant models or concepts in any context, finding out any possible superposition of.
The most relevant models and/or concepts detected in any area of knowledge or context will serve as a
basis to the new conceptualization of seaports through a new graphical presentation and/or definition.
5. Shrinking, condensing or synthesizing at the minimum possible number of the contexts examined.
This paper retains at least two possible contexts: institutional and operational contextual dimensions, which
surely includes all the others, in a certain way or another. Meanwhile, various models and/or concepts found in
each of the contexts under examination will be condensed in a new graphical presentation and definition of
seaports, which is this paper‟s other mission.
Each context with the most relevant models and concepts will be now closely reviewed.
3.2. Seaport space context: seaport territorial position and scope in geographical references
The port space context constitutes the territorial position and scope in geographical references, much related to
port location and (master) planning concepts. In this context, 2 basic concepts have emerged over time: (1) gateway,

which is the very meaning of the term port, derived from old Latin porta (Fair, 1961; Heaver, 2006); (2) node in [a
network of social-economic activities requiring] a total transport system (Bird, 1971). It is not difficult to note the
similarity of both gateway and node ideas.
The first concept considers seaports as gateways for international trade and travel (i.e. tourism). It is not very
much modified over more than a century. “The maritime port ... is the „gateway of the sea‟, the market where
nations are given rendezvous to mutual exchange of their wealth” (De Cordemoy, 1909). “All ports which are
normally ... used for foreign trade shall be deemed to be maritime ports”, i.e. seaports (League of Nations [today
United Nations], 1923). Many scholars continue to qualify ports as gateways for international trade (Schraver,
1948; Bird, 1968; Baudelaire, 1979; Goss, 1987; Department for Transport [DfT], 2000), the fundamental rationale
for a commercial seaport, even its „raison d’être‟ (Stevens, 1999), and for travel (DfT, 2000).
The port as a node in the total transport chain evolved little over time. Ports are described as “meeting points
between maritime and inland ways” (De Rousiers, 1909), a place of contact between land and maritime space, a
knot where ocean and inland transport lines meet and intertwine (Weigend, 1958), as well as a node in the total
transport system (Bird, 1971; UNCTAD, 1975, 1976; Talley, 2009), which consists of nodes (ports, airports), links
(roads, rails, rivers) and flows of cargo and people (UNCTAD, 1976). Container advent modified the space port
view to an intermodal node in the transport network (European Commission [EC], 1997; Alderton, 2008).
Vigarié (1979) devised a port triptych model for hinterland-seaport-foreland (Fig. 3). Hinterland and foreland
exist in a symbiotic relationship (Elliot, 1969). Therefore, “the separation of foreland and hinterland relationships of
a port ... represents a false dichotomy. The flow of commodities from foreland to hinterland, albeit across segments
of maritime and landward space and through two ports, might better be viewed as a continuum” (Robinson, 1970).
For Ducruet (2005), the port triptych regroups in three dimensions the whole determining factors which model the
traffics and all explanations we may find in. As a port system includes two land spaces, two ports as land-sea
interfaces and a maritime space, a polyptych model is proposed (Charlier, 1990), where it is worth to consider the
port-city, as the first important element of hinterland, and the ship, as the key element of foreland (Lavaud-Letilleul,
2007). Many hinterland classifications and definitions abound: import and export (Weigend, 1958); immediate,
primary, secondary, advantage, commodity, functional/commodity overlap and split (Bird, 1971); variable, condi-
tional and split (UNCTAD, 1976); captive and contestable (De Langen and Pallis, 2006); macro-economic, physical
and logistics (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2007).
The port as a node is its role or function in the total transport chain (UNCTAD, 1976), like the port as a gateway
translates its role or function in both trade and tourism. Thus, both concepts may be at least considered in a space
context and a functional context (§3.5), where other kind of nodes may appear, as it will be shown.
Fig. 3. The hinterland-seaport-foreland or port triptych model (Source: Ducruet, 2005).
3.3. Seaport time context: life-cycle evolution of seaport development phases and generations
The time context is closely related to the space context, as any event happens simultaneously in space and time,
focusing on the evolution in various development phases and generations during a port life-cycle.
The most relevant models emerging over time are two six-phased models, Anyport (Bird, 1963) and sequential
development of port corridors and hierarchy (Taaffe et al., 1963), which consider seaport development respectively
from a micro-/meso- to a meso-/macro-economic view, as a relationship between spatial forms and functional

impacts of economic flows of ships and cargo to and from hinterland and foreland. A regionalization phase may be
added to each model in hinterland (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005) and foreland (Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2010).
The most relevant concepts are port life-cycle, generations and development phases. A port life-cycle recognizes
the evolution phases of any installation (Charlier, 1992), therefore representing a micro-economic model of a whole
port development. The four port generations represent a micro- to meso-economic hybrid model of time evolution
through a functional and organizational development process (UNCTAD, 1992a, 1999), often vividly criticized
(Naniopoulos et al., 2000; Beresford et al. 2004; Bichou and Gray, 2005; Sánchez and Wilmsmeier, 2010) or
followed in a lean/agile (Marlow and Paixão, 2002; Paixão and Marlow, 2003) or three dimensional (Verhoeven,
2009) perspective. However, there is no a typical port, but a mix of facilities which may be generalized in four
different port complexes, representing four phases of a port activity (Stopford, 1997). All time context‟s models and
concepts show a clear interrelation with space, functional, social-economic and organizational contexts.
3.4. Seaport social-economic context: production factors and performance in clusters of seaport-related activities
A port is a geo-economic entity (Sherman, 2000) appearing as a social-economic entity (Le Mestre, 2006). Port
economics sets pricing and investment principles according to the port purpose, total cost minimization for a port
system or net social benefit maximization for each port (Jansson and Shneerson, 1982); it is the study of the
economic decisions (and their consequences) of port users demanding port services and port providers supplying
port services to port users (Talley, 2009).
The possible purposes of various port actors (owners, operators, users, workers, community) often differ and
sometimes conflict, keeping convergence on essential points (UNCTAD, 1992b). An organization strategic purpose
may be expressed explicitly through its values, vision, mission and objectives (Johnson et al., 2008). A seaport‟s
main strategic objective is economic as long as is related to its resources (inputs), processes (port activities) and/or
outputs (including performance), and social as long as it is related to port actors, including staffs and workers. The
main port objective may be cluster-based (maximising the port throughput, added-value or profit, improving the port
competitive position or providing efficient port services, ensuring a sustainable social-economic development while
optimising related fallouts at glocal levels, etc.) or firm-based (maximising firm profit or ROI, ensuring financial
sustainability, etc.), as argued by Van der Lugt and De Langen (2007).
Ports exist as a fundamental part of trade and transport (Branch, 1986), the latter being a derived demand, which
does not exist for its own sake, but rather to serve other economic and social activities (OECD, 2008). All social-
economic activities related to the arrival of cargo and ships constitute a port cluster, with cargo handling, transport,
logistics, manufacturing and trade as core activities (De Langen, 2004).
In any case, the social-economic context links all port production factors (port human and material resources,
including infrastructure and superstructure) to their performance (including service times) in clusters of port-related
demand and supply activities, involving the respective actors in making decisions according to their differing even
conflicting purposes, bringing various social benefits (employment, incomes, earnings and taxes) and externalities
(pollution, congestion, technological advances, etc.) as consequences.
3.4.1. Seaport clusters as specific industrial clusters in a glocal scale
“Intellectual antecedents of [industrial] clusters date back at least to Marshall‟s „specialized industrial districts‟.
A cluster is a geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular
field, linked by commonalities and complementarities. The geographical scope of an industrial cluster relates to the
distance over which informational, transactional, incentive and other efficiencies occur” (Porter, 2000).
According to Haezendonck (2001), who firstly used the term, seaport clusters are: “inter-organizational networks
among actors belonging to different sectors but situated at the crucial interface between the land and the water legs
of industrial and commercial activities”; “a set of interdependent firms engaged in port related activities, located
within the same port region and possibly with similar strategies characterized by a joint competitive position vis-à-
vis the environment external to the cluster”; and “the entire set of organizations contributing directly to the port‟s
performance, in terms of relative growth rate and market share, and which are also affected by this performance”.
De Langen and Haezendonck (2012) report practical applications of the seaport cluster concept: (i) Korean
Maritime Institute (2007) analyzes the potential of Korea‟s ports to develop further as logistic clusters; (ii) Chinese

government (2008) uses it in port planning; (iii) port of Valencia (2009) embraced cluster concept and positions
itself as a leader in port cluster governance. They think that in comparison to a transport node view, analyzing
seaports as clusters provides: (1) insights for determinants of port competitiveness (i.e. port policy and strategy); (2)
performance measures, such as value-added and investment level, other than port throughput; (3) theoretical
background for analyzing collective action and the crucial role played from dominant firms; and (4) additional
framework for analyzing the roles of Port Authorities (PA) in seaport clusters.
It is important to examine the sectoral relations and the spatial impact of port activity, where distinction is to be
made between a seaport perimeter and the regional/national/global economy (Coppens et al., 2007). This shows the
close relation of the social-economic to the spatial context, going from a micro-economic level of the port perimeter
to a glocal macro-economic level, which is not possible outside the port cluster concept.
3.5. Seaport functional context: seaport internal and external multiple roles and functions
The functional context tries to answer the question: What is the role of a port? The port function and significance
determine the expectations of the port administration‟s performance (Stevens, 1999), first and foremost expressing
an economic and technical logic in the geographical space (Ducruet, 2005). This clearly underlines a close relation
between functional, organizational and techno-economic contexts, various facets of the same seaport unit.
In more than 100 years, the above key question had many answers from port scientists. Analyzing their economic
functions, De Rousiers (1909) argued that seaports are extremely complex organisms; market places fulfilling com-
mercial, regional and industrial functions. A port purpose and its main function is to smoothly transfer freight (and
people) between sea and land transportation, through a complete process of seven principal links besides other
complementary functions that may be performed elsewhere, whose output is the port throughput, most simply
defined in tons per unit of time passing through (Jansson and Shneerson, 1982). The same main seaport function in
very slight modifications is sustained by many writers (Weigend, 1958; Elliot, 1969; Branch, 1986; Frankel, 1987;
Van de Voorde, 1995; Hall, 2002; Robinson, 2002; Frémont, 2005; Talley, 2009). Alderton (2008) and UNCTAD
(1992b) classify port external functions as operational and administrative. Meanwhile, five port internal functions
are: economic, financial, social, commercial and developmental (UNCTAD, 1992b). Port functions may be part of 3
categories: regulator, landowner and operator (Baird, 1995). Organization(s) may fulfill 6 functional roles in a port
system: (1) landlord for private entities; (2) regulator of (i) economic activities and operations, and (ii) marine,
safety, security and environmental control; (3) planning of future operations and capital investment; (4) operator of
(i) nautical services and facilities, and (ii) cargo handling and storing; (5) provider of ancillary activities; and (6)
marketer and promoter of port services and economic development (World Bank [WB], 2001).
Rotterdam mainport fulfils three closely-intertwined significant economic functions: junction in the transport and
logistics cluster, business place for industrial clusters and hub in international production network (Dutch Ministry
of Transport, Public Works and Water management, 2000). The important economic role of Hamburg port is seen as
a network and a triple node in transport, distribution and logistics (Degrassi, 2001). Ports may be also considered as
cargo, infrastructure and nodes of trade networks (Hall, 2002).
The nodal role of ports evolved over time. Considered as a set of components of a broader technological system
(Hayuth, 1993), a port may functionally integrate multi-layers, including transport and logistics (Notteboom, 1998)
– which facilitates the distribution function (Ducruet, 2005) – as in Fig. 4, a), or trade [cargo movement], logistics
[internal integration] and supply chains [external integration] (Bichou and Gray, UNCTAD, 2004), as in Fig. 4, b).
3.6. Seaport institutional context: appropriate arrangements among port legitimate actors with conflicting purposes
The institutional framework includes all formal rules, informal constraints and their enforcing characteristics, and
defines and conditions the organizations‟ opportunities to maximize their objectives (North, 1990). Worth is Goss
(1979) conclusion after analyzing the public port of Singapore and the dominant private port of Hong Kong, both
with similar geographical conditions and comparable cultural traditions: “Different port administrative systems can
be equally efficient, because the main factor is the port system appropriateness to the general system of government
and the beliefs of people. Therefore, it is a serious error to transplant port organizations as if they were mechanical
rather than social bodies. There is no concept of „best port‟ to be considered ideal and applied to any places”.

a) b)
Fig. 4. Port functional integration in: (a) multi-layers (Source: Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2007), and (b) trade, logistics and supply-chains.
Other than cargo, infrastructure and nodes of trade networks, seaports may be understood as institutions, that is,
clusters of rules, norms and patterns of behaviour (Hall, 2002). Existing institutional approaches to seaports focus
too much on formal structure and not enough on the appropriately institutionalized relationships (or relational fix)
among port actors. These interrelations and the information they offer and privilege are of special importance as
they lead actors‟ action (Hall). “A port both technologically and economically is in fact a node for contacts and
contracts (Fig. 5), whereby each stakeholder is driven by his own interests and priorities. One of the keystones in
Stakeholder Relations Management in ports is to „measure‟ the influence of stakeholders on the port‟s functioning
and performance and on each other, then to effectively manage the linkages among these influential relationships”
(Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2002). All port rules, contracts and informal relationships arrange legitimate actors.
Fig. 5. The landlord port as a node for contacts and contracts.

3.7. Seaport organizational context: configuring key seaport functions, resources and actors
Crucial to an organization success is configuring all its functional elements – structures (roles, responsibilities
and reporting lines), processes (controls over operations, resources and outputs) and relationships (integrating
horizontally or vertically knowledge and activities of internal parts and with external organizations, especially in
value chains) – so that they fit together and with key strategic challenges (Johnson et al., 2008). This is to be the PA
role in a seaport cluster.
Various seaport organization models are mostly considered as port administration, management or governance
models1
(Baudelaire, 1979; Baird, 1995, 2000; WB, 2001). They show a mix of public/private ownership on port
functions, services or resources (Table 1, a, b), the latter being divided in port infrastructure, superstructure and
human resources. Several findings show a clear ownership evolution and diversity on PAs and seaport services
(UNCTAD, 1975; Jansson and Shneerson, 1982; Brooks and Cullinane, 2007; Alderton, 2008; ESPO, 2011).
Table 1. Seaport organization models mainly considered as: (a) function-based (Baird, 1995, 2000) and (b) resource-based (WB, 2001, 2007).
a) b)
4. A new theoretical framework for seaport conceptualization on a contextual basis
What is a concept and in what bases must be constructed? It seems as a key question to be asked by whoever
wants to conceptualize new or existing ideas, thoughts, notions, terms or concepts.
After reviewing the most relevant concepts within 6 interrelated port contexts, it seems obvious that port research
– even classified as in Fig. 2, a), b) – may be considered as an interrelation of influences of these 6 port contexts:
space, time, social-economic, functional, institutional and organizational. However, it is not an easy work to make
conceptualization efforts including all these numerous contexts. It may be more useful to shrink these six contexts
because of their interrelations. This may be done in at least two contexts: operational and institutional, both being
the reverse facets of the functional context, including the space, time, organizational and socio-economic contexts.
The shrinking of „existing‟ contexts in only two may be better understood if the respective decision-making body
within a firm is associated to each of these two basic terms, operations and institutions2
(Fig. 6). For it must be
considered that both deciding and doing pervade any practical activity in an administrative organization (Simon,
1976), where long-term decisions pertain to institutions, while other decisions and all doings constitute operations.
Moreover, a firm decision management functions (initiation and implementation of a decision process) and
decision control functions (ratification and monitoring of a decision process) are allocated respectively to the
executive boards and boards of directors (Fama and Jensen, 1983). A firm being a bundle of functions, with a
function being an interrelation of actors through operations and decisions over resources, a seaport cluster includes
institutional functions at Governance level and operational ones at Administration and Management levels (Table 2).
1
In IAME 2015 conference, this paper‟s Author analyzed various port organization models and presented a property rights based model for
(seaport) Gov-Ad-Man functions, standing for Governance, Administration and Management. See e.g., Ibrahimi (2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2015).
2
Following Weber (1947), I consider that social-economic operations are routine, either instinctive or little reflected, actions of individuals
over production resources or among them. Based on North (1990), Hodgson (2006), etc, I consider institutions as (in)formal social arrangements
adopted and enforced by the interested parties to structure and ensure (regulate, direct and control) mutual economic development and gains, thus
being long, lengthy and deeply thought decisions of those parties.

Table 2. Seaport functions at Governance, Administration and Management levels.
Port Governance functions Port Administration functions Port Management functions
Seaport-related laws and regulations
Seaport development policy/strategy
(gov-/PA-policy, master planning)
Seaport stakeholders (ownership)
Seaport competition and cooperation
(Re)organizing seaport functions and
strategic resources
Monitoring compliance to port rules
by port actors (public inspections:
customs, immigration ...)
Monitoring the performance of port
administration and/or management
Juridical function (procurements, contracting)
Financial and accounting reports
Human resources (in office)
Reporting to Top management and Board of
Directors
(Re)organising port administration resources
Construction, Maintenance and Repair
Seaport Policing
Seaport Security (of activities and human life)
Seaport Safety (human health, environment)
Other non-profit services
Marketing and Communication systems
Research and Innovation
Human resources (at workplace)
(Re)organizing port management resources
Handling cargo/people, waste, ships and
inland transport vehicles
Sea and inland Transport services
Logistics and Value-Added Services
Manufacturing and Industrial activities
Commercial and Touristic services
Agency services
Other for-profit services
Fig. 6. Institutional and operational decision-making of a (seaport) firm or organization in the Gov-Ad-Man approach.
As Fig. 7 shows, the new contextualized theoretical framework is going well beyond seaports. It may serve as a
first building block for whatever research area, not only for seaport conceptualization, but also for port development
or functioning and all related issues, being them strategic or not.
Fig. 7. The contextual theoretical framework for seaport conceptualization and development/functioning.

5. Conceptualization of a seaport as an institutional and operational cluster with 2 systems and 3 nodes
Having presented the six basic contexts of seaports and the respective most known models and concepts, this
paper now turns towards a seaport conceptualization. This process will lead us to a port definition, which has to be
considered as comprehensive as possible, including from six to two most basic contextual dimensions, being ready
for any seaport social-economic analysis. It is worth to consider the space, operational and institutional clustering
of resources, activities and actors (in)directly related to the seaport principal function, which simultaneously is the
output of its service process. This logic and the above analysis lead to the conceptualization of a seaport as a cluster
2s+3n, with seaport-related activities and actors included within two systems and three nodes (Fig. 8)3
.
Fig. 8. The seaport cluster 2s+3n (2 systems and 3 nodes) conceptualized.
5.1. The definition and interpretation of the seaport cluster 2s+3n
The seaport cluster 2s+3n interpretation (Fig. 8) would be helped by the following resulting seaport definition:
A commercial port is a territorial, operational and institutional cluster of interrelated social-economic resources,
activities and legitimate actors engaged in appropriate agreements (in)directly related to the transfer of goods and
people between land and sea vehicles, serving as a node for the foreign trade and tourism, for the industry, logistics
and supply chains, and for the global transport system ever more intermodal in its hinterland and foreland.
3
Abbreviations: PA - Port Authority; PF - Private Firms (shippers...); CP - Concurrent Ports; LO - Labor Organizations (Unions...); NPO -
Non-Profit Organizations (incl. Chambers of Commerce); GA - Government Agencies; PP - Partner Ports; PO - Port Operators; VAS - (firms in)
Value-Added Services; LTO - Landside Transport Operators; VAL - (firms in) Value-Added Logistics; STO - Sea Transport Operators; SA -
Shipping Agents; MTO - Multimodal Transport Operators; FF - Freight Forwarders; G - Governments (from local to global); C - Communities;
M - Medias; DA - Development Agencies (and Associations).

Readers may compare this paper‟s seaport definition with any other existing one, as the followings, for instance,
observing the difference between them and notifying the importance or not of the seaport conceptualization as a
cluster 2s+3n:
“Seaports are interfaces between the various transport modes and are typically combined transport centres ...
multifunctional trade and industrial areas where goods are not only in transit but also handled, manufactured and
distributed ... multidimensional systems which, to function adequately, must be integrated into global logistic chains.
An efficient port requires ... adequate infrastructure, superstructure and equipment ... good communications and
especially a dedicated and skilled management team with a motivated and trained workforce (UNCTAD, 1996).”
“A sea port is a logistic and industrial node in the global transport system with a strong maritime character and in
which a functional and spatial clustering of activities takes place, activities that are directly or indirectly linked to
seamless transportation and transformation processes within logistic chains (Notteboom, 1998).”
“Being an interface linking sea and inland transportation, a port is an integral platform, serving as a base for
logistics, production, information transfer and international trade, and as a springboard for the economic
development of the hinterland. To carry out these functions adequately, a port should be able to accommodate ships
and other modes of transport within terminals effectively and efficiently (Song and Yeo, 2004).”
According to this paper‟s definition, a commercial seaport consists of two interrelated systems:
1. Operational System of Transfer (OST) for goods and people between land and sea
2. Institutional System (IS) of actors and arrangements interrelated in and around OST
both serving as a triple node for three layers of social-economic activities (in)directly linked to the port primary
function, that is, transferring goods and people between land and sea vehicles:
a) Node for the Multimodal Transport, or, the Maritime and Inland Transports (MT-LT)
b) Node for the Industry, Logistics and Supply Chains (ILSC)
c) Gateway (or node) for the Foreign Trade and Tourism (FTT).
Essentially, this model shows how the port cluster actors are organized within OST and IS, being part of various
chains and networks, thereby of various relationships and interests. Being at the centre of both 2 systems and 3
nodes in its cluster, the port authority (PA) has to be considered as the primary actor interested to a seaport cluster‟s
strategic success in face of its competitors that may be other port clusters in a range or in a sea or land region. All
the other seaport cluster actors may be found in 6 little circles or 6+6 ellipses, respectively 2-by-2 along the great
axis of each layer of social-economic activities and 2-by-2 rectangular to the great axis of each layer, being along to
the OST circle line or tangent to it, linking two different layers by their lateral medium circles. For instance, the 6
little circles represent actors like: PF (Private firms, as shippers), CP (Concurrent ports), LO (Labor organizations,
as labor unions), NPO (Not-profit organizations, as chambers of commerce and industry, universities, research
institutes, etc.), GA (various Government agencies, as customs, police, etc.), and PP (Partner ports).
The main difference among ports is a question of scale and scope in activities and actors. It is clear that seaports‟
competitiveness is based not only in their operational effectiveness and efficiency of seaport-related operations, but
also in their institutional effectiveness, due to the capacity of leading actors to fix the appropriate arrangements and
agreements (rules/norms, contracts) and orient them to serve the interests of relevant and legitimate seaport parties.
5.1.1. The two institutional and operational systems of seaport clusters
From the above analysis of seaport contexts, a seaport cluster may be understood as composed of all internal and
external functions in all (in)direct port-related social-economic activities, which are including both an operational
system and an institutional system. Both systems are indicated by two concentric circles, with the OST included
within IS, as there are still port actors intervening in institutional functions and not in operational ones, while every
actor engaged in OST is in IS. It may be observed that several actors in IS, as governments, communities, and
various development agencies and media are not specifically part of social-economic layers knotted or noded in the
port cluster. It is interesting to note that both IS and OST circles are concentric with PA circle, whose position at the
cluster center show the PA importance for the well-going of all seaport cluster issues, from institutional ones at
governance level to the operational ones at administration and management levels. Its role is thus conceived to be

both an energizer and synergizer of all efforts made and to be made by the seaport cluster relevant actors. PA is the
key seaport cluster player, especially implied in governance and administration functions.
The seaport operational system includes all seaport functions at administration and management level, performed
with efficiency and effectiveness under the responsibility of executive boards and depending staff in all port cluster
firms and organizations, while the institutional system encompasses all port governance functions (Table 2), whose
effectiveness is the responsibility of the boards of governors/directors and shareholders in the firms/organizations
participating in cluster. It is worth to say that both systems define the operational hinterland and foreland, which
include administration and management functions at respectively inland and overseas actors, and the institutional
hinterland and foreland, which include governance functions at respectively inland and overseas actors, including
governments. The division of both great OST and IS circles in hinterland and foreland is to be actually related only
to the Transport (MT-LT) layer, whose ellipse little axis is rectangular to their horizontal diameter. The other layers
(ILSC and FTT) must be rotated until their ellipse little axis be rectangular to OST and IS horizontal diameter – or
to be superposed to the MT-LT layer – for the hinterland and foreland division to be right. But, the positioning of
the actors corresponding to the 6 little circles within OST has nothing to do in relation to the hinterland-foreland
division of OST and IS circles and 3 social-economic layers.
OST actors are included in 6+6 little ellipses and 6 little +1 (PA) circles. All government agencies, private firms
or not-profit organizations in the 6 little circles are variously part of the 3 layers, according to the nature of both
actors‟ and layers‟ social-economic activities. Only the actors figuring in each of 6 little ellipses aligned with the
great axis of a great ellipse – or layer of social-economic activities – are part of the layer to which this great ellipse
corresponds. For instance, sea transport operators are operating to the sea side of the layer MT-LT, while the
landside transport operators are operating to the land side of the same layer; firms in value-added logistics are part
of the ILSC layer, and so on. Actors of 6 other ellipses aligned with the OST circle line or normal to a great axis of a
layer are linking two various social-economic layers through OST. For instance, multimodal transport operators and
freight forwarders are linking MT and LT with FTT, with MTO being part of the MT-LT layer and FF being
agencies servicing FTT firms.
5.1.2. The three social-economic layers noded in (their derived demand of) a seaport cluster
The three layers noded at the port cluster are three great ellipses named from bottom-up MT-LT, ILSC and FTT.
This superposition of layers is due to their embeddedness or volatility to a seaport cluster infrastructure and
superstructure, dictating the future processes and tensions in the port development dynamics in relation to seaport
(cluster) competitors, as a consequence of institutional (strategic) and operational decisions of port stakeholders. The
more embedded layer to a seaport territory is the transport layer (MT-LT) and the least territorially embedded to it is
the foreign trade and tourism layer (FTT), because of the close relation to their investments made in. Higher are
these investments, higher is the territorial embeddedness of the corresponding layer. Another superposition reason of
layers is related to their reciprocal (in)dependency. Any trade exists only after industrial and/or logistical processes
are made on various goods, be these raw materials, and every activity need a transport service from its territory to
the near or cheaper port. Each layer actors are figuring in small circles within OST, as they are still part of the
operational system, and at the same time, of the institutional system of a seaport cluster. It must be observed that the
two extreme circles bearing each layer‟s credentials are partly outside the model, as each layer may also be part of
other networks or seaport clusters.
6. Why conceptualizing seaports and further research and practical directions
The analysis of seaport contexts and the resulting theoretical framework were related to how conceptualizing
seaports. This theory-formed process or contextualism would not be interesting if its product, that is a seaport cluster
conceptualized as 2s+3n, will not serve as a building block for other theoretical or practical seaport purposes, which
are part of the institutional and/or operational systems, situated respectively at governance level and administration
and management levels of decision-making.
For the Author of this paper it is a fundamental theoretical issue that of determining if port economics is the same
as port governance, administration and management, as is his elaborated thought. Only by this kind of asking, port
research will be less arbitrary in classifying former seaport studies and certainly will better conceptualize key issues.

Also, it would be very interesting to ask if there may be or not an interrelationship between various areas of port
research, and which are the specific ones, be they research areas and their interrelationships.
For further research it is imperative to determine the part of each system contribution in the port cluster position,
performance and competitiveness. Only then PAs and port interested actors may know where, when and how to
intervene by improving institutional and operational efforts.
Concerning practical seaport issues, including political ones, which are part of the governance or institutional
level, the seaport conceptualization may help very much indeed in at least these research and practical directions:
 Formulate and implement seaport laws, statutes, regulations and various contracts;
 Formulate and implement seaport development policy, strategy and reform;
 Determine seaport cluster‟s institutional and operational foreland and hinterland;
 Plan and construct new seaports or extending/expanding existing ones with the due resource capacity in
receiving and handling all kind of cargo, passengers and vehicles, be they for transport or transfer;
 Provide all required seaport services and operations – that is, functions – that satisfy seaport customers;
 Face the inter-port competition and promote the intra-port competition and port cooperation to foster
effectiveness and efficiency; and
 (Re-)Organize/Transfer seaport services or functions, including seaport resources, rules and actors.
The institutional and operational development, (re-)organization and performance of the seaport cluster 2s+3n
require that seaport actors aim at their space, time and social-economic interests:
 Effective use of the institutional framework as decision-makings that organize, direct and control seaport
services and operations that are necessary for seaport customers;
 Effective and efficient stewardship of their respective seaport property, be it physical or intellectual; and
 Effective and efficient exploitation of seaport resources (human, financial, informational and material,
including especially seaport infrastructure and superstructure) in providing much safer and profiting seaport
services and operations for themselves and other actors in seaport cluster hinterland and foreland.
7. Conclusions
This paper has in essence presented a new way to conceptualize seaports as institutional and operational clusters.
Six basic seaport contexts has been fixed more or less arbitrarily, still related to the past contributions in port studies
and research, aiming to comprehensively encompass the port activities and actors.
A large literature on ports and related issues has been reviewed, together with classifying efforts of port context-
related research for long periods, highlighting the most relevant models and concepts in each of port contexts fixed.
The new framework for seaport conceptualization and development is based not only to these six contexts, but also
to their possible shrinking in at least institutional and operational contexts. For it is necessary that agents‟ role be
divided in 2 levels: institutional, implying strategic decision-making at governance level, and operational, including
decision-makers and doers in administration and management levels.
After stabilizing the conceptualization framework, seaports may be easily conceived as territorial, institutional
and operational clusters of activities and actors near or far related to the transfer of goods and people, which is the
primary function of a seaport since ever. The respective model of this new conceptualization is a port cluster 2s+3n,
in which two systems of operational and institutional decision-making are acting as a triple node for three social-
economic layers as are the multimodal transport, the industry, logistics and supply chains, and the foreign trade and
tourism, being superposed from bottom-up according to their territorial embeddedness in seaport infrastructure and
superstructure, and to their relative dependency.
The seaport conceptualization is necessary for giving way to each seaport related issue, be it at institutional level
of port governance, both cluster- and PA-based, or at operational level of port administration and management.
Many research areas are identified at theoretical and practical level. For instance, much research is needed to
specify the content of port economics, its relation to seaport governance, administration and management, and the
interrelationships among the existing or other seaport research areas. Further research is needed to determine the
part of both institutional and operational systems in a seaport cluster‟s performance and competitiveness, in order
for PAs and port actors to surgically furnish their improving efforts. Future research may try to find the institutional
and operational part in seaport development and (re)organization effecticiency (effectiveness and efficiency).

Acknowledgements
I am indebted for their significant funding contribution to Professors Haixiao Pan and Keping Li, respectively the
Conference Director and Chair Local Program Committee, from Tongji University, the hosting institution of
WCTRS 2016, having accepted my voluntary participation at the WCTRS 2016 in Shanghai from 4 to 17 July 2016,
as well as to my cousin Mr. Artur Zenkaj and Mr. Sulo Shehu, the known businessmen of my Vlora town.
I also want to thank infinitely my wonderful parents (father Ibrahim and mother Stoli), wife (Irena), and children
(Silvia, Frank and Klint) for having withdrawn from their everyday needs and wants to support my PhD years and
participation in conferences like WCTRS 2016, IAME 2016, 2015 and 2013, IMAM 2015, 2013 and 2009, and
ICLST 2015 and 2014.
References
Alderton, P., 2008, Port Management and Operations. 3rd
edition, Informa, London, pp. 224.
Baird, A., 1995, Privatisation of trust ports in UK: Review and analysis of the first sales. Transport Policy 2(2), 135-143.
Baird, A., 2000, Port privatisation: Objectives, extent, process and UK experience. International Journal of Maritime Economics 2(3), 177-194.
Baudelaire, J-G., 1979, Administration et Exploitation Portuaires. 2nd
edition, Eyrolles, Paris, pp. 377.
Beresford, A., Gardner, B., Pettit, S., Naniopoulos, A., Wooldridge C., 2004, The UNCTAD and WORKPORT models of port development:
evolution or revolution?. Maritime Policy and Management 31(2), 93-107.
Bichou, K., Gray, R., 2004, Logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement. Maritime Policy and
Management 31(1), 47-67.
Bichou, K., Gray, R., 2005, A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 39(1), 75-92.
Bird, J., 1963, The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom. Hutchinson Co, London, pp. 454.
Bird, J., 1968, Seaports Gateways of Australia. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., pp. 268.
Bird, J., 1971, Seaports and Seaport Terminals. Hutchinson Co, London, pp. 240.
Branch, A., 1986, Elements of Port Operation Management, Chapman Hall, London, pp. 280.
Brooks, M., Cullinane, K., 2007, Governance models defined, In: “Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance”. Idem (Eds.). JAI Press,
Oxford, pp. 405-435.
Charlier, J., 1990, Ports and hinterland connections, In: “Ports as Nodal Points in a Global Transport System”. Doman, A., Ettinger, J. (Eds.).
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 105-121.
Charlier, J., 1992. The regeneration of old port areas for new port uses, In: “European Port Cities in Transition”. Hoyle, B., Pinder, D. (Eds.).
Belhaven Press, London, pp. 137-154.
Coppens, F., Lagneaux, F., Meersman, H., Van De Voorde, E., Vanelslander, et al., 2007, Economic impact of port activity: a disaggregate
analysis - The case of Antwerp. Working paper, n°110, National Bank of Belgium, pp. 88.
De Cordemoy, C. J., 1909, Exploitation des Ports Maritimes. H. Dunod et E. Pinat, Paris, pp. 604.
Degrassi, S., 2001, Seaport network Hamburg, PhD thesis, Universität Hamburg, Germany, pp. 387.
De Langen, P., 2004, The performance of seaport clusters: A framework to analyze cluster performance and an application to the seaport clusters
of Durban, Rotterdam and the Lower Mississippi. PhD thesis, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 291.
De Langen, P., Haezendonck, E., 2012, Port as clusters of economic activity, In: “The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics”, Talley, W.
(Ed.). Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 638-655.
De Langen, P., Pallis, A., 2006, Analysis of the benefits of intra-port competition. International Journal of Transport Economics 33(1), 69-86.
Department for Transport, 2000, Modern ports: A UK policy. UK, 50pp.
De Rousiers, P., 1909, Les Grands Ports de France: Leur Rôle Économique. A. Colin, Paris, pp. 354.
Ducruet, C., 2005, Les villes-ports: Laboratoires de la mondialisation. PhD thesis, Université du Havre, France, pp. 435.
Ducruet, C., Notteboom, T. and De Langen P., 2009, Revisiting inter-port relationships under New Economic Geography research framework, In:
“Ports in Proximity: Competition and Coordination among Adjacent Seaports”. Idem (Eds.), Ashgate, UK, pp. 11-28.
Elliot, N., 1969, Hinterland and foreland as illustrated by the Port of the Tyne. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 47, 153-170.
ESPO, 2011, European ports governance 2010. Report prepared by P. Verhoeven, Brussels, pp. 110.
European Commission, 1997, On Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure. COM(97)678, Green paper, Brussels, pp. 41.
Fair, M., 1961, Port authorities in the United States. Law and Contemporary Problems 26(4), 703-714.
Fama, E., Jensen, M., 1983, Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics 26(2), 301-325.
Frankel, E., 1987, Port Planning and Development. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 795.
Frémont, A., 2005, Conteneurisation et mondialisation. Les logiques des armements de lignes régulières. Texte d‟habilitation à diriger des
Recherches, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, France, pp. 268.
Goss, R., 1979, A Comparative Study of Seaport Management and Administration. Government Economic Service, Department of Industry,
Trade and Prices Consumer Protection, U.K., pp. 396.
Goss, R., 1987, Port authorities in Australia. Australian Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra, Occasional paper n°84, pp. 60.

Haezendonck, E., 2001, Essays on Strategy Analysis for Seaports, Garant, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 240.
Hall, P., 2002, The institution of infrastructure and the development of port-regions. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, U.S., pp. 555.
Hayuth, Y., 1993, Port competition and regional port cooperation, In: “De Dynamieik van een Haven”. Blauwens, G., Suykens, F. et al. (Eds.).
Boekhadel, De Nederlandsxge, pp. 210-226.
Heaver, T., 2006, The evolution and challenges of port economics, In: “Port Economics”. Cullinane, K., Talley, W. (Eds.). JAI Press, Oxford, pp.
11-42.
Hesse, M., Rodrigue, J-P., 2004, The Transport geography of logistics and freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography 12(3), 171-184.
Hodgson, G., 2006. What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues 40(1), 1-25.
Ibrahimi, K., 2013a, On the institutional and operational development and performance of seaports: The Gov-Ad-Man approach. IAME
Conference, Marseille, France.
Ibrahimi, K., 2013b, Conceptualizing seaports firms and functions as institutional and operational interrelations: The Gov-Ad-Man approach.
IMAM Congress, A Coruña, Spain.
Ibrahimi, K., 2014, The determinant factors of port institutional development and reform: A review of the Albanian case. 11th
ICLST, University
of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics, Celje, Slovenia.
Ibrahimi, K., 2015, On the institutional and operational organization of seaports: The Gov-Ad-Man approach. IAME Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Jansson, J., Shneerson, D., 1982, Port Economics. MIT Press, Massachusetts, Boston, U.S., pp. 194.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., Whittington, R., 2008, Exploring Corporate Strategy. 8th
edition, Prentice Hall, Essex, England, pp. 915.
Lavaud-Letilleul, V., 2007, Ports - La tentation du tout-réseau face aux pesanteurs du territoire. XLIIIe Colloque de l'Association de Science
Régionale de langue Française, Grenoble.
Le Mestre, P., 2006, À la recherche d‟une structuration de la performance des ports maritimes, maillons des chaînes logistiques. Centre d‟Études
et de Recherche en Logistiques, Université de Nantes, France.
Mangan, J., 2009, Port-centric logistics: Opportunities for ports? http://logistics.ie/portal/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/port-centric.pdf.
Marlow, P., Paixão, A., 2002, Measuring lean ports performance. IAME Conference, Panama.
Meersman, H., Van De Voorde, E., Vanelslander, T., 2007, Fighting for money, investments and capacity: Port governance and devolution in
Belgium, In: “Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance”. Brooks, M., Cullinane, K. (Eds.). JAI Press, Oxford, pp. 85-107.
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Watermanagement, 2000, The economic significance of Mainport Rotterdam. Directorate-General for
Freight Transport, General Policy Department, Memorandum, The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 48.
Naniopoulos, A. et al., 2000, Workport. Final report, WA-97-SC-2213, Project funded by the EC under the 4th
Framework Programme, pp. 128.
North, D., 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Political economy of institutions and decisions, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 159.
Notteboom, T., 1998, Spatial and functional integration of container port systems and hinterland networks in Europe, In: “Land Access to Sea
Ports”. European Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD, Paris, Report of the 113th
round table (2000), pp. 5-55.
Notteboom, T., 2007, Strategic challenges to container ports in a changing market environment, In: “Devolution, Port Governance and Port
Performance”. Brooks, M., Cullinane, K. (Eds.). JAI Press, Oxford, pp. 29-52.
Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J-P., 2004, Inland freight distribution and sub-harborization of port terminals. The 1st
International Conference on
Logistics Strategy for Ports, Dalian, China.
Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J-P., 2005, Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management 32(3),
297-313.
Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J-P., 2007, Re-assessing port-hinterland relationships in the context of global commodity chains, In: “Ports, Cities and
Global Supply Chains”. Wang, J., Olivier, D., Notteboom, T., Slack, B. (Eds.). Ashgate, London, pp. 51-68.
Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W., 2002, Stakeholder relations management in ports: Dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in
changing competitive environment. IAME Conference, Panama.
OECD, 2008, Transport infrastructure investment: Options for efficiency. Report, Paris, pp. 238.
Olivier, D., Slack, B., 2005, Rethinking the port. Environment and Planning A 38(8), 1409-1427.
Paixão, A., Marlow, P., 2003, Fourth generation ports - A question of agility? International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics
Management 33(4), 355-376.
Pallis, A., Vitsounis, T., de Langen, P., 2008, Port economics, policy and management: Bibliometric and content analysis of published research.
IAME Conference, Dalian, China.
Pallis, A., Vitsounis, T., de Langen, P., 2009, Port economics, policy and management: Review of an emerging research field. Transport Reviews
30(1), 115-161.
Pallis, A., Vitsounis, T., de Langen, P., Notteboom, T., 2011, Port economics, policy and management: Content classification and survey.
Transport Reviews 31(4), 445-471.
Porter, M., 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors. The Free Press, New York, pp. 422.
Porter, M., 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 580.
Porter, M., 2000, Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly
14(1), 15-34.
Risjord, M., 2009, Rethinking concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 65(3), 684-691.
Robinson, R., 1970, The hinterland-foreland continuum: Concept and methodology. The Professional Geographer 22(6), 307–310.
Robinson, R., 2002, Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management 29(3), 241-255.

Rodrigue, J-P., Notteboom, T., 2010, Foreland-based regionalization: integrating intermediate hubs with port hinterlands. Research in
Transportation Economics 27(1), 19-29.
Sánchez, R., Wilmsmeier, G., 2010, Contextual port development: A theoretical approach, In: “Essays on Port Economics”. Coto-Millán, P.,
Pesquera, M.A., Castanedo, J. (Eds.). Physica-Verlag, Springer, pp. 19-44.
Schraver, J. (Ed.), 1948, Rotterdam: The Gateway to Europe. Donker, Rotterdam, pp. 259.
Sherman, R., 2000, Seaport governance in the United States and Canada. American Association of Port Authorities, U.S.
Simon, H., 1976, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. The Free Press, New York,
pp. 400.
Slack, B., 1993, Pawns in the game: ports in a global transportation system, Growth and Change 24, 579-588.
Song, D-W., Yeo, K-T., 2004, A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics and
Logistics 6, 34-52.
Stevens, H., 1999, The Institutional Position of Seaports: An International Comparison. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 364.
Stopford, M., 1997, Maritime Economics. 2nd
edition, Routledge, London, pp. 593.
Suykens, F., Van de Voorde, E., 1998, A quarter of a century of port management in Europe: objectives and tools. Maritime Policy and
Management 25(3), 251-261.
Taaffe, E., Morrill R., Gould P., 1963, Transport expansion in underdeveloped countries: A comparative analysis. Geographical Review 53(4),
503-529.
Talley, W., 2009, Port Economics. Routledge, London, pp. 229.
UN (former League of Nations), 1923, Convention (and statute) on the international regime of maritime ports. Genève.
UNCTAD, 1975, Port pricing. Secretariat report. TD/B/C.4/110, Geneva/New York, pp. 86.
UNCTAD, 1976, Manual on Port Management. Parts 1-4, Geneva, pp. 937.
UNCTAD, 1992a, Port marketing and the challenge of the third generation port. Secretariat report, TD/B/C.4/AC.7/14. Geneva, pp. 60.
UNCTAD, 1992b, Development and improvement of ports: The principles of modern port management and organization. Secretariat report,
TD/B/C.4/AC.7/13, Geneva, pp. 84.
UNCTAD, 1996, Report of the intergovernmental group of experts on ports. Report, TD/B/CN.4/GE.1/7, Geneva, pp. 23.
UNCTAD, 1999, Fourth-generation ports. Technical note, Ports Newsletter n°19, pp. 9-12.
UNCTAD, 2004. Assessment of a seaport land interface: an analytical framework. Secretariat report, UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/MISC/2004/3,
Geneva.
Van De Voorde, E., 1995, Seaports, land use and competitiveness: How important are economic and spatial resources? In: “Transport and Urban
Development”, Banister, D., (Ed.). E FN Spon, London, pp. 218-240.
Van Der Lugt, L., De Langen P., 2007, Port authority strategy: Beyond the landlord - A conceptual approach. Department of Port, Transport and
Regional Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Verhoeven, P., 2009, A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance? IAME Conference, Copenhagen.
Vigarié, A., 1964, Les Grands Ports de Commerce de la Seine au Rhin. Leur Évolution devant l‟Industrialisation des Arrière-Pays. SABRI, Paris,
pp. 715.
Weber, M., 1947, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. The Free Press, U.S., pp. 446.
Weigend, G., 1958, Some elements in the study of port geography. Geographical Review 48(2), 185-200.
Woo, S-H., Pettit, S., Beresford, A., Kwak D-W., 2012, Seaport research: A decadal analysis of trends and themes since the 1980s. Transport
Reviews 32(3), 351-377.
World Bank, 2001, Port Reform Toolkit. 1st
edition (2nd
edition, 2007, pp. ), New York, pp. 453.

A theoretical framework for conceptualizing seaports as institutional and operational clusters

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Featured

A theoretical framework for conceptualizing seaports as institutional and operational clusters