Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 99–110 | Cite as

Dynamics in terminal concessions: the role of performances

  • Claudio FerrariEmail author
  • Pier Paolo Puliafito
  • Alessio Tei
Original Article


A terminal concession agreement represents the final outcome of a negotiation (that may take different legal forms) among a port authority and one or more terminal operators. In most cases, it defines the duties and responsibilities of the two parties for a very long period of time. Once the concession is awarded, its legal obligations remain (or ought to remain) fixed irrespective of changes that may happen in the port industry. In this sense, authors have often raised the question whether modifications to the current concession fee structure are possible in order to align public and private goals, and increase terminal performance. The importance of this issue lies in the fact that, in several port governance models, concessions are static agreements in which fees and other conditions in general do not change over time. The current paper addresses this issue, discussing the possibility—and the advantages—of introducing a dynamic approach, able to guarantee benefits to both the terminal operator and the Port Authority. To achieve this goal, the paper develops a methodology based on dynamic incentives, based on the relative performance of a port terminal operator in respect of its competitors.


Concession fee Port competitiveness Port concession Concession management Variable fee Terminal performance 



The authors are grateful to the two anonymous referees and to the Editor-in-Chief for their valuable revisions and suggestions. We believe they deeply contributed in improving our work. The usual disclaimer applies.


  1. Baird, A. 2000. Port privatisation: Objectives, extent, process, and the UK experience. International Journal of Maritime Economics 2(3): 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandara, Y.M., and H.O. Nguyen. 2016. Influential factors in port infrastructure tariff formulation, implementation and revision. Transportation Research Part A 85: 220–232.Google Scholar
  3. Cardadeiro, E., and J.A. da Silva. 2015. Another model for terminal concessions’ selection criteria. In Proceedings of the SIGA2 conference, Antwerp, 11–13 May 2015.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, H.C., and S.M. Liu. 2014. Optimal concession contracts for landlord port authorities to maximise fee revenues. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 6(1): 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cullinane, K., and M.R. Brooks. 2007. Devolution, port governance and port performance. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  6. de Langen, P., and C. Heij. 2014. Corporatisation and performance: A literature review and an analysis of the performance effects of the corporatisation of Port of Rotterdam Authority. Transport Reviews 34: 396–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Defilippi, E. 2004. Intra-port competition, regulatory challenges and the concession of Callao Port. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6(4): 279–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Everett, S., and R. Robinson. 2007. Port reform: The Australian experience. Research in Transportation Economics 17: 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felicio, J.A., V. Caldeirinha, and A. Dionisio. 2015. The effect of port and container terminal characteristics on terminal performance. Maritime Economics and Logistics 17(4): 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrari, C., and M. Basta. 2009. Port concession fees based on the price-cap regulation: A DEA approach. Maritime Economics and Logistics 11(1): 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrari, C., P.P. Puliafito, and A. Tei. 2013. Performance and quality indexes in the evaluation of the terminal activity: A dynamic approach. Research in Transportation Business and Management 8: 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galvao, C.B., L.T. Robles, and L.C. Guerise. 2013. The Brazilian seaport system: A post-1990 institutional and economic review. Research in Transportation Business and Management 8: 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goss, R.O. 1990. Economic policies and seaports: 1. The economic functions of seaports. Maritime Policy and Management 17(3): 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Institute of Transport and Maritime Management Antwerp (ITTMA). 2008. The awarding of seaport terminals in Europe: Results from ITMMA survey commissioned by ESPO. Antwerp: ITTMA.Google Scholar
  15. Kaselimi, E., T. Notteboom, and B. De Borger. 2011. A game theoretical approach to competition between multi-user terminals: The impact of dedicated terminals. Maritime Policy and Management 38(4): 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krishna, V. 2010. Auction theory. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Meersman, H., E. Van de Voorde, and T. Vanelslander. 2009 Future challenges for port and shipping sector. London: Informa.Google Scholar
  18. Notteboom, T. 2007. Concession agreements as port governance tool. Research in Transport Economics 17: 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pallis, A., T. Notteboom, and P. de Langen. 2008. Concession agreements, capabilities and market entry. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10(3): 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parola, F., C. Ferrari, A. Tei, G. Satta, and E. Musso. 2017. Dealing with multi-scalar embeddedness and institutional divergence: Evidence from the renovation of Italian port governance. Research in Transportation Business and Management 22: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parola, F., A. Tei, and C. Ferrari. 2012. Managing port concessions: Evidence from Italy. Maritime Policy and Management 39(1): 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prendergast, C. 1999. The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economics Literature 37(1): 7–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saeed, N., and O.I. Larsen. 2010. Container terminal concessions: A game theory application to the case of the ports of Pakistan. Maritime Economics and Logistics 12(3): 237–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suykens, F., and E. Van de Voorde. 1998. A quarter a century of port management in Europe: Objectives and tools. Maritime Policy and Management 25(3): 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Theys, C., and T. Notteboom. 2010. Determining terminal concession durations in seaports. Journal of International Logistics and Trade 8(1): 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Theys, C., T. Notteboom, A. Pallis, and P. de Langen. 2010. The economics behind the awarding of terminals in seaports. Research in Transport Economics 27(1): 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Niekerk, H.C. 2005. Port reform and concessioning in developing countries. Maritime Economics and Logistics 7(2): 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Verhoeven, P. 2010. A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance? Maritime Policy and Management 37(3): 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Verhoeven, P. 2011. European port governance. The ESPO fact finding report. Limassol: Report of an Enquiry into the Current Governance of European Seaports.Google Scholar
  30. Wang, G., and A. Pallis. 2014. Incentive approaches to overcome moral hazard in port concession agreements. Transportation Research Part E 67: 162–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Ferrari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pier Paolo Puliafito
    • 2
  • Alessio Tei
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Economics, School of Social SciencesUniversity of GenovaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Informatics, Bioengineering, Robotics and Systems EngineeringUniversity of GenovaGenovaItaly
  3. 3.School of Marine Science and TechnologyNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations