Skip to main content
Log in

Merger waves and alliance stability in container shipping

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

Recently, the container shipping industry has been witnessing a wave of new mergers and reshuffling of cooperation agreements (alliances), which have heavily affected the market. This development has also taken place among vertically integrated carriers, thus affecting not just the shipping side of the business, but the different supply chains as well. By using non-cooperative merger control games, featuring carriers involved in strategic alliances and competition authorities, this paper analyses the impact of the vertical integration of carriers and terminal operators on the stability of alliances. Starting from a benchmark set-up where carriers and stevedores are separated, we first find that when the integration concerns merging carriers only, alliance stability is undermined because non-merging allied carriers are more likely to register losses due to market share reductions and possibly higher terminal tariffs. However, by assuming that alliance agreements are extended to terminal operations, for all the allied partners, we show that alliances might be more stable, since non-merging carriers are vertically integrated as well and can internalize terminal charges. Given the on-going trends of consolidations in container shipping, this last hypothesis implies that merger waves might still occur without the breaking down of alliances, as long as landside cooperation among carriers along the supply chain, is also considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Including expenses such as stuffing, stripping, measuring, tallying, cargo inspection, custom examination, documentation, etc.

  2. A more general model should also consider cases in which merging carriers are endowed with asymmetrical capacity. However, this assumption would complicate the mathematical tractability of the model without changing its outcomes. As mergers often occur involving both large companies and major/minor ones, a “defensive” merger would try to obtain a similar aggregate capacity.

  3. For simplicity and without loss of generality, port costs are set to zero.

  4. A notable exception is the Maersk-Cosco terminal under construction at the Savona-Vado port in Italy.

  5. Notice that, given that slight demand shocks are not able to make overall TEUs expand to offset rising sea freight rates, then, in the region for which V/K is between 11 g and 17 g, single mergers are welfare-preferable and thus approved.

References

  • Agarwal, R., and O. Ergun. 2010. Network design and allocation mechanisms for carrier alliances in liner shipping. Operations Research 58 (6): 1726–1742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alix, Y., B. Slack, and C. Comtois. 1999. Alliance or acquisition? Strategies for growth in the container shipping industry, the case of CP ships. Journal of Transport Geography 7 (3): 203–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-SanJaime, Ó., P. Cantos-Sánchez, R. Moner-Colonques, and J. Sempere-Monerris. 2013. Vertical integration and exclusivities in maritime freight transport. Transportation Research Part E 51 (C): 50–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aymelek, M., Boulougouris, E., and O. Turan. 2016. A game theory competition analysis of quadropolistic liner container shipping market. Proceedings of International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) 2016 Conference, Germany, 171.

  • Benacchio, M., C. Ferrari, and E. Musso. 2007. The liner shipping industry and EU competition rules. Transport Policy 14 (1): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergantino, A.S., and A.W. Veenstra. 2002. Interconnection and co-ordination: An application of network theory to liner shipping. Maritime Economics and Logistics 4 (3): 231–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boile, M., H. Lee, and S. Theofanis. 2012. Hierarchical interactions between shippers and carriers in international maritime freight transportation networks. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences 48: 3651–3660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cariou, P. 2008. Liner shipping strategies: an overview. International Journal of Ocean Systems Management 1: 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caschili, S., F. Medda, F. Parola, and C. Ferrari. 2014. An analysis of shipping agreements: the cooperative container network. Networks and Spatial Economics 14: 357–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, S. 2011. To partner or to acquire? A longitudinal study of alliances in the shipping industry. Maritime Policy and Management 38 (2): 111–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, J.F., and G.S. Liang. 2005. Using fuzzy MCDM to select partners of strategic alliances for liner shipping. Information Sciences 173 (3): 197–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission. 2004. Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings, 2004/C 31/03. (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52004XC0205(02)&from=EN).

  • European Commission. 2008. Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004, Official Journal C/267, 2008. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52008XC1022(01)).

  • EU Commission. 2016a. CMA CGM/NOL (merger case M.7908). http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_7908.

  • EU Commission. 2016b. Hapag-Lloyd/UASC (merger case M.8120). http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_8120.

  • EU Commission. 2017a. Maersk/Hamburg Süd (merger case M.8330). http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_8330.

  • EU Commission. 2017b. NYK Line/MOL/K Line (JV, merger case M.8472). http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_8472.

  • EU Commission. 2017c. Cosco Shipping/OOCL (merger case M.8594). http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_8594.

  • Evangelista, P., and A. Morvillo. 2000. Alliances in liner shipping: an instrument to gain operational efficiency or supply chain integration? International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 2 (1): 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulì-Oller, R. 2000. Takeover waves. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 9 (2): 189–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, C., F. Parola, and M. Benacchio. 2008. Network economies in liner shipping: the role of home markets. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (2): 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • FTC. 2012. Negotiating Merger Remedies. Statement of the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission, January 2012. (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/negotiating-merger-remedies/merger-remediesstmt.pdf).

  • Fudenberg, D., and J. Tirole. 1991. Game theory, vol. 1. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowrisankaran, G. 1999. A dynamic model of endogenous horizontal mergers. RAND Journal of Economics 30: 56–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides, H., P. Cariou, and M. Benacchio. 2002. Costs, benefits and pricing of dedicated container terminals. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4 (1): 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides, H. 2019. Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics. Maritime Economics and Logistics 21 (1): 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaver, T., H. Meersman, F. Moglia, and E. Van de Voorde. 2000. Do mergers and alliances influence European shipping and port competition? Maritime Policy and Management 27 (4): 363–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, H., and L. Persson. 2001. Endogenous mergers in concentrated markets. International Journal of Industrial Organization 19 (8): 1213–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., M. Boile, S. Theofanis, and S. Choo. 2012. Modelling the oligopolistic and competitive behaviour of carriers in maritime freight transportation networks. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences 54: 1080–1094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midoro, R., and A. Pitto. 2000. A critical evaluation of strategic alliances in liner shipping. Maritime Policy and Management 27 (1): 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motta, M., and H. Vasconcelos. 2005. Efficiency gains and myopic antitrust authority in a dynamic merger game. International Journal of Industrial Organization 23 (9–10): 777–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T.E., and W. Winkelmans. 2001. Structural changes in logistics: How will port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management 28 (1): 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T.E. 2004. Container shipping and ports: An overview. Review of Network Economics 3 (2): 86–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T.E. 2016. Alliances in container shipping: Impact of Korean/Japanese carrier dynamics. (http://www.porteconomics.eu/2016/11/01/portgraphic-alliances-in-container-shipping-impact-of-koreanjapanese-carrier-dynamics/).

  • Notteboom, T.E., F. Parola, G. Satta, and A.A. Pallis. 2017. The relationship between port choice and terminal involvement of alliance members in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography 64: 158–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2015. OECD: Competition issues in liner shipping, Comp, WP2(3).

  • Panayides, P., and R. Wiedmer. 2011. Strategic alliances in container liner shipping. Research in Transportation Economics 32 (1): 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parola, F., G. Satta, and S. Caschili. 2014. Unveiling co-operative networks and ‘hidden families’ in the container port industry. Maritime Policy and Management 41 (4): 384–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parola, F., G. Satta, and P.M. Panayides. 2015. Corporate strategies and profitability of maritime logistics firms. Maritime Economics and Logistics 17 (1): 52–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quartieri, F. 2017. Are vessel sharing agreements pro-competitive? Economics of Transportation 11: 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, L.D., and W. Zhou. 2007. Merger waves: A model of endogenous mergers. RAND Journal of Economics 38 (1): 214–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryoo, D., and H. Thanopoulou. 1999. Liner alliances in the globalization era: A strategic tool for Asian container carriers. Maritime Policy and Management 26 (4): 349–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satta, G., and L. Persico. 2015. Entry mode choices of rapidly internationalizing terminal operators: The determinants of the degree of control on foreign ventures. Maritime Economics and Logistics 17 (1): 97–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, X., and S. Voss. 2011. Game theoretical aspects in modelling and analysing the shipping industry. Computational Logistics 6971: 302–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slack, B., C. Comtois, and R. McCalla. 2002. Strategic alliances in the container shipping industry: A global perspective. Maritime Policy and Management 29 (1): 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, D.W., and P.M. Panayides. 2002. A conceptual application of cooperative game theory to liner shipping strategic alliances. Maritime Policy and Management 29 (3): 285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Voorde, E., and T. Vanelslander. 2009. Market Power and Vertical and Horizontal Integration in the Maritime Shipping and Port Industry. OECD/ITF Discussion Papers, 2009-2.

  • Vasconcelos, H. 2010. Efficiency gains and structural remedies in merger control. Journal of Industrial Economics 58 (4): 742–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., M. Qiang, and Z. Xiaoning. 2014. Game-theoretical models for competition analysis in a new emerging liner container shipping market. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 70 (C): 201–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmans, B.W., A. Van Der Hoest, and T.E. Notteboom. 2008. Port and terminal selection by deep-sea container operators. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (6): 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilmsmeier, G., J. Hoffmann, and R.J. Sanchez. 2006. The impact of port characteristics on international maritime transport costs. Research in Transportation Economics 16 (1): 117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., M. Liu, and X. Shi. 2011. Verifying liner shipping alliance’s stability by applying core theory. Research in Transportation Economics 32 (1): 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Ferrari.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

A. Post-merger equilibrium w/vertical separation (freight rates, profits and terminal charges)

 

M1

M2

f

\( f_{s}^{1} = \frac{1}{ 1 4}\left( {5V/K + \frac{ 7 3}{3}g} \right) \)

\( f_{s}^{2} = \frac{1}{5}\left( {2V/K + \frac{ 2 7}{4}g} \right) \)

π

\( \pi_{ 1 5}^{1,s} = \frac{1}{ 1 7 6 4}[5V/K + 2 9g]^{2} \)\( \begin{array}{*{20}c} {\pi_{2}^{1,s} = \pi_{3}^{1,s} = \frac{1}{ 1 7 6 4}[5V/K - 1 3g]^{2} } \\ {\pi_{4}^{1,s} = \pi_{6}^{1,s} = \frac{1}{ 4 4 1}[3V/K - 1 9g]^{2} } \\ \end{array} \)

\( \pi_{ 1 5}^{2,s} = \pi_{ 4 2}^{2,s} = \frac{9}{ 6 4 0 0}(4V/K + 1 1g)^{2} \)

\( \pi_{3}^{2,s} = \pi_{6}^{2,s} = \frac{9}{ 6 4 0 0}(4V/K - 2 9g)^{2} \)

t

\( t_{\text{N}}^{1,s} = \frac{1}{ 2 1}(5V/K + g) \)

\( t_{\text{S}}^{1,s} = \frac{1}{ 1 4}(3V/K - 1 9g) \)

\( t_{\text{N}}^{2,s} = t_{\text{S}}^{2,s} = \frac{1}{4}\left( {V/K - \frac{9}{4}g} \right) \)

B.1 Post-merger equilibrium w/partial integration (sea freight rates, profits and terminal charges)

 

M1

M2

f

\( f_{p}^{1} = \frac{1}{ 2 0 2}( 5 5V/K + 4 0 1g) \)

\( f_{p}^{2} = \frac{1}{ 3 1}(9V/K + 4 5g) \)

π

\( \pi_{ 1 5}^{1,p} \frac{ 3 9 9 3}{ 4 0 8 0 4}(V/K)^{2} + \frac{ 9 5 5 9}{ 2 0 4 0 2}gV/K + \frac{ 3 6 4 8 5}{ 4 0 8 0 4}g^{2} \)

\( \begin{array}{*{20}c} {\pi_{2}^{1,p} = \pi_{3}^{1,p} = \frac{1}{ 4 0 8 0 4}( 1 1(V/K) - 4 1g)^{2} } \\ {\pi_{4}^{1,p} = \frac{ 1 4 5}{ 4 0 8 0 4}(5V/K - 3 7g)^{2} } \\ {\pi_{6}^{1,p} = \frac{9}{ 4 0 8 0 4}(5V/K - 3 7g)^{2} } \\ \end{array} \)

\( \pi_{ 1 5}^{2,p} = \pi_{ 4 2}^{2,p} = \frac{ 9 5}{ 9 6 1}(V/K)^{2} - \frac{ 2 2 8}{ 9 6 1}gV/K + \frac{ 2 2 7 7}{ 3 8 4 4}g^{2} \)

\( \pi_{3}^{2,p} = \pi_{6}^{2,p} = \frac{1}{ 9 6 1}(2V/K - 2 1g)^{2} \)

t

\( \begin{array}{*{20}c} {t_{N}^{1,p} = \frac{1}{ 1 0 1}(22V/K + 19g)} \\ {t_{S}^{1,p} = \frac{1}{ 1 0 1}(20V/K - 148g)} \\ \end{array} \)

\( t_{N}^{2,p} = t_{S}^{2,p} = \frac{1}{ 3 1}(7V/K - 2 7g) \)

C.1 Post-merger equilibrium w/full integration (sea freight rates and profits)

 

M1

M2

f

\( f_{f}^{1} = \frac{1}{6}(V/K + 1 3g) \)

\( f_{f}^{2} = \frac{1}{5}(V/K + 9g) \)

π

\( \pi_{ 1 5}^{1,f} = \frac{1}{ 3 6}(V/K + 7g)^{2} \)

\( \begin{array}{*{20}c} {\pi_{2}^{1,f} = \pi_{3}^{1,f} = \frac{1}{ 3 6}(V/K + g)^{2} } \\ {\pi_{4}^{1,f} = \pi_{6}^{1,f} = \frac{1}{ 3 6}(V/K - 11g)^{2} } \\ \end{array} \)

\( \pi_{ 1 5}^{2,f} = \pi_{ 4 2}^{2,f} = \frac{1}{ 1 0 0}(2V/K + 3g)^{2} \)

\( \pi_{3}^{2,f} = \pi_{6}^{2,f} = \frac{1}{ 2 5}(V/K - 6g)^{2} \)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crotti, D., Ferrari, C. & Tei, A. Merger waves and alliance stability in container shipping. Marit Econ Logist 22, 446–472 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00118-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00118-6

Keywords

Navigation