IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports

Listed author(s):
  • Bichou, K.
  • Gray, R.
Registered author(s):

    Seaports are complex and dynamic entities, often dissimilar from each other, where various activities are carried out by and for the account of different actors and organisations. Such a multifaceted situation has led to a variety of operational, organisational and strategic management approaches to port systems. It is noticeable in the current body of port literature that the conceptualisation of the port business has taken place at different disciplinary levels without producing a comprehensive and structured port management discipline. Much of the current literature on ports has been developed by international organisations and institutions in the field (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Bank Group, etc.) and a resulting terminology has evolved depicting specific concepts hardly understood by professionals and academics outside the field. On the other hand, many areas of port operations and management still remain unexplored, and there are few academic references outlining the different features of operational and strategic management in ports. This paper examines the validity of the conventional terminology for classifying ports, questioning the assumption that ports should be conceptualised as separate markets and distinct operational and business ventures. It seeks to demonstrate that in today's inter-related global markets and businesses with integrated logistics and supply chain flows, there is less of a case for the traditionally isolated and restricted port terminology.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

    Volume (Year): 39 (2005)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages: 75-92

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:39:y:2005:i:1:p:75-92
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Douglas K. Fleming & Alfred J. Baird, 1999. "Comment Some reflections on port competition in the United States and western Europe," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 383-394, October.
    2. Khalid Bichou & Richard Gray, 2004. "A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 47-67, January.
    3. Peter V. Hall, 2004. "Mutual Specialisation, Seaports And The Geography Of Automobile Imports," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 95(2), pages 135-146, April.
    4. Ricardo J Sánchez & Jan Hoffmann & Alejandro Micco & Georgina V Pizzolitto & Martín Sgut & Gordon Wilmsmeier, 2003. "Port Efficiency and International Trade: Port Efficiency as a Determinant of Maritime Transport Costs," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 5(2), pages 199-218, June.
    5. David Newman & Jay H. Walder, 2003. "Federal ports policy," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 151-163, January.
    6. Thomas, B. J., 1994. "The need for organizational change in seaports," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 69-78, January.
    7. Valentina Carbone & Marcella De Martino, 2003. "The changing role of ports in supply-chain management: an empirical analysis," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 305-320, October.
    8. Hyung Rim Choi & Hyun Soo Kim & Byung Joo Park & Nam-Kyu Park & Sang Wan Lee, 2003. "An ERP approach for container terminal operating systems," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 197-210, July.
    9. T. Heaver & H. Meersman & E. Van De Voorde, 2001. "Co-operation and competition in international container transport: strategies for ports," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 293-305, July.
    10. Cullinane, Kevin & Song, Dong-Wook & Gray, Richard, 2002. "A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 743-762, October.
    11. Marc H Juhel, 2001. "Globalisation, Privatisation and Restructuring of Ports," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 3(2), pages 139-174, June.
    12. Sidney Gilman, 2003. "Sustainability and national policy in UK port development," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 275-291, October.
    13. Kevin Cullinane & Dong-Wook Song, 2002. "Port privatization policy and practice," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 55-75, January.
    14. Theo E. Notteboom & Willy Winkelmans, 2001. "Structural changes in logistics: how will port authorities face the challenge?," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 71-89, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:39:y:2005:i:1:p:75-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.