IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Performance Effects of the Corporatisation of Port of Rotterdam Authority


  • de Langen, P.W.
  • Heij, C.


Port of Rotterdam Authority is a publicly owned but corporatized port development company. In 2004, this organisation was transformed from a municipal department to an independently operating company. The corporatisation intended to improve the overall performance of the port of Rotterdam. Relevant performance indicators to evaluate the effect of this corporatisation include market share, turnover, operating costs, profits, and investments. These indicators are evaluated for two periods, one prior to the corporatisation (1997-2003) and the other afterwards (2005-2011). The comparison of these two periods shows that corporatisation has led to significant performance improvements. This finding is relevant for the ongoing discussion on port governance models.

Suggested Citation

  • de Langen, P.W. & Heij, C., 2013. "Performance Effects of the Corporatisation of Port of Rotterdam Authority," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2013-06, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:38817

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. José I. Castillo-Manzano & Juan P. Asencio-Flores, 2012. "Competition Between New Port Governance Models on the Iberian Peninsula," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 519-537, January.
    2. Haezendonck, Elvira & Verbeke, Alain & Coeck, Chris, 2006. "Strategic Positioning Analysis for Seaports," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 141-169, January.
    3. Adolf K Y Ng & Athanasios A Pallis, 2010. "Port governance reforms in diversified institutional frameworks: generic solutions, implementation asymmetries," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 42(9), pages 2147-2167, September.
    4. Boardman, Anthony E & Vining, Aidan R, 1989. "Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-33, April.
    5. Gillen, David & Lall, Ashish, 1997. "Developing measures of airport productivity and performance: an application of data envelopment analysis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 261-273, December.
    6. Mary R. Brooks & Athanasios A. Pallis, 2008. "Assessing port governance models: process and performance components," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 411-432, August.
    7. Peter de Langen, 2004. "Governance in Seaport Clusters," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 6(2), pages 141-156, June.
    8. repec:eee:jotrge:v:17:y:2009:i:5:p:346-356 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Michael Asteris & Alan Collins, 2009. "UK Container Port Investment and Competition: Impediments to the Market," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 163-178, February.
    10. Pellegram, A., 2001. "Strategic land use planning for freight: the experience of the Port of London Authority, 1994-1999," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 11-18, January.
    11. Yibin Xiao & Adolf K.Y. Ng & Hangjun Yang & Xiaowen Fu, 2012. "An Analysis of the Dynamics of Ownership, Capacity Investments and Pricing Structure of Ports," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 629-652, June.
    12. Kevin Cullinane & Dong-Wook Song, 2002. "Port privatization policy and practice," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 55-75, January.
    13. María Manuela González & Lourdes Trujillo, 2009. "Efficiency Measurement in the Port Industry: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 43(2), pages 157-192, May.
    14. Henriëtte C Van Niekerk, 2005. "Port Reform and Concessioning in Developing Countries," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 7(2), pages 141-155, June.
    15. Rui Cunha Marques & Álvaro Fonseca, 2010. "Market structure, privatisation and regulation of Portuguese seaports," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 145-161, March.
    16. Wouter Jacobs, 2007. "PORT COMPETITION BETWEEN LOS ANGELES and LONG BEACH: AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 98(3), pages 360-372, July.
    17. Sophia Everett, 2007. "Port reform in Australia: regulation constraints on efficiency," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 107-119, April.
    18. Patrick Verhoeven & Thomas Vanoutrive, 2012. "A quantitative analysis of European port governance," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 14(2), pages 178-203, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Patrick Verhoeven, 2010. "A review of port authority functions: towards a renaissance?," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 247-270, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    P; Port of Rotterdam; authority; case study; corporatisation; performance evaluation; port authority; port governance;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:38817. 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: (RePub). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.