Productivity change in Nigerian seaports after reform: a Malmquist productivity index decomposition approach

During the 1990s, Nigerian seaports were considered inefficient, unsafe due to massive cargo theft (wharf rat phenomenon) and one of the most expensive port systems in the world. This resulted in long turnaround times for ships and increased container dwell times. As a result, port operations were transferred to the private sector through concession contracts. This paper employs a Malmquist productivity index (MPI) technique to benchmark pre-and post-reform total factor productivity growth of the six major Nigeria seaports (Apapa, Calabar, Onne, Port Harcourt, TinCan Island and Warri) for the period 2000–2011 which represents six years before (2000–2005) and six years after (2006–2011) the reform. The results indicate progress in technical efficiency of the ports after reform but deterioration in technological progress. Overall productivity growth was higher in the pre-concession period compared to the post-concession period. The source of pre-concession period productivity growth was technological progress while the change in productivity of the post-concession period is generated by an increase in scale efficiency. This suggests that concessionaires have not brought in the much anticipated investment in modern technology to drive port efficiency. The ports of Calabar and Apapa experienced the highest productivity growth while lowest result was Onne

Competition, Excess Capacity, and the Pricing of Port Infrastructure

The pricing of infrastructure, such as this of commercially competing ports, is one of the most controversial aspects of the global economy of the 21st century. The controversy arises from the need to reconcile the economic development impacts of infrastructure investments with the, under commercial terms, recovery of investment costs. In developed countries and regions, the role of ‘public investment’ is thus re-evaluated, while the concept of ‘competition on infrastructure’ is increasingly challenged by the need to establish a level playing field among competing ports. The paper shows how Marginal Cost Pricing of port infrastructure can be a powerful ‘pricing discipline’ towards achieving cost recovery and fair competition among ports. To succeed in this, the paper advocates for stronger policy intervention in order to ensure greater transparency of port accounting systems, better and more harmonised port statistics, a meaningful set of state aid guidelines, and stricter application of Competition Law in port infrastructure investments.International Journal of Maritime Economics (2002) 4, 323–347. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100053

Port Financing and Pricing in the European Union: Theory, Politics and Reality

The issue of financing and pricing of port infrastructure has recently been the subject of widespread debate in Europe and it is now high on the political agenda of the European Union. This is the result of globalisation and the changing operational environment of ports, as well as of the increased port competition brought about by the completion of the internal market. Greater private sector interest in the port industry, as well as in the rest of Europe's infrastructure, necessitates some form of cost-based pricing that would allow the recovery of port investments. This could, however, disturb the existing ‘equilibrium’ among ports that has been established over the years as a result of each port's particular characteristics such as geographical location, proximity to markets, navigational constraints, subsidies and types of financing. Among competing container ports, like those of western Europe, such ‘disturbances’ can have marked impacts on ports' market shares, as a result of the easiness carriers can nowadays switch between ports. Furthermore, efficient pricing in the port sector could not bring about the expected welfare effects if the rest of the related infrastructure is not priced accordingly. The issue thus appears to be reaching a standstill, particularly in view of the fact that in most countries ports are considered as part of the country's infrastructure and thus State investment in ports is considered as ‘public investment’ outside the reach and mandate of the European Commission. The paper argues that the prime goal to be pursued at a European level is to achieve a level playing field among competing commercial seaports. It also reviews the past and present efforts of the European Commission in this area, the difficulties and challenges these efforts are faced with and, finally, it attempts to indicate the way forward; a way consistent with Europe's political thinking, priorities and realities.International Journal of Maritime Economics (2001) 3, 368–386. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100026