Selection of cases

The empirical part consists of three cases. This enables comparison between the cases to find out to what extent results are related to the ‘local context’ and to what extent they can be generalized. Since the three case studies are in different environments, results that hold for these three cases can be regarded as ‘stylized facts’ that hold for other cases of port clusters as well. The case selection was based on criteria other than cluster performance, to avoid a focus on ‘cluster success stories’ that dominate in the empirical research (Markusen, 1999).

Three criteria have been used to select the cases. First, the port clusters should be located in different environments. Thus, port clusters had to be located in different port ranges (such as the Hamburg-Le Havre port range). Second, a case study should be feasible, given limitations imposed by language (English or Dutch). Third, the cases should be ‘substantial clusters’, in the sense that port activities are of substantial size, both in absolute terms and in terms of their importance in a regional economy. Ports in very large cities, such as New York and Bombay are not selected, because the port cluster is a small component of the regional economy. As a consequence, the heterogeneity of the cluster population is small compared to the heterogeneity of the urban region, the cluster labor market is strongly dependent on the metropolitan labor market and cluster specific agglomeration economies and diseconomies are also subordinate to metropolitan agglomeration forces. Fourth, the ports should have a ‘transit function’. In such ports, competition with other ports is relevant.

On the basis of these criteria, the port clusters in Rotterdam, Durban and The Lower Mississippi were selected. The port of Singapore could also have been selected on the basis of the criteria, but this port was not included, because difficulties were expected with the survey instrument, in terms of ‘finding the right experts’ and ‘getting realistic answers’

because cultural differences might lead to different (less outspoken) answers and the questions require a ‘self critical attitude’ which was thought to be more questionable in the Singaporese context, where governmental organizations are very important.

It can be argued that the three selected port clusters are the largest of their continents.

Rotterdam and The Lower Mississippi are the largest in throughput volume. Both have a

Chapter 7 – Analyzing the Performance of Seaport Clusters 79

diverse traffic base and relatively many activities related to cargo handling. Durban is the port with the second highest throughput of Africa, and has a much more diverse traffic base than the largest African port, Richards Bay, where coal is by en large the dominant commodity.

Furthermore, these three ports are important for the regional economy. All three generate substantial employment (about 8-15 % of all jobs) in the region. The port and related industries are clearly a ‘specialization’ of the three regions involved.

Finally, all three ports are located in urban regions of similar size. The regions are relatively small in relation to the cargo throughput. All three ports serve large hinterlands: Rotterdam serves North West Europe, Durban serves South Africa and Southern Africa and The Lower Mississippi serves the mid-west of the United States. Thus, all ports have a transit function.

Table 13 shows three characteristics of these three cases.

Table 13: Three characteristics of the cases (2002)

Port Total throughput Container throughput Estimate of inhabitants in the metropolitan region Rotterdam About 320 million tons About 6 million TEU About 1.2 million inhabitants Durban About 48 million tons About 1.2 million TEU About 1.2 million inhabitants Lower

Mississippi

About 381 million tons (420 million metric tons)

About 0.3 million TEU About 1.4 million inhabitants

Sources: RMPM (2003) Louisiana Ports Association (2003) National Port Authority of South Africa (2003)

7.6.1 The port of Rotterdam

The port of Rotterdam is located centrally in the Northwest of Europe. The port is situated at the end of the rivers Rhine and Maas, Europe's most important inland waterways. Inland connections by inland waterways, rail, highway and pipeline are well developed. The port serves a large hinterland, including parts of Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Rotterdam is by far the largest port in the Netherlands: about 75% of the total throughput of the Netherlands is handled in Rotterdam and about 45% of all value added in Dutch

seaports is generated in Rotterdam (Nationale Havenraad, 2003). Table 14 shows the throughput figures of Rotterdam.

Table 14: Throughput in the port of Rotterdam (2002)

Commodity Throughput * 1000 ton

Dry bulk 83,427

Liquid bulk 155,925

Ro-Ro 9,669 Containers 65,849

General Cargo 7,235

Total 322,107 Source: RMPM (2003)

7.6.2 The port of Durban

Durban is situated in the South East of South Africa in the province of Kwazulu-Natal. The port is predominantly a general cargo port and handles 20% of South Africa's total port traffic. The port of Durban serves a large hinterland: cargo with origin or destination in other regions of South Africa as well as other countries such as Zimbabwe and Botswana are handled in Durban. The majority of imports for and exports of Gauteng (the most industrialized and populated region of South Africa, in the proximity of Johannesburg and Pretoria) move through the port of Durban. The size of the port area, the diversity of port facilities, the size and diversity of its traffic base, and the large support network of ancillary industries make Durban the leading port of Southern Africa and the largest port of Africa⁵⁶. Durban's Container Terminal is the busiest in Africa and handled more than 1.200.000 TEU in 2002 (National Port Authority of South Africa, 2003).

56 In terms of throughput volume Richard’s Bay is larger, but Richard’s Bay is a pure bulk port, over 90% of the cargo is handled by one coal terminal.

Chapter 7 – Analyzing the Performance of Seaport Clusters 81

7.6.3 The Lower Mississippi Port Cluster

The Lower Mississippi Port Cluster is located in the South of the U.S.A, in the state of Louisiana and strategically located at the mouth of the Mississippi river. The vast majority of cargo is transit cargo to inland destinations, mostly in the Mid-West of the USA. The lower Mississippi port complex is not administered by one port authority, but by five public port authorities each with a jurisdiction over a part of the river system. All port activities along the river are so closely related that they form one port system, the ‘lower Mississippi port cluster’

that encompasses five port authorities. Table 15 shows the ports included in the ‘Lower Mississippi port cluster’ and explains why other major Louisiana ports are not included.

Table 15: Ports included in the ‘Lower Mississippi port cluster’

Port Included in the Lower Mississippi Port Cluster

Port of New Orleans Included, the largest general cargo port of the port cluster.

Port of Greater Baton Rouge Included, the most upstream port of the lower Mississippi port complex.

Port of South Louisiana Included, the largest port by volume, especially strong in liquid bulk cargo base.

St. Bernard Port, Harbor and Terminal District

Included, the smallest port in the port cluster.

Plaquemines Parish Port, Harbor and Terminal District

Included, the most downstream port of the port complex, with primarily purely private terminals on private land.

Port of Lake Charles Not included, not located on the Mississippi.

Port Fourchon Not included, not located on the Mississippi, predominantly used by the offshore industry.

Table 16 shows the throughput figures of the five port administrations in 1999:

Table 16: Throughput figures of the five port administrations in 1999 Port authority Parishes in

Jurisdiction

Annual volume 1999⁵⁷

River mileage Major commodities

Plaquemines Plaquemines 59.900.000 From the mouth of the river to 100 miles inland

Liquid bulk

St Bernard St Bernard Small volume Small jurisdiction General cargo New Orleans New Orleans,

Jefferson

90.800.000 From mile 100 to mile 114.9

217.700.000 From mile 114.9 to mile 168.5

Dry and liquid bulk

Baton Rouge West Baton Rouge

65.600.000 From mile 169 up to mile 243

Steel, fruit, containers

Source: Louisiana Ports Association (2003)

57 Volumes are given in long tons. A long ton is about 8% less than the metric tons that are used internationally.