The co-evolution between the port industry and the container shipping industry. A comparison between the Port of Rotterdam and the Port of Antwerp (1966-2000)

(1)

The co-evolution between the port industry

and the container shipping industry.

A comparison between the Port of Rotterdam

and the Port of Antwerp

(1966-2000)

University of Groningen

Bachelor Thesis

Jan Miguel van Wassenaer S2407884 ‘s Gravenweg 69 3062ZC, Rotterdam janvanwassenaer@gmail.com +316 15 05 60 81 Supervisor: Dr. R.W. de Vries Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

1. INTRODUCTION

The past decades, there has been an increase in research and literature in the field of co-evolution of nations, organizations, industries or other entities and their environment (Haveman and Rao, 1997). Co-evolutionary studies between industries are to be found on multiple subjects with the aim to understand the underlying concepts, forces and consequences for organizations, industries and nations (Sotarauta and Srinivas, 2006).

However, the definition of co-evolution has been around in the biological world for quite some time. In their academic paper, Ehrlich and Raven (1964), describe co-evolution as “an examination on patterns of interaction between two groups of organisms with a close and evident ecological relationship”. This description of co-evolution in nature can be translated to the world of business and industries like McKelvey (1997) initially did for strategy and organization theory. As in Ehrlich et al. (1964), numerous interactions between industries and their direct environment have pushed and developed this coevolution into a multimillion dollar global industry.

The environment in which container shipping lines and container ports are operating is, like nature environment, subject to external forces and extensive change. By mutually adapting to these changes and to each other they thrive in under the circumstances. One of the main driving forces originates from the globalisation process and the large enactment of the container since the 1960s. Global container port throughput elevated from 36 million TEU1_{in 1980, to 266}

million TEU in 2002 (Notteboom, 2004; OSC, 2003).

The rise of the global containerisation is a consequence of the interaction of policy-oriented, microeconomic and macroeconomic factors. Elimination of trade barriers and the deregulation and liberalisation of markets facilitated world trade. The public sector redefined its function in the port and container shipping industry by corporation schemes and privatisation (Goss, 1990; Baird, 2000; Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2011b). With this reassessment of governmental impact, attention is directed to governance issues in container shipping and port industry (Brooks, 2001).

(4)

This paper is meant to examine and define the prime factors of importance in the co-evolutionary success between port industry and container shipping industry, and what about this is specific to their local environment.

Numerous factors are influencing the emergence of the co-evolution between industries. Factors to be found are ranging from historical factors, institutional factors, supporting industries and international markets to more apparent ones such as proximity demand and infrastructure. The scene for the emergence of co-evolution between port industry and the container shipping industry in the Netherlands was, and will likely remain to be, in the port of Rotterdam. As this is a comparative research, the Port of Antwerp will be used as a benchmark to be able to draw conclusions on the findings. The proximity between locations and the fact that they serve the same market converges the scope of this research. Therefore, the research question has been formulated as:

- What have been factors of success for co-evolution between container shipping industry and

port industry in both the Port of Rotterdam and the Port of Antwerp between 1966 and 2000 –

The research question has been split in the following sub-questions:

1. What have been factors of success for co-evolution between container shipping industry and port industry in the Port of Rotterdam.

(5)

2. RELEVANCE OF THE SUBJECT

It can be safely stated that lives of the clear majority of the citizens on this planet are heavily influenced by and dependent on the shipping of containers and the regional ports. Raw materials, finished products and fresh products are freighted on a daily base between continents to comply with the global consumers’ needs. In 2006, the European Commission stated that waterborne freight2_{, inland river and shortsea}3_{combined, was to become first in mode share in}

next the decades, already moving 40%-44% of the cargo tkm4_{(European Commission, 2006).}

Over the past couple of decades, the appearance of the container shipment sector has changed expeditiously and fundamentally. Although the final implications are not yet known, scholars speak of a logistical revolution (Andersson, 1986). Key factors in this breakthrough are the advances in transport technologies and communication (Kenwood and Lougheed 1999) resulting in a worldwide logistic network. According to Broeze (1998), the wide spread introduction of containers, in the final decades of the twentieth century, triggered an even larger revolution in the container shipping and port industry. A continuing revolution, according to McLellan (1997), is the increase in vessel size and therefore the need for international ports to adjust accordingly. The adjusted international ports became hub ports5_{, supplying smaller ports.}

(Loyen, Buyst and Devos, 2013)

Progress in this evolution is still being made as the global shipment industry grows and competition intensifies. For the first time in the records of UNCTAD6_{, according to the United}

Nations Review of Maritime Transport, the world seaborne trade volumes in 2015 surpassed ten billion tons. International ports are continuously competing over the attraction of big shipping companies such as A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and CMA CGM Group. To increase port efficiency, private companies innovate in order to attract business, as governments regulate and facilitate infrastructural projects with the same purpose. (UNCTAD, RMT, 2016)

2_{freight transported over through the marine transportation system. American association of State highway and}

transportation officials, 2013)

3_{the movement of passengers and cargo mainly by sea along a coast, not crossing an ocean.}

4_{a common metric in terms of the work done in cargo tonne-kilometers (tkm). Global Forum on Transport and}

Environment in a Globalizing World 10-12 November 2008, Guadalajara, Mexico

(6)

As competition intensifies, Rotterdam; one of the world leaders in port industry, is not the only European port investing to grow and increase market share. The port of Antwerp has always tried to innovate and compete to increase their European market share and this might eventually lead to a shift towards Belgium, or a balanced situation.

(7)

3. THEORETICAL CONCEPTS

3.1 Evolution

In his article ‘Organization learning and strategic management’, Durand states that “reflecting on organizational evolution may give clues and help explain why economic factors change” (Durand, 2006. p.3). However, the theory of evolution, as used in the organizational industrial sectors, can be traced back directly to the 19th_{century when biologist Charles Darwin, took the}

first step in describing forces behind the notion of evolution. In his book ‘On the origin of species’ he examined the anomaly of natural selection, describing evolution of species through heritable traits, adaptability to environment and breeding competition.

To gain full understanding of the evolutionary principle itself, multiple concepts must be elaborated on. According to Lewis and Volberda (1999), changes during a period of time must be examined in order to make presumptions, commonly known in evolutionary studies as path dependency. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) stated that evolution encompasses a probabilistic and accruing sequence of variation, selection and retention events. The productive forces triggering evolution are characteristics of a population of entities, such as availability of resources necessary for survival, level of intra-population competition and population’s density (size).

Within this population there need to be two different entities to make evolutionary inferences. According to Dawkins (1976, p. 69), “Replicators are entities that pass on their structure intact through successive replications.” This would mean that no interaction with the environment occurs and no evolutionary progress would be made. Interactors are entities which interact with their environment. Due to competition for replication, resources and survival, these leading interactors duplicate themselves while leaving out bad traits (Dawkins, 1976; Murmann, 2003).

(8)

3.2 Co-evolution

As a comparative research is performed on the success factors for co-evolution between container shipping industry and port industry over a period of time in different national settings, the encompassing topic of this research paper is co-evolution. Co-evolutional studies between organizations, industries or other entities have gained popularity in recent decades. Numerous academics have shared their perspective on the theory. By combining these, an encompassing definition will be formed.

According to Baum and Singh (1994), evolution entails that entities simultaneously co-evolve with their environment. Entities in their definition can be both organisms or organizations. Murmann (2003) adds that co-evolution between populations and their environment only occurs if both entities have a significant causal effect on each other’s survival. Co-evolution, as McKelvey (2002) explains, is not just bilateral exchange between two interacting entities. He disputes that a bilateral causal process is different from co-evolution as the primer does not include an adaptive reaction, expressing the ‘two-way-traffic’ as a core-concept.

In co-evolutionary studies, actors should be specified as replicators and interactors, just as in the evolutionary theory to make inferences. Processes should be specified in terms of variation, selection and retention; and outcomes resulting in a change of the emergent structure of a population over time (Lewin and Volberda, 2003). These statements are supported by the earlier mentioned statement of Murmann (2003) clarifying that co-evolution only occurs if both entities have a significant causal effect on each other’s survival.

(9)

When performing co-evolutionary research, certain requirements and properties need to be considered. Multi-levelness entails that co-evolutionary effects occur on the micro, mesa and macro level for firms, industries and nations (McKelvey, 1997). Multi-directional causality is the dynamism between organization and environment which invites dependent-independent relationships (McKelvey). Non-linearity and the precondition for analysis on organizational adaptability over a longer period in a historic, contextual background are aspects to be included in the research as requirements (Kieser 1989; McKelvey 1997). The earlier mentioned effects path dependency, changes occurring in different institutional systems and the adjustment for economic, political and social marco-variables (Lewin and Volberda, 1999).

As this research mostly entails the historic background and the supporting entities in this set period, these will be points of focus in this research to see whether there was a co-evolutionary relationship between the container shipping- and port industry or just a mere bilateral process.

3.3 Path dependency

(10)

The idea of this ‘fixed path’ and the ‘increasing returns’ can be easily transferred to the field of economics. An example used in Arthur’s research (1994) is the one of industrial clusters. It describes the formation of such a cluster as a snowball effect which could have taken place anywhere. As location for clusters is insignificant, other companies solemnly justify their motivation through path dependency.

(11)

4. METHODOLOGY

The methodology section provides a description of methods used in this research to find viable answers to the research questions. It contains detailed information on the strategy used throughout the research, the approach, the design and provides criteria for evaluation of the research’s consistency.

4.1 Strategy:

To determine and understand the main underlying factors effecting the success of co-evolution between container shipping industry and port industry, a qualitative analysis will be executed as it is commonly used to obtain acumen in problems, test theories and to develop models and new theories. (liamputtong, 2013)

Existing literature dealing with co-evolution and other theories will be used to form a base for this desk-research. Specific studies on the success between container shipping industry and port industry will be used to provide the context. To make inferences, numerous scientific papers will be analyzed to find corresponding success factors between the two regions Rotterdam and Antwerp. Furthermore, annual reports, books and official statements will be used as an additional information source.

An inductive approach will be used to the theory to conduct the research. The inductive approach aims at generating a new theory and is based upon observational findings from empirical studies (Thomas, 2006). The theories used in this research are based on contextual findings in an analysis of relationships between the co-evolving entities and the fundamentals that have been provided beforehand by the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

4.2 Research design

(12)

4.3 Research reliability and validity

In order to make this research relevant and useful for further analysis and research, the results and the way in which the research was conducted must show credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

Credibility involves establishing that results are credible from the perspective of the participant of research. As this research paper uses participants as a prime data source for findings, one can conclude that the content is credible.

Transferability is the degree to which the results of research can be transferred to other contexts or settings. As this is a historical comparative research and the influencing factors are location and time specific, inferences about the transferability of the content cannot be made.

Dependability questions whether one would obtain the same outcomes if this research was performed again. The information base for this research is solemnly consisting out of historical data. The outcomes however are, to some degree, subject to the sources used and the degree of detail used in the research.

(13)

5. FINDINGS

The differences in growth and the synergy of container shipping industry and port industry in both Rotterdam and Antwerp between 1966 and 2000 will be described below. To create the right context, a brief history from both regions will be provided, outlining major events in the synergistic relationship between port municipalities and container shippers/loaders. Furthermore, fundamentals behind synergies will be described and linked to co-evolutionary theory.

5.1 History

5.1.1 Container shipping in the port of Rotterdam (1966-2010)

Rotterdam has always been and still is the biggest container port of Europe. With high- local unemployment rates at the start of the 1960s and the need for fast growth and innovation in maritime transport, the path was cleared for expansion and containerization. (Loyen et al., 2013) In the year 1966, the first 35 containers arrived in the Dutch port from the US by Sea-Land7_,

eventually recording a total throughput of 60.000 TEU. Containerization flourished to about one million TEU in 1971 and continuously increased throughout the twentieth century.

Frans Posthuma, the director of the Rotterdam Municipal Port management in the 1960s, ensured their American counterparts at McLean that infrastructure would be adapted to handle containers, and ultimately steered the stevedore companies towards cooperation with Dutch railways to develop the Europe Container Terminus8_{. The founding of this terminal proved to}

be critical for the development of a specialized stevedoring business in Rotterdam. (Rotterdam Port Authority, 1996)

The continuous growth of throughput in the port led to the idea of the Maasvlakte; a large container facility just of the coast. The Delta Multi-User Terminal (DMU) handled its first container 1984 and would handle over 18 per cent of the total container throughput in 1988 on the Maasvlakte. This move towards the sea would prove very important for future business. (Notteboom, 2000)

(14)

The 1990s were marked by the introduction of automated facilities. ECT had a strong technological focus, which led to the construction of automated terminals equipped with Automated Stacking Cranes (ASC) and Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV). The dedicate and fully automated Delta Sea-land Terminal started operating in 1993 and further development was concretized in the Delta plan 2000-8 (Notteboom, 2000). Features of this plan are to be found in appendix A.

The Delta dedicated East and West Terminals were the first operational developments in this plan. In 1999, the Maasvlakte handled over 55 per cent of the total throughput of the port. (Nierop, 1996).

In the new millennium, the structure of ECT changed significantly in which the Rotterdam Municipal Port Management9_{acquired a majority share of 35 per cent. Maersk, one of the}

leading container shipping companies, agreed with ECT to dedicate a part of the DMU Terminal to handle the new and larger Maersk vessels. This dedicated terminal started operating in 2000 and would eventually be wholly transferred to Maersk Delta b.v., which is a 66/33 joint venture between ECT and Maersk Sea land. ECT and P&O Nedlloyd also agreed to build the Euromax Terminal at the Maasvlakte through a 50/50 joint venture (Merk and Notteboom, 2013).

A map of the port of Rotterdam will be provided in appendix B.

5.1.2 Container shipping in the port of Antwerp (1966-2000)

In the late 1960s, multiple stevedore companies and the Antwerps Havenbedrijf Pays (AHP) developed the first container operations along the Leopold docks, which was a build-in feature of the Ten Year Plan10_{for expansion of the Port of Antwerp by the government. In 1968, five}

stevedore companies operated on the dock and six container gantry cranes were constructed along the berths11_{. (Miller, 2012, Vanoutrive, 2012)}

9_{Managing entity of port of Rotterdam (RMPM)}

(15)

The finalization of the Delwaide dock boosted containerization in 1982 and handled over seventy-five per cent of the total throughput after the development of three terminals alongside. The 1980s were also marked by mergers and acquisitions in container handling business. (Miller, 2012; Vanoutrive, 2012)

The development of on-stream facilities characterized the 1990s. The Flemish government and the Antwerp port community decided to expand their container capacity along the Scheldt, but in front of the sea locks, facilitating savings for the port and the container handlers. The first and second Scheldt Terminals are handled by a combination of stevedore companies and Belgian Rail. With the deepening of the Scheldt and with the creation of the Europe and North Sea Terminals on the left bank, they are able to compete on an international level again by doubling their capacity. In 1997, the terminals became operative and AHP becomes an independent municipal company. (Port of Antwerp; Vanoutrive, 2012)

The growing demand in the new millennium for containerization resulted in construction of the tidal container dock on the left bank of the Scheldt by the Antwerp Port Authority. Numerous joint ventures by container liners and port authorities shaped the creation of the tidal dock with an annual capacity of 5.5 million TEU. The years 2000 and 2001 changed the stevedoring business in Antwerp. P&O Ports acquired the Seaport Terminal as part of a larger strategy to connect with an inland container terminal in Duisberg. P&O Ports also takes over the Antwerp Combined Terminals, one of the largest stevedores at that time.

(Port of Antwerp; Vanoutrive, 2012).

(16)

5.2 Containerization in Antwerp and Rotterdam, differences and similarities.

The entities in Rotterdam and Antwerp have responded differently to changes in shipping business. This section examines similarities and differences between the ports4 and their container handling operations through two interrelated areas; (1) the container handling market and (2) infrastructure and accessibility.

5.2.1 The container handling market

Both ports have been challenged with the convergence of power at the port demand site. Seaport authorities had to deal with client’s strong bargaining power and inland transport operations.

Concentration and integration at the port supply side.

The port of Antwerp had two phases of horizontal integration; in 1980 and at the start of the millennium. E.g. Belgian Rail gained a 33 per cent stake in the Noordzee Terminal in Antwerp. The AHP always tried to promote high levels of inner-port competition even though there was a continuous reduction in players form six in 1970s to two in 2001. The granting for construction and operation of the first and second Scheldt Terminals Hessenatie and Noord Natie by port authority, gave these stevedores such a comparative advantage that they drove out the rest (Miller, 2012, Vanoutrive, 2012).

ECT was founded, in 1966, in Rotterdam, to cope with high capital requirements and risks linked to container operations. Some conventional stevedores and Dutch Railways joined forces as ECT was set up at the incitement of RMPM (Loyen et al., 2013).

In accordance with the earlier mentioned 2000-8 plan, Unitcenter merged with ECT in 1992 as they were pushed by RMPM to create a strong player for operating the Maasvlakte. ECT always received a preferential treatment form RMPM in order to have a strong local operator in the port of Rotterdam. (Wildenberg, 1998). The bond between ECT and RMPM formalized in 1999 when RMPM acquired 35 per cent of the shares in ECT.

(17)

Maasvlakte.The earlier mentioned joint venture between Maersk Sealand and ECT is another example of stevedores and port authorities combining forces and changing the container handling market. (Miller, 2012; Loyen et al., 2013).

Foreign players move in

As ports function as a cluster, there were numerous ‘internationally leading companies’ attracted in this development such as Maersk. The large stevedoring company ECT had to, eventually, yield for demands of P&O Nedlloyd and Maersk and pressure was rising because of new entrants in the market (Loyen et al., 2013). The container shipping companies competed in their inner-port industry on scale and price. RMPM provided infrastructure for innovations, provided demand information and was a lessor for locations for terminal development. Container shipping companies adjusted their ships to reach the highest level of efficiency creating synergy between industries. (Merk and Notteboom, 2013)

The German reunification in 1990 with consecutive industrialization of Rotterdam’s hinterland, triggered another increase of international stevedore companies active in the port and expansion of throughput volume.

The Port of Antwerp, at that time, was not yet suited for the largest international companies and the increase of trade to German hinterland and did not profit to the same extend as Rotterdam. The relative increase in container throughput was higher in Antwerp (see Appendix D) but the overall cargo throughput of the port of Rotterdam rose drastically. (Miller, 2014)

The expansion of leading European stevedoring companies portrays the shift of competition from port authorities to container terminal companies. Hutchison Port Holding (HPH) acquired 35 per cent in shares of ECT in Rotterdam but RMPM opted for participation in ECT once it went for sale, ensuring their position in future at the core of container industry of the port. (Loyen et al., 2013).

(18)

container stevedoring companies until the new millenium as it was the Flemish government who constructed the terminals up north of the locks which would later on be taken over by international shipping companies. (Loyen et al., 2013; Vanoutrive, 2012).

5.2.2 Infrastructure and accessibility

The requirements of shipping lines on the deep-sea terminals have changed considerably. Productivity, handling cost and service, the maritime access profile and the access to the hinterlands have changed requirements through time in both ports.

Terminal infrastructure development

Terminal infrastructure has always been an important ingredient for attracting cargo. The infrastructural changes in both Antwerp and Rotterdam around the start of containerization, were aimed at accommodating the petrochemical industry (De Goey, 1990).

Both port municipalities have intensified the downstream development of large container terminals with multiple berthing facilities, high draft and specialized container cranes since the 1980s. Automation and spatial concentration were important in this respect:

- Both the construction of the Delwaide dock and the Delta plan 2000-8 on the Maasvlakte are spatial concentrations of container terminals created by the ports municipalities for operational efficiency. These innovational plans for efficiency attracted a lot of international shipping companies. In Rotterdam, they are situated in the Eemhaven, Waalhaven and on the Maasvlakte. (Notteboom, 2012)

In Antwerp, the concentrations moved from older Churchill dock to the Delwaide dock in 1980s. The terminals that were added in the 1990s on the Scheldt are the newest concentration in the Antwerp port area. In Antwerp, terminal operators have always pleaded for traditional container terminals. (Vanoutrive, 2012)

(19)

Maritime accessibility

Rotterdam is a downstream port at the inlet of the Rhine and it can accommodate the largest vessels at the Maasvlakte facilities. The container shipping company’s automated container innovation triggered the need for the municipality of Rotterdam to adjust and improve their maritime infrastructure towards the North Sea. The creation and continuous improvement of the Nieuwe Waterweg has been proven valuable in attracting shipping lines. (Süli, 2014)

Antwerp is located upstream of the river Scheldt, enabling container vessels to reach markets in the hinterland. The accessibility of the port of Antwerp is time costly and conditions are favorable in Rotterdam. Since the 1990s, the focus of the municipality of the port of Antwerp has been the access for container vessels. A dredging program in 1990s improved the accessibility for large container vessels and a second program would also allow post-panamax12

vessels to enter. (Loyen et al., 2013)

5.3 Co-evolutionary analysis

To clarify the causal links in both regions between port industry and container shipping industry, from a co-evolutionary perspective, we will link the findings to the theories mentioned in the theoretical concepts.

5.3.1 Rotterdam:

Rotterdam has had a lead start as they had the ‘first-mover-advantage’ and were located at the inlet of the river Rhine, the doorway to Europe.

Furthermore, the director of RMPM in the 1960s instantly reacted to US markets demand by developing an infrastructure, fit for containerization. This movement, led by RMPM, created the first synergy for both industries in the construction of ECT on the Maasvlakte. This fundamental cooperation formed the base for technological innovation and fostered international demand which is in line with the path dependency theory by Arthur (1994).

(20)

ECT attracted the largest international players such as Maersk and their rivals which increased competition in price, quality and innovation between shipping companies in the port, which was favorable for RMPM. Cluster forming combined with ongoing innovation, triggered increasing rates of returns for both RMPM and shipping industry. Because of the success of ETC on the Maasvlakte, multiple co-operations by ETC and container shipping companies were formed to grow capacity, foster innovation and create economies of scale.

The first acumen of David (1994) for path dependency was a shared past. The increase in competitiveness for both industries in the first co-operations created a demand for more deals with the Port of Rotterdam triggering the construction of multiple terminals in the region and leasing contracts of areas between RMPM and shipping lines.

The third acumen on environmental familiarity (David, 1994) played a role here too, as shipping companies were already aware of the regulations of RMPM. RMPM always wanted a strong leader in shipping industry on the Maasvlakte to set the standard. Hence their choice to let ETC merge with Unitcenter which fostered economies of scale for both and created local innovator.

This last move can be related to the path dependency concept by North (1990) who stated that a multi-level range of technological and managerial influences could play a role as well. It can be stated that path dependency has played a large role in the growth of the two industries in this region.

5.3.2 Antwerp:

The start of containerization in Antwerp happened at the same time as in Rotterdam, but with different features. The port was located upstream from the river Scheldt, something that would prove unfortunate for attraction of larger container vessels in the 1980s and 1990s. The early infrastructure apparent was based on facilitating the petrochemical industry and later adjusted to container handling, so fundamentals were not yet there.

In the port itself, AHP and multiple shipping companies managed container processing separately. E.g. AHP placed and owned cranes for shipping companies to use.

(21)

With the granting of construction and operation of the first and second Scheldt Terminals to only two operators in their inner-port market, the number of operators reduced until 2001 along with part of the innovational capabilities of their local container shipping industry. The system they created contained all features for evolution to occur as stated by Van de Ven and Poole (1995). AHP created competition, there was a scarcity in resources (only two operators could obtain the grant) and population size was small.

The Delwaide dock, the concentrated container handling location of the port of Antwerp would be constructed in the 1980s and would not be subject to new container handling technologies. Nonetheless, it attracted large international container shipping firms. The Flemish government and the Antwerp Port community expanded their capacity in front of the sea locks for cost savings and for the attraction of larger container vessels.

(22)

6. CONCLUSION

Although slightly converging in the yearly container throughput at the end of the set period (see appendix D), it can be stated that the two regions have had different paths from the start of the containerization onwards. The apparent differences led to the following research question:

“What have been factors of success for co-evolution between container shipping industry and

port industry in both the Port of Rotterdam and the Port of Antwerpbetween 1966 and 2000.”

Two sub-questions have been formulated to answer the main research question:

(1) What have been factors of success for co-evolution between container shipping industry and port industry in the Port of Rotterdam.

(2) What have been factors of success for co-evolution between container shipping industry and port industry in the Port of Antwerp.

Factors of success

The study shows success-factors for co-evolution between the two industries in the time frame to be related to path dependency.

The first factor of success in the port of Rotterdam was its geographical advantageous location in contrast to the port of Antwerp.

Furthermore, Rotterdam started with the early development of a proper infrastructure for a possible co-evolution for both industries whereas AHP failed to do this in an early stage. This foundation has proved to be important for path dependent co-evolution in the port whereas the lack of this container focused infrastructure imposed problem for the attraction of international container industry in Antwerp.

(23)

Lastly, with the early construction of the Maasvlakte and the strategic co-operations with container shipping companies, RMPM created a possibility for growth and clustering, resulting in long-lasting synergies.

Evolution or co-evolution

The facts mentioned in the findings and conclusion, have aided us in the search for co-evolutionary features in both regions. The co-evolution between container shipping industry and port industry in Rotterdam has been highly path dependent. The requirements by MvKelvey (1997) for co-evolutionary research are met as there was a multi-directional causality on multiple levels and non-linearity has been acknowledge over a longer period.

(24)

7. DISCUSSION

As this research might be used for further exploration in the field of co-evolution in maritime industries, it has to contain reliability and validity. It can be stated that the research is credible as the sources which have been used are official data sources of research subjects combined with academic sources which are assumed to be credible as they are subject to the same criteria.

As the time setting of the research is historical and one of the underlying constructs has been path dependency, it cannot be stated that the research is transferable to other contexts or settings. However, features may be subtracted and be applied to different contexts and settings.

This research is based on historical data and earlier developed theories. Hence, the outcomes, if one would investigate the exact same factors again in the same time period, will be the same, showing dependability. However, the outcomes are subject to the information sources used as differences exist between academic papers as they contain subjective contributes of writers.

The outcomes of the research are confirmable as it took place in history. Outcomes have been checked by using official data and academic papers, portraying confirmability.

7.1 Theoretical implications

Co-evolution occurs between these industries when port authorities create the right setting for different entities to interact with each other. From these findings, it can also be stated that when not providing this setting, co-evolution is unlikely to occur but evolution may still be apparent. Early port developers can benefit by using these theoretical implications to develop a co-evolutionary cluster.

7.2 Managerial implications

(25)

7.3 Limitations

A limitation for this research is the fact that primary data is not readily available on all factors leading to co-evolutionary success between industries. The use of secondary data may influence the dependability of the research. Furthermore, a lack of time and resources for the collection of primary data to make any legit interpretations on the subject disables the search for, and use of, primary data.

7.4 Suggestions for future research

(26)

8. REFERENCES

American association of State highway and transportation officials. 2013. Bottom line report, Retrieved from: http://water.transportation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WFT-1.pdf

(Accessed 13 May 2017)

Arthur, W.B. 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Baird, A.J. 2000. Port privatization: Objectives, process and financing. Ports and Harbors, 45, 14-19.

Baum, J. & Singh, J. 1994. Organization-environment coevolution; Evolutionary dynamics

of organizations. Oxford University Press, New York, 379-402.

 

Bondige geschiedenis van de havenontwikkelingen en infrastructuur in de haven. Port of Antwerp. 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.vlaamsezeehavens.be/4_w1.html

(Accessed 23 may 2017)

Brooks, M. 2001. Good governance and ports as tools of economic development: Are they

compatible? Proceedings of the IAME2001 Conference, Hong Kong, 1(19).

David, P.A. 1994. Why are organization the ‘carriers of history?: Path dependence and the

evolution of conventions, Organizations and Institutions. Structural Change and Economic

Dynamics, 5(2), 205-220.

Durand, R. 2006. Organizational evolution and strategic management. London: Sage Publications.

Edelenbos, J. Gerrits, L. van Gils, M. 2008. The co-evolutionary relationship between Dutch

mainport policies and the development of the seaport Rotterdam. Complexity and

(27)

Ehrlich, P.R. & Raven P.H. 1964. Butterflies and plants: A study in coevolution. Society for the study of Evolutions. 18(4), 586-608.

European Commission. 2006. European energy and transport, trends to 2030 - update 2005. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalizing World. 2008. Guadalajara, Mexico. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/41380820.pdf (Accessed 13 May 2017)

Goss, R. .1990. Economic policies and seaports – Part 3: Are port authorities necessary? Maritime Policy and Management, 17(3), 257-271.

Haveman, H. A. and Rao, H. 1997. Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional

and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology,

102(6), 1606-1651.

Kenwood, A.G. and Lougheed, A.L. 1999. The growth of the international economy

1820-2000: an introductory text. Psychology Press.

Kieser, A. 1989. Organizational, institutional, and societal evolution: Medieval craft guilds

and the genesis of formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 34(4), 540–564.

Lewin, A.Y. & Volberda, H.W. 1999. Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for

research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 519-534.

Liamputtong, P .2013. Qualitative research methods, Oxford University Press

Loyen, R., Buyst, E., Devos, G. 2013. Struggling for leadership: Antwerp-Rotterdam port

competition between 1870 –2000. Contributions to Economics, Paperback.

Martin, R & Sunley, P. 2011. Conceptualizing cluster evolution: Beyond the life cycle

(28)

McKelvey, B. 1997. Quasi-natural organization science. Organizational Science. 8(4), 352– 380.

Merk, O. & Notteboom, T. 2013. The competitiveness of global port-cities: The case of

Rotterdam/Amsterdam, the Netherlands. OECD Regional Development Working Papers,

OECD Publishing, Paris. 8

Miller, B.M. 2012. Europe and the maritime world: a twentieth century history. Paperback.

Monteiro, P., de Noronha, T., Neto, P. 2013. A differentiation framework for maritime

clusters: Comparisons across Europe. Sustainability, 4076-4105

Murmann, J.P. 2003. Knowledge and competitive advantage. The coevolution of firms,

technology, and national institutions. Cambridge University Press, 1-21.

Murmann, J.P. 2013. The coevolution of industries and important features of their

environments. OrganizationScience, 24(1), 58–78.

Nierop, T. 1996. Delta 2000-8: Limitless container center. Port of Rotterdam Magazine, 35 (3), 8-13.

Notteboom, T. 1997. Concentration and load center development in the European

container port system. Journal of Transport Geography, 5, 99-115.

Notteboom, T. 2000. De invloed van ruimtelijke en logistieke ontwikkelingen in het

voorlandachterland continuüm op de positie en functie van zeehavens (met toepassing op het containervervoer in de Rijn-Scheldedeltahavens). PhD Thesis, RUCA – University of

Antwerp.

Notteboom, T. 2004. Container shipping and ports: An overview. Institute of Transport and Maritime Management, Antwerp. 3(2).

Notteboom, T. & Winkelmans, W. 2001b. Structural changes in logistics: How do port

(29)

Ocean Shipping Consultants. 2003. World containerport outlook to 2015, OSC, Chertsey.

Port of Antwerp, n,d, map, viewed 17 May 2017,

<http://www.portofantwerp.com/sites/portofantwerp/files/imce/2015072_containers_kaart.pn g>

Port of Rotterdam: Brief history of container transport. (No date)

Retrieved from: http://container50.org.uk/RotterdamHistory.pdf (Accessed 8 May 2017)

Port of Rotterdam, n,d, map, viewed 17 May 2017,

<https://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/downloads/grafische-kaarten-en-luchtfotos>

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. 2006. Strategy and society: the link between competitive

advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12) 78-92, 163

Rotterdam Port Authority. 1996. Container yearbook 1996. WYT Uitgeefgroep, Rotterdam

Scott, W. Richard. 2004. Institutional theory. Encyclopedia of Social Theory, George Ritzer, ed. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage. 408-14.  

Sotarauta, M. & Srinivas, S. 2006. Co-evolutionary policy processes: Understanding innovative economies and future resilience. Elsevier, 38(3), 312-336.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research; techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Newbury Park: SAGE. 170

Süli, K.M. 2014 The port of Rotterdam and the Maritime container, the rise and Fall of

Rotterdam’s Hinterland (1966-2010). Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

The long-term growth prospects for seaborne trade and maritime businesses. 2016.

Retrieved from: http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=16500 (Accessed 28 April 2017)

(30)

Thomas, D.R. 2006 A general approach for analysing inductive qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-247

UNCTAD. 1985. Seminar on container terminal management. Antwerp

United Nations Conference of Trade and Development, Review of Maritime Transport. 2016. Retrieved from: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2016_en.pdf

(Accessed 28 April 2017)

Van de Ven, A.H. & Poole, M.S. 1995. Explaining development and change in

organizations. Academy of Management, 20(3)

Vanoutrive, T. 2012. The changing spatiality of port governance: The case of Antwerp. RSA European Conference, Delft

Volberda, H.W. & Lewin, A.Y. 2003. Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms:

From evolution to co-evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8) 2111-2136.

(31)

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Source: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/downloads/grafische-kaarten-en-luchtfotos Delta plan 2000-8

The municipality of the port proposed the plan that focused on growth with the following features;

- New large-scale container terminals. - New infrastructure within the port.

- New distribution park to increase the value of container freight. - Strengthened industrial port segments.

(32)

APPENDIX C. Source: http://www.portofantwerp.com/sites/portofantwerp/files/imce/2015072_containers_kaart.png APPENDIX D. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 1999 2000

Container throughput in Rotterdam & Antwerp, in TEU (1970-2000)

rotterdam antwerp

The co-evolution between the port industry and the container shipping industry. A comparison between the Port of Rotterdam and the Port of Antwerp (1966-2000)