Port logistics in Europe and China: two of a kind?

Prof. Dr. Theo NotteboomPresident and professor, ITMMA ­ University of Antwerp

President, International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME)www.itmma.ua.ac.be ­ theo.notteboom@ua.ac.be – www.porteconomics.eu

BIVEC/GIBET Seminar ‘China logistics in Europe: an update’April 6, 2011 ­ Rotterdam 

Some background on China’s economic development

1978: open-door policy, coastal cities open to foreign trade.

• Eventual goal of Chinese modernization: building a xiaokang

(小康 ), or a well-off society (Deng Xiaoping in 1979)

Shenzhen Special Economic Zone (Chinese: 深圳经济特区 ), established in May 1980: first special economic zone

1990s (Jiang Zemin): strong focus on coastal development

2000: the Central Government in Beijing initiated the ‘go west’ policy (11 provinces and autonomous regions as well as the municipality of Chongqing)

Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao: balanced development as a goal for mainland China to reach by the year 2020.

Euro Area GDP Growth rate (adjusted by inflation)

Jan 1995 to April 2011

Source: tradingeconomics.com

China GDP Growth rate (adjusted by inflation)

Jan 1989 to April 2011

Reasons for growth:

Capital accumulation (growth in stock of capital assets)

Number of Chinese workers

Increase in productivity (e.g. during 1979-94: productivity gains accounted for more than 42 percent of China's growth)

Source: tradingeconomics.com and Hu and Khan

The main 3PL companies in the world3PL company Country Gross revenue (million US$)

Deutsche Post World Net (DPWN) Germany 39,900 Kuehne & Nagel Switzerland 20,220 DB Schenker Logistics Germany 12.503 Geodis France 9,700 CEVA Logistics1 The Netherlands 9,523 Panalpina Switzerland 8,394 Logista UK 8,190 CH Robinson Worldwide USA 7,130 Agility Logistics Kuwait 6,316 UPS Supply Chain Solutions USA 6,293 Expeditors International of Washington USA 5,650 Dascher & Co Germany 5,377 DSV Denmark 5,351 UTi Worldwide USA 4,896

Sinotrans China 4,757 NYK Logistics Japan 4,723 Wincanton UK 4,331 Bolloré France 4,330 Hellmann Worldwide Logistics Germany 4,209 Rhenus & co Germany 3,940 Toll Holding Australia 3,125 JB Hunt Transport Services USA 3,088 Logwin (formerly Thiel Logistik) Luxemburg 3,081 Kitetsu World Japan 2,991 Penske Logistics USA 2,910

1 In 2006 TNT Logistics was sold and rebranded to CEVA Logistics. TNT Express remains a big player in the global express and mail business.

Source: SJ Consulting Group, www.jindel.com/aboutsjc.htm

15

7

Top 20 Container Shipping Lines (on 28 September 2010)

Source: Alphaliner

Top container terminal operators in the world

Source: based on Drewryand Notteboom & Rodrigue (2010)

Throughput of the top 10 global container terminal operators (*)

Operator m teu share Operator m teu share Operator m teu shareHPH 29.3 11.8% HPH 60.9 13.9% HPH 64.2 13.6%PSA 19.5 7.9% APMT 52.0 11.9% APMT 56.9 12.0%APMT 13.5 5.5% PSA 47.4 10.7% PSA 55.3 11.7%P&O Ports 10.0 4.0% DP World 41.6 9.4% DP World 45.2 9.5%Eurogate 8.6 3.5% Cosco Pacific 22.0 5.0% Cosco Pacific 32.5 6.9%DPA 4.7 1.9% Eurogate 11.7 2.7% MSC 16.4 3.5%Evergreen 4.5 1.8% Evergreen 9.4 2.1% Eurogate 11.7 2.5%Cosco Pacific 4.4 1.8% SSA Marine 8.9 2.0% Evergreen 8.6 1.8%Hanjin 4.2 1.7% MSC 7.6 1.7% SSA Marine 7.7 1.6%SSA Marine 4.0 1.6% HHLA 6.6 1.5% CMA­CGM 7.0 1.5%Top 10 102.7 41.5% Top 10 268.1 60.9% Top 10 305.5 64.6%

Top 10 global container terminal operators’ equity based throughput

Operator m teu share Operator m teu sharePSA 41.2 9.3% PSA 45.0 9.5%APMT 32.4 7.3% HPH 32.2 6.8%HPH 30.8 7.0% DP World 31.5 6.7%DP World 26.2 5.9% APMT 31.1 6.6%Evergreen 8.1 1.8% Cosco Pacific 10.9 2.3%Cosco Pacific 7.9 1.8% MSC 8.2 1.7%Eurogate 6.6 1.5% Evergreen 7.2 1.5%HHLA 6.0 1.4% SSA Marine 6.3 1.3%OOCL 4.8 1.1% Eurogate 6.1 1.3%APL 4.6 1.0% CMA­CGM 4.6 1.0%Top 10 168.6 38.2% Top 10 183.1 38.7%World total 441.3 100%

(*) Figures include all terminals in which 10% plus shareholdings were held

Figures do not include operations at common­user terminals

2009

2009

2001 2006

2006

Top 20 container ports in the worldBased on TEU throughput

1975 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009 2010R PORT mTEU PORT mTEU PORT mTEU PORT mTEU PORT mTEU PORT mTEU PORT mTEU R1 Rotterdam 1.08 Rotterdam 2.65 Hong Kong 12.55 Hong Kong 21.93 Singapore 29.92 Singapore 25.87 Shanghai 29.07 12 New York/NJ 0.95 New York/NJ 2.37 Singapore 11.85 Singapore 21.33 Shanghai 27.98 Shanghai 25.00 Singapore 28.43 23 Kobe 0.90 Hong Kong 2.29 Kaohsiung 5.23 Shanghai 14.55 Hong Kong 24.25 Hong Kong 20.93 Hong Kong 23.53 34 Hong Kong 0.80 Kobe 1.52 Rotterdam 4.79 Shenzhen 13.66 Shenzhen 21.41 Shenzhen 18.25 Shenzhen 22.51 45 Keelung 0.56 Antwerp 1.35 Busan 4.50 Busan 11.43 Busan 13.43 Busan 11.95 Busan 14.21 56 Oakland 0.52 Yokohama 1.33 Hamburg 2.89 Kaohsiung 9.71 Dubai 11.83 Guangzhou 11.19 Ningbo 13.14 67 Seattle 0.48 Hamburg 1.16 Yokohama 2.76 Rotterdam 8.22 Ningbo 11.23 Dubai 11.10 Guangzhou 12.55 78 Bremerhaven 0.41 Keelung 1.16 Los Angeles 2.56 Los Angeles  7.32 Guangzhou 11.00 Ningbo 10.50 Qingdao 12.01 89 Long Beach 0.39 Busan 1.15 Long Beach 2.39 Hamburg 7.00 Rotterdam 10.83 Qingdao 10.26 Dubai 11.60 910 Melbourne 0.36 Long Beach 1.14 Antwerp 2.33 Dubai 6.42 Qingdao 10.32 Rotterdam 9.74 Rotterdam 11.14 1011 Tokyo 0.36 Los Angeles 1.10 New York/NJ 2.28 Antwerp 6.06 Hamburg 9.74 Tianjin 8.70 Tianjin 10.08 1112 Antwerp 0.36 Tokyo 1.00 Tokyo 2.18 Long Beach  5.78 Kaohsiung 9.68 Kaohsiung 8.58 Kaohsiung 9.18 1213 Yokohama 0.33 Bremerhaven 0.99 Keelung 2.17 Port Kelang 5.24 Antwerp 8.66 Antwerp 7.31 Port Kelang 8.87 1314 Hamburg 0.30 San Juan 0.88 Dubai 2.07 Qingdao 5.14 Tianjin 8.50 Port Kelang 7.31 Antwerp 8.47 1415 Sydney Harbour 0.26 Oakland 0.86 Felixstowe 1.90 New York/NJ 4.47 Port Kelang 7.97 Hamburg 7.01 Hamburg 7.94 1516 San Juan 0.26 Seattle 0.85 Manila 1.67 Tanjung Pelepas 4.02 Los Angeles  7.85 Los Angeles  6.70 Los Angeles  7.83 1617 Tilbury 0.23 Bremerhaven 0.83 San Juan 1.59 Ningbo 4.01 Long Beach  6.49 Tanjung Pelepas 6.02 Tanjung Pelepas 6.53 1718 Le Havre 0.23 Dunkirk 0.71 Oakland 1.55 Tianjin 3.81 Tanjung Pelepas 5.60 Long Beach  5.07 Long Beach  6.26 1819 Kaohsiung 0.23 Baltimore 0.71 Shanghai 1.53 Laem Chabang 3.62 Bremerhaven 5.60 Xiamen 4.68 Xiamen 5.82 1920 Jacksonville 0.21 Jeddah 0.68 Bremenhaven 1.53 Tokyo 3.58 New York/NJ 5.27 Laem Chabang 4.64 Dalian 5.24 20

TOP 20 9.2           TOP 20 24.7     TOP 20 70.3   TOP 20 167.3   TOP 20 247.5   TOP 20 220.8   TOP 20 254.4  WORLD TOTAL 24.1 WORLD TOTAL 57.4 WORLD TOTAL 145.2 WORLD TOTAL 354.5 WORLD TOTAL 535 WORLD TOTAL 478 WORLD TOTAL 478

10Source: Ducruet & Notteboom (2010)

11Source: Ducruet & Notteboom (2010)

The importance of Asia to Europe

Asia55%North

America17%

India/Middle East13%

South and Latin America

8%

Sub Saharan Africa5%

Oceania2%

Geographical distribution of extra-European container trade (dry and reefer) -year 2009 (based on data ELAA)

Source: based on ELAA

13

World’s Main Transshipment Markets, 2007

Source: Rodrigue & Notteboom (2010)

Transhipment in Europe

Algeciras

Sines Cagliari

Gioia Tauro

Malta

Taranto

Piraeus

Le Havre

Rotterdam

Antwerp

Zeebrugge

Bremerhaven

Hamburg

Valencia

Barcelona

Source: Notteboom  and Rodrigue (2010)

EUROPEContainer throughput for

multi-port gateway regions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Container throughput in million TEU

Extended Rhine­Scheldt  Delta

Helgoland Bay

Seine Estuary

Portugese Range

Spanish Med range

Ligurian Range

North Adriatic

Gdansk Bay

South Finland

Kattegat/The Sound

Black Sea West

UK Southeast Coast

West Med hubs

Stand­alone gateways

Source: Notteboom ­ ITMMA

Port competition in Europe

Competition between port ranges

Insertion of hubs in Med, strong position of upstream ports in Le Havre-Hamburg range

Smaller/new ports up to now no match for established load centres

Baltic and Atlantic ports have found their place in the evolving port hierarchy

Singapore

Hong Kong

ShenzhenGuangzhou

Shanghai

Port KelangTanjung Pelepas

Keelung

Kaohsiung

Fuzhou

Xiame

Dalian

Ningbo

Qingdao

Yanshan port development (Shanghai)

Tianjin

BusanGwangyang

Incheon

54

2

13

Laem Chabang

Colombo

Manila

CHINA

INDIAMYANMAR

THAILAND

MALAYSIA

PHILIPPINES

J APAN

INDONESIA

MONGOLIA

RUSSIA

Bohai Bay

SRI LANKA

Jakarta/Tanjung Priok

Trans-Taiwan

Taiwan

Pearl River Delta

Yangtze DeltaJ apan

South Korea

ZhongshanJ iuzhou

Taichung

J apanese ports1. Kobe2. Osaka3. Nagoya4. Yokohama5. Tokyo6. Kitakyushu7. Hakata8. Shimizu

678

Ulsan

Source: Notteboom (2006)

EAST-ASIAContainer traffic for multi-port gateway regions

(in million TEU, 1980-2006)

­ 2 4 6 8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 19

80

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Con

tain

er th

roug

hput

 in m

illio

n TE

Us

Bohai Bay

Trans­Taiwan

Pearl River Delta

Yangtze delta

Japan

Taiwan

South­Korea

Source: Notteboom (2006)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TEU thorughput in Millions

Rhine-Scheldt Delta

Helgoland Bay

San Pedro Bay

Yangtze River Delta

Pearl River Delta

Korean Twin Hub

Tokyo Bay

Malacca Straits

Taiwan

Bohai Bay

Container traffic for main multi-port gateway regions in the world

(in million TEU, 1985-2010)

Source: Notteboom (2011)

Singapore

Hong Kong

ShenzhenGuangzhou

Shanghai

Port Kelang

Tanjung Pelepas

Keelung

Kaohsiung

Fuzhou

Xiamen

DalianYantai

Ningbo

Qingdao

Yanshan port development (Shanghai)

TianjinBusan

Gwangyang

Incheon

TokyoYokohama

Osaka

KobeNagoya

Laem Chabang

Colombo

Manila

CHINA

INDIAMYANMAR

THAILAND

MALAYSIA

PHILIPPINES

SOUTH KOREA

JAPAN

INDONESIA

MONGOLIA

SRI LANKA

Jakarta/Tanjung Priok

Increasing amount of gateway traffic generated 

by mainland Chinese ports => direct calls

Port competition in East Asia

Intensified inter-port competition in East Asia as the gravity of cargo volumes shifts to mainland China

Taiwanese and Japanese ports are losing ground (in particular transhipment flows to/from China)

Role of Shanghai as transhipment hub?

The Yangtze river basin

1   Taicang2   Zhangjiagang3   Jiangyin4   Yangzhou5   Changzhou6   Zhenjiang

TonglingWuhu

NantongNanjing

Ma'an ShanSHANGHAI

YANGSHAN

NINGBO

AnqingWuhan

Jiujiang

Shashi

Chongqing

Yichang

300 km

Fuling

123

4

5

6

UPPER  YANGTZE MIDDLE  YANGTZE LOWER YANGTZE

Three Gorges DamWanzhou

LuzhouYibin

Source: Notteboom (2011)

Population  GRP/capita

million inhabitants Yuan

2008 2009 2009Shanghai (*) 19.21 4551.15 10366.37 14069.86 15046.65 331% 78327Jiangsu 77.25 8582.73 21645.08 30981.98 34457.3 401% 44605Zhejiang 51.8 6036.34 15742.51 21462.69 22990.35 381% 44383

Anhui 61.31 3038.24 6148.73 8851.66 10062.82 331% 16413Jiangxi 44.32 2003.07 4670.53 6971.05 7655.18 382% 17273Hubei 57.2 4276.32 7581.32 11328.89 12961.1 303% 22659Hunan 64.06 3691.88 7568.89 11555 13059.69 354% 20387

Chongqing (*) (**) 28.59 1589.34 3491.57 5793.66 6530.01 411% 22840Sichuan (**) 81.85 4010.25 8637.81 12601.23 14151.28 353% 17289

Subtotal Yangtze 485.59 37779.32 85852.81 123616.02 136914.38 362% 28195

Total China 1334.74 88189.6 211808 314045.4 340506.9 386% 25511

Subtotal in total 36.4% 42.8% 40.5% 39.4% 40.2%

Chongqing in subtotal 5.89% 4.21% 4.07% 4.69% 4.77%

Chongqing in total 2.14% 1.80% 1.65% 1.84% 1.92%

Year 2009 2000 2006

Local

Gross regional product 

100 million YuanConstant prices

Growth 2000­2009 (%)

26

Multi-port gateway regions in the Bohai Sea

Source: Feng and Notteboom (2011)

Total port throughput in Bohai sea area(in million tons)

 1985  1990  1995  2000  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 

Liaoning   44.79  51.89  75.73  113.52  204.94  246.22  295.23  344.93  396.73 

  Dalian  43.81  49.52  64.17  90.84  145.16  170.85  200.46  222.86  245.88 

  Yingkou  0.98  2.37  11.56  22.68  59.78  75.37  94.77  122.07  150.85 

Jin Yi   62.75  90.08  141.69  193.09  356.56  409.69  462.49  558.39  608.24 

  Tianjin  18.56  20.63  57.87  95.66  206.19  240.69  257.60  309.46  355.93 

  Qinhuangdao  44.19  69.45  83.82  97.43  150.37  169.00  204.89  248.93  252.31 Shangdong Bay   33.00  46.27  79.16  130.84  248.04  316.05  394.98  496.94  563.20 

  Qingdao  26.11  30.34  51.03  86.36  162.65  186.78  224.15  265.02  300.29 

  Yantai  6.89  6.68  13.61  17.74  34.31  45.06  60.76  101.29  111.89 

  Rizhao     9.25  14.52  26.74  51.08  84.21  110.07  130.63  151.02  

Source: Feng and Notteboom (2011)

Middle East – Far East

Main shipping route

Americas

Americas

Transhipment/interlining port (transhipment incidence >75%)

Multi­port gateway region

Main shipping route

Gateway port

Gateway port also handlingsubstantial transhipment flows

Multi­port gateway regions1. Extended Rhine­Scheldt Delta2. Helgoland Bay3. UK SE Coast4. Spanish Med5. Ligurian Range 6. Seine Estuary7. Black Sea West8. South Finland9. Portugese Range10. North Adriatic 11. Gdansk Bay12. Kattegat/The Sound

12

11

6

5

10

4

9

7

3

8

12

Madrid and surroundings

West Germany

Bavaria Alpine region

South Poland/Czech Republic/

Slovakia/Hungary

Northern Italy

South France

30

Click to edit Master text stylesSecond level

● Third level● Fourth level

● Fifth level

Dalian

QingdaoTianjin

Shanghai

Ningbo

Competition for extending the hinterland Main hinterland areas of the ports considered

China’s multimodal transport corridors and national multimodal transport junctions

Source: adapted from Wang (2006)

China’s multimodal transport system: perceived problems and counter measures

Inhibitors Enablers• Poor development of multimodal

facilities and equipment by international standards (i.e. lack of logistics centres)

• Strengthen construction of transport infrastructure to unify multimodal transport infrastructure, including nodes

• High expense of short distance transport (25-40% of total freight costs)

• Adjust price of different transport modes by relaxing controls over the railways and promoting multimodal transport

• Few and unevenly distributed multimodal interchange stations (600); fewer capable of handling international standard containers: 20ft containers (130 stations); and 40 ft containers (130).

• Standardization of containers and loading and unloading equipment

• Weakness of information system to facilitate synchronization (Electronic Data Interchange and Global Satellite Positioning Systems are not widespread)

• Use information technology to accelerate ‘normalization’ of multimodal transport by developing public logistics platforms

• Lack of coordinated top level institutional coordination: cross-departmental responsibilities within government have caused regional market barriers

• Need to consider the integration of the entire system in constructing transport infrastructure by identifying national projects

Source: Wang and Huang (2009)

33

Logistics sites group to become logistics zones ..

LAND

SEA

Multimodal transshipment center

Logistics site

Primary logistics zone

Tran

sport co

rridors

Secondary logistics zone

Com

pany-s

peci

fic

logis

tics

netw

ork

LAND

SEA

Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2004)

FROM TO

Container port / terminal

Logistics zone / site

Strongly developed corridor

Poorly developed corridor

Multi­port gateway region

Pacific­Asia(e.g. Pearl River Delta)

North Europe(e.g. Rhine Scheldt Delta)

.. but geographical differences exist

35

Distribution based on RDCs Distribution based on one EDC

Distribution based on tiered system (EDC+RDCs) Distribution based on local DCs

Likely impact on portsStrong bundling on multi­port gateway region near EDCHigh volumes (corridors) to RDCs, including SSS 

Likely impact on portsDispersed flows over port system

Likely impact on portsBundled flows to regional gateways

Likely impact on portsStrong bundling on multi­port gateway region near EDC Scattering of final deliveries over Europe

© ITMMA 2009Source: Notteboom (2009), Rodrigue and Notteboom (2009)

36Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2005)

0 50 100 150 20025Kilometers

France

Belgium

Lux

Germany

NetherlandsROTTERDAM

Zeeland Seaports

ANTWERPZeebrugge

GhentOstend

BrusselsLille

Liège

WielsbekeGenk

DuisburgEmmerich

Nijmegem

Avelgem

Born

Venlo

Valenciennes

GrimbergenWillebroek

DeurneMeerhout

Duesseldorf

Cologne

Krefeld

Neuss

Bonn

Andernach

Dortmund

Amsterdam

Alkmaar

BeverwijkZaandam

HarlingenLeeuwarden Veendam

Meppel

GroningenDrachten

Kampen AlmeloHengelo

ZutphenEdeHillegom

UtrechtA. a/d Rijn

TilburgOosterhout

Helmond

Gorinchem

MoerdijkDen Bosch

Oss

Valburg

Stein

Gennep

Mertert

Koblenz

Dormagen

Seaport in Rhine-Scheldt Delta

Delta seaport system with multi-zone polarisation

Inland Container Terminal (barge or multimodal)

Growth region EuropeanDistribution (outside seaport system)

Nodes connect: port regionalization is unfolding

37

MT pooloff terminal

The position of logistics centers in the logistics chain

Distri Center

CFS

CFS

Warehousesoff log center

MT Pooloff port

CFSoff port

CFSoff terminal

ICD

CFS

MT Pool

Open storageMT pool

Zone A

Zone B

Zone C

Zone D 

Zone E

Zone F

Shanghai Container Terminal

ICD

 

Distri Centers

Potential logistics center activities

Port boundary

Container Freight StationCFS

Empty Container PoolMT­Pool

  River Terminal

Scheduled barge services to ICD

Scheduled block train services

LogisticsCenter

     Truck deliveries

CFSoff terminal

MT Pooloff terminal

Distri Center

CFSoff log center

Warehouse

Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of the Rhine-Scheldt Delta, 2010

DP World

PSAHUTCHISON PORT

HOLDINGS

APM Terminals(AP Moller

Group)

ANTWERP

Antwerp Gateway

PSA (Antwerp/Zeebrugge

)

MSC Home terminal

CHZ

APM Terminal

ZEEBRUGGE

ROTTERDAM

Rotterdam World Gateway

(Maasvlakte 2)Operational by 2013

ECT

APM Terminal Maasvlakte

CMA-CGM

MSC

NYK

Terminal 1(Maasvlakte 2)

Operational by 2014

Minority Shareholding

Waal- and Eemhaven

Delta Terminal

Euromax phase 1

Majorityshareholding

ZIM Line

DP World Delwaidedock

North Sea Terminal

Europe Terminal

Deurganck Terminal

New World

Alliance

CYKH Allian

ceAntwerp

International Terminal (AIT)

Shipping Line

(Global) Terminal Operator

Terminal

Shanghai International Port Group

(SIPG)

Albert II-dock north (under

construction)

Cosco Pacific

100%

20%

50%

100%

100%

50%

50%

50%

60%

30%

10%

100%

100%

100%

50%50%

100%

42.5%

10%

20%

10%

35%

100%

65%

75%

25%

PORTFinancial Holding

Partnerships of multiple stakeholders

Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2010)

ZHUHAI

Inter-firm Relationships in the Main Container Ports of the Pearl River Delta, 2010

HONG KONG

Asia Container Terminals

DP World Hong Kong

Hong Kong International

Terminals

COSCO-HIT Terminal

Moderns Terminals

Asia Port Services

SHENZHEN

Chiwan Container Terminal

Shekou Container Terminals

Da Chan Bay Terminal One

Yantian International Container Terminals

Zhuhai International Container Terminals

GUANGZHOU

Dongguan Container Terminal

Guangzhou South China Oceangate

Container Terminal

Nansha Container Terminal

Guangzhou Huangpu Xingang Terminal

Guangzhou Huangpu Xinsha Terminal

Nanhai International Container Terminals

HUTCHISON PORT

HOLDINGS

PSA

DP World

Cosco Pacific

39%APM

Terminals(AP Moller

Group)

20%

China Shipping

Group40%

50%

50%

50%

ModernTermina

ls

China Merchants Holdings

International

49%

70%

49%

55%

66% 33%

67% 20%

100%

33%10%

10%

80%20%

Shipping Line Terminal Operator

Terminal PORT Financial Holding

75%25%

65%

Guangzhou Port Group

Shenzhen Municipal

Government

41%

60%

35%

Shenzhen Yantian Port

Group30%

Joint Ventures (TO / Local Government)

Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2010)

Conclusions

Economic boom in China has been supported by port development and increased competition

China and Europe show similarities in port development patterns, but also some differences