Effects of Belt and Road Initiative on port selection

Abstract

Purpose: Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was announced by China in 2013. In the initiative, railway lines are operated (Belt), and sea transportation is continuing with sea routes (Road) between China and Europe. The geographical scope of the initiative covering the Chinese-European route is increasing day by day. The purpose of this study is to identify the strategies that container terminals in sea routes need to consider achieving a sustainable competitive advantage. Methodology: To achieve the goal, it has been focused on the criteria that container ship operators considered in port selection as the main user of the container terminals. Results: It is seen that the bilateral agreements between the countries where the ports are located have gained importance especially with China and the other countries involving the initiative. Moreover, it has been determined that the connections with the railway infrastructure will create a competitive advantage. The theoretical contribution: According to the results of the research, it is observed that the container terminals located on the route have not only enough with classical advantages such as location, equipment and infrastructure to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.

Bibliography

1. Alonso, L. G., & Soriano, J. S. (2009). Port selection from a hinterland perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 11(3), 260-269.

2. Alphaliner. (2019). Alphaliner Information – Top 100 League. Retrieved 23.11.2019 from https://alphaliner.axsmarine.com/PublicTop100/.

3. Balci, G, Cetin, I.B., & Esmer, S. (2018). An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in Izmir. Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 294-304.

4. Balci, G., & Cetin, I. B. (2017). Market segmentation in container shipping services: a qualitative study. Management Research Review, 40(10), 1100-1116.

5. de Langen, P. W. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands: the case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7(1), 1-14.

6. Du, J., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Does one belt one road initiative promote Chinese overseas direct investment?. China Economic Review, 47, 189-205.

7. Goss, R. O. (1990). Economic policies and seaports: Strategies for port authorities. Maritime Policy & Management, 17(4), 273-287.

8. Guy, E., & Urli, B. (2006). Port selection and multicriteria analysis: An application to the Montreal-New York Alternative. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 8(2), 169-186.

9. Huang, Y. (2016). Understanding China's Belt & Road initiative: motivation, framework and assessment. China Economic Review, 40, 314-321.

10. Kim, A. R. (2016). A study on competitiveness analysis of ports in Korea and China by Entropy weight TOPSIS. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32(4), 187-194.

11. Malchow, M., & Kanafani, A. (2001). A disaggregate analysis of factors influencing port selection. Maritime Policy & Management, 28(3), 265-277.

12. Mark, J. J. (2014). Silk Road. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 25.11.2019 from http://www.ancient.eu/silk_road/.

13. Murphy, P. R., & Daley, J. M. (1994). A comparative analysis of port selection factors. Transportation Journal, 34(1), 15-21.

14. Nir, A. S., Lin, K., & Liang, G. S. (2003). Port choice behaviour - from the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy & Management, 30(2), 165-173.

15. Robinson, R. (1998). Asian hub/feeder nets: the dynamics of restructuring. Maritime Policy and Management, 25(1), 21-40.

16. Schinas, O., & von Westarp, A. G. (2017). Assessing the impact of the maritime silk road. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, 2(3), 186-195.

17. Sheu, J. B., & Kundu, T. (2018). Forecasting time-varying logistics distribution flows in the One Belt-One Road strategic context. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 117, 5-22.

18. Song, D. W., & Yeo, G. T. (2015). A Competitive Analysis of Chinese Container Ports Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In Port Management (pp. 339-359). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

19. Song, D. W., & Yeo, K. T. (2004). A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(1), 34-52.

20. Tang, L. C., Low, J. M., & Lam, S. W. (2011). Understanding port choice behaviour – a network perspective. Networks and Spatial Economics, 11(1), 65-82.

21. Tımmer, H., Bussolo, M., Gould, D.M., Letelier, R.A., Nguyen, T.C., Panterov, G.L., Shaw, W., Ushakova, E., Burns, A., Izvorskı, I.V., Pıgato, M.A., & Sanchez, C. (2016). The impact of China on Europe and Central Asia. Europe and Central Asia economic upd

22. Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., & Doi, M. (2003). Shippers' port and carrier selection behaviour in China: a discrete choice analysis. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5(1), 23-39.

23. Tongzon, J. L. (2009). Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 186-195.

24. Tongzon, J. L., & Sawant, L. (2007). Port choice in a competitive environment: from the shipping lines' perspective. Applied Economics, 39(4), 477-492.

25. XINHUANET. (2019). China's goods trade with B&R countries reaches over 6 trln dollars. Retrieved April 29, 2020 from http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/18/c_137988292.htm.

26. Yeo, G. T., Ng, A. K., Lee, P. T. W., & Yang, Z. (2014). Modelling port choice in an uncertain environment. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(3), 251-267.

27. Yeo, G. T., Roe, M., & Dinwoodie, J. (2008). Evaluating the competitiveness of container ports in Korea and China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(6), 910-921.

28. Yu, H. (2017). Motivation behind China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’initiatives and establishment of the Asian infrastructure investment bank. Journal of Contemporary China, 26(105), 353-368.

29. Yuen, K. F., Thai, V. V., & Wong, Y. D. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and classical competitive strategies of maritime transport firms: A contingency-fit perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 98, 1-13.