The Profitablity Marketing And Economic Impact Of Port Investment Finance Essay

The Profitablity Marketing And Economic Impact Of Port Investment Finance Essay

Equally far as puting in larboard assets is concerned, there are two ways, about in contrast with one another, of sing the port:

The port may be considered a public service that is by and large utile to the economic system, warranting the revenue enhancement system being utilized for the intent of funding the investings required.

The port may be considered a concern system that operates within a extremely competitory market and requires investing undertakings to be selected with efficiency.

The line drawn between these two maps alterations, depending on the state, environment, concern, societal and political civilization, period and political tendencies. In most institutional theoretical accounts, the big substructures that either provide entree to a port or are used for general intents attract public investings, while terminal superstructures are alternatively invested in by the terminus company itself.

The port of Durres is located in the bosom of Durres metropolis, which is about 39 from Tirana. The port of Durres is Albania ‘s largest sea port. Durres is one of Albania ‘s oldest metropoliss and was founded as a Grecian settlement in 627 B.C. Since so, the metropolis has grown and expanded while continuing memorials of the ancient metropolis. Now Durres is the 2nd largest and one of the most economically developed metropoliss in Albany due to the big port that allows trading in the Adriatic Sea.

The recent building of a expressway that links Durazzos with Tirana has cut down the travelling clip to the capital to merely 30 proceedingss. Tirana is besides accessible by train, between Durazzos and Tirana there is a frequent and inexpensive rail service. Besides the building of the expressway that links Durres and Prishtina will cut down the travelling clip and cost between Albania and Kosova.

The port of Durres, beyond its physical dimensions, is historical, and surely the world is that in the hereafter it will be an of import histrion in the lives of non merely this metropolis of our state but besides throughout the part. Always of import strategic point in the eastern Adriatic seashore, the port has been developed in old ages as a privileged establishment that has enjoyed peculiar attending. Thousands of people, workers, directors, leaders and of import personalities have given their part to its development.

Financing of investing in the Port of Durres is one of the chief precedences for the Albanian Government and foreign fiscal establishments as the World Bank, European Union and the European Investment Bank.

World Bank with an investing of $ 23 million has completed the rehabilitation undertaking for the Port of Durres which includes rehabilitation of the wharfs, warehouses and edifices.

European Union – Menu Program with an investing of a‚¬ 4.4 million, has completed the undertaking which includes rehabilitation of the Ferry Terminal, pier Reconstruction of 120 milliliters and 60 milliliter of constructing the new wharf.

TDA – Trade and Development Agency ( USA ) $ 9.1 million. This undertaking involves analyzing the feasibleness of new container terminus and its equipment at the Port of Durres. TDA has besides given a grant of $ 1.4 million to buy two “ range stacker, a ” spreader “ pipe fitter and some other assets. The undertaking has been completed.

European Investment Bank ( IEB ) with investing of a‚¬ 17 million. The undertaking includes financing the building of Container Terminal, drainage systems, exigency digging for the entryway channel and the fish tank, and the purchase of a nomadic Crane for the Port of Durres.

Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project. The undertaking started its execution. Now it is purchasing nomadic Crane with a capacity of treating 120 dozenss of containers and continues the execution of two other constituents of the undertaking:

Puting asphalt, drainage plants worth about a‚¬ 10.4 million.

Diging for exigency and incoming channel port fish tank worth a‚¬ 3.3 million.

In early 2006 there was inaugurated the completion of paving plants on the sites after the wharfs, which was conducted by the Croatian company “ Montmontaza ” .


Investing is a fluctuation of the entire stock of capital goods used in productive activities. In the port sector this is needfully a fluctuation in instrumental assets, as the merchandise – the throughput – is a service and hence can non be stocked. Investing is carried out by a port concern in order to hold the desired degree of throughput capacity at its disposal. Investing in ports, hence, has a direct impact on overall port capacity and supply.

Neoclassic production theory expresses investing as a fluctuation over clip of the degree of capital used by a concern. It normally hypothesizes a criterion ( Cobb-Douglas ) production map as ;

( 1 )

where L and K are, severally, the sums of labour and capital employed over a period of clip, investing is the fluctuation in capital degrees a?†K, which takes topographic point between one period and the following.

Harmonizing to neoclassical economic experts, the investing determination is a direct map of the sum of capital needed to bring forth the degree of end product Q deemed optimum by a concern ( for illustration, the sum needed to maximise its net incomes ) , and an reverse map of the involvement rate, which is the cost of the investing. The investing, as a fluctuation in the degree of capital, will be

equal to ;

( 2 )

Harmonizing to Keynesian theory, investing takes topographic point if the fringy efficiency of capital is higher than the market involvement rate, which represents the return of the other possible utilizations of the resources employed. It is besides usually considered that the rate of net income expected from the investing should be greater than the involvement rate plus a spread ( to ”reward ” the hazard of the net income achieved turn outing to be lower than that originally expected ) . Since the possible investor will rank possible investing undertakings get downing from those with the highest fringy efficiency, the well-known opposite relationship consequences between ( cumulated ) investing and the market involvement rate.

In the port industry, the merchandise is throughput, and the investing is the creative activity of throughput capacity. Port investings are those additions in capital goods that allow greater throughput via an increased efficiency in utilizing the production factors. These include the followers:

substructures, such as groins, dikes and lock systems that enable entree along canals and rivers, the digging or dredging of river bottoms and the building of new wharfs, pier, paces, etc. ;

terminal ”superstructures ” ( Cranes, agencies of conveyance, edifices used for storage or port services ) ; and

other assets utile for the production of port services.

Most port investings – peculiarly infrastructural investings – bear the undermentioned characteristics:

their profitableness is at least in portion indirect, since they are portion of corporate capital, which acts as a location factor for concern activities and generates positive outwardnesss ;

they besides generate environmental costs and negative outwardnesss ;

the building of substructures brings with it important indivisibilities, owing to economic systems of graduated table, fiscal demands and web economic systems ;

they require considerable clip to be accomplished, including a drawn-out planning and design period, and later boast an highly long economic life. As a consequence, there is a brawny clip slowdown between costs ( incurred chiefly before the port comes into operation ) and grosss, and a long payback period for the investing itself ;

high hazard and high uncertainness of expected net income, due in portion to the trouble of gauging costs ;

in the instance of ”general intent ” assets ( such as dikes, canals and basins ) cost can non be imputed to single users, while the benefit for each user can non be quantified either ; and

substructure costs are ”sunk ” ( i.e. lost whenever the investor decides to retreat from the market ) , and hence act as ”exit barriers ” that jeopardize the market ‘s contestability and make the hazard of a monopoly.

Comparing direct utility ( profitableness ) , be it positive or negative, with external utility ( be it positive or negative ) produces four possible combinations, shown in Fig. 1 as a Cartesian graph, where direct profitableness ( net income prognosis ) is shown along the abscissa and societal public-service corporation ( net benefit ) is shown along the ordinate.

Fig. 1. Direct Profitability and Social Utility of Investment.

Assuming that the co-ordinates at the beginning of the axes are, severally, market involvement rate ( to which a hazard premium may be added ) , and 0 ( or, instead, the above-named ”standard ” socioeconomic internal rate of return ) , the bisector of quarter-circles II-IV separates the state of affairss bearing entire ( direct+external ) positive public-service corporation, above the bisector, from those bearing entire negative public-service corporation, below the bisector.

Private profitableness usually stems from the private nature of benefits ( port services or assets are ”private goods ” , having excludability and competition between users ) : in the port sphere, this can be the instance for services ( both to goods or to ships ) , superstructures ( Cranes ) and, to a lesser extent, terminal substructure. Public profitableness stems from the being of long-run external benefits, such as backwoods handiness, ”public ” or ”club ” goods such as maritime assets ( dredging, groins, locks, etc. ) , land based webs and general local handiness. Fig. 1 shows the state of affairss that may so originate.

Quadrant I contains those state of affairss where investing is driven by private profitableness and besides implies a public benefit. It is promoted by the market and there is no ground for it to be halted by the public disposal ( although it may be regulated in order to heighten public benefit ) . On the opposite side, quadrant III clearly shows investing undertakings that appear neither profitable nor socially desirable and, hence, should ne’er be promoted.

Quadrant II features investings deemed ”socially utile ” ( external economic systems, handiness, etc. ) but with small or no direct profitableness. If the balance is positive ( i.e. above the bisector ) , investings should be promoted by following the appropriate policies, which might include grants and public-private partnerships ( PPPs ) , capable to switch profitableness ( as represented by vector B ) even if the offsetting costs reduces overall public-service corporation, and hence moves the point closer to the bisector. What is an unprofitable investing for private capital may, however, be regarded as socially desirable ( for illustration, as a driver of regional economic development ) . Ports have frequently been regarded, be it justly or wrongly, as drivers of regional development every bit good as a beginning of considerable external benefits.

Nowadays the ”local ” net external benefit is less certain, although ports are regarded – more than earlier – as indispensable gateways for the fight of the backwoods. This may drive forward an investing even with no private profitableness. The investing can be wholly public, or ( if public resources are scarce ) publically co-financed in order to supplement private profitableness and push it above the threshold that is critical for the private investor ( i.e. involvement rate+risk premium ) . Yet, the hazard is to advance investings that are really below the bisector.

If we assume that any compensation policy switching benefits/costs from one sector to another does hold a cost, so no policy can do the point displacement from below to above the bisector.

Quadrant IV shows investings that are profitable for the investor, but a beginning of net external costs. This state of affairs is common presents, and increases in port capacity required by terminal and logistics companies frequently gives rise to struggle and resistance at a local degree, due to there being no ( or really few ) external benefits in comparing with external costs. An investing should however be encouraged for undertakings placed above the bisector, through the offsetting and decrease of external costs to ”shift ” the investing towards quarter-circle I, as represented by vector a ( even if countervailing costs reduces the investing ‘s overall public-service corporation, and once more it moves the point closer to the bisector ) . Investings where societal disutility of external costs exceeds direct profitableness ( below the bisector ) must alternatively be prevented by manner of appropriate prohibitions and limitations, etc.

A pure market economic system would advance all – and merely – investings in quarter-circles I and IV ( where direct profitableness is higher than the market involvement rate ) , while a centralised economic system should advance all – and merely – investings in quarter-circles I and II.

If market failures are taken into history alternatively, the focal point should be on advancing investings runing above bisector II-IV. Indeed, country A of quadrant IV shows state of affairss where the societal consequence of straight profitable investings needs to be mitigated through decreases and limitations ( even at the hazard of restricting their profitableness ) .

In country B of quadrant II, private investing that would otherwise be wasteful demands to be encouraged through inducements or through support that is seen to stem straight from public investing. Merely in quarter-circle I, are investings in private and socially profitable, although ordinances and governance-oriented steps may be taken to amend the ”profitability mix ” .


The port capacity installed by the investor ( be it public or private ) may be exploited by the investor itself, if it acts as the plus ‘s director and charges the bearer for usage. Alternatively, it may be leased to a loader, which manages it and charges the bearer. Furthermore, the bearer and the terminus operator may be vertically integrated ( the alleged dedicated terminuss ) and in some instances, the bearer may besides overlap with the shipper, which may pull off its ain ships and sometimes its ain terminus ( s ) every bit good.

However, if merely concern maps are considered, the port investing ”chain ” involves the undermentioned participants: ( I ) the investor puting in the port installation ; ( two ) the terminus operator ; ( three ) the bearer utilizing the port, or its representatives ; and ( four ) the shipper, or its representatives.

The investing ‘s return is determined by the stevedoring industry ‘s net incomes, which in bend influence those of the transportation industry, logistics and finally the net incomes of the manufacturers/shippers and the public-service corporation of consumers.

This subdivision investigates the effects generated by the port investing, so as to foreground important relationships between participants, every bit good as the deductions for investing determinations and for the support of investings. It focuses on the ”microeconomic ” effects of an investing, ignoring any macroeconomic benefits to employment, net incomes and their distribution, any environmental benefits-costs ( both direct environmental impact and the balance between the environmental impact of maritime conveyance and that of alternate conveyance ) . These macroeconomic effects are instead hard to mensurate, while the environmental effects are unsure, since the development of maritime conveyance through port investings leads to an addition in the environmental costs associated with a port and maritime conveyance, but on the other side it encourages a average split with a more sustainable environmental impact.

A port investing may be ”extensive ” , if its purpose is to increase productive capacity while mean costs remain unchanged, or ”intensive ” , if its purpose is to increase productiveness and cut down unitary costs. From a theoretical position, the impression of a strictly extended investing may be feasible when, for illustration, a terminus operator – holding to run into crisp rises in demand – decides to increase its throughput capacity by adding new substructures that offer the same productiveness as those already in usage. When, on the other manus, demand is dead or competition from other operators is already ferocious or on the rise, a terminus operator may good plummet for a strictly intensive investing, aimed at increasing productiveness. Actually, though, it is really likely that in the former state of affairs the new assets would be more productive than those already in topographic point, thanks to technological betterments that are likely to hold been introduced. As a consequence, an addition in

measure besides translates into an addition in mean productiveness. In the latter state of affairs, a rise in productiveness is usually achieved, thanks to the decreased clip per unit of throughput, and the attendant addition in throughput per unit of clip. It is hence really realistic to presume that between these two ”theoretical ” extremes, the effects of the investing will, in pattern, be distributed between an addition in measure and a decrease in costs. In a market of perfect competition this cost decrease would turn into a letter writer decrease in monetary value ( or in generalised cost ) without addition in net income.

On the other manus, in a monopoly state of affairs, or if demand is highly inelastic, it could take strictly to a rise in net income, without any benefit being enjoyed by the user ( with a decrease in monetary value approaching or equal to zero ) . In any intermediate state of affairs, the consequence will be distributed, depending upon the snap of demand and the place of the cost curves, between an addition in net income and a decrease in monetary value, accompanied by an addition in throughput.

From a microeconomic point of view, so, an investing in a port plus usually causes an addition in the degree of throughput ( entire and per unit of clip ) every bit good as an betterment in the degree of service. This causes a decrease in the generalised cost Cg of the port service ( tantamount to a decrease in monetary value ) and/or an addition in the net incomes of the loader.

The lessening in generalised cost will do throughput to increase, at a rate that will be straight correlated to the grade of competition within the port services market: the greater the competition, the greater the decrease in monetary value and the addition in throughput ; the lower the competition, the greater the net incomes netted by the director ( unless demand is wholly inelastic ) .

The addition in throughput leads in bend to an addition in the loader ‘s net incomes, and normally to increasing returns to scale every bit good, thereby triping a farther autumn in the cost of production, generalized cost, monetary value and potentially a farther addition in net incomes.

Furthermore, this decrease in generalised cost/price leads to a lessening in the generalised cost ( monetary value ) of the whole conveyance rhythm, triping within the conveyance industry the same sort of effects: lower monetary values, higher volumes and higher net incomes. Again, an increasing return to graduated table is likely to happen, and these effects can therefore construct up to go stronger.

Finally, the same sort of consequence will besides be seen for shippers ( and perchance for intermediate operators such as logistic operators, forwarders, etc. , ) : a lower generalised cost causes both volumes and net incomes to lift, with possible farther additions due to economic systems of graduated table. The concluding lessening in monetary values for transported goods can finally profit concluding consumers. There is hence a ”chain ” running from port investors, to port operators, bearers, forwarders or logistic operators, all the manner through to shippers and consumers, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Port Investment and its Microeconomic and Macroeconomic Consequences.

Note: Inv = investing, C = cost, GC = generalized cost, s.l. = service degree,

P = monetary value, Th = throughput, Iˆ = net income.

Assuming a additive demand map, such as ;

P = a – bq ( 3 )

for every possible place that may be taken by E, so:

US = q [ a – ( a – bq ) ] /2 = 1/2 bq2 ( 4 )

This is a parabola on an ever-upward incline in the first quarter-circle.

The gross map is so

TR = aq – bq2 ( 5 )

and the map of the long-term norm cost ( LRAC ) is consecutive, expressed that is to state by the


TC = cq ( 6 )

and, entire net income can hence be expressed as ;

TI = TR – Technetium = ( a – degree Celsius ) q – bq2 ( 7 )

The profit-maximizing measure is given by

vitamin D TI / dq = 0 ( 8 )

from which we obtain

a – degree Celsius – 2bq = 0 ( 9 )

Q = ( a – degree Celsius ) /2b ( 10 )

The measure that maximizes the amount of net income and consumer ‘s excess, sing therefore both direct and external profitableness, is so

vitamin D ( TI + US ) /dq = 0 ( 11 )

from which we obtain

a – degree Celsius – 2bq + bq = 0 ( 12 )

with the optimum measure emerging therefore

Q = ( a – degree Celsius ) /b ( 13 )

As a consequence, the measure that maximizes the amount of net income and consumer excess Equation ( 13 ) is dual the measure that maximizes net income Equation ( 10 ) .


These consequences suggest some comments on the funding of port investing.

Port investing may bring forth both direct and indirect benefits. Direct benefits provide a support channel by manner of the pricing applied for the usage of substructure, grosss and the attendant net income for the company that builds and/or manages the terminus ( if two different companies are involved, the net income of the terminus operator will be used to pay the charge to the company that owns the port installation ) . Net public benefits justify the use of financial resources alternatively.

So far, port investings have really frequently attracted public investing, due to the really characteristics of the substructures and systems associated with ports. However, there has been no proper standard in topographic point to find – if merely theoretically – the extent to which the populace revenue enhancement system should be involved in a port substructure.

This peculiar issue is closely linked to the monetary value charged for utilizing substructure, for two grounds: ( I ) the pricing applied to, and the payment made for, the use of a port plus generates a degree of private net income that is complementary to the public revenue enhancement system ( the greater the resources gettable from pricing, the lower the resources required from revenue enhancement, and frailty versa ) ; and ( two ) the pricing standard itself may reflect non merely the port operators ‘ profit-maximizing schemes ( or merely its market schemes ) , but besides the intent of maximising the public assistance generated by the investing.


Two properties of the investings that characterize – even if non entirely – companies runing within ports are the grade to which investings are reversible and uncertainness, which is typical of every determination that has anything to make with the hereafter.

The first of these two properties would look to be of considerable importance in our instance, since a turning figure of private houses are being asked to put non merely in port superstructures, but besides in existent substructures.

Suffice it to see, for illustration, the many dedicated terminuss – typical of the container conveyance sector, and likewise the sail conveyance sector – in which the conveyance company is vertically integrated to go a terminal company every bit good, thereby take parting in the cost of the terminal investing proportionately to its portion in the venture. In these state of affairss, it is clear how at least portion of the investing should be regarded as irreversible, doing it interesting hence to determine how this circumstance, together with the uncertainness as to how the operating environment will germinate, may do the company to roll up excess, or insufficient, capital.

Harmonizing to writers irreversibility and uncertainness of investings involve two types of consequence ;

the alleged ”user-cost ” consequence, which leads houses to under-invest. This is because enterprisers are more loath to put, given that their inability to divest consequences in a higher user-cost of capital in relation to current investing determinations ; and

the alleged ”hangover ” consequence, bespeaking the trust of current capital stock on past behaviour, which leads houses to over-invest in the presence of irreversibility and uncertainness.

5.1. Stackelberg Equilibrium

It is worthwhile retrieving that the Stackelberg duopoly considers two houses – known as ”L ” and ”F ” ( leader and follower ) – that need to make up one’s mind ( non at the same clip ) how much capital to use. The map of net incomes for these two houses may be expressed as ;

I L ( KL, KF ) = KL ( 1 – KL – KF )

I F ( KL, KF ) = KF ( 1 – KL – KF ) ( 14 )

This state of affairs leads steadfast L ( the house to make up one’s mind foremost, since it is the first to present a new engineering or to come in a peculiar market ) to choose the sum of capital in such a manner as to maximise its ain net income map, while taking into history the reaction curve of house F. This means that where ;

KF = RF ( KL ) = ( 1 – KL ) /2 ( 15 )

the equilibrium – which is different from the Cournot equilibrium, based on companies doing their picks at the same clip – makes the degrees of capital employed equal to ;

KL = 1/2

KF = 1/4 ( 16 )

Net incomes and the ratio between them hence emerge as ;

I L = 1/8

I F = 1/16 ( 17 )

I L/I F = 2

The house puting foremost hence accumulates twice every bit much capital as the other, while besides sacking a net income that is dual that realized by the follower. If at a ulterior phase a rise in demand is expected, the theoretical account shows how both houses will increase their productive capacity to a similar extent, so that the ratio between the several net incomes of the two houses remains unchanged. We are therefore witnessing a game that repeats itself by the same processs. In other words, this duopoly leads the houses to cover three-fourthss of the sum that would be exchanged in a market of perfect competition, go forthing unchanged their several market portion as leader and follower, with one twice that of the other. Compared with monopolistic equilibrium, this theoretical account guarantees that a higher sum is exchanged ( 50 % more in fact ) . This gives rise to the capacity excess seen in these types of oligopoly.

VI. Decision

Port investing is a cardinal issue in modern port economic sciences with respect to be aftering port development, funding and measuring the return on investing.

In the literature, the subject of substructure investing has been historically tackled either from a pure macro-economic position or from the mere house ‘s point of position ( the managerial determination procedure related to port investing ) . These attacks focus chiefly on the macro-economic costs and benefits of the port industry and, on the other side, on the economic efficiency of the port map for port users.

This paper overcomes that sort of cleavage. It addresses some of the characteristics related to port investing get downing from the rating of the chief paradigms that characterize the port industry from a planetary point of position, and focuses on the dealingss, synergisms and struggles between the legion stakeholders really involved. Profitability, economic impact and funding are seen as the most critical nodes in the complex concatenation of port investing determinations.

Port investing has been described as the consequence of the equilibrium of several interactions between different forces and involvements, where the most relevant facets are ( I ) the public/private combination, which imprints the port industry and ( two ) the geographical graduated table of rating. The mix between public and private involvements, and the specific function of public organic structures, may in fact be seen as the nucleus of a specific port investing theory, which evaluates direct and indirect effects every bit good as uncertainness in returns. The different positions of measuring the impact of port investing can take to a different rating of the costs and benefits involved, and their desirableness.

The model of the paper has been chiefly based on the description and critical rating of the public/private and local/global trade-offs, which in bend affect the appraisal of port impacts, the development of support, pricing and revenue enhancement systems, the competitory scenario and deformations, which are likely to happen in inter-port and intra-port competitions.

The chief part of the paper may be seen in the attempt of constructing up a comprehensive scenario where individual facets and variables related to port investings can suit into a general strategy of interrelatednesss, which identify executable results. The foreseeable end products in footings of demand and provide provide penetrations for possible inducements to efficiency to be improved by decision-makers at different degrees, advancing the decrease of struggles and the synergisms of involvements.

Although the subject has clearly practical deductions, the work follows a theoretical attack instead than an empirical one. The proposal is, in fact, to develop an overall model of analysis with a certain grade of originality in comparing with amalgamate Fieldss of the past literature, restricting at the same clip the hazard of a quickly non-updated decision-support tool.

The execution of a figure of defined policy guidelines can be considered as an inexplicit docket for future research.


C = cost

EIB = European Investment Bank

EU = European Union

GC = Generalized Cost

Inv = Investment

P = Price

PPP = Public – Private Partnerships

s.l. = service degree,

TDA = Trade and Development Agency

Th = Throughput

US = Users ‘ Excess

WB = World Bank,

Iˆ = Net income