THE NEW ERA OF PORT GOVERNANCE

According to the documents having been analyzed, globalization has supposed the unification of countries, as well as an increase in commerce, in which at present time the only existing barriers are a result of different economic policies, which in  certain cases can be highly restrictive. Also, globalization has made it possible for economies with better logistics, to grow more rapidly, to be more competitive, and to increase their investments. All of this leads us to consider that logistics performance, is one of the key factors of international commerce.

Since the 80s, a process leading to deregulation or privatization of port infrastrucures has taken place in the world; this transformation has taken place much earlier (1945), in specific cases, such as the United Kingdom,   Said process has been identified under the term “devolution,” which Rodal and Mulder (1993) define as the transfer of functions or of duties and responsibilities, in the execution of programs and services from the government to another entity. This body could be another administrative entity, a government agency, a corporation, or an association. Researchers such as Goss (1986), Bird (1984), and Bird and Shepperd (1982), have analyzed the importance of port institutions, and determined the advantages and inconveniences of public port authorities (Goss, 1990).

In general, it can be said that current port legislation in Latin America countries, dates to the 90s, and it pretended to consolidate the presence and activity of the private sector, in facilities which were still clinging to “service” or “toolport” governance modalities. Sánchez (2014) pinpoints the reforms taken place in ports in countries members of ECLAC, and which have as their main objective, the improvement of efficiency through deregulation, by setting aside the amount of services rendered.

In the bulletin issued by ECLAC, for purposes of making clear the scope of the concept “governance,” Brooks and Cullinane (2007) make reference to the set of systems, structures, and processes which groups of individuals organize for a common purpose; same can be perceived as creators of the structure of their governance, together with the laws and rules and regulations which define the actions of public policies, and which the government imposes on appropriate public and private business. The structures and processes implemented through national laws, such as the requirements for the open adjudication processes, control, follow-up, objectives, restrictions, etc., are part of the governance of a government. Fernando Gonzalez Laxe, in a smilar but more concise fashion, structures governance in three central concepts: institutions, mechanisms, and processes.

At the beginning of the present governance cycle, public ports in the region were going through a stage of many problems in their management, same which generated significant tax costs, and which in the nineties the States were not capable to sustain. They were also going through labor and labor management problems, and offered services which were not compatible with commercial expansion expectations, which may countries maintained. The situation which the ports lived in the latter part of eighties and in the first part of the nineties, was seen as follows: “Public sector ports in Latin America and the Caribbean, confront a crisis in most of their activities, from their investments and planning, to laborers, management, costs, and productivity. This can be perceived by the complaints of port users, as well as the measures which the governments adopted in order to reduce capital investment  and budgets for equipment maintenance and for personnel training programs.

Many external factors have contributed to the crisis, such as foreign debt, transformations which took place in national economic goals, and tax deficits; but the governments themselves have triggered the crisis, in great measure with policies which have given strong support to the demands of leading, dominant port groups. The sensibility of govenrments to said groups, has turned into  the creation of port agencies based on laws, rules and regulations, agreements, policies, and social and political obligations which lack coherence and pursue opposing objectives”.

Port governance is defined  based on two forces, centripetal and centrifugal (Comtois and Slack, 2003). Centripetal forces try to define, in political,terms, as jurisdictional and geographic controls of territorial dynamics of a port. That is to say, it emphasizes on the different roles of public and private agents, by going in depth in port management and operations, from a market economy perspective. Port authorities look for adopting the measures which allow to increase effectiveness, as the greater administrative decentralization and greater fields of liberty for the private economy, adapting themselves to the market rules. Therefore, structural changes in governance, emphasize toward greater liberalization and deregulation. Product of this dynamics, is the creation of multimodal platforms which seek to capture and attract  traffic, to improve positioning of port infrastructures in the world market, and, therefore, a new intraport definition, which supposes a widening of logistics services and the deveopment of global networks, encouraged by the local economies (Nottebom and Rodrigue, 2005).

Ports constitute another element of the multimodal chain, between producer and consumer; thus, increasing the links between maritime transportation and land transportation. We help, under this centripetal force, to a growth of the offer capacity of terminals; to an adjustment of fluxes and of the directions of maritime transportation routes; to a new concept of performance índices and business benefits; and, to a reduction of risk and an increase of safety in transportation “door to door.”