EFFECTS OF PROLONGED PORT PRIVATIZATION PROCESS: A CASE STUDY OF PORT OF İZMIR ALSANCAK

Yıl 2017, , 112 - 134, 01.12.2017

İsmail Bilge Çetin , Gökçay Balcı Soner Esmer

https://doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.351630

Cited By: 2

Öz

Developing countries privatize
ports with several expectations such as shifting the vast amount of investment responsibility to private parties and
increasing the efficiency of the port.
Turkey is one of the countries where port privatization practices have been
significantly experienced in recent years. The
majority of large ports in Turkey operated by the government were
successfully privatized through transfer of the operational rights and
concessionaires made considerable investments at these ports. However,
privatization of Port of İzmir was interrupted after an extended period, and
the port has not received a significant investment in infrastructure and
superstructure. This paper investigates the case of Port of İzmir to discuss
the effects of lengthy port privatization process on users as well as on the
competitiveness of the port by examining cargo handling statistics and conducting
semi-structured interviews with port users and related practitioners. The case
of Port of İzmir Alsancak suggests that although the benefit of port privatization to the public is controversial in port literature, prolonged process
of port privatization is detrimental to port users, competitiveness of ports,
and to the public.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Port privatization, Port of İzmir Alsancak, effects of privatization, privatization process, port competitiveness

UZAYAN LİMAN ÖZELLEŞTİRME SÜRECİNİN ETKİLERİ: İZMİR ALSANCAK LİMANI VAKA ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Gelişmekte olan ülkeler, büyük miktardaki yatırım
sorumluluklarını özel sektöre sevk etmek ve limanların verimliliğini arttırmak
gibi beklentilerle limanları özelleştirmektedir. Türkiye son yıllarda liman
özelleştirme faaliyetlerinin önemli ölçüde gerçekleştiği ülkelerden birisidir.
Devlet tarafından işletilen büyük limanların çoğu işletme hakkının devri yolu
ile başarıyla özelleştirilmiş, imtiyaz sahipleri bu limanlara önemli oranda
yatırımlar yapmışlardır. Ancak, İzmir Limanı özelleştirmesi uzun süreçten sonra
sekteye uğramış, liman bu süreçte önemli altyapı ve üstyapı yatırımlarını
alamamıştır.  Bu çalışma istatistiki
veriler ile liman kullanıcıları ve sektör uzmanlarıyla yapılan mülakatları
inceleyerek, uzun süren liman özelleştirme sürecinin liman kullanıcılarına ve
limanın rekabetçiliğine olan etkilerini tartışmak için İzmir Limanı vakasını
incelemektedir. Liman özelleştirilmesinin kamuya faydalı olup olmadığı
konusunda liman yazınında fikir birliğine varılamasa da İzmir Limanı vakası,
uzun süren liman özelleştirme sürecinin liman kullanıcılarına, liman
rekabetçiliğine ve kamuya zarar verdiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Liman özelleştirilmesi, İzmir Alsancak Limanı, özelleştirmenin etkileri, özelleştirme süreci, liman rekabetçiliği

Kaynakça

• Ateş, A. (2014). Türkiye’de liman özelleştirmeleri İskenderun Liman örneği. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(25), 427-457.
• Baird, A.J. (2002). Privatization trends at the world’s top-100 container ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3), 271–284.
• Bassett, K. (1993). British port privatization and its impact on the port of Bristol. Journal of Transport Geography, 1(4), 255–267.
• Brooks, M.R. (2004). The governance structure of ports. Review of Network Economics, 3(2), 1-16.
• Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chang, Y.T., Shin, S.H. and Lee, P.T.W. (2014). Economic impact of port sectors on South African economy: An input–output analysis. Transport Policy, 35, 333–340.
• Clark, X., Dollar, D. and Micco, A. (2004). Port efficiency, maritime transport costs, and bilateral trade. Journal of Development Economics, 75(2), 417–450.
• Cullinane, K., Ji, P. and Wang, T.F. (2006). The technical efficiency of container ports: Comparing data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, 40(4), 354–374.
• Cullinane, K. and Song, D.W. (2002). Port privatization policy and practice. Transport Reviews, 22(1), 55–75.
• Cullinane, K. and Song, D.W. (2003). A stochastic frontier model of the productive efficiency of Korean container terminals. Applied Economics, 35(3), 251–267.
• Cullinane, K., Song, D.W. and Gray, R. (2002). A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 36(8), 743–762.
• Ece, N.J., Alkan, G.B. (2016). Privatization of ports: participation of global container terminal operators in port operations. In: Proceedings of Second International Conference on Global International on Innovation in Marine Technology and the Future of Maritime Transportation Conference, 190-197.
• Esmer, S. and Duru, O. (2017). Port governance in Turkey: the age of the global terminal operators. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 214-223.
• Ferrari, C., Parola, F. and Tei, A. (2015). Governance models and port concessions in Europe: commonalities, critical issues and policy perspectives. Transport Policy, 41, 60-67.
• Guasch, J.L., Suarez-Aleman, A. and Trujillo, L. (2015). Megaports’ concessions. The Puerto de Gran Escala in Chile as a case study. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(2), 178-187.
• Hofmann, J. (2001). Latin American ports: results and determinants of private sector participation. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 3(2), 221–241.
• Pagano, A.M., Wang, G.W., Sánchez, O.V., and Ungo, R. (2013). Impact of privatization on port efficiency and effectiveness: Results from Panama and US ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(2), 100-115.
• Psaraftis, H., and Pallis, A.A. (2012). Concession of the Piraeus container terminal: Turbulent times and the quest for competitiveness. Maritime Policy & Management, 39(1), 27–43.
• Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3), 241–255.
• Saundry, R. and Turnbull, P. (1997). Private profit, public loss: The financial and economic performance of UK ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 24(4), 319-334.
• Tongzon, J., and Heng, W. (2005). Port privatization, efficiency and competitiveness: Some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(5), 405–424.
• TÜRKLİM, (2016). Türkiye Limancılık Sektör Raporu, İstanbul.
• Van Niekerk, H.C. (2005). Port reform and concessioning in developing countries. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 7(2), 141–155.
• Wang, G.W., Knox, K.J. and Lee, P.T.W. (2013). A study of relative efficiency between privatised and publicly operated US ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 1–16.
• Privatization Administration (PA) Port of İzmir Enterprise (2011). http://www.oib.gov.tr/portfoy/tcdd_İzmir_port.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 28.05.2011