The Performance of Seaport Clusters - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit ...

Chapter 10 – Structure and Performance in Seaport Clusters; Results of the Cases 123
• The presence of information and knowledge is a second clear agglomeration force. A
significant majority of the experts claim that knowledge and information attract firms to
the port cluster.
• The presence of qualified labor is regarded as an agglomeration force in Rotterdam and
the LMPC, but not in Durban. This is because labor is present everywhere in Kwazulu
Natal and the labor pool in Durban is not regarded as well trained or skillful.
• Congestion 82 is not regarded as a reason for firms to locate outside the cluster. In
Rotterdam and the LMPC, the vast majority of experts do not regard congestion as a
‘disagglomeration force’, primarily because congestion is currently ‘under control’.
• In Rotterdam, relatively many experts indicate that the wage level is higher and union
power is stronger in the cluster than outside the cluster. However, the experts still
indicate that a cluster specific labor force attracts firms to the cluster. Thus, the quality
and availability of labor in the cluster must be relatively good.
The answers to the proposition ‘The presence of a cluster specific labor force in port cluster
is a reason for firms to locate in the port cluster’ depend on the size of the respondent’s
firm 83 . Experts from small firms agree more than experts from large firms. This is explained
by the fact that small firms benefit from the labor pool because they employ only a limited
number of people that can be ‘sourced’ from the shared labor pool, whereas large firms with
a continuous demand for labor depend on the ‘supply’ of new employees and are confronted
with the limited attractiveness of the port cluster as a working environment. Table 36 shows
the distribution of responses.
82 Both maritime congestion (waiting ships) and congestion of hinterland modes are relevant.
Maritime congestion hardly occurs in the LMPC and Rotterdam.
83 The significance of the difference is smaller than 10%, but that is explained by the small number
of respondents