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

Chapter 11 – Governance and Performance in Seaport Clusters; Results of the Cases 147
11.4.2 The hinterland access regime
Table 58 shows the expert evaluation of the quality of the hinterland access regime in the
three cases. A scale from –5 (very bad) to +5 (very good) was used, so that a score of nil
means neither bad nor good. This scale is also used for the other four regimes.
Table 58: Expert evaluation of the quality of the hinterland access regime
Variable Rotterdam Durban LMPC
Leader firms 2*, ** -0.4*** 0.2
Public actors 2*, ** 0.4 0.8
Organizational infrastructure 0.7 0.1 0.3
Community argument 0.9 0.8** 0.1
Voice 1 0.8** 0.4
Overall score 86 1.1* 0.1 0.3
Average scores on a scale from –5 (very bad) to +5 (very good)
* Significantly higher score than in other two port clusters
** Significantly higher average judgment of all factors in same port cluster
*** Significantly lower average judgment of all factors in same port cluster
On the basis of these results the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The hinterland access regime is not very effective in any of the three cases.
• Rotterdam’s HAR is significantly better than in the two other cases, with a score of 1.1
on a scale from –5 to +5.
• The involvement of leader firms and the role of the public actors (most importantly the
port authority), are two strengths of the HAR in Rotterdam.
• In Durban, the HAR is not effective. This is predominantly due to the lack of leader firm
involvement. Firms in the cluster are willing to become involved, but no firm has the
incentive and ability to take the lead.
86 The overall score of the HAR is computed by multiplying the score for each of the variables with
the importance they attach to that variable. The maximum score is +5 and the minimum score –
5.