IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v22y2012icp20-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Container movement by rail in India: A review of policy evolution

Author

Listed:
  • Gangwar, Rachna
  • Morris, Sebastian
  • Pandey, Ajay
  • Raghuram, G.

Abstract

Container movement by rail was a monopoly of Indian Railways (IR) until 2005. Its subsidiary Container Corporation (CONCOR) was the sole operator of container trains. Entry of other entities in 2007 has been driven by larger public policy concerns. In the process, issues such as incumbent resistance, entry barriers, and lack of level playing field had an impact. These issues were enhanced by the use of a closely held organisation as a consultant, and conflicting roles of IR as licensor, regulator, service provider, and operator. This paper attempts to review the process starting from the policy announcement (February 2005) to evolution of a Model Concession Agreement (January 2007). It shows how policies were influenced by the incumbent to restrict competition by creating barriers on the one hand and how an alternate view provided by external entities, like the Planning Commission and other non-IR stakeholders significantly altered the course of action leading to entry of a large number of competing players.

Suggested Citation

  • Gangwar, Rachna & Morris, Sebastian & Pandey, Ajay & Raghuram, G., 2012. "Container movement by rail in India: A review of policy evolution," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 20-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:22:y:2012:i:c:p:20-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X12000716
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pittman Russell, 2005. "Structural Separation to Create Competition? The Case of Freight Railways," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 1-16, September.
    2. J. Luis Guasch, 2004. "Granting and Renegotiating Infrastructure Concessions : Doing it Right," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15024.
    3. Affuso, Luisa, 2003. "Auctions of rail capacity?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 43-46, March.
    4. Russell Pittman, 2009. "Competition Issues in Restructuring Ports and Railways, Including Brief Consideration of these Sectors in India," EAG Discussions Papers 200906, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Monios, Jason & Wilmsmeier, Gordon, 2013. "The role of intermodal transport in port regionalisation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 161-172.
    2. G. Raghuram & Rachna Gangwar & Charu Rastogi, 2023. "A Critique of the Initiative for Public–Private Partnership in Passenger Train Operations1," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 48(1), pages 7-20, March.
    3. G Raghuram, Rachna Gangwar and Charu Rastogi & Rachna Gangwar & G Raghuram, 2020. "A Critique of the Initiative for Public Private Partnership in Passenger Train Operations," Working Papers 02-01, Adani Institute of Infrastructure Management, Ahmedabad.
    4. Dadashpoor, Hashem & Arasteh, Mojtaba, 2020. "Core-port connectivity: Towards shaping a national hinterland in a West Asia country," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 57-68.
    5. Sitharamaraju, K. & Beerelli, Santhosh Kumar & Yelne, Saket Anil & Narayanaswami, Sundaravalli, 2020. "Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in Indian Railways: Models, Framework, and Policies," IIMA Working Papers WP 2020-12-05, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pittman, Russell, 2011. "Risk-averse restructuring of freight railways in China," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 152-160.
    2. Rui Cunha Marques & Álvaro Fonseca, 2010. "Market structure, privatisation and regulation of Portuguese seaports," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 145-161, March.
    3. N.F. Cruz & R.C. Marques & A. Marra & C. Pozzi, 2014. "Local Mixed Companies: The Theory And Practice In An International Perspective," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 85(1), pages 1-9, March.
    4. Matthias Finger & Rolf W. Künneke (ed.), 2011. "International Handbook of Network Industries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12961.
    5. Patrice Bougette & Frédéric Marty, 2024. "Transport and Competition Law," GREDEG Working Papers 2024-28, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    6. Ronit Mukherji, 2023. "Risk Sharing in Public-Private Partnerships," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Anne Stafford & Basilio Acerete & Pam Stapleton, 2010. "Making concessions: Political, commercial and regulatory tensions in accounting for European roads PPPs," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 473-493.
    8. Claude Ménard, 2013. "Is Public-Private Partnership Obsolete? Assessing the Obstacles and Shortcomings of PPP," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00653090, HAL.
    9. Iossa, Elisabetta & Martimort, David, 2016. "Corruption in PPPs, incentives and contract incompleteness," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 85-100.
    10. Dethier, Jean-Jacques, 2013. "Coping with urban fiscal stress around the world," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6693, The World Bank.
    11. Antonio Estache & Stéphane Saussier, 2014. "Public-Private Partnerships and Efficiency: A Short Assessment," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 12(3), pages 08-13, October.
    12. Poinsot, Philippe, 2016. "Jules Dupuit And The Railroads: What Is The Role Of The State?," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 189-209, June.
    13. Papaioannou, Panagiotis & Georgiadis, Georgios & Nikolaidou, Anastasia & Politis, Ioannis, 2020. "Public Transport tendering and contracting arrangements in countries under regulatory transition: The case of Cyprus," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    14. Marques, Rui Cunha & Berg, Sanford V, 2010. "Revisiting the strengths and limitations of regulatory contracts in infrastructure industries," MPRA Paper 32890, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Fagundes, Thalita Salgado & Cunha Marques, Rui & Malheiros, Tadeu Fabrício, 2024. "Are Brazilian water auction prices affordable for vulnerable families?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. Nicolas Campos & Eduardo Engel & Ronald D. Fischer & Alexander Galetovic, 2019. "Renegotiations and corruption in infrastructure: The Odebrecht case," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0230, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    17. Sandra Jódar-Rosell & Jordi Gual, 2010. "The Strange Couple: Regulation and Competition Policy in Network Industries," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 8(3), pages 19-23, October.
    18. Eshien Chong & Carine Staropoli & Anne Yvrande-Billon, 2014. "Auction versus Negotiation in Public Procurement: Looking for Empirical Evidence," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00512813, HAL.
    19. Mizutani, Fumitoshi, 2020. "A comparison of vertical structural types in the railway industry: A simple mathematical explanation model," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Athias, Laure & Saussier, Stéphane, 2018. "Are public private partnerships that rigid? And why? Evidence from price provisions in French toll road concession contracts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 174-186.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:22:y:2012:i:c:p:20-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.