IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/marecl/v24y2022i4d10.1057_s41278-022-00225-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative approaches to measuring concentration in liner shipping

Author

Listed:
  • Olaf Merk

    (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD))

  • Antonella Teodoro

    (MDS Transmodal)

Abstract

Shipping has always had a special relationship with competition law and economics. Even if special competition law regimes for the shipping industry continue to exist, most countries nowadays accept the notion that shipping markets should be more competitive. Competition authorities monitor this in a more or less regular fashion, with various market concentration indexes. The liner shipping industry is peculiar in its widespread cooperation schemes between carriers, in the form of vessel sharing agreements, also known as consortia. Carriers engage in cooperation with all of their major competitors in a system of consortia that is highly interlinked. This brings considerable risks of abuse of market power. Yet, the system of inter-linked consortia has never been systematically mapped, nor do competition authorities appear to monitor them. This article addresses this gap, by proposing alternative indicators, in addition to the traditional industry concentration indexes such as the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI), that take the reality of consortia into account. Here, five possible alternative indicators are considered: the market share of consortia and independent operators; the share of consortia exceeding market share thresholds; the industry market concentration of consortia; a modified HHI that takes consortia into account; and interlinkages between consortia. We analyse the current state of concentration of liner shipping on the basis of these indicators using a new and unique database that contains deployed ship capacity of container carriers on all of their liner services. Based on this dataset we provide an overview of differences in industry concentration across world regions and developments over time. Traditional indicators show an increase in industry concentration. For example, over the trade corridors to and from Northern Europe, the HHI scores in 2006 ranged from 604 to 2463, and from 1164 to 4882 in 2021. The alternative criteria show additional industry concentration. We show that in 2021, 704 out of more than 1500 agreements among carrier consortia had a combined market share of at least 30%, and 102 of them had a combined market share of at least 50%. We also observe that in 2021, the carriers active in alliances operated 85% of the consortia capacity. Although carriers that are in the same alliance operate most of these consortia, it is also noteworthy that carriers that are not in the same alliance operate a considerable part (24%) of the consortia. Our calculations of modified Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (MHHI)indexes that take consortia into account show that industry concentration is higher when consortia are taken into account: for example on the trade corridor Northern Europe-North America East Coast, the MHHI has reached the threshold of 2500 points, despite an HHI score of around 1500. In the conclusion of the article, we put forward ways in which these alternative indicators could be used by competition authorities.

Suggested Citation

  • Olaf Merk & Antonella Teodoro, 2022. "Alternative approaches to measuring concentration in liner shipping," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(4), pages 723-746, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:marecl:v:24:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1057_s41278-022-00225-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41278-022-00225-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41278-022-00225-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41278-022-00225-x?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. Sys, Christa, 2009. "Is the container liner shipping industry an oligopoly?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 259-270, September.
    2. Meifeng Luo & Lixian Fan & Wesley W. Wilson, 2014. "Firm Growth and Market Concentration in Liner Shipping," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 48(1), pages 171-187, January.
    3. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Salop, Steven C., 1986. "Quantifying the competitive effects of production joint ventures," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 155-175, June.
    4. Hercules E. Haralambides, 2019. "Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics: a time-lapse into the future," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 21(1), pages 1-60, March.
    5. Alexander M. Goulielmos, 2017. "“Containership Markets”: A Comparison with Bulk Shipping and a Proposed Oligopoly Model," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 67(2), pages 47-68, April-Jun.
    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. Suguru Otani & Takuma Matsuda, 2023. "Unified Merger List in the Container Shipping Industry from 1966: A Structural Estimation of the Transition of Importance of a Firm's Age, Tonnage Capacity, and Geographical Proximity on Merger Decisi," Papers 2310.09938, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    2. Ravi Kashyap, 2024. "The Concentration Risk Indicator: Raising the Bar for Financial Stability and Portfolio Performance Measurement," Papers 2408.07271, arXiv.org.
    3. Tvedt, Jostein & Hovi, Inger Beate, 2024. "Container shipping: A market equilibrium perspective on freight rates formation post-Covid-19," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Mohammad Ghorbani & Michele Acciaro & Sandra Transchel & Pierre Cariou, 2022. "Strategic alliances in container shipping: A review of the literature and future research agenda," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(2), pages 439-465, June.
    5. Li, Lu & Wan, Yulai & Yang, Dong, 2024. "Do shipping alliances affect freight rates? Evidence from global satellite ship data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    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. Zhou, Yusheng & Li, Xue & Yuen, Kum Fai, 2022. "Holistic risk assessment of container shipping service based on Bayesian Network Modelling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    2. Nguyen Tran & Hans-Dietrich Haasis, 2014. "Empirical analysis of the container liner shipping network on the East-West corridor (1995–2011)," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 121-153, November.
    3. Hamid Saeedi & Bart Wiegmans & Behzad Behdani, 2021. "Measuring concentration in transhipment markets: methodologies and application to a European case," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 23(3), pages 548-568, September.
    4. Li, Shan & Haralambides, Hercules & Zeng, Qingcheng, 2022. "Economic forces shaping the evolution of integrated port systems - The case of the container port system of China's Pearl River Delta," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Mohammad Ghorbani & Michele Acciaro & Sandra Transchel & Pierre Cariou, 2022. "Strategic alliances in container shipping: A review of the literature and future research agenda," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(2), pages 439-465, June.
    6. Jason Monios & Gordon Wilmsmeier, 2022. "Maritime governance after COVID-19: how responses to market developments and environmental challenges lead towards degrowth," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(4), pages 699-722, December.
    7. Nowińska, Agnieszka & Schramm, Hans-Joachim, 2021. "Uncertainty, status-based homophily, versatility, repeat exchange and social exchange in the container shipping industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 524-536.
    8. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    9. Ricardo J. Sánchez & Daniel E. Perrotti & Alejandra Gomez Paz Fort, 2021. "Looking into the future ten years later: big full containerships and their arrival to south American ports," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Florian Szücs, 2013. "An Empirical Assessment of the 2004 EU Merger Policy Reform," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 596-619, November.
    11. van Driel, Hugo, 2000. "Collusion in transport: group effects in a historical perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 385-404, April.
    12. Werner Neus & Manfred Stadler & Maximiliane Unsorg, 2020. "Market structure, common ownership, and coordinated manager compensation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1268, October.
    13. Behzad Behdani & Bart Wiegmans & Violeta Roso & Hercules Haralambides, 2020. "Port-hinterland transport and logistics: emerging trends and frontier research," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 22(1), pages 1-25, March.
    14. Hariskos, W. & Königstein, M. & Papadopoulos, K.G., 2022. "Anti-competitive effects of partial cross-ownership: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 399-409.
    15. Jan Hoffmann & Naima Saeed & Sigbjørn Sødal, 2020. "Liner shipping bilateral connectivity and its impact on South Africa’s bilateral trade flows," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 22(3), pages 473-499, September.
    16. Alexandros M. Goulielmos, 2018. "“After End-2008 Structural Changes in Containership Market” and Their Impact on Industry’s Policy," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-21, November.
    17. Chen, Gang & Rytter, Niels G.M. & Jiang, Liping & Nielsen, Peter & Jensen, Lars, 2017. "Pre-announcements of price increase intentions in liner shipping spot markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 109-125.
    18. Brito, Duarte & Ribeiro, Ricardo & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2019. "Can partial horizontal ownership lessen competition more than a monopoly?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 90-95.
    19. ZHANG, Lu & GUO, Qing & ZHANG, Junbiao & HUANG, Yong & XIONG, Tao, 2015. "Did China׳s rare earth export policies work? — Empirical evidence from USA and Japan," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 82-90.
    20. Ángel L. López & Xavier Vives, 2019. "Overlapping Ownership, R&D Spillovers, and Antitrust Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(5), pages 2394-2437.

    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:pal:marecl:v:24:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1057_s41278-022-00225-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.