臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

鑑於海運業發生不斷變化，其主要組成往往經歷重組和改善的過程。以規模經濟為例，是由於規模的擴大而降低了成本，進而造成了航運業的巨大轉變。這也許是拓寬巴拿馬運河的主要原因。在沒有執行擴建項目的情況下，2016年6月26日以後大西洋和太平洋兩岸開始運行的新一輪的船閘，巴拿馬運河很有可能成為競爭力較弱的路線，巴拿馬海事集群的其他成員。
本研究著重於巴拿馬運河拓寬的影響，特別是巴拿馬港口的競爭力。港口競爭力已經在港口文獻中得到廣泛的研究，並且與港口供應鏈整合和增值服務有關。本研究將探討這種方法和其他用於測量和分析港口競爭力的標準。通過這些方法，研究將評估巴拿馬港口的競爭地位，以便更好地了解當前的競爭力極脆弱度，並準備面對後擴張時代帶來的新挑戰。
本研究使用問卷調查，受測者為巴拿馬共和國的港口運營商和物流服務提供商，研究結果使用PLS-SEM進行分析，預計將成為對巴拿馬港口及其進一步發展進行評估的指導。

In view of the constant changes taking place in the maritime industry, its main components are often going through a process of restructuration and improvement. A clear example, the economies of scale, basically defined as a reduction in costs by an increase in size, have caused significant transformations in the shipping industry. This was perhaps the main reason for the expansion of the Panama Canal. Without the execution of the expansion project, it is highly probable that the Panama Canal which has been operating with a new set of locks on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides since June 26th, 2016 would have become a less competitive route, affecting as well the other members of the Panamanian maritime cluster.
This study focuses on the impacts of the Panama Canal expansion, specifically on the competitiveness of the Panamanian ports. Port competitiveness is a subject that has been broadly studied in the port literature and has been associated with the port supply chain integration and value added services, which are the current rules of the game in the port industry. This research will explore this approach and other criteria used for measurement and analysis of port competitiveness. Through these approaches, the study will evaluate the competitive status of Panamanian ports in order to get a better perspective of its current competitiveness and readiness to face the new challenges brought by the post-expansion era.
The methodology that will be applied for the data collection is a questionnaire survey that will be distributed to port operators and logistics service providers in the republic of Panama. The results of this research will be analyzed using PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares/ Structural Equation Modeling) and are expected to serve as a guidance for the assessment of Panamanian ports and their further development.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

摘要……………………………………………………………………………...i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..iv
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………..vii
Table of Figures……………………………………………………………….viii
I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………........1
1.1 Research Background………………………………………….................1
1.2 Research Motivation…………………………………………...................3
1.3 Research Objectives and Questions.…………………………………......4
1.4 Research Flow Chart………………………………………………...…...5
II. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………….......7
2.1 The Panama Canal Expansion Project and Impact………………………7
2.1.1 Impacts on Cargo Flows………………………………………12
2.1.2 Impacts on Transshipment Hubs Ports….…………………….12
2.2 Direct Impacts of the Expansion in Panama……....…...……………….13
2.3 Barriers to Port Development in Latin America………...……………...14
2.4 Competitiveness in the Industry…………….…………….……………17
2.4.1 Port Industry…………………………………………………17
2.4.2 Port Industry Business Players………………………………18
2.4.3 Competitiveness Analysis of Port Industry…………….........20
2.5 Port Competitiveness…...………………………………………………23
2.5.1 Determinants of Port Competitiveness………………………24
2.5.2 Models of Analysis of Port Competitiveness…………….….26
2.5.2.1 Port Supply Chain Integration and Value Proposition...27
2.5.2.2 Inter-organizational Networks…………………….….28
2.5.2.3 Port Performance……………………………………...29

2.6 Main Seaports in Panama…………………………………………..30
2.7 Preview to the Data Analysis Method……………………………...32
2.8 Summary……………………………………………………............33
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………....35
3.1 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………….35
3.2 Research Constructs and Measurements…………………………...36
3.3 Hypotheses…………………………………………………………41
3.4 Questionnaire Design………………………………………………44
3.5 Data Collection……………………………………………………..44
3.6 Data Analysis Method……………………………………………...46
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………..……………………..50
4.1 PLS-SEM Results…………………………………………………..50
4.2 Test of Measurement Model………………………………………..51
4.3 Structural Model Assessment………………………………………57
4.4 Discussions and Findings…………………………………………..59
4.5 Managerial Implications……………………………………………61
V. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………….63
5.1 Concluding Remarks……………………………………………….63
5.2 Research Limitations……………………………………………….63
5.3 Future Research…………………………………………………….64
VI. REFERENCES………………………..………………………………65
VII. APPENDIX…………………………………………………………..71

VI. REFERENCE
1. Atkinson, R. 2013. Competitiveness, Innovation and Productivity: Cleaning up the confusion. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Washington, D.C.

2. Bagozzi, R. (1980). Causal Models in Marketing, New York: Wiley.

3. Bagozzi, R.P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

4. Baumgartner et al., (1996). Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing and Consumer Research: A Review. International Journal of Research Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.

5. Bhadury, J. 2016. Panama Canal expansion and its impact on East and Gulf coast ports of U.S.A. Maritime Policy and Management, 43 (8), 28-944.

6. Bichou, K. and Gray, R. 2004. A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement. Maritime Policy and Management, 31 (1), 41-67.

7. Bichou, K. and Gray, R. (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(1), 47-67

8. Carbone, V. and De Martino, M. 2003. The changing role of ports in supply-chain management an empirical analysis. Maritime Policy and Management, 30 (4), 285-308.

9. Chin et al., 1996. A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and Voice Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. ICIS Proceedings.6.

10. Carlan et al., 2016. Digital Innovation in the Port Sector: Barriers and Facilitators. 5th Conference on the Regulation of Infrastructure (2016).

11. Cropper et al., 2008. The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations. Oxford handbooks in business and management, Oxford, United Kingdom.

12. Cullinane, K. and Wang, Y. (2008) Measuring container port accessibility: An application of the Principal Eigenvector Method (PEM). Maritime Economics and Logistics, 10(1), 75-89.

13. De Langen, P. W. and Pallis, A. A. 2006. Analysis of the benefits of intra-port competition, International Journal of Transport Economics, 69-85.

14. De Martino, M. and Morvillo, Alfonso, 2008. Activities, resources and inter-organizational relationships: key factors in port competitiveness. Maritime Policy and Management, 35 (6), 571-589.

15. Dyer, J., and Hatch, N.W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 701-719.

16. Edmonds, T. (2000). Regional Competitiveness & the Role of the Knowledge Economy. House of Commons Library. Research paper. London: Research Publications Office, 73-55.

17. Frankel, 2002. The Challenge of Container Transshipment in the Caribbean. IAME Panama 2002 Conference Proceedings, Panama, 13-15, November 2002.

18. Guerrero, P. and Abad, J. 2013. Port-centric development: strategic logistics investments. Technical Note No. IDB-TN-510. New York: Inter-American Development Bank.

19. Hair et al., 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151.

20. Hair et al., 2013. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). London, Sage.

21. Heaver et al., (2000). Do mergers and alliances influence European shipping and port competition? Maritime Policy and Management, 27(4), 363-373

22. Heaver et al., (2001). Cooperation and Competition in International Container Transport: Strategies for Ports”, Maritime Policy and Management, 28 (3), 293-305.

23. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204.

24. Hult et. al., (2007). Strategic supply chain management: Improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1035-1052.

25. Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M., 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Partial Least Square Analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283-297

26. Kim et al., 2016. Competitiveness in a Multipolar Port System: Striving for Regional Gateway Status in Northeast Asia. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32 (2), 119-125

27. Martin, J. and Thomas, B. J. (2001). The Container Terminal Community. Maritime Policy and Management, 28(3), 279-292.

28. Martinez et al., 2016. East Coast v. West Coast: The Impact of the Panama Canal’s Expansion on the Routing of Asian Imports into the United States. Transportation Research Part E, 91 (2016), 274-289

29. Martino et al., (2013). Logistics innovation in Seaports: An inter-organizational perspective. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 8(2013), 123-133

30. Nalebuff et al., (1996). Coopetition, ISL Forlang AB: Oskarsham.

31. Notteboom, T.E. and Winkelmans, W. (2001). Structural changes in logistics: How will port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management, 28 (1), 71-89

32. Notteboom, T. and Yap, W. (2012). Port Competition and Competitiveness. The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics, red. W.K. Talley, 549-570. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

33. OECD (2011). Competition in Ports and Port Services, OECD Competition Committee Roundtable Discussion.

34. OECD (2014). The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities, OECD Publishing, France.

35. Pagano et al., 2012. Impacts of the Panama Canal Expansion on the Panamanian Economy. Maritime Policy and Management, 39 (7), 705-722

36. Pagano et al., 2016. The Impact of the Panama Canal Expansion on Panama’s Maritime Cluster. Maritime Policy and Management, 43 (2), 164-178

37. Pallis et al. 2011. Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content Classification and Survey. Transport Reviews, 31 (4), 445-471

38. Pallis, A.A. and Kladaki, P. 2016. Port Collaboration Beyond Proximity: Inter-organizational relationships of Port Management Entities. IAME Conference 2016, 23-26 August 2016, Hamburg, Germany.

39. Parola et al., (2016). The drivers of port competitiveness: a critical review. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 116-138

40. Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press

41. Porter, M.E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London.

42. Plumins et al., (2016). Competitiveness definitions and concepts qualitative content analysis. 21st International Scientific Conference, Economics and Management, Czech Republic.

43. Robinson, R. 1992. Competitive Efficiency and competitive advantage: the basis for Australian port reform. Paper presented at Maritime Technology 21st Century Conference, 1992, University of Melbourne.

44. Robinson, R. 2002. Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The New Paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management, 29 (3), 73-87

45. Richter et al., (2014). A critical look at the use of SEM in international business research. International Marketing Review, 33 (3), 376-404.

46. Rodrigue, J-P (2010). Maritime Transportation: Drivers for the Shipping and Port Industries”, International Transport Forum, Forum Paper 2010-2, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

47. Rodrigue, J-P (2013). The Panama Canal Expansion: Business as Usual or Game Changer? VIII Meeting of the Inter American Committee on Ports, Cartagena (Colombia)

48. Rodrigue, J-P and Ashar, A. 2016. Transshipment Hubs in the New Panamax Era: The Role of the Caribbean. Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 51, 270-279

49. Rodrigue, J-P and Notteboom, T. (2009) The Terminalization of Supply Chains: Reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime Policy & Management 36 (2), 165-183.

50. Rodrigue, J-P and Notteboom, T. 2015. The Legacy and Future of the Panama Canal. TR News, No. 296, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies

51. Rodgers, W. and Pavlou, P. (2003). Developing a predictive model: a comparative study of the partial least squares vs maximum likelihood techniques (Working Paper). Graduate School of Management, University of California, Riverside.

52. Sarstedt, M., et al. 2014. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). A Useful Tool for Family Business Researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 105-115

53. Sanchez, R. J. et al. (2003). Port Efficiency and International Trade. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5(3), 199-218.

54. Sys, C. et al (2015). “Executive Summary” http://anet.be/record/opacirua/c:irua:127919

55. Song, D. –W. (2010). Port co-opetition in concept and practice. Maritime Policy and Management, 30 (1), 29-44.

56. Song, D. -W. and Panayides, P. M. 2008. Global Supply Chain and Port/Terminal: Integration and Competitiveness. Maritime Policy and Management, 35 (1), 73-87.

57. Song, D. –W. and Panayides, P. M. 2004. Port Integration in global supply chains: measures and implications for maritime logistics. Maritime Policy and Management, 12 (2) 133-145.

58. Stigler, George (1987) in The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics, J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman, eds., The MacMillan Press Limited, London, 531-535.

59. The World Bank (2007). Port Reform Toolkit (Module 2): The Evolution of ports in a competitive world. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007.

60. Tongzon, J. and Ganesalingam, S. (1994). An evaluation of ASEAN port performance and efficiency. Asian Economic Journal, 8(3), 317-330.

61. Tongzon, J. and Heng, W. (2009). Transformation of port terminal, efficiency and competitiveness: some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals). Transportation Research Part A, 39, 405-424

62. Tongzon, J. and Sawant, L. (2007). Port choice in a competitive environment: from the shipping line’s perspective. Applied Economics, 39 (4) 477-492.

63. U.S. Department of Transportation, (2013). Panama Canal Expansion Study. U.S. Department of Transportation. Maritime Administration.

64. UNCTAD (1992). Port marketing and the challenge of the third generation port. UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva

65. UNCTAD (1996). Potentialities for Regional Port Cooperation. Report No. UNCTAD/SDD/PORT/5, UNCTAD Secretariat, 1996.

66. UNESCAP (2005). Free trade zone and port hinterland development. United Nations ESCAP, Seoul, Korea. Korea Maritime Institute.

67. Ungo, R. and Sabonge, R. 2012. A Competitive analysis of Panama Canal routes. Maritime Policy and Management, 39 (6), 555-570.

68. Van de Voorde, E. and Winkelmans, W. (2002). A general introduction to port competition and management. Port Competitiveness: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the factors determining the competitiveness of seaports, pp 1-16. Antwerp: De Boeck.

69. Wong, K. K. –K. 2013. Partial Least Squares Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulleting, 24, 1-32

70. Yeo, G.-T and Song, D.-W (2006). An Application of the Hierarchical Fuzzy Process to Container Port Competition: Policy and Strategic Implications. Transportation, 33 (4), 409-422.

71. Yeo, G.-T et al., 2008. Evaluating the Competitiveness of Container Ports in Korea and China. Transportation Research Part A, 42(2008), 910-921

72. Yeo, G.-T. et al., 2015. An Analysis of Port Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: The Case of Korean Container Ports. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 31 (4) 437-447

73. Yuen, Chi-lok et. al., 2012. Port Competitiveness from the User’s Perspective: An AHP Analysis of Major Container Ports in Asia Pacific. Research in Transportation Economics, 35(1), 34-40.