<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In developing countries, Port Authorities (PAs) face a dual challenge: ensuring the competitiveness<\/strong> of their ports in an increasingly sophisticated sector affected by multiple disruptions, whilst operating under institutional, financial and operational constraints<\/strong>. Traditionally, most port authorities adopt the landlord model<\/strong>, in which the public sector retains ownership and regulatory control, whilst the private sector carries out port operations through long-term concessions. However, this model, which has characterised the modernisation of the sector in recent decades, no longer fully meets current needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n As the global economy becomes increasingly integrated and logistics chains grow more complex, the various stakeholders are demanding that Port Authorities evolve in their role, moving from being mere managers of port infrastructure to organisations responsible for fostering innovation<\/strong>, the development of new businesses beyond the port area, sustainability<\/strong>, logistical integration<\/strong> with the wider region, support in energy and defence matters, digitalisation<\/strong> and the management of data for the port community, amongst other aspects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The practical implication is clear. Port authorities that remain confined to the narrow script of the landlord model <\/strong>run the risk of becoming strategically incomplete institutions in an era in which competitiveness depends on the ability to structure and orchestrate systems, and not simply to manage assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are not trivial functions. In one of the chapters of my PhD thesis, I analysed precisely the degree of attention paid to these activities by port authorities in emerging countries. The level of adoption of practices in these areas was low. It is important to note that there has been an evolution in recent years, particularly in terms of interest, commitment and attempts to reorient the approach towards a model that some researchers refer to as the \u2018advanced landlord<\/strong>\u2019. However, in terms of concrete results, little has changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The performance of a port authority<\/strong> is heavily influenced by its institutional context<\/strong>. In developed countries<\/strong>, corporatised structures, with greater financial and strategic autonomy, enable a more dynamic and results-oriented approach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast, in developing countries<\/strong>, close ties to the government and boards of directors with significant political influence often end up limiting decision-making freedom and shifting the focus away from \u2018micro-level\u2019 objectives\u2014such as operational efficiency, profitability and innovation\u2014towards \u2018macro-level\u2019 goals, which are more vague and difficult to measure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This imbalance between autonomy and dependence creates what might be called an \u2018institutional trap<\/strong>\u2019, in which the port authority operates with low levels of professionalisation, a lack of clear goals and falls short of the strategic maturity required to move towards new functions demanded by the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The port authorities of the world\u2019s most efficient and innovative ports balance two key objectives<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n These objectives coexist under a \u2018shared value\u2019 approach, in which the port authority acts simultaneously as a promoter of the region\u2019s social and economic development (a public dimension), and as a business organisation seeking new sources of revenue to ensure the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of its cluster (a more private dimension).<\/p>\n\n\n\n To achieve this strategic maturity, the Port Authority must expand the functional, geographical and vertical scope<\/strong> of its activities, moving beyond its traditional role as a land and concession administrator to become a key player in creating initiatives to attract and generate value for its port community in this new context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The evolution of the landlord model<\/strong> does not merely entail greater efficiency in the management of concessions, but also the expansion of the port authority\u2019s strategic role as an orchestrator of the logistics, industrial and energy ecosystem. This transformation can be understood through four complementary areas of action:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1 \u2013 Institutional and regulatory foundations<\/strong> These correspond to the traditional and structural functions of the port authority:<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2 \u2013 Territorial integration and logistics<\/strong> Broadening the focus beyond the port perimeter by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n 3- Competitiveness, data and energy<\/strong> Positioning the port as a platform for efficiency and value creation through:<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe institutional context: dependence, autonomy and constraints<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Is there such a thing as an ideal model?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Beyond the landlord: the new dimensions of strategic expansion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n