Port governance and the implications of institutional fragmentation: Lessons from Colombia

Abstract

Thirty years ago, Colombia abolished the State monopoly of port governance. This reform was aligned with the widespread ‘first global wave’ of port reforms yet marked by several variations. The most striking ones are the absence of a classic Port Authority - i.e., a single entity managing, developing, and regulating one or more ports at either local, regional, or national level - and the consequent institutional fragmentation. A plurality of institutions has been responsible for specific aspects of port governance. This historical progression allows for a reflection on the present model and examining a broader issue in port governance: what are the implications of institutional fragmentation? This study compares the standing of public and private actors vis-a-vis port governance (their understanding of the rules of the game), their long-term strategic visions, and the potential intra-sectoral divisions. It also evaluates whether the low capacities of port managing entities have led to a structure-strategy mismatch that undermines improvements in the respective ports. The empirical research involved a two-stage online survey with the participation of relevant public and private actors, detailing perceptions of the current setting and future expectations of the distribution of port governance responsibilities. Three groups of port governance activities are under examination: (a) port policy formation, (b) management of concessions, and (c) market and price regulation. Social network analysis (SNA) was applied to contrast public and private sector perceptions. It reveals differences and commonalities in stakeholders' perspectives on the current Colombian port governance model and its desired future structures. Integrating these insights with the ‘matching framework’ approach of port governance allows for conceptualising the consequences of port governance fragmentation.