M.Soppe et aL/Journal of Transport Geography 17(2009)10-20 13 SLs have been the vector for this new economic organisation and the Data reported in Figs.2 and 3 show the geographical match be- match with a new global demand has been a real competitive chal- tween SLs'networks and those of container terminals.In spite of lenge for them.For the handling sector,the interest for and the possi- the general evolution towards global networks,and although the bilities of global extension have been more constrained.Geographical gap in concentration levels has been progressively filled by PTOs differences or configuration are not a real and direct source of benefits a geographical offset remains between the demand and the supply or competitiveness for them.Their international growth was driven sides.For the time being scarcely any terminal network has reached by the growing power of the carriers and by investment opportunities the critical size to be able to provide a global coverage.Although in ports opening the doors to foreign private investors. only few shipping lines can really claim to be global carriers Notwithstanding the lag in the stevedoring industry,the ship- (Fremont and Soppe,2004a).the SLs'networks have generally a ping and handling sectors have been experiencing a similar consol- wider geographical spread tending to a worldwide scale,achieved idation trend.The respective market concentration ratios both by the means of external growth or horizontal integration. converged to a similar level.In fact,in each industry the top 5 con- This geographical offset and maturity gap sets a frame in which trol over 40%of the market and,in 2006,the concentration ratio in the vertical coordination takes place.In spite of ongoing extension the stevedoring business experienced a strong acceleration follow- of PTOs'networks,the offer of terminal networks is still frag- ing the intense M&A activities.This means that stevedoring oper- mented.On one side such a situation prevents SLs from achieving ators have progressively filled the gap with their customers (i.e. an oligopoly of some mega-PTOs spread across all the major port SLs)in terms of concentration,increasing in turn their bargaining regions.On the other side,this limits the potential emergence power in negotiating handling contracts. and the related benefits of large scale co-operation between SLs 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% Liner shipping 30% Port handling 25% 20% 15% 10% 19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006 Fig.1.Evolution of market shares controlled by top five players in liner shipping and container handling.Note:Data on liner shipping are referred to the cellular fleet capacity of major carriers while port handling figures are referred to the total throughput of leading container terminal operators(both PTOs and ISLs).Throughput data of terminal operators are not calculated on an equity basis.Source:our elaborations from Containerisation International (various years).Drewry(2003.2004,2005.2006)and companies' websites.2006 figures are estimations. 100- 80 ☐Maersk MSC 60 ■CMA-CGM 40 Hapag-Lloyd Evergreen 20 三三 East ific ca Eur Africa F ar Nort So Fig.2.Shipping lines'weekly containerised t city regions(2006 data.%of the total SL's WCTC).Source:WCTC database(2006).Soppe M.,Parola F.,Fremont A.SLs have been the vector for this new economic organisation and the match with a new global demand has been a real competitive chal￾lenge for them. For the handling sector, the interest for and the possi￾bilities of global extension have been more constrained. Geographical differences or configuration are not a real and direct source of benefits or competitiveness for them. Their international growth was driven by the growing power of the carriers and by investment opportunities in ports opening the doors to foreign private investors. Notwithstanding the lag in the stevedoring industry, the ship￾ping and handling sectors have been experiencing a similar consol￾idation trend. The respective market concentration ratios both converged to a similar level. In fact, in each industry the top 5 con￾trol over 40% of the market and, in 2006, the concentration ratio in the stevedoring business experienced a strong acceleration follow￾ing the intense M& A activities. This means that stevedoring oper￾ators have progressively filled the gap with their customers (i.e. SLs) in terms of concentration, increasing in turn their bargaining power in negotiating handling contracts. Data reported in Figs. 2 and 3 show the geographical match be￾tween SLs’ networks and those of container terminals. In spite of the general evolution towards global networks, and although the gap in concentration levels has been progressively filled by PTOs, a geographical offset remains between the demand and the supply sides. For the time being scarcely any terminal network has reached the critical size to be able to provide a global coverage. Although only few shipping lines can really claim to be global carriers (Frémont and Soppé, 2004a), the SLs’ networks have generally a wider geographical spread tending to a worldwide scale, achieved by the means of external growth or horizontal integration. This geographical offset and maturity gap sets a frame in which the vertical coordination takes place. In spite of ongoing extension of PTOs’ networks, the offer of terminal networks is still frag￾mented. On one side such a situation prevents SLs from achieving an oligopoly of some mega-PTOs spread across all the major port regions. On the other side, this limits the potential emergence and the related benefits of large scale co-operation between SLs Fig. 1. Evolution of market shares controlled by top five players in liner shipping and container handling. Note: Data on liner shipping are referred to the cellular fleet capacity of major carriers while port handling figures are referred to the total throughput of leading container terminal operators (both PTOs and ISLs). Throughput data of terminal operators are not calculated on an equity basis. Source: our elaborations from Containerisation International (various years), Drewry (2003,2004,2005,2006) and companies’ websites. 2006 figures are estimations. Fig. 2. Shipping lines’ weekly containerised transport capacity distribution over world’s regions (2006 data, % of the total SL’s WCTC). Source: WCTC database (2006), Soppé M., Parola F., Frémont A. M. Soppé et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 17 (2009) 10–20 13