The Strategy of Busan Port For Northeast Asia Hub Port

African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(26), pp.
10492-10498, 28 October, 2011

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.399
ISSN 1993-8233 2011 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
The strategy of Busan Port for Northeast Asia hub port

Lee, Sang Ok1, Lee, Ki Woong1*, Kang, Heung Jung1 and Lee, Myoung Bae2
1
Department of International Trade, College of Social Science, Konkuk University, Korea.

2
Department of International Trade, Graduate School of Konkuk University, Korea.
Accepted 29 March, 2011
With the center of the world economy moving to Northeast Asia, areas including China, Northeast Asia
areas are witnessing dynamic economic activities taking place together with the revitalization of
exchanges. Accordingly, the logistics network and infrastructure are being expanded with the increase
in demand for international logistics, and each country is going all out for developing their country into
a logistics hub. Korea has also been promoting its own strategy for becoming a logistics hub in
Northeast Asia areas centering on Busan Port, since the mid-1990s. Expansion of harbor logistics
facilities centering on Shanghai Port and Shenzhen Port led by China, and promotion of the plan for
super hub ports through the choice and concentration led by Japan are creating keen competition
among the region. There is a limit to the competitive strength of a port, only through the external
growth relying on simply the increase in port traffic; rather, it is necessary to create employment and
added value by forming an organic network with its adjacent port distripark and back industrial
complex and then by attracting global corporations into the port. The purpose of this study is to
contribute Busan port to become a logistics hub of Northeast Asia.
Key words: Busan hub port, port competition, Northeast Asia, co-opetition, international shipping network.
INTRODUCTION
As Northeast Asia, including China becomes the world's
economy center, the region becomes economically more
active. Along with increasing international logistic demand in
the region, the countries strive to develop themselves as the
logistic center expanding the respective network and
infrastructure. Since mid 1990, Korea has also been
implementing strategies to become the region's logistic
center with Busan Port. Ports' competitiveness requires not
only numerical growth from volume increase, but also to
generate new employments and other benefits with global
companies, for which forming organic network with industrial
complexes is necessary. Despite the national policy to
develop Busan Port as the region's logistic center and further
the world's center, yet the result is under expectations.
On the contrary, there have recently been policy changes
for Ports of China and Japan. Shanghai and Shenzen Port
exceed Busan Port in terms of volume and scale of facilities.
In addition, new logistic frameworks have been formed
between China and ASEAN region. ASEAN's new
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kiwoongl@yahoo.com.
economical conditions are expected to have a great

influence on Korea's logistic policy. Along with the changes
in conditions, it is time for new Port policies to be developed.
Pre-conditions for competitive Ports on international level are
geographical location, facilities, cost, and level of service.
According to Notteboom and Winkelmans (2001),
efficiency in Port management, logistic cost, management
credibility, customer preference, depth of Port's waterway,
flexibility in market changes, access to rear areas and
differentiated service are key elements to strengthen Port's
international competitiveness. Putting aside factors as
geographical location and depth of waterway given Busan's
outstanding location and limitations in fieldwork, this study
reflects efficiency, credibility, competitiveness, and access
elements into enhancing Busan Port's competitiveness and
management. Previously, both domestic and foreign studies
are not capable of, being used as actual support for Port
related policy, lacking in actual analysis in terms of mutual
relation and influence between ports. This study evaluates
current status of Korea's center Port, Busan Port in capacity
of becoming Northeast Asia's center Port. The suggestions
are provided based on the evaluation and current Port policy
and strategies.
Ok et al.
LITERATURE REVIEW
According to Korea's Basic Logistics Law revised on May
9th 2009, 'logistics' refer to actions of 'transport, storage,
loading, and additional processing, assembly, classification, repairing, packing, trade marking, selling, and
information communication that occur in the process from
product supplied by suppliers, to be used and destroyed
by consumers. Murphy (1992) analyzed key decisive
factors based on port's facilities and services as facility
capacity, timely processing, operating with large vessels,
processing of non-standardized goods, and transport
information. Haezendonck (2002) recommended competitive advantage of Antwerp port' strategies based on
analysis of large port facility, flexibility, and workers
productivity.
According to Notteboom and Winkelmans (2001) study,
business environment of Port management is changing
rapidly, and the rapid changes are questioning
governments' role. Furthermore, it is addressed that, how
structural changes in international trade and sea
transport has strong impact, therefore new role and
responsibility need to be granted to governments in order
to successfully respond to rapid environmental changes.
Co-opetition between neighbor and distant ports is
recommended. New model in which Port logistic industries
can collaborate, PLCM (Port-Logistics Chain Management)
is presented. Regarding decisive factors of industrial
competitiveness, Porters diamond analysis is generally
recognized. Porter (1990) presented international competitiveness model called Diamond Model,' acknowledging
conventional trade theories or macroeconomics based on
traditional comparison method cannot fully explain trade
within the industry and global competition.
Especially, most of previous studies are focused on a port
of a specific country or specific region, and their evaluations
are based on limited, port customer perspective (Heaver,
1995; Hayuth and Fleming, 1994). Nevertheless, Brooks
(2000), Malchow and Kanafani (2001) focus on enhancing
port competitiveness of a specific region. Notteboom (1997)
analyzed development strategies of the center port within
European Container Port System. Haezendonck (2001) has
developed Notteboom's (1997) study into higher level, by
presenting competitor changes and Antwerf Port's higher
competitiveness through analysis of strategical positioning.
Importance of ports' and products' superiority was
discovered through various analytic tools. Environmental
changes such as merging and acquisition of port managing
and shipping companies demand towards high level port
service, global logistic service and cost reduction are
proposed to gain competitiveness. However, the actual
analysis for ports' competition by period has not been done.
HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In terms of Port management strategies, Nottemom and Winkelmans
(2001) state managerial attributes for port's global competitiveness,
classified as efficiency of port management, transport cost, credibility in
10493
port management, customer preference, depth of port waterway, access

to neighboring areas and service differentiation. Therefore, the four
elements of global network establishment which are co-opetition
establishment between ports, cluster establishment between ports,
logistic support system establishment, and global logistic network
establishment based on Pearson's diagram are integrated with
supplementary and special support programs released by Ministry of
Strategy and Finance in 2009.
Including the integration aforestated, Nottemom and Winkelmans' four
elements efficiency, credibility, competitiveness, and access is put into a
diagram as in Figure 1.
Regarding the integration model above and how much synergy effect
that can be maximized, the following hypotheses can be formulated.
H1: Elements of the establishment have a positive impact on
governmental policies.
H1-1: Elements of the establishment have a positive impact on
government's supplementary policies.
H1-1-1: Elements of co-opetition establishment have a positive impact on
H1-1-2: Elements of cluster establishment have a positive impact on
H1-1-3: Elements of logistic support system establishment have a positive
impact on government's supplementary policies.
H1-1-4: Elements of global network establishment have a positive impact
on government's supplementary policies.
H1-2: Elements of the establishment have a positive impact on government's
special policies.
H1-2-1: Elements of Co-opetition establishment have a positive impact on
government's special policies.
impact on government's special policies.
on government's special policies.
As the government's policies affect port establishment
management, the following hypotheses can be formulated,
and
H2: Elements of governmental policies have a positive impact on port

management strategies.
H2-1: Supplementary policies have a positive impact on port
H2-1-1: Supplementary policies have a positive impact on port
management efficiency.
management credibility.
H2-1-3: Supplementary policies have a positive impact on port management
competitiveness.
management access. H2-2: Special policies have a positive impact on
port management strategies.
H2-2-1: Special policies have a positive impact on port management
efficiency.
credibility.
competitiveness.
access.
This study adopted SPSS13.0 and AMOS7.0and utilized AMOS7.0
to analyze the goodness of fit for overall model and interpretative
capability. In the Pearson correlation, all factors had an obvious
positive correlation. The assessment results showed that, LISREL
Model used in this study has a perfect goodness of fit. 450
Ok et al.
LITERATURE REVIEW
According to Korea's Basic Logistics Law revised on May
9th 2009, 'logistics' refer to actions of 'transport, storage,
loading, and additional processing, assembly, classification, repairing, packing, trade marking, selling, and
information communication that occur in the process from
product supplied by suppliers, to be used and destroyed
by consumers. Murphy (1992) analyzed key decisive
factors based on port's facilities and services as facility
capacity, timely processing, operating with large vessels,
processing of non-standardized goods, and transport
information. Haezendonck (2002) recommended competitive advantage of Antwerp port' strategies based on
analysis of large port facility, flexibility, and workers
productivity.
According to Notteboom and Winkelmans (2001) study,
business environment of Port management is changing
rapidly, and the rapid changes are questioning
governments' role. Furthermore, it is addressed that, how
structural changes in international trade and sea
transport has strong impact, therefore new role and
responsibility need to be granted to governments in order
to successfully respond to rapid environmental changes.
Co-opetition between neighbor and distant ports is
recommended. New model in which Port logistic industries
can collaborate, PLCM (Port-Logistics Chain Management)
is presented. Regarding decisive factors of industrial
competitiveness, Porters diamond analysis is generally
recognized. Porter (1990) presented international competitiveness model called Diamond Model,' acknowledging
conventional trade theories or macroeconomics based on
traditional comparison method cannot fully explain trade
within the industry and global competition.
Especially, most of previous studies are focused on a port
of a specific country or specific region, and their evaluations
are based on limited, port customer perspective (Heaver,
1995; Hayuth and Fleming, 1994). Nevertheless, Brooks
(2000), Malchow and Kanafani (2001) focus on enhancing
port competitiveness of a specific region. Notteboom (1997)
analyzed development strategies of the center port within
European Container Port System. Haezendonck (2001) has
developed Notteboom's (1997) study into higher level, by
presenting competitor changes and Antwerf Port's higher
competitiveness through analysis of strategical positioning.
Importance of ports' and products' superiority was
discovered through various analytic tools. Environmental
changes such as merging and acquisition of port managing
and shipping companies demand towards high level port
service, global logistic service and cost reduction are
proposed to gain competitiveness. However, the actual
analysis for ports' competition by period has not been done.
HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In terms of Port management strategies, Nottemom and Winkelmans
(2001) state managerial attributes for port's global competitiveness,
classified as efficiency of port management, transport cost, credibility in
10493
port management, customer preference, depth of port waterway, access

to neighboring areas and service differentiation. Therefore, the four
elements of global network establishment which are co-opetition
establishment between ports, cluster establishment between ports,
logistic support system establishment, and global logistic network
establishment based on Pearson's diagram are integrated with
supplementary and special support programs released by Ministry of
Strategy and Finance in 2009.
Including the integration aforestated, Nottemom and Winkelmans' four
elements efficiency, credibility, competitiveness, and access is put into a
diagram as in Figure 1.
Regarding the integration model above and how much synergy effect
that can be maximized, the following hypotheses can be formulated.
H1: Elements of the establishment have a positive impact on
governmental policies.
H1-1: Elements of the establishment have a positive impact on
H1-1-1: Elements of co-opetition establishment have a positive impact on
impact on government's supplementary policies.
on government's supplementary policies.
H1-2: Elements of the establishment have a positive impact on government's
special policies.
H1-2-1: Elements of Co-opetition establishment have a positive impact on
impact on government's special policies.
on government's special policies.
As the government's policies affect port establishment
management, the following hypotheses can be formulated,
and
H2: Elements of governmental policies have a positive impact on port

H2-1: Supplementary policies have a positive impact on port
management efficiency.
management credibility.
H2-1-3: Supplementary policies have a positive impact on port management
competitiveness.
management access. H2-2: Special policies have a positive impact on
efficiency.
credibility.
competitiveness.
access.
This study adopted SPSS13.0 and AMOS7.0and utilized AMOS7.0
to analyze the goodness of fit for overall model and interpretative
capability. In the Pearson correlation, all factors had an obvious
positive correlation. The assessment results showed that, LISREL
Model used in this study has a perfect goodness of fit. 450
10494
Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
questionnaires were distributed in order to meet the requirement of

sample size. This study recovered 423 copies, deleting 36 invalid
questionnaires; there were 387 valid questionnaires in total.
2 (22.541%) was named Co-opetition.' In addition, Factor 3

(22.350%) was named as Global Network, as Factor 4
(21.887%) was named Cluster.' These four factors with
loading score of over 0.4 were analyzed to secure validity.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Reliability and validity verification of measurement tool
Validity verification of the governmental policies
Reliability verification
The result of factor analysis for the governmental policies

based on 12 questions to identify lower level. Firstly,
Bartlett's result of unit matrix check up was =7498.534
(Sig.=0.000) which was high enough to have correlation
factors between variables. Result of KMO sample validity
check up was 0.778, while the other results of commonness
check were also satisfying factor analysis hypotheses.
Therefore, factor analysis was conducted as follows.
Consequently, a total of 2 factors were identified and were
named after the core concept of factor items. Factor 1
(45.435%) was named Special Policies', as Factor 2
(43.090%) was named Supplementary Policies.' These two
factors with loading score of over 0.4 were analyzed to
secure validity.
Reliability means internal consistency between measuring

questions, to the extent of measurement variables.
Cronbach's alpha coefficient for measuring reliability of
precision of measurement tools in various items was used to
measure reliability in this study. In general, it is considered
reliable for Alpha Coefficient number to be higher than 0.6;
and reliability for measurement can be improved by deleting
items with low reliability.
Validity verification
Exploratory factor analysis was used to verify validity of
variables in this study. Validity is an index which measures
how precise a concept or an attribute is using the measurement tool. Especially, principal components analysis was
used to minimize information loss by keeping minimum
number of factors. Varimax which is a right angle rotation
was used as a rotation type. In terms of number of factors,
eigen value of only 1 or above was selected. Factor loading
which shows correlation between each variable and factor,
only 0.4 or above is evaluated to be positive.
Items with factor loading lower than 0.4 were deleted to
increase validity of measurement tools based on factor
analysis. Factor analysis requires high correlation between
items; and KMO and Bartlett's round black verify correlation
matrix between items to show used items are valid for factor
analysis. Kaise-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) represents information
well-explained by variables with different correlation between
variable pairs. Therefore, small KMO numbers mean
variable selection for factor analysis was not good. In
general, KMO scores of 0.09 or higher is considered good
while scores of 0.50 or lower is not accepted as variables.
Validity verification of the port management strategies

The result of factor analysis for the port management
strategies based on 20 questions to identify lower level.
Firstly, Bartlett's result of unit matrix check up was
=8405.443 (Sig.=0.000) which was high enough to have
correlation factors between variables. Result of KMO sample
validity check up was 0.827, while the other results of
commonness check were also satisfying factor analysis
hypotheses. Therefore, factor analysis was conducted as
follows. Consequently, a total of 4 factors were identified and
(21.408%) was named Efficiency', as Factor 2 (20.879%)
was named Access'. In addition, Factor 3 (20.841%) was
named as Credibility, as Factor 4 (21.887%) was named
Competitiveness.' These four factors with loading score of
over 0.4 were analyzed to secure validity.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis

Validity verification of the establishment
The result of factor analysis for the establishment based on
20 questions to identify lower level. Firstly, Bartlett's result of
unit matrix check up was =12097.928 (Sig. =0.000) which
was high enough to have correlation factors between
variables. Result of KMO sample validity check up was
0.796, while the other results of commonness check were
also satisfying factor analysis hypotheses. Therefore, factor
analysis was conducted as subsequently stated.
Consequently, a total of 4 factors were identified and were
(22.891%) was named Logistic Support System', as Factor
Prior to the hypotheses proof. Confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) was conducted to confirm the single fact, of study
construct that consists of multiple items. Confirmatory factor
analysis forms relations between variables and analyzes
factors under theoretical background. The method is used to
verify the hypotheses and underlying factors based on the
researcher's knowledge, checking the validity of relations. In
general, a single construct is to use 3 or more measuring
variables. In order to judge overall goodness of research unit
and model, goodness indexes provided by the structural
model as (chi-square statistics), GFI (goodness- of-fit index),
AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit index), RMR (root mean
square residual), NFI (normal-fit index), CFI (comparative fit
index) were used to evaluate goodness of research unit in
Ok et al.
10495
Table 1. The result of confirmatory factor analysis for the port management strategies.
Factor
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Credibility
Credibility
Credibility
Credibility
Credibility
Competitiveness
Competitiveness
Competitiveness
Competitiveness
Competitiveness
Access
Access
Access
Access
Access
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
Item of measurement
Efficiency5
Efficiency4
Efficiency3
Efficiency2
Efficiency1
Credibility5
Credibility4
Credibility3
Credibility2
Credibility1
Competitiveness5
Competitiveness4
Competitiveness3
Competitiveness2
Competitiveness1
Access5
Access4
Access3
Access2
Access1
Loadage
1.000
0.778
0.880
0.795
0.644
1.000
0.938
2.175
1.803
1.918
1.000
1.203
1.833
1.879
1.667
1.000
1.067
1.299
1.095
1.275
Standard error
t-value
0.021
0.019
0.020
0.018
37.538
45.301
38.971
35.011
0.064
0.103
0.088
0.104
14.745
21.156
20.397
18.434
0.129
0.176
0.197
0.172
9.343
10.418
9.532
9.718
0.032
0.026
0.037
0.032
33.800
50.776
29.206
40.011
Goodness: Chi square=234.685 (p=0.000), RMR=0.039, GFI=0.935, AGFI=0.851, NFI=0.973, CFI=0.983.
this study.
Firstly, chi-square statistics is used to judge completeness
of a model in other words whether a model is completely
good. It is recommended to consider other indexes of
goodness together, as there are cases even with high chisquare value and a low probability, where the model is right
but with wrong confirmatory conditions. Secondly, goodnessof-fit index (GFI) which generally lies between 0 and 1 is
evaluated as a good model, if index lies on 0.9 or above with
sample size of 200 or higher. Thirdly, adjusted goodness-offit index (AGFI) which is freely adjusted, is also considered
good with 0.9 or above. Fourthly, root mean square residual
(RMR) is established based on deviation average between
elements of analyzed matrix and reproduced matrix by
unknowns. While there are no absolute standards, good
model has a score close to 0, as relatively lower models are
to have higher scores than 0. In general, a model is
considered appropriate ranging between 0.050.08. Fifthly,
the overall indexes are highly affected by sample size.
Respectively, standardized goodness index NFI and nonstandardized goodness index NNFI which is least affected by
sample size were checked in this study. In addition,
goodness index for comparison (CFI) which shows level of
goodness with a score of 0.9 or above in comparison of null
model and hypotheses model, was also used.
Factors of the establishment
It has been proven through the indexes as (chi-square
statistics)=(339.714), p value=(0.000), RMR (root mean

square residual)=(0.089), GFI (goodness-of-fit index)=
(0.909), AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit index)=(0.702), NFI
(standardized goodness index)=(0.973), CFI(goodness index
for comparison)=(0.977), that measurement for goodness of
research unit was appropriately composed.
Factors of the governmental policies
(standardized goodness index)=(0.965), CFI (goodness
index for comparison)=(0.967), that measurement for
goodness of research unit was appropriately composed.
Factors of the port management strategies

Table 1 is the result of confirmatory factor analysis for the
(standardized goodness index)=(0.973), CFI (goodness
index for comparison)=(0.983), that measurement for
goodness of research unit was appropriately composed.
10496
Table 2. Goodness evaluation of total model.
Classification
Goodness evaluation of total model
45.921
RMR
GFI
AGFI
NFI
CFI
TLI
Delta 2
0.000
0.054
0.972
0.720
0.975
0.977
0.937
0.977
Goodness evaluation of a model
higher agreement in terms of concept.
Goodness evaluation of a model is a process which tests

covariance structural model is good for the hypotheses,
using absolute fit measures (GFI, AGFI, RMSR), incremental
fit measures(NNFI, NFI, Delta 2), and parsimonious fit
measures ( PGFI, PNFI, AIC). Analysis result of overall
structural model of this study's hypotheses were (chi-square
statistics)=(45.921), p-value=(0.000), RMR (root mean
square
residual)=(0.054),
GFI
(goodness-of-fit
index)=(0.972),
AGFI
(adjusted
goodness-of-fit
index)=(0.720), NFI (standardized goodness index)=(0.975),
CFI (goodness index for comparison)=(0.977).
AGFI index was relatively low, while it is logical to evaluate
in comparison to other statistics, as various standards of
indexes are used in structural equation model analysis.
Respectively, judgmental standards for other indexes are as
follows.
Firstly, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is the identical index
for dispersion of structural model to have portion in total
dispersion. A score of 0.9 or higher is considered good. In
addition, Delta 2 is the index adjusted from NFI which differs
based on sample size, and a score of 0.9 or higher is
considered good.
Delta 2 score is a stable index widely used in recent
studies, being not significantly affected by basic mode and
sample. Analysis result based on the indexes earlier stated
are TLI = (0.937), Delta 2 IFI (incremental fit index) = (0.977)
fully satisfying the basic elements. Therefore, overall
goodness for the theoretical model has been proven. Table 2
is the result of confirmatory factor analysis for the overall
structural model.
Verification of hypotheses
Correlation analysis
Criterion-related validity implies forecast capability on how a
single attribute or concept evaluation is used to predict
attributes or conceptual changes in the future. For this study,
criterion-related validity was tested through reliability analysis
and confirmatory factor analysis to verify correlation between
the establishment, the governmental policies, and the port
Furthermore, multiple correlation analysis was conducted
for factors that have proven in terms of single level
correlation. Positive analytic results mean the satisfaction of
criterion-related validity.
In order to minimize evaluation errors and increase
representability of single level concept, this study used
summated scale. In this case, higher average scores mean
This study intends to verify the hypotheses by using

structural equation model. Unlike regression analysis,
structural equation model helps to systematically understand
complex cause and effect relations through covariation
analysis from which both direct and indirect effects between
variables are identified. In addition, structural equation model
has significance as in underlying errors are identifiable, and
verification for relation between measuring model and
theoretical model can be made from total perspective (Table
3). Respectively, this study verifies cause and effect relation
between composing concepts using structural equation
model. Verification of the hypotheses is summarized in Table
4.
Conclusion
The core axis of the world economy is moving to the
Northeast Asia region, including China; where 25% of the
worlds population live in. Additionally, the region is becoming
economically active with more exchange. Respectively,
international logistic demand is increasing in the region, and
the countries strive to develop themselves as the logistic
center expanding respective network and infrastructure. With
geographical location, with depth of water (more than 17 m),
Busan Port has superior pre-conditions as the Northeast
Asia's hub-Port. Furthermore, Korea is the world's 7th
biggest exporting country with 1 trillion dollars in trade. Based
on actual analysis, all supplementary government supports
except for logistic support system are to have positive impact
on supporting Busan Port to function as Northeast Asia's
hub-Port. This suggests the necessity in terms of connecting
transport management, direct calling of large container
vessels, integration of logistic industry, and alliance between
shipping companies with their service improvement as a new
port.
Moreover, the establishment of co-opetition and global
network are verified to have positive impact on special
government support. This importantly suggests increase in
collaboration between domestic competitors and establishing
global network lead the government to implement its policies.
On the other hand, the supplementary government supports
are verified to have positive impact on efficiency, credibility,
and competitiveness of the port management strategies.
Respectively, the governmental support policies as subsidy
support, encouragement policies for sailing, financial support,
Ok et al.
10497
Table 3. Evaluation of correlation analysis between variables.
Governmental
policies
1
2
Establishment
Classification
Co-opetition
Cluster
Logistic support system
Global network
Supplementary policies
Special policies
Efficiency
Credibility
Competitiveness
Access
1
1
0.299**
0.581**
0.513**
0.406**
0.347**
0.647**
0.509**
0.199**
0.429**
1
0.331**
-0.042
0.254**
0.050
0.189**
0.070
-0.239**
-0.030
1
0.415**
0.317**
0.149**
0.425**
0.547**
0.195**
0.338**
1
0.342**
0.274**
0.363**
0.860**
0.410**
0.386**
1
0.400**
0.511**
0.224**
0.214**
0.230**
1
0.752**
0.261**
0.196**
0.478**
Port management strategies

1
1
0.324**
0.433**
0.669**
1
0.304**
0.345**
1
0.632**
C.R.
3.101**
3.421**
0.565
3.795**
4.630**
-0.174
-1.490
2.321*
5.609**
1.969*
3.808**
0.748
17.889**
-1.398
1.580
7.768**
P
0.002
0.001
0.572
0.000
0.000
0.861
0.136
0.020
0.000
0.049
0.000
0.454
0.000
0.162
0.114
0.000
**P<0.01
Table 4. Summary of hypotheses verification.
Hypotheses
H1-1-1
H1-1-2
H1-1-3
H1-1-4
H1-2-1
H1-2-2
H1-2-3
H1-2-4
H2-1-1
H2-1-2
H2-1-3
H2-1-4
H2-2-1
H2-2-2
H2-2-3
H2-2-4
Independent variable
Co-opetition
Cluster
Global network
Co-opetition
Cluster
Global network
Special policies
Special policies
Special policies
Special policies
*P<0.05, **P<0.01
Figure 1. Study model.
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
->
Dependent variable
Special policies
Special policies
Special policies
Special policies
Efficiency
Credibility
Competitiveness
Access
Efficiency
Credibility
Competitiveness
Access
Estimate
0.192
0.169
0.027
0.223
0.346
-0.010
-0.086
0.165
0.243
0.430
0.139
0.045
0.674
-0.092
0.050
0.405
S.E.
0.062
0.049
0.048
0.059
0.075
0.059
0.057
0.071
0.043
0.218
0.036
0.061
0.038
0.066
0.032
0.052
Verified
Verified
Verified
Dismissed
Verified
Verified
Dismissed
Dismissed
Verified
Verified
Verified
Verified
Dismissed
Verified
Dismissed
Dismissed
Verified
10498
and the shipping tax reduction have a crucial role in country's

competitiveness and strategies. However, access is to be
separately treated based on geographical location.
Furthermore, the special government supports are verified
to have positive impact on efficiency and access of the port
management strategies. Differentiated strategies from
foreign companies improve short term efficiency, and partly
affect access, despite geographical limitations. Nevertheless,
such strategies are not verified to have influence on credibility and competitiveness. Therefore, the special policies
need to be progressed prudently within the international
policies.
REFERENCES
Brooks M (2000). Sea change in liner shipping: regulation and
managerial decision-making in a global industry. Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
Haezendonck E (2002). The competitive advantage of seaport

competitiveness: An economic and legal analysis of the factors
determining the competitiveness of seaport. Antwerp: De Boeck.
Hayuth Y, Fleming DK (1994). Concepts of strategic commercial location; the
case of container ports. Marit Pol. Manage., 21(3):187-193.
Heaver TD (1995). The Implications of increased competition among ports for
port policy and management. Maritime Pol. Manage., 22(2):125-133.
Malchow M, Kanafani A (2001). A disaggregate analysis of factors
influencing port selection. Maritime Pol. Manage., 28(3): 265277.
Murphy PR, Daly JM, Dalenberg DR (1992). Port Selection Criteria: An
Application of a Transport Research Framework. Log. Transp. Rev.,
28(3): 237-255.
Notteboom T (1997). Concentration and load center development in the
European container port system. J. Transp. Geogr., 5 (2): 99-115.
Notteboom T, Winkelmans W (2001). Structural changes in logistics: how will
port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Pol. Manage., 28(1):71-89.

The Strategy of Busan Port For Northeast Asia Hub Port

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Strategy of Busan Port For Northeast Asia Hub Port

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(26), pp.

10492-10498, 28 October, 2011

Full Length Research Paper

The strategy of Busan Port for Northeast Asia hub port

Department of International Trade, College of Social Science, Konkuk University, Korea.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: kiwoongl@yahoo.com.

economical conditions are expected to have a great

port management, customer preference, depth of port waterway, access

H2: Elements of governmental policies have a positive impact on port

port management, customer preference, depth of port waterway, access

H2: Elements of governmental policies have a positive impact on port

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

questionnaires were distributed in order to meet the requirement of

2 (22.541%) was named Co-opetition.' In addition, Factor 3

Validity verification of the governmental policies

The result of factor analysis for the governmental policies

Reliability means internal consistency between measuring

Validity verification of the port management strategies

Exploratory factor analysis

Prior to the hypotheses proof. Confirmatory factor analysis

Goodness: Chi square=234.685 (p=0.000), RMR=0.039, GFI=0.935, AGFI=0.851, NFI=0.973, CFI=0.983.

statistics)=(339.714), p value=(0.000), RMR (root mean

Factors of the port management strategies

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 2. Goodness evaluation of total model.

Goodness evaluation of a model

higher agreement in terms of concept.

Goodness evaluation of a model is a process which tests

This study intends to verify the hypotheses by using

Table 3. Evaluation of correlation analysis between variables.

Port management strategies

Table 4. Summary of hypotheses verification.

Figure 1. Study model.

Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

and the shipping tax reduction have a crucial role in country's

Haezendonck E (2002). The competitive advantage of seaport

You might also like