Substantial research posits that institutions do matter in port development, resulting in path-dependent reform process. However, issues remain unaddressed, notably on how and why institutions matter during such process under diversified developmental phases and geographical settings. This paper investigates, based on the experience of two major ports in East Asia, in what ways and to what extent political institutions have shaped the process of change, the main sources of path dependency, the conditions under which path disruption can occur, and how existing institutional legacies can contribute to differentiated outcomes. The focus is not only about institutional structure, but also the behavior and policies that institutions produce in such reforms. By doing so, it contributes to the progress and refinements of institutional theories, as well as theorizing the impacts of institutions in reforming the governance and planning systems of transport infrastructures.
AlmondG AVerbaS (1989) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
2.
AthertonASmallboneD (2013) “Promoting private sector development in China: the challenge of building institutional capacity at the local level”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy31(1): 5–23
3.
BassaniniA PDosiGGarudRKarnøeP (2001) “Path dependence and creation”Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
4.
CullinaneKSongD W (2002) “Port privatization policy and practice”. Transport Reviews22(1): 55–75
5.
DebrieJLavaud-LetilleulVParolaF (2013) “Shaping port governance: the territorial trajectories of reform”. Journal of Transport Geography27: 56–65
6.
Department of Water Transport (1998) China Shipping Development Annual Report, People's Republic of China: Ministry of Communications
7.
DoomsMVerbekeAHaezendonckE (2013) “Stakeholder management and path dependence in large-scale transport infrastructure development: the port of Antwerp case (1960–2010)”. Journal of Transport Geography27: 14–25
8.
ErssonSLaneJ E (2002) Culture and Politics: A Comparative Approach, Aldershot: Ashgate
9.
ErtmanT (1997) Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10.
EstacheAGonzalezMTrujilloL (2002) “Efficiency gains from port reform and the potential for yardstick competition: lessons from Mexico”. World Development30(4): 545–560
11.
EverettS (2003) “Corporatization: a legislative framework for port inefficiencies”. Maritime Policy and Management30(3): 211–219
12.
GeorgeA LBennettA (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences, Mit Press
13.
Goh K S, 1977, Government owned enterprises, Speech delivered at the Income Annual General Meeting, Singapore, 20 June
14.
GoodinR E (1998) Theories of Institutional Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
15.
HallP A (2006) “Systematic process analysis: when and how to use it”. European Management Review3: 24–31
16.
HelgesenGThomsenS R (2006) Politics, Culture and Self: East Asian and North European Attitudes, Copenhagen: Marston
17.
JeppersonR L (1991) “Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism”. In: PowellW WDiMaggioP J (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: Chicago University Press
18.
KovácsJ M (1994) Transition to Capitalism? The Communist Legacy in Eastern Europe, New Brunswick: Transaction Publications
LinJ YCaiFLiZ (2001) State-Owned Enterprise Reform in China, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press
21.
MahoneyJ (2000) “Path dependence in historical sociology”. Theory and Society29: 507–548
22.
MartinR (2010) “Roepke lecture in economic geography-rethinking regional path dependence: beyond lock-in to evolution”. Economic Geography, Economic Geography86(1): 1–27
23.
NgA K YHallP VPallisA A (2013) “Institutions and the transformation of transport nodes”. Journal of Transport Geography27: 1–3
24.
NgA K YPallisA A (2010) “Port governance reforms in diversified institutional frameworks: generic solutions, implementation asymmetries”. Environment and Planning A42(9): 2147–2167
25.
NgA K YTamK C (2012) “China's seaport development during the early Open Door Policy Period, 1978–2002”. In: HarlaftisGTenoldSValdalisoJ M (eds) World's Key Industry: History and Economics of International Shipping, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 180–199
26.
NorthD C (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
27.
NorthD C (2005) Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton: The Princeton Economic History of the Western World, Princeton University Press
28.
NotteboomTDe LangenPJacobsW (2013) “Institutional plasticity and path dependence in seaports: interactions between institutions, port governance reforms and port authority routines”. Journal of Transport Geography27: 26–35
29.
OrtmannS (2010) Politics and Change in Singapore and Hong Kong: Containing Contention, New York: Routledge
30.
PiersonP (2000a) “The limits of design: explaining institutional origins and change”. Governance13(4): 475–499
31.
PiersonP (2000b) “Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics”. American Political Science Review94(2): 251–267
32.
QiuM (2008) “Coastal port reform in China”. Maritime Policy & Management: The flagship journal of international shipping and port research35(2): 175–191
33.
RoyK CSiderasJ (2006) Institutions, Globalisation, and Empowerment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
34.
SelznickP (1992) The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community, Berkeley: University of California Press
35.
ShepsleK A (1986) “Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions”. In: WeisbergH F (eds) Political Science the Science of Politics, New York: Agathon Press
36.
ShepsleK A (1989) “Studying institutions: some lessons from the rational choice approach”. Journal of Theoretical Politics131–147
37.
ShepsleK A (2001) “A comment on institutional change”. Journal of Theoretical Politics13(3): 321–325
38.
ShouCNgA K YPallisA A (2011) “Transport node governance in a changing world: the institutional reform of Tianjin port in China”. In: NotteboomT E (eds) Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics, Antwerp: University Press Antwerp, pp. 467–481
39.
Silva-OchoaE (2009) “Institutions and the provision of local services in Mexico”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27(1): 141–158
40.
SongY H B (1990) “Shipping and shipbuilding policies in PR China”. Marine Policy14(1): 53–70
SteinmoS (2001) Approaches in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
43.
StreeckWThelenK (2005) “Introduction: institutional change in advanced political economies”. In: Idem (eds) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–39
44.
SuykensF (1985) “Administration and management at the Port of Antwerp”. Maritime Policy and Management12(3): 181–194
45.
SuykensFvan de VoordeE (1998) “A quarter of a century of port management in Europe: objectives and tools”. Maritime Policy and Management25(3): 251–261
46.
ThomasB (1994) “The need for organizational change in seaports”. Marine Policy18: 69–78
47.
ToddD (1994) “Changing technology, economic growth and port development: the transformation of Tianjin”. Geoforum25(3): 285–303
48.
TongzonJ L (2008) “Towards privatization: the port of Singapore experience”. In: TullMReveleyJ (eds) Port Privatisation: The Asia Pacific Experience, UK: E. Elgar, pp. 110–126. Chapter 6
49.
WangJ JNgA K Y (2011) “The geographical connectedness of Chinese ports with foreland markets: a new trend?”. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie102(2): 188–204
50.
WangJ JNgA K YOlivierD (2004) “Port governance in China: a review of policies in an era of internationalizing port management practices”. Transport Policy11(3): 237–250
51.
WangZ YBiS (1994) “Discussion on port governance system, direction and model”. China Ports4: 9–11. (in Chinese)
52.
World Bank (2007) The World Bank Port Reform Toolkit, 2nd. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group
