1

THE EVOLUTION AND RESEARCH TRENDS OF CONTAINER SHIPPING YUI-YIP LAU1; ADOLF K.Y. NG2*; XIAOWEN FU3; KEVIN X. LI4 1 Hong Kong Community College, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong,

China 2 Department of Supply Chain Management, I.H. Asper School of Business, University

of Manitoba, Canada; E-mail: adolf.ng@ad.umanitoba.ca 3 Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Australia 4 Department of International Logistics, Chung Ang University, South Korea

* Corresponding author Abstract

The shipping industry was transformed by the expansion of international trade and technological innovation, notably containerization, since the 1960s. Accordingly, this was followed by a significant increase in research addressing different aspects of container shipping. Despite such availability, important questions have remained unanswered: what are the major contributions that the research community has made to the container shipping industry, global and regional economies? Have their contributions been skewed towards particular themes, directions and geographical areas? What can the shipping research community learn from the evolution and trends of container shipping research, so that they can continue to contribute to the well-being of the global and regional economies? To address these queries, the paper undertakes a critical review and analysis on the evolution and trends of research in container shipping in the past four decades, based on a collection of 282 papers investigating different topics in container shipping featuring in major scholarly journals between 1967 and 2012. The study enables the shipping research community to enhance self-understandings, and identifies major gaps for further research. Keywords: container shipping; evolution; research trends; review study

 2

THE EVOLUTION AND RESEARCH TRENDS OF CONTAINER SHIPPING

1. Introduction

The shipping industry had been fundamentally transformed by the expansion of

international trade, intermodalism and technological innovations since the 1960s. The use

of containers, initiated by Malcom McLean, with the first voyage of the Ideal X in 1956

carrying the first container between American ports, served as one of the, if not the, most

important milestones. Since then, the growth of international trade increased the demands,

and thus capacities, for container shipping services. The improvements of service quality

and cost efficiency in the container sector also facilitated cargo flow, leading to further

growth in a global merchandize trade. Container shipping gradually spread to every

corner of the world, and by the time when this study took place, most general cargoes are

carried in containers. Indeed, the effective provision of container facilities and services is

considered to be an important attribute in deciding the competitiveness of ship operators.

Also, this led to the emergence of new carriers and the extension of logistics services.

Extended control over the logistics chain and the quest for efficiency call for enormous

capital investment and multimodal integration (Ng, 2012), leading to the restructuring of

the shipping industry.

Not surprisingly, the fundamental transformation of shipping was followed by a

significant increase in research works addressing different aspects of shipping, especially

in the past two decades. Such abundance was illustrated by the wide availability of

shipping research papers published within this period. Indeed, shipping research in the

past four decades was a kaleidoscope consisting of a wide range of interesting, diversified

topics. This ranged from operations (e.g., route schedule design problem, turnaround time

and vessel size), management (e.g., organizational governance and seafarers), economics

(e.g., pricing, demand and supply) to sustainable development (e.g., safety, reducing

greenhouse gas emission and impacts on regional economy). With such a comprehensive

research profile, however, it is surprising that, after so many years, a systematic study on

the evolution and research trends of shipping research is still found wanting, despite that

 3

the shipping industry had already undergone such a rapid transformation since the 1970s.

Such transformations include, for instance, the continual increase of container ship size,

the formation of strategic shipping alliances, the establishment of maritime logistics and

global supply chains, the breaking down of liner shipping conference, and a variety of

others.

The scarcity of review on shipping research represents a stark contrast to its close

counterpart, namely port. In the past several years, a number of review studies analyzing

the evolution and trends of port research had been undertaken by researchers from

diversified backgrounds, with Pallis et al. (2010), Woo et al. (2011) and Ng (2013) being

illustrative examples. By looking from different angles (and applying different

methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative), they together offered a very

comprehensive picture illustrating how the changing global and regional economies, as

well as the shipping industry, affected the behavior and the structure of the port research

community. In addition, they proposed constructive opinions on the future of port

research through identifying the major research gaps, loopholes and challenges. All these

efforts can offer significant contributions in helping port researchers to identify how they

can contribute to the future well-being of the port sector and economy, and

simultaneously provide constructive insight to future port research1.

With major changes in the shipping industry in the past decades, there is also a need for a

systematic study reviewing the evolution and trends of shipping research. Although Woo

et al. (2013) reviewed the research themes within the maritime field in the past decades,

they only restricted to one (albeit a leading one within the maritime field) journal, namely

Maritime Policy & Management (MPM). In addition, their analysis was very general

                                                                                                               1  For   instance,   as   a   direct   response   to   Ng   (2013)   who   highlighted   the   excessive   concentration   of  research   towards   the   practical,   daily   port   activities   since   1990,   together   with   a   clear   decline   of  research   on   port-­‐regional   relationship,   scholars   from   four   continents   initiated   a   special   issue   in  Growth  and  Change   (to   be   published   in   2014)  which   addressed   different   topics   on   port,  maritime  logistics   and   regional   development,   e.g.,   port   development   in   the   peripheral   areas,   the   impacts   of  ports  on  regional  economy,   the  roles  of  ports   in  promoting   inter-­‐regional   linkages,  etc.  For   further  details,  see  Ng  et  al.  (forthcoming).    

 4

instead of dedicated to a particular sector within the maritime industries, like shipping. A

significant research gap clearly exists.

To address this gap, and using container shipping as the study focus, this paper

undertakes a critical analysis on the evolution and development of shipping research in

the past four decades. This is based on 282 papers (co-)authored by 202 authors

addressing various aspects of container shipping, including operations, management and

economics, featured in 31 internationally recognized scholarly journals between 1967 and

2012. As mentioned earlier, shipping in the past several decades was characterized by the

increasingly popular use of containers for most general cargoes, of which in most cases is

accompanied with liner shipping offering fixed, publicized schedules and routings

between particular ports (Ng, 2006). With more than 80% of the world’s traded cargoes

being carried by ships (Ng and Liu, 2010), a thorough understanding of the past and

current trends of container shipping research is extremely important to the future well-

being of the global and regional economic development.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the analytical

framework, while Section 3 describes the major findings in the evolution and research

trends of container shipping throughout the study period. Section 4 critically discusses

the findings, and finally, the conclusion and the major issues for further research can be

found in Section 5.

2. Analytical Framework

To achieve the study objectives, a comprehensive review on the representative papers

related to container shipping published in internationally recognized scholarly journals

within the maritime, transportation, applied economics, geography and operational

research disciplines had been undertaken. 45 such journals had been reviewed, and the

authors found that 31 had featured at least one paper which addressed container shipping

between 1967 and 2012. The list of journals, together with respective disciplines and the

journal codes defined by us, can be found in Table 1. Year 1967 was chosen as the first

 5

year of analysis, understanding that the transformation within the container shipping

industry started to take off during the late 1960s (Heaver, 2002).

[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

After a careful screening process, 282 papers, all published during the study period, were

deemed relevant and thus, included for further analysis. 2 To facilitate the analytical

process, it was necessary to categorize the papers. This was achieved using two

dimensions, namely time periods and the functional components of container shipping.

For the former, the authors used year 1990 as the dividing line to distinguish the

‘traditional’ (1967-1990) and ‘contemporary’ (1991-2012) periods of container shipping

research. The past two decades was a period during which the container shipping industry

underwent a second phase of fundamental transformation, featuring the rise of mega-

sized container ships, merger, acquisitions and the establishment of strategic shipping

alliances, as well as the increasingly explicit establishment of maritime logistics and

global supply chains (Ng, 2012). Also, the database indicated that there had been a

substantial increase of research studies in container shipping during the contemporary

period, with 71 and 211 papers published in the traditional and contemporary periods,

respectively. Also, the categorization of papers into two time periods allowed the authors

to identify the shifts of analytical perspectives and approaches of shipping research

overtime.

For functional components, papers were categorized into shipping operations,

management and economics. In this study, shipping operations (92 papers from 22

journals) was understood as any tangible, engineering and physical aspects (i.e.,

containers, vessels and equipment) of shipping in providing operations of seaborne trade

activities in order to meet customer requirements3, as well as the interactions between

                                                                                                               2  Due   to   article   length   restriction   imposed  by  MPM,   the   full   list   of   the  papers   is  not   included  here.  Thus,  readers  should  refer  to  an  earlier  version  (Lau  et  al.,  2013)  for  full  details.  Alternatively,  the  full  list  is  also  available  from  the  corresponding  author  upon  request.  3 Based on the stated definitions, papers with topics which did not directly address the daily operations of ships (e.g., the technical details of shipbuilding) and/or published in journals within the highly specialized disciplines (e.g., law and finance) were not included in the study.

 6

inter- and intra-organizational activities. Maximizing operational efficiency and

minimizing operational costs were the dual objectives of shipping operations. Also,

shipping management (63 papers from 22 journals) was understood as any non-physical

and engineering aspects of management so as to sustain and enhance the well-being of

container shipping and its activities. In this regard, ‘well-being’ could be divided into

different aspects, both direct and indirect benefits, say, performance, competitiveness,

reputation, and impacts on surrounding environment. Finally, shipping economics (127

papers from 21 journals) was understood as the studies aimed to best utilize economic

resources so as to enhance the well-being related to container shipping. This covered a

wide range of topics related to the shipping industry, such as cost and production,

demand analysis, competition and market structure, regulation and conferences,

efficiency, government taxation and expenditure, economic development, labours and

employment, pollution control and sustainability, and the implications to international

trade. In this study, such a definition was slightly broadened to include studies related to

shipping networks, hinterland access and transport geography that had economic

implications to container shipping.

At the same time, it was important to note that, although ports and terminals were not the

main targets of investigation, the authors had included several port and terminal studies

which involved discussions on the vertical relationship between shipping lines, port and

terminals. This was an absolute necessity, thanks to the rapid changing strategies of the

container shipping industry which, as mentioned earlier, increasingly emphasized on

maritime logistics and multimodal supply chains, especially in the past two decades.

Undeniably, there are many different angles in understanding the evolution and research

trends in container shipping. In accordance to the study aims and objectives, the authors

decided to dissect the issue from three main angles, namely: (i) research topics; (ii)

author composition and geographical focus; and (iii) research methodologies. Based on

these angles, the evolution and research trends of the functional components of container

shipping before and after 1990 could be analyzed.

 7

3. Major Findings

3.1. Research topics

The research topics in container shipping before and after 1990 can be found in Table 2.

During the traditional period, shipping conference and regulatory issues, market

equilibrium, freight rate and demand, and performance and competition were the most

popular research topics. These topics occupied nearly 50% (34 out of 71) of all the papers

published during this period. This had changed significantly during the contemporary

period, of which research topics became more diversified. The top three research topics

after 1990 were shipping routings and networks, performance and competition and short

sea/river shipping (of which they usually also involved some analysis on intermodal

transport). They possessed a combined total of nearly 30% (62 out of 211) of all the

papers published during this period. From the ‘individual’ point of view, research topics

since 1990 had certainly become more kaleidoscopic (the authors were able to identify 17

and 31 research themes before and after 1990, respectively). However, from a ‘macro’

perspective, the research topics during the contemporary period were much more

concentrated on the well-being of practical, daily shipping activities. There were clearly a

number of declining topics since 1990 which reflected the gradual ignorance of

regulatory issues, the ‘externalities’ of shipping and theoretical economic analysis,

notably conference and regulatory issues (from 21% to 2%); shipping and regional

development (from 7% to 3%); the historical evolution of shipping (from 8% to 2%);

market equilibrium, freight rates and demands (from 15% to 3%); shipping costs (from

3% to 1%), respectively. Also, the past ten years witnessed a significant increase of some

‘novel’ topics, notably shipping safety, security and piracy and green shipping.

[INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]

On the other hand, Table 3 illustrates the journal distribution of papers in container

shipping. Throughout the study period (1967-2012), MPM remained the most popular

outlet for container shipping researchers, with 39% (28 out of 71) and 29% (62 out of 211)

 8

of the papers published in this journal during the traditional and contemporary periods,

respectively. Indeed, in both study periods, maritime journals steadily published about

50% of all the papers in container shipping (Table 4).

[INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]

[INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE]

However, when the journals were classified according to disciplines, some very

interesting observations could be found. As shown in Table 4, in the traditional period,

the second most popular outlet for container shipping papers were economic journals. 4

Before 1991, 27% of the papers were published in economic journals, while the

remaining were roughly equally shared between journals in the geography, planning and

development, transport and logistics and operations research disciplines (about 7-10%

each). After 1990, however, the number of papers published in economic journals

declined dramatically, to about 2%. Instead, one could witness a substantial increase of

popularity of (general) transport and logistics journals, which occupied 30% of all the

papers published during the contemporary period. The popularity of geography, planning

and development journals also increased, hosting 15% of all the papers, while there was a

marginal decline for operational research journals (3%). The relative decline of economic

research could also be found when the authors looked at the number of papers published

during the study period, as shown in Figure 1. Although research in container shipping

operations, management and economics experienced increases in the past two decades,

the growth of research in shipping economics was clearly slower than operations and

management. It seemed that the tendency for ship operators to develop maritime logistics

and supply chains during the 1990s had raised the popularity of (general) transport and

logistics journals, especially the logistical ones.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

                                                                                                               4 In this case, transport journals which had clear ‘economic taste’ were included, like the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.

 9

In terms of functional components, for papers focusing on shipping operations, the

research focal point did not experience substantial changes throughout the study periods.

During the traditional period, over 80% addressed topics directly related to the shipping

activities and its daily operation, like the fleet mix in container shipping operations,

notably ship size and the number of ships deployed. The remaining papers mainly

investigated the impacts of technological development on shipping operations. After

1990, the research topics were largely similar, say, the configuration of shipping

networks, the performance effect of innovation from shipping lines, operational factors,

say, sailing speed, slot allocation, scheduling and routing, in influencing ship

performance, to name but a few. Note that, however, such a focus on practical, daily

operations had become even more acute during the latter period. At the beginning of this

century, there was also an increase in outputs in empty container reposition and

multimodal transportation (of which it mainly examined its challenges, operational

efficiency, the shipping networks configuration and the integration of shipping with other

modes of transportation). Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, some novel issues had

received much attention, such as green shipping and ship safety, security and piracy.

These topics were not only related to operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but

also concerned with socio-environmental issues.

For papers focusing on shipping management, however, research topics during the

traditional period was more diversified. During the traditional period, about 50% of the

papers addressed topics which were directly related to daily shipping activities, including

performance and competition, shipping networks and strategic management.

Simultaneously, there were substantial works which addressed the more indirect aspects

of shipping and its activities, such as governance (like shipping conference and

regulation), the impacts of shipping on regional development, and the historical evolution

of shipping. Like those focusing on shipping operations, during the contemporary period,

and especially since the turn of the century, research on shipping management had

become much more concentrated on issues directly related to day-to-day well-being of

container shipping activities. Illustrative examples include the ranking of factors in

affecting ship performance, the behaviours of shipping line selection by shippers, the

 10

configuration of shipping networks, the role of capacity investments in areas affecting

service quality, to name but a few. More recently, this was reinforced by the increase of

studies investigating shipping safety, security and piracy, together with short sea, coastal

and river shipping. Meanwhile, the more indirect, but equally important, issues on

container shipping had experienced substantial decline, notably the effects of shipping on

the regional development of developing countries. For instance, in the study sample, only

Fu et al. (2010) directly addressed the impacts of shipping on global regions, and even

that their main focus was piracy rather than regional development, while Perakis and

Denisis (2008) briefly discussed the environmental and social benefits of short sea

shipping. This trend cohered with Ng’s (2013) investigation on the research trend of ports

which highlighted the existing literature’s continual ignorance on the port-regional

relationship during the contemporary period.

Among papers focusing on shipping economics, issues such as shipping networks, ship

routing, cost analysis, freight rate structure had always been important. However, there

was a clear shift of focus since 1990. Before then, shipping conference and market

contestability were probably the two most well studied topics. This was understandable,

since shipping conferences determined the tariff system, market structure and traffic

volumes. This attracted numerous studies, and there were constant debates about the

effects and performance of shipping conferences. A major issue was the contestability of

container shipping market. Intuitively, if this market was contestable, then shipping

conferences might be justified as it achieved similar to efficiency level as a competitive

market. However, with various neoliberal 5 measures against shipping conferences

introduced in the 1980s, researchers turned their attention to the actual competitive

landscape within the container shipping market, merger, acquisitions and strategic

shipping alliances in response to the decline of shipping conferences. Another emerging

issue was the vertical relation between shipping lines, ports and terminals. Over the past

decades, the sizes of container ships had constantly increased, leading to substantial rise

in capital costs. This provided great incentives for ship operators to secure efficient and

                                                                                                               5 For further details on the history and evolution of the neoliberal ideology, and its impacts on economic policies around the world, see Harvey (2005).

 11

high quality port and terminal services (Heaver, 2002; Ng, 2006). Hence, major ship

operators started to invest in ports and terminals in key markets (like Maersk’s

investments and operations of container terminals in the Dutch port of Rotterdam). Such

a trend certainly attracted the attention of researchers, and somewhat linked the research

literatures of shipping, ports and terminals to each other.

3.2. Research cooperation and geographical focus

Since the 1990s, there was a significant increase in research cooperation/joint study

among shipping researchers. Research works in shipping operations during the

contemporary period were characterized by a significant increase in co-authorships and

joint publications with 83% involved at least some form of collaboration, compared to

47% during the traditional period. 53% of the papers appeared in the traditional period

were solo works (with no inter-continental/national collaboration during this period),

compared to 17% in the contemporary period. Indeed, the period after 1990 was a turning

point, with the first co-authored paper in shipping operations by Cho and Perakis (1996)

coming from two countries (South Korea and the USA). However, one should note that,

during this period, among the 62 co-authored papers, only six and nine research papers

involved inter-national and inter-continental collaboration, respectively. Among them, all

collaborations (both intra- and inter-country/continental) involved researchers affiliated

to institutions based in East Asia, North America and Europe. Only 4% of the researchers

came from Oceania and the Middle East. No researcher from other continents, including

South America and Africa, published papers addressing shipping operations in the

journals that the authors investigated during the study period.

Also, there was a substantial increase of research in shipping management in the past two

decades, with nearly 500% increase in the number of papers published since 1990. Also,

research works in shipping management during the contemporary period were

characterized by a substantial increase in co-authored publication, with more than 70% of

the papers published during this period involved some form of collaboration, compared to

just about 20% before then. However, it was interesting to note that inter-

continental/national collaboration continued to play peripheral roles. Apart from Jansson

 12

and Shneerson (1982) reflecting a collaborative effort from Norway and the USA, it was

not until 2002 when a co-authored paper in shipping management by researchers coming

from two countries (again, Norway and the USA) was published in the journals that were

investigated during the study period. Indeed, during the contemporary period, out of the

37 co-authored papers, only 14 involved inter-national collaboration. This figure was

even smaller for inter-continental collaboration, with only seven such papers being

published. During the same period, all collaboration (both intra- and inter-

continental/national) involved researchers affiliated to universities and institutions based

in East Asia, Europe and North America. The participation of researchers from other

continents, like Africa and South America, was nearly non-existent.

Among the papers focusing on shipping economics, only 41 articles, or 30% of the total,

were published before 1990. Most studies were published in the past two decades. Still,

such an increase was not comparable to shipping operations and management. This

testified that shipping economics was, by itself, a well-developed discipline with a long

tradition. In terms of research collaboration, during the traditional period, only ten out of

41 articles consisted of two authors, with all remaining 76% being solo works. In

comparison, after 1990, 44% of the papers (38 out of 86 articles) were single-authored. A

hypothesis for increased academic cooperation was that ‘modern’ studies demanded

various methodological skills and inputs which were not always fully available from

individual researchers. For instance, there might be increased demands for quantitative

data and statistical analysis, whereas economic modeling, interpretation and empirical

tests across different markets might involve diversified and/or specialized knowledge.

However, such a hypothesis received little support from the study sample, and indeed,

73.6% and 65.3% of the single- and co-authored papers published during the

contemporary period used qualitative approaches, respectively. This suggested that

research collaboration was not necessarily only due to a ‘methodological revolution’ (see

next sub-section). In this regard, the increased mobility of researchers, such as academic

liaison functions, conferences attendance and overseas doctoral education, might be the

most important drivers.

 13

Despite such, however, it was interesting to found that researchers in container shipping

were probably not as ‘global’ as one would imagine, even though they were investigating

one of the world’s most internationalized industries. While there was a dramatic increase

in co-authorships after 1990 (20 out of 71 on or before 1990; 149 out of 211 after 1990),

it was somewhat surprising to found that inter-continental collaboration remained rather

limited (three out of 71 on or before 1990; 26 out of 211 after 1990). Moreover, in

shipping economics, for instance, other than Yuen et al. (2012), there were no co-

authorships between North American and Asian scholars during the study period.

Furthermore, it was found that the research community in the past decades had seriously

been skewed towards the ‘East-West Axis’ within the Northern Hemisphere. Research

works in shipping operations during the traditional period were dominated by scholars

from North America (Canada and the USA) and Europe (mainly Western Europe). By the

turn of the century, such a bi-polar system changed slightly with the continual increase of

inputs from researchers affiliated to universities and institutions based in East Asia. In

this regard, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea served as illustrative examples.

However, researchers from other regions, like Asia (other than East Asia), Middle East,

Oceania and South Africa, had very limited involvement throughout the study period. Out

of the 202 authors who published container shipping papers in 1967-2012, only 28 did

not come from institutions based in East Asia, Europe and North America – among them

four from Africa, seven from the Middle East, 14 from Oceania and three from South

America.

Nowadays, East Asia, North America and Europe are generally regarded as the world’s

major economic powerhouses, and hence the trading patterns and shipping routes are also

dominated by the East-West Axis which knits them together. Together with the

concentration of researchers along the East-West Axis, not surprisingly, it meant that the

geographical focus of research was also highly concentrated towards these regions.

Among the 61 papers focusing on shipping operations and management which had a

regional focus, nearly all of them were about East Asia, Europe or North America.

Among the 211 papers published after 1991, only one focused on Africa, five on the

 14

Middle East, one on Oceania, five on South America, and two on other least developed

countries (LDCs). Even so, some of them were actually investigating the shipping

connections between these regions and the economic powerhouses along the East-West

Axis, with Lai et al. (1995) and Wilmsmeier and Notteboom (2011) being illustrative

examples.

3.3. Research methodologies

Research works in shipping operations tended to use quantitative approach. According to

the authors’ analysis, 58%, 20% and 12% of the papers focusing on shipping operations

involved the use of operations research techniques, statistical analysis and economic

modeling, respectively. Coincided with increased contribution from researchers affiliated

to universities and institutions based in East Asia, quantitative techniques, notably

operational research, had become more significant in conducting studies focusing on

shipping operations during the contemporary period. Especially since the immediate past

decade, there was substantial contribution of published works which involved various

computational programmes (like mathematical, mixed integer, linear and dynamic) with

analytical and/or modeling packages (like LINDO, TurboRouter, CPLEX, Decision

Support Systems (DSSs) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)). On the contrary,

researchers during the traditional period adopted relatively simple programming with

limited choices of technological tools. This trend was also present among research

focusing on shipping management, with more than 80% involved some forms of

quantitative methodologies and inputs similar to the tools and analytical/modeling

packages as mentioned earlier.

Among papers focusing on shipping economics, however, a majority of the studies had

been qualitative throughout the study period. During the traditional period, 75% of the

studies were qualitative investigations. Most of the arguments and conclusions were

based on logical deduction, comparisons of different theories, summary statistics,

graphical interpretation and/or case studies. This might be best illustrated by the studies

on shipping conference and regulations which were key issues within the shipping

industry before 1990. For example, Sturmey (1967) reviewed the formation background

 15

of shipping conference, and then discussed the costs and rate structures in the industry.

These discussions led him to conclude that shipping conference could not be explained

by profit-maximization behaviours, and thus only the explanation of pricing behaviours

was possible. Similarly, Evans and Behnam (1974) proposed that shipping conferences

could introduce new tariff systems, and they supported their proposal by discussing the

likely effects of the new tariff system in areas such as shipments consolidation, efficiency

of ship owners and shippers, exchange rate and promotion of trade. Indeed, during the

traditional period, the only statistical study on shipping conference was carried out by

Bryan (1974) who empirically estimated alternative regression models to identify factors

determining conference freight rates. What distinguished papers focusing on shipping

economics from shipping operations and shipping management, however, was a

significant number of econometric investigations being carried out to study market

equilibrium and freight rate determination in container shipping, like the empirical

studies on liner shipping freight rates by Schneerson (1976), Byington and Olin (1981),

Evans (1982), container demands by Winston (1981), and capacity and shipping

strategies by Fusillo (2003, 2004). Moreover, Luo et al. (2009) derived reduced form

regressions with an explicitly shipping market model, whereas Beenstock and Vergottis

(1989) provided a comprehensive econometric model, taking into account of fleet

planning and investment behaviours within the container shipping industry. Hence, it was

sensible to argue that a quantitative revolution started to take place within container

shipping research in the past two decades, especially since the turn of the century.

Qualitative approach, like policy analysis and structured, in-depth case study, was

gradually pushed towards the backseat.

However, if quantitative and statistical investigations were possible, as testified by the

studies reviewed above, one could not help to ask why qualitative studies had

consistently dominated the fields over the years. Clearly, a better understanding of

container shipping might be achieved with a more balanced research portfolio of

quantitative and qualitative studies. With this question in mind, the authors examined

more carefully the data sources and variables used in the papers they reviewed. Overall, it

was found that container shipping researchers had rarely been able to obtain very detailed

 16

and comprehensive data at the route/market levels. Instead, aggregate data at national, or

even global, level had often been used. In some cases, various indexes were used as

proxies for variables not directly observable/accessible to researchers. Several factors

might have led to such limitations: First, due to its inherently ‘international’ nature,

virtually no container shipping market was regulated/monitored by a single agency or

country. This was different from many other transport modes which usually possessed

large ‘domestic’ markets, say, air, rail, and road. As a result, virtually no regulator could

effectively impose comprehensive data reporting obligations on the industry. Second, the

majority of the users (shippers and freight forwarders) and providers (shipping lines)

were large business organizations. As a result, the prices for many, if not most, shipments

were, in practice, governed by individually negotiated contracts rather than published

rates, duly complemented by substantial surcharges, discounts and rebates. Such complex

pricing rules made it very difficult for researchers to precisely estimate the pricing levels

and corresponding traffic volumes in individual markets, and therefore the conduct of

firms might not be easily characterized. 6 Finally, the quick development of modern

logistics in the past decades implied that shipping was increasingly offered, managed and

governed only as a single component of the complex supply chain services. This made it

increasingly challenging to precisely identify and estimate the appropriate economic

models for container shipping directly.

Having said so, since the turn of the century, it was found that there was a significant

increase in primary data collection, usually through questionnaire surveys. Although

traditional mails were still being used in many such surveys, it was clear that researchers

increasingly took advantage of the information technology, such as e-mails and online

surveys. This was in stark contrast to past practice, of which the collection of primary

data was rather rare during the traditional period. It seemed that the advancement in

information technology and communication tools might have slightly relieved this

problem.

                                                                                                               6  This  problem  was  not  unique  to  shipping  research.   Indeed,  most  empirical  studies   in   the  aviation  and  rail  sectors  were  related  to  the  passenger  market  and,  in  general,  economic  studies  on  the  cargo  and  logistics  markets  lagged  behind  those  on  passengers.  

 17

4. Discussions

The analysis above suggested that the shipping research community had witnessed

improvements and developments in numerous aspects. First, most research in container

shipping was dominated by European and North American researchers, and subsequently

joined by researchers coming from East Asian universities and institutions. Hence, it was

no surprise that geographical focus was skewed towards the major economic

powerhouses (East Asia, Europe and North America), leaving other continents and

regions (like Africa, Middle East, Oceania and South America) often being overlooked.

Also, the contemporary period was characterized by an increase in collaboration among

researchers from different continents, although the linkage between Asian and North

American universities were still rather weak and segregated.

Also, research in container shipping had been characterized by an intensified

concentration on the practical, daily shipping activities emphasizing on improving the

‘industrial practices’, especially after 1990. The decline of papers published in journals

within the economic discipline, and subsequently replaced by transport and logistics

journals, might arguably serve as an illustrative example. Such a finding was coherent to

what Woo et al. (2013) had concluded. Of course, shipping research was always

(understandably) closely connected with industrial practices, where topics ranged from

performance, shipping conferences and market contestability of the early days, to

competitiveness, merger, acquisitions, intermodalism and strategic shipping alliances in

the contemporary period. Having said so, one should note that, in terms of themes,

research in container shipping during the traditional period reflected a more diversified

pattern, especially in shipping management, of which a significant number of papers

addressed the relatively indirect, but equally important, issues like the historical evolution

of shipping and the interrelationship between shipping activities and the regions that they

served. These topics, however, had consistently been overlooked after 1990, and the

research community had become more constrained to the (direct) interests and problems

of a narrowly defined industrial group, i.e., ship operators, which often concerned about

how research outcomes would benefit short term or immediate benefits (e.g., profits and

 18

operational performance), rather than the well-being of other communities. Indeed, based

on the study sample, even among recent research in green shipping, many of them

focused on the ways to sustain/lower operational costs under the new regulations and

environmental expectations.

In terms of methodologies, studies based on qualitative approach had dominated the

discipline during the traditional period. After 1990, and especially since the turn of the

century, a quantitative revolution had taken place, and methodologies were increasingly

dominated by quantitative techniques. According to anecdotal information partly based

on our own experiences, and partly based on informal discussions with a number of

prominent scholars within the shipping research community, especially in the past decade,

certain scholarly journals (and editors) which initially welcomed both qualitative and

quantitative papers had become more narrow-minded, and would only consider

submissions of which the findings and conclusions were primarily based on quantitative

methodologies and the ‘number crunching’ process, citing the need to boost citations, and

thus impact factors, as major considerations. The narrowing of research topics on

particular industrial groups might have accelerated this trend. Moreover, given its very

nature, the rise of quantitative research might also explain the (rather eyebrow-raising)

500% increase in the number of papers published during the contemporary period (refer

back to Section 3.2). This might even be a reflection of the urgent need of contemporary

researchers to find a quick solution to fulfill the ever-more-demanding performance

thresholds of respective universities and institutions, which increasingly affiliated with

benchmarking on the quantity of publications. Of course, this proposition is subject to

further research and validation. Nevertheless, although the authors agree that more

quantitative analysis on container shipping would probably contribute to a more balanced

research portfolio, at the same time, they also question whether such excessive, narrow-

minded pressure of pushing qualitative works to the backseat would really benefit the

long term well-being of shipping research, especially if one moves out of the ‘industrial

practice’ circle and look at shipping, together with its contribution to global societies and

surroundings, from the ‘macro’ perspective.

 19

Despite the increasing emphasis on quantitative approach, the lack of comprehensive,

reliable market data at market and carrier level had always been a challenge. This makes

it difficult to empirically estimate competition models which characterize market

equilibriums. Indeed, until the past decade, when questionnaire surveys became a more

popular data collecting approach, research in container shipping was largely dependent

on aggregated secondary data. The increasing popularity of quantitative research boosted

the demands for comprehensive, reliable quantitative data even further, and inevitably,

this further narrowed down the availability of scopes to topics directly related to daily

shipping activities and the improvement of industrial practices, complemented with the

decline of the more indirect topics. In this regard, data related to the direct, daily shipping

activities were often easier to access, both primary and secondary. On the other hand,

data for indirect topics, like the impacts of shipping on regional development, was

usually more difficult (or implicit) to identify and obtain. A similar reason could also be

used to explain the concentration of research on the major economic powerhouses, of

which reliable data was usually more accessible. Here the authors would like to note that,

despite the substantial increase of papers on East Asia using questionnaire surveys in

collecting data, no such surveys took place in the People’s Republic of China, and this

perhaps highlighted its trickiness. In this regard, national authorities and

intergovernmental organizations (e.g., UNCTAD) might need to provide more leadership

in getting comprehensive, reliable data, especially regional ones, so as to encourage

further innovative and quality research in container shipping, and for the well-being of

the global and regional economies.

5. Conclusion

Despite the wide availability of research in container shipping since the 1960s, important

questions had remained unanswered among the shipping research community. This paper

undertook a critical analysis on the evolution and research trends of container shipping

based on 282 papers addressing different aspects of container shipping, including

operations, management and economics, published in 31 scholarly journals between 1967

and 2012.

 20

Research in container shipping was largely skewed towards the East-West Axis which

consisted of the major economic powerhouses of East Asia, Europe and North America,

while topics were dominated by issues related to the practical, daily shipping activities. In

the past two decades, shipping research had gradually become a ‘normal science’ which

offered routine, standard application (Kuhn, 1962) mainly to fulfill the practical,

operational needs of the shipping industry itself. During this process, the community

seemed to move away from enriching and contributing to mainstream theoretical

discussion, as well as how the research community can contribute to the well-being of the

whole human kind, rather than just a particular industrial sector.

Although research on container shipping was initially dominated by a qualitative

approach, it was increasingly edged out by the quantitative revolution, especially since

the turn of the century. This was coincided by the rapid increase of contribution from

researchers coming from East Asian universities and institutions. Finally, it was found

that it was always a significant challenge for shipping researchers in obtaining reliable

data for research. Thus, the authors believed that national authorities, associations and

intergovernmental organizations should undertake more leadership in providing and/or

generating more reliable data so as to encourage further innovative and quality research

in container shipping.

There is little doubt that achievements have been made by shipping researchers in the

past decades. Nevertheless, there are still significant research gaps yet to be filled, and

some key issues are illustrated here. First, why has such a core-peripheral system been

established, even in the past decade with the rapid progress in information technology,

advanced communication channel, globalization and research collaboration? Is the

research community becoming too narrow-minded and only attempting to provide

solutions to big industrial players - the emphasis on the so-called ‘applied research’?

Undeniably, container shipping is a practical sector which often requires good solutions

to improve its practices. Thus, contributions from shipping researchers would certainly

generate the necessary add-values. Nevertheless, being global citizens, and the

 21

international nature of container shipping, researchers might need to move beyond just

that, and extend to areas which can benefit the well-being of the community as a whole.

This is especially true with the emergence of global equality and social justice, climate

change and environmental concern. If it were indeed the case, what can be the solutions

to encourage more research on issues like shipping and regional development, as well as

the use of shipping in promoting sustainability? Inevitably, this raises a moral, and indeed

philosophical, reflection for researchers: is such a direction by the research community

reflects the academic ‘life’ that individual researchers, and indeed the community itself,

are really looking for in the pursuit of the well-being of the world nowadays, as well as

the future?

Moreover, while more econometric and statistical investigations would contribute to the

better understanding of container shipping, with insufficient comprehensive and detailed

data, this would not be possible. In this case, how can national and intergovernmental

organizations help researchers to gain access to relevant data for research on such topics?

At the same time, what can scholarly journals and their editors do so as to encourage

publications from other regions, as well as other topics which have, until now, been

overlooked? Today, collaboration among researchers alone may not be sufficient, and

researchers, policymakers and industrial practitioners need to work together so as to

address this problem. For instance, although some researchers have expressed their

concerns over the low capital return and excessive capacity in the container shipping

industry, there is no good explanation yet on why there have always been continued

investments into this sector. Economic cycle and resulting shipping business cycle are

now textbook knowledge. Yet, there are still no good theories in the discipline explaining

why shipping lines tend to overinvest in fleet persistently. In fact, the claim of ‘excessive

capacity’ has not been rigorously tested yet. The market dynamics in the shipping market

are far from clear, which calls for novel research on this issue. Finally, international

economics and trade economics are well-developed disciplines. Yet, few studies have

analyzed the effects of international trade on shipping line performances. Trade growth in

East Asia, notably in China and South Korea, has clearly contributed to their container

shipping industries. However, few studies have quantified such positive effects, and its

 22

implications to carriers and regulators in other regions. In addition, few cost-and-benefits

investigations are available to quantify the contribution of shipping lines to economic

development. If this problem cannot be addressed in the long term, it will limit the

shipping industry’s ability in lobbying for more government supports.

This study is a pioneer attempt to offer a systematic review and analysis on the evolution

and research trends of shipping. By doing so, it helps the shipping research community to

enhance self-understandings, and reflects on the question on what to, why and how to

pursuit the well-being of the academic community, industry, and indeed the world,

through quality research. The authors strongly believe that their ideas will initiate a new

wave of research in frontier topics not only with high impacts to the shipping industry,

but also to the global economy and society’s well-being in the near future. The best is yet

to come.

Acknowledgments

The study is supported by the University of Manitoba’s VPRI, the I.H. Asper School of

Business Research Funds (314942) and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s UGC

Matching Grant (J-BB7B). Also, the authors would like to acknowledge the contribution

of the research assistant, Ellie Chow, in the preparation of the manuscript. An earlier

version was presented during the 40th Anniversary Conference of Maritime Policy &

Management (held in Seoul, South Korea, 21 June 2013). The usual disclaimers apply.

References

1. Beenstock, M. and Vergottis, A. (1989): ‘An econometric model of the world market

for dry cargo freight and shipping’. Applied Economics 21(3): 339-356.

2. Bryan, I. (1974): ‘Regression analysis of ocean liner freight rates on some Canadian

export routes’. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 8(2): 161-171.

3. Byington, R. and Olin, G. (1981): ‘An econometric analysis of freight rate disparities

in US liner trades’. Applied Economics 15(3): 403-407.

 23

4. Cho, S.C. and Perkis, A.N. (1996): ‘Optimal liner fleet routing strategies’. Maritime

Policy & Management 23(3): 249-259.

5. Evans, J. and Behnam, A.A. (1974): ‘Fork tariff system for liner freight rates’.

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 9(1): 62-66.

6. Evans, J. (1982): ‘Concerning the level of liner freight rates’. Maritime Policy &

Management, 9(2): 103-114.

7. Fu, X., Ng, A.K.Y. and Lau, Y.Y. (2010): ‘The impacts of maritime piracy on global

economic development: the case of Somalia’. Maritime Policy & Management 37(7):

677-697.

8. Fusillo, M. (2003): ‘Excess capacity and entry deterrence: the case of ocean liner

shipping markets’.  Maritime Economics & Logistics 5(2): 100-115.

9. Fusillo M. (2004): ‘Is liner shipping supply fixed?’ Maritime Economics & Logistics

6(3): 220-235.

10. Harvey, D. (2005): A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

11. Heaver, T.D. (2002): ‘The evolving roles of shipping lines in international logistics’.

International Journal of Maritime Economics 4(3): 210-230.

12. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, IL.

13. Lai, K.K., Lam, K. and Chan, W.K. (1995): ‘Shipping container logistics and

allocation’. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(6): 687-697.

14. Lau, Y.Y., Ng, A.K.Y., Fu, X. and Li, K.X. (2013): ‘The evolution and research

trends of container shipping’. Proceedings of the 40th Anniversary Conference of

Maritime Policy & Management: Innovation and Future Direction to Shipping and

Logistics, Seoul, South Korea, 21 June, pp. 77-125.

15. Luo, M., Fan, L. and Liu, L. (2009) ‘An econometric analysis for container shipping

market’. Maritime Policy & Management 36(6): 507-523.

16. Ng, A.K.Y. (2006): ‘Assessing the attractiveness of ports in the North European

container transhipment market: an agenda for future research in port competition’.

Maritime Economics & Logistics 8(3): 234-250.

 24

17. Ng, A.K.Y. (2012): ‘Container liner shipping, port development and competition’. In:

Song, D.W. and Panayides, P.M. (Eds.): Maritime Logistics: Contemporary Issues,

Emerald, Bingley, pp. 5-28.

18. Ng, A.K.Y. (2013): ‘The evolution and research trends of port geography’. The

Professional Geographer 65(1): 65-86.

19. Ng, A.K.Y. and Liu, J.J. (2010): ‘The port and maritime industries in the post-2008

world: challenges and opportunities’. Research in Transportation Economics 27(1):

1-3.

20. Ng, A.K.Y., Yang, Z., Cahoon, S. and Lee, P.T.W. (forthcoming): ‘Special Issue

Editorial: Port, Maritime Logistics and Regional Development’. Growth and Change

(in press).

21. Pallis, A.A., Vitsounis, T.K. and de Langen, P.W. (2010): ‘Research in port

economics, policy and management: a review’. Transport Reviews 30 (1): 115-161.

22. Schneerson, D. (1976): ‘The structure of liner freight rates - a comparative route

study’. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 10(1): 52-67.

23. Sjostrom, W. (1988): ‘Monopoly exclusion of lower cost entry - loyalty contracts in

ocean shipping conferences’. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22(3): 339-

344.

24. Sturmey, S.G. (1967): ‘Economics and international liner services’. Journal of

Transport Economics and Policy 1(2): 190-203.

25. Winston, C. (1981): ‘A multinomial probit prediction of the demand for domestic

ocean container service’. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 15(3): 243-252.

26. Woo, S.H., Bang, H.S., Martin, S. and Li, K.X. (2013): ‘Evolution of research themes

in Maritime Policy & Management - 1973-2012’. Maritime Policy & Management

40(3): 200-225.

27. Woo, S.H., Pettit, S. J., Kwak, D. W. and Beresford, A.K.C. (2011): ‘Seaport research:

a structured literature review on methodological issues since the 1980s’.

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45 (7): 667 – 685.

28. Yuen, A., Zhang, A. and Cheung, W. (2012): ‘Port competitiveness from the users’

perspective: An analysis of major container ports in China and its neighboring

countries’, Research in Transportation Economics 35(1): 34-40.

 25

Table 1. Scholarly journals which have featured container shipping papers, 1967-2012

Code Title Discipline APE Applied Economics ECN EJT European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research TRL GAC Growth and Change GPD GEF Geoforum GPD GEJ GeoJournal GPD IJL International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications TRL IJM International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management TRL IJO International Journal of Ocean Systems Management MAR IJP International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management TRL IJS International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics TRL IJT International Journal of Sustainable Transportation TRL JBL Journal of Business Logistics TRL JOR Journal of the Operational Research Society OPR JTE Journal of Transport Economics and Policy ECN JTG Journal of Transport Geography GPD MAP Marine Policy MAP MEL* Maritime Economics & Logistics MAR MPM# Maritime Policy & Management MAR RNE The Review of Network Economics ECN RTE Research in Transportation Economics TRL RUR Review of Urban and Regional Development GPD TRA Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice TRL TRB Transportation Research Part B: Methodological OPR TRC Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies TRL TRD Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the Environment TRL TRE Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review TRL TRJ Transportation Journal TRL TRP Transport Policy TRL TRS Transport Reviews TRL WMU WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs MAR WOD World Development GPD

Legends: ECN – Economics (including transport journals with a clear ‘economic’ taste); GPD – Geography, Planning and Development; MAR – Maritime; OPR – Operations Research and Operations Management; TRL – Transport and Logistics.

# MPM was preceded by Maritime Studies and Management on and before 1976.

* MEL was preceded by the International Journal of Maritime Economics on and before 2003.

 26

Table 2. The research topics of container shipping papers published in scholarly journals, 1967-2012

Period Research topic Paper(s) count*

Percent (%)

1967-1990 Shipping conference and regulatory issues 15 21% Market equilibrium, freight rate and demands 11 15% Performance and competition 8 11% Evolution of shipping 6 8% Shipping and regional development 5 7% Shipping routing and networks 4 6% Container ship size 3.5 5% Turnaround time 3.5 5% Scheduling 2.5 4% Shipping cost 2 3% Short sea and river shipping 2 3% Strategic management 2 3% Technological 2 3% Capacity utilization 1 1% Technical efficiency 1 1% Intermodal transport and hinterland access 1 1% Sailing speed 1 1% Liner ship fleet planning 0.5 1% TOTAL 71 100% 1991-2012 Shipping routing and networks 36.5 17% Performance and competition 21 10% Short sea and river shipping 15 7% Scheduling 11.5 5% Empty container repositioning 9.5 5% Fleet deployment 8.5 4% Strategic management 8.5 4% Merger, partnership and strategic alliances 8 4% Shipping line investments on terminal and ports, vertical

integration, and implication on container shipping 8 4%

Container ship size 7.5 4% Shipping safety, security and piracy 6.5 3% Market equilibrium, freight rate and demands 7 3% Technical efficiency 6 3% Intermodal transport and hinterland access 6 3% Green shipping 5.5 3% Shipping and regional development 5.5 3% Evolution of shipping 5 2% Liner Ship fleet planning 4.5 2% Shipping conference and regulatory issues 4.5 2% Slot allocation 4.5 2% Performance and innovation 4 2% Capacity utilization 3 1% Shipping cost 2 1% Financial risk 2 1% Sailing speed 2 1% Market structure and concentration ratio 2 1%

 27

Transit time performance 2 1% Carrier selection 2 1% Productivity 1 0% Container manufacturing and equipment 1 0% Labor and employment 1 0% TOTAL 211 100%

* A paper with two major research topics was counted as 0.5 for each topic.

 28

Table 3. The scholarly journals publishing container shipping papers, 1967-2012

Period Functional component

Journal title Paper(s) count

1967-1990 Shipping Operations

Maritime Policy & Management (MPM)# 5

Journal of the Operational Research Society (JOR) 4 Journal of Transport Economics Policy (JTE) 3 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

(TRA) 2

GeoJournal (GEJ) 1 Marine Policy (MAP) 1 Transportation Journal (TRJ) 1 1967-1990 Shipping

Management Maritime Policy & Management (MPM)# 4

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJP)

2

Geoforum (GEF) 1 GeoJournal (GEJ) 1 Marine Policy (MAP) 1 World Development (WOD) 1 1967-1990 Shipping

Economics Maritime Policy & Management (MPM)# 19

Journal of Transport Economics Policy (JTE) 14 Marine Policy (MAP) 4 Applied Economics (APE) 2 GeoJournal (GEJ) 2 Journal of the Operational Research Society (JOR) 1 Transportation Journal (TRJ) 1 Transport Reviews (TRS) 1 1967-1990 TOTAL Maritime Policy & Management (MPM)# 28 Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTE) 17 Marine Policy (MAP) 6 Journal of the Operational Research Society (JOR) 5 GeoJournal (GEJ) 4 Applied Economics (APE) 2 Transportation Journal (TRJ) 2 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

(TRA) 2

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJP)

2

Geoforum (GEF) 1 Transport Reviews (TRS) 1 World Development (WOD) 1 Total no. of papers in 1967-1990 71 1991-2012 Shipping

Operations Maritime Policy & Management (MPM) 16

Maritime Economics Logistics (MEL)* 14 Transportation Research Part E (TRE) 13 Journal of the Operational Research Society (JOR) 5 International Journal of Shipping and Transport 4

 29

Logistics (IJS) Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the

Environment (TRD) 4

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies (TRC)

3

Research in Transportation Economics (RTE) 2 Transportation Research Part B (TRB) 2 WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs (WMU) 2 Applied Economics (APE) 1 GeoJournal (GEJ) 1 International Journal of Logistics: Research and

Applications (IJL) 1

International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management (IJM)

1

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJP)

1

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation (IJT)

1

Journal of Transport Geography (JTG) 1 The Review of Network Economics (RNE) 1 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

(TRA) 1

Transportation Journal (TRJ) 1 1991-2012 Shipping

Management Maritime Policy & Management (MPM) 13

Marine Policy (MAP) 5 International Journal of Shipping and Transport

Logistics (IJS) 4

Maritime Economics and Logistics (MEL)* 4 Journal of Transport Geography (JTG) 3 Research in Transportation Economics (RTE) 3 Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and

Transportation Review (TRE) 3

Transportation Journal (TRJ) 3 GeoJournal (GEJ) 2 Transport Reviews (TRS) 2 World Maritime University Journal of Maritime

Affairs (WMU) 2

Applied Economics (APE) 1 Growth and Change (GAC) 1 International Journal of Logistics: Research and

Applications (IJL) 1

Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) 1 International Journal of Ocean Systems Management

(IJO) 1

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJP)

1

Review of Urban and Regional Development (RUR) 1 The Review of Network Economics (RNE) 1 Transport Policy (TRP) 1 1991-2012 Shipping Maritime Policy & Management (MPM) 32

 30

Economics Journal of Transport Geography (JTG) 17 Maritime Economics and Logistics (MEL)* 15 GeoJournal (GEJ) 4 Transport Reviews (TRS) 3 Applied Economics (APE) 1 European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure

Research (EJT) 1

Growth and Change (GAC) 1 International Journal of Physical Distribution and

Logistics Management (IJP) 1

International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics (IJS)

1

Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) 1 Research in Transportation Economics (RTE) 1 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

(TRA) 1

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the Environment (TRD)

1

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review (TRE)

1

Transport Policy (TRP) 1 WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs (WMU) 1 1991-2012 TOTAL Maritime Policy & Management (MPM) 61 Maritime Economics and Logistics (MEL)* 33 Journal of Transport Geography (JTG) 21 Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and

Transportation Review (TRE) 17

International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics (IJS)

9

GeoJournal (GEJ) 7 Research in Transportation Economics (RTE) 6 Journal of the Operational Research Society (JOR) 5 Marine Policy (MAP) 5 Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the

Environment (TRD) 5

Transport Reviews (TRS) 5 WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs (WMU) 5 Transportation Journal (TRJ) 4 Applied Economics (APE) 3 International Journal of Physical Distribution and

Logistics Management (IJP) 3

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies (TRC)

3

Growth and Change (GAC) 2 International Journal of Logistics: Research and

Applications (IJL) 2

Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) 2 The Review of Network Economics (RNE) 2 Transport Policy (TRP) 2 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2

 31

(TRA) Transportation Research Part B: Methodological

(TRB) 2

European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (EJT)

1

International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management (IJM)

1

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation (IJT)

1

International Journal of Ocean Systems Management (IJO)

1

Review of Urban and Regional Development (RUR) 1 Total no. of papers in 1991-2012 211

# The figure includes all papers published in Maritime Studies and Management on or before 1976. * The figure includes all papers published in the International Journal of Maritime Economics on or before 2002.

 32

Table 4. Distribution of papers in container shipping by journal academic disciplines,

1967-2012

Journal’s discipline 1967-1990 1991-2012

Maritime* 34 (48%) 105 (50%)

Economics 19 (27%) 5 (2%)

Transport and logistics 7 (10%) 63 (30%)

Geography, planning and development 6 (8%) 31 (15%)

Operations research and operations management 5 (7%) 7 (3%)

TOTAL 71 (100%) 211 (100%)

* Only journals with clear focus and objectives on the operations, management and economic aspects of the maritime sector (which included container shipping) as defined by the authors (see section 2) were included. Maritime journals specializing in other academic disciplines, like maritime law, were not included.

 33

Figure 1. The number of container shipping papers published in scholarly journals, 1967-

2012