Performance indicators on socioeconomic impacts of seaport activities are important instruments in supporting and strengthening the societal acceptance of these activities, and they are frequently reported in port sustainability reports. However, the use of these indicators for the purpose of gaining broader acceptance for seaport activities and port expansion is limited and has been questioned by scholars, as well as different stakeholders within the seaport environment. Recognizing the problems associated with these indicators, through evaluating the building of a measurement system at a European level, this chapter particularly focuses on (1) the results of a stakeholder consultation on methodological aspects of socioeconomic impact calculation in 58 European ports, (2) the results of the attempt to develop a top-down harmonized calculation method for calculating socioeconomic indicators for all European core ports, and (3) the results of developing a proxy-based methodology to allow seaports to calculate basic socioeconomic impacts. Findings discuss variable and data specifications needed for future possibilities for building such measurement systems as well as on institutional requirements.

While public entities are still increasingly interested in Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs), we recently observe increasing reluctance from private partners to engage in PPP-bidding. Up-front costs that PPP bidders make, are considered too high compared to the bidding chances, and may result in less bidders in the future. In this paper, we empirically analyze transaction costs of PPPs in the pre-contractual stage and compare these to similar costs borne by private partners for traditional public procurement. Statistical analyses based on sample of 172 public infrastructure projects enable the estimation of the pre-contractual cost burden. Based on the study results, suggestions are made to lower these costs or to improve the cost position of the private sector, in order to safeguard the competitive setting of the PPP market.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to offer a systematic assessment of the magnitude of transaction costs of public infrastructure delivery, based on the three attributes of transaction costs, being the asset specificity, uncertainty and frequency of a transaction.Design/methodology/approach– Non-parametric tests were used to test the transaction cost differences between different procurement types.Findings– The authors find empirical support, based on a sample of 172 public infrastructure projects in Belgium, that construction firms make higher relation specific investments to their transaction partners under a public-private partnership (PPP) than a under a traditional public procurement (TPP). In addition, the authors found that PPP transactions are burdened by a greater uncertainty and a less mature market than TPP transactions.Research limitations/implications– Given the complexity of this research, the scope is limited to: a strict distinction between two procurement types, one geographical area, a limited time scope and a focus on the private sector. Hence, the authors suggest that further research broadens the scope of either one of these aspects in order to get a better understanding of the total transaction cost burden of the public infrastructure market.Practical implications– This study offers policy makers form a better understanding of the transaction cost implications when evaluating different procurement types.Originality/value– This paper serves as one of the first systematic comparative analyses of the magnitude and determinants of transaction costs for the delivery of public infrastructure.

Although stakeholder management is seen as one of the main success factors of Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs), to date, limited research has investigated actual stakeholder management in PPPs. After positioning PPP in the current stakeholder management theory, a comparative case study analysis of four PPP infrastructure projects demonstrates the relevance and importance of stakeholder inclusion in PPPs. The case study findings indicate that a PPP makes the stakeholder environment more complex to manage, due to the increasing importance of the stakeholder context and dynamics. Hence, allocating stakeholder responsibilities between the public initiator and private consortium becomes problematic as it goes hand in hand with balancing between reactive and proactive responses to stakeholder claims. In order to cope with the PPP specific stakeholder characteristics, the use of a dynamic dual stakeholder management tool is recommended as well as the identification of governance structures that allow the sharing and division of responsibilities between stakeholders.