Page 19 - Mellinato, Giulio, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2022. Complex Gateways. Labour and Urban History of Maritime Port Cities: The Northern Adriaticin a Comparative Perspective. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 19
Complex Gateways: The North Adriatic Port System in Historical Perspective
by far the smallest group within the different research methods chosen
(Wan et al. 2018). The same could be said for maritime clusters (Shi et
al. 2020), port competitiveness (Munim and Saeed 2019; Fiskin and Cerit
2020), and other sub-subjects.
In recent times, some recommendations were presented, suggesting
new and more comprehensive ways to deal with the complexities of port
history, both in relation to the subjects chosen and the chronological ex-
tension of the research. Port work (and workers’) historical studies have
been recognized as a promising sub-field of research, although scholars
specializing in this subfield tend to have little interactions with other
port historians. As Sarah Palmer pointed out, ‘those specializing in the
study of port labour tend not to identify themselves with other types of
port historian, seeing themselves as social rather than maritime histori-
ans’ (Palmer 2020).
On the other hand, port economists feel themselves so close to the
economic research paradigm to neglect, or simply consider exogenous,
the social and cultural environment.
By the beginning of the new century, the publication of two green
papers (by the World Bank and UNCTAD) ignited a new debate, lead-
ing to a broad assessment of the scope, limits and possible application
of inquiries regarding the relationship between styles of governance
and port performance. Immediately after the publication of those “of-
ficial” papers, within a general reconsideration of the matter, Mary R.
Brooks and Kevin Cullinane have highlighted the fact that an oversim-
plification of the approaches used to study the functioning of port sys-
tems could lead to a poor understanding, and therefore to serious errors
of governance and programming. As they have said, the fruitful approach
is the one where ‘port performance is viewed as a function (output) of
the match (or fit) among the characteristics of the organization’s external
operating (or task) environment, strategies and structures’ (Brooks and
Cullinane 2007, 392). In theory, this approach considers the economic and
the non-economic goals equally important, clearly reflecting a full appre-
ciation of the hybrid nature of seaports, as simultaneously profit-seek-
ing firms, government extensions, key services providers for entire eco-
nomic sectors, utilities and logistic nodes, and so on. Notwithstanding
this more open-minded approach, the human factor remained missing in
these studies, including in recent times (Lacoste and Douet 2013; Munim,
Saeed, and Larsen 2019). Actually, economic literature dealing with the
19
by far the smallest group within the different research methods chosen
(Wan et al. 2018). The same could be said for maritime clusters (Shi et
al. 2020), port competitiveness (Munim and Saeed 2019; Fiskin and Cerit
2020), and other sub-subjects.
In recent times, some recommendations were presented, suggesting
new and more comprehensive ways to deal with the complexities of port
history, both in relation to the subjects chosen and the chronological ex-
tension of the research. Port work (and workers’) historical studies have
been recognized as a promising sub-field of research, although scholars
specializing in this subfield tend to have little interactions with other
port historians. As Sarah Palmer pointed out, ‘those specializing in the
study of port labour tend not to identify themselves with other types of
port historian, seeing themselves as social rather than maritime histori-
ans’ (Palmer 2020).
On the other hand, port economists feel themselves so close to the
economic research paradigm to neglect, or simply consider exogenous,
the social and cultural environment.
By the beginning of the new century, the publication of two green
papers (by the World Bank and UNCTAD) ignited a new debate, lead-
ing to a broad assessment of the scope, limits and possible application
of inquiries regarding the relationship between styles of governance
and port performance. Immediately after the publication of those “of-
ficial” papers, within a general reconsideration of the matter, Mary R.
Brooks and Kevin Cullinane have highlighted the fact that an oversim-
plification of the approaches used to study the functioning of port sys-
tems could lead to a poor understanding, and therefore to serious errors
of governance and programming. As they have said, the fruitful approach
is the one where ‘port performance is viewed as a function (output) of
the match (or fit) among the characteristics of the organization’s external
operating (or task) environment, strategies and structures’ (Brooks and
Cullinane 2007, 392). In theory, this approach considers the economic and
the non-economic goals equally important, clearly reflecting a full appre-
ciation of the hybrid nature of seaports, as simultaneously profit-seek-
ing firms, government extensions, key services providers for entire eco-
nomic sectors, utilities and logistic nodes, and so on. Notwithstanding
this more open-minded approach, the human factor remained missing in
these studies, including in recent times (Lacoste and Douet 2013; Munim,
Saeed, and Larsen 2019). Actually, economic literature dealing with the
19
