The Quality of Port Infrastructure ranking

 There is something about rankings. In sports, and increasingly in business, rankings abound. We have rankings of the best places to live, the most knowledge intensive regions of the world and the most competitive economies. In the latter case, countries are compared across economic performance criteria. One of the most influential is the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The 2012-2013 WEF ranking appeared last September. Switzerland is on top, moving ahead of Singapore. The WEF ranking consists of over 100 ranked items, classified in 12 pillars. For each pillar, some rankings are survey based, while others are based on actual data.


Through the provision of cost-efficient, reliable and frequent connections to overseas and inland markets seaports play an essential role in facilitating trade and in increasing the competitiveness of a nation or region. It is no surprise that Pillar 2 of the GCI dealing with infrastructure includes a component on the ‘Quality of Port Infrastructure’. This component is based on survey results where business leaders assess the competitiveness of economies. Like most other rankings in business, the ranking methodology is not perfect. For one, the ranking is based on perceptions of business leaders, which may not always be accurate. In academia, scholars are well aware that ‘stated preferences’ (based on perceptions and ‘what if ’ situations) and ‘revealed preferences’ (based on actual economic behaviour) do not always point to the same direction. Next, the business leaders rank a variety of indicators, so they rank the quality of port infrastructure probably more in relation to other variables, as compared to other countries. Third, cultural differences are likely to affect results. In some cultures more outspoken and straightforward scores are given, while respondents in other cultures are less inclined to score really high or low. This is relevant as the highest-ranking countries, The Netherlands and Singapore, score a 6.8 on a maximum of 7.

These disclaimers apply, but still, most industry observers would not be too surprised to find these two countries at the top of the rankings. Moving from a 4.5 to a 4.6 may not be a reason to uncork the bottles, but the big picture is probably correct. Therefore, we think it is worth discussing some important findings from these rankings.

Huge differences between the BRIC countries

First of all, the BRIC countries, whose economic performance is crucial for global economic growth, overall do not score high, with substantial differences between them. Brazil ranks 127th of 141, with a score of just 2.7. Furthermore, the country’s score has gone down in the last decade. This is a huge issue as Brazil has a vast potential for increased exports as well as imports. Important improvements in the port sector are required to enable this, both at the level of infrastructure provision, port operations and unfolding port governance reform processes.

Russia is somewhat better off with a score of 3.7, India even a bit better (4.0), whereas China scores a 4.4. Especially this last result is intriguing: even though China has the largest ports in the world and advances substantial investments in port infrastructure, its ranking is average. This may hint at institutional and procedural bottlenecks.

Overall, these results suggest a huge unlocked potential for international trade. This applies to the BRIC, but also to the ‘next eleven’ - Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, South Korea and Vietnam - that were identified by Goldman Sachs as large countries with huge growth potential.

The performance of the only fully private port sector (the UK) is improving

Next, it is interesting to look at the performance of the UK, the only country with a fully private port industry. The UK scores a 5.8, good enough to reach the 13th position. In the last five years, the UK’s score has gone up year by year. So even though some observers have voiced concerns over the lack of public control over a vital sector, this WEF ranking suggests the UK ports industry is performing well without the public funding that goes into the industry in many other countries.

France’s port reform has not (yet) had an effect

It may be too early to expect results, but France’s score, after the port reform that was finalised in 2011, suggests that the effects are still to come. After scores around 6 in the period 2004-2010, France is now down to 5.4. This may be due to the labour unrest (in 2010 and 2011) that negatively impacted the image of French ports (in particular Marseille). It will be interesting to see how business leaders rank France’s port system in the coming years. Indeed, there seems to be a considerable time lag between a port reform process and an improved score in the WEF ranking: Ireland pursued port reform in the late 1990s but only started to score better since 2007.

Germany seems to slide down

Germany may be a case in point to suggest that a high quality port infrastructure needs to be nurtured. Germany ranked 4th in 2007, with a score of 6.6, but has since been sliding down to 6.0, and the 10th place. The score is certainly still good, but does seem to suggest that the quality of the port infrastructure is less considered as of global benchmark quality . Perhaps the investments in Wilhemshafen and the associated port competition dynamics will turn this trend around.