An Exploration in to the Causal Relationship between Performance Inputs and Traffic of Major Ports in India: A Panel Data Analysis

T. Rajasekar¹, Malabika Deo¹ and Rong Ke^2,

¹Department of Commerce, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India

²Department of Logistics Economics, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, China

Cite this paper:
T. Rajasekar, Malabika Deo and Rong Ke. An Exploration in to the Causal Relationship between Performance Inputs and Traffic of Major Ports in India: A Panel Data Analysis. International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management. 2014; 2(2):72-81. doi: 10.12691/ijefm-2-2-3

Abstract

The present research work started with a very simple question: Is there a long run relationship and causality between port performance inputs and port traffic of major ports in India? The study is try to evaluate the long run relationship and causality between port performance inputs and port traffic with the sophisticated panel data models such as unit root, cointegration, error correction model, granger causality, impulse response function and variance decomposition tests of 12 major ports in India over the period of 1993 to 2012. Based on the analysis it is found that there exists long run relationship and causality between port performance inputs and port traffic. The study concluded that the evidence of long run relationship between performance inputs and total traffic, and causality of pre-berthing waiting time and operating expenses unidirectional with port traffic indicate that the major factors influencing port traffic. Over all the results imply that port performance variables that are having the co-integrating relationship with port traffic should be given priority for increasing the port traffic of major ports in India.

Keywords:
port performance port traffic panel data analysis panel cointegration panel error correction model panel granger impulse response function variance decomposition

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Akbar, A., Imdadullah, M., Ullah, M. and Aslam, M, “Determinants of economic growth in Asian Countries: A panel data perspective”, Pakistan Journal of Social Science, 31 (1). 145-157. 20111.
[2]	Bollard, A. and Picford, M, “Deregulation and competition policy in transport sector in New Zealand,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 32 (2). 267-276. 1998.
[3]	Breitung, J, The Local Power of Some Unit Root Tests for Panel Data. In B. Baltagi (ed.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, Advances in Econometrics. Amsterdam. 2000, 161-178.
[4]	Dewan, E, Determinants of economic growth: Panel data approach. Working paper, Reserve Bank of Fiji, 2001.
[5]	Duvivier, R., Frederic, G., and Bruno, H.F, A panel data analysis of the determinants of farmland price: An application to the effects of the 1992 CAP reform in Belgium. XIth CAAE Congress, Denmark, 2005.
[6]	Engle, R.F. and Granger, C.W.J, “Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation and testing,” Econometrica, 55. 251-256. 1987.
[7]	Estache, A. and Carbajo, J, Competing private ports: lessons from Argentina. K. Tilmes (Eds.), The private sector in infrastructure: Strategy, regulation and risk. Washington DC, The World Bank. 1997, 129-132.
[8]	Granger, C.W.J, “Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods,” Econometrica, 36. 424-438. 1969.
[9]	Hadri, K, “Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data,” Econometrics Journal, 3. 148-161. 2000.
[10]	Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H. and Shin, Y, “Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels,” Journal of Econometrics, 115. 53-74. 2003.
[11]	Kao, C, “Spurious Regression and Residual-based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data,” Journal of Econometrics, 90. 1-44. 1999.
[12]	Levin, A., Lin, C. F. and Chu, C. S. J, “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties,” Journal of Econometrics, 108. 1-24. 2012.
[13]	Ligthart, J. and Voget, J, The determinants of Cross – Border tax information sharing: A panel data analysis, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, United Kingdom. 2008.
[14]	Mateev, M. and Anastasov, Y, “Determinants of small and medium sized fast growing enterprises in central and eastern Europe: A panel data analysis”, Financial Theory and Practice, 34 (3). 269-295. 2010.
[15]	Pedroni, P, “Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61. 653-670. 1999.
[16]	Sanchez, R.J., Hoffmann, J., Micco, A., Pizzolitto, G., Sgut, M. and Wilmsmeier, G, “Port efficiency and international trade: Port efficiency as a determinant of maritime transport costs,” Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5. 199-218. 2003.
[17]	Thomas, B.J. and Monie, G, The Measurement of Port Performance: With Particular Reference 10 Container Terminal Operations. International Labour Organizations (Ilo ‘S) Porth’orker Development Progranne (Pdp). Cardiff/ Antwerp, January, 2003.
[18]	Tongzon, J. L, “Determinants of port performance and efficiency,” Transportation Research Part A, 29A (3). 245-252. 1995.
[19]	Twimukye, E, An econometric analysis of determinants of foreign direct investment: A panel data study for Africa. Doctoral thesis submitted to Graduate School of Clemson University, 2006.
[20]	Veldman. and Vrookmen, A model of container port competition: An application for the transshipment market of the Mediterranean. The International Association of Maritime Economists, 2007.
[21]	Wu, J. and Lin, C, “National port competitiveness: Implications for India,” Management Decisions, 46 (10). 1482-1507. 2008.
[22]	Wu, J., Yan, H. and Liu, J, “Groups in DEA based cross-evaluation: An application to Asian container ports,” Maritime Policy Management, 36 (6). 545-558. 2009.
[23]	Zohil, J. and Prijon, M, “The MED rule: The interdependence of container throughput and transshipment volumes in the Mediterranean ports,” Maritime Policy Management, 26 (2). 175-193. 1999.