In the eye of a geopolitical storm: responses of port management bodies to investment screening in the EU

Floor Doppen (), Theo Notteboom () and Dirk Bièvre ()
Additional contact information
Floor Doppen: University of Antwerp
Theo Notteboom: University of Antwerp
Dirk Bièvre: University of Antwerp

Journal of Shipping and Trade, 2025, vol. 10, issue 1, 1-27

Abstract: Abstract Ports are strategic nodes in trade & supply chain logistics, energy generation, storage & transport, industry activity, and socio-economic impact, and have long been considered critical infrastructures. They are also capital-intensive and benefit significantly from the influx of substantial foreign direct and equity investments. For this reason, ports feature prominently in new and amended investment screening mechanisms (ISMs) that allow EU governments to screen and potentially block foreign direct investment (FDI) on grounds of security or public order. We compare the involvement of Port Management Bodies (PMB) in the political process leading up to domestic and EU regulation on investment screening and analyse how PMBs manage their concession processes in response to changing legislation. Despite the current general rise in geopolitical tensions in international economic relations and similar exposure to incoming state-led Chinese FDI, we find that investment screening in ports varies significantly across the EU, and Port Management Bodies (PMBs) respond differently to government investment screening. We show that existing port governance structures work to mediate PMB responses to FDI screening, in particular as a result of their degree of decisional and financial autonomy: Centralized ‘Latin’ port management bodies are more likely to internalize investment screening, while city-controlled and/or more decentralized ‘Hanse’ PMBs tackle it as a new and external element to their investment decision processes. We elaborate on these differences in great detail in a multiple case study setup involving the Western Ligurian Sea Port Authority in Italy, the Port of Antwerp-Bruges in Belgium, Hamburg Port Authority in Germany, and Port of Rotterdam Authority in the Netherlands. While all European PMBs find themselves caught in the relative quiet of the eye of a geopolitical storm, all of them may well have to brace for coming headwinds when government screening authorities are tasked to intervene.

Keywords: Port governance; Investment screening; Port concessions; National security; EU (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s41072-025-00213-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:josatr:v:10:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s41072-025-00213-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://jshippingandtrade.springeropen.com/

DOI: 10.1186/s41072-025-00213-3

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Shipping and Trade is currently edited by Kee-Hung Lai

More articles in Journal of Shipping and Trade from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().