Beyond Efficiency: A Qualitative Inquiry into Port Privatization and Its Socio-Economic Repercussions in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone.

This qualitative research paper focuses on exploring the socio-economic and political impacts of privatizing the port in weak, post-conflict West Africa, as illustrated by the Sierra Leone concession of the Freetown Container terminal in 2010. Beyond efficiency-based assessment and a political settlement and institutional hybridity perspective, the study examines the role of privatization in redefining power, equity and the institutional governance. A collection of data was performed in the form of 42 semi-structured interviews, three focus groups discussion, and document analysis with different stakeholders. The results are a two-sided story: although operational gains are recognized, efficiency gains have been monopolized as both private rent and not socialized, thus putting small traders at a disadvantage and the regulation in a poorer position. Regulatory atrophy, social dislocation of port workers and informal workers, and the presence of informal adaptations are found to be the main results of the study. We find that privatization of ports is not merely a technical issue in fragile states but a polarized process with high-trade off distributional and sovereignty as well as argue in favor of evaluative frameworks that would view equity, institutional capacity and social legitimacy, alongside efficiency indicators. This study can be relevant to the field of political economy, development by offering an in-depth, qualitative study of infrastructure privatization in an under-researched setting and providing a contribution to the reconsideration of privatization designs in weak states.

Sierra Leone, Port privatization, fragile states, political economy, regulatory governance, equity

1. Alderton, P. M. (2018). Chapter 9: Port Commercialization and Privatization. In Port Business (pp. 243–252). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781547400874-012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baird, A. J. (2002). The Economics of Container Transhipment in Northern Europe. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 4(3), 249–280. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100048 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the Research Process. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cleaver, F., Franks, T. R., Maganga, F., & Hall, K. (2013). Institutions, Security, and Pastoralism: Exploring the Limits of Hybridity. African Studies Review, 56, 165–189. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142821923 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing among Five Approaches. (4th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cullinane, K., Ji, P., & Wang, T. (2005). The relationship between privatization and DEA estimates of efficiency in the container port industry. Journal of Economics and Business, 57(5), 433–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2005.02.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cullinane, K., & Song, D.-W. (2002). Port privatization policy and practice. Transport Reviews, 22(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640110042138 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dayrobi, Mhd., Usqo, H. U., & Lubis, F. (2024). The Relationship Between Structuration Theory and Agency According to Giddens and Walters. PKM-P, 8(2), 348–353. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://doi.org/10.32832/jurma.v8i2.2524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Demianchenko, A., Dergausov, M., & Ryabchuk, V. (2021). The impact of Privatization on the Port Systems of the World. Economic Herald of the Donbas, 3 (65), 110–114. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. https://doi.org/10.12958/1817-3772-2021-3(65)-110-114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Estache, A., & Burns, P. (1999). Information, Accounting, and the Regulation of Concessioned Infrastructure Monopolies. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Estache, A., González, M., & Trujillo, L. (2002). Efficiency Gains from Port Reform and the Potential for Yardstick Competition: Lessons from Mexico. World Development, 30(4), 545–560. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00129-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Evans, P. (2018). Dependent Development. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv346t7d [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ferrari, C., Parola, F., & Tei, A. (2015). Governance models and port concessions in Europe: Commonalities, critical issues and policy perspectives. Transport Policy, 41, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.03.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fukuyama, F. (2004). State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Cornell University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvrf8c1g [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Ganson, B., & M’cleod, H. (2019). Private sector development and the persistence of fragility in Sierra Leone. Business and Politics, 21(4), 602–631. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. GoSL. (2010). National ports privatization and concession framework. . [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. GoSL. (2020). Annual Performance Reports. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Forster, H. T., & Mouly, V. S. (2006). Privatisation in a developing country: insights from the Gambia. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(2), 250–265. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610648942 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hickey, S., Sen, K., & Bukenya, B. (2014). The Politics of Inclusive Development (S. Hickey, K. Sen, & B. Bukenya, Eds.). Oxford University Press Oxford. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198722564.001.0001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Khan, M. H. (2010). Political Settlements and the Governance of Growth-Enhancing Institutions. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:48464248 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Kurz, C. P. (2010). What You See is What You Get: Analytical Lenses and the Limitations of Post Conflict State building in Sierra Leone. Journal of Intervention and State building, 4(2), 205–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502970903533702 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Lippuner, R., & Werlen, B. (2009). Structuration Theory. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography: Volume 1-12, 1–12, V11-39-V11-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00749-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. (2001). From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 321–389. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.39.2.321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Micco, A., & Pérez, N. (2002). Determinants of Maritime Transport Costs. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1817241 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Middlebrook, P. (2012). Building a “Fragile Consensus”: Liberalisation and State Fragility. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k49dfg07sxx-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Miranda, N. (2007). Concession Agreements: From Private Contract to Public Policy. The Yale Law Journal, 117(3), 510. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455800 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mirhosseini, S. A. (2006). Norman Fairclough, Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research</i>. Language in Society, 35(4), 620–624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506230288 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mosse, D. (2004). Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142862775 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Munim, Z. H., & Schramm, H.-J. (2018). The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: the mediating role of seaborne trade. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mustapha, M. (2010). Global Inequalities and Peace in Postwar Sierra Leone. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:157991851 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Nayak, B. S. (2019). Reconceptualising Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in global public policy. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 15(3), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-04-2018-0041 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. : Vol. 4th Edition. Sage [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Publications, Thousand Oaks. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Radić, M., Ravasi, D., & Munir, K. (2021). Privatization: Implications of a Shift from State to Private Ownership. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1596–1629. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320988356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Sherman, R. B. (1995). PRIVATIZATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. PUBLIC SEAPORT AGENCIES. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:168009011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Trujillo, L., & Nombela, G. (1999). Privatization and Regulation of the Seaport Industry. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Wijaya, A. F. (2008). The Inequitable Impacts of a Corrupt Governance System on the Poor. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:166480115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications : design and methods. https://lccn.loc.gov/2017040835 (Sixth edition.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Decadal Overview of Welfare Schemes in Telangana (2014–2024)
• Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South: Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
• Exploring the Factors of Obesity: Insights from Johor State Civil Servants
• Navigating the Nexus: Challenges Faced by Part-Time Postgraduate Government Employees in Malaysia
• The Lived Experiences of Skilled Filipino Women Immigrants in Denmark