The Panama Canal Expansion

From its construction phase to its completion, the Panama Canal expansion has received much academic interest, considering that the PCA envisioned that this project would turn Panama into a major maritime hub (PCA, 2006). However, others remained skeptical of the forecasted impact of this project. For instance, the National Front for the Defense of Economic and Social Rights forecasted that the expanded Panama Canal would neither cause an increase in the international maritime market share nor induce a change in international commercial routes to move more cargo (^{FRENADESO, 2006}).

On the contrary, ^{Alvarez et al. (2009)} predicted that the expanded Panama Canal would experience a massive increase in cargo because of the transit of Post-Panamax vessels, which would produce a positive economic effect in the first 10 years of operation. Likewise, several U.S. government officials endorsed the expansion project because of the impact on transnational commercial sectors and the promotion of worldwide trade and international shipping (^{Mann, 2011}).

On the other hand, ^{Bussolo et al. (2012)} claimed that the expanded Panama Canal would produce economic disparities and exacerbate the gap between the poor and the rich. However, ^{Hricko (2012)} believed that the Panama Canal expansion would have an outsized impact because it would change the market share distribution among U.S. ports between the West Coast and the Gulf Coast as well as increasing the export and import of agrarian products. Similarly, ^{Corbett et al. (2012)} oxides of sulfur and particulate matter estimated that the expanded Panama Canal would produce a potentially small shift in Asia-U.S. container volumes from the West Coast toward major ports on the East Coast due to the transit of larger vessels.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Transportation and Maritime Administration (2013) expected that this project would increase the preference for Caribbean or Panamanian container transshipment ports over American due to increased vessel size and impact on container cargo flows. Not surprisingly, ^{Muirhead et al. (2015)} scheduled for completion in 2015, is expected to have major effects on commercial shipping and port operations throughout the world, with potential consequences for the transfer and establishment of non-indigenous species that remain largely unexplored. We developed a series of scenario-based models to examine how shipping traffic patterns may change after expansion and consider possible implications for species transfers and invasion dynamics in the USA. Location: Coastal USA, excluding Alaska and Hawaii Methods: Using a Monte Carlo simulation approach, we predicted changes in discharged ballast water, wetted surface area of ship hulls and frequency of ship arrivals modelled under scenarios that are based on (1 predicted that the Panama Canal expansion would double the number of ships arriving at the Gulf Coast in only five years after its completion because it would be able to potentially divert incoming ships from the West Coast to the East Coast of the United States. However, just like the National Front for the Defense of Economic and Social Rights, ^{Rodrigue (2015)} warned about the exaggeration of expected benefits from the Panama Canal expansion because this new project would not change current trends in the global market.

Later, ^{Park and Park (2016)} forecasted a change in export and import shipping routes for the U.S. West Coast because the Panama Canal expansion would allow more cargo to move by larger seagoing vessels instead of by smaller land transport, such as trucks and trains in the American transportation system. As a result, ^{Serebrisky et al. (2016)} claimed that while the Panama Canal had transformed Central American and Caribbean ports into specialized transshipment ports, the expanded Panama Canal had added extra pressure on those ports to prepare themselves to receive a higher demand and larger vessels.

Moreover, ^{Bhadury (2016)} argued that Gulf Coast ports have been experiencing massive investment in order to prepare their infrastructure in terms of channel depth, channel width, and the capacity to handle Post-Panamax or Super Post-Panamax vessels. Also, ^{Martinez et al. (2016)} claimed that the Panama Canal expansion would cause a gradual change in cargo carriers coming from Asia because they would use the new channel for saving time to reach the East Coast instead of using the congested West Coast, which would have more implications for different actors in the American shipping industry. For instance, ^{Vorotnikova and Devadoss (2016)} explained that the Panama Canal expansion would increase the trade flow of dairy products such as dry milk and butter coming from the West Coast and the East Coast toward other international markets in Asia, Africa, and Oceania.

In general, scholars expected that the expanded Panama Canal would reduce congestion, lower the costs of transportation, and reduce contamination (^{Mulligan & Lombardo, 2016}). Additionally, ^{Tai and Lin (2016)} the departure points of which are all in East Asia. Design/methodology/approach-The operating conditions of various shipping practices were used to simulate trunk route deployment after canal expansion. Subsequently, a clean-line strategy featuring liquefied natural gas (LNG argued that the Panama Canal would influence container carriers to choose this route due to the increasing cargo capacity of ships. Of note, it was expected that the Panama Canal would increase its container ship capacity for being able to handle the transit of vessels of 5,320 TEUs to a capacity of 13,500 TEUs (^{Liu et al., 2016}).

Likewise, the Panama Canal expansion would enhance the competitiveness of its maritime cluster, which is located in a strategic geographical position, given the increase in vessel transit and port interconnections (^{Pagano et al., 2016}). For instance, ^{Rodrigue and Ashar (2016)} claimed that the Panama Canal expansion would eventually increase transshipment activity in Caribbean ports, which led some global terminal operators to consider those ports as potential areas to expand capacity and depth.

As a result, ^{Knatz (2017)} explained that the U.S. government had improved funding, its management interactions with ports, its legal framework, and the harbor maintenance tax regulations in order to reduce port congestion, retain American competitiveness, and improve general economic development. Notably, the Panama Canal has an advantage over other options, such as the Suez Canal and the U.S. intermodal system, for vessels of 8,600 TEU to 13,000 TEU in terms of reducing transportation costs and reliability for liner shipping companies (^{Pham et al., 2018}). In other words, this expansion project would produce many benefits in the traffic of vessels in terms of speed, efficiency, and capacity (^{Zielinski, 2018}).

Later, ^{Changkeun et al. (2020)} claimed that it was expected that West Coast ports in Oregon, California and Washington would lose importance because shipping lines would prefer to use the new Panama Canal given its larger capacity, which would benefit the East Coast and the Gulf Coast. Moreover, ^{Medina et al. (2020)} argued that the Panama Canal expansion had significantly increased the import volume of U.S. ports located on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts over those located on the Pacific Coast.

Likewise, a study concluded that the expanded Panama Canal would produce a smaller impact on the cargo competition for ports located in Europe than those located in the United States given their longer geographical distance from the canal (^{Hassel et al., 2020}). Additionally, ^{Miller and Hyodo (2021)} conducted a study on 100 ports on the Latin American and Caribbean sides of the canal and concluded that the Panama Canal expansion had significantly increased cargo volume in Latin American ports, except for some ports in the Caribbean region.

Transshipment Ports

Transshipment ports play an important role in global shipping. According to ^{Medda and Carbonaro (2007)}, transshipment ports focus on interactive connections working as hubs to feed and relay cargo from one port to another region. As a result of their importance, transshipment ports have been subject to different studies. For instance, ^{McCalla (2008)} conducted research on the transshipment port in Kingston, Jamaica which highlighted that this port has the centrality to minimize distance at regional and hemispheric levels as well as intermediacy to main routes because of its proximity to the Panama Canal.

Likewise, ^{McCalla (2008)} analyzed the effect that geographical proximity to main shipping lanes and the Panama Canal had on transshipment ports in Colon, Kingston, Freeport, Rio Haina/Caucedo, Port of Spain/Point Lisas, and Cartagena. The results of this study demonstrated the primary importance of proximity, infrastructure, management, and productivity on transshipment cargo volumes.

^{Chou (2009)} studied transshipment ports in Hong Kong and Kaohsiung and concluded that shipping companies chose competitive transshipment ports that reduced the costs to transship cargo as well as those with increased efficiency of loading and discharging. Similarly, ^{Sohn and Jung (2009)} examined 16 major Asian transshipment ports from 1995 to 2005 and concluded that the port size has a positive effect on container handling efficiency and container transshipment volume.

^{Yabin (2010)} conducted research on the Gaolan transshipment port in China and determined that when it comes to transshipment seaports, coal power industries consider key factors such as train transportation, handling capacity, and costs. On the other hand, based on an analysis of 50 carriers and 30 port operators in Asia, ^{Min and Park (2011)} argued that although volume discounts and monetary incentives can be desirable for transshipment ports, several other influential factors such as port proximity to export/import businesses, port service quality, and port security are often ignored by port operators.

Similarly, by studying the transshipment port in Singapore, ^{Kwan and Hilmola (2012)} highlighted different problems stemming from high operational costs, incentives from port competitors, limited manpower, customs processes, and increasing relocation of firms away from Singapore. Also, ^{Bae et al. (2013)} proposed a model to analyze container port competition in China, where the model underscored the influence of port capacity, price difference, transshipment level, and port congestion.

^{Slack and Gouvernal (2016)} studied transshipment ports located in Gioia Tauro, Kingston, Marsaxlokk, Panama, Singapore and Tangiers-Med to accentuate the weakness of transshipment ports to develop large logistics industries because of changing shipping strategies, costs, limited volume of goods, and distance from major markets. On the other hand, ^{Chen et al. (2017)} argued that port selection is influenced by route cost, government policies, customs regulations, and connectivity.

Additionally, ^{Kavirathna et al. (2018)} researched Southeast Asian transshipment ports to evaluate their competitiveness in terms of cost, time, location, operation, and other liner-related factors. ^{Kadaifci et al. (2018)} also studied 14 transshipment ports to demonstrate that port preference is affected by transshipment costs, location, infrastructure, equipment, and technologies.

Likewise, ^{PetrliC and Pavletic (2019)} studied the transshipment port of Rijeka in the North Adriatic Sea to demonstrate the importance of considering different factors such as equipment, liner services, transport network, cost, infrastructure, and quality systems. Also, ^{Koza et al. (2020)} examined the data of 277 ports around the world to conclude that transshipment ports require synchronization among liner services in terms of cargo and time to improve reliability and competitiveness. Finally, ^{Corey et al. (2022)} performed research on Caribbean transshipment ports given their connections to the Panama Canal and the Atlantic Ocean and determined that the ports in Jamaica and the Bahamas have the best geographical position in the region.

Port Throughput

Port throughput represents the amount of cargo or the number of vessels that ports manage during a certain period of time, which can be measured in cargo tonnage, TEU container, and vessel calls (^{U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017}). Port throughput is the most important driver of decision-making processes in port terminals.

According to ^{Chou (2007)}, there are numerous criteria for port selection, such as port location, the volume of the hinterland economy, facilities, efficiency, free trade zones, and future development plans. However, port throughput is one of the most common criteria taken into account for transshipment port selection and one of the most commonly studied aspects as well (^{Lirn et al., 2003}). For instance, ^{Fung (2002)} conducted research on port throughput in Singapore and Hong Kong port terminals to develop a forecasting model, which highlighted the Hong Kong port's potential to replace Singapore's regarding future demands for more cargo.

Similarly, after studying the port throughput of Rotterdam Port in the Netherlands, ^{Langen (2003)} proposed a model to forecast port throughput, which considered different factors such as the rate of containerization, competitive position, the direction of trade, openness, and gross domestic product. Additionally, ^{Veldman and Buckmann, (2003)} examined data from Western European ports to propose a forecasting model that considered other factors such as transport costs, transit time, and the frequency and quality of service. Also, ^{Talley (2006)} studied the port throughput of two Spanish ports to demonstrate that different factors, such as port prices, port service diversification, and port congestion can affect port throughput.

From a different direction, ^{Schulze and Prinzb (2009)} analyzed port throughput data from 1985 to 2005 and predicted a continuous growth of port throughput in Germany until 2008. Also, ^{Gosasang et al. (2011)} examined port throughput in the port of Bangkok from 1999 to 2010 and demonstrated the significant impact of factors such as exchange rates, fuel prices, gross domestic product, inflation rate, and population on container port throughput.

Likewise, ^{Zhang and Cui (2011)} analyzed port throughput in Shanghai Port from 1995 to 2010 to propose a model capable of predicting important variables. Notably, ^{Liu and Park (2011)} found that ports should improve their transshipment and service levels, reduce tariffs, speed up customs clearance, improve government support, and take advantage of the economic development of the surrounding hinterland if they want to improve port throughput.

However, an economic crisis can negatively affect port throughput because of decreased shipping rates, reduced chartering of shipping services, the closing of secondary commercial routes, reduced logistic and port costs, and increased strategic shipping alliances (^{Mãdãlin, 2012}). Furthermore, port throughput can fluctuate as a result of the weather, political factors, management, and other competing ports (^{Tian et al., 2013}).

It is important to highlight that port throughput can incentivize port managers to embark on massive investments to expand port infrastructure without a guarantee of economic return; however, ports should develop strategies to accommodate higher traffic volumes during peak seasons to reduce costs and delays given the volatility of port throughput (^{Xiao et al., 2016}). Nonetheless, the improvement of port throughput can positively affect the economic growth in a country (^{Park & Seo, 2016}).

Moreover, port throughput can be considered as the result of the development of different sectors in terms of imports and exports that work in tandem (^{Paflioti et al., 2017}). Thus, port throughput can be positively affected by different factors. For instance, the growth and development of connectivity between ports and their surrounding hinterlands by train and the efficiency of the rail-served port's operations exert a significant influence on port throughput (^{Woodburn, 2017}).

Port throughput can be also influential. For instance, after studying 11 ports in the ^{Yangtze River, Yang et al. (2017)} concluded that port throughput has a negative effect on the bulk traffic of transshipment seaports. However, other factors can also affect port throughput. For instance, changing regional transshipment markets can affect the forecast of port throughput (^{Grifoll, 2019}). Likewise, container freight rates can negatively affect port throughput, although this effect is not consistently significant (^{Açik, 2019}). Of note, transshipment ports can experience a significant instability in terms of port throughput given the interaction of different actors and factors (^{Notteboom et al., 2019}).

Subsequent research has focused on port throughput in the Asian continent. For instance, ^{Tang et al. (2019)} analyzed the port throughput data of the Shanghai Port and Lianyungang Port from 1990 to 2017 to propose a model capable of predicting port throughput for both ports. Likewise, ^{Rumaji (2019)} examined the high-cost logistics and price disparities of transshipment ports in Indonesia, which aimed to enhance connectivity and reduce total shipping costs.

Additionally, ^{Feng et al. (2020)} examined port throughput data of the Yangtze River Delta ports to propose a model able to analyze the evolution, concentration, inequality, and competition of different ports in that region. Finally, after analyzing the port throughput data of Shanghai Port from 2012 to 2020, ^{Huang et al. (2022)} underscored the negative effect of COVID-19 on those ports.

Consequently, while most research has focused on forecasting models for port throughput, this research focuses on analyzing the effect of the Panama Canal expansion on the port throughput of transshipment ports in the Republic of Panama given their geographical proximity to the expanded Panama Canal.

Research Question

What is the effect of the Panama Canal expansion on the port throughput of Panama transshipment ports?

Hypotheses

H₀: The Panama Canal expansion has not produced a significant change in the port throughput of Panama transshipment ports.

H_A: The Panama Canal expansion has produced a significant change in the port throughput of Panama transshipment ports.

Methods

To test the hypotheses regarding the Panama Canal expansion's effect on the port cargo throughput of transshipment ports, this research used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This test, developed by Frank Wilcoxon in 1945, is a non-parametric statistical method to analyze whether there is a significant difference between two or more sets of pairs (^{Hayes, 2021}). In other words, this test can compare several subjects under two different conditions (^{Scheff, 2016}).

The Wilcoxon test has been used to compare simulation models and predicted values for the port of Alexandria, Egypt (^{Ragheb et al., 2010}). Similarly, this test has been used to analyze the efficiency of port performance and the optimal size of investment in 20 Korean ports from 1997 to 2007 (^{Ro, 2010}).

Also, it has been used to analyze forecasting models for container traffic in Turkish seaports (^{Gökkuş et al., 2017}). Similarly, it has been used to analyze services in Brazilian seaports in terms of economy, reliability, and quality (^{Longaray et al., 2019}). Additionally, this research uses the IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 27) for analysis.

Population

The population for this research was the six transshipment ports located in the Republic of Panama as the main beneficiaries of the Panama Canal expansion: (1) the Panama Port Company-Balboa and (2) the PSA Panama International Terminal, located on the Pacific Ocean, (3) the Colon Container Terminal, (4) the Manzanillo International Terminal, (5) the Panama Port Company-Cristobal, and (6) the Bocas Fruit Company Port located on the Caribbean Sea.

Data Collection and Analysis

This research used public data from the Central America Maritime and Port Statistical Information System to measure port throughput (COCATRAM, 2022a). To determine the effect of the Panama Canal expansion, completed in June 2016, on the port throughput of transshipment ports, two periods were analyzed. The first period covered the fourth quarter of 2010 to the second quarter of 2016. The second period covered the third quarter of 2016 to the first quarter of 2022.

In this research, the first quarter includes January, February, and March; the second quarter covers April, May, and June; the third quarter includes July, August, and September; and the fourth quarter encompasses October, November, and December. To have a more precise analysis of the effect of the Panama Canal expansion on port throughput, this research considered cargo tonnage, cargo TEU, and vessel calls.

Cargo Tonnage

Cargo tonnage represents the total amount that a ship can carry, which excludes the weight of fuel, supplies, equipment, and crew (^{ProConnect, 2022}). Cargo tonnage is a conventional measure that can be very influential for decision-making, allocation of public resources, and attracting private investments (^{Simkins & Stewart, 2015}).

This variable is the most comprehensive measure because it can include the weight of shipping containers, roll-on/roll-on cargo, solid bulk cargo, liquid bulk cargo, and general cargo (^{U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017}). In other words, cargo tonnage is a better measure than cargo TEU because it includes all forms of cargo (^{Valentine et al., 2013}). For cargo tonnage, the data is expressed in metric tons. A metric ton is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms or approximately 2,200 pounds (^{COCATRAM, 2022b}).

Cargo TEU

Cargo TEU are intrinsically related to containers, which are reusable steel boxes for transporting different types of cargo by container ships (^{Witters & Ivy, 2002}). Those container ships have been gradually expanding their cargo capacity because of international corporate alliances, which aim to save costs and time as well as increase the frequency of calls (^{Kelly & Arai, 2009}).

Container ships have been key to worldwide interconnections because the contain-erization of goods and products can save time in port operations as well as enhance import and export activities (^{ICC, 2022}). Ports use cranes to load and unload massive amounts of containers onto and off container ships (^{Jha, 2022}). Consequently, when a container ship arrives in a port, it will first unload its container cargo; afterward, it will load laden containers to satisfy demands as well as empty containers according to port management (^{Song & Dong, 2008}). For this research, the data is expressed in Twenty-Foot-Equivalent Unit (TEU). A TEU is a conventional measure where a 20-foot-long container is expressed as 1 TEU and a 40-foot-long container is expressed as 2 TEU (^{Vis & Koster, 2003}).

Vessel Calls

Although vessel calls can be affected by location, trade routes, and weather conditions, vessel calls are one of the most important considerations for port planning and construction because it is expected that a certain number of vessels arrive during a period of time (^{Jagerman & Altiok, 2003}). Vessel calls refer to ship arrivals in any port (^{U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017}). Nevertheless, vessel calls are primarily dependent on the shipping schedule (^{Bellsola et al., 2018}).

Due to vessel calls, ports can experience periods of high activity during arrivals of expected and unexpected vessels as well as times of idleness when ports are not used (^{Jiménez et al., 2021}). For this research, vessel calls are defined as the vessel arrivals in the six transshipment ports to load and unload cargo or to avoid any danger (^{COCATRAM, 2022c}). The data is expressed in units.

Managerial Implications

Because of the magnitude and importance of the Panama Canal expansion for the international shipping industry, it was reasonable to believe that this project would produce massive increases in container port throughput in the six transshipment ports in the Republic of Panama. The prediction logically considered those transshipment ports as the primary beneficiaries because of their geographical proximity to the Atlantic and Caribbean entries of the Panama Canal.

The insignificant improvement in cargo tonnage and cargo TEU as well as the decrease in vessel calls to Panama transshipment ports will eventually make port managers more cautious when it comes to massive economic investments, acquisitions of more equipment, and recruitment of new manpower. It is also possible that the lack of significant improvement in port throughput will lead to losing more competitiveness to other ports in the Caribbean basin.

The managerial implications for the future are heterogeneous. On the one hand, although the effect of the Panama Canal expansion has not been significant, the slow increase in cargo tonnage and cargo TEU may indicate that the significant benefits for transshipment ports will remain the same for quite a long time. For example, in 2013, the Manzanillo International Port in Panama enthusiastically announced a $270 million investment to receive more cargo and remain competitive due to the Panama Canal expansion (^{Panamá América, 2013}). Later, in 2014, Panama Ports Company-Balboa announced a $110 million investment in preparation for the Panama Canal expansion (^{CDS, 2014}). On the other hand, the gradual decrease in vessel calls can be worrisome for the whole industrial maritime cluster of Panama transshipment ports.

Nevertheless, it should be observed that ^{Gourdin (2019)} argued that since economic benefits take too long to become tangible, they are commonly inflated to justify the construction of new waterways, ports, and bridges; however, those economic investments are eventually discovered to be avoidable. Notably, container ports can experience uncertainty because of the unsecured returns of economic investments, the reality of local institutions, the legal framework, the fragmented interdependency of various international logistical actors, the state of the relationship with port workers, and the political and community support for infrastructure projects (^{Danyluk, 2019}).

It could be argued that the Panama Canal expansion was only conceived and financed by the PCA to increase the transit of larger vessels through the Panama Canal. In other words, the Panama Canal expansion was completed to specifically solve the Panama Canal's needs and not those of the transshipment ports. For example, since its expansion, the Panama Canal has notably expanded the transit of container ships through its Neopanamax locks. Considering that transshipment ports did not finance the Panama Canal expansion, the former argument seems valid. However, the present result contradicts the ^{PCA's (2006)} claim that this project would transform Panama into a great maritime hub.

Moreover, the 12% decrease in vessel calls to the six transshipment ports could indicate that the Panama Canal expansion is gradually affecting transshipment port preference, which is causing container ships to transit more easily transshipment hubs in the Caribbean basin. In other words, container ships are reducing their transshipment activities in ports located in the Republic of Panama, considering the expanded capacity of the Panama Canal. A case in point was the straightforward crossing through the expanded Panama Canal by the container ship CMA CGM ZEPHYR with its 16,285 TEU, which was a milestone in container ship capacity for the expanded Panama Canal (^{PCA, 2022}). Notably, ^{Rodrigue and Ashar (2016}) argued that the expanded Panama Canal would exert a negative impact on Panamanian transshipment ports on the Pacific side because post-Panamax ships would not have ship size constraints.

On the other hand, it should be noted that from 2010 to 2022, while the laden containers represented 72% of the total container port throughput of transshipment ports in Panama, empty containers accounted for 28% of the total. According to Christoph et al. (2022), the median of empty container port throughput for seaports is around 20% of the total volume. This should be a matter of consideration for port managers because of the higher percentage of empty container port throughput in the Panama Canal compared to elsewhere in the world.

This consideration about empty containers should not be taken lightly because of its repercussions in the shipping industry. For instance, the relocation of an empty container to another port thousands of kilometers away can cost significantly more than buying a new container (^{Lam & Iskounen, 2010}). Likewise, increasing empty containers is commonly related to trade imbalance (^{Song & Dong, 2011}). As a result, when it comes to cargo TEU, liner shipping companies face challenges to relocate empty containers from America to other regions to satisfy the worldwide demand for exports (^{Chao & Yu, 2012}). Consequently, shipping liners will prioritize and conduct scheduled operations based on laden containers instead of empty containers (K. ^{Wang et al., 2017}).

Suggestions for Further Studies

Further studies should analyze whether the Panama Canal expansion has significantly affected port throughput in Caribbean and Central American transshipment ports due to their geographical proximity as well as others located on the Pacific Ocean side of South America. Similarly, further studies should consider other factors regarding transshipment ports on the West and East Coasts of the United States and their relationship with the Panama Canal expansion.

It is also recommended that future research should study other related factors such as ship waiting time, berthing time, international trade, human talent management, port congestion, strategic leadership, and other port performance indicators. Moreover, while considering port cargo volume as a measure of accomplishment, several influential factors can also help transshipment ports succeed, such as their proximity to shipping lanes, terminal facilities, management, and productivity, which can help them understand but not accurately predict their causes of success (^{McCalla, 2008}). Similarly, ^{Ng (2006)} highlighted that when it comes to transshipment ports, there are other important variables such as monetary cost, time efficiency, geographical proximity, and quality of service.

It is also suitable to study the influence of the Panama Canal expansion by using more inclusive indicators. For instance, the Liner Shipping Connectivity Index measures the maritime connectivity for container shipping by taking into account other aspects such as the number of shipping lines, size of vessels, number of services, and capacity (^{Niérat & Guerrero, 2019}).

Likewise, further studies should research the return on investment for transshipment ports in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that embarked on projects to enhance infrastructure, equipment, and logistics facilities related to the Panama Canal expansion. In that regard, transshipment ports in Panama have been making multimillion-dollars investments in new cranes and container yards to accommodate bigger vessels coming to the Panama Canal (^{Alvarez et al., 2009}). A final suggestion for further studies would be the analysis of the Panama Canal expansion's effect on its surrounding maritime cluster, such as the Colon Free Trade Zone, the Panama Pacifico Special Economic Zone, tourism industries, Panama's International Banking Center, the Panama Canal Railway Company, the maritime supply chain, and shipyard industries.