Hybridization in shipping governance: Do different types of ownership correlate with shipping strategies and performance?

Domestic shipping is essential for connecting ports, regions, producers, and consumers within countries, yet reliable and affordable services remain difficult to organize on remote, island, and low-demand routes. Research on shipping governance often associates state-owned and private companies with different institutional logics and therefore expects differences in how they operate and perform, but less is known about whether these differences remain visible when both operate within the same governance arrangement. This paper examines this question through Indonesia’s Maritime Highway Program (MHP), which combines public-service objectives with the involvement of both state-owned and private shipping companies. Using 204 route-year observations for 2015–2024 and survey data from the participating companies, we compare their operational performance, the need they experience to align with government rules and policy objectives, and their room to compete and cooperate. The results show no statistically significant difference in operational performance between state-owned and private companies, no evidence that state-owned companies experience a stronger need to align or that private companies have greater room to compete, and no significant association between strategic room and operational performance. These findings suggest that ownership alone provides an incomplete picture of shipping governance. Within the MHP, the conditions that are defined by the state appear to temper expected differences between state-owned and private companies, meaning that private participation does not automatically imply greater market orientation. The paper therefore contributes to understanding hybrid shipping governance by showing that attention should be paid not only to who owns shipping companies, but also to the governance conditions that enable or constrain companies to enact state and market logics.