Port City: Comparison between Europe & Asia

6 Março 2018, 10:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh

The nature of port-city relationships in two major port regions of the world, Europe and Asia. Interms of demographic size and container traffic, it shows the decline of port-urban dependence,stemming from changes in global transportation and urban development. However, Europeanand Asian port cities are not identically confronted to the same challenges, notably in terms oftheir hinterlands. A factor analysis highlights a regional differentiation of port-city relationshipsaccording to their insertion in both urban and port systems, with a core-periphery dualism inEurope and a port-city hierarchy in Asia.Thus, the distance to inland markets for European ports and the size of coastal markets for Asianports are the main factors to explain the nature of port-city relationships in the two areas. It helpsto evaluate which European and Asian port cities are comparable beyond their cargo volumes, byputting together micro (local environments) and macro (regional patterns) factors.Port cities are strategic nodes for major trading regions such as Europe and Asia, especially in aworld where more than 90% of trade volumes occur by sea. However, their roles are different fora number of reasons, such as the history of trade and urban settlements, the geographical layout,and the current level of regional integration.In Europe, the importance of inland cities is reflected in the “central place” paradigm, and portcities have often been disregarded by urban specialists. Most European urban comparisons verifythe lower economic importance of port cities. In Asia, since the colonial period and following thecoastal industrialization in Japan, and the China, port cities are vital propellers of development,to the expense of inland cities. They have become the new cores of their national economies.According to Some scholars on the basis of historical and geographical perspective in Europe,Western models of port-city growth are not applicable to Asian countries, but for others, it isfruitful to analyze how port regions adapt differently to same global phenomena, such aswaterfront redevelopment. However, the lack of comparable data has limited the quantitativeanalysis of port-city relationships, hampering direct international comparisons.European port cities are much more specialized in the logistic function (i.e. distribution, storage,transfer) because they are the gateways between core regions and the outside world. For thisreason, it is quite rare to find a logic of port-city combination in Europe, where port-relatedfunctions have, comparatively with other areas of the world, a stronger importance for the localeconomy. It has been argued elsewhere that this specificity of European port cities has led to anumber of contradicting opinions about the role of ports in enhancing local economicdevelopment, as it is a hard task in Europe but a natural process in many other areas.This also verifies the “lock- in effect” of urban systems, based on the idea that port cities incentralised urban systems are “blocked” and remain specialised when they are dependent andwell connected to core regions. It also shows that in Asia, the distribution of goods needs lesslogistic agents due to closer markets and a simpler transport chain. Thus, Asian port cities have abetter port-urban combination than in Europe, where the transport chain is more complex andforces ports to compete inland through intermodal services and hinterland expansion. Asian port cities have a better port-urban combination than in Europe, where the transport chain is morecomplex and forces ports to compete inland through intermodal services and hinterland expansion.