Sung-Woo Lee

Ducruet César
email: ducruet@parisgeo.cnrs.fr

SPATIAL GLOCALIZATION IN ASIA-PACIFIC HUB PORT CITIES: A COMPARISON OF HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE

Keywords: Hong Kong, Singapore, glocalization, interface, hub port city, entropy

Business environment in which a port carries out its operation is increasingly reflected by intra-and inter-port competition on regional and global scales, resulting in port concentration and deconcentration. While a number of recent studies interpret those phenomena as impacts from global forces such as containerisation, little has been done about local forces such as the evolving relationships between urban policy and port growth. This paper proposes to compare how the two global hub port cities of Hong Kong and Singapore have sustained their port activities while transforming into major economic centres. Entropy indexes are calculated by district, based on service industries related to port activities between 1993 and 2004. Results show the spatial shifts of port-related activities stemming from simultaneous factors, such as port competition which affects the international position of Hong Kong and Singapore, and lack of space and congestion at the port-city interface. However, one main differentiating factor in the evolution of the two hub port cities is the varying impact of regional cross-border relations with mainland China and Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, the concept of globalisation has acquired a wide recognition among researchers. Notably, port and urban studies both show increasing concern about economic and spatial changes affecting seaports and port cities worldwide.

Recurrent trends such as industrial shifts within the world system between advanced and developing economies, and their consequences in terms of port concentration and competition among port regions have altered traditional patterns of port-urban linkages. As a result, many port cities stand "among the most environmentally degraded cities in the world" [START_REF]Territorial Reviews: Busan, Korea[END_REF], while the symbiotic stage of the 'cityport' [START_REF] Hoyle | Cityport Industrialisation and Regional Development, Spatial Analysis and Development Strategies[END_REF] defined by port-city economic, cultural, spatial, historical interdependence and mutual benefits is increasingly put in question in a number of models and case studies. Technological changes in the maritime world and the port industry have led to shortages of available land for port expansion within port cities, and to a decline in port-related employment. In parallel, urban economies have undergone a double shift: spatially, industrial activities relocate from city centres to outer areas and, functionally, port-related activities become less important than more lucrative commercial and tertiary functions. This is indicated by developmental models in both advanced and developing economies [START_REF] Hoyle | The Port-City Interface: Trends, Problems, and Examples[END_REF][START_REF] Murphey | On the Evolution of the Port City[END_REF]. Also, air transport has become a better indicator of urban radiance than sea transport in the study of global cities [START_REF] Dogan | Giant Cities as Maritime Gateways[END_REF][START_REF] Keeling | Transport and the World City Paradigm[END_REF][START_REF] Witlox | Mapping the Global Network Economy on the Basis of Air Passenger Transport Flows[END_REF].

However, due to the continued dependence of world trade on sea transportmore than 90% world trade volumesport functions have mutated rather than disappeared. Some have relocated to more accessible and less urbanized sites, while others have been sustained at or nearby the original site. For example, the so-called 'hub ports' such as Hong Kong and Singapore have maintained an eminent and powerful position relative to other neighbouring ports. Such cities combine the attributes of both a global city and a hub port [START_REF] Friedmann | World city formation[END_REF][START_REF] Sassen | Global City[END_REF]Ducruet, 2007a;[START_REF] Lee | A tale of Asia's world ports: the spatial evolution in global hub port cities[END_REF]. After a period of combined port and urban growth driven by the globalisation of the industry, Hong Kong and Singapore are now confronted to severe challenges from their adjacent ports such as Shenzhen (Mainland China), and Tanjung Pelepas (Malaysia) respectively. Thus, understanding contemporary challenges in port-city relationships necessarily calls for an integrated approach, beyond the waterfront.

Notably, the rise of new global players inserting cities, ports, and regions in global production networks is well analyzed in recent studies about the involvement of global terminal operators and ocean carriers in port development worldwide [START_REF] Robinson | Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm[END_REF][START_REF] Notteboom | Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development[END_REF][START_REF] Olivier | Rethinking the port[END_REF]Jacobs and Hall, 2007). Yet, such analyses are restrained to maritime networks, transport corridors, and port areas, while the role of the urban space, or urban fabric, is either considered secondary or taken for granted by most economic and transportation geographers [START_REF] Fujita | The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade[END_REF]. Indeed, ports are not only embedded in transport and supply chains, but also in urban economies and industrial areas that are regulated by different forces and regulations than in the transport business, such as urban governance, regional, national planning and industrial policies seeking to levy rents from footloose activities [START_REF] Markusen | Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts[END_REF]. Therefore, great care must be inferred in isolating ports and supply chains from the urban and regional environments in which they develop.

Networks -should they be global -owe their existence to complex territorial belongings in a globalized environment [START_REF] Scott | Metropolis[END_REF][START_REF] Dicken | Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map of the 21 st Century[END_REF].

The factors explaining the continued importance of port functions within global cities

are not yet well understood. This may relate to some 'exogenous' advantages, such as advantageous geographical location and also to some 'endogenous' advantages, such as the efficiency of combining port development and urban management schemes and policies. [START_REF] Fleming | Spatial Characteristics of Transportation Hubs: Centrality and Intermediacy[END_REF] propose a framework based on centrality and intermediacy to analyze transportation hubs, but this work is just focused on internal factors.

The aim of this paper is to analyze global and local factors affecting the evolution of port cities simultaneously. It proposes an analysis of the location patterns and evolving spatial distribution and concentration of port service industries within the two hub port cities during the last decade. The study of such activities is interesting because of several reasons. First, port service industries share various functional linkages with port and urban activities. Thus, changes in the location of those firms may give useful evidence about broader issues of port and urban development on various levels. Second, despite the apparent spatial fix of those activities in waterfront sites or Central Business Districts, these generally small firms are very footloose and tend to seek lower rents [START_REF] Slack | The Port Service Industry in an Environment of Change[END_REF][START_REF] Lee | Interaction Between City and Port in Asian Hub Port Cities[END_REF]. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to document in detail the behaviour of individual firms, we believe that they provide as a whole a distinct and specific benchmark of the evolution of port-city linkages. Notably, the attractiveness of waterside areas for the urban redevelopment of formerly harbour areas into tourism, commercial, residential, and other functions is a major challenge for global port cities that are all confronted to lack of space and conflicting urban land uses, but this has not yet been consistently documented through comparative research or analyzed in relation with changing port and urban contexts and strategies, notably in Asia [START_REF] Ducruet | Port-city relationships in Europe and Asia[END_REF]. This is indicated by recent studies showing that "worry about the decline of port business in Hong Kong has appeared widely" because of its changing role from a hub port city to a more diversified, less industrial and port-dependent global supply chain management centre [START_REF] Wang | Hong Kong in transition from a hub port city to a global supply chain management center[END_REF]. Empirical evidence from OECD countries confirmed the lower port performance of industrial regions compared with regions concentrating tertiary activities and GDP (Ducruet, 2007b).

A first section reviews some theories and cases or port-city interface evolution in the light of the concept of glocalization. A second section introduces Hong Kong and Singapore as two global hub port cities facing similar challenges. A third section compares the internal spatial changes within Hong Kong and Singapore between 1993 and 2004, by using entropy measurement that is calculated from moving pattern of port service industry location. The conclusion evaluates the benefits of the results for the study of spatial glocalization in the case of port cities.

GLOCALIZATION AND PORT-CITY RELATIONSHIPS

Basic principles of port-city relationships

While a majority of studies has focused on port growth in the context of either developing (e.g. [START_REF] Taaffe | Transport expansion in underdeveloped countries: a comparative analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Hoyle | Seaports and Development: The Experience of Kenya and Tanzania[END_REF][START_REF] Wang | A container load centre with a developing hinterland: a case study of Hong Kong[END_REF][START_REF] Slack | The challenge of peripheral ports: an Asian perspective[END_REF] or advanced countries [START_REF] Hayuth | Containerization and the Load Centre Concept[END_REF][START_REF] Slack | Domestic containerization and the load centre concept[END_REF][START_REF] Notteboom | Concentration and Load Centre Development in the European Container Port System[END_REF], they have remained relatively isolated from urban research that is more focused on urban redevelopment in postindustrialised port cities [START_REF] Slack | The Port Service Industry in an Environment of Change[END_REF][START_REF] Church | Transport and urban regeneration in London Docklands: A victim of success or a failure to plan?[END_REF][START_REF] Breen | Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim their Edge[END_REF][START_REF] Gordon | Managing the Changing Political Environment in Urban Waterfront Redevelopment[END_REF][START_REF] Marshall | Waterfronts in Post-industrial Cities[END_REF], appropriate treatment and performance of urban planners and civil servants [START_REF] Fainstein | Promoting economic development[END_REF][START_REF] Wolman | Evaluating the success of urban success stories[END_REF], and the wider scope of political issues in urban redevelopment [START_REF] Savitch | Post-Industrial Cites[END_REF][START_REF] Harvey | The Condition of Post-modernity[END_REF]. Thus, it is recognized that urban models have often neglected the relation between port activities and urban structure (Gleave, 1995;[START_REF] Ducruet | European Port-City Interface and its Asian Application[END_REF][START_REF] Lee | Waterfront redevelopment and territorial integration in Le Havre (France) and Southampton (UK)[END_REF].

As synthesized by Ducruet (2007a) port-city relationships may be understood as a dichotomy between economic advantage and spatial constraint. The matrix of port-city relationships distinguishes different types of port cities according to the relative importance of those two aspects. For example, a transhipment terminal provides optimum nautical and landward transport accessibility, but it lacks of economic diversity locally and regionally, due to the distance from often congested urbanized areas, as in the pioneer Anyport model [START_REF] Bird | The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom[END_REF]. This is also confirmed more recent studies: "diseconomies of scale in some load centres emerge in the form of a lack of space for expansion and limited foreland or hinterland accessibility" [START_REF] Notteboom | Concentration and Load Centre Development in the European Container Port System[END_REF]. Conversely, the general city provides a wide range of economic functions, but urban development has constrained port growth to such extent that modern facilities have relocated elsewhere together with seaborne traffics. The cityport is a fragile stage of equilibrium that is likely to be disturbed by inefficient port/urban planning policies locally, and inter-port competition regionally [START_REF] Ducruet | Frontline soldiers of globalization: port-city evolution and regional competition[END_REF]. The global hub port city has the particularity to maintain high transport efficiency while transforming itself in a more diversified economic centre. There are, of course, increasing threats arising at every geographical level stemming from inter (or intra) -urban and inter (or intra) -port competition, but also depending on the management and planning of the port-city interface.

The port-city interface: a 'glocal' place?

As hinted by [START_REF] Hayuth | The port-urban interface: an area in transition[END_REF], the port-city interface is an area in transition between different functions. This paper considers this interface also as an area of transition between different geographical scales. Although it has been recognized that the port-city interface is a unique area due to the mingling of various influences, the ongoing mechanisms have not yet been explained precisely. For this, we use the concept of glocalization, first introduced in the 1980s by Japanese economists and defined by Robertson (1997) as the "simultaneitythe copresence -of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies". Glocalization also embraces the economic rationale of global firms that are willing to adapt their products to a local market and extend outsourcing to global market in order to catch more markets and reduce producing cost. In sociology and anthropology, glocalization is also used though it is similar to synchretism, i.e. the absorption and transformation of external influences by local communities resulting in enriched culture and strengthened identity [START_REF] Friedman | The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization[END_REF].

Geographers such as [START_REF] Brunet | Les Mots de la Géographie: Dictionnaire Critique[END_REF] and Durand et al. (1996) have acknowledged that a transcalar interpretation of spatial phenomena is more valuable than either mono-scalar or top-down/bottom-up approaches. Spatial systems are built through transcalar dynamics (St. Julien, 2000), and characterized by asymmetric networks rather than proximity factors [START_REF] Pumain | Les systèmes de villes[END_REF].

In the case of port cities, the cosmopolitism offered by their maritime identity has provided a fertile ground to study such topics (Cartier, 2000). However, while the conceptual shift from port-city interaction to global-local interaction has become explicit in a number of recent studies [START_REF] Riley | Global Imperatives, Local Forces and Waterfront Redevelopment[END_REF][START_REF] Hoyle | Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront[END_REF][START_REF] Frémont | The Emergence of a Mega Port, from the Local to the Global, the Case of Busan[END_REF], scholars

have not yet provided a coherent framework to analyse such phenomenon. Earlier works recognize the importance of ports as pivotal functions between land and sea networks (Vigarié, 1968). More recently [START_REF] De Roo | Marseille: de l'aire portuaire à l'aire métropolitaine[END_REF] defines port cities as the most accomplished laboratory to study the multi-fractal mechanisms of geographical space, because nowadays the sustainability and efficiency of port cities are better represented by their ability to connect different scales than to increase their traffics.

Figure 1 is provided as a synthesis of the principal mechanisms affecting the portcity interface at different developmental stages. As an area of overlapping port and urban growth, which occur spatially but also in nature (e.g. tertiarization), the port-city interface is constantly being transformed not only physically and aesthetically, but also functionally. The original symbiosis of the initial stage is transformed into a physical barrier following the period of internationalisation, with less accessible waterfronts due to trunk road multiplication along the urban shore. This physical barrier could have been overcome with the planning of tunnels and suspended highways allowing trucks accessing the port / the outskirts of the city.

However, in many cases, the physical barrier has not been transformed sufficiently and has participated increasing global pressures on the local spatial system. Thus, the shift of port facilities from the interface is relayed by the shift of urban functions to the interface, as seen in several waterfront redevelopment cases because of higher rents [START_REF] West | Urban-Waterfront Developments: a Geographic Problem in Search of a Model[END_REF][START_REF] Lee | Interaction Between City and Port in Asian Hub Port Cities[END_REF]. As a result, the node looses its port function to the advantage of urban functions, while the former interface disappears and is replaced by a more radical spatial and functional disrupt between port and city. However, port and city continue to exist independently in proximity with each other while enlarging their respective importance. Therefore, there is a subtle difference between declining and refining in the model. In many cases, the apparent decline of the port on a micro level (i.e. the city centre) is in fact hiding the wider redistribution of port and urban functions across the metropolitan area or city-region. This indicates to what extent most studies of waterfront redevelopment have largely ignored the fact that not only the city but also the port has regenerated through spatial relocation while keeping close ties with the neighbouring urban area, though less visibly.

Figure 1: Spatial evolution of the hub port city

Source: own realization

HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE IN THE ASIAN CONTEXT

Two dynamic port cities of Pacific Asia

Origin and development of the hub port cities

Hong Kong was initially established in 1843 by Britain. As a city-state within the capitalist market world, Hong Kong had no choice but to develop its own export-oriented economy. The city was changed further from a simple entrepôt into an export-led manufacturing base due to the influx of rich entrepreneurs who chose to leave China due to political instabilities in 1940s [START_REF] Wang | A container load centre with a developing hinterland: a case study of Hong Kong[END_REF]. If Hong Kong shares similar organisational characteristics with other industrializing countries of the 1960s and 1970s, based on wellestablished financial, institutional and legislative settings, the success of Hong Kong's container port in the 1980s is the successful business strategies and efforts of private companies, based on the laissez-faire policy of the government.

Singapore was initially established in 1819 as a trading port for ships plying their trade between Europe and East Asia. With the development of rubber plantations and tin mining in Malaysia, Singapore's ports were strengthened and consolidated, witnessed by an eight-fold expansion of trade between 1873 and 1913. Singapore gained its independence in 1965. Since then, though manufacturing has taken over as the main economic pillar, the role of the city-state as a transportation hub has not withered but expanded because of its strategic geographical position and well-developed supporting infrastructure. Since the setting up of the first container terminal in 1972, another avenue for the local economy to advance from its baseline of traditional entrepôt has been opened up: "With the competition and technology that came with containerisation and building of faster ships with a more economical use of fuel oil, shipping lines are using larger ships over greater distances" (Port of Singapore Authority, 1983, p.13). These trends have stimulated the development of port functions in Singapore, as well as its continued role as financial centres.

Although population density in urbanised area of Hong Kong is significantly higher than that of Singapore as shown in Table 1, both cities attract higher volumes of foreign direct investment than any other Asian countries, except China. Hong Kong and Singapore play an important role in localisation and globalisation processes, notably through the attraction of numerous headquarters of MNCs with enormous capital. These similarities might be explained by their geographical advantages, legal social systems and friendly business environment, as well as a similar ethnic Chinese business culture. [START_REF] Skeldon | Hong Kong: colonial city to global city to provincial city?[END_REF], industrial restructuring [START_REF] Chiu | City-States in the Global Economy: Industrial Restructuring in Hong Kong and Singapore[END_REF], cross-border integration [START_REF] Ho | Semi-periphery and borderland integration: Singapore and Hong Kong experiences[END_REF][START_REF] Fau | Hong Kong et Singapour, des métropoles transfrontalières[END_REF][START_REF] Grundy-Warr | Fragmented integration in the Singapore-Indonesian border zone: Southeast Asia's 'growth triangle' against the global economy[END_REF][START_REF] Shen | Cross-border urban governance in Hong Kong: the role of the state in a globalizing city-region[END_REF], real estate development and planning mechanisms [START_REF] Ng | Political economy and urban planning: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan[END_REF][START_REF] Haila | Real estate in global cities: Singapore and Hong Kong as property states[END_REF][START_REF] Han | Global city making in Singapore: a real estate perspective[END_REF], and state intervention in the economy [START_REF] Lam | Government intervention in the economy: a comparative analysis of Singapore and Hong Kong[END_REF]. While such considerations are beyond the scope of this paper, they provide useful benchmarks allowing a better understanding of similarities and differences between the two hub port cities in terms of port-urban dynamics.

Port and urban growth

Turning to the port sector, and as two of the "Asian Dragons", Hong Kong and Singapore have been the world's busiest container ports over the last years, with continuously increased traffic as shown in Figure 3. In both cases, traffic growth has been very rapid and tremendous, such as the 600% increase in Hong Kong between 1985 and1995. Figure 3 also shows that after a first stage following the opening of respective container terminals (1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985), Hong Kong's growth has been more important than in Singapore, probably owing to its role as an export platform for Chinese manufacturing goods that are produced in the adjacent and growing hinterland. However, a second stage (1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000) shows that Singapore's port growth has been more rapid than Hong Kong's growth. After 2000, the traffic growth of container cargoes is slower in Singapore than in Hong Kong 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8 1 9 7 9 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 Kong and Singapore. This index represents a first methodological step into the international comparison of port-city evolution [START_REF] Ducruet | Frontline soldiers of globalization: port-city evolution and regional competition[END_REF]. It expresses in a single value the complex mingling of various phenomena such as local and urban growth or decline, internal pressure at the port-city interface resulting in traffic congestion and lack of space, and regional competition among ports and urban centres simultaneously. Its calculation is similar to location quotient, by dividing the port city's share of total regional container traffic among port cities, by the port city's share of total regional urban population among port cities. Urban population was counted based on the morphological extension of urbanized areas in order to avoid comparing different statistical spatial units, while port regions were adapted from

Thousand

Containerisation

New port and urban challenges

Port planning and port competition

For Hong Kong port, China's reforms and modernization since the late 1970s is both an opportunity and a challenge. On the one hand, the relocation of Hong Kong's labourintensive, export-led industries, and the spread of its largest container terminal operator, Hutchinson Port Holdings (HPH) to south China conferred to Hong Kong the "ability to capture containerized cargoes from the rapidly industrializing Pearl River Delta [and] to delay the possible decline of [its] world hub position" in a context of tense competition with northeast Asian ports (Loo and Hook, 2002, p. 235). As a matter of fact, re-exports from China constitute nothing less than 40% of Hong Kong's international trade in early 2000s [START_REF] Song | Regional container port competition and co-operation: the case of Hong Kong and south China[END_REF]. On the other hand, traffic concentration and productivity growth led to rising a means to increase their attraction of direct liner calls and reduce their dependence on the Hong Kong hub [START_REF] Song | Regional container port competition and co-operation: the case of Hong Kong and south China[END_REF]. In addition, the lack of efficient railway access to Hong Kong port terminals as opposed to recent efforts in railway connection of south Chinese ports for containerized cargo has become a real threat for sustaining its position regionally and its gateway status on a continental level [START_REF] Loo | Interplay of international, national and local factors in shaping container port development: a case study of Hong Kong[END_REF]. Limited land availability for new port and storage site expansion in Hong Kong also explains this situation, although more than 10 million square feet of logistics activities were built in the mid-1990s for housing freight consolidators in close physical proximity with port terminals [START_REF] Cheung | The transition from freight consolidation to logistics: the case of Hong Kong[END_REF]. This was undermined by increasing rents in central locations, deficiencies in planning regulations in the New Territories, and a lack of local planners' awareness about space requirements for empty containers around port terminals, resulting in haphazard storage across rural areas [START_REF] Bristow | Some consequences and impacts of port development: the Hong Kong case[END_REF]. While Shenzhen ports have a "psychological and administrative advantage in that there are no border crossings involved in using the Shenzhen ports as opposed to the port of Hong Kong [and] using Hong Kong as a hub for China is not without its problems and costs" (Cullinane et al., 2004, pp. 48-49), cumbersome regulations and tight truck traffic at the border reinforce congestion in Hong Kong [START_REF] Wang | A container load centre with a developing hinterland: a case study of Hong Kong[END_REF].

In the case of Singapore, there is a dearth of studies about the role of the different players involved in port competition regionally. Among existing ones, [START_REF] Mak | Port development within the framework of Malaysia's transport policy: some considerations[END_REF] notice that Malaysia's port policy "although not explicitly contained in any official document" (p. 199), aims at reducing Malaysia's institutionalized reliance upon Singapore through the development of Port Klang as the national load centre, and of Tanjung Pelepas as the regional transhipment centre or hub port. This is true in the case of Malaysia-Singapore relations, since "Malaysia has always aspired to challenge Singapore's domination as the major cargo hub in the Malacca Strait" (Chang, 2002, p. 111) (Leong and Chen, 2004, p. 8). Behind port competition is the unwillingness of PSA to provide dedicated terminals to shipping lines, in order to both multiply port users and avoid costly terminal construction near the CBD, but this "discouraged the maximum use of port resources in land scarce Singapore" (Leong and Chen, 2004, p. 10).

Port growth and urban planning

As identified by [START_REF] Bristow | Some consequences and impacts of port development: the Hong Kong case[END_REF], recent trends in Hong Kong's port-related planning issues may be summarized as a shift in the centre of gravity from the core area, where reclamation policies tend to privilege commercial functions while redeveloping old airport areas; to the periphery, especially through implementing efficient transport corridors to the new airport, the northwest, and the Chinese border. These orientations illustrate the shift from export center to world city as emphasized by [START_REF] Taylor | From export center to world city: planning for the transformation of Hong Kong[END_REF]. They particularly show how difficult was for Hong Kong government to convince the private sector developing areas remote from the urban core since the 1960s. Although private interests tend to dominate urban governance in Hong Kong, the government "has maintained strong control over land supply and development" (Ng, 1999, p. 13), notably through reducing economic concentration at the CBD: airport relocation, British military land removal, subway and tunnel development from the CBD to the New Towns. While the tertiary sector tended to remain in the CBD, the Territorial Development Strategy was relatively successful in allowing space-demanding industrial activities to shift to outer areas in a context of manufacturing growth, but this often led to "land use conflicts (…), greater competition for space, intensification in the use of land and infrastructure, changes in the need for facilities and services" (Taylor and Kwok, 1989, pp. 319-320). Due to increased pressures from China, the democratic transition from market-oriented urban planning to social-oriented urban planning may be delayed [START_REF] Ng | Political economy and urban planning: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan[END_REF].

In the case of Singapore, a similar core-periphery dualism occurs along the same period that marks the evolution of the city-state into a global city. Lack of available land for port and urban expansion, and high land prices forced the government to apply efficient urban planning policies by "constraining industrial development in specific zones and equipping the city-state with modern transportation infrastructures" (Rodrigue, 1994, p. 57).

Notably, "land size constraint was and continues to be a major problem in Singapore's development" (Han, 2005, p. 76) although it continuously expands through land reclamation from the sea. This led to increased land use densification and urbanization throughout the national territory, but also to the relocation of labour-intensive industries through efficient and low cost multimodal transportation system connecting outer areas such as Riau Islands (Indonesia) and Johor State (Malaysia). Such policies occur in a context of the 2001 Concept Plan aiming at enhancing the quality of life in Singapore; they are highly controlled by the government, which owns 70% of the land in Singapore. Through the Master Plan Committee, all several implementation agents3 and may acquire private land through the Land Acquisition Act [START_REF] Ng | Political economy and urban planning: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan[END_REF]. This constitutes an important difference with Hong Kong, where private interests are more influential. Notably, industry estates and development sites are developed by the Housing Development Board and by the Jurong Town Coroporation respectively [START_REF] Lam | Government intervention in the economy: a comparative analysis of Singapore and Hong Kong[END_REF], while land acquisition laws "made it possible to expropriate land for development and redevelopment" [START_REF] Haila | Real estate in global cities: Singapore and Hong Kong as property states[END_REF](Haila, , p. 2245)).

GLOCALIZATION PROCESSES IN HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE: ENTROPY EVOLUTION (1993-2004)

Data collection and methodology for Entropy analysis

By using data of location and number of firms related port industry of "International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC)", we propose to highlight the spatial interdependence between port activity itself and port-related industries, from the early 1990s to the early 2000s. The data used for Hong [START_REF] Kong | Port cargo throughput and provisional forecast for 2000[END_REF]Singapore (1993-2004) includes portrelated businesses per administrative district on the official administrative maps. It is important to underline the unchanged area units along the study period in both port cities.

As port-related industries combine several different activities, it is difficult to address a single definition of this sector, apart from the obvious connection between port activity itself and the other industries using the port. Basically, the "port industry" includes the loading and unloading of goods in a harbor area, but it can be enlarged to the whole logistics chain (including production, forwarding and storage) concerned with the goods carried by ocean vehicles (MOMAF, 2002). Given the slight differences between Hong Kong data (HSIC) and Singapore data (SSIC) detailed categories based on International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), as showed in Annex 1, a few data is excluded from the data sets in order to make the data comparable and to prevent any confusion in the analysis of the port cities.

Concentration Index is an efficient tool to check the spatial and functional change occurring at the port-city interface. Thus, the location change related to port industry will be measured using Entropy technique as one of other concentration indexes. Entropy is an appropriate inverse concentration measure [START_REF] Clarke | Industrial economics[END_REF]: the higher the entropy, the lower the degree of concentration and vice versa [START_REF] Theil | Economics and Information Theory[END_REF]. The entropy measure (denoted 'E') is the expected information content which can be observed as the total of the information content of each event weighted by the respective probabilities [START_REF] Sen | On Economic Inequality[END_REF].

This index weighs market shares by log (1/ y i ) and then sums them as follows:

) 1 log( 5 . 0 1 i n i i y y E    and ) 0 ; 1 (    i i i y y y Equation (3)
where n is the number of districts, y i refers to the shared of i th district in the total port industries of the city.

If all the n districts have an equal share, then E= log n (maximum E value given n),

and concentration is at a minimum. In contrast, E = 0 (minimum E value given n) when one district has all shares and takes the monopoly case (maximum degree of concentration).

When the number of districts increases, while all remain of the same size, the E log n also increases. This is in accordance with the decreasing degree of concentration. The numbers equivalent to equal-sized districts with the same value of E (see Equation 3) is m = antilogarithm of E [START_REF] De | Container Port System Concentration[END_REF]. [START_REF] Clarke | Industrial economics[END_REF] suggests the adjusted E in order that it falls in the interval of <0, 1> is an appropriate way to facilitate a comparison among cases. This is done by forming a relative measure of Entropy: E′=E / log (n). In this context, [START_REF] De | Container Port System Concentration[END_REF] also apply the measurement to their study related to container port system concentration.

Entropy evolution in Hong Kong and Singapore

Main results of Entropy measurement are provided in Figure 5, and detailed results are provided in Annexes 2 and 3. The concentration of port-related firms reveals two interesting sets of phenomena for the two port cities. Each set of phenomena is explored as common trends or important differences in the two port cities' evolution.

A shift from centre to periphery

In Hong Kong, the degree of concentration has declined since 1993. It can be explained by the fact that Hong Kong has faced both space limitation locally, and the relocation of its port industry caused by the competition from Shenzhen regionally. In addition, notable numbers of port facilities moved from its main base Kwai Chung to the remote Tuen Mun (River Terminal), and many firms engaged in container storage have shifted to the New Territories, an area close to Shenzhen border as part of the effort to reduce rental costs and secure wider space. 45 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Entropy index

Hong Kong Singapore

Source: own realization

In Singapore, the degree of concentration has slightly become lower than that of Hong Kong. It can be explained that Singapore has been also facing space limitation, traffic congestion and the relocation of its port industry seeking lower costs, notably in Tanjung Pelepas (PTP), but this cannot be verified in the results as this is a Malaysian port located outside of the study area. Also, a number of port facilities have moved from the original and main base in the South (e.g. Tanjung Pagar, Pasir Panjang, and Telok Blangah) to the remotely located Jurong Island (nearby PTP) and Southeast (Changi airport). Such trend to the southeast can be explained by the challenge from competition with PTP in Malaysia, the opening of Jurong port, and the increasing demand in Sea & Air cargoes since 1995.

According to PSA (2003) statistical data, the annual average growth of Sea & Air cargoes is above 15% since 1995. In both maps, there is a clear trend of centre-periphery shift of portrelated activities. The traditional port-city interface has faced enormous pressures stemming from global insertion, regional port competition, and local lacks of space resulting in congestion, and high rental costs. However, while the original factors explaining the shift of port-related activities are quite similar in both port cities, the spatial pattern of glocalization shows considerable differences. If our main findings are in line with [START_REF] Slack | The challenge of peripheral ports: an Asian perspective[END_REF] work in terms of port evolution, this analysis brings some new evidence on port and port-city evolution. In particular, we underline the evolving relation between port back-up areas' expansion and port industry location, interpreted as an effect of glocalization upon location pattern, in terms of spatial dispersion.

Cross-border competition and cooperation

As showed in Figure 6, the spatial evolution of Entropy measurement does not lead to similar patterns. congestion and lack of space may be the same factors locally to explain the shift of activities, the role of the border districts is totally different in Hong Kong and Singapore to accommodate such changes, since "unlike Hong Kong, Singapore does not have an economically benevolent hinterland" (Lam, 2000, p. 399). Thus, our results also confirm the contrasted functions of the two port cities, with a higher importance of centrality and gateway functions in Hong Kong compared with Singapore, where intermediacy and hub functions dominate.

In Hong Kong, it is clear that global and local changes have found in the new relation with adjacent Chinese areas a good compromise to rethink the territorial layout of the hub.

Not only Chinese transit trade by truck through Hong Kong has diminished due to gradual modal shift from road to barge, but also the betterment of relations between Hong Kong and

China since 1997 has allowed more cooperation among respective ports and transport industries. The transport chain linking Hong Kong to its hinterland is getting more integrated and intermodal than in the past. Also, the border does not have the same significance than before 1997. Hong Kong firms that are willing to locate closer to the border are allowed to do so by the government. Thus, there are incentives to promote the development of border regions which were restricted until then. Thus, Hong Kong is not anymore an island but a gateway to Chinese mainland economies. However, it is also a result of the illegal use of agricultural areas in the New Territories, illustrated by the development of illegal container staking areas (Hong Kong Port and Maritime Board, 2000). and Changi International). This confirms previous studies showing the lower level of crossborder integration for Singapore than for Hong Kong, stemming from historical legacies, agency, and the structure and direction of integration [START_REF] Ho | Semi-periphery and borderland integration: Singapore and Hong Kong experiences[END_REF]. Singapore is not yet a hinterland port, but it is strengthening its hub functions through government incentives and well-prepared service. Thus, although causal factors to explain the deconcentration of transport functions in two global hub port cities are very similar, the results differ considerably, shifting the study from economic to political geography.

CONCLUSION

This paper attempted to examine how two major port cities in Asia respond to change according to their local, regional and global environment. After a brief review of their specific background, some evidence is brought from an analysis of spatial change occurring at the port-city interface. This area appears to be a relevant field for studying the capacity of port cities to integrate endogenous and exogenous factors, based on the concept of glocalization, in a sustainable manner. Moreover, our analysis focuses on port-related industries that lie at the core of port-city functional relationships. In particular, this research confirms the role of differing factors thanks to the Entropy measurement based on portrelated activities.

Most of all, similar exogenous factors did not lead to identical effects on the port-city interface in the two places. The growth of container traffic is higher for Singapore, which shows a relatively stable concentration of port industry within the interface; it is more regular and stable for Hong Kong, what hides important shifts in port-related activities from the interface to outer areas. It means that Hong Kong has undergone more serious changes than Singapore, in terms of port peripheral challenge (Shenzhen) and hinterland expansion.

The changing pattern of Hong Kong's port-city interface is a reflection of its changing role at a regional level, by shifting value-added logistics activities such as consolidation, labelling, processing and so on, without the old core and keeping higher valueadded activities such as retail, banking and finance, which are much less freight-generating and may strengthen its rank among Asian and global urban systems.

If the port function did not really affect Hong Kong in becoming a global city, it is more the new opportunity for both port and city to enlarge their continental radiance on mainland China which is the key to understand our results. Hong Kong can now develop not only as a hub or as a gateway, but also as a central place in the urban system of Guangdong province, hosting the headquarters of numerous MNCs whose branches locate mainland.

Even if Hong Kong and Singapore have often been put in the same category of crossborder metropolises, that means a specific ability to overcome their separation from mainland structures by developing hub and informal networks, the continuous lack of continental continuity for Singapore explains why the spatial evolution of its port-city interface has been so different from Hong Kong's case.

In fact, the two places have transformed from port cities, to city ports and then to hub port cities, but the last stage illustrated by our results might pave the way towards a continuation for Singapore and a rupture for Hong Kong. It does not mean that Hong Kong's port and logistics performance gets lower because of wider urban centrality and industrial shift, but in relative terms the port function as a whole may appear lower in Hong Kong's economy in terms of employment and revenue over time, while it is maintained high in Singapore.

In this respect, our comparison offers a basis for further investigation in order to deepen the understanding of the interaction between urban planning and port development in the light of glocalization processes. In practical terms, this will be done by further examining the cases of Hong Kong and Singapore, as well as other Asian hub port cities (e.g. Busan, Kaohsiung, Shanghai), and also by adapting our methodology to the ever-changing port environment in this region (e.g. China impact, Post China impact).

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: General layout of Hong Kong and Singapore

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Container cargo throughputs in Hong Kong and Singapore, 1970-2007 (Unit 1,000 TEUs)

  realization based on Containerisation International Yearbook (various years) In terms of port-city relationships, Figure 4 compares the port-city relative concentration index of a number of global port cities between 1970 and 2005, of which Hong

  International definitions. It shows that the two hub port cities have a comparable evolution compared with other major port cities such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Los Angeles-Long Beach. Despite their large populations, they keep very high traffic concentrations, while other major port cities have faced the relative demise of their role as ports regionally, notably in Japan, New York, Oakland, and Liverpool. However, the slight decreases in Hong Kong and Singapore since 1995, although concentration values remain high, may indicate the ongoing transformation of the two global hubs into more general port cities. More than in other cases, the proximity of port installations to Central Business Districts (CBDs) is a common pattern with colonial port cities (McGee, 1967) that is difficult to overcome in terms of cargo flows' fluidity and logistics costs. Therefore, a more detailed analysis of the internal aspects of glocalization is needed.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Relative port-urban concentration at selected port cities, 1970-2005

  costs and congestion in Hong Kong since the 1990s, due to political tensions causing important delays in new terminal construction locally and rail freight expansion with Chinese provinces. Despite the importance of the port in the local economy, and the relatively low cost of achieving modal shift from road to rail, Hong Kong's port policy virtually accentuated this situation through the realization of a River Trade Terminal in 1999. It seems that port expansion in Hong Kong is constrained by Chinese interests in developing mainland ports, as

Figure

  Figure 5: Port industry entropy in Hong Kong and Singapore, 1993-2004

  Conversely, maps show to what extent Singapore is still an island in terms of transport activities and transport development. The border with Malaysia may be crossed daily by thousands workers, still the evolution of Entropy measurement does not show a sign of regional integration because port-related activities tend to locate as far as possible from the Malaysian border, i.e. Northwest and North districts. This can also be explained by a more important impact of the international airport than in Hong Kong in terms of cargo handling firms' attraction. Also, the Southeast shift, the more important land reclamations in Singapore than in Hong Kong may have accentuated the comparatively low impact of border districts on Entropy change. One important reason to explain the difference in firm spatial behaviour may be the different planning policies of the two hubs. While cross-border activities get enlarged in Hong Kong due to hinterland expansion, many port-related companies in Singapore are based on government capital and locate in huge Free Trade Zones and business parks that locate southern along the so-called technology corridor, such as industrial parks (e.g. International Business Park, Changi Business Park, and iHUB in Jurong East), and several logistics parks (e.g. Airport Logistics Park of Singapore, Toh Guan, Toh Tuck, Clementi West,

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: Entropy degree and change by district, 1993-2004

Table 1 : Summary statistics on Hong Kong and Singapore (2005)

 1

	Sources: Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR (2006); Singapore Department of statistics (2006)

  but since 2004

	Categories	Hong Kong	Singapore
	Population (million)	7.0	4.3
	Size (km 2 )	1,098	682
	District (no.)	18	12
	Total density (person/sq. km)	6,096	4,965
	Urban density (person/sq. km)	21,436	11,968
	Urbanized areas (%)	15	50
	GDP per capita (USD)	25,760	26,870
	Foreign Direct Investment (USD million)	18,009	10,800
	Container throughputs (million TEUs)	22.6	23.2
	Distance between CBD a and Port (km)	4	3

Annex 1: Classification of port service industries in Hong Kong and Singapore

	Annex 3:
	Hong Kong (HSIC-Sector 7)	Singapore (SSIC-Sector 6)
	Ocean and coastal water transport (714)	Ocean and coastal water transport (633)
	Ship agents and managers	Ship agents and managers
	Ship owners of sea-going vessels	Ship owners of sea-going vessels
	Operators of sea-going vessels	Operators of sea-going vessels
	Supporting services to water transport (716)	Supporting services to water transport (633)
	Container terminals, haulage of containers and container leasing	Container terminals, haulage of containers and container leasing
	Services incidental to transport (718)	Services incidental to transport (633)
	Sea cargo forwarding services	Sea cargo forwarding services
	Shipbrokers	Shipbrokers
	Packing and crating services
	Cargo inspection, sampling and weighting services	Cargo inspection, sampling and weighting services
	Storage (721)	Storage and warehouse (631)
	Cold Storage
	General cargo warehouses and other storage services	General cargo warehouses and other storage services

Note: ( ) are index numbers of main industry sectors Sources: Employment & Vacancies Statistics: Hong Kong: Census and Statistic department (2005); Singapore Industrial Standard Classification: Singapore Department of Statistics (2006).

Port service entropy in Hong Kong by district, 1993-2004

	Annex 4:
		1993		1997		2000		2004
	District
		E value	E` value	E value	E` value	E value	E` value	E value	E` value
	Yau Tsim Mong	0.068	0.0542	0.0629	0.0501	0.0668	0.0532	0.0669	0.0533
	Central and Western	0.0731	0.0582	0.0656	0.0522	0.0652	0.052	0.063	0.0502
	Kwai Tsing	0.0462	0.0368	0.0547	0.0436	0.0548	0.0436	0.0501	0.0399
	Yuen Long	0.0274	0.0218	0.0355	0.0283	0.0374	0.0298	0.0425	0.0339
	Kwun Tong	0.0323	0.0257	0.0342	0.0273	0.0384	0.0306	0.0399	0.0318
	Tuen Mun	0.0347	0.0276	0.044	0.0351	0.041	0.0326	0.0387	0.0308
	Sha Tin	0.0287	0.0229	0.0346	0.0276	0.0321	0.0256	0.0329	0.0262
	Tsuen Wan	0.0346	0.0275	0.0331	0.0264	0.0297	0.0237	0.0312	0.0248
	Wanchai	0.0496	0.0395	0.0395	0.0315	0.0348	0.0277	0.0309	0.0247
	Sham Shui Po	0.0302	0.0241	0.0302	0.0241	0.0283	0.0226	0.0308	0.0245
	North	0.0176	0.014	0.0248	0.0197	0.0293	0.0234	0.0298	0.0237
	Eastern	0.022	0.0175	0.0284	0.0226	0.0215	0.0171	0.0245	0.0195
	Wong Tai Sin	0.0156	0.0124	0.0129	0.0103	0.0164	0.0131	0.0199	0.0159
	Tai Po	0.0126	0.0100	0.0112	0.0089	0.0125	0.01	0.0173	0.0138
	Koowloon City	0.0175	0.0139	0.0215	0.0171	0.0179	0.0143	0.0166	0.0133
	Sai Kung	0.0078	0.0062	0.011	0.0088	0.0105	0.0084	0.012	0.0095
	Southern	0.0072	0.0058	0.0055	0.0044	0.0076	0.0061	0.0071	0.0057
	Islands	0.0007	0.0006	0.0022	0.0017	0.006	0.0048	0.0042	0.0034
	All districts	0.5257	0.4188	0.5519	0.4396	0.5503	0.4384	0.5583	0.4448
				Source: own realization

Port service entropy in Singapore by district, 1993-2004

		1993		1997		2000		2004
	District
		E value	E` value	E value	E` value	E value	E` value	E value	E` value
	Southeast A	0.072	0.0574	0.0776	0.0618	0.0784	0.0624	0.0784	0.0624
	South B	0.0762	0.0607	0.0768	0.0612	0.0777	0.0619	0.0777	0.0619
	Jurong	0.0618	0.0492	0.0638	0.0508	0.0661	0.0526	0.067	0.0534
	Southwest	0.062	0.0494	0.0623	0.0496	0.0622	0.0495	0.0634	0.0505
	South A	0.0594	0.0473	0.0588	0.0468	0.0563	0.0448	0.057	0.0454
	East	0.0454	0.0362	0.0499	0.0398	0.0522	0.0416	0.0543	0.0433
	Central	0.0411	0.0327	0.0451	0.0359	0.0439	0.035	0.0444	0.0354
	Southeast B	0.0379	0.0302	0.0355	0.0283	0.0358	0.0285	0.0367	0.0292
	Northeast	0.0403	0.0321	0.0342	0.0272	0.0344	0.0274	0.0351	0.0279
	North	0.0144	0.0115	0.0154	0.0123	0.0152	0.0121	0.0157	0.0125
	Northwest	0.0121	0.0096	0.0135	0.0107	0.0144	0.0115	0.0151	0.0121
	Pulau Tekong	0.0071	0.0056	0.0069	0.0055	0.0061	0.0049	0.0051	0.004
	All districts	0.5298	0.422	0.5397	0.4299	0.5426	0.4322	0.5499	0.4381

Source: own realization

For instance: Urban Redevelopment Authority, Housing and Development Board, Jurong Town Corporation, Port of Singapore Authority, and Public Works Department.


Frémont Antoine

Ducruet César
email: ducruet@parisgeo.cnrs.fr

THE EMERGENCE OF A MEGA-PORT-FROM THE GLOBAL TO THE LOCAL, THE CASE OF BUSAN

Keywords: South Korea, East Asia, containerization, port, port city

Busan port was ranked third place of the world container ports in 2001. This port growth was implemented within a major urban settlement of over 4 million inhabitants. It could be explained by the insertion of the port city in the maritime networks of the world leading ocean carriers. The coexistence of port and urban functions in the same area could lead to asphyxia. The efficient articulation of reticular and territorial logics, in different scales, from the global to the local and conversely, is a necessity to improve the development of the port city.

INTRODUCTION

The maritime façade between Japan and Singapore has become the key focus of world container shipping over to the last two decades. The scale of the developments and the rapidity of growth have been remarkable. While the Japanese ports of Tokyo, Yokohama, Kobe and Nagoya have been among the largest container ports in the world ever since the inception of containerization in the 1960s, they have been overshadowed by the emergence during the 1980s of Hong Kong and Singapore and Kaohsiung (Rimmer, 1999). These Asian 'Tigers' have been ranked consistently among the top five ports in the world. During the 1990s two other Asian ports, Shanghai and Busan, have been catapulted into global prominence, and in 2003 occupied third and fourth ranked positions worldwide.

Inevitably, Singapore and Hong Kong have drawn the largest share of academic interest.

Singapore is exceptional because of its hub function and dominance of South East Asian regional markets. Its port authority is now a major player in port operations and management of a growing number of ports around the world. More recently, competition from new ports in Malaysia has appeared which has demonstrated the limits to port concentration (Slack and Wang, 2002). Hong Kong's role as the gateway to China, its changing role with the emergence of new ports in the Pearl River Delta [START_REF] Wang | A Container Load Center with a Developing Hinterland: a Case Study of Hong Kong[END_REF][START_REF] Song | Regional Container Port Competition and Co-operation: the Case of Hong Kong and South China[END_REF], and its unusual governance relationships have given rise to a new understanding of regional port complexes [START_REF] Wang | Regional Governance of Port Development in China: a Case Study of Shanghai International Shipping Center[END_REF]. Some of the concepts relating to regional port development and governance have also been applied to Shanghai, whose recent growth also demonstrates how the existence of an enormous local market can negate physical constraints of a shallow natural harbour [START_REF] Wang | Port Governance in China: a Review of Policies in an Era of Internationalizing Port Management Practices[END_REF].

Kaohsiung has been shown to exhibit some of these traits: serving a strong export-based domestic economy but whose site is contested by other port uses [START_REF] Haynes | Regional Port Dynamics in the Global Economy: The case of Kaohsiung, Taiwan[END_REF].

From these examples several themes of Asian container port development are emerging. First, it is the role of transshipment in achieving mega-port status, with only Shanghai standing apart.

Second, it is the issue of regional port competition and the "challenge of peripheral ports" [START_REF] Hayuth | Containerization and the Load Center Concept[END_REF]. Third, it is the role of the private sector in port/terminal management. With the exception of the issue of port capacity [START_REF] Cullinane | Container Terminals in South Korea: Problems and Panaceas[END_REF], western academic literature has largely ignored Busan, despite its rapid growth and global importance (Frémont and [START_REF] Ducruet | Logiques Réticulaires et Territoriales au Sein de la Ville Portuaire: le Cas de Busan en Corée du Sud[END_REF]. This paper attempts to address this imbalance by examining the extent to which the Korean port fits the 'Asian model' and what is distinctive about the trajectory of its growth. It is shown that there are a surprising number of commonalities between Busan and the other megaports, despite some obvious differences based on unique environmental and political conditions.

THE GROWTH OF BUSAN

Busan port was ranked the fourth largest container port in the world in 2003, handling 10.4 million Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) in 2002. Its first container terminal did not open until 1975, but since then its traffic has doubled every five or six years on average (Fig. 1). This growth is related in part to the rise of South Korea as a global trading nation. In 1970, South Korea accounted for only 0.7% of global trade by value, but by 2003 the country accounted for 2.5%, and 50% of its manufacturing jobs are related to exports (Cullinane, op. cit.).

Approximately 83% of the country's exports are containerized [START_REF] Soo | The Gwangyang Container Port as an Innovative Infrastructure for Logistics: a Case Study[END_REF]. This export-based growth of South Korea mirrors that of other newly industrializing countries (NICs) of South-East Asia: China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. The rise of foreign trade generated a corresponding growth in port traffic. Confined to the north by North Korea's locked frontier since 1953, South Korea is essentially an island: more than 99% of its foreign trade is shipped by sea (Cullinane, op. cit.). Raw materials are mainly carried through the ports of Pohang close to the POSCO iron and steel industrial complex; Ulsan for petroleum and Inchon, which is the closest port to Seoul. Busan is the country's container and general cargo port and until the recent development of Gwangyang, Busan handled more than 90% of Korea's container traffic. It serves a national hinterland, since its own urban area and neighbouring provinces generate a minority of South Korea's container traffic, the largest market being Seoul, 400km away. Despite the proximity of Inchon to Seoul, its role in container traffic is negligible (7% of national container throughput) because of a very high tidal range and a lock gate system that is not well adapted to accommodate giant containerships. Busan, on the other hand offers excellent nautical conditions. The port site forms a wide bay providing deep water (-15 meters), that is well protected from tidal surges and subject to a very low tidal range. In this regard, Busan is very similar to Kaohsiung, since it too is distant from Taiwan's main industrial area for containerized exports, the capital Taipei [START_REF] Haynes | Regional Port Dynamics in the Global Economy: The case of Kaohsiung, Taiwan[END_REF], only that there the local ports are limited by shallow water rather than a high tidal range. Source: Containerization International Yearbooks.

National container traffic alone does not explain Busan's pre-eminence. A particularly important spatial advantage is its intermediacy [START_REF] Hayuth | Spatial Characteristics of Transportation Hubs: Centrality and Intermediacy[END_REF]. The main North-South shipping lane running from Japan to Singapore through Hong Kong passes close to Busan, and it is on the great circle route across the Pacific. Thus, from the 1990s, Busan has added a transshipment function to its already major role as a hinterland port. Accounting for less than 5% of the overall traffic movement in 1989, transshipment volumes grew to 15% in 1994, 25% in 1999and 40.8% in 2003(Containerization International, 1995[START_REF] Lim | Pusan: Promises and Challenges Rapid Growth[END_REF], 2004a). It is this rapid growth of transshipment traffic that has allowed Busan to sustain its present market share of nearly eight per cent of East Asian ports traffic. This has occurred when other hubs in East, North East and South East Asia have experienced some declines in their market shares because of regional competition. Thus, between 1995 and 2003 Hong Kong's share fell from 20.8% to 15.7%, Kaohsiung from 8.6% to 6.8%, and Singapore from 19.6% to 14.2% (Tab.1 and Fig. 2). However, European and other Asian shipping lines have a strong presence in Busan. Their share of the total WTC is 28% and 36% respectively. The presence of the major non-Korean shipping companies indicates that Busan's port activity today is no longer rooted only in Korean foreign trade. Because it is located on the main Asian shipping lanes, Busan has become a port where some carriers have decided to establish a hub, from which containers are feedered to regional ports. These trends are reflected by the high concentration of WTC offered in Busan by several shipping lines as a proportion of their own Asian port networks (Tab.3). As national carriers it is not surprising that Hyundai and Hanjin with its DSR Senator branch each offer more than 17% of their WTC to Busan. The rate is also very high for MSC (11.3%), CMA-CGM (9.6%), China Shipping Container Lines (10.1%) and ZIM (14.4%).

It may be observed that there appears to be a systematic relationship that when Busan's share is proportionately high, the Japanese ports' share and to a certain extent that of Kaohsiung, are lower. This is particularly true for CMA-CGM and China Container Lines which are not present in Kaohsiung nor in Japanese ports. In contrast, shipping lines which concentrate their WTC in Japanese ports or in Kaohsiung are relatively weaker in Busan. Japanese carriers are disproportionately concentrating their capacity in Japanese ports, with K-Line allocating 24.2% of its WTC to Japanese ports but only 2% to Busan, NYK Line 30.5% against 6.2%, and MOL 40.2% against 4.3%. This is the same for the Taiwanese shipping lines Yangming, Evergreen and its Lloyds Triestino subsidiary. They are concentrated in Kaohsiung as well as in Japanese ports, but almost absent in Busan. This pattern is also true for Maersk-Sealand, APL and Hapag-Lloyd, but the distinction is less for P&O Nedlloyd and Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL).

This regional differentiation of service capacity allocation is mirrored in the WTCs of the major global alliances. The presence of the three Korean shipping companies, Hanjin, Yangming and Senator, within the United Alliance results in the relatively high capacity share of Busan (16.7%).

Figure 3. The port city of Busan

On the other hand, the New World Alliance dominated by APL and MOL, allocates 30% of its WTC to Japanese ports. For the Grand Alliance, the difference between Japanese ports and Busan is relatively small (14.5% to 6.1%) even though this alliance includes NYK and no Korean lines.

The analysis suggests that Busan is in direct competition with Japanese ports in being selected as a hub location by global shipping companies. For several of the carriers the choice of Busan has been made because of disadvantages of Japan. The latter's port costs are very high: Terminal

Handling Charges (THC) set by the Far Eastern Freight Conference for a twenty foot container are $235 in Kobe but only $80 in Busan (Containerization International, 2002a). Many carriers are deterred from calling at Japanese ports because of the unions, the high level of bureaucracy and the lack of openness to foreign businesses. Finally, the scattering of five ports over 500 kilometres makes it difficult for the shipping companies to concentrate their services at one of the 5 ports and to take full advantage a hub network. Only MOL concentrates more than 10% of its Asian WTC in one Japanese port, while nine companies have higher proportions in Busan. A further factor was the 1995 Kobe's earthquake which forced shipping lines to find alternative solutions, and many redirected their vessels to Busan. Even after reconstruction, companies that had strong historical ties with Japanese ports for transshipment retained a substantial part of their activity in Busan. 3Busan not only captured traffic from Japan but from Northern China as well. In 2000, Busan's transshipment activity from both Japan and China increased by more than 45% (D.R.E.E., 2001).

The exponential growth of Chinese traffic is a major factor accounting for the growth of transshipment trade in Busan. Yellow Sea ports such as Qingdao, Tianjin, Dalian, situated well away from the global maritime shipping lanes, are directly linked to Busan, which then distributes this Chinese trade to North America and Europe. It is also in these northern Chinese provinces that direct Korean investments are the most considerable [START_REF] Jie | FDI from Korea and the Development of Sino-Korean Economic Linkages in the Bohai Sea Rim[END_REF]. Busan has also benefited from the enormous growth of trade from Shanghai, where, because of depth of water limitations, ships depart partially loaded to be topped off at Busan.

CHALLENGES

Local congestion, regional imbalances and international competition

Despite the formidable success of Busan, its future is threatened by a number of pressures at a variety of spatial scales. The port is contiguous to a major urban settlement, and the continuous increase in container flows within this highly urbanized site is threatening both port and city with asphyxia. The regional economy is not conducive to the establishment of many of the service activities that are necessary in a modern port cluster. At the same time the growth of direct shipments from North Chinese ports is a threat to Busan's transshipment trade.

The coexistence of port and urban functions: an impossible relationship?

Today, Busan's entire bay is dedicated to the port activity. To cope with the growth of traffic, the Korean authorities have built new terminals, and all are fairly young, from the oldest Jasung Dae Container Terminal, built in 1978, to the most recent Shin Gamman Terminal built in 2002.

If Busan bay is an excellent natural harbour, the port site is quite constrained. Container berths have to share port space with other activities. As a result Busan's container terminals suffer from heavy congestion: "Terminals are so busy that vessels are not allowed to discharge their cargoes, so a large portion of containers subsequently have to be handled at conventional piers. In 2000, these conventional piers handled a massive 2.36 million TEU" [START_REF] Kim | The Strategy of Developing a N. E. Asia Logistics Hub in Korea[END_REF]. This congestion has been recognized in a number of Korean reports, some of which blame the lack of port investment in Korea.

The problem of inland congestion is much more severe. 85% of containers are transported by road. Located almost in the city centre, the container terminals are not well connected to each other (Fig. 3). Thus port traffic mixes with general urban traffic causing significant problems over the whole urban area. The proximity of mountains to the container terminals aggravates the problem of road access. Some urban highways reach the terminals by large tunnels through the surrounding mountains, for example, the Jasung Dae Container terminal.

Port traffic is dispersed all over the urbanized area because 37 off-dock container yards are scattered around the city. In 2000, they handled 3.1 million import/export containers (Containerization International, op. cit.). The trucks severely damage city roads [START_REF] Anonymous | Port-City Relations in Korea[END_REF]. Port generated truck traffic is adding to a growing problem of urban congestion, strongly driven by growth in car ownership and improved living standards. Today, Busan is facing total gridlock. This is being reflected in delays in serving the main domestic market, Seoul. Even in 1994, a journey by road between Busan and Seoul took 14 hours compared to 8 hours in 1980 (Containerization International, 1994), despite numerous improvements in road infrastructures.

This traffic congestion impacts on the smooth running of the whole port node itself.

Despite the severity of the problem, concerted planning policy between city and port is nonexistent. The institutional system is not well structured to develop appropriate policy responses.

Port policy depends directly on central government though the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF) and the Korea Container Terminal Authority (KCTA), the latter planning buildings and new terminals. Within Busan's City Hall, the "Port Policy Department" works directly with MOMAF and KCTA with the aim of strengthening the port function but totally ignoring the "Urban Planning Department", even though it is located in the same building and promotes the development of an attractive waterfront [START_REF] Cho | A Proposal on Waterfront Development of Port Area in Busan[END_REF]. With such a difficult geographical site, contradictory projects are sometimes conceived for the same areas. For example, the project to shift of some of the port transshipment activity to the vicinity of the city railway station was opposed by the city, who proposed residential development of the areas [START_REF] Park | A Consideration on Effective Port Transportation[END_REF].

The saturation has been such that a container tax was introduced, allowing the city to raise revenue from container traffic while at the same time trying to limit this traffic [START_REF] Kim | A Study on the Container Tax Collection of Busan City[END_REF].

However, the efficiency of this tax is hotly debated and its imposition seemingly contradicts port development objectives. Initiatives such as this, along with the effects of local congestion may cause intermodal transport players to relocate their activities elsewhere. This explains why this tax has been abandoned in 2003, in order to avoid any loosening of competitivity.

Finally, recent events have affected the efficiency both perceived and real of the port of Busan. In 2003 there were two national strikes of truckers that interrupted regular shipments of containers to and from domestic hinterland markets. In addition, the port was severely impacted by typhoon Maemi in September 2003 which disabled 12 of the ports 52 gantry cranes. While the port authority was able to adjust very quickly to these calamities, they had occurred at a time when the existing structural difficulties were already causing concern among some shipping lines.

These local difficulties are certainly not absent in many of the competing East Asian hubs.

Kaohsiung, for example, experiences similar difficulties of container terminals sharing the same space with other port activities (Haynes et al, op. cit.). Furthermore, the issues of port access and urban congestion are present in most other metropolitan port centres, such as Hong Kong and Shanghai. Rather it is the scale and scope of these problems that makes Busan stand out. Its urban and physical setting is presenting formidable challenges for its continued success as a container port.

The difficulties of becoming a maritime metropolis: the dependence on Seoul

The threats of asphyxia for Busan port are accentuated by the city's incapacity to develop commercial and logistics functions appropriate for a large maritime metropolis. A major problem is Busan's dependence on the capital, Seoul.

With almost 4 million inhabitants in 2002, almost 10% of the Korean population, Busan is a large metropolis, but it is dwarfed by Seoul, which has 10 million inhabitants in the inner city alone.

Seoul is the political and commercial capital of the country, and dominates the entire urban hierarchy.

Busan developed after the Korean War as an industrial centre. Relatively low added value industries such as textiles were established as well as chemicals and machinery, requiring an abundant and frequently low qualified workforce that gave rise to a mass rural exodus [START_REF] Shin | Governing Inter-Regional Conflicts: Managing Expansion in Busan, Korea[END_REF]. This resulted in new infrastructures, an impressive expansion of the city and creation of a local consumer market.

Busan has remained an industrial port city [START_REF] Park | The Asia-Pacific Rim's Transport and Telecommunications Systems: Spatial Structure and Corporate Control Since the Mid-1980s[END_REF]. In 1995, Busan accounted for 71.2% and 48% of the region's industrial firms and manufacturing jobs respectively [START_REF] Lim | Pusan: Promises and Challenges Rapid Growth[END_REF].

However, the city has begun to suffer competition from new Asian competitors. Korean factories are being relocated to Vietnam and China, dealing a severe blow to Busan's traditional economic prosperity. It has difficulty in diversifying because of the dominance of the capital city. In 1995, Seoul contained 24% of the national population but 61% of employees in finance and marketing, and 96% of the headquarters of major companies [START_REF] Hong | Seoul: a Global City in a Nation of Rapid Growth[END_REF] including Hyundai and Hanjin.

Competition from China

Part of Busan's success is its role as a transshipment port for the burgeoning traffic exports of North China. Because Chinese ports were poorly equipped and had significant physical constraints, international shipping lines were reluctant to establish direct services there. Source: Port of Hamburg.

As discussed above, Busan's geographical intermediacy (Hayuth and Fleming, op. cit.), and efficiency resulted in it capturing a significant proportion of the China trade, with transshipments accounting for over 40% of traffic in 2003. This type of function is highly competitive and potentially unstable. Changes in conditions can bring about significant alterations. Over the last five years Chinese authorities have sought to provide improved capacity in its major ports in order to attract direct services. Chinese ports' throughput has been recording an exceptional growth during ten years (Tab.4). Mega port expansion projects are underway in all the major Chinese ports, particularly in Shanghai, Qingdao, Tianjin, Ningbo and Dalian. These projects involve not only the provision of international-standard container berths, but also the participation of foreign capital in the management and eventual operation of the new terminals.

These projects are being rapidly carried out, and already many of the major international shipping lines have established direct container services with these ports. This represents a serious threat to an important part of Busan's traffic activity. The threat is likely to get much more intense when the new terminals in Shanghai (Yanshan) begin to come on stream in 2005, and Qingdao completes the transfer of its container activity to the new port in 2006.

Government Responses

The Korean ports industry has always been dependent upon government action (Cullinane and Song, op. cit.). The Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF) exerts control over the provision of marine infrastructures. It decides when and where facilities are to be built. The management of the terminals is devolved to the Korea Terminal Authority (KCTA), which receives the terminals at no cost. This has been a highly centralized system therefore. The system worked as long as no unforeseen challenges were encountered.

While the system provided Korea with a competitive port system initially, traffic expansion at Busan during the 1990s outgrew the facilities that had been constructed. One of the reasons for congestion at Busan was the slowness of MOMAF to respond to the growing demand for new facilities (Cullinane and Song, op. cit.). By the mid 1990s it was becoming apparent that if Korea as a whole was to adjust to the growth of China, significant changes would have to take place, requiring the provision of new transport capacity, including new port facilities and a new airport at Inchon. The financial crisis of 1997 accentuated the need for change not only in capacity but also new governance procedures and for a focus on the expansion of logistics functions.

New infrastructures

In 1995 the heavy industrial city of Gwangyang (iron & steel and petrochemicals) was chosen by MOMAF to become a new container port to help overcome congestion at Busan. This decision resulted in the construction of four new berths that were opened in 1998 and 1999. With good marine accessibility, with a 20 meter water depth, and no large adjacent urban area Gwangyang is a good site for a modern port development. Its local hinterland is limited, but because it possesses good accessibility inland, time and costs to Seoul are lower than Busan. Journey times from

Gwangyang to the Masan logistic centre are the same as those from Busan terminals, despite the distance being four times longer. In terms of costs, Korean authorities have guaranteed some financial advantages to shippers as well as to shipping companies operating through Gwangyang.

Finally, the presence of the two main Korean shipping companies Hanjin and Hyundai in the first terminals gave Gwangyang an early boost in traffic that it has maintained, reaching 1.2 million TEUs in 2003.

More recently, decisions were made to construct a new container complex 10 km to the west of Busan Bay, close to the Noksam industrial complex. This new port will be located totally outside the urban agglomeration; it quits the original bay site (Fig. 3). The New Busan Port is under construction on a large site reclaimed from the sea and Gadok Island. [START_REF] Ducruet | Inchon, Port City of South Korea[END_REF]. Transshipment throughputs, which would compete with regional flows, are still not planned (Containerisation International, 2004b).

New governance relationships

Korean government's decision to expand container handling capacity has been matched by a significant set of changes in the liberalization of port handling operations. Most importantly, the Korean operators' monopoly on port operations, either by KCTA or the Korean carriers, has ended, and the entry of the largest world terminal operators has been encouraged [START_REF] Park | The Asia-Pacific Rim's Transport and Telecommunications Systems: Spatial Structure and Corporate Control Since the Mid-1980s[END_REF]. In administrative structure that can respond more quickly to the commercial needs of customers and to external pressures and challenges than the former highly centralized system. It may be noted, however, that BPA is independent of the local government, although it is hoped that it will establish synergies with the local authorities in order more effectively coordinate port development with regional planning and economic development.

Together, these measures are intended to serve Korean territorial development in facilitating the growth of logistics and financial activities linked to maritime transport. In New Busan Port, as in Gwangyang, some areas are reserved for logistics activities, and the ports' free zone status is likely to attract investors. The new centres are intended to add value to transshipment activities and introduce new functions into the limited economic bases of the two port cities.

CONCLUSION

While Busan has been shaped by global forces, particularly the expansion of trade from the Pacific Rim, and is confronting competition from beyond Korea; this paper demonstrates that local factors play an important role in shaping its development and challenges. Congestion is a common feature of East Asian ports, where traffic growth is presenting particular problems of access and facility development. As in Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong expansion of infrastructure is taking place at a regional scale. The "challenge of peripheral ports" [START_REF] Hayuth | Containerization and the Load Center Concept[END_REF] is giving rise to new facilities development that may be under the jurisdiction of the local port authority, as is the case of Busan New Port in Busan and Yangshan in Shanghai, or in the development of terminals under different jurisdictions, as in the case of Gwangyang in South Korea, Tanjung Pelepas in the case of Singapore, and the Shenzhen ports in the Pearl River Delta.

Just as Shenzhen ports are now challenging the hegemony of Hong Kong (Wang and Slack ), so

Gwangyang may be seen as a competitor to Busan. In the case of Taiwan, the dominant position of Kaohsiung is still evident, although there have been attempts to establish new container terminals in Keelung [START_REF] Haynes | Regional Port Dynamics in the Global Economy: The case of Kaohsiung, Taiwan[END_REF].

Busan offers many similarities with Kaohsiung, both in terms of competition for space within the port area and with the relatively specialized economic base of the local economies. Like Kaohsiung, Busan is primarily a centre of heavy manufacturing, and has failed to develop financial and other high order services that are typical of other major hubs such as Tokyo, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Whether this can be changed by fostering logistics activities is uncertain, particularly because of the dominance of the national capitals, Seoul and Taipei.

The most severe challenges faced by Busan are undoubtedly regional and international in scope.

It has exploited the weaknesses of China's port infrastructures and of Japan's port management to establish an important transshipment function. In this regard, with 40% of its traffic being made up of transfers, Busan is in a more exposed position than any other of the Asian hub ports, except for Singapore. The massive investments in container handling facilities in many Chinese ports, and the involvement of many of the leading global terminal handling companies in their management, presents an enormous challenge to Busan. Whether or not its own internal port reforms and expansion will be sufficient to counter the developments in China remain to be seen.

Figure

  Figure 1. Container throughput in Busan (1975-2003).

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Container throughputs of East Asian ports in 2003.

February 2002 ,

 2002 the Hong Kong terminal operating company Hutchinson Port Holdings entered the port, having purchased the Jasung Dae Terminal from Hyundai and is committed to the Phase II development of Gwangyang. In the New Busan Port, CSX World Terminals is the major private investor along with KCTA. The liberalization was taken one step further in January 2004, when a new organization was created to administer the port of Busan. No longer directly dependent upon MOMAF, the new Busan Port Authority (BPA) is irresponsible for maritime operations and development. It must follow the same accounting principles as a private company. The goal is to create a more flexible

Table 1 . Container throughputs of East Asian ports (1995-2003).

 1

	1995		2001		2003
		TEU	%	TEU	%	TEU %
	1 Hong Kong	12,5 20,8 1 Hong Kong	17,9	17,1 1 Hong Kong	20,4 15,7
	2 Singapore	11,8 19,6 2 Singapore	15,5	14,8 2 Singapore	18,4 14,2
	3 Kaohsiung	5,2 8,7 3 Busan	8,1	7,7 3 Shanghai	11,2 8,7
	4 Busan	4,5 7,5 4 Kaohsiung	7,5	7,2 4 Busan	10,4 8,0
	5 Yokohama	2,8 4,6 5 Shanghai	6,3	6,0 5 Kaohsiung	8,8 6,8
	6 Tokyo	2,2 3,6 6 Port Klang	3,7	3,6 6 Yantian	5,2 4,0
	7 Keelung	2,2 3,6 7 Yantian	2,7	2,6 7 Port Klang	4,8 3,7
	8 Manila	1,7 2,8 8 Qingdao	2,6	2,5 8 Qingdao	4,2 3,3
	9 Shanghai	1,5 2,5 9 Tokyo	2,5	2,4 9 Tanjung Pelepas	3,5 2,7
	10 Nagoya	1,5 2,4 10 Laem Chabang	2,3	2,2 10 Tokyo	3,3 2,5
	Subtotal	45,9 76,0 Subtotal	69,3	66,1 Subtotal	90,5 69,6
	Other	14,5 24,0 Other	35,6	33,9 Other	39,6 30,4
	TOTAL	60,4 100 TOTAL	104,9	100 TOTAL	130,1 100,0

Table 2 . Shipping companies' market shares for Busan port in 2002.

 2

	Shipping Companies	Nationality	TEUs	%
	Hyundai	South Korea	35 156 14.0
	Hanjin	South Korea	34 684 13.8
	CMA-CGM	France	15 184	6.0
	PONL	UK / Netherlands	15 133	6.0
	Maersk	Denmark	14 838	5.9
	MSC	Italy / Switzerland	14 755	5.9
	CSCL	China	13 813	5.5
	Senator	South Korea	13 421	5.3
	NYK	Japan	11 217	4.5
	APL	Singapore	11 212	4.4
	OOCL	Hong Kong	9 574	3.8
	ZIM	Israël	8 949	3.6
	Yangming	Taïwan	8 802	3.5
	Cosco	China	8 252	3.3
	Evergreen	Taïwan	7 837	3.1
	K Line	Japan	5 325	2.1
	Mitsui OSK Line	Japan	4 691	1.9
	Lloyd Triestino	Taïwan	4 122	1.6
	CSAV	Chile	3 926	1.6
	UASC	Koweït	3 802	1.5
	Wan Hai	Taiwan	2 135	0.8
	PIL	Singapore	1 952	0.8
	MISC	Malaysia	1 689	0.7
	Safmarine	Denmark	1 001	0.4
	Hapag-Lloyd	Germany	538	0.2
	Delmas	France	-0.0
	Total		252 008 100.0
	Of which alliances		86 573 34.4
	Coscon/K-Line/ Yangming Alliance		2 613	1.0
	Grand Alliance		25 776 10.2
	New World Alliance		30 997 12.3
	United Alliance		27 187 10.8

Table 3 . Weekly Containerized Transport Capacity (WCTC) shares among Busan and north-east Asian ports for the world's major 26 shipping companies.

 3

		Hong Kong Singapore Kaohsiung Busan Shanghai Kobe Yokohama Tokyo Nagoya Osaka Gwangyang Others Total (EVP)	Of which Japanese ports
	Grand Alliance	19.8	18.2	10.6	6.1	5.0	5.0	2.2	2.8	4.5	0.0	0.0	25.8 1 035 802	14.5
	New World Alliance	17.0	9.7	10.9	6.8	3.5	9.1	5.8	8.5	7.2	0.0	3.4	18.1	224	30.6
	United Alliance	15.1	12.9	8.7	16.7	5.3	0.0	0.0	5.7	0.0	4.2	4.8	26.5	975	10.0
	Maersk-Sealand	18.0	4.7	9.2	4.4	3.1	7.9	9.5	0.5	4.4	1.2	3.2	33.7	339	23.6
	P&O Nedlloyd	18.8	20.0	8.2	7.2	5.4	4.0	2.0	2.5	4.0	0.0	0.0	27.8	588	12.6
	MSC	17.7	12.7	2.3	11.3	6.5	0.0	2.3	2.5	2.3	2.3	0.0	40.3	115	9.3
	Cosco	15.4	10.6	0.0	3.0	10.9	3.1	7.1	1.0	1.5	1.0	0.0	46.5	699	13.7
	APL	13.6	14.8	9.8	3.9	4.5	7.2	6.1	4.5	3.3	0.0	1.1	31.2	783	21.1
	Evergreen	15.7	11.8	14.6	2.6	1.1	0.9	1.8	7.7	2.6	7.2	0.3	33.7	307	20.3
	Hanjin	12.7	10.5	8.4	17.6	4.0	1.5	2.5	7.4	1.1	5.5	2.9	25.8	198	18.0
	K Line	15.7	14.0	3.5	2.0	5.7	6.8	2.7	6.4	7.0	1.3	0.0	34.9	112	24.2
	CMA-CGM	20.5	9.5	0.0	9.6	8.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.6	49.1	226	0.0
	NYK	11.0	14.5	2.2	6.2	5.8	8.9	4.4	6.3	9.4	1.5	0.0	29.9	877	30.5
	OOCL	22.3	14.8	14.8	4.0	2.3	2.6	1.1	2.6	1.6	1.1	0.0	32.9	095	9.0
	China Shipping	16.7	1.8	0.0	10.1	6.6	0.2	4.1	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	60.0	393	4.5
	Mitsui OSK Line	17.6	16.1	1.9	4.3	2.4	11.5	5.5	11.4	10.5	1.3	0.0	17.5	031	40.2
	Hyundai	18.1	9.7	10.9	16.8	2.7	0.5	2.7	2.7	2.2	0.5	6.6	26.6	248	8.7
	Hapag-Lloyd	21.4	18.5	9.1	2.2	6.4	6.8	4.5	2.3	4.5	0.0	0.0	24.3	948	18.2
	ZIM	23.4	0.0	4.5	14.4	13.3	0.0	5.6	0.0	0.0	5.6	0.0	33.3	62	11.2
	Yangming	19.8	11.1	10.3	2.8	5.0	5.0	3.2	3.7	2.6	0.8	0.6	35.0	475	15.4
	Senator	18.2	12.5	14.7	21.9	3.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.5	23.7	81	0.0
	Lloyd Triestino	19.9	8.7	13.6	4.6	11.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.3	0.0	0.0	39.1	88	2.3
	Wan Hai	17.8	9.0	6.7	1.6	1.9	3.7	3.8	3.8	2.5	3.0	0.8	45.5	490	16.7
	PIL	14.8	22.3	1.4	1.3	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	55.8	875	0.0
	UASC	25.0	25.0	12.5	12.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	25.0	30	0.0
	Delmas	0.0	42.6	0.0	0.0	14.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	42.6	6 453	0.0
	Safmarine	22.2	11.1	0.0	11.1	11.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	44.4	24	0.0
	CSAV	19.5	14.7	0.0	12.2	4.8	4.8	12.2	0.0	12.2	0.0	0.0	19.5	37	29.2
	MISC	12.1	24.5	0.0	5.3	6.3	4.5	4.5	0.0	3.5	1.0	0.0	38.5	392	13.4

Source: Weekly Containerized Transport Capacity Database, Le Havre, C.I.R.T.A.I. ©

Table 4 . Throughputs and growth of Busan and northern Chinese ports (1995-2003).

 4

		1995	2003		Average
					annual growth
		TEUs % TEUs %	1995/2003
	Shanghai	1,5 19,0 11,3	51,1	28,7
	Busan	4,5 57,0 10,4	47,1	11,0
	Qingdao	0,6	7,6 4,2	19,0	27,5
	Xingang/Tianjin	0,7	8,9 3,0	13,6	19,9
	Ningbo	0,2	2,5 2,8	12,7	39,0
	Dalian	0,4	5,1 1,7	7,7	19,8
	Total	7,9 100,0 22,1 100,0

  The project will eventually have 24 new berths posts with an annual handling capacity of 4.6 million TEUs. The first five berths will be delivered in 2006. The new facility is intended not only to add handling capacity to Busan, but also provide relief from the present urban congestion afflicting the present port facilities. This is regarded as essential in retaining multimodal operators in Busan itself.The port of Inchon is not cut from such investments: a new container terminal operated by Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), in a joint-venture with Samsung, was inaugurated in July 2004. Its yearly capacity is of 400.000 TEUs with, if the construction of two other 300m quays is decided by the Korean government, a potential of 1.2 million TEUs per annum around 2011, which would be added to a total of 820.000 TEUs in 2003. This terminal wouldn't suffer from the handicaps of former infrastructures operated by Hanjin and Korea Express. Its water depth is of 14 metres and is accessible without lock gate. Such an investment is directly focused on catching regional flows, notably those between Yellow Sea's Chinese ports and South Korea. This would avoid the shippers of Greater Seoul to be dependant from Busan or Gwangyang, when at the same time the Kyongin Canal is under way (2011) to reduce trucking between Inchon and Seoul

Our study on the shipping companies' transport capacity is available only for 2002. Research is now in progress for the year 1993 so as to measure a 10 year evolution.