Going West? Spatial polarization of the North Korean port system

Abstract

This paper analyzes North Korean ports in light of existing models of port system evolution. It reviews the economic and political factors shaping port concentration in developed, developing, and socialist countries. A database on vessel movements allows for the analysis of individual North Korean port traffic by total capacity circulated, cargo type, fleet nationality, immediate origin and destination, and berthing time. While ideological factors and military control hamper port modernization and trade openness, traffic concentration at the Pyongyang-Nampo gateway highlights the spatial polarization in the capital region at the expense of Eastern ports for which inland transport limitations and industrial decline have become major issues. The North Korean case only partly fits general models because traffic concentration occurs due to geopolitical isolation and internal limitations rather than economic and trade growth.

The Spatio-Temporal Distribution and Development Modes of Border Ports in China

“…In the case of China and Bhutan, geopolitical factors play a significant role because the two countries have not established diplomatic relations yet. The border ports are mainly distributed along the China-Russia border (23 ports), China-North Korea border (15), China-Mongolia border (13) and China-Kazakhstan border (9), which accounts for 70.1 percent of the total ports (excluding airports). The spatial distribution of border ports is uneven in the border region due to physical, historical, socio-economic and cultural differences (Figure 2).…”

“…However, two of the challenges identified are the selection of major industries and the labor supply for its sustainable development. Ducruet et al [13] analyzed port system evolution in North Korea and how economic and political factors affect its development.…”

Functional Differentiation and Sustainability: A New Stage of Development in the Chinese Container Port System

“…In addition, fierce competition of ports, international trade, multimodal transport integration, technological innovation, government policy and different routings creates a de-concentration in port system [23,25,46,52]. Container ship maximization tends to select ports that have deep-water channels [33].…”

“…However, Rimmer and Comtois held a different view, and argued that regionalization did not necessarily take place [14]. To address this issue, Ducruet selected studies on port system from 1963 to 2008 and focused on the factors of concentration or de-concentration [25].…”

Container Ports in Latin America: Challenges in a Changing Global Economy

“…Most gateway ports experienced a similarly steady increase in total throughput across the time period. Ducruet et al (2009;p.359) argued that "concentration stems from the path-dependency of large agglomerations", while drivers of deconcentration include "new port development, carrier selection, global operation strategies, governmental policies, congestion, and lack of space at main load centres." According to Ogundana et al, (1972), Barke (1986) and Hayuth (1981), port system concentration will eventually reach its limits and invert, leading to a process of deconcentration, a phenomenon discussed by Slack and Wang (2002), Notteboom (2005), Frémont and Soppé (2007).…”