Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Afrika Zamani, Nos. 11 & 12, 2003–2004, pp. 160–182 © Council for the Developme

Afrika Zamani, Nos. 11 & 12, 2003–2004, pp. 160–182 © Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa & Association of African Historians, 2006 (ISSN 0850-3079) * Professor of History, Department of History and Strategic Studies, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria. Maritime Policy and Economic Development: A Comparison of Nigerian and Japanese Experiences since the Second World War1 Ayodeji Olukoju* Abstract It is now generally recognized that the maritime sector could, if properly harnessed, play a critical role in the development of regional, national and global economies. This is in view of the growth-pole potentials of ports and ancillary industries. Although a comparison of Japan, a leading global power, and Nigeria, a vastly underachieving African country, might sound far-fetched, the effort is rewarding, as shown in this article, for its implications for public policy formulation and implementation. This paper attempts a comparison of the evolution and implementation of policies relating to the development of ports, the mercantile marine and port industries in both countries. Focusing on the roles of the government and the private sector, it locates the discussion in a wider, global comparative context. The prospects and challenges of regional development through the agency of the maritime sector in both Nigeria and Japan are considered in the light of such concepts as 'maritime industrial development areas (MIDAs)' and 'developer ports'. Pertinent lessons in comparative history and public policy analysis are highlighted in the paper, which has benefited from primary research in both countries. Résumé Il est à présent largement reconnu que s'il était bien exploité, le secteur maritime pourrait jouer un rôle crucial dans le développement des économies régionales, nationales et globales, au vu du riche potentiel que représentent les ports et les industries secondaires. Même si la tentative de comparaison entre le Japon, une grande puissance mondiale, et le Nigeria, un pays africain qui a grand peine à se développer, semble pour le moins exagérée, l'effort en reste tout de même grati- fiant, comme le montre cet article, du fait de ses implications sur le plan de la 9.Olukoju.p65 27/09/2006, 13:34 160 161 Olukoju: Maritime Policy and Economic Development formulation et de l'application de politiques publiques. Cet article tente de mener une comparaison de l'évolution et de l'application de politiques liées au dévelop- pement portuaire, ainsi qu'à la marine marchande et aux industries portuaires de ces deux pays. En se basant sur le rôle du gouvernement et du secteur privé, cette contribution situe le débat dans un contexte international et comparatif plus large. Les perspectives et les défis de développement régional par l'intermédiaire du secteur maritime, au Nigeria et au Japon, sont considérés à travers ces concepts comme correspondant aux «zones maritimes de développement industriel» et aux «ports de développement». Cet article formule des leçons pertinentes en matière d'histoire comparative et d'analyse de politique publique, et s'est inspiré de la recherche fondamentale dans ces deux pays. Introduction It is now generally recognised that the maritime sector could, if properly harnessed, play a critical role in the development of regional, national and global economies. This is in view of the growth-pole potentials of ports and ancillary industries (Hanappe and Savy 1980). Although a comparison of Japan, a leading global power, and Nigeria, a well-endowed but vastly un- derachieving African country, might sound far-fetched, it has been accom- plished with implications for public policy formulation and implementation (Olukoju 1996b, 2001b). This paper attempts a comparison of the evolution and implementation of policies relating to the development of ports, the mercantile marine, shipbuilding and port industries in both countries.2 Focusing on the roles of the government and the private sector, it locates the discussion in a wider, global comparative context. The prospects and challenges of regional development through the agency of the maritime sector in both Nigeria and Japan are considered in the light of such concepts as ‘maritime industrial development areas’ (MIDAs), ‘export processing zones’, and ‘developer ports’. Pertinent lessons in comparative history and public policy analysis will be highlighted in the paper, which has benefited from primary research in both countries. Ports and Regional Development Seaports constitute the hub of the maritime sector of a nation’s economy. For one thing, they are generally regarded as gateways between their hinterlands and forelands—the overseas territories to which they are linked by commerce and other elements. They thus serve as conduits in the exchange of merchandise between opposite ends of the intervening oceans. Moreover, without them, shipping and shipbuilding cannot exist and it is the capacity of a port that determines the volume and regularity of its shipping. Hence, our 9.Olukoju.p65 27/09/2006, 13:34 161 162 Afrika Zamani, Nos. 11 & 12, 2003–2004 discussion will focus largely on ports. However, ports do not exist for their own sake or as mere conduits of trade, but are expected to exert a developmental impact especially on their hinterlands. To be sure, a port has several hinterlands stretching from the port itself to as far as transport links and competing outlets permit. While the proximate hinterlands are likely to be captive to it, other areas may be contested by other ports depending on their differential access to transport facilities (Olukoju 1996b). That said, a critical issue that is germane to our discussion is the potential of ports as growth poles. Do ports really generate development in their immediate or remote hinterlands? If so, what accounts for this or under what conditions can this be achieved? If such conditions are known, how can the developmental impact be optimised? In any case, what criteria should be employed to measure the developmental impact of ports and how reliable are they? With regard to the measurement of the economic impact of ports, the Canada Ports Corporation once developed a computerised Economic Impact Model, which supposedly ‘measures the economic benefits of the freight handling activities of [Canadian] ... ports on the local, provincial and national economies ... [and provides] a realistic and defensible assessment of the economic contributions of the ports’ (Tessier 1991:183). This assertion was based on certain observable results. Canadian ports were reported to have generated jobs (direct and indirect), revenue, and personal income quantified in billions of dollars, which derived from port and related activities. However, critics have expressed doubts about the reliability and propriety of such measurements. Some contend that ‘port impact’ studies of this kind were designed by port authorities to justify or attract port investment. Others argue that it is misleading to attribute regional development to the ports, which are ‘only one element in a large number of producing and distributing systems’ which generate economic changes in a given region (Goss 1990:217). It may also be noted that accurate quantification of the regional impact of ports is difficult to achieve in the face of the diffusion (that is, of origins and destinations) of port traffic beyond the narrow confines of a region or nation (ibid: 216). These foregoing criticisms should not be confined to ‘port impact’ studies as such but may be extended to the whole question of the significance attached to ports in economic development. Orthodox historians would naturally be wary of any explanation that ascribes sole or unduly exaggerated importance to a single causal factor: the pitfall of monocausal explanation. It is in this light that one should view the tendency to attribute developments generated in a region to either the geographical or transport factor. But as is indicated 9.Olukoju.p65 27/09/2006, 13:34 162 163 Olukoju: Maritime Policy and Economic Development below, the human factor appears to be overwhelmingly important in this age of technology. Whatever reservations that one may have about the reliability of the quantification of the social and economic impact of ports and their allied industries on the adjoining cities and regions, it is hardly debatable that port activities and shipping generate employment, and induce industrialisation and overall economic growth. The striking example of Maritime Industrial Developments Areas (MIDAs) in post-Second World War Europe aptly illustrates the immense growth-pole potentials of ports. Even so, it must be conceded that there is a symbiotic relationship between the port itself, on the one hand, and the port-city and port-induced industries, on the other. Economic boom or depression in either a port’s forelands or hinterlands immediately affects the port and the silting of the port or the loss of its comparative advantage to rival ports would be reflected in the fortunes of its hinterlands, particularly those that are dependent on it. A related issue is the role of human agency in these developments. Without prejudice to the now discredited thesis of environmental or geographical determinism, we may note that the development of the maritime sector and, indeed, of the wider economy, reflects the degree of the harnessing together of technological, political, economic, physical and other factors. However, what can hardly be controverted is that human agency can reverse or ameliorate the natural disadvantages of a port or initiate developments in its hinterland or foreland to the advantage or disadvantage of the port (Olukoju 1996c). This is most clearly manifest in the formulation uploads/Geographie/9-olukoju.pdf