Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peripherality in the global container shipping network: the case of the Southern African container port system

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regional trade co-operation, economic growth and greater political stability have enabled increased container throughput and container port capacity development. Earlier academic work has indicated that the functional position of this port region in the global maritime network might be shifting from a remote region in the periphery of the network to a more intermediate position. This paper aims to analyze the changing level of peripherality and remoteness of the Southern African container port system as part of the global container shipping network. The central hypothesis is that Southern Africa has moved from a remote shipping region to a more central shipping region in the global network. The methodology consists of the calculation of network measures for Southern African ports. The changing geographical distribution of flows among the main container ports in South Africa, Namibia, Mozambique, Mauritius and Madagascar will also be explored in terms of their respective shipping services, port calling patterns, market structure (in terms of the number of active carriers) and the up-scaling of vessel and port capacity. The overall result is a mapped port hierarchical structure with a clear indication of the shifted maritime centrality of Southern African ports from 1996 to the present decade.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In 1652 the Dutch East India company (VOC) sent a group of Dutchmen under the command of Jan van Riebeeck establish a refreshment station and to provide facilities for crew who had fallen ill to diseases such as scurvy on the journeys between Holland and East Asia.

  2. Containerization International world port ranking 2011, Durban ranked 43 in terms of throughput.

  3. The port of Durban has a 55 % market share in the region and has undergone the most port capacity changes (project scale and project cost) from 2000 to 2012.

  4. Refer Fraser and Notteboom (2012).

  5. Refer numerical Results: Volume Flows among IBSA, Lee and Lee (2012).

References

  • Ball, R. (1996). Local sensitivities and the representation of peripherality. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(1), 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, K., Gaigne, C., Gottaviano, G., & Thisse, J. (2006). Is remoteness a locational disadvantage? Journal of Economic Geography, 6(3), 347–368.

  • Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25, 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, T., Lee, P., & Notteboom, T. (2013). Shipping line dominance and freight rate practices on trade routes: the case of the far East-South Africa trade. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 5(2), 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, P., & Van der Lugt, L. (2002). A stylised container port hierarchy: A theoretical and empirical exploration. In International Association of Maritime Economists (pp. 1–15). Panama: IAME.

  • De Langen, P., & Van der Lugt, L. (2007). Governance structures of port authorities in the Netherlands. Research in Transport Economics, 17, 109–137.

  • Ducruet, C. (2008). Hub dependence in constrained economies: The case of North Korea. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(4), 374–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C. N. (2009). Revisiting inter-port relationships under the New Economic Geography research framework. In C. N. Ducruet & T. Notteboom (Eds.), Ports in proximity: Competition and coordination among adjacent seaports (pp. 11–28). Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C. (2012). The polarization of global container flows by interoceanic canals. The international conference on interoceanic canals and world seaborne trade: Past, present, and future. Brussels: The International Conference on Interoceanic Canals and World Seaborne Trade.

  • Ducruet, C., Lee, S., & Ng, A. (2010a). Centrality and vulnerability in liner shipping networks: Revisiting the Northeast Asian port hierarchy. Maritime Policy and Management, 37, 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C., Rozenblat, C., & Zaidi, F. (2010b). Ports in multi-level maritime networks: Evidence from the Atlantic (1996–2006). Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 508–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C., & Lugo, I. (2013). Structure and dynamics of transportation networks: Models, concepts, and applications. In J. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom, & J. Shaw (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of transport studies (pp. 347–364). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C., & Notteboom, T. (2012). Developing liner service networks in container shipping. In D. Song & P. Panayides (Eds.), Maritime logistics: A complete guide to effective shipping and port management (pp. 77–100). Londen: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholt, K. (2004). Designing optimal routes in a liner shipping problem. Maritime Policy and Management, 31(4), 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, L., & Notteboom, T. (2013). Peripheral challenge by small and medium sized ports (SMPs) in multi-port gateway regions: The case study of northeast of China. Polish Maritime Research, 20, 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, Y., & Hayuth, Y. (1994). Spatial characteristics of transportation hubs: Centrality and intermediacy. Journal of Transport Geography, 2(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., & Notteboom, T. (2012). Gateway and hinterland dynamics: The case of the Southern African port system. African Journal of Business Management, 6(44), 10807–10825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fremont, A. (2007). Global maritime networks The case of Maersk. Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 431–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, M., & Mori, T. (1996). The role of ports in the making of major cities: Self-agglomeration and hub-effect. Journal of Development Economics, 49, 93–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P., & Jacobs, W. (2010). Shifting proximities: The maritime ports sector. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1103–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, W. (2007). Political economy of port competition: Institutional analyses of Rotterdam, Southern California and Dubai. Political Economy of Port Competition. Nijmegen: Academic Press Europe.

  • Kaluza, P., Kolzsch, A., Gastner, M., & Blasius, B. (2010). The complex network of global cargo ship movements. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 7(48), 1093–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafourcade, M., & Thisse, J. (2011). New economic geography: The role of transport costs. In A. De Palma, R. Lindsey, E. Quinet, & R. Vickerman (Eds.), Handbook of transport economics (pp. 67–96). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laxe, F., Seoane, M., & Montes, C. (2012). Maritime degree, centrality and vulnerability: port hierarchies and emerging areas in containerized transport (2008–2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T., & Lee, P. (2012). South-South trade liberalisation and shipping geography: A case study on India, Brazil, and South Africa. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 4(4), 323–338.

  • Lee, S., Song, D., & Ducreuet, C. (2008). The spatial evolution in global hubport cities. Geoforum, 39, 372–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lirn, T., Thanopoulou, H., Beynon, J., & Beresford, A. (2004). An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6, 70–91.

  • Merk, O. (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities. Synthesis report. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ncube, M., Lufumpa, C., & Kayizzi-Mugerwa, S. (2011). The middle of the pyramid: Dynamics of the Middle Class in Africa. Market Brief, African Development Bank, pp. 1–24.

  • Ng, A. (2006). Assessing the attractiveness of ports in the North European container transhipment market: An agenda for future research in port competition. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8(3), 234–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2009). Path dependency and contingency in the development of multi-port gateway regions and multi-port hub regions. In T. Notteboom, C. Ducruet, & P. W. de Langen (Eds.), Ports in proximity: Competition and co-ordination among adjacent seaports (pp. 55–72). Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2010a). From multi-porting to a hub port configuration: the South African container port system in transition. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 2(2), 224–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2010b). Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions: An update. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2012). Towards a new intermediate hub region in container shipping? Relay and interlining via the Cape route vs. the Suez route. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in Port Development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32, 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ntibarekerwa, J. (2010). www.mcli.co.za/mcli-web/events/2010/28apr2010/011.pdf. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from www.mcli.co.za: http://www.mcli.co.za/mcli-web/events/2010/28apr2010/011.pdf.

  • Parola, F., & Veenstra, A. (2008). The spatial coverage of shipping lines and container terminal operators. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, 292–299.

  • Raballand, G., Refas, S., Beuran, M., & Isik, G. (2012). Why does cargo spend weeks in Sub-Saharan African Ports?. Washington DC: Worldbank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management, 29, 241–255.

  • Rodrigue, J., & Notteboom, T. (2010). Foreland-based regionalization: Integrating intermediate hubs with port Hinterlands. Research in Transport Economics, 27, 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slack, B. J. (2002). The challenge of peripheral ports: An Asian perspective. GeoJournal, 56, 159–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, D. (2003). Port co-operation in concept and practice. Maritime Policy and Management, 30(1), 29–44.

  • Stern, E., & Hayuth, Y. (1984). Developmental effects of geopolitically located ports. In B. Hoyle & D. Hilling (Eds.), Seaport systems and spatial change (pp. 239–249). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (1992). Territorial organization and the space/technology nexus. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17, 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmsmeier, G., & Notteboom, T. (2010). Determinants of liner shipping network configuration: a two region comparison. GeoJournal, 76(3), 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2010). Africa’s infrastructure: A time for transformation. Washington DC: World Bank.

  • Wu, J. (2011). Between the centre and the periphery: The development of port trade in Darwin, Australia. Australian Geographer, 42(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohil, J., & Prijon, M. (1999). The MED rule: the interdependence of container throughput and transhipment volumes in the Mediterranean ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 26(2), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Transport Maritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Darren Ronald Fraser, Theo Notteboom & César Ducruet

  2. Transportation Management College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China

    Theo Notteboom

  3. Antwerp Maritime Academy, Antwerp, Belgium

    Theo Notteboom

  4. French National Centre for Scientific Research-CNRS, Paris, France

    César Ducruet

Authors
  1. Darren Ronald Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theo Notteboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. César Ducruet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darren Ronald Fraser.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 3.

Table 3 Network measure definitions
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 4.

Table 4 Salient factors influencing port hierarchy
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fraser, D.R., Notteboom, T. & Ducruet, C. Peripherality in the global container shipping network: the case of the Southern African container port system. GeoJournal 81, 139–151 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9610-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9610-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation