Some of its parts may appear too advanced to the layman, while others might look too “fundamental” to the expert. The editorial is a very long story, developed over many years of graduate teaching, articles, conference presentations, lecture notes, social media posts, unpublished reports and more. Rather, under “conclusions” I have collected all those passages of the article that I consider new and unconventional thinking (at least in a “container shipping ecosystem”) potentially controversial and fertile ground for further research by our younger generations of maritime economists. My conclusions are also unconventional: They are neither the summary of this lengthy editorial nor its conclusions in a proper sense. Often, the stuff and thoughts I have put there are much more important than the main text which evoked the footnote. The whole, however, has a value-added over and above its parts, and my hope is that the two works will become valuable reference material for the “student” of shipping and ports both the young and the young at heart.Īgain, as in the 2017 editorial, I strongly advise the reader not to skip the many footnotes I have used. Knowing that parallel reading won’t happen in most cases, some duplication with the 2017 editorial became unavoidable for the sake of completeness of my exposition. This has always been the MEL philosophy, whenever it came to the definition of “maritime economics”, or “maritime logistics” (a term coined by this journal in 2003 Footnote 1). Ideally, the two works should be read in parallel, for it is difficult to understand ports without a good understanding of international shipping and vice versa.
This editorial is a sequel to my 2017 editorial “Globalization, public sector reform, and the role of ports in international supply chains” (Haralambides 2017).
0 kommentar(er)
