Continuing to elaborate upon my previous themes on Maritime Regulation/Deregulation. (here, here and here).
Asia – China and Taiwan.
The focus of the paper by Lee, Wu and Lee (2011) is on the liberalization of trade between Taiwan and the PRC as a result of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) which was signed and came into effect in mid-2010 – and the resulting expected adjustments in trade surpluses. The removal of import/export tariffs (excepting agricultural goods) reveals an increasing trade imbalance favoring Taiwan over the PRC, but the article does include some interesting notes on the cabotage policies between the nations. Specifically, while historically trade between the PRC and Taiwan was routed through third party ports in Japan, Korea and Hong Kong, as a result of liberalization, since 2008 direct trade has been permitted – although only by PRC and Taiwanese flagged ships (Lee, 186).
As part of the PRC’s overarching “One China” policy, direct trade between the PRC and Taiwan is considered “domestic” trade and only permitted by “domestically” flagged vessels – which in this case is comprised of ships flagged by either the PRC or Taiwan. Although the authors resist speculating on this point, the resulting trade imbalance previously referenced appears to be an acceptable calculated loss on the part of the PRC leadership as it allows them opportunities to speak to the “One China” policy and include both the imports and exports under the greater Chinese economic umbrella and perhaps the establishment of further precedents through trade routes and associated dependencies (Lee, 187).
ASEAN
In researching barriers to effective and efficient shipping services in the inter-ASEAN region, Tongzon and Lee (2016) conducted a series of interviews with various representatives of trade organizations, shipping corporations (government and privately owned) and associated logistics service providers. To limit the scope of the study, three countries were selected as representatives to be extrapolated from – Malaysia for the more developed economies, followed by Vietnam and Myanmar to represent the least developed countries (Tongzon, 410).
Cabotage legislation is specifically identified as a contributing barrier to increased maritime trade over the course of the discussions – and as the authors note, while Malaysia and Vietnam both employ cabotage policies, they are considered market-responsive. Malaysia is specifically noted for making exceptions for container traffic to and from Port Klang, as well as permitting shippers to opt out of restrictions by paying certain taxes and fees – although these may also be exempted if there is no Malaysian vessel available meeting the requirements (Tongzon, 416).
It should be noted that while acknowledged, cabotage policies as an average are less of a concern amongst the interviewees responding on behalf of the three featured countries than port infrastructure limitations or shortages of trained personnel. Similarly, while Malaysia is a more traditionally and historically a maritime nation due to geographic concerns than Vietnam or Myanmar, neither of the archipelagic nations of Indonesia or the Philippines were reviewed in this paper. The recent contrasting legislation passed in each of those countries – increasingly strict cabotage limitations in Indonesia over the past several years following the initial passage of Maritime Law No 17 of 2008 (Yee), and the amending in 2015 of the Jones Act-esque “Republic Act of 1937” in the Philippines (Yee), which opened up domestic traffic to international carriers in the process of importing or exporting goods – would provide an interesting counterpoint for future research.
Conclusion
In reviewing the current literature available on the topic, there does not appear to be a large volume of academic research addressing the specifics of individual nations’ cabotage policies or legislation. As a matter of self-interest, this topic appears to be of more value to various stakeholders, special interest groups and associated government partners who tend to commission their own studies as a means of influencing policymakers (MARAD).
While there is literature advocating new policies and technologies for shippers to implement – framed in public policy theory terms, the authors are in some cases unwilling or unable to recommend policy stances that would strengthen the persuasiveness of their arguments and give more rationale for reasonable implementation – Perakis and Denisis (2008), and Medda and Trujillo (2010). In contrast, Brooks and Frost (2004) are fully cognizant of the limitations imposed by the current regulatory frameworks and openly recommend changes that would prove efficient and beneficial to multiple parties – in keeping with the pre-existing trade arrangements.
Traditionally, countries have tended to be protectionist to industries considered critical to national security, but in the 21st century as manufacturing efficiencies have been diversified and shipping specialties have been outsourced, that argument has grown increasingly stale, particularly when considering the comparatively small groups that benefit from associated protectionism at the expense of nearly the entire whole. As a function of free trade agreements in particular, the removal of cabotage restrictions between partners should be a serious consideration from this point forward.
In approaching future research considerations on this topic, it would be valuable to first collate all outstanding cabotage legislation on a country by country basis and utilize that as a framework for determining economic impacts – along a framework similar to that utilized by Lewis (2013). Although there are obvious distinctions and variations between countries, a common database would allow comparison between data points such as ship flagging requirements, crewing requirements, maintenance or operation taxes and other economic [dis]incentives. With that information available to hand, it would be a simpler matter to correct for comparative gains and losses associated with these policies and recommend more specific or targeted policy adjustments with accuracy.
Some links don’t work based on library links – article information provided in case anyone else wants to look them up later:
Lee, Tsung-Chen, Chia-Hsuan Wu and Paul T.-W Lee. “Impacts of the ECFA on Seaborne Trade Volume and Policy Development for Shipping and Port Industry in Taiwan.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 38: No. 2, (2011): 169-189. Web. 12 Jun. 2016.
< www-tandfonline-com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/03088839.2011.556674#abstract>
Tongzon, Jose L. & Sang-Yoon Lee. “Achieving an ASEAN Single Shipping Market: Shipping and Logistics Firms’ Perspective.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 43: No. 4, (2016): 407-419. Web. 11 Jun. 2016.
<www-tandfonline-com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/03088839.2015.1105393#abstract>
Comments
142 responses to “A Comparison of Cabotage Maritime Regulations Worldwide – Part 3 (of 3)”
*climbs aboard dinghy and strokes into sunset*
These euphemisms …..
Sorry but “sunset” has quite restrictive regulation – didn’t you read the article above? Now, go find a national flagged dinghy, and then you can go into the sunset!
*jumps overboard and swims to timbuktu*
The sand swimming is the most impressive part.
Not if you’re a shai hulud.
So that’s why ‘Bacon’ is obsessed with spice.
No it was a bugs bunny reference you aspy flaming qtip.
Daffy Duck > Bugs Bunny
Duck season
Rabbit season
Boooo it won’t let me duplicate comment.
Duck season.
That’s bogus.
I’ll finish up here.
Bacon: Duck season
Me: Rabbit Season
Bacon: Rabbit Season
Me: Duck Season
You are the best, sorry Elmer blew your head off.
Wait, the river what? Say that again?
He’s racist yo.
But….but it’s there!
KK, I found your next house:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4974228/Steve-Miller-selling-compound-Idaho-16million.html
If I had the money, I’d buy it. I’d be nice and lease ski trail usage to interested parties who asked politely.
That’s some groundbreaking journalism. They foiled my plan to get KK to buy it for the skiing, so I could hide out in the art barn.
Can you blame those limeys for being oddly interested in potatoes? I am sure they have a decent Irish readership.
Traditionally, countries have tended to be protectionist to industries
STOP RIGHT THERE!
Democrats
Holy shit. Read that bulleted list at the end of the article. This is insane level stuff here. How is it that the media just totally ignores this?
“There is no famine in the Soviet Union”
“Give that man a Pulitzer!”
I really like the part where DWS threatened the DC police to get ‘her’ laptop back. When she couldn’t get it back, she then changed her story to it being Awan’s laptop, not hers, lol. These people are so fucking corrupt. I wonder if Awan has been blackmailing some of them? Not only were they employing people they knew were involved in really shady stuff, they were employing people who were into really shady stuff, some of it involving a foreign entity, Pakistan. Ye gads, and the only thing the media can report on is fake Russian bullshit.
Almost as if there is a larger narrative at work that would be inconvenienced by these facts coming to light.
Florida woman is not tying people up in her basement and forcing them to listen to her diet tips at gunpoint in exchange for cash.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452463/florida-woman-threatened-jail-time-unlicensed-diet-tips
To be fair, meth is a weight loss drug.
Who gives a fuck if the diet tips are licensed or not other than goddamned socialists?
The Stat of Florida, that’s who!
He said other than the goddamned socialists
“She refuses to give the customary hueng yau, your honor”
EAT LESS, YOU’LL LOSE WEIGHT
*retreats to bunker, locks and loads*
So National Review is all aboard on drug legalization now, or was this just a one time concession?
Kat Timpf has consistently been for drug legalization.
Yeah, but it’s not as though she’s one of the Thought Leaders at NR, although she has the right background.
She’s also cute, so there’s that
1996 issue was literally entitled “The War on Drugs is Lost”
Bullet point suggestions:
Kill it
Go for legalization
Free up police, courts
Reduce crime
WFB was a legalization advocate in his later years, at least with pot.
Since the 1970’s under William F. Buckley, National Review has favored drug legalization, as an editorial position. I’m sure not all of the writers agree, but that was Buckley’s long held belief
NR has been for legalization for decades. It’s one of their things. Get out from under that rock.
You’re scheming on a thing, that’s cabotage.
We did that joke last time.
And I searched for it. With a typo.
*hangs head in shame*
LT Fish….sorry about the record OT veering this post took. I liked what you wrote.
Some of us just don’t know what to ask.
So thanks for all of the Fish (articles).
*narrows gaze, yet applauds as well*
Thank to Bacon and UCS I just spent 30 minutes on Google maps looking at the West African desert.
You’re welcome.
Doesn’t seem to be much potential for discussion of the topic from a libertarian perspective anymore other than “this legislation is dumb”, which is basically Fish’s thesis to begin with.
Nah, is expected.
Don’t really have anything prepared after this – for this audience, it’s really just informative/comparative data. Nothing particularly “new”.
May have a few more things in a few months, but I think I exhausted my extant materiel.
So for those of you that missed it (and I’m genuinely shocked this didn’t make the links).
Democrats actually read out articles of impeachment in the house. They stopped just short of full retard by not forcing a vote on them but quite a few were totally read to kick it off.
… something something how you get more Trump…
What they don’t get is that Trump’s a warning, not a full threat. They keep up with stuff like this and you’ll be dealing with an actually competent Caesar before you know it.
Yep, Trump’s more of Incitatus than a Caligula.
Well, maybe half an Incitatus.
The back half?
Indeed.
Debunked… riiiiiight.
The wording is key. Obama didn’t personally order it done. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t done.
That reads like a defense of what they wrote, when I meant it as pointing out the mendacity behind the statement.
I think we need to compile a list of prog buzzwords and terms that basically cause you to disregard everything they said.
As per the initial part of the roast, I’d include “a story that’s extremely relevant”, “modern”, “deals with the issues most central to us today”. But I’d also go more broad and include words like stunning, brave, and dynamic.
I find this entire exercise to be problematic.
Not to mention triggering. Although I just did.
to be sure
It looks like they made the Hulk asian? Because no one in Asia can make their own comic books.
Hulk’s Asian, Captain America’s black, Iron Man’s a black girl, Hawkeye’s a girl…basically everyone was changed except for Black Widow, and she was apparently killed off recently.
I’m glad I was never much of a Marvel reader.
When talking about sales, just the number of units shipped are pathetic. They have supposed flagship titles shipping the same volume as schlock indie titles, and multiple reports from storefronts that even with the numbers shipped, no one is buying them, so they sit on the shelves until they end up in bargain bins.
Anecdotally, when I got a code for a free digital comic, I lost interest when I reached the part where it only appliced to Marvel titles. They literally fail at giving these titles away.
I don’t see the point. Marvel was already quite diverse. Look at the X-Men. They all had different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. And it wasn’t superficial. It was integral to who they were, and part of what drove the stories.
Having a cis-male, white cripple as your founding CEO is so unwoke.
Having a number of gay and transgender members of the team shows a profound disrespect for the disadvantaged, because most of them only belonged to a single victim group.
So… what victim group should we put Mystique into? Does she qualify for all of them? I’m picturing some comic where an SJW keeps trying to tell her to check her privilege, as she just changes into something higher on the oppression chart.
She gets to be part of that ‘mutants are metaphor for gay people’ argument, which I always found to be a particularly retarded angle because, regardless of your views on gay people, they don’t have the potential to accidentally or deliberately destroy a couple city blocks and murder hundreds or thousands of people because of their gay-powers.
Sure, as long as those city blocks aren’t in Sodom, Gomorrah, or New Orleans. -Jerry Falwell
Well that’s God pulling that shit, so really you need a God Registration Act to counter it. It’s not like anal sex causes earthquakes or Riven would have destroyed most of Montana.
I should have liked to have seen…Montana.
She’s always been a lesbian. I don’t know if there was a ” ‘mutants are metaphor for gay people” thing. But the the X-Men always had a be true to who you are thing. That she generally chooses to stay in her blue reptilian form because she shouldn’t have to change herself to be accepted is part of that.
I have a theory that Disney thinks that the new market to capitalize on is the ‘multicultural’ market, namely, the international one (at the expense of the mostly white American one) and they think that pushing social justice concepts will somehow make their products more appealing to a broader percentage overall. What they seem to ignore is that outside of Western countries, and even within, the vast majority of people see social justice politicking as a major turnoff.
X-Men already sounds tranny.
There’s also two different Spider-Men, of which one is black. I haven’t read the comics in quite some time, so most of the stuff I know is second, third, or fourth hand; however, what I’ve heard was that Miles was a good addition to the Spider-Man realm. If I recall correctly, he was one of the first race/gender changes to an established character (and it was done in the Ultimate Universe). I wonder how much that reaction made Marvel think about changing all of the rest of their characters.
*hangs head in shame*
I was just trying to link to Miles Morales.
Miles is a bit different, as he’s a Spiderman fanboy who took the mantle after Peter Parker died, and became the Spiderman of Ultimate Universe.
Then they blew up the multiverse, and then un-blew it up, and for some reason, Miles ended in the main universe alongside Peter, and kept his superhero name.
I don’t know much about Miles except what I gleaned from his Gwenpool appearances, where he played a sane foil for completely off-her-gourd character (or, alternatively, the only sane character in the world, because she knows this is just a comic) and he was…fine? That generally seems to be the verdict on Miles – he’s fine.
Then they blew up the multiverse, and then un-blew it up, and for some reason, Miles ended in the main universe alongside Peter, and kept his superhero name.
Comics are so freaking dumb.
Serious talk, if you want good stuff, Mr Miracle and Batman: White Knight are mini-series that (unless they fuck them hard) will be talked of as Sandman and DKR ten years from now.
White Knight blew my mind. I can’t believe that thing, it’s like someone heard me cursing after I finished Arkham City and said “yes, let’s translate that anger into a comic.” I could be wrong about where it’s headed, but fucking hell!
I’m worried about White Knight because the creator had an interview talking about addressing problems in Gotham like the ‘wage gap’ (class, not gender) so I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop and the Nu-Joker just ending up a stand-in for Bernie Bros.
I blame it on all the anal sex in Montana.
My theory is that the answer to White Knight is provided by The Question.
I.e. Joker will use Bernie-rhetoric to sway the public but, as A is A, so Joker is a villain. Ultimately the whole thing is just a parable for a danger of listening to smooth-talking, charismatic individual with easy solution, and he’s wise enough to coach it in leftist rhetoric instead of making a heavy-handed Trump parallel.
Pan has apparently gone senile (I refuse to see it as optimism) and thinks Steve Ditko still writes for DC.
I’m waiting for Masai Thor and Inuit Thing, myself, although I’m conflicted on what Thing’s accent should be.
Amadeus Cho – aka “Totally Awesome Hulk” (Gogurt Hulk).
No sense of pathos, emotion, tortured soul, etc. Not sure what actually happened to Bruce Banner.
woke
intersectional
POC
“the right side of history”
brown/black bodies
This one is fucking asinine. I realize that it’s supposed to be some sort of weepy appeal to emotion, but I’d wager that any rational passerby would interpret it to mean that black/brown people are just bodies lacking any agency or capacity for self determination.
Not all black bodies lack agency, just the ones infantile enough to use the phrase black bodies unironically.
“national conversation”
Am I the only one who wants to eat cabbage after reading these articles? Interesting stuff, LT
It’s like you’re trying to be a stereotype.
You too, eh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsL_TAfQxH8
I thinking the Poppy-stabbings are just evidence of some people being too stupid to live (they now have retarded safety pin versions).
And they talk about 90s PSA but they don’t use the most hilarious one?
Also that Justin bit makes me want to vomit.
And they stole that bit about the graffiti from Canadian Bacon, but made it worse because no John Candy or Dan Aykroyd. Man the CBC are hacks.
Even worse PSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvTDLJe1XxM
My God, fashion was so bad in the early 1990’s.
Nothing says “Racial Harmony” quite like a 1:30 video full of minorities in their natural habitat telling white kids (totally absent from the video) that they have to work harder at gettin’ it real.
Oh my god, that PSA spawned the entire body of Ta-Nehisi Coats’s work!
Wait, where are all the teal-and-black combos, and the neon colors??
The ’80s take a back seat to no one when it comes to lame PSAs. Even when I was 11 I knew this was ridiculous.
They did not just cast shade on house hippos, did they?
The CBC’s just bitter that a private organization can make content that is more remembered by the Canadian populace than them.
Wasn’t the Heritage Moment series definitive proof of that? Compare that to Canada: The Peoples’ History and its no contest.
For Americans, have the true story of the birth of Canada – with booze and corruption (hookers not mentioned, but surely they were legal)!
I was promised hookers. There are no hookers.
baaahahahaha
Stocks of vital medicine being destroyed like alcohol in old time Prohibition raids, hospitals being razed left and right….
MUST…PROTECT….NARRATIVE!
I’m not sure if this is funnier in context or out of context.
I wondered why there were more corpses in the street than usual today…
“….thanks, Jim. Weather today is looking unseasonably warm and humid today, highs in the low 80s. Expect greater then usual piles of corpses, and adjust your commuting time accordingly…….”
The president quit football in high school and played……soccer. Making America Great Again, my ass.
http://freebeacon.com/blog/donald-trump-soccer/
OK, I’m now convinced – Donald Trump truly is ruining America and must be stopped. Soccer…..fuckin’ soccer.
*Whines about soccer, whines about their team not getting into the World Cup*
Make up your stupid minds already.
I like soccer. The article is what we in America call a ‘joke’. You Canadians are too serious, eh
Hey, I’m not from the country who had articles going on about how the increased popularity of soccer in the U.S. was some indicator of its cultural decline and the sinister influence of those evil immigrants and their foreign ways.
It’s hard to separate pretend boorish American narcissism with real boorish American narcissism.
Wait, is hating soccer the real kind or the pretend kind? Need to know so I can decide whether to be offended or not.
What I love about international soccer is that even for a country that is only mildly enthusiastic about the sport, the US is still pretty decent (until recently, of course). We can’t help being good at things we still put minimal effort into.
The obvious reason why the team has done poorly recently is because we had a filthy foreigner as a coach for most of the campaign and he brought more filthy foreigners onto the team.
Joking?
It’s too bad Barcelona isn’t going to be up for sale in the near future.
I do place a lot of blame on Klinsmann in that during his tenure he was constantly changing the lineup and never let the team develop any chemistry. Even when they played well, he’d follow it up by changing the formation, switching players out of position or putting new guys in; he couldn’t stop tinkering. In my younger days when I was still playing competitively, coaches who pulled that kind of shit invariably got the worst out of their players because there was so much uncertainty. Klinsmann set Arena up for failure (not that I have any great love for Arena). We have some good players, just need a cohesive system and coaches they trust.
Agreed completely. Klinsmann was trying to re-invent the wheel rather than trying to improve on what he had. It’s not like the US National team has been terrible over the past ten years.
Lighten up, Canadian Francis.
Half of us are soccer fanatics, and the other half think soccer is part of the culture war and hate it for that. It’s a hate that’s as tedious as the OSU/Michigan shit.
Those of us who grew up liking soccer are baffled by the hate. Doesn’t matter, not gonna stop watching.
Eh, I legitimately don’t like soccer. It’s boring as all fucking get out – no, they don’t have breaks in the action but then there isn’t much action to break.
However, I wouldn’t give a damn about others who do like it if there weren’t a significant chunk of soccer proponents who clearly are into more for cultural reasons than anything else – you know, the kind of people who insist on using British expressions. Nil instead of zero or nothing, pitch instead of field, side instead of team, kit instead of uniform. That’s the reason I do a superpatriot act when it comes to the sport. It’s the veneer of sophistication some people think it lends that irritates.
The worst part about soccer in America is that it is largely an upper middle class sport, whereas it is a working class sport throughout the rest of the world
Other things that suck:
1. The poseurs Chipwooder refers to are annoying as fuck.
2. The domestic haters that think it’s a Commie plot.
3. The international haters that just use it as another cudgel for their Anti-Americanism.
4. Constantly having my motives questioned for liking it.
Personally, I think American/Canadian Football is about the most boring sport on Earth (I would legitimately rather watch golf on TV), but couldn’t GAF that other people like it. I wish that attitude was more prevalent with soccer, but for some reason it comes with all this cultural baggage.
#1 is probably not the only reason #2 happens, but it’s probably the biggest thing driving it.
The one soccer game I went to, I watched Karl Heinz Granitza play for the Chicago Sting. How’s that for a throwback.
I actually like the beautiful game and would take my family, if the worst people in Europe weren’t also planning to be there.
“Our Goal, Soccer Bowl!”
The Sting- that’s old school
Does anyone remember when the MLS first started and they had their clock count backwards from 45 minutes each half and their penalty shots were like hockey penalty shots? So dumb
Anything derived from hockey could only improve that sport.
People I REALLY don’t get are soccer fans who don’t like hockey. It’s the same basic premise, only played at much faster speeds with a helluva lot more scoring chances AND extreme violence.
Too hard to see the puck
Also, the fighting makes no sense to me. I’ve asked friends of mine who grew-up playing hockey and I’ve never gotten a straight answer. How come sometimes the refs let them fight and then sometimes they stop them from fighting? It should be all fights are allowed or all fights are disallowed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15JCb6P60Vw
And isn’t it ironic… don’t you think
Just like Haiti!
That’s not a parody account, huh? Wow…I mean, I knew Howard Dean was a dolt, but that’s just breathtakingly stupid.
To be fair, he was chairman of the DNC. When he says they “know what they’re doing”, he means they can funnel money more efficiently than anyone else. That is, after all, the purpose of government according to the DNC.
South park went Weinstein, AWESOME!