Search results

This chapter reviews and analyses the contemporary development of liner shipping, port development and competition. It begins with a comprehensive review on the latest developmental trends of liner shipping and business strategies, as well as their impacts on port development and competition. Then, it discusses the responses of ports, past, present and (likely) future, in addressing these new demands and challenges. A very important point from this analysis indicates that, in the past decade, port development and competition have gradually evolved from being individual, technical efficiency-oriented to become more regional, economic efficiency-oriented. At the same time, ports have also moved out of their rather passive positions and undertaken positive steps to avert the traditionally strong bargaining power of shipping lines. This illustrates that port development and competition is a continuous morphological process which can change dramatically within a rather short period of time. This chapter provides a new perspective on port development and competition and a decent platform for further research.

There is no argument among serious researchers that a mongoloid stock first colonized the New World from Asia. Nor is there controversy about the fact that these continental pioneers used the Bering Land Bridge that then connected the Asian Far East with Alaska.– Gerald F. Shields, et al.American Journal of Genetics (1992)

In the literature on peace and security, we identify at least two different uses of the term Eurasia. One stakes a rather narrow geographic boundary while the second includes a much broader region. If we adopt the narrower view, Eurasia incorporates the fifteen republics of the former Soviet Union and possibly their security zones in Eastern Europe. Choosing to see Eurasia more broadly means defining it as the huge land-mass that comprises the continents of Europe and Asia. We may call the narrower definition Eurasia Minor and the broader one Eurasia Major.

What is the historical, normative and institutional setting that helps leading Latin American and Eurasian countries to implement a post-hegemonic agenda and contribute to the multipolarization of global politics? Post-hegemony describes a situation in which the unipolar organization of the world political economy is challenged by a plurality of alternative projects, without however being entirely replaced by another system. Emblematic of post-hegemonic initiatives is the rise of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa countries who have taken the lead in creating alternative institutions that constrain US global hegemony, while however failing to spearhead a coherent, uniform and confrontational opposition movement. Regarding post-hegemonic regionalism, Latin American regionalism – as represented by Bolivarian Alliance for Our America (ALBA) – is characterized by a social justice-driven agenda that refutes US neoliberal hegemony, whereas the peculiarity of Eurasian regionalism – as represented by Shanghai Cooperation Organization – lies in its security-oriented focus that confronts US interventionism and international terrorism. An underlying commonality of both Latin American and Eurasian experiences is that they constitute a multi-front struggle centered on four main areas: culture, economy, financial cooperation, and regional defense. They both hinge on a strong normative framework and firm commitment in the regionalization of an endogenous culture, educational cooperation, and defense system. They all accord primary importance to social, financial, and infrastructural development. Overall, these experiences suffer from unresolved tensions between national sovereignty and supranationalism alongside the predominance of charismatic leaders inhibiting institutionalization. The limitations and contradictions of post-hegemonic transformations also include Latin America’s inability to resolve the question of extractivism, Eurasia’s neglect of the question of democratic participation, and both regionalism’s failure to offer a coherent alternative model of economic development to US hegemonism.

The people of Taiwan are no strangers to natural disasters; the island sits astride the junction point of the Philippine and Eurasian tectonic plates, making it a frequent victim of sometimes calamitous earthquakes. The island also lies in the path of yearly typhoons that buffet the island, risking life and property damage. These natural disasters have become a fact of life for the Taiwanese people, and the population has long looked to the government for leadership in ensuring disaster preparation, relief, and recovery. This chapter is focused on the leadership qualities exhibited by public administrators in the field of emergency management in Taiwan, and how they navigate the uncharted waters of this new field in a traditional culture. Beginning with a general examination of the cultural and societal influences on the position of leader in Taiwan society and the qualities demanded of that position, the research narrows to the specific field of emergency management and how administration in this realm is accomplished given (a) the relative newness of the field itself and (b) the cultural barriers in Taiwan to the widespread embrace of such disaster mitigation initiatives. The struggle of Taiwan public administrators to adopt disaster preparedness programs in the nation presents itself as a unique opportunity to examine how leaders in such situations walk the razor’s edge between doing what is necessary to ensure that the population have access to the advantages of the modern world while respecting the cultural sensitivities that can often stand in the way of administrative progress.