1、 外文翻译 原文 Guide-lines for port development Material Source: Intereconomics Author: P. E. Stonhem Circumstances within the last decade have combined to force a review of the economic operations of ports. Technological change in ship- ping has brought about the introduction of container and unitized sh
2、ips to carry containerized and unitized general cargo. These ships and their specialized cargo-handling requirements have necessitated considerable port investment in new berthing and cargo-moving facilities. This revolution in shipping general cargo has also caused closer integration of sea and lan
3、d transport (via the common unit of transport-the container). Ship owners have increased their commercial interests in road transport to maximize gains from faster through cargo transport. The average size of new buildings of bulk carriers and tankers has greatly increased, requiring deeper port app
4、roaches and larger accommodation. Bulk handling rates have been improved by the introduction of more efficient bulk-handling equipment in ports. Apart from the quality of port investments, changes in trade flows have caused changes in the volume of port trade and traffic, requiring increases in port
5、 facilities. Consequently, in the 1960% governments have become much more closely concerned with the costs and conditions of shipping their export and import trade and with minimizing port costs and maximizing cargo throughput in ports. Criteria for Development The most common approach to the develo
6、pment of ports, and that adopted in the past by port authorities, is what would currently be called the Operations Research approach. Port projects are evaluated, on this basis, by studying current and forecast cargo volume and shipping traffic flows in a period together with the distribution of shi
7、pping calls over the period so as to calculate port and berth usage. If new projects are being contemplated (because of the need to service new types of vessels like container ships), calculations need to be made about the expected volume of trade suitable for containerizations, the frequency and du
8、ration of shipping calls, through University of Newcastle, Australia. put of containerized cargo, and so on. Such calculations of non-monetary quantities can be programmed. Against possible increases in operational efficiency it is then possible to discount estimates of future port revenues receivab
9、le, net of operating costs, by the interest rate on loan capital, and deduct initial capital costs. Under current pricing systems the result is unlikely to be a positive value (few port authorities cover their total costs out of revenue), but there will at least be some indication of the extent of p
10、ublic subsidy required. It is possible to compare different systems (e.g. container versus conventional) on this basis. Social Costs and Benefits But there are clearly all sorts of social costs and benefits and externalities involved in port development and operations. Governments and port authoriti
11、es and their advisors have become increasingly concerned over these. The technique of project evaluation is the same as for calculating private costs and benefits, but in this case it is necessary to include social costs and benefits too and discount them back by a social rate of discount 1. Discoun
12、ting this way allows a comparison of the opportunity cost (or alternative uses) of expenditure on port projects with expenditure in other public sectors (assuming the funds are under the control of the central government). The same technique can be used by port authorities in ranking projects within
13、 the ports domain. There are all sorts of intellectual problems in assigning values to the intangible social benefits and costs involved. For port authorities faced with the choice of investing or not, the solution has to be pragmatic. There are parallel examples available-cost/benefit studies of th
14、e Channel Tunnel, of water resource systems in the United States, and of the underground rail-way in London. Social costs are easier to estimate, but social benefits are usually so varied, diffuse and intangible as to allow few general principles to emerge for use elsewhere. In theory, one is concer
15、ned to calculate any improvement in the use of domestic economic resources. In the case of ports, improved use of foreign resources (e.g. through lower operating costs of foreign-registered vessels) may result in some benefit being transmitted to home traders (through possibly lower freight rates an
16、d improved cargo delivery speeds) as well. Social benefits from port investments will necessitate assigning a monetary value to the following broad changes, if they occur: improved cargo delivery times, increased productivity of port labors and capital facilities, improved returns to home-registered
17、 shipping through lower operating costs and increased revenue-earning ability per unit capacity. The calculations can be no more than ad hoc estimates of the monetary value of social costs and benefits. There remains the almost impossible task of estimating the significance of social welfare prefere
18、nces on projects whose economic value is subsidiary to such considerations as national prestige (elaborate passenger terminals perhaps). Problems of Port Authorities Port authorities face very difficult investment decisions. It is not surprising that most authorities tend to make their decisions on
19、the basis of contacts with ship-owners. Since ship-owners make their own capital decisions on the basis of their estimates of trade flows, it seems reasonable that port facilities should adapt to the changing requirements of traffic and cargo flows. In some cases, the social costs of inadequate inve
20、stment may be very obvious-congestion of ships inport, even causing ship-owners to impose surcharges on freight. But as well as hazarding estimates of the social costs and benefits in port investment, port authorities have additional pragmatic problems. Although port investment is normally considere
21、d a passive activity, in the sense that it is intended to cater for current or expected changes in trade and traffic flows, many port authorities are now considering the place of competitive investment. There is little doubt that ports can compete among themselves for traffic and can actively seek n
22、ew trade. The black ban put on container handling by labour in the Tilbury docks diverted, without much difficulty, the newly-created container trade between Britain and Australia to Rotterdam port in 1969. Since multi-port calls are less economic in container shipping, there is currently strong com
23、petition among ports in the general cargo trade to acquire the designation of a major container terminal. The place of competitive investment depends, to some extent, on geography-it is very strong among the ports on the eastern sea-board of the United States, but much less marked among the widely d
24、istant general cargo ports of Australia. This sort of in- INTERECONOMICS, No. 1, 1970 vestment also depends on the ease of obtaining reliable forecasts of trade flows. In fund-raising, it is clear that unless funds are raised on a commercial basis, at market rates of interest, there is an element of
25、 subsidy involved in utilizing money transferred from public funds on concessional terms. The economic cost of this includes its opportunity cost, and this must be deducted from social benefits expected and still yield higher net benefit than investment opportunities elsewhere if the allocation of e
26、conomic resources is to be improved in the economy. Because of the long-term nature of port investments and the hidden social benefits, port authorities are normally obliged to raise concessional public finance. Very few general cargo ports are able to finance new investment out of retained earnings
27、. Port authorities must also consider their pricing policies in relation to new and existing capital services. Port charges are believed to have got well out of line with any rational system of raising revenues and relating prices to costs 2, and many authorities and their advisors are currently rea
28、ssessing the structure and level of their charges. The major omissions are a failure to relate charges to user demand-it is considered that ship-owners are frequently subsidized in their operations by low charges-and a failure to relate charges to the social costs of port facilities. In theory, a sy
29、stem of marginal cost pricing, including marginal social costs, is the optimum. But if the ideal is not attainable, through administrative difficulties and problems of measuring costs, it is possible that existing systems could be improved by weighting ships charges more heavily towards time and ber
30、th occupancy than the present capacity basis. It might also be desirable to separate ship and cargo charges more clearly. There is a further need for simplicity, not only are port charges scarcely based on economic rationale and incentives, but they are usually very complex and differ between ports.
31、 The correct level and structure of port charges also implies decisions about how far private costs should be covered and whether consumers surplus should be transferred to ship-owners. Incorrectly set charges can also incur social costs, e.g. traffic congestion and cargo delays. 译文 港口发展指南 资料来源 : 共同
32、体经济 作者： P. E. Stonham 结合过去十年的 发展 状况， 现在 的港口 已经开始 实行 经济业务 方面 的审查。在航运技术变革 的今天，在 集装箱单位化和 其专门货物处理的要求 下， 我们应该 有必要在设施相当大的港口 进行 货物 的停泊和 移动 。 这 将引起 普通货物 的航运 革命 ， 也 使得 水陆交通一体化 更加地密切 。 货物运输速度更快 ， 船东 的 公路运输商业利益 也更 大 。 在建立 散货船和油轮 船 规模 大大增加 的前提下 ， 我们更需要 引进 深入的港口和较 先进 的 卸货 方式 ，而 批量 处理率 的 提高 和 港口装卸设备 的 引进更有效 帮助散货的
33、装卸 。除了港口投资的 方式 ，贸易流量的变化 所 引起 的 港口贸易和交通量的变化， 也迫切地 要求 增加 港口设施。 因此 ， 在 1960 年政府 已经开始 密切 地关注 运费的 进出 口 ， 贸易 费用以及 港口费用， 希望 最大限度地减少 港口 的 货物吞吐量。 发展标准 在 港口发展 中 ，最常见的办法就是 目前被称为运筹学的方法。 在 港口项目的 评估 中 ， 通过研究 一段时间内 的 电流和 在此基础上 预测货运量和运输流量加上运费调用期间的分布，以计算港口和泊位的使用。如果新的项目 要被 考虑 实行 ， 就必须 计算 集装箱货物 需要 的 贸易 频率 和 预计合适 的船货量等
34、等。 而在这些因素中。 非货币量 通常 被编排 在内 。 针对可能增加其运作效率 的因素 ， 我们 可以折现未来港口的收入应收款，扣除经营成本的贷款资金利率， 再 扣除初始资本费用 来得出 。根据目前的价格体系，结果不太可能是正值（少数港口当局掩盖其总成本的收入），但至少 可以明白港口费用在增加 。它 也 可以 在此基本上对各港口的费用进行各种 不同的比较。 社会成本和效益 但也有明显的 各种外部因素 ，例如 社会成本和效益以及港口发展和运作所涉及的 因素 。 目前， 各国政府和港口当局及其顾问们越来越关注这些问题。 而工程项目评价技术是 私 人 的 成本和收益相同 的计算方式。 但在这种情况
35、下，需要包括社会成本和效益也 需要 折 算 社会的折扣率 。这种方式允许扣除的机会成本比较 多，比如 港口项目的开支 或其他用途 其他 公共部门 的开支 （假设资金 在中央政府的控制范围下 ）。同样的技术 也 可以用在港口 内的明显 项目 或是局 域内的 港口当局 ， 在北京 就 有赋值 关于 无形 社会收益和成本所涉及的各种知识产权问题。 如果 港口当局选择 不直接 投资 ， 就必须实际 解决方案 。 在美国的水资源系统 中，有关于 英吉利海峡隧道的研究 就是通过 伦敦地下铁路 当局组织的。社会成本 比较 容易估计，但社会效益通常 却 不 是如此 ， 它可以是 分散的 、 无形的， 或 允许
36、一般性原则 出现 在其他地方 。 从理论上讲， 这 个是有关计算 在国内 任何经济资源的 使用。在港口的情况下，利用国外资源 （ 通过外国注册的船只降低运营成本 ） 可能会导致某些利益扩大，比如 通过降低运费，提高货物配送速度 。 从港口投资需要 将 社会福利分配 ，产生 货币价值的 下降等这一系列 广泛的变化 可以看出 ，如果发生 ，则应 改进货物的交货时间，增加劳动和资本生产率 。而 通过降低运 营成本，提高创收能力的单位容量 和 家庭登记运费 则有利于 港口设施 的建设 ， 从而 提高效益 。 计算特设的社会成本 越多， 效益的货币价值 估计就越大 。有估计 的货币价值 仍然是社会福利
37、几乎不可能完成的任务 。 对项目的经济价值取向是 考虑 这种方式 作为 港口推进项目的 附属 条件 。 港口当局存在的问题 目前， 港口当局面临非常困难的投资决定。这并不奇怪，大多数当局往往要根据与船东接触的基础上 做出 决定。由于船东 针 对贸易流动 以及 自己的资本在此 基础上 做出 的 估计 ， 这 似乎 符合 港口设施应适应货流的交通和不断变化的要求。在某些情况下， 比如 在港口的船只拥挤 下， 投资不足的社会成本可能会非常明显，甚至 会 造成船东要对货运 提出 附加费。 但除了社会成本和港口的投资效益估算，港口当局有更多的务实的问题 。虽然港口投资通常被认为是在这个意义上一种被动的行
38、为，其意图以配合当前的贸易和交通流或预期的变化，许多港口当局现正考虑有竞争力的投资场所。但是 毫无疑问，有 竞争的 交易往往导致人们 积极寻求新的贸易。蒂尔伯里在码头劳动力转移 中 提出 禁止货柜处理 ， 这种 新的集装箱贸易 创造 于 1969 年 的 鹿特丹港 。在 英国和澳大利亚之间 并 没有太多的困难。由于多端口调用少集装箱 的航运经济， 使得 目前各港口 产生了 激烈 的 竞争 。 一般货物贸易取得 一 个 大 的 集装箱码头称号 ，而 有竞争力的投资场 所 则随实力而定。 在一定 理论 上，这是非常强大的中 、 东部海的美国 版 图上 ，但更 可能在 广泛 而 遥远的澳大利亚普通货
39、运港口。这种投资排序还取决于 贸易流量的获得和 可靠 的 预测 。 很明显 ， 在资金筹集 上 ， 除非资金是在商业基础上 获得的 ，有一个在优惠条件 上 从公共基金资助项目 中 涉及资金转移。 这个经济成本包括其机会成本，而这必须被扣除预期的社会福利和产量高于其他地区的投资机会 。如果净效益的经济资源 给与 分配， 那么当地的 经济 必然在 改善。由于港口投资和隐藏的社会福利的长期性，港口当局通常必须提高公共财政的优惠。 所以 很少有普通货物端口可以筹措资金的留存收益 并 进行新的投资。 港口当局还必须考虑与新的和现有 的资本服务的定价政策。港口费被认为是提高了与任何有关收入和费用合理的价格
40、体系以及脱节，许多部门和他们的顾问目前正在重新评估它们的结构和水平收费。在重大遗漏未能涉及收费，以需求为它被认为是船东经常在他们的业务补贴，低收费，以及未能涉及收费，港口设施的社会成本的用户。从理论上讲，边际成本定价，边际社会成本是最佳的。但如果没有达到理想的 状态 ，它 通过加权船舶对时间和费用 ， 可以改善现有的系统 。这可能 使 船舶和货物分开收费更加清晰。有一个简单的 需要 进一步 改善 ， 这 是经济上 的要求。 但他们通常很复杂， 因为 港口之间 不同。正确的港 口收费水平和结构也意味着私人成本 ，以及是否应包括消费者剩余移交给船东的决定。 设置 错误 的 收费 标准 还可 能增加 社会成本，例如交通拥堵和货物的延误 费用 。
