Unit VI Market Technology

This unit describes:

- Defining a “Good” technology

- Fluidity indicator

- Бюрократия и эффективность управления

- Economic development is not always socio-economic well being

- Gini coefficient

1. Defining a “Good” technology

1.1. Words to remember:

incite	побудить
foster	прикормить

1.2. Read the text.

We define a “Good” technology as one that is profitable in an ideal world without market inefficiencies or other adoption constraints. In that world adoption perfectly reveals whether a technology creates benefits greater than its costs.

However, moving away from the ideal, the individual adoption decision reflects all of the distortions created by market failers and market inefficiencies.

Consequently an agricultural technology that is profitable to one farmer may not be profitable to neighbors because of differences in credit access or because of household specific labor constraints. Assessments of the profitability of existing agricultural technologies often stop at the demonstration plot and may not include all inputs such as household labor. Thus in many cases we lack even the information needed to determine where to best invest resources aimed improving farmer welfare through technology adoption.

With approximately 90% of global trade by volume transported by sea and waterways, ports are critical links in global supply chains. Despite the importance of seaports to the global economy, little empirically evidence on what makes a port competitive. While no single metric can truly capture the full complexity of port operations, gateway stakeholders recognize the need to build a factual, impartial case for ensuring the competitiveness of Canada’s gateways.  Because the current state of practice and research in port performance indicators yields limited opportunities for port-to-port benchmarking and comparison, Canada developed and implemented port utilization indicators based on the principle of methodological transparency while using partnerships that leverage unique operational and academic expertise.

The indicators have allowed a common understanding of operational performance standards and, for the first time, a national port performance scorecard. Private sector led performance monitoring initiatives are being developed in parallel via  service level agreements between marine terminal operators, Class I railways and port authorities. These agreements have led to concrete results on both coasts, with up to 23% improvements in container dwell time performance at some ports in 2011.

Figure 1. Source: Transport Canada Economic Analysis End-to-end Transit

Times from Hong Kong to Various Destinations via British Columbia Ports Using Direct Rail Model, 2010-11

2. Fluidity indicator

2.1. Read the text.

The fluidity indicator evaluates how gateways and strategic trade corridors interact together operationally.  It examines end-to-end supply chain performance by focusing on the time component.  It measures the total transit time of inbound containers from overseas markets to strategic North American inland destinations via various Canadian gateways

Phase 1 of the  fluidity indicator project monitors transit times of containers departing Shanghai and Hong Kong via Prince Rupert and Port Metro Vancouver destined for Calgary, Toronto, Montreal or Chicago. Total transit times are calculated by summing all modal segments of end-to-end movement. No single data source (or provider) can capture transit time data for the entire container trip; hence, a variety of data exchange partnerships are in place with several stakeholders. For the most part, the method relies on genuine primary data from private sector carriers supplied on a voluntary basis

Results from Transport Canada’s performance monitoring initiatives show a marked improvement in the delivery of logistics services by port terminals and Canada’s two Class 1 railways.  For shipments leaving Hong Kong, landside improvements have guaranteed consistency of service for containers destined to key inland North American markets (see Figures 2 and 3).  Results also

corroborate the critical importance of ocean carriage in global supply chains, where efficiencies can further be gained from improvements in service consistency as well as at the port interface.

Overall, Transport Canada’s supply chain performance monitoring initiatives support the establishment of Key Performance Indicators to assist government agencies in enhancing visibility, transparency and accountability in oversight of key assets.

Transport Canada uses results from its performance monitoring tools in stakeholder forums.  For example, a Western Canadian stakeholder forum called the Gateway Performance Table has the mandate to build a gateway performance scorecard and assess future gateway needs.  Canada aims to make available performance data to other federal government bodies.

Canada’s National Gateways and Trade Corridors Strategy have proven a powerful metaphor to incite and foster greater levels of collaboration across the entire supply chain. The most advanced of the gateways, the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, captures the spirit of collaboration between all levels of government and private sector stakeholders.

Figure 3. Breakdown by Segment of Hong Kong to Toronto Transit Times (Direct Rail), 2010.

Developing and Implementing Freight Mobility Performance Measures