The impact of a new port on the organization of maritime shipping: an attempt to generalize the results of a case-study on the foundation of St. Petersburg and its influence on Dutch maritime shipping in the Gulf of Finland and Archangel (1703-1740)
AbstractIn this paper, I present an attempt to generalize the results of a historical case-study on the foundation of St. Petersburg and its influence on Dutch maritime shipping in the Gulf of Finland and Archangel in 1703-1740. In order to do so, I present the case itself first, followed by a description of the methods applied to its study and a detailed overview of the analytical results. The interplay of local and regional economic policies, infrastructural developments and the location of industries plays a major role in the organization of maritime shipping destined to the places and regions that were affected by it. The actual effect on the organization of maritime shipping, however, can be rather unexpected. The results of this case-study show that the impact of a new port on the organization of maritime shipping is anything but straightforward. The reason for this is that maritime shipping is an economic activity in its own right: maritime shipping is defined not only by the nodes it connects nor by its own social structures exclusively, but by both elements at the same time. In adopting organizational strategies varying from flexibility to repetitiveness in the choice of both cargoes and routes, maritime shipping is bounded by the origin of the shipmaster, the size of his ship and the type of cargo that he was specialized in. Thus, in order to understand the impact of a new port on the organization of maritime shipping it is necessary to take into account both the interplay of economic geographical circumstances and the complex organizational structure of maritime shipping. Three types of generalization are possible on the basis of the results of this case-study. From a historiographical point of view, the analytical results of this paper serve as an answer to existing assumptions about specialization in early-modern maritime shipping. On a methodological level, it is possible to generalize the resuls of this case-study in the form of a taxonomy of organizational strategies and behaviour of populations of shipmasters. This, in turn, is proof of the successful application of evolutionary theory to a profoundly economic historical topic.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 9054.
Date of creation: 07 Apr 2008
Date of revision: 20 Apr 2008
early-modern maritime shipping; evolutionary economics; methodology; evolutionary framework; homo sapiens oeconomicus;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- N01 - Economic History - - General - - - Development of the Discipline: Historiographical; Sources and Methods
- N0 - Economic History - - General
- N7 - Economic History - - Economic History: Transport, International and Domestic Trade, Energy, and Other Services
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kahan, Arcadius, 1965. "Continuity in Economic Activity and Policy during the Post-Petrine Period in Russia," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(01), pages 61-85, March.
- Kurt Dopfer, 2004. "The economic agent as rule maker and rule user: Homo Sapiens Oeconomicus," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 177-195, 06.
- Ron A. Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2006.
"Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography,"
Journal of Economic Geography,
Oxford University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 273-302, June.
- Ron A. Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2005. "Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0501, Utrecht University, Section of Economic Geography, revised Feb 2005.
- Greif, Avner, 1997. "Cliometrics after Forty Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 400-403, May.
- Kurt Dopfer & John Foster & Jason Potts, 2004. "Micro-meso-macro," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 263-279, 07.
- Kurt Dopfer & Jason Potts, 2004. "Evolutionary realism: a new ontology for economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 195-212.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.