The main purpose of this report is to make clear the structural changes of trade activities in Hamburg and of the traditional hinterland caused by the split of Germany. As for the approach to the above problems, stress is laid upon the volume analysis of transit trade.
The development of seabone commerce of Hamburg in the postwar is not always satisfactory. Comparing 1958 with 1936, the total volume has risen from 12.03 million tons to 27.40 millions, while the share or ratio in the all North Sea ports declined from 20 per cent to 15.2 per cent, Hamburg is behined the other ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Amsterdam and Bremen in its development. On the contrary, the status in the West German seaports is rising, (from 27.7 per cent to 47.5 per cent) in the same period. And the increase of percentage has contributed most to that of the West German North Sea ports.
The total tonnage of trade in Hamburg increased from 22.07 million tons in 1936 to 27.40 millions in 1958, and the receipt Empfang covers two-thirds of the total. The most significant changes in the structure were: 1) The share of Aussenhandelsverkehr rose from 45 per cent (9.93 million tons) to 72.3 percent (19.81 millon tons), particularly as for Eigen-(Platz-) verkonehr, from 24.7 per cent (5.45 million tons) to 58.9 per cent (16.14 million ts), and the Eigen-verkehr has come to hold the main part in the Aussenhandles verkehr. While the percentage of Aussenhandelsverkehr in the total value of Wets German inter-national trade declined to the prewar level-from 40 per cent to 25 per centon the import side and from 25 per cent to 20 per cent on the export si de. 2) The interior region (West Berlin excluded) decreased from 4.47 million tons to 3.67 millions, but in the main state-Niedersachsen, Schleswig-Holstein and Nordrhein-Westfalen tonnage increase from 2.3 million tonsto 2.6 millions. 3) Moreover, in prewar German territory (Sowjetischen Besaztungszone) and in West Berlin is shown a decline from 24.4 per cent (5.38 million tons) to only 5.5 per cent (1.28 million tons (4) Transit trade including the land and river routes, sea routes has gradually risen above the 1950's level, butits rate of recovery to the prewar level is not enough. 5) On the other hand, the bulk goods increased from 51 per cent to 65 per cent (18.24 million tons) in the total tonnage, paticularly coal, petroleum and grain formed about 80 per cent in the bulk goods. These changes show the newly use of faculty ofseaport in the development of commerce and industry of Hamburg.
The port of Hamburg is occupied 8.1 per cent (4.27 million tons) of the West German transit trade, and it ranks the first in the transit of seaports. Transit trade, which is the main part of intermeditate trade, shows best the regional structure of Hamburg's traditional hinterland. Much of its prewar hinterland, notably the portion upriver on the Elbe, is now behind the Iron curtain. Transit trade between these territories (East Germany excluded) occupied 54.7 per cent both in the land and river routes, but the main countries-Czechoslovakia and Hungary decreased 20.8 per cent and 73.3 per cent to the prewar level. On the contrary, Austria increased from 0.2 million tons to 0.81 million tons and the Nordic country occupied 43.6 per cent in the sea transit.
The problems which Hamburg faces these the reason of the decrease of transit trade of Hamburg between the East European countries is caused by the EET system in this block and by the policy to protect for home seaports, particularly the development of Rostock and Sttetin is rapid as a competitive ports against Hambrug. These hinterland are expanding upriver on the Elbe and Oder-Neisse, as the result of the statement above, the transit trade will more decrease than todey, The next droblem is how to adapt Hamburg to Rotterdam as the Europort and the other Rhein ports caused by economic development of the EEC.
In general, in the future Hamburg which face

抄録全体を表示

The writer has investigated about the geographical development of leather manufacturing industry in Tokyo, and some problems for the continuation of the manufacturing districts.
The following facts are disclosed.
About half of leather manufacturing plants in Japan are concentrated in Tokyo, most of these factories are of a small scale employing less than 10 persons, depending on their manual labour. About 69% of these factories are concentrated in Kinegawa district (in Sumida ward, ) situated in Western side of the Arakawa drain, and 30% are in Mikawashima district (in Arakawa ward, ) western side of the Sumida river. All of these factories are organized with wholesalars which are concentrated in Asakusa (old leather manufacturing center) at apex, for most of the factories are separated from the market. In Edo era, leather manufacturing district was at Nihonbashi, being supported by the Shorgnate. Before long, the manufacturing center removed to Kanda. The old leather manufacturing was destroyed at the beginning of Meizi era, and the modern leather industry was developed in accordance with the increase of militaly use, and the manufacturing district was removed by two steps…first was Kanda to Asakusa, and second was Asakusa to Kinegawa and Arakawa. In order to subsist these two concentrated districts, there are many disadvantageous condition for leather manufacturing industry now, as shortage of water, restricted manufacturing site, insufficient labour, and foul smell giving troble to circumference. In spite of these conditions, they never removed, the reason why they subsist in these two districts are are as follow:
1. The shortage of funds for removement.
2. It is impossible for the factories to remove from the organization centering wholesalor.
3. There is no firm factor which expels them from thesed dstricts.

抄録全体を表示