Navigation – Plan du site
Sur le Champ
Les corridors de développement

Development corridors

Introduction
Nathalie Fau
Cet article est une traduction de :
Les corridors de développement

Texte intégral

1Corridors have been the object of an abundant literature (Debrie, 2010) by academics (geographers, economists, urban planners, historians or life scientists) but also by international and regional bodies (IMF, regional bank, United Nations). The use of the notion of corridor to refer to very diverse realities, giving rise to notional exchanges between the political sphere, international institutions and academic thinking, appears to be a source of confusion. For instance, the United Nations appropriated the geographic concepts of “transport corridors”, defined as routes of concentrated communication infrastructures, and “urban corridors”, combining these two concepts into multiple variations (Alix, 2012; Debrie et Comtois, 2010; Rodrigue, 2017): development corridors, trade corridors or growth corridors. These concepts, which are first and foremost operational tools used to set the orientations of funding programs, have contributed to shaping a new development model: the function of these corridors is to facilitate new productive activities by making energy infrastructures more accessible to development processes and by improving the transformation capacity of local production facilities, thus promoting the development of the margins and not just that of the main structuring hubs. The objective is therefore not just to connect cities with more efficient communication routes, but to develop a new multi-polar and transnational space that connects existing urban areas with emerging regions.

2The model of the “corridor” gradually became established across all continents. In 2002, the United Nations launched a project entitled “Capacity building in developing interregional land and land-cum-sea transport linkages”. Its aim was to identify inter-regional transport routes in every region of the world that could contribute to improving integration and fostering economic development (ESCAP, 2009). In Latin America, Africa, Asia and even Europe (where the model is however slightly different), regional bodies have replicated the same development and spatial organization model which, while it has not entirely supplanted existing models, has nevertheless been channeling all new investments. The figure of the corridor was also adopted by individual states, sometimes independently from any supranational institutional framework, either as a tool for their own territorial planning or as a way of asserting their power on an international scale: currently, the most ambitious and publicized project is the “New Silk Road”, which will connect China to the rest of the world through a complex and multimodal network of infrastructure. This issue of Echogeo investigates these diverse types of corridors. The editors would like to note that while the term of development corridor is usually associated with international transport routes cutting across the boundaries of national borders, we decided to include the article by Philipe Cadène and Yves-Marie Rault that addresses corridors in India because within this continent-State, fragmented by major territorial disparities and divided into 29 federal states with their own institutions, these projects are faced with very similar issues.

3In reaction to the many existing initiatives, reports and announcements that sometimes amount to marketing operations, this issue will attempt to bring a critical approach grounded in the reality of the field and on a methodical analysis of these corridors. Its objective is to deliver a comparative study of the development corridors promoted by the United Nations and by regional and international institutions, and implemented by these same institutions, by national states but also by private economic operators. This issue presents an original approach based on questioning the notion of “development corridor” from the perspective of Europe (G. Carrouet; A. Cariou), Africa (V. Fourault-Cauët and J.-F. Steck), Central America (L. Médina) and Asia (Ph. Cadène and Y.-M. Rault, N. Fau and T. Foin). The contributions compiled explore this issue on a regional scale (Central America, South-East Asia) but also on a national (India and Russia) and a local scale (Chiang Rai in Thaïland, Nairobi in Kenya, and the mid-size cities along the “LGV Rhin-Rhône” high speed railway line).

Defining, tracing and investigating corridors

4Three main types of approaches appear to emerge when investigating “corridors”.

5The first approach, only followed in this issue by Guillaume Carrouet, postulates the potential existence of a structured corridor along a given transport route, namely the “LGV Rhin-Rhône” high speed railway line. No institutional area was officially traced around this railway line, and its route is disconnected from any institutional regions. The benefit of this approach is that it challenges the notion of corridor more explicitly, since one of its objectives is to determine whether the space examined can or not be considered as a development corridor.

6The second approach, clearly predominant, consists in focusing on predefined corridors that are designated as such by regional institutions (L. Médina, N. Fau and T. Foin) or national governments (Ph. Cadène and Y.-M. Rault and A. Cariou). This approach starts by studying the emergence of these corridors, examining the prescriptors that designed them and the reasons for their emergence. A diachronic approach – i.e. drawing “the geo-history of a technical route” (Debrie, 2007) – can help shed light on the evolution of the discourses, stakeholders, issues and events that led to the creation of these corridors (Beyer, 2014; Libourel, 2015). For example, Alain Cariou analyses the factors that prompted the Russian government to move from a national vision that saw the Trans-Siberian as a means of conquering the continent’s immensity and of integrating the peripheries to the national territory, to a trans-national vision now perceiving the Trans-Siberian as a vector of inclusion into globalization, in particular through a better connection with the high-growth region of Asia, and as an “instrument of power and development”. Similarly, the emergence of corridor projects in India forms part of a new economic strategy, where “the central authorities, which have gradually warmed to the private sector, seek to attract capital towards their large-scale projects” (Ph. Cadène and Y.-M. Rault). In Central America (L. Médina), South-East Asia (N. Fau and Th. Foin) and Africa (V. Fourault-Cauët and J.-F. Steck), the weight of the banks and regional institutions and the regional integration strategies initiated by these stakeholders, the search for investment to fund new infrastructures and the focus on outward-looking economic policies appear to have had a major influence on the adoption of this model of development. These diverse corridor projects are elaborated as part of policies that promote integration to the global markets, the free circulation of trade and investment and liberal deregulation policies. In addition, it must be stressed that the systematic implementation of this new development model may appear dogmatic, as these “development corridors” do not always take into account the diversity of the spaces where they are established. In South-East Asia for instance, “no distinction is made between maritime and terrestrial corridors in the design of the routes and in the evaluation of their performance” (N. Fau).

7Studying pre-defined corridors also requires deconstructing the institutions’ narratives and analyzing the very prolific grey literature on this topic, in order to compare these narratives with the reality of the field (Fau et al., 2014). The proliferation of initiatives and programmatic discourses raises the issue of the feasibility and reality of these transnational integration projects. Whether in Central America, Africa or Asia, the maps of the corridors published by institutions and abundantly reproduced by the media rarely make it possible to distinguished between proposed projects and completed infrastructures, or even from existing corridors that follow a different model. Assessing the reality of the corridors therefore requires comparing the discourses conveyed by international institutions and funders with the national or local planning programs designed by the states along the route of the corridors (N. Fau). Through a systematic comparison, one can measure the various governments’ degree of engagement by assessing whether national planning policies are aligned with the projects designed by funders. In South-East Asia, there are three types of countries (N. Fau): those that, “for political and economic reasons, favor improving internal connectivity over regional connectivity”; those that on the contrary value “the development of regional integration infrastructures, with no consideration for the spatial planning of their own territory”; and finally, those that “take advantage of the improvements in regional connectivity to consolidate their economic standing while developing peripheral territories”. Philipe Cadène and Yves-Marie Rault’s contribution shows the many discrepancies between planned corridors and the reality. The authors compare the plans for the development of corridors designed by the Indian government with their own cartographic study of the distribution of productive capital. By doing so, they demonstrate the existence of industrial corridors whose dynamism owes nothing to the corridor policy. They also show that the planned corridors, in spite of their good quality infrastructures, industrial estates, logistical parks and new cities, have not succeeded in attracting new investors. In the case of India, the implantation of businesses bears little relation with the public authorities’ large-scale orientations.

8The last approach consists in comparing the corridors as defined by regional institutions with the corridors as identified by researchers. Véronique Fourault-Cauët and Jean-Fabien Steck’s contribution thus analyses how the rhetoric of the “corridor” is activated to legitimize two antagonistic visions of urban planning in Nairobi, Kenya: on the one hand, the “development corridors” championed by public authorities and aimed at making Nairobi a central hub in the transport corridor networks of Southern and Eastern Africa; on the other, the notions of “environmental corridors” and “migration corridors” supported by scientists and environmentalists in order to preserve the integrity of the Nairobi national park, threatened by the construction of transport infrastructures. In this rhetorical battle, development corridors are used as “an argument from authority, which is backed by planning and development models promoted by international agencies” and take precedence over the arguments of scientists and environmentalists, although those are based on eminent studies and reports. This article studies the cross-disciplinary “migration” of the concept of corridor, which travels from environmental studies to economics and territorial science, before being appropriated by the World Bank and the regional banks. The authors also show, as in the case with South-East Asian corridors (N. Fau), the difficulty there is in challenging the construction of development corridors when their representation is so loaded with positive values.

A vector of development?

9Corridor projects, often referred to as “development” projects, usually work from the postulate that there is an obvious link between the construction of infrastructures, the integration of territories, the creation of networks and economic development (Steck, 2009; Fau, 2016). They are presented as planification tools that promote a better integration into globalization. Their aim is to channel investment projects, to consolidate economic growth processes and to promote and facilitate free trade. Their construction aims to reduce the cost of imports, to improve access to international markets, to facilitate industrial networks and to improve the interconnectedness of the economy’s various sectors, for example by better connecting places of production with places of consumption. The corridors are therefore expected to promote economic growth, employment and better living conditions. As such, they carry many hopes and expectations for the local populations, in particular those living in the peripheries. The majority of contributions question the relevance of these large-scale infrastructure programs and the development models they promote. Without revisiting the debates on the structuring effects of transport (Offner, 1993; L’Espace géographique, 2014), they seek to identify the territorial mutations, the emergence of new spatial structures and the impact on the regions located along these corridors, by adopting a multi-scalar and territorial approach.

10Lucile Médina’s and Alain Cariou’s contributions mention the challenges of combining on the one hand the “fluidity” required by transport operators and modern logistics to facilitate international intercommunication and on the other hand, the notion of “territorial fecundity”, i.e. the benefits in terms of development for the territories located along these routes. This “fluidity versus fecundity” opposition, to quote the terms of Lombard, Ninot and Steck (2014), is just as manifest in Russia as it is in Central America where the objective of facilitating transit takes precedence over the improvement of the population’s living conditions. In Central America, the corridors aim to either connect the region’s two coastlines seamlessly and with as little bulk-breaking as possible, or to connect productive enclaves with export ports and overseas markets. Most of them only benefit port extremities. Similarly, Alain Cariou questions “the virtuous growth processes associated with the opening up” of territories via the corridors. A. Cariou analyses the impacts of Euro-Asian corridors including the Trans-Siberian, and shows that these corridors’ sole objective is to consolidate land connections between China and the EU while “between these two centers of global growth, the heart of Eurasia remains neglected”. The effect of this improvement of transport routes has been to expand the sphere of influence of the regions that were the strongest economically to the detriment of more recently connected areas, and to consolidate the role of existing economic centers. “The spaces along these routes remain neutral and disenfranchised. What matters is to travel through them as quickly as possible”, writes L. Médina. This conclusion is echoed by A. Cariou’s image: “Over thousands of kilometers, railway lines cut across the empty territories of the Siberian taiga, the Mongolian and Kazakh steppes, the Xinjiang and Turkmenistan deserts”. The predominant function of these corridors is to act as logistical routes. Both contributions also highlight the role played by the corridors in the relegation of the peripheries to sole extractive activities and to their role as suppliers of raw materials. Regarding Siberia, A. Cariou mentions a “colonial development model” where the sole function of the Trans-Siberian corridor is that of “a lonely railway line connecting an archipelago of industrial cities dedicated to the primary processing and export of raw materials”. The figure of the corridor is thus limited to that of a route connecting enclaves dedicated to the extraction and export of raw materials”. A. Cariou therefore concludes that the Trans-Siberian cannot be referred to as a development corridor. Both contributions show that while the corridors can improve the integration of the peripheries, they can also simply cut across these territories (“tunnel” effect) or suck out resources from these regions (“pump” effect). On the more local scale of cities, the risk of having a corridor cut through rather than serve a city is also manifest, as highlighted by Th. Foin’s contribution on Chiang Rai, Thailand, and that of V. Fourault-Cauët and J.-F. Steck on Nairobi. By analyzing and comparing studies on corridors in South-East Asia, N. Fau shows that this opposition between “fluidity” and “fecundity” is also evident in the contrast between the methodologies used on the one hand by the operational sector – logisticians whose prime concern is to avoid bulk-breaking – and on the other by geographers, who are more inclined to discuss the corridors’ spatial and social impacts.

11In India (Ph. Cadène and Y.-M. Rault), the corridors have not succeeded either in restoring balance in the country’s economic development, which remains very polarized around the main metropolises: “The largest Indian cities remain at the heart of the territory’s organization and concentrate the majority of control capacities and productive investment across almost all industrial sectors”. The corridors even contributed to emphasizing the economic domination of large urban centers, and in particular those of the “golden quadrilateral” formed by Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore and Mumbai and their vast peripheries. The only major change has been the dissemination of productive capital from large urban centers along the transport routes, whose consequence has been the creation of industrial corridors rather than development corridors. The authors also show that out of the five development corridors promoted by the central State, only three became industrial corridors while numerous other corridors have not been designed and delivered by the State.

12Reversely, contributions on South-East Asia and Europe stress the role played by the corridors in the emergence of new polarities. By transforming accessibility, the corridors contribute to the renewal of territories – and in particular, to that of the national peripheries which become new centers within trans-national communication networks. In the case of the Rhine-Rhone space (G. Carrouet), the construction of a high speed railway line has contributed to the development of medium-size cities: “Although it had been designed to meet the transport needs of the large urban centers that surround it, the LGV brings much needed accessibility to medium-size cities”. This fact is quite exceptional in France, where the construction of a high-speed infrastructure between large centers often creates a “tunnel effect”, that is a relative loss of accessibility for secondary centers. On a local scale, the territorial transformations brought about by the construction of the LGV are concentrated around the stations, with the emergence of new centers hosting service activities: office buildings, business centers and hospitality infrastructures.

13Studies on South-East Asia show that the corridors have transformed regional urban hierarchies and led to the emergence of three new types of nodes that structure the internal functioning of the corridors: end-nodes, border areas and internal spaces at the intersection of several corridors (N. Fau). T. Foin’s article offers insights into the social and economic dynamics created by corridors on the local scale of a city. Rather than focusing on a large city or on an end node, T. Foin chose a medium-sized city: Chiang Rai, located in a border province at the periphery of Thailand and on a major meridian corridor that structures the Greater Mekong Region, connecting Bangkok to Kunming. To assess the impact of this trans-national corridor on urban development, the author studies internationalization markers and processes through mutations in the built environment and in economic sectors. Through this approach, he reveals an increased specialization of spaces and a transformation of urban configurations characterized by the emergence of new centers (touristic, financial and commercial) and by the rise of property prices along the corridor. The location of Chiang Rai on a corridor also provoked a reconfiguration of urban hierarchies: the city is now in direct competition with Chiang Mai, the political and economic capital of Northern Thailand, and holds a new position of sovereignty over the border cities of Mae Sai, Chiang Saen and Chiang Khong.

14The majority of contributions to this issue highlight the failure to consider environmental issues in the design of corridor projects. Along the Trans-Siberian, the soil is polluted by mining effluents, but no controls are in place to ensure compliance with environmental regulations (A. Cariou). In central America, no environmental impact study is envisaged in preparation for the construction of the corridors, in spite of growing mobilization from the scientific community, environmentalists and the civil society (L. Médina). In Thailand, the urban planning authorities in Chiang Rai only considered the corridor’s negative environmental impacts very recently (Th. Foin). The difficulty of combining economic development with environmental responsibility is at the heart of V. Fourault-Cauët and J.-F. Steck’s article. Working from an analysis of the Nairobi project’s main planning documents, the authors demonstrate that the environment has at no point been considered. The national development objectives associated with the construction of the Northern Corridor are clearly prioritized over the preservation of the Nairobi national park and that of the surrounding savannah. In the context of Nairobi’s metropolization, the park even appears as a constraint hindering the creation of a corridor, “due to its supposedly inalienable status”, rather than as an asset for the promotion of sustainable development, as recommended by the 2063 Agenda of the African Union and by the African Urban Agenda Program. The authors conclude: “This development corridor can hardly be referred to as sustainable. On the contrary, it illustrates the fragility of this notion, which detracts from the specificities of the spaces located along the transport routes and the corridors’ environmental and social consequences”.

The implementation of the corridors: a new model of governance?

15The corridors are presented as new governance tools (Priemus and Zonneveled, 2003). Public policies are made more complex by the necessity of establishing multiple bilateral or multi-lateral agreements, but also by the need to take into account on the one hand the private sector which funds and exploits the corridors, and on the other hand the local authorities whose sovereignty has increased as a result of devolution. The management of transnational corridors imposes a new governance framework involving a collaboration between a multitude of stakeholders and “based on a form of coordination between each territorial and economic party” (Debrie et Comtois, 2010). The issue of governance comes up at every stage of the implementation of the corridor: design of the route, funding model, management and functioning.

16The contributions highlight the challenges associated with the implementation of these new governance models. V. Fourault-Cauët and J.-F. Steck show that in the context of the implementation of the Northern Corridor supported by the African Union to consolidate Nairobi’s function as a logistical hub, international and national priorities take precedence over local needs. The metropolitan authorities of Nairobi are excluded from decision-making processes regarding the route of the corridor, although this route cuts through the national park: the authors conclude that the park “appears caught in an in-between where recently established local concertation and governance mechanisms remain powerless in front of the central government”. This lack of concertation between stakeholders prevents any compromise between development concerns and the preservation of the environment. In Russia, the weak impact of the corridors on the spaces they cut through can be explained to a large extent by the lack of concertation and cooperation between the state and local authorities: “Development is a state matter, planned by an authoritarian central authority, to the point that any form of local political autonomy or entrepreneurial initiative is annihilated” (A. Cariou). Similarly, in India, the very relative success of State-planned corridors of development can be partly explained by the lack of coordination between the federal State's policies and those led by individual states – although India has seen the emergence of an unprecedented form of governance involving a cooperation between the central State, the public authorities and the business sector (Ph. Cadène and Y.-M. Rault).

17This issue of governance is at the heart of G. Carrouet’s contribution. The author compares the territorial structures and cooperation models requested by local stakeholders at the time when they were demanding the creation of a high-speed railway line, with those put in place eight years after the launch of the first phase of the LGV Rhin-Rhône. The “Métropoles Rhin-Rhône” network had been created with the ambition of formalizing a governance system based on cooperation between territories located along this infrastructure. The author demonstrates that, while this governance model functioned relatively well when it came to creating a coalition of projects aimed at lobbying the government and European institutions to obtain a high-speed railway and contribute to the design of the route, once the construction of the LGV was completed, the coalition became inoperant. This failure of territorial governance resulted in the “obliteration of the project coalition, taken over by each individual local authority’s interest in having the line stop in their territory”. This failure manifests itself in the proliferation of similar and competing projects in the vicinity of train stations, which have been designed with no regard for complementarity between territories. Within the Rhine-Rhone metropolitan area, governance is “a theoretical concept rather than a practical one”. The author concludes that if the Rhine-Rhone was for a time a territory of projects, it cannot be referred to as a development corridor due to the lack of regional governance.

18The issue of governance also arises concerning the corridors’ funding. The most frequently chosen model in Central America as in India, Africa and South-East Asia is public-private partnership. While this appears as a solution to the State’s lack of funding capacity, this model also raises new issues. One first concern regards the lack of continuity in the implementation of the infrastructures: L. Médina highlights the opacity of funding streams in Central America, where most projects are left unfinished due to either their lead investor going bankrupt or to the volatility of investments. A second concern is the issue of national sovereignty and integration: how can these projects reconcile the conflicting interests of the State, private operators from the logistics and transport sectors and investors? Since infrastructures act both as a showcase and as an instrument for the State’s power, how can they become the property of a third State or of an independent economic operator who is free to design their development (Lombard et al., 2014)? The funding sometimes goes along with long-term concession agreements, covering not only the exploitation of transport infrastructures but also the land the corridor cuts across. A parallel can be drawn between Nicaragua’s Grand Canal project and the corridors that cut across Burma (N. Fau and L. Médina). In both projects, both primarily funded by China, the spatial organization of the national territory is disrupted to serve the interests of external parties: for instance, the Nicaragua Canal physically splits the country in two without any crossing facilities being envisaged; in Burma, international connections are privileged to the detriment of national routes and spatial structures.

Regional integration or national power?

19The corridors are also understood as vehicles for “regional integration policies aimed at facilitating and intensifying communication between national spaces” (Debrie, 2018). Because they transcend physical, political, administrative, social and economic borders, they are expected to improve the interdependence of spaces located in different national territories. Regional bodies thus present corridors as a channel for economic integration projects, and seek to support the construction of infrastructures by transforming national legislations in order to remove the discontinuities created by borders, whether those are administrative, technical, legal or price-related. The objective is to facilitate trade within an integrated and efficient market, but also to plan, prioritize and signpost funding streams for transport infrastructures (Debrie, 2018). The corridors are envisaged as a regional planification tool that supports rapprochement between States. As stressed by Lombard and Mareil (2018), “these infrastructure projects shape spaces of regional communication that reflect the intention to harmonize standards, services and markets”.

20In this context, are corridors vectors of regional integration? This is a recurring question in the contributions that examine the emergence of macro-regions and the interdependence of national territories. The authors in this issue focus on the obstacles that stop these corridors from fully becoming regional integration tools. The most challenging of these obstacles appears to be national governments’ more or less explicit refusal to consider spatial organization beyond the scale of their own country, and to support cross-national projects that could potentially increase competition between territories. In Central America, in spite of a stated intention to support regional integration, the proliferation of corridor projects “contradicts this discourse, betraying the lack of a concerted regional vision” (L. Médina). Each state champions their own corridor project to reap its benefits, without envisaging the construction of a truly inclusive corridor on a regional scale. Lucile Médina also shows that these fragmented State-led initiatives make it impossible to plan an inter-ocean corridor between the Atlantic and Pacific coast with the potential to compete with the Panama Canal or with transoceanic terrestrial bridges in the USA and Mexico. In the absence of any regional agreements and concertation mechanisms, the governments’ dream of cashing on their location on the Central American isthmus by transforming the region into a “strategic multimodal platform in the global system of freight transport” is unlikely to become a reality. Similarly, A. Cariou examines the Russian government’s reluctance to modernize the Trans-Siberian’s interconnections with the Chinese network. A. Cariou analyzes the dilemma faced by the government, “caught between the temptation to integrate its territory into the world-space to reconquer its global standing, while preserving it from too much openness to its neighbors, including chiefly China”. Why promote the creation of trans-national corridors if those mostly benefit neighboring countries? In South-East Asia for instance, it comes as no surprise that the Thai government is the leading champion of corridors: as a country located at the intersection of the corridors and the most developed in the region, Thailand is the corridors’ main beneficiary. In contrast, in Indonesia, the government is holding up the country’s connection to transnational networks to protect its economy, which is still too fragile to face the competition (N. Fau).

21Focusing on corridors to study regional integration processes is also a way of questioning the delineation of institutional regions, and to reveal competing regionalization projects: in some cases, competing corridors can reflect alternative regional integration projects. For example, Chinese-led corridor projects in South-East Asia compete with the ASEAN’s connectivity plan. This conlflict could lead to the dissolution of ASEAN, split between its continental and island regions, and to the emergence of a new non-institutionalized region organized around China and its neighboring countries (N. Fau). In Russia, the construction of corridors caused a rapprochement between Siberia and Eastern Asia (China, Japan, South Korea) and gave rise to a trans-national regionalization process (A. Cariou). The region’s many and often competing corridor projects has shaped geopolitical relations. Central America (L. Médina) is the heart of a rivalry between Chinese (Panama Grand Canal) and American investors (Puebla-Panama Plan). In Central Asia and Mongolia, the control, operation and funding of many corridors, currently competing for trans-national transport fluxes, have become a bone of contention in the struggle for power and influence between Russia and China. An important question is indeed whether its many transnational corridors can give this “Eurasian space” an existence and a concrete reality (A. Cariou). In Europe (G. Carrouet), the Rhine-Rhone space is only an “imperfect corridor”, because its function as an interface between the North Sea and the Mediterranean is threatened by “the presence of competing networks on the European scale, including the Rhine-Alps corridor”. The design of the routes of these corridors reflects negotiations and power struggles – which regional institutions and funders attempt to conceal by using consensual terms like “connectivity” and other technicist narratives (N. Fau).

22The choice of “development corridors” as this issue’s topic highlights the difficulty there is in defining this notion and its associated spaces. Can a simple transport route be referred to as a “corridor”? The authors of these contributions consider that it is not the case, stressing that the term can only be applied to a route that involves economic growth and territorial development processes, as well as fostering the emergence of new forms of governance and spatial integration. Indeed of all the studies presented here, none concludes that its object can really be considered as a development corridor. The interest of these corridors lies elsewhere: they enable comparison and make it possible to create a common methodology and analytical framework, which enable geographers to address the notion of development corridor and put their approaches in perspective with operational and programmatic approaches. These tools could be used to analyze the “New Silk Roads” promoted.

Lombard J., Mareï N., 2018. Infrastructures et transports : puissants facteurs d’intégration régionale. In Mareï N., Richard Y. (dir.), Dictionnaire de la régionalisation du monde. Paris, Khartala, p. 168-169.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Alix Y. (dir.), 2012. Les corridors de transport. Cormelles-le-Royal, Editions Ems, 344 p.

Bender S., 2001. Trade Corridors: The Emerging Regional Development Planing Unit in Latin America. In Edginton D., Fernandez A., Hoshino C. (ed.), New Regional Development Paradigms, vol. 2. United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Greenwood Press, p. 39-56.

Beyer A., 2014. La construction d’un espace européen des transports. Du principe de souveraineté nationale aux modalités de son dépassement. HDR Géographie, Université de Paris IV Sorbonne, 320 p.

Debrie J., 2007. Géohistoire d’un tracé technique : frontières et réseaux en Afrique de l’Ouest continentale « francophone ». Flux, vol. 4, n° 70, p. 49-58.

Debrie J., 2018. Corridor : un outil de l’intégration régionale ? In Mareï N., Richard Y., Dictionnaire de la régionalisation du monde. Paris, Khartala, p. 118-119.

Debrie J., Comtois C., 2010. Une relecture du concept de corridors de transport : illustration comparée Europe/Amérique du Nord. Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport, n° 58, p. 127-144.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), 2008. Joint study on developing euro-asia transport linkage.

Fau N., 2016. Investment in infrastructure and regional integration: Will connectivity reduce inequalities? In Br. Jetin B., M. Miki (ed.), ASEAN Economic Community: A model for Asia-wide Regional Integration? Palgrave Macmillan, p. 291-310.

Fau N., Taillard T., Khonthapane S., 2014. Transnational Dynamics and Territorial Redefinitions in Southeast Asia: the Greater Mekong Subregion and Malacca Strait economic corridors. ISEAS, Institute of South-East Asia à Singapour, 517 p.

Les controverses de l’Espace Géographique, 2014. Les effets structurants des infrastructures de transport. L’Espace géographique [En ligne], tome 43, n° 1, p. 51-67. https://www.cairn.info/revue-espace-geographique-2014-1-page-51.htm

Libourel E., 2015. Le corridor ferroviaire méditerranéen : planification, politisation et territorialisation d’un projet d’aménagement. Architecture, aménagement de l’espace. Doctorat, Université Paris-Est.

Lombard J., Ninot O., Steck B., 2014. Corridors de transport en Afrique et intégration territorialesen questions. In Gana A., Richard Y. (dir.), La régionalisation du monde : construction territoriale et articulation global-local. Tunis-Paris, IRMC-Karthala, p. 253-272.

Offner J.-M., 1993. Les effets structurants du transport : mythe politique, mystification scientifique. L’Espace géographique, tome 22, n° 3, p. 233-242.

Priemus H., Zonneveled W., 2003. What are corridors and what are the issues? Introduction to special issue: the governance of corridor. Journal of transport geography, vol. 11, p. 167-177.

Raffestin C., 1980. Pour une géographie du pouvoir. Paris, Librairies techniques, 249 p.

Rimmer P.-J., 2004. Global Flows, Local Hubs, Platforms and Corridors: Regional and Economic Integration in Northeast Asia. Journal of International Logistics and Trade, vol. 1, n° 2, p. 1-18.

Rodrigue J-P, 2017. The Geography of Transport Systems. New York, Routledge, 440 p.

Steck B., 2017. Entre fermeture fantasmée et ouverture effective : les infrastructures de transport, levier majeur du développement de l’Afrique. Revue internationale et stratégique, n° 107, p. 145-153.

Steck B., 2009. Transport et développement. In Brocard M., Transports et territoires. Enjeux et débats. Ellipses.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Nathalie Fau, « Development corridors », EchoGéo [En ligne], 49 | 2019, mis en ligne le 20 novembre 2019, consulté le 13 décembre 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/echogeo/18170 ; DOI : 10.4000/echogeo.18170

Haut de page

Auteur

Nathalie Fau

Nathalie Fau, Nathalie.Fau@univ-paris-diderot.fr, is a senior Lecturer at Université Paris 7 Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, as well as a member of research unit UMR 245 CESSMA and a member of European research project “Competing Regional Integrations in Southeast Asia” (CRISEA) led by the École française d'Extrême-Orient. She rececently published :
- Fau N., Franck M., 2019. L’Asie du Sud-Est. Émergence d’une région, mutation des territoires. Armand Colin, 434 p.
- Fau N., de Trégoldé B., 2018. Mers d'Asie du sud-est. Coopérations, intégrations et sécurités. CNRS édition, 394 p.
- Delfolie D., Fau N., Lafaye de Micheau E., 2016. La Malaisie et la Chine, une relation précieuse. Carnet de l’IRASEC n° 7, Série Enquête, 272 p. [En ligne]. https://books.openedition.org/irasec/101

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals