Panama
Canal’s Role Part Two
The 1977 treaties had
important provisions concerning employment and wages.
Panamanians would gradually replace United States citizens
in the operation of the canal. Perhaps most important was
the provision that former Canal Zone employees who became
employees in Panama under the treaties were guaranteed wages
and conditions similar to those that their position in the
zone had commanded. In 1979 a zone employee received about
twice the wages of someone employed in a similar position
elsewhere in the economy. The canal areas will therefore
continue to exert a pull on other domestic wages, making the
country less competitive internationally.
Current
Use and Future of the Canal
In both the short and the
long term, the impact of the 1977 treaties on the economy
will depend to a large extent on canal traffic. Since 1979,
when the treaties went into effect, the amount of canal
traffic has stagnated. In 1979 the canal was transited by
13,056 ships; by 1984 that number had fallen to 11,230--the
lowest number in 2 decades. Cargo tonnage also dropped
during the same period, from about 154 million to about 140
million tons. Despite the decline in the number of ships and
cargo tonnage, toll revenues expanded over the period from
US$208 million to US$298 million, because of the toll
increase in March 1983.
The decline in canal
traffic was in large measure a result of the opening of the
trans-isthmian oil pipeline, which carries Alaskan North
Slope oil. In 1983 the pipeline diverted 30 million tons of
oil from the canal. In terms of Panama's economy, the
diversion of oil from the canal to the pipeline did not
cause alarm as it was little more than a transfer of
services.
Some observers expressed
concern that the canal had seen its best days and that it
would decline in importance over the long run. Latin
American trade, much of which passes through the canal, has
stagnated because of prolonged regional recession and
balance of payments constraints resulting from the regional
debt crisis. Many supertankers and bulk cargo carriers are
too big for the canal. Even some smaller vessels sought to
avoid the delays associated with transiting the canal.
Increased tolls also lowered the demand for canal usage.
Many coal and banana producers shunned the canal and shipped
to Europe from the Caribbean Basin and to the Pacific Basin
from the west coast of Latin America. In addition, the canal
faced competition from Mexican and United States land
bridges (roads or railroads linking Atlantic and Pacific
ports). Standardized cargo containers have made land bridges
an increasingly attractive option, even though the distances
involved are much greater (the United States land bridge is
over 5,600 kilometers long) than across the canal. The
concern over the future of the canal was partially allayed
by the increase in total canal traffic between 1984 and
1986. In 1986 11,925 ships transited the canal, carrying 139
million long tons of cargo and generating US$321 million in
tolls and revenues. In 1987 canal tolls and revenues totaled
US$330. The increase in 1986 was due in large measure to
increased automobile trade.
In
1982 Panama joined the United States and Japan, the two
principal users of the canal, in an agreement to establish a
tripartite commission aimed at studying improvements in or
alternatives to the canal. The US$20-million study was
expected to be ready in 1991. One modest proposal, at a cost
of US$200 million, was that of widening the canal at the
Gaillard Cut, its narrowest channel. The Gaillard Cut
measured approximately 100 meters when the canal opened in
1914, and in the 1960s it was broadened to about 165 meters.
The proposal called for doubling the width of the Gaillard
Cut. A more extensive plan, at a cost of US$500 million,
proposed widening the entire canal by 16 meters to allow for
uninterrupted 2-way traffic along the waterway. The canal's
existing capacity was forty-two vessels a day; the less
expensive proposal would accommodate fifty ships. The most
ambitious plan, however, was that for a second, sea-level
canal, which could handle even the largest supertankers
without the use of locks. This plan's estimated cost was
US$20 billion, considered prohibitive in the light of
foreseeable toll revenues. Alternatives to a second canal
included an improved railroad system, an express highway for
container traffic, and additional pipelines.
|