THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND TOURISM
Governments become involved in tourism either through direct action to develop facilities and areas or indirectly by nurturing organizations that foster tourism. To the political scientist, tourism is an interesting phenomenon because for it to thrive, the ideal conditions are political stability, security, a well-defined legal framework and the essential services and infrastructure (roads, water supplies and a suitable environment) that the state is able to provide these services at both the national level and also at a regional and local level, through local councils (see Table 11.1 ). In addition, national governments are the main organizations, which negotiate on immigration, visa requirements and landing rights for airlines. These statutory responsibilities are often delegated to different government departments and do not take account of more active involvement in tourism. The main factor at work here is power – the ability to use influence and authority to effect decisions and change. Whilst governments are expected to perform statutory tasks such as immigration and negotiating aviation rights for the wider public good, it is their degree of involvement and commitment to tourism over and above these statutory functions that is important. In other words, if power is about ‘who gets what, when and how in the political system ’ ( Elliot 1997 : 10), then the political system is worthy of consideration. This is because it can explain why some countries, regions and localities are characterized by high levels of public sector management (PSM) and involvement and others are not. PSM is how the government influences tourism through actions and policies to either constrain or develop tourism. To governments, PSM is expected to effect change due to intervention, which is being in the ‘public interest ’ and based on principles of accountability, which are determined by the political and legal system and PSM culture. In other words, PSM is the way in which governments manage tourism although few tourism commentators would adopt that perspective, preferring to deny that government has an active role in management directly, since it is often delegated to purpose-designed tourism bodies such as National Tourism Organizations.
Why governments intervene in the tourism sector
At the country level, governments have an interest in tourism because it is an environmentally damaging activity if left uncontrolled, and may affect the people and economies of areas in positive and negative ways (see Chapter 12). In other words, governments have a strong interest in tourism in terms of its benefits to the economy and society. It is usually argued that the government’s utilizing of the concept of leverage, namely investment in facilities and infrastructure to promote and stimulate tourism, brings wider benefits of tourism for the well-being of the population (i.e. it can create jobs and raise tax income). This is illustrated by the World Tourism Organization (now UN- WTO) (1998 : 29) Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism , which highlighted the preconditions, benefits and effects of government intervention:
|
|
|
Tourism requires that adequate infrastructure such as roads, water supply, electric power, waste management and telecommunications be developed. This infrastructure can also be designed to serve local communities so that they receive the benefits of infrastructure improvements. Tourism development can help pay for the cost of improved infrastructure. Tourism can provide new markets for local products … and thereby stimulate other local economic sectors. Tourism stimulates development of new and improved retail, recreation and cultural facilities … which locals as well as tourists can use.
The report also acknowledged that tourism can contribute to environmental improvements as tourists seek out unpolluted places, also promoting cultural and heritage protection. In fact Middleton and Hawkins (1998: 6) identified the attraction of state-encouraged tourism in the developing world as being because of its potential to expand rapidly as an economic sector. This shows that it is a global phenomenon, has major economic (e.g. foreign currency) benefits, can promote employment growth and creates value in natural, cultural and heritage resources for visitors. According to OECD (2008: 7) ‘The state can stimulate this process [of helping tourism-related industries improve their competitiveness] by offering macro-economic stability, a tourism-friendly business environment, attractive public goods and an innovation-oriented tourism policy ’ as highlighted in Chapter 10. In contrast to other sectors of the economy it has been described as a smokeless industry (i.e. it is perceived as low polluting compared to developing heavy industry) and can contribute to the quality of life of residents and visitors. But there are sceptics who question the positive reasons behind state intervention, since it can induce social and cultural change amongst the resident population, and alter the character and ambience of places as tourism development is followed by the resort life cycle and mass tourism. Furthermore, the economic benefits of tourism are not necessarily oriented to generating local wealth and employment, as in less developed countries (LDCs) and non-urban areas, the benefits leak out and low-paid, seasonal employment is the norm rather than full employment for all. The economic drawbacks become more serious when external control by multinational companies results in the environmental costs being borne by the locality while the profits are expropriated back to the company, often located overseas. This has been reinforced by concerns over policies designed to liberalize barriers to trade, such as the World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Critics pointed to the potential removal of entry barriers in LDCs which may intensify the impact of foreign direct investment on the tourism sector.
|
|
|
Jeffries (2001) also pointed to wider political objectives by governments in affecting tourism development:
● In Spain, the Franco regime in the 1960s sought to use tourism to legitimize its political acceptability, as well as recognizing its economic potential.
● Since the 1930s, France has used the concept of social tourism (similar to the former Soviet Union’s idea of recreational tourism, to improve the quality of life of workers at resorts, spas and holiday camps), especially among low-income groups, to enhance the welfare role of the state. A similar approach has also been adopted in Belgium.
● The UK government in the 1980s emphasized the employment potential of tourism to create new jobs and wealth in an era of high unemployment.
● Some countries and transnational bodies such as the EU actively promote grants and aid to the peripheral regions to help develop the tourism infrastructure (e.g. road improvements in the Republic of Ireland and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland) to encourage the expansion of the tourism potential. Since the expansion of the EU to include 27 member countries, its tourism policies have particularly focused on new Member States in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe to improve the competitiveness and capacity of their tourism sector.
● In LDCs, tourism expansion is often politically justified as a means of poverty eradication and a number of developed countries’ governments (e.g. the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the EU) provide aid to assist with this objective, as evident in the case of the Pacific islands. This has been more recently focused on pro-poor tourism initiatives, where notable successes have occurred in countries such as the Gambia and South Africa.
Дата добавления: 2018-06-01; просмотров: 397; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!