enterprises (SMEs), is often limited both in numbers and size, which means that the crit- ical mass might be weak. In addition, knowledge is not always perceived as a key driving force within the tourism industry, rather it is often described as a low competence busi- ness in terms of staff education level. The capability of tourism enterprises as motivators and drivers of innovation therefore needs to be considered with great caution — it cannot simply be taken for granted. If these doubts about tourism enterprises are motivated they may indicate a more significant role for local and regional public authoritiesin innovation processes. Their role in facilitating the early phases of the innovation process may need to be more active and driving than in more mature business environments.
In addition, the importance of the public sector actors in innovation might also be underlined by the situation concerning knowledge institutions. Also these might be rela- tively weak in relation to the tourist destination. Universities and research institutes might be only at a distance and not naturally part of the local destination environment, which calls for government support in the creation of formal and informal institutional frame- works or arenas for knowledge management as the most critical element for the function- ing of a destination innovation system. Governance in this context is perhaps more intricate in comparison with other industries and both government bodies and research bodies face great challenges in a system where the private actors might be less concerned with knowledge as a production factor.
The innovation systems’ dependency on the interaction between private enterprises, knowledge institutions and government bodies again motivates the governance perspec- tive. This is underlined by the presumed central role of government in facilitating the emergence of an innovation system. Understanding the dynamics and the role of various actors in the innovation system may help destinations in developing innovative processes, even if they cannot be regarded as fully fledged innovation systems.
The cluster model is less common in tourism research, even if this is changing, and is rarely dealt with from a governance perspective. The section on clusters illustrated the rel- evance of the governance perspective also in this model, by underlining the potential importance of public–private interaction in cluster development. It also suggested that tourism clusters might be more dependent on public–private interaction than clusters in the manufacturing industry, thus further motivating this approach. However, since clusters pri- marily are about business dynamics and competitiveness one has to be careful in drawing to far-reaching conclusions about the importance of government involvement. Governance is, however, an issue under any circumstances also in the cluster model.
The same caution in judging the role of government is motivated in the innovation sys- tem model. Government was here described as important in supporting linkages between business and knowledge production in, for example, universities and research institutes. In relation to a business like tourism, certain incentives for both business and research might be necessary in order to trigger the innovation system dynamics of a certain destination.
One might wonder about the relevance of the innovation system in relation to destination development, but the idea is definitely challenging both for tourism developers and tourism researchers. It may actually raise the importance of tourism research and it should definitely be a useful reflection to make for those in the trade. The question is simple: Can tourism research support innovation?
It may thus be that all three models are worth keeping in mind when discussing destina- tion development and also that they deserve a research interest. The governance approach is one way of entering this effort. The different models discussed here are, of course, more or less relevant in different destinations. While basically every destination qualify for part- nership studies, fewer are likely to qualify for the cluster model and very few, if any, for the innovation system model. The latter models may make sense in what might be labelled
“advanced” or “sophisticated” destinations. The innovation system model even requires a destination with the ambition to be a leading destination of its type. For this last mentioned type of destination, all three models bring out a specific understanding of some feature of the destination, which means that they may very well be combined in studies of destination development in general and destination governance in particular.
References
Bailey, N. (1994). Towards a research agenda for public–private partnerships in the 1990s. Local Economy,8, 292–306.
Bellandi, M. (1994). Decentralised industrial creativity in dynamic industrial districts. In:
UNCTAD/ITD/TEC/11, Tecnological dynamism in industrial districts: An alternative approach to industrialisation in developing countries? United Nations, New York, Geneve (pp. 73–87).
Bodén, B., & Rosenberg, L. (2004). Kommersiell turism och lokal samhällsutveckling. En studie av sex svenska fjälldestinationer. ETOUR report R:2004:15. Edita: Västerås.
Conzelmann, T. (1995). Networking and the politics of EU regional policy: Lessons from the North Rhine–Westphalia, Nord-Pas de Calais and North-West England. Regional and Federal Studies, 5(2), 134–172.
Flagestad, A. (2002). Strategic success and organisational structure in winter sports destinations.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bradford, UK. Vetenskapliga Bokserien, Etour, Sweden.
Destination Governance and Contemporary Development Models 93
Freeman, C. (1995). The “National System of Innovation” in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics,19, 5–24.
Halkier, H. (2000). Regional policy. An inter-organisational approach. Regional and Industrial Policy Research Paper Series (p. 37). EPRC, University of Strathclyde.
Halkier, H., & Damborg, C. (2000). Development bodies, networking and business promotion – the case of North Jutland, Denmark. In: M. Danson, H. Halkier, & G. Cameron (Eds),Governance, institutional change and regional development.Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hanf, K.I., & O’Toole, L.J. (1992). Revisiting old friends: Networks, implementation structures and the management of interorganizational relations. European Journal of Political Research,221, (1–2), 163–180.
Hanf, K.I., & Scharpf, F.W. (Eds). (1978). Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control. London: Sage.
Hjalager, A.M. (1994). Dynamic innovation in the tourist industry. Progress in Tourism Recreation and Hospitality Management,6, 197–224.
Hjalager, A.M. (1998). Environmental regulation in tourism – impacts on business innovation.
Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research,4, 17–30.
Hjalager, A.M. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23, 465–474.
Jordan, G. (1990). Sub-governments, policy communities and networks. Refilling old bottles?
Journal of Theoretical Politics,2(3), 319–338.
Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern governance: New government–society interactions. London: Sage.
Kuhlman, S., & Arnold, E. (2001). RCN in the Norwegian research and innovation system.
Background Report No 12 in the evaluation of the Research Council of Norway, Fraunhofer ISI and Technopolis.
Lundvall, B.Å. (1992). Introduction. In: B.Å. Lundvall (Ed.), National systems of innovation.
Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning(pp. 1–19).London: Pinter Publisher.
Lundvall, B.Å., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies,1, 23–42.
Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R.A.W. (Eds). (1992). Policy networks in British government. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Nelson, J., & Zadek, S. (2000). Partnership alchemy – new social partnerships in Europe.
Copenhagen, Denmark: The Copenhagen Centre.
Nelson, R. (Ed.) (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nordin, S. (2003). Tourism clustering & innovation – paths to economic growth & development.
Örnsköldsvik: Ågres Tryckeri.
Nordin, S., & Svensson, B. (2005). The significance of governance in innovative tourism destina- tions. In: P. Keller, & T. Bieger (Eds),Innovation in tourism: Creating customer value. AIEST:
St Gallen (Switzerland).
Östhol, A., & Lembke, J. (2003). Strategies and partnerships for biotech regions. The regional inno- vation and partnership project. Stockholm: ITPS A2003:005.
Östhol, A., & Svensson, B. (Eds). (2002). Partnership responses – regional governance in the Nordic States. Stockholm: Nordregio R2002:6.
Pierre, J. (Ed.) (1998). Partnerships in urban governance: European and American experience.
London: Macmillan.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations.New York: The Free Press.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652–667.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
94 Bo Svensson et al.
Sabatier, P.A., & Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, Boulder: Westview Press.
Sölvell, Ö., Lindqvist, G., & Ketels, C. (2003). The cluster initiative greenbook. Stockholm:
Bromma Tryck.
Spilling, O.R. (Ed.) (2002). NyskapingsNorge. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Stoker, G. (1998). Public–private partnerships and urban governance. In: J. Pierre (Ed.),Partnerships in urban governance: European and American Experience. London: Macmillan.
Stopford, J., & Strange, S. (1991). Rival states, rival firms, competition for world market shares.
Canada: Cambridge University Press.
Svensson, B., & Östhol, A. (2001). From government to governance: Regional partnerships in Sweden. Regional & Federal Studies,11(2), 25–42.
Van Waarden, F. (1992). Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research,21, 29–52.
Wolfe, D.A. (2004). Social capital and cluster development in learning regions, www.utoronto.ca/
progris/recentpub.html, March 2004.
Wolfe, D.A., & Gertler, M.S. (2004). Clusters from the inside and out: Local dynamics and global linkages. Paper prepared for a special issue of urban studies.
Destination Governance and Contemporary Development Models 95