Tourism occurs within, and interacts with, a complex, multi-dimensional, multi-layered and dynamic world. In other words, the global tourism system’s external environment comprises a variety of economic, political, cultural, technological, environmental and other elements that are not only inter-related themselves but that may also, individually or collectively, influence or be influenced by tourism. Moreover, these elements may interact with tourism at different levels. Political upheaval or natural disasters, for example, tend to have a local or regional impact (the events of ‘9/11’, of course, being a notable exception), whereas economic factors may have more far-reaching implications.
Certainly, the global financial crisis of 2008 is likely to have a major impact on tourism globally, at least in the shorter term (and, perhaps, may signal a fundamental change in the relationship between production and consumption more generally in the longer term). Only time will tell if the predicted zero or negative growth in international tourist arrivals materializes although, at the time of writing, there is widespread evidence of a dramatic downturn in tourism demand. For example, the demand for cruising has experienced a significant decline with some cruise lines reducing their operations, such as Royal Caribbean Cruises cutting several of its South American cruises as a result of poor levels of bookings (Starmer-Smith, 2008). Equally, the collapse of a number of airlines and tour operators during 2008 is attributable to the financial crisis and the problems associated with high oil prices earlier in the year.
More significantly, the global financial crisis is also evidence of trans- formations in the relationship between the different elements of tourism’s external environment, of global political, economic and cultural change that is widely and collectively referred to as the process of ‘globalization’. Over the last two decades, the ‘phenomenon of globalisation – whether real or illusory – has captured the public imagination’ (Held and McGrew, 2000, p1), although the term was first used in the 1960s at a time when political and economic interdependence between nations was becoming more evident.
However, it is since the late 1980s, a period that has witnessed momentous political and economic change (in particular, the collapse of communism and the virtually worldwide adoption of capitalism) as well as dramatic advances in and access to information and communication technology, that increas- ing academic and media attention has been paid to the concept of globaliza- tion. Seen as a potential ‘analytical lynchpin’ (Scholte, 2002) for exploring and explaining transformations in the contemporary social world, it refers generally to what many perceive to be increasing global interdependence and integration of trade, finance, communication, culture and technology or, as Wahab and Cooper (2001, p4) put it, to ‘a world which, due to many politico- economic, technological and informational advancements and developments, is on its way to becoming borderless and an interdependent whole’. Nonetheless, globalization remains a highly contested concept. For some, it ‘has become a pervasive instrument in the reorganization of the world’ (Reid, 2003, p37); for others, it is just a convenient way of describing various political, economic and cultural transformations or a contemporary, fashionable term for the centuries old process of internationalization: ‘globalisation, under other names, is not a new concept but rather an acceleration of trends that have been active for decades or even centuries’ (Fayos-Solà and Bueno, 2001, p46). For yet others, globalization is a myth, for the simple reason that many of the processes and transformations that it purports to describe or explain do not occur at the global level (Hirst and Thompson, 1999).
Nevertheless, there are certain processes or activities that, since the 1960s, have become more global in scope, scale and, importantly, inter-connectedness, though whether these have contributed to or merely reflect what is referred to as globalization remains a matter of debate. For example, production and trade, financial services, flows of capital, technology, information and people all occur and are inter-related at the global level, whilst tourism in particular is seen by many to be a potent symbol of globalization. Specifically, it is interesting to note that in the early 1990s one of the major transformations identified with globalization was the internationalization of public debt in the US: ‘Americans could enjoy through debt a higher level of consumption than their production would otherwise have paid for because foreigners were ready to accept a flow of depreciating dollars’ (Cox, 1991, p338). It was, of course, the internationalization of US debt, specifically related to the sub-prime mortgage market, that sparked the 2008 ‘credit crunch’; a national, sector- specific debt problem became a globalized financial crisis.
Cox identifies five other transformations that are indicative of globalization:
the internationalization of production; the internationalization of the state (that is, the dominant role played by supra-national bodies); uneven development, with some nations becoming relatively poorer; global migration patterns (both legal and illegal) from the less developed to the developed world; and, the
‘peripheralization of the core’ (Cox, 1991, p340), or increasing numbers of socially-excluded, powerless poor living amongst the affluent. Whether these transformations are indeed evidence of globalization, whether they are causes or outcomes of globalization, or whether it is even possible to consider them
TOURISM, GLOBALIZATION AND ‘POST-DEVELOPMENT’ 87 from a global perspective remains uncertain. For example, and as discussed later in the chapter in the context of tourism’s development role, the inability of the world’s poorest nations to achieve any measurable economic growth or development is largely attributable not to global influences but to national factors in general and to the failure of sovereign governments to fulfil their responsibilities to the citizens they purport to represent in particular (Ghani and Lockhart, 2008). However, there is clear evidence of such social and political- economic transformations (and others) in the contemporary world. Therefore, in the context of this book, it is important to explore the relationship between tourism and the alleged characteristics of globalization. In fact, according to Wahab and Cooper (2001, pxiii), ‘globalisation has begun to rival sustainability as an organising concept for the way we approach tourism’ [emphasis in original]. This is, perhaps, to overstate the relevance of globalization to a social and economic activity that, as we shall see shortly, is primarily produced and consumed within national or local, rather than international, contexts.
Nevertheless, when thinking about tourism, its economic developmental potential and its inter-relationship with the environment, it is important to consider the implications of globalization and, related to this, the notion of
‘post-development’ (many contemporary post-development strategies focus on challenges that have, perhaps, emerged from globalization) for the effective development of tourism.
The purpose of this chapter, then, is to highlight the key themes and issues related to globalization, to explore the extent to which tourism reflects or is influenced by the processes and outcomes of globalization and to consider tourism’s developmental role within a ‘post-development’ framework. Col- lectively, the discussion of these issues will support the argument that viewing tourism within specific destinational or sectoral contexts as a form of capital- istic production and consumption provides the most appropriate and logical basis for exploring ways of enhancing or optimizing its economic contribution within environmental parameters. Evidently, therefore, it is first necessary to review briefly the globalization debate.
Globalization: Reality or myth?
The term ‘globalization’ is, like ‘sustainability’, widely used and applied in numerous contexts. In particular, it has become ‘part of the linguistic currency of contemporary business’ (Seaton and Alford, 2001, p97), not an altogether surprising assertion given that it is within the realm of production, trade and finance that material evidence of globalization (or, perhaps, international inte- gration and interdependence) is most evident. However, and again as is the case with the concept of sustainability, although most people have some idea of what globalization means, there is no single, precise, universally agreed definition of it. In other words, although there is general agreement that there is an increasing degree of global inter-connectedness – the development of real-time information and communication through the internet being a notable example – there remains a lack of consensus over the extent to which globalization
is a universal process which all societies and institutions are undergoing or whether it is simply a convenient label attached to the internationalization of certain spheres of social, economic and political life. Indeed, opinion remains divided between, on the one hand, those who consider globalization to be a real, identifiable and measurable influence to which all people and nations are subject (a group that Held et al (1999, p2) refer to as ‘hyperglobalizers’) and, on the other hand, the ‘sceptics’ , who deny the validity of the concept, arguing that it is ‘essentially a myth which conceals the reality of an international economy . . . in which national governments remain very powerful (Held et al, 1999, p2). In between these two extremes a third group can be identified, the so-called ‘transformationalists’, who recognize a process of global change, the bi-polar west and east centres of political economy having been replaced by a single, inter-connected, yet less certain, world to which societies and nations are having to adapt.
Even the alleged relationship between globalization and tourism in particular is contestable. Although information and communication techno- logy, such as global distribution systems, on line booking (dynamic packaging), information sources and other services, from travel insurance and health advice to consumer rights and legal action sites, provides tourists with instant access to a borderless virtual world of information (epitomized, perhaps, by Google Earth); many of the characteristics of tourism claimed to be evidence of globalization are essentially an intensification of processes that have long defined the business and practice of international tourism. Certainly, more people are travelling across international borders, more countries have become major tourist destinations and the tourism production system has become typified by more numerous multinational corporations and increased transnational vertical and horizontal integration. Recently, for example, it was announced that British Airways, already negotiating a merger with the Spanish airline Iberian and possible collaboration with American Airlines, was in merger talks with Quantas. Though these negotiations subsequently failed, the potential nevertheless remains for creating a truly global airline. However, conducting business on an increasingly global scale does not necessarily imply a movement towards a socially, politically and economically borderless, inter-dependent world.
The relevance and implications of globalization to tourism will be con- sidered shortly. Nonetheless, one of the difficulties with the concept more generally is that it means different things to different people (at least, to those who conform in principle with the idea that globalization is more than simply the internationalization of business): from the increasing mobility of people, goods, services, capital and information across a world in which political and geographic borders are of declining relevance, or so-called time- space compression (Harvey, 1989), whereby instantaneous communication and increasingly fast and inter-connected transport networks have reduced the constraints of space and time on human and economic activity, to more general notions of a process of forming a unified, global society. Irrespective of these differing perspectives, however, it is possible to identify a number of
TOURISM, GLOBALIZATION AND ‘POST-DEVELOPMENT’ 89 actual transformations in the contemporary world that may, in one way or another, contribute to a process of globalization. Such transformations include the following:
• Global production and consumption: not only is production becoming global with, for example, components manufactured in one country being assembled into the final product in another, but consumers and organiza- tions have increasing access to international products. Thus, there is in- creasing mobility of material goods across national borders.
• Global financial markets: the emergence of global financial markets, speculation in and profits from the international circulation of money and increasing access to international finance, collectively encouraged by the liberalization of cross-border movements of finance, procedural standardization and other regulation (Scholte, 2005).
• Global politics: although national sovereignty remains, the role of the state has been transformed in as much as national governance is subject to sub- state, state and supra-state agencies and organizations, the latter including regional (for example, the European Union) and global bodies, such as the Bretton Woods institutions (International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank), the World Trade Organization (WTO), or various agencies of the United Nations (UN). In other words, state governments remain responsible for national populations; national territories are, however, subject to supra- national jurisdictions.
• Global information and communication: as already noted, advances in information and communication technologies, specifically the internet but also satellite-based mobile telephony, have increased access to and flows of instantaneous/real-time communication and information on a global scale.
• Global environment: awareness of and responses to environmental chal- lenges have increasingly shifted from the local/national to the international, with issues such as climate change, water pollution, whaling and so on being recognized as global problems requiring global cooperation and action.
• Global society: the concept of the ‘global village’ has been enhanced by, for example: increasing migration, particularly ‘south-north’ but also
‘north-north’; increased multi-culturalism; worldwide participation in and communication of sporting and cultural events; internationalization of consumer products, such as food, drink, automobiles; and, of course, the growth and spread of international tourism.
Whilst these transformations in themselves do not define globalization, col- lectively they point to a process whereby states and societies are becoming
‘increasingly enmeshed in worldwide systems and networks of interaction’
(Held and McGrew, 2000, p3). This, in turn, suggests that a degree of inter- dependence exists between states and societies such that events or developments in one society or state may have significant implications for other societies and states. Frequently cited examples of this phenomenon include: the Asian financial crisis of 1997; the wider impacts of ‘9/11’ and the subsequent ‘war on
terror’; the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 and, of course, the 2008 ‘credit crunch’ and global financial crisis. Consequently, Held and McGrew (2000, p4) define globalization as: ‘the expanding scale, growing magnitude, speeding up and deepening impact of interregional flows and patterns of social interaction’. They go on to assert, however, that this does not imply a shift towards a single, harmonious, homogeneous global society. One of the contradictions of the concept is that awareness of increasing interdependence and inter-connectedness (that is, a threat to individuality, self- reliance and self-determination), may lead to animosity, conflict, xenophobia or counter-political movements, whilst a significant proportion of the world’s population remains excluded from the process of globalization.
A similar position is adopted by Scholte (2002) who, revisiting the issue of definitions of globalization, rejects a number of existing broad definitions on the basis that they are redundant; that is, they do not provide a basis for extending existing knowledge or understanding that ‘is not attainable with other concepts’. Thus, four existing definitions of globalization – globalization as internationalization (the intensification of an historical process that may be analysed from a variety of other perspectives); globalization as liberal- ization (a reworking of neo-liberal macroeconomic policy); globalization as universalization (the notion that everything – goods, services, culture – is becoming global reflects a centuries old process); and, globalization as westernization (western cultural modernization and imperialism, which have a much longer history than globalization) – are rejected in favour of a fifth definition. For Scholte (2002, p13), globalization is best conceived of as ‘the spread of transplanetary – and in recent times more particularly supraterritorial – connections between people’. That is, people are increasingly able to engage with each other globally, or within one world, suggesting that globalization is, essentially, a spatial concept.
Nevertheless, Scholte goes on to suggest six qualifications to this definition of globalization, qualifications which to some extent reflect or support the arguments of the sceptics, or those who consider it to be a mythical concept.
Specifically, Scholte accepts that:
• Globalization does not signify the end of territoriality; territorial (or national) boundaries still exist, encompassing territorial production, ident- ities and political mechanisms. For tourists, of course, national boundaries still exist. At the practical level, there are many territories where visas are required (often through complex processes and at significant expense) to gain access whilst, culturally, barriers of language, custom, values and behaviour may exist.
• Globality, or the concept of global space (‘one world’) does not exclude the existence of other social spaces; ‘the global is not a domain unto itself, separate from the regional, the national, the provincial, the local’ (Scholte, 2002, p27). Thus, global space is a collection of spatial inter-relations within the whole. Similarly, tourist spaces are discrete, identifiable spaces, though inter-related (at least in the context of international tourism) as
TOURISM, GLOBALIZATION AND ‘POST-DEVELOPMENT’ 91 elements of the global tourism system through the interaction of the local, national and international (local communities with international tourists, local business with international business, and so on).
• A binary divide does not exist between the global (distant, dominating and creating dependency) and the local (community, authenticity, empower- ment); the global and local co-exist. This distinction, however, prevails within tourism, to the extent that community-based tourism is contrasted with globalized (mass) tourism.
• Globalization does not imply cultural homogenization. That is, enhanced global connectivity and interdependence does not necessarily reduce cultural diversity: indeed, it may serve to increase cultural diversity and pluralism. Tourism is frequently accused of encouraging acculturation and cultural commoditization, yet it may also be seen as a catalyst of cultural heterogeneity.
• Globalization is not universal; more people and societies are inter-connected, but not all people and societies and not to the same extent. In fact, some societies are totally excluded from globalization. Tourism, perhaps, is an exception in as much as most, if not all, states or territories are destinations for international visitors. Nevertheless, as will be discussed in more detail shortly, few could claim to enjoy global connectivity in terms of the nature of and benefits from their tourism sector.
• Globalization is political; social interaction inevitably involves power relations, from the level of the individual to that of society, the state and the international community. Globalization empowers some (for example, supra-national agencies, multinational corporations, national govern- ments), but disempowers others. Certainly, dominant organizations or entrenched social structures may shape global inter-relations, but there is nothing certain or inevitable in this process. Power relations within tour- ism have long been seen to favour international corporations based in the metropolitan centre (Britton, 1991) yet such an analysis overlooks the power relations between other actors and the multiple political contexts within which tourism occurs. Thus, tourism in Cuba (see Chapter 2, case study) is characterized by a political economy distinctive from the dominant tourism-power relations discourse.
Thus, there are a number of challenges to the concept of globalization. Gen- erally, sceptics argue that if it cannot be interpreted as a universal, global phenomenon (and much of the evidence suggests that this is the case) then globalization lacks the spatial specificity that it suggests. In other words, it becomes impossible, both spatially and in terms of process, to distinguish the international, transnational or regional from the global and, as a consequence, globalization is an ineffective basis for considering transformations in contemporary societies. More specifically, it is argued that what is conveniently labelled ‘globalization’ is, in fact, political-economic internationalization or regionalization, with cross-border flows of goods, services and people defined primarily by three main trading and financial blocs, namely, North America,