Section 2: Disciplines and Areas of Study
3. Longitudinal elements
2.10 Tourism Public Policy
88 © G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto 2017. Tourism Theory (G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto) The term ‘tourism public policy’ refers to the guid-
ance given by various levels of government for the development of touristic activity in a particular loca- tion. This guidance should be expressed both in an official document and in other government docu- ments related to the topic. It is advisable to consult representatives from the tourism sector and society when preparing this type of document. According to Edgell and Swanson (2013), a tourism policy should aim to improve the quality of life of local citizens at a particular destination. According to Krippendorf (1982), four primary factors – social, cultural, eco- nomic and environmental – should be considered when establishing a tourism policy. It is also impor- tant to seek to develop the sector holistically, analys- ing and valorizing each component of the tourist system to which the policy will be applied.
There are a large number of studies in tourism public policy. These studies include but are not lim- ited to the following: Elliot (1983, 1997), Richter (1983), Hall (1994), Dredge (1999), Dredge (2006), Stevenson et al. (2008), Farsari et al. (2011) and Wang and Ap (2013). According to Henriksen and Halkier (2012), the various studies show that tourism public policy is particularly focused on the inherent difficulty of orchestrating changes that involve a combination of different services, such as transport, accommodation, attractions and a range of other activities, which are typically offered by small local companies.
According to Dredge and Jenkins (2011), research on planning and policy in the field of tourism is rela- tively new, beginning at the turn of the century. The field has developed under the influence of three fac- tors: first, the growing influence of criticism, which is supported by social constructionism; secondly, an increase in the post-disciplinary research perspective, which opened new investigative frontiers with ele- ments outside the field of tourism; and thirdly, the knowledge gained from reflective practice with attention to ethical values, which has critically stimu- lated interpretive theoretical development.
Tourism public policy should be used to foster tourist development based on actions planned by the sector. According to Fayos-Solá (1996), various changes in the tourism sector, such as the growth of market segmentation, new technologies, new prod- ucts and new forms of management, require gov- ernments to significantly update tourism public policies. He added that tourism public policy has shifted from the pure promotion of destinations to the development of products intended to maintain competitiveness. According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 2011), this perspective indicates that countries and regions that want to increase and develop domestic tourism and to succeed in the competitive international market should have a clear public policy that establishes guidelines, strat- egies, objectives and key actions for the sector.
Edgell and Swanson (2013) stated that the role of tourism policy and strategic planning is crucial to eco- nomic prosperity, sustainable management and the quality of life of most communities, destinations and countries. The key to tourism’s growth will thus be to ensure careful and effective planning at destinations.
Wang and Ap (2013), in a study focused on China, identified four factors that influence the implementa- tion of a tourism public policy (i) economic and social macro-environment; (ii) institutional arrangements;
(iii) inter-organizational relationships and coordin- ation structures; and (iv) interest groups.
Government tourism policy often reflects the polit- ical landscape. Usually, there is strong internal debate about the impact of tourism, the amount of financial resources to be invested in developing a tourism pol- icy, and the desired relationship with other govern- ments and states (independent or not), among other factors. Indeed, government policies and government actions can either stimulate or slow the development of tourism, both nationally and internationally.
A political system can be liberal, democratic or totalitarian, and it can be politically right or left wing.
In practice, however, every type of regime should be responsible for tourism. The political system’s domi-
Tourism Public Policy 89 nant ideological and philosophical beliefs and val-
ues will determine the extent to which governments will intervene in the economic system, the private sector’s role, and the amount of support and funding that will be given to the development of tourism.
According to Mattheus (2000), the government’s interaction with tourism depends primarily on the nature of the political system in question, how pow- ers are distributed among the various agencies and how power is derived, whether through popular elec- tions or a less democratic process. In a federal system, for example, governmental functions are distrib- uted among various levels of authorities, such as provinces, states, counties, cities and municipalities, in addition to the national level. In a capitalist econ- omy, there is more emphasis on interaction with the private sector to promote and regulate tourism, whereas in a socialist system, the government assumes a more regulatory role, directing and providing tourism businesses. Valente et al. (2014, 2015) dis- cussed the various forms of leadership exercised by regional tourism organizations, analysing a touris- tic region of Brazil’s Estrada Real (Royal Road). In their studies, these authors identified the governance characteristics of both a market- and a government- focused organization.
Brown (2000) stated that the lack of a clear and defined tourism policy for a particular region that wishes to develop tourism can cause many problems for the tourism sector, including the following: the destruction of cultural and natural heritage; mistakes in decisions about applying tourism investments; and the creation of a stereotypical image of the destina- tion due to misguided marketing strategies.
Mattheus (2000) also discussed how the govern- ment functions affecting tourism are distributed by organization type and level; there are various levels of government authority for various tourism issues.
Three examples of this phenomenon include the following. First, the visa requirement for foreign tourists entering the country is a decision made by the national government that it is applied through- out the country’s territory. Secondly, the require- ment to be vaccinated against a particular type of disease may exist for visitors to one state and not another, even though they are neighbours within a single nation. This is a state decision and does not interfere in the national territory. Thirdly, a license to build a hotel by the ocean will first be considered by the local authority (i.e. the municipality), making the decision one that primarily influences the region of the hotel’s direct geographical reach.
Elliot (1997) constructed a diagram (Fig. 25) to illustrate the complexity of public-sector tourism management. According to Elliot, managers must act in accordance with the political and industrial environments, using their power in connection with formal and informal factors.
For Elliot (1997), public-sector management has five basic principles: public interest, public service, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. The man- agement of the public machine should follow the principles established by Max Weber, who argued that privilege administration is focused on the sys- tem of legal authority legitimized by society and is based on the rational form of administration.
However, in the context of matters of public inter- est, there is always the possibility of an irrational administration in which private interests override collective interests. Elliot (1997) listed the ideal characteristics and principles of public administra- tion proposed by Weber, as shown in Box 1.
The ministries and departments (and/or secretari- ats) are the bodies that bring together staff working to establish and provide more detail to tourism public policy. The need for an independent ministry of tourism has been a problem for governments:
because tourism is associated with a large number of sectors, it becomes impossible for a single ministry to coordinate the entire process. Furthermore, an independent ministry of tourism, depending on the stance of the country in which it is located, may have little political power to request government funds.
Taking these factors into account, some countries have chosen to combine tourism with another min- istry, such as sports, technology, science, culture, envi- ronment, economics or leisure, among others.
The government’s relationship with tourism is so complex that academic studies have discussed how and in what way the government’s actions and the government itself influence and impact touristic activity. For example, Dregde (2006), whose study focused on the relationship between the local govern- ment and the tourism sector, critically discussed the role of local tourism networks in promoting or inhibiting the formation of public–private partner- ships. Dredge’s case study was developed in Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia, with results suggesting that careful management between the state and society is necessary to promote an environ- ment that is hospitable to innovative public–private partnerships. Other examples of studies related to this field have been conducted by Bramweel and Sharman (1999), who analysed collaboration among stake-
90 Chapter 2.10
PRINCIPLES POLITICS
POWER PRACTICE
Governments:
national/federal, regional/state,
local
Parliament/congress committees Political parties Foreign governments
Interest/hobby groups, industry, environment, trade/labour unions
Industry, hotels/resorts,
airlines, travel agents, peak
organizations Courts/judicial system
Citizens, public opinion,
mass media
MARKET SUPPLY/DEMAND PROCESS
POLICY Implementation,
formulation
INFORMAL FORMAL Public sector management,
ministries/departments, statutory authorities, national tourism boards,
regional tourism boards
RESULTS:
PRACTICE
RESULTS:
PERFORMANCE, IMPACT TOURISM
International organizations
UN, UNDP, WTO
Fig. 25. Tourism: the political, administrative and industrial environments. (From Elliot, 1997.)
holders to develop policies at destinations; Wang and Ap (2013), who developed a conceptual framework describing the factors that affect the implementation of tourism policy and applied the model in China;
Ruhanen and Reid (2014), who analysed the legal aspects of tourism planning and policy in Australia;
and Panyik (2015), who focused on the topic of tour- ism policies in rural areas in Hungary and analysed how governance factors influence the support given by local administrators to tourism.
The actions of governments and ministries, secre- tariats and departments of tourism should lead to tourism planning. For example, New Zealand has
had a national structure for tourism since 1901, Spain since 1911, Italy since 1919 and Mexico since 1928. National governments’ interest can also be measured (to an extent) by the results obtained by tourism public policies – or the lack thereof.
It is not always possible to know a government’s interest in tourism and the guidelines for the pri- vate sector, a fact that can cause an imbalance in public–private relations and lead to either an imbal- ance or poor guidance of the activity. The ideal is when there is a public–private partnership to develop this activity because everyone is able to profit from appropriate tourist development.
Tourism Public Policy 91
Operationalizing
In 2012, the Malaysian Ministry of Tourism received the World Tourism Organization’s Ulysses Award in the Innovation in Public Policy and Governance category for the Malaysia Homestay Experience Programme. The programme was launched in 1995 and since then, hundreds of thousands of domestic and international tourists have stayed in the homes of Malaysian families. This programme represents an original proposal for understanding and experi- encing local life and culture. In addition to provid- ing the best touristic experience, the initiative has become a source of income for local communities, especially in rural areas (UNWTO, 2012).
Exercise
After consulting the website of the highest govern- ment agency for tourism in your country, define the tourism policy that your country has adopted. Check if there is a tourism plan based on that policy.
References
Bramweel, B. and Sharman, A. (1999) Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26, 392–415.
Brown, F. (2000) Tourism Reassessed: Blight or Blessing?
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J.M. (2011) New spaces of tour- ism planning and policy. In: Dredge, D.M. and Jenkins, J.M. (eds) Stories of Practice: Tourism Policy and Planning. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, UK, pp. 1–12.
Dredge, D. (1999) Destination place planning and design.
Annals of Tourism Research 26, 772–791.
Dredge, D. (2006) Policy networks and the local organ- isation of tourism. Tourism Management 27, 269–280.
Edgell, D.L. and Swanson, J. (2013) Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Routledge, New York.
Elliot, J. (1983) Politics, power, and tourism in Thailand.
Annals of Tourism Research 10, 377–393.
Elliot, J. (1997) Politics of Tourism. Routledge, London.
Farsari, I., Butler, W.R. and Szivas, E. (2011) Complexity in tourism policies: a cognitive mapping approach.
Annals of Tourism Research 38, 1110–1134.
Fayos-Solá, E. (1996) Tourism policy: a midsummer night's dream? Tourism Management 17, 405–412.
Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Henriksen, P. and Halkier, H. (2012) From local promotion towards regional tourism policies: knowledge processes and actor networks in North Jutland, Denmark. In: Kumral, N. and Önder, A.Ö. (eds) Tourism, Regional Development and Public Policy. Routledge, New York, pp. 5–22.
Krippendorf, J. (1982) Towards new tourism policies: the importance of environmental and sociocultural factors.
Tourism Management 3, 135–148.
Mattheus, H.G. (2000) Government. In: Jafari, J. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Tourism. Routledge, London, pp. 256–259.
Panyik, E. (2015) Rural tourism governance: determinants of policy-makers’ support for tourism development.
Tourism Planning and Development 12, 48–72.
Richter, L.K. (1983) Tourism politics and political science:
a case of not so benign neglect. Annals of Tourism Research 10, 313–335.
Ruhanen, L. and Reid, S. (2014) The legislative aspects of tourism policy and planning: stakeholder perspectives.
International Journal of Tourism Policy 5, 192–207.
Stevenson, N., Airey, D. and Miller, G. (2008) Tourism policy making: the policymakers’ perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research 35, 732–750.
Box 1. Weber’s principles and characteristics of public administration. (From Elliot, 1997.) 1. The staff members are personally free, observing
only the impersonal duties of their offices.