The Government has a role to play in tourism planning which is not limited to economic development and poverty reduction but includes building the nation’s image and identity (Chheang, 2009). Tourism is widely recognized as a major income earner for various nations and the government is generally required to take on an active role in establishing policies that promote tourism for the economic betterment of the country and its residents. It is however increasingly apparent that tourism policies are being developed to advance not just the tourism industry but the government’s political ideologies.
The tourism industry is monopolized by private sector companies; whose role is focused on marketing and maintenance of tourist facilities whilst the public sector focuses on managing the tourism environment, issuing policy guidelines and protecting the nation’s image. Tourism is generally a major economic contributor, tourism policies are often formulated to maximize the profit potential of the industry, generate foreign exchange earnings and create employment opportunities within the country.
Increasingly, polices are also being used to promote various political ideologies. Some countries use tourism policies to raise the political image and legitimacy of the State. Others such as Indonesia use policies to alleviate ethnic friction between groups for national harmony. Chheang references work undertaken by Dhales in 2001 in which he investigated tourism development in Yogyakarta under Indonesian national tourism policies and the politics of the New Order regime. In this instance it was argued that “tourism is promoting two types of development “modernization” mainly for the local tourists and “ethnification” for foreign tourists (Chheang, 2009). Whether they are successful in promoting cultural integrity, diversity or identity the Government continues to link cultural identity and image with tourism development” (Chheang, 2009). This is hypocritical as promotions are not indicative of the ethnic reality neither do they deal with the issue of inter-ethnic tensions. Studies have shown that tourism instead intensifies inter-ethnic tensions.
Various Governments have also been advocating for regional cooperation and integration. This is not only prominent within Southeast Asian countries but also among African countries. In March 2004, the East African Community (EAC) was established through membership of five East African countries; Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. The aim of this joint initiative is based on the assumption that cooperation in regional tourism development encourages countries to work closely together and in so doing increases their probability of co-operating and integrating in other economic and social fields for the mutual benefit of all parties. However, countries such as Tanzania are reluctant to fully commit to the partnership for fear that they may be marginalized by their more influential partner.
The case study conducted on Cambodia does provide hope that ideological and economic policies can be used to promote tourism development particularly with leadership support from high ranking Government officials. This is evident in the country’s successful implementation of a “Rectangular Strategy” “focused on promoting economic growth, employment, equity and efficiency in the public sector” while at the same time using tourism to reestablish the nation’s identity tarnished by civil war, French colonization and neighboring influences. This is evident in the resurgence of the Angkor Monument as a symbol of national pride.
I therefore agree with Butler, attention should be focused on addressing the relationship between politics and development. As this ensures policies tackle aspects of cultural heritage management, regional cooperation, political stability, security and safety while incorporating;
- environmental protection;
- stakeholder collaboration;
- human resource development;
- legal measures;
- destination product diversification as well as marketing promotion; and
- development of infrastructure and tourism facilities.
References:
- Butler, W. Richard. (2006). The Tourism Area Life Cycle, Applications and Modifications, Vol. 1, Aspects of Tourism 28. Clevedon. Buffalo. Toronto. Channel View Publications
- Vannarith Chheang. (Spring 2009). State and Tourism Planning: A case study of Cambodia. Turismos [Electronic Version]: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 4, (1), 63-82.
- (2007). Regional Overview: Membership Organization [Electronic Version]. Country Report. 49-51.
- (2009, October 18). East African Community. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Community
I totally agree with you that special attention must be paid to politics and development, and specially in the field of tourism. You mentioned something that I have also been witness in my country, Honduras; where the private sector, and even the government, is concentrating in generating proffits at all cost, and it´s the NGO´s and public sector who are worryin about making out of tourism a more sustainable activity.
Dear Liz,
I really like the approach of your article, its content and examples, specially the latter that allow the reader understand easily your topic. In my opinion, the fact that policies follow the same ideology of the government aids to carry out easily strategies, consequently objectives. However, the problem is that governments, specially those in developing countries, modify policies and regulations in order to benefit certain power groups. And the most concerning thing is when there is no political stability, or when there are big unevenness among the ideology of the incoming government and the one that is finishing. Then, the concept of development is pushed in the background, and the only thing that matters is the clash of interests.
Hello Liz,
Nice topic & article. I agree with Ana’s opinion about how recent-elected governments in developing countries change their policies and abandon projects of previous governments – this causes a lack of continuation of long-term strategies and is very bad for bulding a country’s imaage and develop its tourism sector. However, I still believe that government involvement in tourism plays a very important role, at least is much better than leaving a destination only at the private sector’s hands. It’s curious to see destination policies and promotion in Europe, where many countries are formed by regions/provinces which lack a sense of national idendity: one example that comes to my mind is Italy: they do not have a national tourist board and have no “national promotion”; in fact, recently the different regions in Italy got more autonomy to create policies & promote themselves in their own way (it seems to work well with well-known branded regions like Tuscany, but I guess it’s not a good thing on a national level). Spain has also some autonomous provinces but Turespaña seems to have succeed to create co-marketing activities and to put all the provinces under the same “umbrella-brand” of Spain. USA is another country where there is almost none promotion of the country as a whole, but since they have so many strong “brands” like New York, Grand Canyon (Arizona), Florida, California, it seems to work well this way. I also find interesting how tourism can be branded as one product incorporating “rival” countries, like Israel & Palestine, under the brand of being the Holy Land. Considering your experience in the Kenya, can you relate your article to your country?
I’m very happy that you use my fellow Cambodian author as a main reference !