This article was downloaded by: [190.82.172.

166]
On: 01 February 2013, At: 11:09
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Anatolia: An International Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20
Scaling, territoriality, and networks of a
tourism place
Pieter Terhorst
a
& Hilal Erku-ztrk
b
a
Department of Geography, Planning and International
Development Studies, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
b
Public Administration Department, Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences, Akdeniz University, 07058, Antalya,
Turkey
Version of record first published: 19 Aug 2011.
To cite this article: Pieter Terhorst & Hilal Erku-ztrk (2011): Scaling, territoriality, and networks
of a tourism place, Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 22:2,
168-183
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2011.597932
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Scaling, territoriality, and networks of a tourism place
Pieter Terhorst
a
* and Hilal Erkus-O

zturk
b
a
Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, University of
Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
b
Public Administration Department, Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences, Akdeniz University, 07058, Antalya, Turkey
(Received 20 March 2011; nal version received 10 June 2011)
In the literature, tourism is dened as a production system that is composed of an array
of economic activities aimed at producing and selling tourist products, the tourist
product itself and the institutions that regulate the system. Although it is very fruitful, it
suffers from a weakness from a spatial perspective. The rst aim of this paper is to
spatialize tourism production systems in a more systematic and multidimensional way
by discussing the intertwined role of place, territory, scale, and networks. Second, the
paper aims to show how and why the process of tourism place making, especially in the
case of Antalya, is narrowly intertwined with the scaling, territoriality, and global
production networks of a tourism production system. (Re)scaling, territory, and
networks have played an important role in Antalyas tourism production system, which
institutionally complement each other and form a coherent whole.
Keywords: tourism production system; tourism place; territoriality; scaling; networks
Introduction
What do tourists want? The answer is a tourist experience that breaks more or less
through the routines of the tourists daily life. We say more or less because many tourist
experiences that people are looking for have very much to do with their status and lifestyle
in their daily lives. And many, but not all, tourists are looking for tourist experiences that
are predictable, standardized, and provided in an efcient way at a fair price. Just like daily
life, tourism demand has become rationalized or, in the word of Ritzer (1998),
McDonaldized, and has been closely bound up with a rationalization of supply. Ever
more tourist experiences are sold as commodities and are produced under capitalist
relations of production. Due to this process of commodication of tourist experiences, it is
tempting to conceive tourism as an industry. But in tourism literature the point has very
often been made that it is very difcult to conceive of tourism as an industry due to its
multi-product and multi-services character.
In addition, conceiving tourism as an industry implies a too narrow focus on economic
actors only, instead of on the interplay between economic and political actors involved in
producing tourism experiences that t better to a political-economic approach. It is for
these reasons that Britton (1991) has, in a path-breaking article, introduced the concept of
a tourism production system that is composed of the array of economic activities aimed at
producing and selling tourist products, the tourist product itself (and the various physical
and other features and attractions of which it is constituted) and the institutions that
ISSN 1303-2917 print/ISSN 2156-6909 online
q 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2011.597932
http://www.informaworld.com
*Corresponding author. Email: p.j.f.terhorst@uva.nl
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 22, No. 2, August 2011, 168183
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

regulate the system. Like many others (e.g. Cornelissen, 2005; Shaw & Williams, 2004),
we have been inspired by Brittons tourism-production-system approach but aim to go
beyond it in this paper because it suffers from two weaknesses.
First, it fails to make clear why a tourism production system is a system. Tourism
production system analysis is strong by including a large array of economic activities,
social groups, cultural features, physical elements, and regulating agencies that are
involved in producing tourism experiences, but is weak on theorising why all these
elements form a more-or-less coherent whole. The rst aim of this paper is to make more
explicit on what grounds we can speak of a tight t or loose coupling between elements
of a tourism production system. In doing so we rely on literature on the variety-of-
capitalism thesis and regulation theory in which is argued that national forms of capitalism
form a coherent whole because of institutional complementarity (Amable, 2003; Coates,
2005; Crouch, 2005; Hall & Soskice, 2001; Hollingsworth & Boyer, 1997). By relying on
this literature, this paper remains close to Brittons political-economic approach and is
simultaneously different from studies on tourism systems (Baggio, 2008; Leiper, 1990;
Mill & Morrison, 2007) in which that literature is largely ignored.
Second, it fails to bring in space in tourism production systems in a systematic way. A
tourism production system clearly is a spaceless concept that can and should be
spatialized. Britton (1991) himself did it by pointing out that parts of a tourism production
system are place-based (tourism places) and territorially bounded while other parts are
network-based (for example, global tourism value chains). But these spatial dimensions of
tourism production systems were presented as examples without attention being paid to
how they are intertwined. The second aim of this paper is to bring in space in tourism
production systems in a more systematic way. In this we rely on recent papers of Jessop,
Brenner and Jones (2008), Brenner (2009) and Mahon and Keil (2009) who have argued
that many studies in social science have been one-dimensional, i.e. socio-spatial relations
have been analyzed through the lens of either place, or territory, or scale or networks. As a
result of this one-dimensionality, many studies in social science suffer from place
centrism, methodological centrism, scale centrism, or network centrism. To avoid this
one-dimensionality, they argue that place, territory, scale and networks are co-constitutive
dimensions of social space. Uneven spatial development is the outcome of a re-articulation
of each dimension of socio-spatiality in relation to one another through ongoing strategies
and political-economic struggles.
Do tourism studies generally suffer from place centrism, methodological centrism,
scale centrism, or network centrism? No, thats not what we intend to say. Many studies on
tourism have paid attention to at least two dimensions of socio-spatial relations such as, for
instance, the relationship between the development of tourism places and global networks
or the relationship between territoriality and global networks in the development
of tourism enclaves (see for an overview of this literature Shaw & Williams, 2004,
pp. 216268). But it mostly remains implicit how and why the four dimensions of a
tourismproduction system (place, territory, scale and networks) are intertwined, if they are
based on a theoretically well-grounded tourism production system approach at all. That is
what this paper aims to do.
In line with these theoretical debates, the third aim of this paper is to show how and
why the process of tourism place making in Antalya is narrowly intertwined with the
scaling, territoriality, and global production networks of a tourism production system. In
more down-to-earth terms, it is the Turkish national state that created territorially bounded
Tourism Regions and Tourism Centers. These territories have been governed by the
national Ministry of Culture and Tourism in collaboration with national and national-local
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 169
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

tourism associations of private tourism rms that have also been created by the state.
(Re-)scaling, territory, and networks have played a much more important role in Antalyas
tourism urbanization than place creation.
Tourism production system: a useful concept but with pitfalls
In tourism literature, the point has often been made that tourism cannot simply be
conceived as an industry like the automobile or computer industry because, in tourism, no
single product is produced but rather a wide range of products and services that interact to
provide an opportunity to fulll a tourist experience that comprises both tangible parts
(e.g. hotel, restaurant, or air carrier) and intangible parts (e.g. sunset, scenery, mood). It is
precisely its multi-product and multi-services character that makes it difcult to speak of a
tourism industry (Ioannides & Debbage, 1998; Judd, 2006; Leiper, 1990).
A tourism production system includes (a) all economic activities that contribute to
production and distribution of tourism products and services, i.e. products and services
that generate tourist experiences; (b) the social groups, cultural features, and physical
elements that are incorporated into tourism products and services; and (c) agencies for
regulating the commercial behavior and social externalities associated with such
production and distribution (see Britton, 1991, pp. 455456). One can easily see that a
tourism production system includes, apart from cultural features and physical elements, a
large variety of economic, political and other actors.
In tourism literature, whether or not explicitly based on a tourism production system
analysis, one can nd many lists of all sorts of tourism producers such as hotels,
restaurants, transport providers, travel intermediaries (tour operators and travel agencies),
providers of attractions and events (for instance, museums and festivals), and regulatory
bodies (producer associations and the state) among many others that produce tourist
experiences (Cornelissen, 2005; Leiper, 1990; Page & Hall, 2003). However useful they
may be, they seldom go beyond a mere enumeration or taxonomy of types of tourism
providers, physical and cultural features. The question is seldom explicitly addressed why
a tourism production system should be seen as a system and how precisely a national
and/or local tourism production system is intertwined with a broader national social
system of production, i.e. a national mix of institutions in the sphere of capital-labor
relations, vocational training and education, corporate governance, nancial system, inter-
rm relations, and social protection. It is true that a number of studies have been published
on Fordism and post-Fordism in tourism (Ioannides & Debbage, 1998; Ritzer & Liska,
1997) or, more indirectly, have been inspired by the French regulation school (Shaw &
Williams, 2004) but these studies assume that Fordist or post-Fordist forms of tourism are
basically similar and hardly pay attention to specic national forms of capitalism.
A tourism production system is, rst, a system because of technical complementarity
of goods and services. By mutual technical complementarity is meant that the utility of a
good is higher when it is simultaneously consumed with another good or shortly thereafter.
For instance, ink and a pen mutually complement each other. The fact that goods
complement each when they are consumed simultaneously or shortly after each other
implies that they have to be consumed in one place. That is why we nd much technical
complementarity in tourism. Cultural and/or physical attractions can only be visited by
tourists if hotels, restaurants, and transportation are available. Some tourism production
systems, particularly specialized in sun-sea-sand holidays, show a high degree of technical
complementarity of a limited range goods and services, namely sun, sea, transportation,
hotels, and restaurants.
170 P. Terhorst and H. Erkus-O

zturk
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

However, other tourism production systems, particularly specialized in urban tourism,
show much less technical complementarity of goods and services because they are
substitutes of each other (substitutes are opposite to complementary goods and services).
To visit a distant city one obviously needs transportation, a hotel, and a restaurant but,
once arrived, one can choose to spend the day and night in various ways (walking around
and enjoying the monumental urban landscape or fun shopping or going to a museum
during the day and going to the opera or a night club at night). There is obviously no
technical complementarity between transportation, a hotel, restaurants on the one hand
and the activities and services that are not chosen on the other. In sum, the technical
complementarity of goods and services of a tourism production system varies from high to
low and varies between systems of tourism production.
A tourism production system is, secondly and more interestingly, a system because of
institutional complementarity, a concept that plays a key role in the so-called variety-of-
capitalism literature and regulation theory (Amable, 2003; Coates, 2005; Crouch, 2005;
Hall & Soskice, 2001 and Hollingsworth & Boyer, 1997). Thus, it is institutional
complementarity that forges a tourism production system into a coherent whole. Tourism
production systems not only vary according to types of tourism goods and services that are
produced, distributed and regulated but also how it is done, i.e. according to their modes of
economic governance. For instance, access to beaches can be public or private, museums
can be run by the state, by a private rm or by a foundation, hotels compete with each other
but simultaneously cooperate with each other in associations, urban planning in tourism
places is more social centered (the state is the leading actor) or more market centered
(private businesses are the leading actors), and global tourism value chains can be
governed by a variety of mixes of markets, corporate hierarchies, and networks.
The fact that modes of governance are almost always found in various combinations in
reality, obviously, is the logical outcome of conceiving them as ideal types. But there is
more. There is institutional complementarity between them. In the variety-of-capitalism
literature, the term institutional complementarity is used in different ways (see Boyer,
2005; Crouch, 2005, pp. 4673) but two types of institutional complementarity are most
relevant to our discussion.
. In the so-called logic of complementarity, one institution makes up for the
deciencies of the other. In doing so, it raises the returns to actors from the rst
institution. For example, when strong familial social support networks offset the
vicissitudes of a highly liberalized labor market in tourism places. In such a case, the
existence of the former makes the latter more socially and politically acceptable,
thus allowing a tourism place to gain the advantages of a liberal labor market.
. The second type lies at the heart of most theories of variety of capitalism: logic of
synergy or complementarity in the economists sense. According to Amable (2003,
pp. 5473), whose view is close to that of the regulation school, institutional
complementarity means that one institutional form makes the other institutional
form more efcient (and vice versa). For instance, in many tourism countries
inbound tourism, sun-sea-sand tourism in particular, is dominated by foreign big
tour operators who prefer to do business with big hotels because it reduces
transaction costs. In other words: corporate hierarchies in the hotel industry make
corporate hierarchies in the tour operator industry more efcient.
Owing to institutional complementarity, which makes institutions more efcient, it is
highly likely that there is at least some institutional complementarity in a tourism
production system. Efciency reduces the probability that all institutions of a tourism
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 171
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

production system can be combined at random. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that
all institutions of a tourism production system perfectly complement each other into a fully
coherent whole. Institutional complementarity is not so much the result of design by one
powerful ruler but the outcome of unilateral or mutual adaptation by actors, co-evolution,
trial-and-error, and coincidence. In addition, institutions are not created and do not evolve
for reasons of efciency only but also for reasons of redistribution. This makes a perfect
adaptation and a perfect institutional complementarity unlikely. Finally, institutions are
not only constraining but also enabling. Some actors can make use of institutions in a new
way and can make in a Schumpeterian-like way new combinations of institutions that
deviate from the dominant tourism production system. For these reasons it is likely that a
tourism production system shows some hybridities and is somewhere in between the
extremes of loose coupling (weak integration) and tight t (strong integration). Thus, the
degree of institutional complementarity in a tourism production system varies (Crouch,
2005; Deeg, 2005).
Spatial dimensions of tourism production systems: place, territory, scale and
networks
A tourism production system is in itself a spaceless concept its denition does not refer
to space at all but from the foregoing discussion it is clear that it is impossible to analyze
a tourism production system without simultaneously spatializing it. There is only a
technical complementarity between sets of specic tourism goods and services when they
are produced in a specic place. And it is hard to speak of institutional complementarity
without referring to space either. Tourism places are made up of a specic mix of modes of
economic governance at the local level that complement each other while they often
simultaneously show many characteristics of a broader national social system of
production in which they are embedded.
How can we bring in space in a tourism production system in a systematic way? In
recent papers, several authors (Brenner, 2009; Jessop, Brenner & Jones, 2008; Mahon &
Keil, 2009) have argued that the four dimensions of socio-spatial relations that have
dominated the analysis of the large-scale political-economic transformations over the last
40 years are associated with the crisis of Fordismand globalization, namely territory, place,
scale, and networks. However, many studies have been done from the perspective of one of
these dimensions only while neglecting the others. In the worst cases, a single dimension is
ontologically privileged as the essential feature of sociospatial relations. For instance, there
is a lot of literature on tourismplaces (Hayllar, Grifn &Edwards, 2008; Page &Hall, 2003;
Selby, 2004) but it is no exaggeration to say that it largely ignores how these places are
related to a broader national social systemof production and/or the specic formof the state
they are part of. They treat places as discrete, more-or-less self-contained ensembles of
social relations without explicitly analyzing how they are embedded in nationally specic
forms of capitalism and state forms. And the so-called variety-of-capitalism literature
referred to above was strongly focused on the level of the national state only until recently
and was largely blind to geography (see Crouch & Voelzkow, 2008; Morgan et al., 2005).
To overcome the fallacies of methodological territorialism, place-, scale-, and network
centrism, i.e. the fallacies to subsume all aspects of sociospatial relations under the rubric
of territory, place, scale, and network respectively, Jessop et al. (2008) and Brenner (2009)
argue that social scientists should analyze the dynamic articulation of at least two or more
of the four sociospatial relations mentioned above. Table 1 shows how the four dimensions
of sociospatial relations are intertwined with each other. Each sociospatial dimension can
172 P. Terhorst and H. Erkus-O

zturk
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

T
a
b
l
e
1
.
B
e
y
o
n
d
o
n
e
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
m
:
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
F
i
e
l
d
s
o
f
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
P
l
a
c
e
S
c
a
l
e
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
P
a
s
t
,
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
f
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
s
,
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
D
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
p
l
a
c
e
s
i
n
a
g
i
v
e
n
t
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
M
u
l
t
i
l
e
v
e
l
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
s
t
a
t
e
a
l
l
i
-
a
n
c
e
s
,
m
u
l
t
i
-
a
r
e
a
g
o
v
e
r
n
-
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
c
e
C
o
r
e
-
p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
y
,
b
o
r
d
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
,
e
m
p
i
r
e
s
,
n
e
o
m
e
d
i
e
v
a
l
i
s
m
L
o
c
a
l
e
s
,
m
i
l
i
e
u
s
,
c
i
t
i
e
s
,
s
i
t
e
s
,
r
e
g
i
o
n
s
,
l
o
c
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
g
l
o
b
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
l
a
b
o
r
l
i
n
k
e
d
t
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y
s
c
a
l
e
d
p
l
a
c
e
s
L
o
c
a
l
/
u
r
b
a
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
,
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
S
c
a
l
e
S
c
a
l
a
r
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
p
o
w
e
r
(
u
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
t
a
t
e
,
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
,
e
t
c
)
S
c
a
l
e
a
s
a
r
e
a
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
l
e
v
e
l
(
l
o
c
a
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
o
g
l
o
b
a
l
)
,
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
l
a
b
o
r
(
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
d
o
l
l
)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
y
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
n
e
s
t
e
d
o
r
t
a
n
g
l
e
d
h
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
i
e
s
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
p
o
w
e
r
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
,
n
o
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
-
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
g
i
m
e
s
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
O
r
i
g
i
n
-
e
d
g
e
,
r
i
p
p
l
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
(
r
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
o
l
d
i
n
g
,
c
r
o
s
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
,
i
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
G
l
o
b
a
l
c
i
t
y
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
,
p
o
l
y
n
u
c
l
e
a
t
e
d
c
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
s
h
e
d
s
i
t
e
s
F
l
a
t
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
y
w
i
t
h
m
u
l
-
t
i
p
l
e
,
a
s
c
a
l
a
r
e
n
t
r
y
p
o
i
n
t
s
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
o
f
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
,
s
p
a
c
e
s
o
f

o
w
s
,
r
h
i
z
o
m
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
J
e
s
s
o
p
,
B
r
e
n
n
e
r
a
n
d
J
o
n
e
s
(
2
0
0
8
,
p
.
3
9
5
)
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 173
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

be deployed in three ways within the matrix. For instance territory can be explored (i) in
itself as a product of bordering strategies (territory ! territory); (ii) as a structuring
principle or causal mechanism that shapes other dimensions of socio-spatial relations
(reading the matrix horizontally, we see territory ! place; territory ! scale; territory
! network); and (iii) as a structured eld produced in part through the impact of other
socio-spatial structuring principles on territorial dynamics (now reading the matrix
vertically we see how territory is shaped by other socio-spatial dimensions: place !
territory; scale ! territory; and network ! territory).
Table 1 not only shows the four dimensions of socio-spatial relations but also how they
are simultaneously the medium and outcome of each other. And it reminds us that we
should analyze the dynamic articulation of at least two or more of the socio-spatial
dimensions. But there is more at stake. Table 1 suggests that territory, place, scale, and
networks are equally important as structuring principles for sociospatial relations in all
historically and geographically specic contexts. But this is not true. Territory, place,
scale, and networks are simultaneously the medium and outcome of historically and
geographically specic power relations that are relatively xed in space and time. But the
signicance of each of these dimensions as structuring principles for sociospatial relations
varies with different historically and geographically specic power relations.
The above-discussed theorizing on sociospatial relations is very helpful, we believe, in
spatializing a tourism production system. To start with, it is plausible to assume that place,
territory, scale, and network are the key dimensions of sociospatial relations in a tourism
production system (be it that environment/nature should be included in the list), and
scientic progress can be made by articulating at least two of these dimensions. In addition,
we would like to stress that tourism production systems are relatively xed in time and
space. Not only because a lot of xed capital has been invested in the built environment
such as hotels and transportation infrastructure but also because of technical and
institutional complementarities. The argument widely advanced in the variety-of-
capitalism literature that national forms of capitalism change only slowly due to
institutional complementarities, applies to tourismproduction systems as well. Institutional
complementarity in tourism production can be found in local tourism clusters that consist
of a historically and geographically specic mix of tourism associations, local networks,
and markets that complement each other (Erkus-O

ztU

rk, 2008). In the case of institutional

complementarity at one level, we speak of horizontal institutional complementarity. But
neither technical complementarity nor institutional complementarity are limited to the
local level only. Transportation, for instance, is provided at a much larger scale. And
tourism places often show many characteristics of a broader national social system of
production in which they are embedded. When tourism places or local tourism clusters are
strongly integrated with a broader national system of production, we speak of vertical
institutional complementarity. In short, tourism production systems are scaled.
Tourism places are by denition very open, which partly contributes to the creation of
their place-specic characteristics. Foreign tourists have stimulated the re-inventing of
history in many tourism places. For instance, traditional folk dancing in many Greek
tourism places would not have survived without tourism. And the historic core of
Amsterdam that has grown out to one of most important urban tourism centers of Europe
derives its specic place characteristics not only from a specic mix of local and national
institutions, practices and policies (scaling!) but also from the large numbers of tourists
and day trippers that visit the city (Terhorst & van de Ven, 2003). In addition, tourism
places are in various ways integrated with global value chains. The rst studies that have
been done on global tourism value chains (Clancy, 1998; Tremblay, 1998) suffer from
174 P. Terhorst and H. Erkus-O

zturk
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

network centrism, just as much as the literature on networks, ows and mobilities does
(Castells, 1996 and Sheller & Urry, 2006) because they ignore that global value chains are
simultaneously scaled and territorialized. However, inspired by global production network
analysis (Coe, Dicken & Hess, 2008; Dicken et al., 2001) that connects global value chains
with national business systems and local clusters, Erkus-O

ztU

rk and Terhorst (2010) show

how the form of the global tourism value chain from Holland to Turkey is shaped by the
specic Dutch context as well as by the specic development of Antalya, Turkeys most
important mass tourism region. And the specic form of the global value chain, in its turn,
has shaped the specic development of Antalya.
The development of tourism places often is inuenced by what Brenner (2004, pp. 68
113) calls state spatial strategies (geographies of state intervention into socio-economic
life) and state spatial projects (geographies of state territorial organization and
administrative differentiation). Both state spatial strategies and state spatial projects have a
scalar as well as a territorial dimension. The extremes of the scalar dimension of state spatial
strategies are scalar singularity (privileging of a single dominant scale for socio-economic
activities) on the one end and scalar multiplicity (distribution of socio-economic activities
among multiple scales) on the other, whereas the extremes of its territorial dimension are
equalization and concentration of socio-economic activities and investments. The
extremes of the scalar dimension of state spatial projects are centralizing on the one end
and decentralizing on the other, while the extremes of its territorial dimension are
administrative uniformity and administrative customization. In particular, the creation
of tourism resorts (enclave tourism) is mostly the outcome of a state spatial strategy to
concentrate tourism investments in some regions and places and is accompanied by either
centralized and administratively state spatial projects or decentralized and administratively
customized (area-specic institutional arrangements and levels of service provision) ones.
Scaling, territoriality, and networks in Antalya
Over the last 40 years, Antalya has grown to become the most important tourist region of
Turkey, and is with about nine million visitors per year one of the leading mass-
tourism regions of the Mediterranean Sea (see Figure 1). Antalyas tourism is almost
entirely dominated by foreign visitors. Around 95% of all of its visitors come from abroad,
particularly from (in ranking order) Germany, Russia, Ukraine, and the Netherlands
(Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2009).
This turbulent development has resulted in rapid tourism urbanization along the coast
of the province of Antalya, particularly along the coasts of the sub-provinces Alanya,
Kemer, Antalya, Belek, Manavgat and Side. This tourism urbanization has been
accompanied with negative sideeffects, such as socio-spatial segregation and,
consequently, infrastructure problems in the city of Antalya, over-commercialization
and environmental damage, especially in the coastal areas of Antalya (Erkus-O

zturk,
2010). Natural areas have been deforested there on behalf of mass-tourism development
(Kuvan, 2005), and marine turtles are threatened, mainly due to the lights from tourist
facilities at night and sand extraction on behalf of the construction of beach hotels (DHKD,
The Turkish Society for Conservation of Natural Life, 1998).
Creation of new tourism state spaces
According to Brenner (2004), the post-Fordist era is characterized by a tendency towards
decentralization and administrative customization of state projects and a scalar
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 175
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

multiplicity and a territorial concentration of state spatial strategies. As argued below, the
case of Antalya is in line with Brenners thesis with respect to administrative
customization of state spatial projects and territorial concentration as well as multiplicity
of state spatial strategies. However, in contrast to Brenners thesis, state spatial projects
have become centralized in combination with a functional decentralization of state spatial
projects (instead of territorial) to national-local infrastructure associations.
In the 30 years of postwar economic expansion, the dominant scale of organization in
most capitalist economies was the national scale. The national economies were the objects
of economic management in Atlantic Fordism and semi-peripheral countries that pursued
import-substitution strategies. Turkey was one of the latter that followed an import
substitution policy in the period 19631980. To stimulate industrialization, ve-year
economic development plans were made in which the main strategies for each sector at the
national level were formulated. National tourism was included as one of the spearheads of
national economic growth and ve-year development plans were made for this sector as
well (Yazgan Gul, 1998). The newly founded Ministry of Tourism (the later Ministry of
Culture and Tourism) set growth targets of certied beds during each ve-year period and
selected the Marmara, Aegean, and Antalya regions as growth poles of tourism. Ever since
then, central state, particularly the Ministry of Tourism, has played a leading role in
Antalyas tourism development.
The fall of the import-substitution model and the political-economic crisis of the 1970s
paved the way for a switch towards a neo-liberal export-oriented strategy. However, this
switch was not only the result of a change of power relations at the national level. Sky-
rocketing ination and scal decits forced Turkish policy-makers to accept the conditions
set by global actors such as IMF and the World Bank and, therefore, to follow a neo-liberal
economic policy (O

nis &Senses, 2007; Tosun, 1999). Owing to the strong inuence of these
global actors, the dominance of the national scale became somewhat undermined or, in the
words of Jessop (2002), relativized. Tourism was simply based on the opportunities of
Turkeys tourism resources and on the ows of foreign currencies that were needed in the
short term(Tosun, 1999). Inaddition, tourismwas not subject totrade barriers (O

zturk, 2000).
ANTALYA
BINGL
MANISA
ISTANBUL
IZMIR
KAYSERI
KILIS
TRABZON
BURDUR
OSMANIYE
ERZURUM
BITLIS
SANLIURFA
ERZINCAN
KONYA
SIVAS
GMSHANE
DZCE
NIGDE
ADIYAMAN
AMASYA
YOZGAT
SAMSUN
DENIZLI
IGDIR
AKSARAY
KASTAMONU
ARTVIN
BOLU
MARDIN
USAK
EDIRNE
HAKKARI
KIRKLARELI
MALATYA
RIZE
KTAHYA
KARS
MUS
AFYON
HATAY
YALOVA
DIYARBAKIR
ORDU
KIRIKKALE
BURSA
SIIRT
KARAMAN
K.MARAS
NEVSEHIR
ANAKKALE
KIRSEHIR
ZONGULDAK
ISPARTA
ANKIRI
SIRNAK
BILECIK
AYDIN
KOCAELI
AGRI
VAN
ELAZIG
IEL
MUGLA
ESKISEHIR
ANKARA
Foreign arrivals acc to provinces
1-5000 (48)
15000-50000 (8)
1500000-3000000 (2)
200000-500000 (3)
3000000-> (1)
5000-15000 (13)
50000-200000 (4)
500000-1500000 (2)
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of foreign arrivals according to the provinces of Turkey (2010).
176 P. Terhorst and H. Erkus-O

zturk
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

To stimulate tourism, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism followed a spatially
selective strategy (see Figure 2). It created territorially-bounded tourism regions and
tourism centers, the boundaries of which crosscut provincial and municipal ones. These
regions and centers, some of which are located in unincorporated land on former state-
owned forests, are all governed by the national Ministry of Culture and Tourism. In other
words, provinces and municipalities have nothing to say on their development. To
stimulate large-scale tourism investments in these regions and centers, central state has
given a lot of generous incentives to private investors in hotels, holiday villages, yacht
ports, entertainment- and retail-centers (Kuvan, 2005, p. 266). (i) State-owned land,
mainly forests, has been offered for lease at very low rents over 49 or 99 years (Kuvan,
2005); (ii) bureaucratic formalities for tourism investors have been signicantly reduced;
(iii) credits for low-interest loans have been provided; and (iv) investors enjoy tax
abatements, discounts in electricity and water bills, and priorities in communication
investments (Duzgunoglu & Karabulut, 1999; Tosun, 2001; Tosun et al., 2003).
On the basis of the above-mentioned industrially and spatially selective strategies of
central state, large-scale tourism development projects have been realized in south
Antalya, Belek, Kemer, and Side since the 1980s (Figure 2). The Oymapnar Tourism
Development Area in Manavgat and Lara-Kundu Tourism Development and Protection
Area in Antalya center are examples of new tourism development centers dened by the
central state. In these centers is found the largest bed capacity by far. These tourism
centers have attracted such a large amount of tourism investments that they have run up
against the limits to growth, particularly in the case of Kemer. To remove barriers to
tourism growth, central state has simply enlarged the territories of tourism centers and
changed its plans for tourism investments. For instance, the planned infrastructure
investments for 25,000 beds in Kemer grew to 39,000 beds in the 1980s and nally to
62,000 beds in 1995.
Associations per tourism firm
No density
Very low density
Low-medium density
Medium density
Medium-high density
High density
Very high density
KORKUTELI
ELMALI
ANTALYA
Center
ANTALYA PROVINCE
Subprovince SERIK
Subprovince
IBRADI
Subprovince
AKSEKI
Subprovince
GAZIPASA
Subprovince
GUNDOGMUS
Subprovince
ALANYA
Subprovince
MANAVGAT
Subprovince
Subprovince
Subprovince
KAS
Subprovince
Territorially defined tourism centers: new tourism state spaces
Organic disorganised tourism development areas
FINIKE
Subprovince
KALE
KUMLUCA
KEMER
Figure 2. Distribution of tourism places in the province of Antalya and density of tourism
associations.
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 177
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

To support tourism development in Antalya, nation-based tourism associations such as
AKTOB (Mediterranean Touristic Hoteliers and Managers Association), have been
created. AKTOB represents the interests of all tourism rms all over the region and is
primarily involved in tourism promotion and regional marketing. In addition, and more
importantly, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism has created national-local tourism-
infrastructure associations that have got a dominant position in the growth of tourism
centers in Antalya. It is the latter that, in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism, are responsible for the nancing and provision of infrastructure in tourismregions
and centers. For instance, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism has established GATAB
(South Antalya Tourism Development and Infrastructure Management), BETUYAB
(Belek Tourism Investors Corporation) and MATAB (Manavgat Tourism and
Infrastructure Association) to provide the necessary infrastructure on behalf of private
tourism rms in the tourism centers of Kemer, Belek and Side. These national-local
tourism-infrastructure associations have become one of the few channels of representation
of local-tourism business interests. Over time they have become dominated by big tourism
rms, particularly big investors. But in exchange for the favorable investment conditions,
investors are obliged to become a member of the national-local (infrastructure) associations
because they have to contribute to the nancing of infrastructure in those regions and
centers.
As said before, in the 1980s and 1990s, the central state decentralized the responsibility
for infrastructure development in Antalyas tourism regions and centers to local
infrastructure associations such as GATAB, MATAB and BETUYAB, while the Ministry
of Culture and Tourismbecame responsible for the governing and planning of these regions
and centers. Thus, in the 1980s and 1990s, the governing of tourism development in
Antalya was functionally decentralized and territorially centralized. Thus, in these cases,
functional decentralization to local infrastructure associations has been accompanied with
territorial decentralization. Because these newly formed municipalities are very small,
their bargaining power vis-a`-vis national-local (infrastructure) associations is very weak.
Although the central state has played a leading role in Antalyas tourism place making,
international institutions and rms have become ever more important in Antalyas place-
making process. A supranational institution such as the World Bank has not only been
indirectly involved in Turkish tourism policy (as said before, Turkey could only get loans
from the World Bank on condition that it followed an export-oriented strategy of which
tourism forms a part) but also directly in tourism development projects. For instance, a
large loan from the World Bank has been of crucial importance in implementing the
Kemer Tourism Development Project (Inskeep, 1991). In addition, although most of the
larger hotels in Antalya are owned by the national entrepreneurs, and most of the small
hotels are owned by local entrepreneurs, international tour operators, airline companies
and some travel agencies, which are the key players in global tourism value chains to
Antalya, have become ever more important for Antalyas tourism. Some of these rms are
founded and owned by Turkish immigrants. For instance, O

GER, which is one of the

leading tour operators in travels from Germany to Antalya, has its headquarter in
Germany. The same applies to Corendon in the Netherlands. Tour operators play a
dominant role in Antalyas inbound tourism from abroad. They do not only dominate
Antalyas inbound tourism from abroad in sheer numbers but also in terms of power
relations vis-a`-vis its hotels. An in-depth analysis of the global tourism value chain from
the Netherlands to Antalya shows that big tour operators have a dominant position when
bargaining with hotels (Erkus-O

zturk & Terhorst, 2010). In other words, the relations

between tour operators and hotels are hierarchical, i.e. they are scaled.
178 P. Terhorst and H. Erkus-O

zturk
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

These global tourism production networks are intertwined with local networks that are
equally important in Antalyas tourism. Local partnerships observed between the same
destination (tourism district) are generally observed between hotels and hotels
(overbooking, destination strategy formulation), travel agencies, local tourism
associations (advertising, infrastructure) and municipalities (infrastructure) in Antalya.
According to the study ndings of Erkus-O

zturk (2008), networks with tourism

associations at any level of scale positively contribute to the development of tourism
places in Antalya. Betuyab is a good example in this respect. Betuyab is a private tourism
investors association created by the central state (with which it has strong links) that aims
to realize a variety of tourism projects. Betuyab is also involved in realizing environment
protection projects in collaboration with national and international organizations (World
Environmental Protection Association) that have been funded by the World Bank (Erkus-
O

zturk & Eraydin, 2010).

The outcome of state spatial strategies, global production networks including
associational networks have resulted in large-scale high-density resorts in which tourists
spend most of their holiday time, the more so because food and drinks are included in the
trips offered by tour operators. It has resulted in tourism enclaves that are almost
completely separated fromthe everyday life of local inhabitants and are hardly has linked to
their collective memory and social identity. In short, they look more like non-places than
places (Auge, 2008). Belek and Lara-Kundu tourismdevelopment center in central Antalya
are examples of the former. All this does not mean that there are only a few tourism sites
that are part of the collective memory and social identity of local inhabitants. The renovated
historical Kaleici port area with its traditional Turkish houses is a good example of this.
In the foregoing we showed that Antalyas tourism place making has been basically
shaped by (i) the territorial strategy of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (tourism
regions and tourism centers); (ii) generous incentives by central state; (iii) national-local
tourism infrastructure associations created by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism; and
(iv) global production networks. In our view, this strategy has been very successful from
the point of view of tourism growth because they all form a coherent whole. They all
technically and institutionally complement each other.
Development outside new tourism state spaces
By creating new tourism state spaces, the central state has triggered a process of uneven
tourism development. Tourism places outside tourism regions and centers that did not
benet from central-state incentives have grown at a much lower rate. However, some of
these tourism places outside tourism regions and centers have followed their own
territorial strategies to stimulate tourism. On the one hand, Antalyas Kaleici historic core
and Sides historic core have been zoned as monumental townscapes a long time ago. This
has contributed to the reconstruction of old historic buildings that had fallen into decay and
to the outgrowth of these historic cores to a popular tourism place.
On the other hand, in some places outside tourism regions and centers, such as Kas and
Alanya, tourism-place creation is the outcome of organic local development, which is
why these places are very different from the ones inside tourism zones and centers. For
instance, Kas opportunities for mass tourism are low because the place is surrounded by
high hills and mountains close to the sea. That is why it has become specialized as an elitist
tourism place with small, traditional, Turkish-style boutique hotels in which tourism is
integrated with daily life of local inhabitants. However, Alanya is built up of a mixture of
hotels ranging from 1 to 5 stars, small pensions, apartments and secondary homes. In the
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 179
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

latter place, 5-star hotel owners have followed their own territorial strategy without local
government interference by creating their own associations such as Kontid, Altuyab and
Intod.
Therefore, in the Antalya region, we also see a downward and upward scale jumping of
private tourism rms outside the tourism development zones dened by the central state.
Generally, local business interests in Antalya are now represented at different scales
simultaneously: in local departments of national tourism associations that are mainly
involved in regional tourism promotion in cooperation with the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism (such as AKTOB), in national-local tourism associations that provide the
required tourism infrastructure in cooperation with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism
(GATAB, MATAB and BETUYAB somewhat) and in local tourism associations that aim
to promote their businesses at national and global markets.
After realizing the importance of successful implementations of tourism associations led
by the central state in the process of tourismplace making, newtypes of tourismassociations
have been founded by local entrepreneurs in organically developed tourism places of
Antalya. In the 1990s, tourism rms in Antalya, especially in Alanya (I

ntod, Kontid,
Altuyab) and in Manavgat (Tisoder, Side-Tuder) began to collaborate and to organize
themselves in local self-help tourism associations, i.e. outside the business-corporatist state-
rmrelations created by the central state. These associations are founded by hotels in a small
district in a sub-province that have a different concept (for instance 5-star hotels or holiday
villages) compared with other hotels in the whole sub-province. The reason for this scalar
strategy of representation is that, in their view, the national and national-local tourism
associations did not represent their interests well. By organizing themselves in local self-help
associations they aim to represent themselves and to promote their localities at the national
and global level. However, their network relations are weak compared with the national-
local infrastructure associations and are limited to the local level only.
The growth of tourism in development regions and centers has been so high over the
last few decades that it has resulted in spillovers to other places outside these regions and
centers. Therefore, together with this cross-border tourism development, tourism
development areas are extended along the coast and new territorial borders of tourism
places are created in the coastal parts of most sub-provinces in Antalya. And although
there are technical and institutional complementarities in tourism places outside the
tourism regions and tourism centers and they have territorial boundaries as well as locally
scaled networks, they are only partly integrated with the dominant tourism production
system in Antalya.
Conclusion and implications
This paper argues that a tourism production system should be seen as a system on the basis
of technical and institutional complementarities. Because a tourism production system is a
spaceless concept, it has to be spatialized. In doing so, four dimensions of socio-spatial
relations, namely territory, scale, networks, and place are used. The main argument that
should be analyzed in this paper is, following Jessop et al. (2008), how these four
dimensions of a tourism production system are intertwined.
The case study on Antalya-Turkey shows that there are institutional complementarities
in Antalyas tourism place-making process. The basic ingredients of Antalyas place-
making process are as follows. (i) The strategy of the central state to create tourism regions
and centers, national-local infrastructure associations, and to provide generous incentives
to investors in these regions and centers, which has resulted in large tourism investments in
180 P. Terhorst and H. Erkus-O

zturk
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

these regions and centers; and (ii) the global tourism value chains that coordinate and
control inbound mass-tourism from abroad. All these ingredients form a coherent whole
because they complement each other. But there is more. They form a coherent whole not
only on the basis of institutional complementarity but also in the way scale, territory, and
networks are intertwined.
The high rate of tourism growth in the tourism regions and centers has triggered the
development in adjacent places outside the tourism regions and centers dened by the
central state that deviates from it regarding scaling, territoriality, and networks in tourism
place making. There are also technical and institutional complementarities in tourism
places outside tourism regions and tourism centers. They are territorially bounded and
their networks are predominantly local. However, these tourism places outside the new
tourism state-spaces are just loosely integrated with the dominant tourism production
system in Antalya.
In future research, more attention should be paid to extra-local networks, scale and
territory to explain the historically and geographically specicities of tourism places. One
can learn from our case study that it can be fruitful to combine the intertwined roles of
place, territory, scale, and networks in bringing in space in tourism production systems
that institutionally complement each other and form a coherent whole.
References
Amable, B. (2003). The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Auge, M. (2008). Non-places. London: Verso.
Baggio, R. (2008). Symptoms of complexity in a tourism system. Tourism Analysis, 13(1), 120.
Boyer, R. (2005). Coherence, diversity, and the evolution of capitalisms the institutional
complementarity hypothesis. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 2(1), 4380.
Brenner, N. (2004). New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford
and New York: Oxford University Press.
Brenner, N. (2009). A thousand leaves: notes on the geographies of uneven spatial development. In
R. Keil & R. Mahon (Eds.), Leviathan undone? Towards a political economy of scale
(pp. 2749). Vancouver Toronto: UBC Press.
Britton, S. (1991). Tourism, capital and place: towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space, 9, 452475.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Clancy, M. (1998). Commodity chains, services and development: theory and preliminary evidence
from the tourism industry. Review of International Political Economy, 5(1), 122148.
Coates, D. (Ed.). (2005). Varieties of capitalism, varieties of approaches. London: Palgrave.
Coe, N.M., Dicken, P., & Hess, M. (2008). Introduction: global production networksdebates and
challenges. Journal of Economic Geography, 8, 267269.
Cornelissen, S. (2005). The global tourism system. Governance, development and lessons from South
Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Crouch, C. (2004). The state and innovations in economic governance. The Political Quarterly,
75(1), 100116.
Crouch, C. (2005). Capitalist diversity and change. Recombinant governance and institutional
entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crouch, C., & Voelzkow, H. (2009). Innovation in local economies, Germany in comparative
context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deeg, R. (2005). Path dependency, institutional complementarity, and change in national business
systems. In G. Morgan, R. Whitley, & E. Moen (Eds.), Changing capitalisms?
Internationalisation, institutional change and systems of economic organization (pp. 2152).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dicken, P., Kelly, P.F., Olds, K., & Wai-Chung Yeung, H. (2001). Chains and networks, territories
and scales: towards a relational framework for analyzing the global economy. Global Networks,
1(2), 89112.
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 181
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Dogal Hayat Koruma Dernegi, DHKD (1998). The report on status of marine turtles on Belek
Beach. Istanbul: Turkey.
Duzgunoglu, E., & Karabulut, E. (1999). Development of Turkish tourism: past and present.
Istanbul: TURSAB.
Erkus-O

zturk, H. (2008). The role of local and global networking for tourism rms and clusters: the
case of Antalya., (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey.
Erkus-O

zturk, H. (2010). The planning of tourism development: the case of Antalya. Anatolia, 21(1),
107122.
Erkus-O

zturk, H., & Eraydin, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable tourism
development: collaborative networks and institution-building in the Antalya tourism cluster.
Tourism Management, 31(1), 113124.
Erkus-O

zturk, H., & Terhorst, P. (2010). Variety of modes of governance of a global value chain: the
case of tourism from Holland to Turkey. Tourism Geographies, 12(2), 217245.
Hall, P.A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). The institutional foundations of comparative advantage.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayllar, B., Grifn, T., & Edwards, D. (2008). City spaces tourist places: urban tourism precincts.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hollingsworth, J.R., & Boyer, R. (1997). Coordination of economic actors and social systems of
production. In J.R. Hollingsworth & R. Boyer (Eds.), Contemporary capitalism: the
embeddedness of institutions (pp. 147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inskeep, E. (1991). General information South Antalya tourism project World Tourism
Organization. Ankara: Ministry of Tourism.
Ioannides, D., & Debbage, K. (1998). The economic geography of the tourist industry. A supply-side
analysis. London & New York: Routledge.
Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity.
Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing socio-spatial relations. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 26, 389401, (with responses by Edward Casey, Margit Mayer,
Anssi Paasi and Michael Shapiro).
Judd, D.R. (2006). Commentary: tracing the commodity chain of global tourism. Tourism
Geographies, 8, 323336.
Kuvan, Y. (2005). The use of forests for the purpose of tourism: the case of Belek Tourism Center in
Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 263274.
Leiper, N. (1990). Partial industrialization of tourism systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17,
600605.
Mahon, R., & Keil, R. (2009). Introduction. In R. Keil & R. Mahon (Eds.), Leviathan undone?
Towards a political economy of scale (pp. 323). Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press.
Mill, R.C., & Morrison, A. (2007). The tourist system. An introductory text. Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs.
Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2009). Bulletin of Accomodation Statistics. Ankara.
Morgan, G., Whitley, R., & Moen, E. (Eds.). (2005). Changing capitalisms? Internationalization,
institutional change and systems of economic organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O

nis, Z., & S enses, F. (2007). Global dynamics, domestic coalitions and a reactive state: major
policy shifts in post-war Turkish economic development. METU Studies in Development, 34,
251286.
O

zturk, Y. (2000). Alternative tourism as a development strategy in developing countries. Balkesir

U

niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 3(4), 313321.

Page, S.J., & Hall, M. (2003). Managing urban tourism. Harlow: Pearson.
Ritzer, G. (1998). The McDonaldization thesis. London: Sage.
Ritzer, G., & Liska, A. (1997). McDisneyization and post-tourism: complementary perspectives
on contemporary tourism. In C. Rojek & J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures, transformations of
travel and theory (pp. 96109). London, New York: Routledge.
Selby, M. (2004). Understanding urban tourism. Image, culture and experience. London, NewYork:
Tauris.
Shaw, G., & Williams, A.M. (2004). Tourism and tourism spaces. London: Sage.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38,
207226.
182 P. Terhorst and H. Erkus-O

zturk
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Terhorst, P., & van de Ven, J. (2003). The restructuring of Amsterdams historic city centre. In W.
Salet & S. Musterd (Eds.), Amsterdam, human capital (pp. 85101). Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Tosun, C. (1999). An analysis of contributions of international inbound tourism to the Turkish
economy. Tourism Economics, 5, 217250.
Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: the case
of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22, 289303.
Tosun, C., Timothy, D.J., & O

zturk, Y. (2003). Tourism growth, national development and regional

inequality in Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11, 133161.
Tremblay, P. (1998). The economic organization of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4),
837859.
Yazgan Gul, A. (1998). Turizm Alanlarnda Kaynak Kullanm Acsndan Risk Faktoru.
(Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Yldz Technical University, Turkey.
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 183
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
1
:
0
9

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3