Dusan Cvijic

LED
UT
RO
GE
Tourism Geographies 3(4), 2001, 369–393
·
up
Ta
y
ro
r
lo
& G
F r a n c is
1
2
Tourism, economic development
3
4 and the global–local nexus: theory
5
6
7
embracing complexity
8
9
10
11 Simon Milne
12
13 Faculty of Business, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
14
15 Irena Ateljevic
16 School of Business and Public Management, Victoria University of
17 Wellington, New Zealand
18
19
20 Abstract
21
22 In this paper we review the complex links that exist between the tourism industry
23 and processes of economic development. A brief overview of the industry’s
24 economic role at the international and national scale leads us into a discussion
of local and regional involvement in the tourism industry. We emphasize the need
25 to develop a more rigorous understanding of the evolving tourism industry and
26 how it inuences processes of local economic development. Following a review
27 of the major theoretical frameworks that have been applied to help us understand
28 these processes, we highlight the ways in which current attempts to understand
29 the links between tourism and economic development are embracing the complexity
of the industry and its inuence on everyday lives. We advocate ‘new’ ways of
30 seeing and studying the economics of tourism geography, ways that reect the
31 cultural turn in the ‘new’ economic geography, and the increasing signicance of
32 networks and new information and communication technologies. We argue that
33 a willingness to embrace complexity is essential if we are to unpack the ‘glocal’
34 nature of tourism development processes.
35
36 Keywords: economic development, globalization, regulation theory, new
37 economic geography, complexity
38
39
40
41
1142
Tourism Geographies ISSN 1461–6688 print/ISSN 1470-1340 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
43 http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
44 DOI: 10.1080/146166800110070478
370 Mi lne and At el jevi c
111 Introduction
2
3 In this paper we review attempts to theorize the complex links that exist
4 between the tourism industry and processes of economic development. We
5 take the reader on a brief trip through the theoretical terrain of the past
6 three decades and conclude with a discussion of the ‘new’ economic geog-
7 raphy of tourism, in which cultural and economic boundaries are being
8 transcended across a variety of scales.
9 Our discussion begins by underscoring the rise and increasing impor-
10 tance of tourism – locally and globally. A brief overview of the industry’s
11 economic role at the international and national scale leads us into a discus-
12 sion of local and regional involvement in the tourism industry. We argue
13 that communities and individuals that depend on tourism are faced with
14 an over-arching problem: how can the industry be developed while also
15 ensuring that local quality of life is maintained. In particular we are inter-
16 ested in how local economies can thrive, and unique socio-cultural and
17 environmental resources survive, in a globalized environment.
18 We emphasize the need to develop a more rigorous understanding of
19 the evolving tourism industry and how it inuences processes of local
20 economic development. We present a brief review of theoretical frame-
21 works developed during the 1970s and 1980s, focusing on dependency,
22 life-cycle and community approaches. We then analyse the inuence of
23 the so-called ‘new political economy’ (Teague 1990) that began to permeate
24 the tourism literature during the early 1990s. We then highlight the ways
25 in which current attempts to understand the links between tourism and
26 economic development are embracing the complexity of the industry and
27 its inuence on everyday lives. We advocate ‘new’ ways of seeing and
28 studying the economics of tourism geography, ways that reect the cultural
29 turn in the ‘new’ economic geography, and the increasing signicance of
30 networks and new information and communication technologies (ICTs).
31 We argue that the cultural analysis of economic relations, and a willing-
32 ness to embrace complexity, are essential if we are to unpack the ‘glocal’
33 (Swyngedouw 2000) nature of tourism development processes. It is only
34 by embedding our understanding of the tourism economy in its broader
35 cultural context that we can understand the economic role of tourism at
36 global, local and intermediate scales.
37
38
39 Tourism: from the global to the local
40
41 There can be no denying that tourism is a major global economic force.
42 Hardly a day goes by without a new pronouncement about the wider
43 signicance of what many call the world’s largest industry. International
1144 tourism has grown substantially in recent decades, with technological
370
Spac e: E cono m ic de ve lo pm ent and t he glo ba l– lo ca l nexus 371
1 improvements, rising living standards and broader processes of global-
2 ization leading to rapid increases in visitor numbers. Receipts from
3 international tourism rose from US$2.1 billion in 1950 to US$445 billion
4 in 1998. During the same period international tourist arrivals rose from
5 25.3 million to 625 million. In 1999, tourism generated some US$3.5 tril-
6 lion of GDP and almost 200 million jobs across the world economy.
7 World tourism GDP is forecast to increase in real terms by 3.0 percent
8 per annum in the decade to 2010. As a result, the industry’s share of world
9 GDP will rise from 10.5 percent in 1990 to 11.4 percent by the end of
10 2005. In the same period, employment is expected to grow at 2.6 percent
11 per annum. This equates to creation of over 5.5 million jobs per year over
12 the rst decade of the new century (WTO 2000; WTTC 2000). In its long-
13 term growth forecast document, Tourism: 2020 Vision, the WTO (1999)
14 predicts that the tourism sector will expand by an average of 4.1 percent
15 a year over the next two decades, surpassing a total of 1 billion interna-
16 tional travellers by the year 2010, and reaching 1.6 billion by the year 2020.
17 The economic and societal signicance of tourism varies dramatically
18 across the global stage. Twenty rich nations (17 European, USA, Canada
19 and Japan) accounted for 81.8 percent of all tourist expenditure in 1995,
20 with ve nations (USA, Japan, Germany, the UK and France) accounting
21 for almost half of all spending (WTO 1998). While the growth of interna-
22 tional tourism from nations like China and Brazil is signicant, there seems
23 little likelihood that this uneven global division of expenditure will change
24 dramatically in the near future (see WTTC/WEFA; WTO 1999, 2000).
25 Despite the relatively strong performance of the tourism industry in
26 many western nations, most are characterized by travel account balances
27 that are in decit. With residents from developed economies generating
28 the bulk of international tourist expenditure, it is not surprising that the
29 travel account balance in developing economies has been persistently in
30 surplus, widening from US$4.6 billion in 1980 to US$33.7 billion in 1989
31 and US$62.2 billion in 1997. Indeed, it is estimated that in 1997 the
32 travel account surplus in the developing world offset more than two-thirds
33 of its accumulated current budget decit (WTTC 2000; WTO 1999).
34 A key issue is the way in which these processes of global tourism expan-
35 sion, uneven development and, in some cases, retraction, play themselves
36 out at the sub-national levels of regions and communities. Urban commu-
37 nities and rural settlements are all inuenced by tourism to some degree
38 and also play important roles in shaping the structure and nature of the
39 industry. To help us conceptualize the links that exist between the global
40 and the local we adopt the notion of the global–local nexus (Alger 1988)
41 (see Figure 1). We argue that it is essential to look carefully at how inter-
42 actions between the global and the local shape development outcomes for
43 individuals, households, communities and regions. Tourism, in simple
1114 terms, must be viewed as a transaction process which is at once driven
371
111 by the global priorities of multi-national corporations, geo-political forces
2 and broader forces of economic change, and the complexities of the local
3 – where residents, visitors, workers, governments and entrepreneurs
4 interact at the industry ‘coal-face’.
5 At the global scale tourism’s development outcomes are inuenced by
6 broad-based economic change, evolving structures of corporate governance
7 and the unrelenting evolutionary pressures of demographics and techno-
8 logical change. Global institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank, play
9 a vital role in shaping the economic environment for tourism investment
10 and development in much of the world (Mowforth and Munt 1998).
11 Multi-national trade bloc formation drives increases in business and leisure
12 travel as restrictions to trade and human movements are relaxed. At the
13 same time it is the transnational corporation that stands astride the global
14 economy as the dominant form of enterprise in both the tourism industry
15 and other sectors.
16
17
18
19 globalisation, NGOs, MNCs,
20 Global global governance
21
22
23
24
25 cultural traits, resource-use,
26 National economic regulations
27
28
29
30
31 regional govt, regional
32
Regional networks, ecosystems
33
34
35
36
37 local govt, tourists, workers,
Local households, firms, quality of life
38
39
40
41 Technology,
42 Demographics . . .
43
1144 Figure 1 Tourism and the global–local nexus.
372
1 It is impossible to understand the global–local nexus unless we examine
2 the prevailing discourse on internationalization and globalization (Hirst
3 & Thompson 1999; Hutton & Giddens 2000; Peck 2000: 69). Peck (2000:
4 69) is highly critical of what he calls the prevailing conception of global-
5 ization in the business literature: ‘In this hyper-globalized world,
6 transnational corporations call the shots, labour has to learn to be “real-
7 istic” and (globally) competitive, and the nation state shrinks to
8 insignicance, both as a unit of analysis and as a political agent’. He
9 argues that this notion of globalization is too simplistic and reduces the
10 role of nations to one of de- and re-regulatory facilitation. At the same
11 time regions and localities are discussed in terms of ‘learning networks’
12 and ‘reexive institution forms’ and are simply, he argues, viewed as vital
13 competitive assets on the supply side of the global economy (see also
14 Swyngedouw 2000).
15 At the national scale macro-economic policy frameworks, infrastructure
16 provision and issues of socio-cultural cohesion play a vital role in inu-
17 encing tourism’s development outcomes. Some commentators argue that
18 the role of the nation state has diminished as the ‘stateless’ multinational
19 corporation has come to dominate global economic affairs and neo-liberal
20 policies have led to a retreat of the welfare state (for a useful review and
21 critique see Hirst & Thompson 1999). We argue, however, that the
22 national scale remains signicant to any understanding of tourism’s devel-
23 opment outcomes. What is seen by many as a wholesale retreat, is argued
24 by others to be more of a qualitative reorganization of structural capac-
25 ities and strategic emphases (Amin & Thrift 1997). Indeed, from a tourism
26 perspective national governments often appear to be playing a more active
27 role in coordinating the tourism marketing campaigns and broad-based
28 product development that play such an important role in shaping tourism
29 demand and behaviour.
30 In recent decades the region has been seen to be an increasingly vital com-
31 ponent in the global–local context of development (Storper 1997: 3).
32 Notions of regions stimulating economic growth through a mixture of inter-
33 rm networks, and cultural/political attributes have dominated much of the
34 social science discourse on economic development since the early 1980s
35 (Amin 1989; Sayer 1995). The Third Italy and Silicon Valley are known the
36 world over as ‘smart regions’ that have managed to create the right mix of
37 circumstances to enable economic growth. In tourism too the region has
38 become seen as an important driving force in linking disparate segments of
39 the industry and enabling destination networks to form (see Milne 1998). It
40 is also, of course, true to say that many of the natural and cultural resources
41 upon which the industry depends are regional in nature – ranging from com-
42 plex ecosystems through to patterns of culture and economic identity.
43 Since the early 1980s the community level has also been viewed more
1114 seriously as a key factor in inuencing economic development outcomes.
373
111 Community is of vital importance as an intermediate level of social life
2 between the personal (individual/family) and impersonal (global/institu-
3 tional). Community structures built around modernist cultural identity,
4 architectures and work practices are frequently depicted as being in decay.
5 The ‘breakdown’ of community is often highlighted by the media as being
6 at the forefront of growing problems of lawlessness and family dissolu-
7 tion. Indeed, during the 1990s many governments placed community at
8 the centre of attempts to create economic regeneration and remedy social
9 ills. The theoretical underpinnings of such initiatives can be found in the
10 work of the ‘communitarian’ movement, where scholars such as Amitai
11 Etzioni (1995, 1997) have challenged the atomizing nature of free market
12 liberal economics and its detrimental consequences for socio-economic
13 well-being.
14 Tourism has not been immune to these trends. ‘Community-based’
15 approaches are central to many tourism development plans around the
16 world and there is a growing realization that localized cooperation, trust
17 and networking are essential ingredients in providing the right mix for
18 successful tourism development outcomes. Indeed, tourism is often seen
19 as a key element that can enable communities devastated by economic
20 restructuring to regain and enhance their economic foothold in regional
21 and national economies.
22 The complexity of the global–local nexus – and how its economic,
23 cultural and environmental elements interact to create local development
24 outcomes – is breathtaking. We cannot understand the context of local
25 tourism development unless we grapple with this complexity and better
26 understand how key stakeholders (government, industry, community,
27 tourists) interact both within and between multiple ‘nested’ scales. We
28 now turn to a review of how tourism researchers have attempted to theo-
29 rize these issues over the past three decades.
30
31
32 Evolving theories of tourism and development
33
34 It was in the 1970s and 1980s that tourism researchers rst began to focus
35 considerable attention on the broader context and outcomes
36 of tourism development. The two approaches that dominated much of the
37 discourse on tourism and development during this period were the depen-
38 dency perspective (Britton 1982) and the life-cycle model (Butler 1980).
39 While both emerged from quite different theoretical lineages (neo-marxism
40 in the case of dependency, and modernization theory in the case of the life-
41 cycle approach) they are based on the shared premise that the industry’s
42 mass variant represents its crowning height. Companies minimize ‘unit
43 costs’ by generating economies of scale, destinations receive increased vis-
1144 itor numbers, and tourists full their wanderlust cheaply and efciently.
374
1 As a new nation or region is initially incorporated into the global ‘patch-
2 work-quilt’ of tourism destinations the emergent industry is characterized
3 by relatively high levels of local involvement. As visitor numbers rise and
4 incorporation into the global tourism system increases, local industry struc-
5 tures soon become characterized by overseas or local élite ownership.
6 Locals end up receiving few economic benets, while having to carry the
7 inevitable costs of rapidly increasing tourist numbers. Unfortunately, the
8 high costs associated with the inevitable rise of mass tourism provide both
9 the communities and localities that rely on it with little prospect for local
10 control and limited potential to achieve more sustainable forms of local
11 development.
12 Both dependency and life-cycle approaches have been criticized on a
13 number of common grounds. Dependency theory is often accused of being
14 ‘obsessed by the global level, and the world system’ (Corbridge 1986),
15 therefore ignoring the possibility that what occurs within a nation/region
16 may be just as important as those inuences that originate outside its
17 boundaries (Storper 1990; Lipietz 1993; Peet & Hartwick 1999). There
18 is a failure, in the case of both approaches, to acknowledge the possi-
19 bility that local government, industries and individuals can exert some
20 degree of control over their own destinies. As Preister (1989: 20) notes:
21
‘locally-affected people are not shaped passively by outside forces but react
22
as well, at times even changing the conditions of the larger system’. Preister
23
argues the development outcome is a ‘negotiated process’ between local
24
groups or individuals and structural forces. Both frameworks fail to
25
consider the possibility that by empowering locals to have input into devel-
26
opment plans, the deteriorating cycle of evolution might be minimized or
27
avoided (Drake 1991; Priestly & Mundet 1998).
28
These frameworks are equally limited in their ability to grapple with
29
the changing nature of production and accumulation. Technological change
30
31 and shifts in industrial organisation are not dealt with effectively. In partic-
32 ular there is an inability to incorporate notions of capital’s ability (or
33 otherwise) to cope with periodic episodes of prot down turn and crisis.
34 As Lipietz (1987: 2) notes:
35
It [dependency theory] paid little attention to the concrete conditions of
36 capitalist accumulation either in the centre or in the periphery. It therefore
37 could not visualize that transformations in the logic of accumulation in the
38 centre would modify the nature of centre–periphery relations.
39
40 Another approach to emerge in the 1980s emphasized local agency, seeing
41 communities and their constituent members playing an active role in deter-
42 mining tourism’s outcomes (Murphy 1985; see also G. Taylor 1995). In
43 dramatic contrast to the models just described the community approach
1114 views locals as being capable of planning and participating in tourism
375
111 development, of making their voices heard when they are concerned, and
2 of having the capability to control the outcomes of the industry to some
3 degree. Murphy (1994: 284) argues that if host communities can dene
4 the types of tourism they wish to attract and can accommodate over the
5 long term, they can shape the type of industry that is most appropriate
6 to their needs.
7 Unfortunately, proponents of community participation in the tourism
8 development process have often ignored the tendency of local élites to
9 appropriate the organs of participation for their own benets (Brohman
10 1996). It is also often forgotten that factors such as gender relations and
11 race will have an effect on power structures within communities, as will
12 the ways in which these communities are embedded in broader socio-
13 economic, political and environmental structures (Wells & Brandon 1992;
14 Kinnaird & Hall 1994; Milne 1998).
15 Community participation can also be a double-edged sword (Drake
16 1991). Such approaches promote mutual responsibility between the state
17 and locals, incorporate vital local knowledge into projects, and provide
18 outlets for the channelling of local political discontent. Nevertheless, local
19 participation is often expensive to run, may generate expectations that far
20 exceed eventual outcomes, and may create new conicts as marginal groups
21 become more articulate and élites are able to gain a greater slice of partic-
22 ipatory benets through their own networks (Zazueta 1995).
23 The counter-position of community and the tourism industry which is
24 often inherent in the literature on local interaction with the industry is a
25 form of reductionism found in a range of other settings (see Sayer 1995:
26 186). Given the profound and complex nature of the global social division
27 of labour we should not assume that the interests of a specialist group of
28 residents are always in accord with broader local wishes and desires. While
29 localities depend heavily on their local economic base this does not mean
30 that local interests can simply be dened in these terms and treated as uni-
31 tary. As Urry (1990) notes, the interests of people within a locality vary
32 enormously in strength and kind, and it cannot be assumed that local
33 attachments come rst, so that people’s interests can be represented terri-
34 torially (see also Belsky 1999). Perhaps, most importantly, the community-
35 focused approach tends to ignore the local implications of the evolving
36 nature of capitalist accumulation at broader scales of resolution.
37
38
39 Regulation theory and ‘new tourism’
40
41 It has become a cliché to state that we are living in a globalized world,
42 but whatever name is given to the present era (post-industrial, post-Fordist,
43 ‘new times’) there is a widespread recognition that we are living in a
1144 world that has evolved considerably from a generation ago. This world
376
1 needs new theoretical tools to enable us to understand our rapidly changing
2 times. One response to these changes has been the emergence of the so-
3 called ‘new’ political economy (Teague 1990) and its gradual application
4 to the study of the development process.
5 The exible specialization approach (Piore & Sabel 1984) and the
6 Regulation School (Lipietz 1987) have been particularly inuential through
7 much of the 1990s. As Peck (2000: 66) notes, researchers have often been
8 guilty of combining concepts from these two, conceptually different,
9 approaches and, as a result, it sometimes becomes difcult to disentangle
10 concepts that may have quite diverse theoretical and political lineages and
11 implications. Our focus here is primarily on regulation theory – which
12 has arguably had the greatest impact on the tourism literature (Iaonnides
13 1995; Iaonnides & Debbage 1998). It is clear that the more production-
14 orientated exible specialization thesis has also inuenced a number of
15 tourism commentators (Poon 1993).
16 Proponents of the regulation approach argue that capitalism is an
17 unstable, contradictory system that must restructure itself in order to
18 resolve, albeit temporarily, its periodic crises. Each period of restructuring
19 brings different regional and local economic impacts (Tickell and Peck
20 1992). Advocates of this approach maintain that a ‘regime’ of mass
21 production and consumption, known as ‘Fordism’ dominated much of the
22 past century. During the last quarter of the century, it is argued that
23 Fordism has been yielding to a more ‘exible’ and dynamic pattern of
24 production and consumption, variously categorized as a ‘post-Fordism’,
25 ‘exible accumulation’ or ‘exible specialization’ (Scott 1989).
26 Regulation theory introduces the concept of a ‘regime of accumulation’
27 – a social system linking production to consumption. The temporary
28 stability of this system depends on a particular ‘mode of social and polit-
29 ical regulation’ based on a ‘set of internalized rules and social procedures’
30 (Lipietz 1987: 15), including state action, social institutions, behavioural
31 norms and political practices (Tickell & Peck 1992).
32 The emerging production paradigm is based on achieving exibility,
33 both internally and externally. Internally, rms must be able to produce
34 a greater variety of specialized products and to change product congu-
35 rations rapidly in response to variations in market taste. Externally, these
36 shifts are associated with vertical and horizontal disintegration and the
37 emergence of down-sized specialized rms often organized into spatially
38 proximate networks (Teague 1990).
39 Several tourism researchers have borrowed from these frameworks in
40 their attempts to understand the changing structure of the industry and
41 its evolving role in local, regional and national development processes
42 (Poon 1989, 1993; Urry 1990; Milne & Pohlmann 1998). For example,
43 utilizing many of the basic tenets of exible specialization Poon (1989:
1114 93) sees the emergence of a new tourism ‘best practice’:
377
111 The economics of new tourism is very different from the old – protability
2 no longer rests solely on economies of scale and the exploitation of mass
undifferentiated markets. Economies of scope, systems gains, segmented
3
markets, designed and customized holidays are becoming more and more
4 important for protability and competitiveness in tourism.
5
6 The major characteristics of the new ‘best’ practice are its focus on product
7 exibilility and variety – facilitated by the increased use of advanced tech-
8 nology. Segmentation results in the break-up of mass markets into cluster
9 segments that display a diversity of needs and characteristics. At the same
10 time, diagonal integration sees tourism rms move into new and different
11 activities, seeking the tremendous synergies, systems gains and scope
12 economies that can potentially be derived from such integration.
13 Regulation and exible specialization approaches represent a major step
14 forward in our attempts to theorize the complex links between tourism
15 and economic development. Both approaches stress the need to under-
16 stand broader processes of capitalist accumulation in order to understand
17 the economic prospects facing regions and communities around the world.
18 Another strength is the rejection of the fatalism inherent in the depen-
19 dency/life-cycle frameworks described earlier. Thus commentators, such as
20 Poon (1993), view the emergence of new tourism as offering an oppor-
21 tunity for less developed regions and small rms to achieve a greater
22 degree of self-determination than they have managed in the past.
23 There has, however, been concerted criticism and debate concerning the
24 ability of these ‘new’ political economy theories to address the processes
25 of change affecting contemporary capitalism, in general, and tourism, in
26 particular (Iaonnides & Debbage 1998; Milne & Gill 1998). The rst
27 criticisms revolve around whether Fordism ever existed as a dominant
28 regime of accumulation during the post-war period of the 1960s and
29 1970s. Indeed, it can be argued that, ‘old’ or mass tourism, characterized
30 by ubiquitous ‘sun, sand and sea’-based package tours, was in fact only
31 ever dominant in parts of Europe, and was never as signicant a mode
32 of travel among, for example, North Americans (The Economist 1986;
33 WTO 1990).
34 A second set of criticisms concerns the ‘crisis’ of Fordism. Evidence of
35 a relative decline in rates of output and productivity in mass production
36 industries is inconclusive at best, with some classic mass production indus-
37 tries growing rapidly while others have been declining (Hirst & Zeitlin
38 1991). The same can be argued for tourism. While we have seen rapid
39 growth in the number of small tourism rms, archetypal mass tourism
40 rms continue to prosper and thrive. Mass tourism’s convenience, price
41 and travel style remain attractive to many consumers, making it an impor-
42 tant mainstay for the tourism industry. As Williams and Montanari (1995)
43 attest, care must be taken not to over-simplify changes. While small rms
1144 may develop and thrive in this environment, we still know little about
378
1 how they will interact with their larger counterparts, and what future
2 exists for less exible organizational structures (Wanhill 2000).
3 A further important shortcoming of these theories lies in their treat-
4 ment of different spatial levels of analysis. Regulation theory focuses
5 primarily on the underlying structures behind a regime of accumulation
6 and modes of regulation at the national level, without providing a similar
7 analysis at the regional level or theorizing the relationship between scales.
8 Thus it is unclear whether the mode of regulation which stabilizes a partic-
9 ular regime of accumulation at the national level can be reproduced at a
10 regional or local level.
11 The difculties that post-Fordist theories present, when attempts are
12 made to move from a local level of analysis to the global level, are also
13 attributable to the fact that empirical research has been carried out in
14 only a few, usually developed countries (Storper 1990; Peet & Hartwick
15 1999). In addition, most sectoral research has focused on the manufac-
16 turing arena – with little attention being paid to services, in general, and
17 tourism, in particular. It is also fair to say that in much of the ‘new’ polit-
18 ical economy literature of the 1990s it is difcult to situate the role of
19 culture and the environment (Taylor 1995b). In the post-Fordist tourism
20 literature, for example, one struggles to nd detailed attention being paid
21 to the impact of tourism on the condition of the natural environment,
22 cultural attributes and people’s broader quality of life.
23 Despite these criticisms we argue that a regulationist approach provides
24 a useful base from which to build a more complete understanding of the
25 global–local relations that inuence tourism’s concrete development
26 outcomes. We now move on to examine ways in which additional elements
27 can be grafted on to this model to enable it to embrace the complexity
28 inherent in the tourism development process.
29
30
31 Embracing complexity
32
33 Sayer (1989, 1995) argues that organizational forms are discoveries,
34 worked out in specic historical and geographical contexts. This
35 complexity must be addressed and embraced if we are really to gain an
36 understanding of the links that exist between tourism and broader
37 processes of development. Tourism must be viewed as a transaction
38 process, incorporating both exogenous forces and the endogenous powers
39 of local residents and entrepreneurs (Chang et al. 1996). There is a need
40 to strive for a balance between structure and agency, rather than high-
41 lighting one at the expense of the other (Milne 1998).
42 There is also a sense that cultural and environmental dimensions must
43 be more effectively grafted onto attempts to understand the development
1114 processes and outcomes associated with tourism. We also argue that we
379
111 must acknowledge the impacts that rapidly evolving information and
2 communication technologies have on the industry and those whose lives
3 it inuences. We now move on to address some of these issues – focusing
4 in particular on dimensions of culture, consumption and the rise of what
5 Castells (2000) calls the network society.
6
7
8 Culture and consumption
9
10 In recent years there have been growing attempts by economic, cultural
11 and social geographers to reconceptualize their subdisciplines and embrace
12 the ‘de-differentiation of economy and culture’ (Crang & Malbon 1996;
13 Amin & Thrift 2000; Sayer 2000). Of particular relevance here is the rise
14 of approaches that attempt to account for both the material condition
15 and specic experience of individuals, while at the same time situating
16 the individual within political and economic structures of power, conict
17 and resistance (Ateljevic 2000). The crossing of boundaries and the inte-
18 gration of cultural politics into the formation of knowledge have been
19 marked as the ‘cultural turn’ in human geography (Chaney 1994;
20 McDowell 1994).
21 To accommodate these concerns, ‘new’ elds have begun to emerge that
22 increasingly recognize the difculties inherent in the separation of
23 economic, cultural and social geographies, and which acknowledge the
24 dialectics of structure and agency. Thus we have seen the emergence of
25 the ‘new’ regional and economic geography (Thrift 1994; Sayer 2000) and
26 the ‘new’ geography of leisure (Mansvelt & Perkins 1998; Aitchison 1999).
27 The term ‘new’ does not imply creation of new sub-disciplines, but rather
28 it is used as a label to ease the classication for a broad range and diver-
29 sity of work that crosses the boundaries to improved knowledge
30 construction. It is important to note that traditional issues of inquiry in
31 economic geography (production, circulation and exchange) have not (and
32 should not have) been abandoned, but rather reshaped to embrace the
33 cultural and social construction of economic geographies (Sayer 2000).
34 This combination of approaches has allowed us to take a fresh look at
35 place and its role in shaping (and being shaped by) tourism. As Massey
36 (1993: 155) notes, space is: ‘constructed out of interrelations, as the simul-
37 taneous coexistence of social interrelations and interactions at all spatial
38 scales, from the most local level to the most global’. The collections of
39 essays edited by Ringer (1998) and Rojek and Urry (1997) highlight the
40 active role of tourism in the social construction of space through place.
41 Place, therefore, is not just historically constructed in space, it is actively
42 mediated upon and acts in conjunction with ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ factors
43 at all times. In the same way, Oakes (1993) sees the social spaces of
1144 modernity as being as much cultural as economic constructs.
380
1 The emerging consensus is that tourism geography has to take both its eco-
2 nomic and cultural dimensions seriously (Squire 1994; Crang 1996; Cloke &
3 Perkins 1998). It is vital that we transcend the boundaries between economic
4 and cultural consumption if we are to understand the continuous recycling of
5 commodities beyond the act of simple monetary exchange. It is essential that
6 we delve ‘into the social relations of production and forward into cycles of
7 use and re-use’ (Jackson & Thrift 1995: 205; see also Burgess 1990).
8 Crang and Malbon (1996) suggest there are two ways of pursuing de-
9 differentiation between culture and economy: (1) the ‘cultural regulation of
10 the economic’; and (2) the ‘cultural materialization of the economic’. The
11 former relates to the discursive construction of organizational identities and
12 spaces of work (social relations of production) while the latter relate to
13 social relations of consumption ‘in which culturally meaningful goods and
14 experiences become the objects and subjects to be provided and consumed’
15 (Crang & Malbon 1996: 709).
16 There is a burgeoning geographical literature addressing issues of leisure,
17 consumption and social identity (for example, Jackson & Holbrook (1995),
18 Pred (1996), Wrigley & Lowe (1996) and Aitchison (1999)). Tourism needs
19 to be placed in the context of the contemporary cultural economy, within
20 which groups and individuals increasingly attempt to construct their identi-
21 ties by certain consumption preferences and lifestyle practices which signal
22 taste and position in society. As the ‘culture of consumption’ evolves in terms
23 of ‘you are what you buy’ and ‘where you go away’ (Featherstone 1987,
24 1995), there will inevitably be impacts on the tourism industry.
25 These trends have been widely related to the emerging ‘new middle class’
26 of so-called cultural producers (Bourdieu 1984; Knox 1991; Zukin 1991).
27 The emerging cultural intermediaries of ‘late’ capitalism are the marketers,
28 advertisers, public relations representatives, radio and television producers
29 and presenters and magazine journalists. Bourdieu (1984) asserts that
30 providers of symbolic goods and services shape consumption as an arena for
31 social differentiation as they seek to associate more closely particular con-
32 sumption preferences and lifestyle practices with class segments.
33 The issue of consumption and identity becomes even more problematic
34 when advertising begins to recognize ‘multiple identities within the same
35 individual’ (Jackson 1993: 215). Glennie and Thrift (1992: 424) argue that
36 individuals become ‘increasingly fragmented, following particular lifestyles
37 that may or may not chime with one another, but which require the adop-
38 tion of particular persons to follow those’. In the same way, Jackson and
39 Thrift (1995: 227) seek ‘to rethink conventional approaches to “identity”,
40 emphasising its uid and dynamic nature rather than assuming identities to
41 be in any way xed or singular’.
42 The new cultural and economic geographies provide ways of re-conceptu-
43 alizing traditional views of tourism and providing alternative ‘ways of seeing’
1114 the industry and broader patterns of leisure, as Aitchinson (1999: 30) claims:
381
111 It is from this era of post positivist geography that the new cultural geog-
2 raphy has emerged and become merged with sociological and cultural studies
analyses which are now combining to investigate the multiplicity of behav-
3
iours, meanings, consumption trends and identities constructed in and
4 through leisure and tourism.
5
6 Indeed, as Thrift (2000: 693) notes, some of the most interesting work
7 on the cultural geography of economies has begun to emerge from within
8 the tourism arena. Crang’s (1994, 1997b) work on performativity in
9 restaurants and the broader tourism industry, and Crain’s (1996) analysis
10 of performative aspects of women’s role in the Ecuadorean tourist market,
11 have provided us with new ways to view the role of culture in the shaping
12 of and, in turn, being shaped by, touristic experiences.
13 Perhaps, most importantly, given the global–local focus of this paper,
14 we argue that the cultural analysis of economic relations gives us a new
15 theoretical gaze through which to unpack the ‘glocal’ (see Swyngedouw
16 2000) nature of tourism activity. Ethnographic and case-based accounts
17 of the way in which the tourism economy is embedded in cultural contexts
18 allow us to move beyond some of the pessimistic and reductionist read-
19 ings of globalization effects discussed earlier in this paper. It is essential
20 that we continue to evaluate the place and role of culture in our discus-
21 sions of the economic development dimensions of tourism ‘whether its
22 cultural place be the individual (as representative of some wider spatial
23 scale), the rm, the region or the nation-state’ (Crang 1997a: 12).
24
25
26 Networks and information technologies
27
28 In the newly evolving production environment the most efcient rela-
29 tionships are based on the creation of alliances, partnerships and networks
30 between rms (see Beamish 1998; Castells 2000). These can be attained
31 through a number of mechanisms including mutual dependency and adap-
32 tation, discussion and negotiation, honesty, long-term commitment, quality
33 control and shared knowledge. Networks may also be created and
34 enhanced by the emergence of new information and communication tech-
35 nologies (ICTs).
36 The apparent association of growth in regions and of industries with
37 conspicuous networking activity has encouraged suggestions that successful
38 regional economies in the world economic system must be ‘intelligent’ or
39 learning regions (Feldman 1994; Clark et al. 2000: 8). Networks are thus
40 part of the dynamic of organizational creativity, directed towards building
41 and maintaining competitive links to the global economy, and based on
42 strengthening existing competitive activities (Hansen 1992; Castells 2000).
43 A central theme for future exploration is the degree to which networks
1144 play a role in inuencing the structure, economic success and sustainability
382
1 of the tourism industry. If networking and networks are, indeed, a general
2 response to pressures in the global economy (see Hansen 1992), increased
3 knowledge of networking activity and network formation amongst key
4 stakeholders within and between different scales of analysis is needed.
5 Destination communities and regions also rely on network formation
6 (between businesses, between the private and public sectors) for the devel-
7 opment of competitive tourist products. At the same time the sustainability
8 of the industry may well be tied to creating effective alliances between
9 the private and public sectors. One of the central questions that must be
10 addressed by tourism researchers is to what extent does such activity trans-
11 late into localities being able to engage more effectively and sustainably
12 with the global economy and wrest more control over their economic
13 destiny from outside forces?
14 It is important to stress here that networks themselves are fundamen-
15 tally based not on spatial proximity, or shared interests, but on notions
16 of trust and reciprocity. The future competitiveness of destinations, and
17 the development performance of tourism, will not simply depend on a
18 destination’s natural and cultural resource base, its ability to harness new
19 technologies, or its depth of human capital. Success will also depend on
20 the ill-dened attributes of trust and reciprocity (Fukuyama 1995).
21 Given our focus on what kind of action is necessary for localities to
22 engage effectively with the global economy it is worthwhile examining what
23 some commentators feel is the empowering potential of new information
24 and communication technologies. In particular we want to explore two
25 issues – how ICTs are likely to inuence the structure and organization of
26 the tourism industry, and whether these technologies may assist localities
27 to work more effectively within the bounds of the global–local nexus.
28 While there is plenty of ‘hype’ about what IT can do for various elements
29 of the tourism industry, it is still not easy to nd comprehensive accounts
30 and reasoned analyses of the key issues associated with the adoption of
31 ICTs. Online resources are proliferating and fewer and fewer components
32 of tourism products are willing to risk being invisible in cyberspace. At
33 the same time, numerous governments are implementing policy frame-
34 works to foster ICT adoption by the industry, and tourists everywhere
35 are beginning to see the potential for new technologies to improve their
36 ability to make travel plans (Sheldon 1997; Smith & Jenner 1998).
37 The literature focuses on a number of ways in which the structure and
38 performance of the tourism industry is being inuenced by the adoption
39 and development of IT (see Buhalis & Schertler 1999; Frew 2000):
40
41 l Knowledge management. In addition to reducing communication and
42 transaction costs the internet is also changing the shape and nature of
43 traditional global distribution and destination marketing systems in the
1114 tourism industry (French 1998; Milne & Gill 1998; Morrell 1998).
383
111 l Changing consumer behaviour. While it is difcult to quantify the
2 internet’s ability to shape consumer perceptions and decision-making,
3 processes it is clear that the internet is already a force to be reckoned
4 with in moulding visitor behaviour (Beirne & Curry 1999). The internet
5 also provides a vital (and unparalleled) set of information to support
6 consumer choice and skills development.
7 l New product development. The internet offers the industry improved
8 possibilities for price differentiation and also enables greater network-
9 ing between disparate elements of the industry. In simple terms the
10 Internet is said to improve the ability of the tourism industry to provide
11 a exible array of product choices. In effect the tourists themselves have
12 a greater opportunity to create their own ‘customized’ packages. It can
13 be argued, however, that online travel players will not see signicant cus-
14 tomer growth unless they create online product offerings that simplify
15 the purchasing process and exceed the value of traditional offerings.
16 l The empowerment of small and medium enterprises through IT. There
17 is an expanding body of work dealing with the potential for e-commerce
18 to ‘level the playing eld’ for smaller businesses that have difculty
19 accessing traditional tourist distribution channels (Buhalis 1999). It is
20 also clear that the data-mining potential of e-commerce holds great ben-
21 ets not just for larger rms but also their smaller counterparts (Schertler
22 & Berger-Koch 1999: 26). The internet has several key elements that
23 make it an important alternative to traditional marketing approaches:
24 web sites are exible, the images and text they present can be readily
25 changed; it decentralizes and democratizes access to the customer; there
26 are cost savings in distribution, service, marketing and promotion.
27 l Labour market impacts. Several commentators are now beginning to
28 focus more closely on the impact that the adoption of the internet and
29 e-commerce strategies can have on labour use, training regimes and ser-
30 vice quality delivery in a broad range of tourism sectors (see Milne &
31 Ateljevic 2001).
32 l Disintermediation. There is a growing interest in the impact of the inter-
33 net on components of the tourism industry that have previously acted
34
as intermediaries between the industry and the consumer (especially
35
travel agents) (Reinders & Baker 1998; Wardell 1998). Some commen-
36
tators have predicted the demise of the travel agent unless skills are
37
upgraded effectively (McNeill 1997). Nevertheless, despite falling com-
38
missions and increased competition, travel agents have conceded only
39
one percent of the US online travel market in the past two years (Jupiter
40
1999).
41
42 The increasing technological dependence of the industry and processes of
43 industrial concentration are likely to lead to the further strengthening of
1144 large enterprises, while also potentially opening opportunities for small
384
1 exible rms. The use of networking and strategic alliances will become
2 increasingly important. For small rms this will provide opportunities to
3 overcome the disadvantages (most notably access to technology) associ-
4 ated with their size.
5 Extreme arguments suggest that cyberspace may even replace tourism
6 as virtual travel technologies mature. What is of immediate concern,
7 however, is how representation of tourist destinations in cyberspace will
8 affect travel patterns. For some, virtual travel may be nothing more than
9 a fancy digital travel brochure. For others, the post-modern virtual travel
10 experience may not be that far off. Indeed we are now able to travel the
11 globe in real-time visiting different locations via the web. The impact of
12 virtual travel in this sense is powerful and some argue that by mixing
13 real and virtual travel we may enhance the possibility of achieving sustain-
14 able tourism by replacing impacts on real environments and cultures with
15 virtual experiences (see Dewailly 1999). At the same time there are poten-
16 tial dangers inherent in the ability to manipulate representations of tourist
17 products to a greater extent than was possible in traditional travel
18 brochures. The ultimate fear of the tourism industry in its traditional
19 (non-cyber) guise must, however, be that: ‘“Speed kills color: the gyro-
20 scope when it spins quickly turns gray”, wrote Paul Morand in 1937.
21 . . . The tourism of long journeys celebrated by Morand is complemented
22 henceforth by a sort of “tourism on the spot” of cocooning and interac-
23 tivity’ (Virilio 1992: 188).
24 Will virtual travel alter the desire for people to travel, and the ultimate
25 seduction of ‘real’ place? Will small communities or rms that are non-
26 existent in cyberspace become non-existent in the real world? In particular,
27 there are gaps in our knowledge about how the Internet and tourism will
28 mix in less developed settings, where telecommunications infrastructure
29 and human capital bases are limited (Milne & Mason 2001). It is, indeed,
30 sometimes easy to get caught up in the hype of the new knowledge
31 economy and forget that the bulk of the world’s population, and much
32 of its travel destinations, still remain unwired and outside these new
33 networks.
34 New technologies and the global reach of media are also forcing
35 researchers, to some extent, to reformulate long-held concepts that space
36 and proximity are central to the formation of community. As Zeldin (1994:
37 467) notes, the Earth is being ‘criss-crossed afresh by invisible threads
38 uniting individuals who differ by all conventional criteria, but who are
39 nding that they have aspirations in common’. Thus ‘traditional’ local-
40 ized communities have new tools through which to disseminate their
41 concerns, and may, via global networks, gain new ‘community members’
42 that can represent their interests around the world (see Gurstein 2000;
43 Rheingold 2000). Other commentators argue that the very technologies
1114 that are being heralded by some as providing the basis for a resurgence
385
111 of community life may, instead, simply reinforce existing power structures
2 and inequalities, and lead to social discord and individual isolation (see
3 Haywood 1998; Castells 2000). While there are no clear answers to these
4 debates, it is clear that tourism researchers ignore them at their peril. If
5 we are to understand better the role of the local in the global we must
6 grapple with ICTs impacts on the evolving notion of community and the
7 seductive power of place. We need to be fully aware of the fact that these
8 fundamental technological shifts will have profound impacts on the percep-
9 tion, consumption and construction of tourism spaces, and their local
10 development outcomes.
11
12
13 Where do we go from here?
14
15 Tourism is a phenomenon that comprises a collage of producing and
16 consuming moments. It is essentially a global process, which manifests
17 itself locally and regionally, and explicitly involves the construction of
18 place. As such, the study of tourism provides great potential to reveal the
19 dialectics of production and consumption, the tensions between the global
20 and the local, and core issues associated with social and spatial polar-
21 ization.
22 The creation of meaning and experiences is becoming a key avenue for
23 capital accumulation, with leisure and tourism at the forefront of this
24 trend. The identities of geographically dened places, namely tourist destin-
25 ations, are endlessly (re-)invented, (re-)produced, (re-)captured and
26 (re-)created by the simultaneous coexistence of global and local forces.
27 Tourism activity not only gives shape to the land, and provides jobs and
28 income to local peoples, but also produces meanings and representations.
29 Tourism promotional material creates and projects powerful social, cultural
30 and psychological meanings of place, in turn increasing and reproducing
31 its value. For their part, consumers collect, read, interpret, compare and
32 communicate these meanings (re-)producing processes of place (re-)con-
33 struction.
34 In this paper we have shown that over three decades our attempts to
35 understand the links between tourism and local economic development
36 have evolved considerably, from the development of largely ‘top-down’
37 theory, to attempts to conceptualize more fully the complexity and nuances
38 of the tourism development process. This complexity is manifest in several
39 dimensions. Consumers are increasingly viewed as ‘a highly diverse set of
40 actors who react in grounded and contextual ways’ (Thrift 2000: 697).
41 At the same time it is increasingly apparent that we cannot, and should
42 not, assume that shifts in industry structure and local development
43 outcomes can be ‘read off’ from patterns predicted by conceptually ‘neat’
1144 theories of global economic change, as Peck (2000: 76) notes:
386
1 From a geographical perspective, it can therefore be anticipated that insti-
2 tutions will routinely be associated with different (economic) effects in
different places; that their forms – and certainly their effects – will be dif-
3
cult to replicate; and that they are unlikely to travel well. . . . This inescapable
4 spatial indeterminancy in institutional forms, dynamics and outcomes,
5 coupled with the necessity for extra-economic regulation of market systems,
6 means that uneven development and local differentiation will remain funda-
7 mental features of the real economy.
8
9 This complexity and uncertainty is only enhanced by the fact that
10 e-business may be about to transform consumer behaviour, value chains,
11 business organization, notions of community and resultant development
12 outcomes.
13 A new conguration of articulated economic spaces and scales of gover-
14 nance is emerging in the tourism industry. Our challenge as tourism
15 researchers is to embrace this complexity, and not to shy away from
16 dealing with a world of constant evolution and change. We cannot afford
17 simply to view nations, regions and communities as being largely power-
18 less in a globalized world and having to take the ‘path of least resistance’
19 in responding to processes of economic globalization. As Amin and Thrift
20 (1997: 155) note so succinctly, the real question is ‘not whether global-
21 ization allows scope for national or local action, but what kind of action
22 is necessary for positive engagement with the global economy’.
23
24
25 References
26
Aitchison, C. 1999. New cultural geographies: the spatiality of leisure, gender and
27
sexuality. Leisure Studies 18(1):19–39.
28 Alger, C. F. 1988. Perceiving, analysing and coping with the local-global nexus.
29 International Social Science Journal 40: 321–39.
30 Amin, A. 1989. Flexible specialisation and small rms in Italy: myths and realities.
31 Antipode 21(1): 13–34.
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. 1997. Globalization, socio-economics, territoriality. In
32
Geographies of Economics, ed. R. Lee and J. Wills, pp 147–57. London:
33 Arnold.
34 Amin, A. and Thrift, N. 2000. What kind of economic theory for what kind of
35 economic geography? Antipode 32(1): 4–9.
36 Ateljevic, I. 2000. Circuits of tourism: stepping beyond a production–consump-
tion dichotomy. Tourism Geographies 2(4): 369–88.
37
Beamish, P. W. (ed). 1998. Strategic Alliances. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
38 Publishing Limited.
39 Beirne, E. and Curry, P. 1999. The impact of the Internet on the information
40 search process and tourism decision-making. In Information and Commun-
41 ication Technologies in Tourism, ed. D. Buhalis and W. Schertler, pp. 88–97.
New York: Springer.
42
Belsky, J. M. 1999. Misrepresenting communities: the politics of community-based
43 rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology 64(4): 641–66.
1114 Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. London: Routledge.
387
111 Britton, S. G. 1982. The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals
2 of Tourism Research 9(3): 331–58.
Brohman, J. 1996. New directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals
3
of Tourism Research 23(1): 48–70.
4 Buhalis, D. 1999. Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
5 Management 21(1): 97–116.
6 Buhalis, D. and Schertler, W. (eds). 1999. Preface. In Information and Communi-
7 cation Technologies in Tourism, ed. D. Buhalis and W. Schertler, pp. v–vi. New
York: Springer.
8
Burgess, J. 1990. The production and consumption of environmental meanings in
9 the mass media: a research agenda for the 1990s. Transactions of the Institute
10 of British Geographers 15(1): 139–61.
11 Butler, R. W. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution and implica-
12 tions for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer 24(1):
5–12.
13
Castells, M. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
14 Chaney, D. 1994. The Cultural Turn. London: Routledge.
15 Chang, T. C., Milne, S. and Fallon, D. 1996. Urban heritage tourism: exploring the
16 global–local nexus. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2): 1–19.
17 Clark, G. L., Feldman, M. P. and Gertler, M. S. 2000. Economic geography: tran-
sition and growth. In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, ed. G.
18
L Clark, M. P. Feldman and M. S. Gertler, pp. 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University
19 Press.
20 Cloke, P. and Perkins, H. 1998. Cracking the canyon with the awesome foursome:
21 rfepresentations of adventure tourism in New Zealand. Environment and
22 Planning D: Society and Space 16: 185–218.
Corbridge, S. 1986. Capitalist World Development: A Critique of Radical
23
Development Geography. London: MacMillan.
24 Crain, M. 1996. Negotiating identities in Quito’s cultural borderlands: native
25 women’s performance for the Equadorean tourist market. In Cross–Cultural
26 Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities, ed. D. Howes, pp. 125–37.
27 London: Routledge.
Crang, M. 1996. Magic kingdom or a quixotic quest for authenticity. Annals of
28
Tourism Research 23(2): 415–31.
29 Crang, P. 1994. It’s showtime: on the workplace geographies of display in a restau-
30 rant in south-east England. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
31 12: 675–704.
32 Crang, P. 1997a. Introduction: cultural turns and the (re)constitution of economic
geography. In Geographies of Economies, ed. R. Lee and J. Wills, pp. 3–15. Lon-
33
don.
34 Crang, P. 1997b. Performing the tourism product. In Touring Cultures: Transform-
35 ations of Travel and Theory, ed. C. Rojek and J. Urry, pp. 137–54. London:
36 Routledge.
37 Crang, P. and Malbon, B. 1996. Consuming geographies: a review essay.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 21(4): 704–11.
38
Dewailly, J. 1999. Sustainable tourist space: from reality to virtual reality. Tourism
39 Geographies 1(1): 41–55.
40 Drake, S. (ed.). 1991. Local participation in ecotourism projects. In Nature Tourism:
41 Managing for the Environment, ed. T. Whelan, pp.132–63. Washington DC:
42 Island Press.
The Economist. 1986. Package tour prices y back to the future. The Economist,
43
October 11: 75–6.
1144 Etzioni, A. 1995. The Spirit of Community. London: Fontana.
388
1 Etzioni, A. 1997. The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in Democratic
2 Society. New York: Basic Books.
Featherstone, M. 1987. Lifestyle and consumer culture. Theory, Culture and Society
3
4: 55–70.
4 Featherstone, M. 1995. Undoing Culture: Globalisation, Postmodernism and
5 Identity. London: Sage.
6 Feldman, M.P. 1994. The Geography of Innovation. Boston: Kluwer.
7 French, C. 1998. The future of GDS. Travel and Tourism Analyst 3: 1–17.
Frew, A. J. 2000. Information technology and tourism: a research agenda.
8
Information Technology and Tourism 3(2): 99–110.
9 Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New
10 York: Penguin.
11 Glennie, P. D. and Thrift, N. J. 1992. Modernity, Urbanism and Modern
12 Consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10:
423–43.
13
Gurstein, M. 2000. Community informatics: enabling community uses of infor-
14 mation and communications technology. In Community Informatics: Enabling
15 Community Uses of Information and Communications Technologies, ed. M.
16 Gurstein, pp. 1–31. London: Idea Group.
17 Hansen, N. 1992. Competition, trust and reciprocity in the development of inno-
vative regional milieux. Papers in Regional Science 71(2): 95–105.
18
Haywood, T. 1998. Global networks and the myth of equality: trickle down or
19 trickle away? In Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency and Policy in the
20 Information Society, ed. B. D. Loader, pp. 19–34. London: Routledge.
21 Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. 1999. Globalization in Question, 2nd edn. Cambridge:
22 Policy Press.
Hirst, P. and Zeitlin, J. 1991. Flexible specialisation versus post–Fordism: theory,
23
evidence and policy implications. Economy and Society 20(1): 1–56.
24 Hutton, W. and Giddens, A. eds. 2000. On the Edge: Living with Global
25 Capitalism. London: Jonathan Cape.
26 Iaonnides, D. 1995 Strengthening the ties between tourism and economic geog-
27 raphy: a theoretical agenda. Professional Geographer 47(1): 49–60.
Iaonnides, D and Debbage, K. G. 1998 Introduction: exploring the economic geog-
28
raphy and tourism nexus. In The Economic Geography of the Tourism
29 Industry: A Supply-side Analysis, ed. D. Ioannides. and K. Debbage, pp. 1–14.
30 London: Routledge.
31 Jackson, P. 1993. Towards a cultural politics of consumption. In Mapping the
32 Futures: Local Cultures and Global Change, ed. J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam,
G. Robertson and L. Tickner, pp. 207–28. London: Routledge.
33
Jackson, P. and Holbrook, B. 1995. Multiple meanings: shopping and the cultural
34 politics of identity. Environment and Planning A 27: 1913–30.
35 Jackson, P. and Thrift, N. 1995. Geographies of consumption. In Acknowledging
36 Consumption, ed. D. Miller, pp. 204–38. London: Routledge.
37 Jupiter Communications. 1999. Travel suppliers missing online market potential.
Press release. www.jup.com/company/pressrelease, 12 May.
38
Kinnaird, V. and Hall, D. (eds). 1994. Tourism: A Gender Analysis. Chichester:
39 Wiley.
40 Knox, P. 1991. The restless urban landscape. Annals of the Association of American
41 Geographers 81: 181–209.
42 Lipietz, A. 1987. Mirages and Miracles: The Crisis of Global Fordism. London:
Verso.
43
Lipietz, A. 1993. The local and the global: regional individuality or interregion-
1114 alism? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18(1): 8–18.
389
111 Mansvelt, J. and Perkins, H. C. 1998. Putting recreation and leisure in their place:
2 the geography of leisure. In Time Out? Leisure, Recreation and Tourism in
New Zealand and Australia, ed. H. C. Perkins and G. Cushman, pp. 237–53.
3
Auckland: Addison Wesley Longman.
4 Massey, D. 1993. Politics and space/time. In Place and the Politics of Identity,
5 ed. M. Keith and S. Pile, pp. 141–61. London: Routledge.
6 McDowell, L. 1994. The transformation of cultural geography. In Human
7 Geography: Society, Space and Social Science, ed. D. Gregory, R. L. Martin
and G. Smith, pp. 146–73. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8
McNeill, L. 1997. Travel in the Digital Age. UK: Bowerdean Publishing.
9 Milne, S. 1998. Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the global–local
10 nexus. In Sustainable Tourism, ed. C. M. Hall and A. A. Lew, pp. 35–48.
11 London: Addison Wesley.
12 Milne, S. and Ateljevic, J. 2001. Technology and service quality in the tourism
and hospitality industry. In Service Quality Management in Hospitality,
13
Tourism and Leisure, ed. J. Kandampully et al., pp. 281–95. New York:
14 Hawarth Press.
15 Milne, S. and Gill, K. 1998. Distribution technologies and destination develop-
16 ment: myths and realities. In The Economic Geography of the Tourism
17 Industry: A Supply-side Analysis, ed. D. Ioannides and K. Debbage, pp.
123–38. London: Routledge.
18
Milne, S. and Mason, D. 2001. Tourism, web-raising and community develop-
19 ment. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2001,
20 ed. P. Sheldon, K Wober and D. Fesenmaier, pp. 283–93. New York:
21 Springer.
22 Milne, S. and Pohlmann, C. 1998. Continuity and change in the hotel sector:
some evidence from Montreal. In The Economic Geography of the Tourism
23
Industry: a Supply-side Analysis, ed. D. Ioannides and K. Debbage, pp.
24 180–96, London: Routledge.
25 Morrell, P. S. 1998. Airline sales and distribution channels: the impact of new
26 technology. Tourism Economics 4(1): 5–19.
27 Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. 1998. Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in
the Third World. London: Routledge.
28
Murphy, P. E. 1985. Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.
29 Murphy, P. E. 1994. Tourism and sustainable development. In Global Tourism:
30 The Next Decade, ed. W.F. Theobald, pp. 274–90. Oxford: Butterworth-
31 Heinemann.
32 Oakes, T. S. 1993. The cultural space of modernity: ethnic tourism and place
identity in China. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11: 47–66.
33
Peck, J. 2000. Doing regulation. In The Oxford Handbook of Economic
34 Geography, ed. G. L. Clark, M. P. Feldman and M. S. Gertler, pp. 61–83.
35 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36 Peet, R. and Hartwick, E. 1999. Theories of Development. New York: Guilford
37 Press.
Piore, M. J. and Sabel, C. F. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for
38
Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
39 Poon, A. 1989. Competitive strategies for a ‘new tourism’. In Progress in Tourism,
40 Recreation and Hospitality Management, ed. C. P. Cooper, pp. 91–102.
41 London: Belhaven Press.
42 Poon, A. 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Wallingford:
C.A.B. International.
43
Pred, A. 1996. Interfusions: consumption, identity and the practises and power
1144 relations of everyday life. Environment and Planning A 28: 11–24.
390
1 Preister, K. 1989. The theory and management of tourism impacts. Tourism
2 Recreation Research 14(1): 15–22.
Priestly, G. and Mundet, L. 1998. The Post-stagnation phase of the resort cycle.
3
Annals of Tourism Research 25(1): 85–111.
4 Reinders, J. and Baker, M. 1998. The future for direct retailing of travel and
5 tourism products: the inuence of IT. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality
6 Research 4(1): 1–15.
7 Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier. Boston: MIT Press.
8
Ringer, G. (ed). 1998. Destinations: Cultural Landscapes of Tourism. London:
9 Routledge.
10 Rojek, C. and Urry, J. eds. 1997. Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel
11 and Theory. London: Routledge.
12 Sayer, A. 1989. Postfordism in question. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 13(3): 666–93.
13
Sayer, A. 1995. Radical Political Economy: A Critique. Oxford: Blackwell.
14 Sayer, A. 2000. Critical and uncritical cultural turns. In Cultural
15 Turns/Geographical Turns, ed. I. Cook, D. Crouch, S. Naylor and J. R. Ryan,
16 pp. 166–82. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
17 Schertler, W. and Berger-Koch, C. 1999. Tourism as an information business: the
strategic consequences of e-commerce for business travel. In Information and
18
Communication Technologies in Tourism, ed. D. Buhalis and W. Schertler,
19 pp. 25–35. New York: Springer.
20 Scott, A. J. 1989. New Industrial Spaces: Flexible Production Organisation and
21 Regional Development in North America and Western Europe. London: Pion.
22 Sheldon, P. J. 1997. Tourism Information Technology. Wallingford: CAB.
Smith, C. and Jenner, P. 1998. Tourism and the Internet. Travel and Tourism
23
Analyst 1: 62–81.
24 Squire, S.J. 1994. Accounting for cultural meanings: the interface between geog-
25 raphy and tourism studies re-examined. Progress in Human Geography 18:
26 1–16.
27 Storper, M. 1990. Industrialization and the regional question in the Third World:
lessons of postimperialism; prospects of post–Fordism. International Journal
28
of Urban and Regional Research 14(3): 423–44.
29 Storper, M. 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global
30 Economy. London: Guilford Press.
31 Swyngedouw, E. 2000. Elite power, global forces, and the political economy of
32 ‘glocal’ development. In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, ed.
G. L. Clark, M. P. Feldman and M. S. Gertler, pp. 541–58. Oxford: Oxford
33
University Press.
34 Taylor, G. 1995a. The community approach: does it really work? Tourism
35 Management 16(7): 487–89.
36 Taylor, M. 1995b. Linking economy, environment and policy. In Environmental
37 Change: Industry, Power and Policy, ed. M. Taylor, pp. 1–14. Avebury:
Aldershot.
38
Teague, P. 1990. The Political Economy of the Regulation School and the Flexible
39 Specialization Scenario. Journal of Economic Studies 17(5): 32–54.
40 Thrift, N. 1994. Taking aim at the heart of the region. In Human Geography:
41 Society, Space and Social Science, ed. D. Gregory, R. Martin and G. Smith,
42 pp. 200–31. London: Macmillan.
Thrift, N. 2000. Pandora’s box? Cultural geographies of economies. In The Oxford
43
Handbook of Economic Geography, ed. G. L. Clark, M. P. Feldman and M.
1114 S. Gertler, pp. 689–704. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
391
111 Tickell, A. and Peck, J. A. 1992. Accumulation, regulation and the geographies
2 of post–Fordism: missing links in regulationist research. Progress in Human
Geography 16(2): 190–218.
3
Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies.
4 London: Sage.
5 Virilio, P. 1992. Grey ecology. In Anywhere, ed. Cynthia C. Davidson, pp. 188–9.
6 New York: Rizzoli.
7 Wanhill, S. 2000. Small and medium tourism enterprises. Annals of Tourism
Research 27(1): 132–47.
8
Wardell, D. J. 1998. The impact of electronic distribution on travel agents. Travel
9 and Tourism Analyst 2: 41–55.
10 Wells, M. and Brandon, K. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area
11 Management with Local Communities. Washington: The World Bank.
12 Williams, A. M. and Montanari, A. 1995. Tourism regions and spaces in a changing
social framework. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe 86(1):
13
3–12.
14 World Tourism Organisation. 1990. Tourism to the Year 2000: Qualitative Aspects
15 Affecting Global Growth. Madrid: WTO.
16 World Tourism Organisation. 1998. Tourism Economic Report. Madrid: WTO.
17 World Tourism Organisation. 1999. Tourism: 2020 Vision. Madrid: WTO.
World Tourism Organisation. 2000. Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. Madrid: WTO.
18
WTTC/WEFA. (various). Travel and Tourism’s Economic Impact. London: WTTC.
19 Wrigley, N. and Lowe, M.S. 1996. Retailing, Consumption and Capital: Towards
20 the New Retail Geography. Essex: Longman.
21 Zazueta. 1995. Policy Hits the Ground Running: Participation and Equity in
22 Environmental Decision Making. Washington: World Resources Institute.
Zeldin, T. 1994. An Intimate History of Humanity. London: Minerva.
23
Zukin, S. 1991. Landscapes of Power. Berkley: University of California Press.
24
25
26 Biographical note
27
28 Simon Milne is Professor of Tourism and Associate Dean of Research in
29 the Business Faculty, Auckland University of Technology. He also holds
30 appointments at Derby University, UK and at McGill University in
31 Montreal, Canada. Dr Milne now coordinates the Tourism Research
32 Institute in New Zealand. He has considerable experience in economic
33 impact assessment, and in formulating tourism-related economic devel-
34 opment strategies. In recent years he has become particularly interested
35 in the use of information technology to improve the economic perfor-
36 mance and sustainability of tourism rms and destinations. (Faculty of
37 Business, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland
38 1020, New Zealand; tel: +64 9 917 9999, ext. 5771 or 8777; fax: +64
39 9 917 9876; e-mail: simon.milne@aut.ac.nz)
40
41 Irena Ateljevic is a lecturer in Tourism at Victoria University of Wellington.
42 She received her PhD in Geography at the University of Auckland, New
43 Zealand. Her research interests include discourse analysis of tourism repre-
1144 sentations as framed and interpreted by various social groups; issues of
392
1 gender and tourist behaviour. (School of Business and Public Management,
2 Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Victoria University of
3 Wellington, P.O. Box 600,Wellington, New Zealand; tel: +64 4 495 5233,
4 ext. 8998; fax: +64 4 495 5180; e-mail: irena.ateljevic@vuw.ac.nz)
5
6
7 Résumé: Tourisme, dévelopment économique et la lien globale–locale: la
8 théorie embrassant la Complexité
9 Dans cet article, on critique les liens complexes qui existent entre le tourisme et
10 les processus de développement économique. Une brève vue d’ensemble du role
11 économique de l’industrie au niveau international et national nous mène a une
12 discussion conçernant la participation locale et régionale dans le tourisme. On
13 insiste sur le besoin de développer une connaissance plus rigoureuse du tourisme
qui continue d’évoluer, et comment il inuence les processus de développement
14 économique locale. Suivant une revue des théories majeures qui ont étaient
15 appliquées pour nous aider à comprendre ces processus, on a souligné les tenta-
16 tives de comprendre les liens entre le tourisme et le développement économique
17 qui ebmracent la complexité de l’industrie et ces inuences sur la vie cotidienne.
18 On recommende ‘nouvèlles’ façons de voir et d’étudier l’économie de la géogra-
phie touristique, façons qui reètent le tour culturel dans la ‘nouvèlle’ géographie
19 économique, et l’importance croissante des résaux et les nouvèlles technologies
20 d’information et de communication. On dénote qu’une bonne volenté est éssen-
21 tielle pour embracer la complexité si en veux déballer la nature ‘globale’ des
22 processus de développement touristique.
23
24
Mots-clés: développement économique, globalisation, théorie de régulation,
25 nouvèlle géographie économique, complexité
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
1114
393

Dusan Cvijic

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dusan Cvijic

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

LED

Você também pode gostar