Oppermann’s Tourism Development Theory
Introduction
Development theory provides the suitable conceptual framework and platform to
elucidate the processes in tourism development. It shows these processes are not solely
the result of unilateral actions. Instead, the nature of tourism development is a highly
contested one, which among others, is susceptible to influence from the surrounding
milieu, invoked by factors such as politics, economics, culture and the environment.
Such processes are made more complex by the fact that the tourism industry is composed
of diverse inter-related fields, and as such are broad in scope and depth. This theory
provides the analytical framework whence strands as well as the progression in tourism
development can be explored. Accordingly these will help conceptualised tourism and
development, and their interlinking features, within the broad geographical perspective
(Andriotis, K. (2002).
Proponent: Anna Oppermann
After "The Death of the Author". On Re-installing Anna Oppermann's processual
and open Ensembles. With their 1970s’ terminology many of the quotations used by
Oppermann appear slightly dated. Much can still be gained today, though, from her
Ensemble Gesture of Pathos MLCODP – Make Large, Compelling Objects that
Demonstrate Power! (1984–92), which addresses the commercialization of art in the
1980s with great irony. At its centre stands a blurred, larger-than-life photograph of a
person shaking a fist. Oppermann’s critique here is directed against the bathos of Neo1
Expressionist painting and hollow gestures in culture and politics. But the artist does not
exempt herself from criticism; the work also includes texts discussing her own potential
for violence and her desire for success. To Oppermann the easy solution of simply
washing
one’s
hands
of
all
guilt
was
admirably
alien.
(http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/anna_oppermann/).
Assumptions/ Hypothesis
The late Oppermann (1993) assessed how tourism theories developed as a
reaction to economic models. He argued that two predominant paradigms of tourism
were evident following the Second World War. These were the diffusionist paradigm
and the dependency paradigms. Opperman argued that two theories emerged within the
diffusionist paradigm.
The first was development stage theory, based on the notion of unilinear changes
from less developed to developed (Opperman, 1993). During this time, it was felt that
the overall obstacle to development was traditional society (Clancy, 1999). Oppermann
writes that this approach was based on Rostow’s (1960) stages of economic growth and
that it was used in tourism by Miossec (1976, cited in Oppermann, 1993:), Thurot (1973,
cited in Oppermann 1993) and Schlenke and Steiwg (1983, cited in Oppermann, 1993),
with the latter developing a model directly related to Rostow’s stages of economic
growth, which suggested that host communities would benefit positively from tourism as
it would advance development in their society.
The second theory to emerge within the diffusionist paradigm was diffusion
theory. This was based on the trickle-down or multiplier effect, from more developed to
2
less developed areas (Browett, 1979; Myrdal, 1959, cited in Oppermann, 1993). Authors
such as Christaller (1964) argued that tourism would create this effect and could be used
for developing regions where other economic sectors would not work. In particular it was
seen as being suitable because of its high connectivity with other sectors (Clement, 1961,
cited in Oppermann, 1993). At the time that this paradigm was most popular, mass
tourism had emerged as a result of social advances such as paid leave, women in the
workforce, flexi-time and transport advances such as the wide bodied jet (Buckley, 1995;
Ceballos- Lascurain, 1996). Advocates of this paradigm may have argued for tourism on
the basis that it was a non destructive, capital generating sector and therefore had the
potential to be a universal remedy for developing countries. Conversely, the diffusionist
paradigm could be regarded as a forerunner to sustainable tourism as it was out of
dissatisfaction with this paradigm that calls for more sustainable tourism developments
were made.
The second paradigm of tourism development was the dependency paradigm,
which arose out of the dissatisfaction with the diffusion paradigm (Oppermann, 1993).
Advocates of this paradigm argued that capitalism in the core perpetually created and
maintained underdevelopment in the periphery (Browett, 1982; Frank, 1969). This
paradigm distinguished between underdeveloped and undeveloped, saying that the former
had developed ties with the West and experienced negative consequences associated with
colonialism and western ties (Clancy, 1999). These writers were inspired by Marxist
thought, imperialism and colonialism argued development was not linear, but holistic,
where wealth and poverty were linked on a global scale (Oppermann, 1993). Britton
(1980) was a tourism academic who linked tourism and dependency. He argued that
3
tourism resulted in enclaves of resorts, used by developing countries, thus increasing
dependency. Although not specifically mentioning the development of sustainable
tourism, Oppermann’s paradigms provide an insight into how economic factors directly
affected tourism thinking. Moreover, it illustrates how dissatisfaction with these
paradigms led to a new one which incorporated the environment with economics. For
these reasons, several authors (Butler, 1993; Hunter, 1997; Wall, 1997) prefer to use the
term ’sustainable development in the context of tourism’ rather than sustainable tourism
in order to prevent the parochial assumption implied in the term sustainable tourism.
Despite sustainable tourism being an integrated concept in theory, the tendency to
concentrate on aspects related to economics and the environment may be a direct result of
its historical development being one that has been largely driven by dissatisfaction with
economic models (A. Hardy et al. 2002).
Clarke’s four historical
positions on sustainable
tourism.


1) Dichotomous

2) Continuum

3) Goal for attainment

4) Converge
Two models of tourism development and four
positions on sustainability
Clarke
(1997)
Oppermann’s two
predominant paradigms of
tourism:

1) The diffusionist
paradigm

Jafari’s four platforms
of tourism research:


1) Advocacy

2) Cautionary

3) Adaptancy

4) Knowledge-based
Jafari
(1990)
Oppermann
(1993)
a) development stage
theory


b) diffusion theory
2) The dependency
paradigm

Figure 1. Adapted from: Thomsen, 2008
4
Tourism development in peripheral countries is strongly influenced by events in
the core countries. The flow of mass tourists from central to peripheral countries, and the
running of hotels and resorts, are subject to various control mechanisms found in the
former (Britton, 1989). The roles of tour operators in core countries, one of the most
influential tourism suppliers due to their huge financial resources and industrial leverage,
for instance, can exert a strong impact on the occupancy rate of hotels and spatial
distribution of tourist flow in receiving countries, many of which resemble peripheral
areas (Shaw and Williams, 1994). Furthermore, many of the hotels, particularly those of
an international class, are owned or managed by Transnational Corporations. However,
Din (1990) contends that not all international standard accommodation chains in
developing countries belong to developed countries and hence are not controlled by
external force. He exemplifies this notion by noting that locals own several of the luxury
hotels in Penang, a tourist destination area in Malaysia. At a different level, these
relationships posit the notion of underdevelopment of developing countries because of
the exploitation by developed countries (Britton, 1989; Harrison, 1995). “Thus, according
to dependency theory, tourism is an industry like any other, which is used by the
developed countries to perpetuate the dependency of the developing countries. Instead of
reducing the existing socio-economic regional disparities within the developing countries,
tourism reinforces them through its enclavic structure and its orientation along traditional
structures” (Oppermann, 1993). In parallel, Walpole and Goodwin (2000) contend that
this peripheral relationship also exists in a local context. Their study of ecotourism in the
protected Komodo National Park in Indonesia, illustrates that economic distributional
5
inequalities favoured external operators and urban residents rather than the villagers.
Outsiders control most of the accommodation and boating facilities (Awang, (2009).
Merit/Demerit
Oppermann (1993) and Pearce (1995) suggested that existing geographicallyrelated theories in tourism have grown along two main paradigms: the diffusionist model,
from the notion of Rostow economic growth t and the dependency model. Both contain
the construction of places and spaces at their heart (Crang, 1997). However, the former
addresses tourism as a regional agent of development and as such, tourism development
is diffused from core to peripheral areas. The latter on the other hand, carries the notion
of a subjugated peripheral area by its core counterpart. In the context of countries deemed
peripheral, such as the world’s less developed countries, there is little detailed research
undertaken on tourism (Brown and Hall, 2000).
Oppermann wrote the approached of development stages based on Rostow’s
(1960) stages of economic growth and that was used in tourism by Miossec. Looking
back from the module well thought-out and developed by Dr. Fe L. Porciuncula,
Professor of the Central Luzon State University, Munoz Nueva Ecija, and the process are
as follows:
The first stage: traditional society. Output is limited because of the inaccessibility
of science and technology. Values are generally "fatalistic", and political power is noncentralized.
6
The second stage: The preconditions for take-off. There are clusters of new ideas
favoring economic progress arising, and therefore new levels of education,
entrepreneurship, and institutions capable of mobilizing capital. Investment increases,
especially in transport, communications and raw materials, with a general direction
towards commercial expansion. But, in accordance with Rostow, traditional social
structures and production techniques remain. There is the presence of a "dual society". (A
fractured society in accordance with notional framework.)
The third stage: the take-off. Agriculture is commercialized, there is a growth in
productivity, and because that is necessary if the demand emanating from expanding
urban centers is to be met. New political groups representing new economic groups push
the industrial economy to new heights.
The fourth stage: the drive to maturity. Rostow said that between 10 and 20 per
cent of gross domestic product is invested and the economy "takes its place in the
international order. Technology becomes more complex and there is a move away from
heavy industry". Now production is not the outcome of social necessity but of the need of
maximizing profits to survive in a competitive capitalist market.
The fifth stage: mass consumption. The leading economic sectors specialize in
durable consumer goods and services. At this stage, economic growth makes sure that
basic needs are satisfied, and the social focus changes to social welfare and security.
Rostow thought of his theory as a dynamic one "that deals not only with economic factors
but also with social decisions and policies of governments".
7
However, it’s imperative to note that tourism has both positive and negative
impacts to the different parts of the environment, which are; the land, flora and fauna, air
and water. These parts of the environment are affected in different ways by tourism,
though in terms of tourism development, priority should be to maximise the positive
impacts and minimise the negative impacts by various stakeholders, at the same time,
measures should be put in place for preserving the environment in which it operates
which in turn will also contribute to its sustainability (Phon-ngam, 2007).
Application to Rural Development
Sustainable development is determined by a large set of stakeholders - the ones,
who the have right and ability to change the development process: 1) Tourists, 2) Tourist
businesses, 3) Host community and 4) Local government. The process of sustainable
development includes; effective long term planning, collaboration and partnership of all
stakeholders and integrating and reconciling of all the stakeholders needs and interests.
Do the local communities have a choice in terms of change - an intrinsic part of human
evolution? “Paradoxically, in a tourism context, residents of destination areas may be
encouraged to retain their traditions in order that they can develop!” Zhenhua (2003,
cited by, Thomsen, 2008)
It was out of this dependency paradigm that sustainable tourism could be said to
have emerged directly, as it precipitated anti-developmental and limits to growth
arguments. As a result, calls began to be made for alternatives to mass tourism in the
form of environmentally sensitive small-scale and therefore ’supposedly’ sustainable
tourism (Butler, 1991; Wight, 1993, cited by Opperman 1993).
8
The diffusionist paradigm could be regarded as a forerunner to sustainable
tourism as it was out of dissatisfaction with this paradigm that calls for more sustainable
tourism developments were made. The process of “modernization by diffusion” should
encourage the development of a number of features in the Third World, including
urbanization based on nuclear family households, educational growth for literacy and
training, the development of mass media to disseminate ideas and encourage increased
awareness about society, heightened political awareness and participation in a democratic
system, increased business opportunities through providing capital for investment, the
replacement of patterns of authority based on traditional loyalties (for example
monarchies, local chiefdoms) with a rational system of law coupled with representative
national government; Different societies are at different stages of development because
that have been more or less successful in introducing the features of modernity for any
development perspective.
Most islands face a series of binding constraints to traditional forms of economic
development. These include: external dependency, lack of autonomy in the decisionmaking, isolation, peripherality, diseconomies of scale; rurality; scarcity of resources, and
accessibility constraints (Butler, 1993; Cross & Nutley, 1999; Milne 1992; Pearce, 1995;
Royle & Scott, 1996). Therefore, growing tourism demand opens new opportunities for
island development. Due to the increase in the real incomes of the island populations and
the generation of employment (although mostly seasonal), governments have seen
tourism as a promising opportunity for reducing the prosperity gap between themselves
and developed countries, and as a means of modernising their economic base and
retaining their population and community welfare. A significant role for the development
9
of the tourism industry of island destinations is played by the local authorities. However,
despite the pervasive growth of tourism for many islands over the last decades and the
use of tourism by many local governments as a strategy to eliminate economic problems,
development literature has almost neglected the significant role played by local
governments for the expansion of islands’ tourism industry (Andriotis, 2002).
References
Andriotis, Konstantinos. (2002). Local Authorities in Crete and the Development of
Tourism. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 13(2):53-62.
Awang Khairil Wahidin. (2009), (Corresponding Author). Department of Hospitality and
Recreation Faculty of Economics and Management, University Putra Malaysia
43400
Serdang,
Selangor,
Malaysia.
Asian
Social
Science,
www.ccsenet.org/journal.html,vol.5,no.5, May 2009.
A. Hardy et al., Journal of Sustainable Tourism. vol. 10, No. 6, 2002. 0966-9582/02/06
0475-22 © 2002.
Brown, F. and Hall, D. (2000). Introduction: The Paradox of Peripherality. In F. Brown
and D. Hall (Eds.), Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Case Studies (pp1-6). Clevedon:
Channel View Publications.
Fe L. Porciuncula, PhD. (undated). Theories and Strategies of Change (RD 704), Central
Luzon State University, Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
Oppermann, M. (1993). Tourism Space in Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism
Research, 20(3).
Prakorb Phon-ngam. (August 2007) GMS Discoveries: Borderless Issues for Regional
Strengthening and Sustainable Development. Loei Rajabhat University, Muang
Loei 42000 Thailand.
Robert Chr. Thomsen (2008). Guest lecturer. Tourism Cultures and Intercultural
Encounters 2008.
10