DEVEOPMENTS IN UNDERSTANDING TOURISM POLICY
One of the frequent complaints made over the past 40 years or so, during which time the formal
study of tourism has been developing, is that little attention had been paid to politics and policymaking in tourism. Matthews put it strongly in 1975 (p. 195) suggesting that “the literature of
tourism is grossly lacking of political research”, while Hall (1994, p. xvii) nearly 20 years later wrote
“Research into the political dimensions of tourism ….. is in a relatively poor state” and even more
recently Kerr (2003, p. xvii) suggested that “the majority of tourism policy research is
underdeveloped in terms of frameworks, approaches and theories to illustrate tourism policy
accurately”. In many ways this is surprising given the forceful and controversial comments from
Richter (p. 11) as early as 1989 that “where tourism succeeds or fails is largely a function of political
and administrative actions and is not a function of economic or business expertise”.
Perhaps driven by this however, in the decade or so since Kerr’s comments there has been what
Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 149) have referred to as “a marked quickening in the pace of study
about the policy and political dimensions of tourism”. For example, there are now two academic
journals with a focus on tourism policy namely The International Journal of Tourism Policy and Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, launched in 2007 and 2009 respectively, and there have
been regular special issues dealing with tourism policy and related topics, with that edited by Jenkins
being an early contribution (2001) and more recently that by Bramwell and Lane (2011). At the same
time books, with recent examples provided by Lennon, Smith, Cockerell and Trew (2006), Dredge
and Jenkins (2007), Edgell, DelMastro Allen, Smith, & Swanson (2008), Butler and Suntikul (2010)
and Costa, Panyik and Buhalis (2014) as well as many others have considerably extended the
coverage of this aspect of tourism, such that it is now possible to begin to identify themes in the
literature as well as omissions.
It is these themes that provide the starting point for this article which has the aim to examine the
current stage of development of the study of tourism policy and some of the key issues that have
come in for attention. In this the focus is mainly on public policies designed specifically to influence
tourism itself rather than on policies designed for other sectors and activities which in turn influence
tourism although it is recognised that it is not always possible to separate the two. Even with this
limitation a review of this kind deals with a broad and complex topic and given that it covers a fairly
long time period it is inevitably selective. It draws upon a wide range of work carried out and
published over nearly 40 years but in doing so it also omits a great deal. There is no pretence here to
be comprehensive. Rather the aim is to try to see some patterns and themes which might help to
understand where the study of tourism policy has reached. Following an introduction to some of the
models and frameworks for examining policy, which provides a structure for the article, the work
examines the current state of tourism policy research under five main headings, four of which relate
specifically to one of the models. The fifth, concerned with politics and ideology, could arguably be
included in the first heading, but here it is separated out as providing a broader setting for all
aspects of policy-making in tourism.
MODELS AND FRAMEWORKS
Dye (2008, p. 3) provides perhaps the most simple description of policy as being “whatever
governments choose to do or not to do”; a description that has come in for considerable criticism as
being too simple (Dredge & Jenkins, 2007). It nevertheless, in its simplicity, captures the essence of
public policy as being the outcomes of decisions or choices made, or sometimes as importantly not
made, by public policy-makers. Behind the decisions and choices lie a complex set of influences, and
following the decisions and choices are a range of outputs and outcomes. This policy environment
1
has prompted a range of models that have been developed that in turn have been important in
providing the setting for our understanding of the tourism policy process. Notwithstanding the
criticisms, again captured by Dredge and Jenkins (2007) about “their simplistic nature”(p. 200) and
that “the policy cycle alone cannot convey the richness of policy debates over time, across space and
between different actors and agencies” (p. 201), or by Hall (2010, p. 13) who points to their
“significant weaknesses” and drawing on Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier lists six serious limitations, such
models have played an important part in delineating the space covered by policy-making as well as
identifying the processes involved. It is for the purpose of delineating the space and identifying the
processes that a model provides a framework here to explore the development of the study of
tourism policy.
Much of the early work about policy-making focused on policy models often as kinds of input-output
models. Among the earliest of these are the works of Easton (1957, p. 384; 1965) further elaborated
substantially by Jenkins (1978, p. 35) that draw attention to the process of policy-making as including
a series of stages in which inputs arrive in a decision making system from which policy outputs and
outcomes emerge. In different ways this type of model has been picked up by a range of scholars in
relation to tourism starting particularly with the work of Hall (1994, p. 50) who set the policy process
in a wider policy arena. Subsequently a range of different models have been proposed and used to
help frame and understand policy-making in tourism. See for example Airey and Chong (2011, p. 41),
Dredge and Jenkins (2007, p. 16), Hall and Jenkins (1995, p. 11) and Pforr (2001, p. 280). The
importance of these for present purposes lies both in the extent to which they draw attention to the
many influences and actors involved in the policy-making process in tourism as well as in the extent
to which they set a kind of outline of the agenda of knowledge about tourism policy.
A simplified model adapted from that developed by Airey and Chong (2011, p. 41) and used by Airey
and Ruhanen (2014, p. 152) for their work on tourism in Australia is provided in Figure 1. This makes
a distinction between on the one hand policy inputs from outside the tourism policy system, such as
a change in exchange rates or from issues prompted by tourism itself such as consumer protection,
environmental damage or seasonality issues, and on the other hand from inside the policy system,
such as the relative strength of the different stakeholders involved. And further it distinguishes these
inputs from the policy process in which the policy-makers themselves learn about and interpret the
inputs. This in turn is distinguished from the policy outputs, often in the form of government policy
statements and the actual outcomes of policy decisions in the form, for example, of increased visitor
numbers or spending.
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
This article uses this simplified model to provide a framework to explore some of the main themes in
the research on policy in tourism. However, in doing so it is recognised that, in line with the
strictures of Dredge and Jenkins (2007) and Hall (2010) noted above, the divisions provided by the
framework are in many ways matched only by the overlaps between them.
THE POLICY INPUTS – A NEOLIBERAL SETTING
As far as the policy inputs from outside the tourism policy system are concerned, one of the streams
of work evident in the literature on tourism policy is that which sets out to explore the reasons why
governments get in involved in tourism and the implications of this. In other words, this begins to
explore the policy inputs. One of the early authors in the tourism field (Wahab, 1974, p. 17) put it
simply as “state intervention in the tourist industry has been found necessary”. The reasons range
from the inevitability of such involvement, as suggested by Crick (1989, p. 320), that “international
2
tourism is political, since the state must be involved in foreign relations, the expenditure of large
quantities of capital, and large scale planning”, to the need for governments to use tourism to meet
public policy objectives, typically economic objectives linked to foreign currency earnings and
employment as explored at an early stage by Airey (1983).
Airey and Chong (2011) relate the reasons for government involvement in tourism to the problems,
concerns and opportunities created in a number of different settings: the international environment;
the domestic political environment; the domestic socio-economic environment; the tourism
environment; national policy; ideology; and policies from other sectors. Within these they cite
tourism studies over a long period that relate to policies prompted by the international environment
and the domestic socio-economic environment, including foreign exchange earning and
employment. Airey and Chong (2011) also point to work on policy related the problems, concerns
and opportunities created by tourism itself, such as increases in air traffic and environmental
degradation as well as consumer protection issues needing a government policy response. In this
context for example, policy for tourism in connection with its relationship with sustainability and
climate change have come in for much recent attention (Becken & Clapcott, 2011; Coles, Zschiegner,
& Dinan, 2013). For the other reasons for government involvement in tourism set out by Airey and
Chong (2011) the citations are more limited although the recent edited text by Butler and Suntikul
(2010) provides a range of studies which deal with the ways in which issues from outside tourism
have prompted government policy on tourism. In brief the inputs to the policy system are becoming
better understood.
At a very early stage in the consideration of tourism policy Richter (1983) commented that that as
one of the fastest growing economic sectors in terms of foreign exchange earnings and employment
tourism should be a hot political issue. With this background the economy has provided a key focus
for the subsequent study of the policy inputs. From this background a strong line of work on tourism
policy draws on themes from political economy, expressing the relationship between economic and
political affairs (Caporaso & Levine, 2003; Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, & Jones, 2006). In essence, this
has focused very much on the ways in which thinking in relation to the economy influences policies
toward tourism. Economy, following Airey and Chong (2011, p. 40), is “understood here in its broad
sense of social economy or the way of life found in production”. Some of the earliest texts dealing
with tourism, for example, focus on the ways in which economic issues, such as balance of payments
problems, the need for regional development or the creation of jobs, drive public policy in relation
to tourism (D. Airey, 1983; Burkart & Medlik, 1974; Young, 1973). Over time this fairly narrow path
has broadened to embrace a much wider field of influences (C. M. Hall & Jenkins, 1995) and
Mosedale’s (2011) edited text has most recently extended as well as continued the exploration of
tourism from a political economy perspective.
Present work related to this theme has taken its cue from what Harvey (2007, p. 2) describes as “an
emphatic turn towards neoliberalism in political and economic practices and thinking since the
1970s”. Understanding and examining the effects of neoliberalism on tourism policies and policymakers in terms, for example, of maximising entrepreneurial freedoms, reducing or eliminating
barriers, emphasising the needs of the consumer or what one commentator called “boosterism, fasttracking and preferential treatment of development applications.” (Dredge, 2011, p. 63) has been
prominent in a number of studies. In their study of Australia, Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 159) reach
the conclusion that policy is “dominated by approaches that satisfy the demands of an economic
neoliberal ideology. In this sense the influence of political economy on tourism policy and most
recently of the neoliberal context of much policy making, at least in the western world, is now well
explored in the literature.
3
POLICY INPUTS – FROM GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNANCE IN THE TOURISM POLICY SYSTEM
One of the accompaniments of neoliberalist ideology is deregulation, with government activities
being passed to non-governmental agencies including full privatisation. This has brought to the fore
the concept of governance described by Stoker (1998, p. 17; 1999) as “the development of
governing styles in which the boundaries between and within public and private sectors have
become blurred”. In tourism, Dredge and Jenkins (2007) refer to this as the changing conceptions of
policy, to embrace more than just the relationship between government and society. Under titles of
“governance” and “policy networks” (Dredge & Jenkins, 2012, p. 5) there have been a range of
studies exploring the ways in which various stakeholders, within the tourism policy system, from
residents to industry bodies have an influence, or lack of influence, on the policy agenda for tourism.
These have included an edited text based on an earlier special journal issue specifically related to
governance (Bramwell & Lane, 2012) as well as a review of the literature on governance in tourism
(Ruhanen, Scott, Ritchie, & Tkaczynski, 2010). One of the strong themes that comes through these
studies, apart from the sheer complexity of the stakeholders involved, and the power of the industry
bodies in influencing policy in their favour, is the need to give a voice to all stakeholders, including
those who may be harmed while business is benefitting from tourism (Dredge & Jenkins, 2012;
Moscardo, 2012) or what Wray (2009, 2012) refers to as the need for the establishment of a
participatory and inclusive framework for stakeholders and policy communities. Apart from edited
collections and literature reviews, a further indication of the developing maturity of this line of
research is presented in the first attempt to develop a typology of governance in tourism (C. M. Hall,
2011c).
Alongside work on governance, the institutional context for policy within the tourism policy system
has provided another theme related to the explorations of policy in tourism. Indeed this has a rather
longer history than the work on governance. Heeley’s (1981, 1989) and Airey’s (1984) work provided
an early start to this, focusing respectively on the structures created for tourism in the UK especially
national and local tourism organisations, and on the arrangement for policy-making in the USA. This
was then taken further by Pearce in his generic review of tourism organisations (1992) and in a
number of his subsequent articles (Pearce, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c). The United Nations World Tourism
Organization has added to this with its updating of information about national tourist offices (1999).
Subsequently accounts have appeared that have gathered together the structures for tourism in a
number of countries (Costa et al., 2014; Lennon et al., 2006) providing both information and
comparisons. And consideration has been given to the role of international organisations and their
influence on tourism policy (C. M. Hall, 2011a; Lo Piccolo, Leone, & Pizzuto, 2012; Shackley, 1998)
Common themes in this line of work at the national and local levels have related to the efficacy of
national tourism offices, the position of tourism within the government structures typically alongside
business and economics , the spread of tourism across governmental structures and the problems
that this creates for the coordination of policies for tourism and the consequences of tourism being
split between different levels of government and the sometimes incompatibilities and
inconsistencies in the policies as well as the restructuring of public administration with respect to
tourism (Dredge, 2001; Dredge & Jenkins, 2003a, 2003b, 2007; C. M. Hall, 2009, 2010; Pforr, 2007).
Also linked to the work relating to the neoliberal setting of much policy-making for tourism, studies
have addressed the strong and increasing involvement of industry and related bodies in the
institutional arrangements for policy-making (D. Airey & Ruhanen, 2014): what one author refers to
as the “capture” of the policy space by industry bodies (Dredge, 2011, p. 15), clearly a neoliberal
theme. Heeley (2000) develops this into a consideration of public-private partnerships in providing
tourist organisation services an issue picked up by others (Zapata & Hall, 2012). This obviously links
4
back to the theme of governance, with studies related to examining the networks of stakeholders in
the policy arena and the often unequal distributions of power within the networks (Baggio, Scott, &
Cooper, 2010; Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Dredge, 2006; Marzano & Scott, 2009; Richins & Pearce,
2000). Most recently, the literature on institutional logics (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012) is
also providing a basis to explore the differing perspectives of the various stakeholders involved in
the development of tourism policy.
THE POLICY PROCESS – LIMITS OF LEARNING AND POWER
One of the key points of focus for research into policy-making generally is on the policy-makers
themselves. As Airey and Chong put it (2010, p. 296) [policy-makers] “stand at the core since policy is
formulated and implemented by the actors”. Drawing on the work of Heclo (1974) and Hall (1993),
Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 151) make the point that “policy oriented learning”…….. [by the policymakers] represents the crucial ingredient in which the policy-makers assimilate new information and
apply it to subsequent actions”. As far as tourism is concerned, the role and position of the policymakers themselves is a relatively recent arrival on the research agenda. In their study Airey and
Ruhanen (2014) identify a further eight works dealing with the policy-makers in tourism, the earliest
in 2006 (D. Airey & Chong, 2010; Bramwell & Meyer, 2007; Dredge, 2006; Dredge & Thomas, 2009;
C. M. Hall, 2011b; Pforr, 2006; Schianetz, Kavanagh, & Lockington, 2007; Stevenson, Airey, & Miller,
2008). Within these they point to the work of by Hall (2011b) and by Schianetz et al. (2007) dealing
with the relatively limited the ways and extent to which the policy-makers in tourism learn about
their environments, a point developed also by Best on the gap between policy-makers and
researchers (2009). Hall (2011b) in particular points to the relative weakness of policy learning and
our understanding of it in tourism. This is also taken up by Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 158), in their
study of Australia. Here they suggest that the information base for the tourism policy-makers is very
much limited to “information and lobbying from industry about markets and consumers” rather than
about some of the broader issues and concerns raised by tourism with the resulting reliance on what
Hall refers to as instrumental or technical learning rather than conceptual or political learning. They
relate this again to the neoliberal paradigm in which the development of markets is of key
importance.
Apart from policy learning by the policy-makers, Airey and Chong (2011) draw attention to their
other role of coordinating with others, especially the powerful forces, in the policy arena. Hall, Clark,
Giordano, Johnson, & Roeke (1977, p. 459) define such coordination as the “extent to which
organizations attempt to ensure that their activities take into account those of other organizations”
which Hogwood and Gunn (1984, p. 206) suggest “involves the exercise of power”. Here, Airey and
Chong, as well as others (Elliot, 1987; Elliott, 1997; C. M. Hall & Jenkins, 1995; Jeffries, 2001) identify
the extent to which tourism as a policy issue is both relatively fragmented and weak. As a result
other branches of government, especially finance and trade ministries as well as powerful industry
players often exercise the decisive roles in the policy-making. This again clearly links back to the
neoliberal context of the current environment for policy. Further, Airey and Chong, in their work on
China, provide illustrations of the ways in which the ideological context of that country dominated
the actions of the tourism policy makers at a time when tourism was beginning to emerge as a
separate policy issue.
POLICY OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES
In his early work, Jenkins (1978) makes a clear distinction between what he refers to as the decisions
made by the policy makers and the actual outcomes that result from the implementation of the
decisions as well as the results of the non-decisions. Scott (2011, p. 21) emphasises this distinction
5
with the words “Policy outputs ie policy statements or plans need to be distinguished from policy
outcomes, the actual effects of policies, as policy outcomes may be unintended even if policy itself is
a rational choice of action”. The outputs are listed by Airey and Chong (2011) as written policy
statements, legislative acts or more typically as ministerial or other speeches, statements or press
releases or conveyed by the actions themselves. For the outcomes they make a distinction between
those intended, such as growth in tourism employment and those unintended such as
environmental degradation.
The outcomes of policy have long been the subject of academic and other scrutiny with many of the
large number of impact studies produced over the past 40 or so years setting their findings against
government objectives in for example employment, tourist arrivals and spending, or more recently
climate change as well as other social and environmental policies. However as Hall (1994, p. 80)
noted some 20 years ago, this is not the same as “systematic evaluation of tourism public policy”
which as he says “is a sadly neglected aspect of tourism planning, management and development”.
Since then as Dredge and Jenkins (2007, p. 185) note, with calls for greater government
transparency and accountability “the importance of ……evaluation of policy is becoming more
obvious” and at the same time the qualitative and quantitative techniques are being developed. For
example, from its first issue in 2009 the Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events has
included work on the evaluation of policy (Getz, 2009; O'Sullivan, Pickernell, & Senyard, 2009)
including critique of policy (Feighery, 2011). It has also, from its start provided reviews of policy
covering different aspects of tourism and interestingly has devoted one volume to a consideration of
the unintended consequences of policy measures (Spracklen, 2012). This relative wealth of literature
contrasts sharply with studies of the policy outputs. Except for studies including lists of policy
instruments used by the public authorities, such as those given by Airey and Chong (2011) or rather
more comprehensively by Dredge and Jenkins (2007) there is a real absence of work on the nature,
content or efficacy of the tourism policy outputs or instruments or how these might relate to the
policies themselves.
THE POLITICAL DIMENSION
Drawing on the work of Caporaso and Levine (2003, p. 20), Airey and Chong write (2011, p. 5) “at its
most simple, politics refers to the activities and institutions responsible for public decisions for
society as a whole”. Hall (1994, p. 66) puts it rather more succinctly and bluntly “Politics and public
policy are inextricably linked” and “politics is about power” while Richter (1989, p. 2) comments
simply that tourism is a “highly political phenomenon”. With these thoughts in mind any
understanding of tourism and tourism policy, needs to be set in a political context, in other words
how does the politics affect tourism and who has the power in this process?
Examples of the influence of politics on tourism are not hard to find, from Richter’s (1989)
identification of the use of tourism promotion by the Marcos regime to maintain its legitimacy in the
Phillipines to Hall’s (1994) recognition of the prohibition of direct travel to Cuba by Americans for
political reasons and to the promotion of ‘Red Tourism’ in the People’s Republic of China, seen by
Airey and Chong (2011) as a way of emphasising the recent political history of the country. Tourism
also figures widely in studies relating the national identity, used by politicians to create and refocus
national identity (D. Airey & Shackley, 1998; Frew & White, 2011; Lepp & Harris, 1999; Palmer, 1999;
Pitchford, 2008). Also from early work by, for example, Richter (1983) Hall (1994), Elliott (1997) and
Edgell (1999) through to more recent contributions from Dredge and Jenkins (2007) there are many
other studies of the relationships and effects of politics on tourism. There are also now many studies
that explore particular aspects of tourism and tourism locations through a political lens (Bianchi,
2006; Bramwell & Meyer, 2007; Donaldson, 2007; Elliot, 1983; C. M. Hall, 1999; D. Hall, 2001;
6
Henderson, 2003). Airey and Chong (2011, p. 119) point to the use of tourism as a part international
diplomacy and political action in connection with the so-called “Table-Tennis Diplomacy” that used
sports tourism to smooth diplomatic links between China and USA in the early 1970. And other
authors have explored similar roles for tourism in potentially easing political tensions in Korea
(Prideaux, Prideaux, & Seongseop, 2010) and Cyprus (Jacobson, Musyck, Orphanides, & Webster,
2010).
There are also a number of studies that focus on the broader ideological political issues that lie
behind many of the political actions. This extends to the ideologies as represented by political
parties and political groupings and their influence on public policy for tourism. With specific
reference to tourism Hall and Jenkins (1995, p. 69) explain ideology as a “set of values which defines
the parameters within which problems are defined and discussed and solutions conceived and
carried out” and to emphasise its importance Elliott (1997, p. 17) suggests “How tourism is managed
will depend upon the political culture of the country and the ideology of the government”.
Reference has already been made above to works that explore the influence of neoliberalism on
tourism, and indeed this sets an important context for many recent studies. Similarly previous work
has examined the development of tourism under the ideology of the former communist countries
(Assipova & Minnaert, 2014; D. Hall, 2001) as well as in the countries in transition (Suntikul, Butler, &
Airey, 2010). An early example of work in this area is provided by Wanhill (1987) who considered the
political context of tourism at a local level in the UK and later Chambers and Airey (2001) examined
how tourism fared under left and right oriented governments in Jamaica in the 1970s and 1980s.
More recently Janoschka (2011) considers some of the political issues behind the development of
tourism on the Spanish Costa Blanca. In rather more detail Airey and Chong (2011) trace the
ideologies that lie behind the development of tourism in China between 1949 to 2010. This goes
from a time when, for political ideological reasons, tourism was considered not to exist; through a
period when, because it was not part of the national plan, tourism could almost bypass the reigning
ideology and accordingly it provided a suitable arena in which to experiment with market and
western oriented policies; and then through to a period where it is recognised politically as an
important sector, substantially for economic reasons and because it now fits with the political
ideology of the ruling party. In this setting changing politics has provided the main driver for change
in tourism.
CONCLUSION
As with most other aspects of tourism, knowledge about its policy and political dimensions have
expanded enormously during its lifetime as a distinct area of study. Given the growth in tourism as
an activity and in its impacts on economies, societies and environments more generally it is hardly
surprising that it has attracted increased attention by the policymakers and with this background it
has come in for increased attention by academics and scholars. It might have had a slow start, as
witnessed by some of the early commentators referred to in the introduction to this article, but it
certainly seems to have made up for it since.
There is now a wide body of research devoted to understanding the policy dimensions of tourism.
This article has grouped the work into five broad headings. The first, and perhaps the earliest relate
to identifying and examining the influences on policy coming from outside the tourism system which
in the words of Airey and Chong (2011, p. 41) provide the “problems, concerns and opportunities” to
which the policy-makers need to respond. From a response to balance of payments crises or
problems created by tourism, to the influence of a neoliberalist world, tourism researchers have
sought to explore and explain tourism policy. There is now a well-developed literature on this
aspect of policy. Turning to influences from within the tourism system, the second heading here,
7
understandings of the relative power of those within the system have also caught the attention of
researchers with a rapid expansion in the understanding of the roles of different stakeholders, the
restructuring of administrative arrangements and the institutional logics that lie behind policy. As far
as the policy-makers themselves are concerned, the third heading, these have attracted rather less
attention so far. Their learning and sources of information have been explored, and in some cases
found wanting, but there is much more scope to arrive at a fuller understanding of the role,
positions and views and relative power of the policy-makers if we want fully to understand the policy
processes in tourism. The fourth heading, while suggesting a growth in the analysis and evaluation of
policy outcomes, also provides a gap in the literature dealing with tourism policy, that related to the
policy outputs. As suggested, other than lists of types of outputs, such as ministerial speeches, or
policy documents for example, there has been little systematic or detailed examination of this
aspect of policy. For final heading, relating to the politics and ideology that lie at the heart of many
of the initiatives and actions taken by the public authorities in relation to tourism, there are now a
range of studies that explore the influence of the essentially political issues on tourism and there is a
growing literature that explore the ways in which ideologies, especially changing ideologies find
expression in tourism.
Some thirty years ago Kosters (1984, p. 612) wrote that “…if a multi-disciplinary tourism science
develops without the necessary ingredient of political analysis, it will remain incomplete”. This brief
review suggests the fears underlying Kosters’ comment have not been realised. There is now a good
body of literature dealing with the policy aspects tourism. These cover a range of different aspects of
the ways in which tourism and public policy interact and their presentation comes in journal articles
and devoted textbooks. In brief the literature has now developed. There are still gaps and many
further areas to explore but the frame of reference for future researchers is now in place.
REFERENCES
Airey, D. (1983). European Government Approaches to Tourism. Tourism Management, 4(4), 234244.
Airey, D. (1984). Tourism Administration in the USA. Tourism Management, 4(4), 234-244.
Airey, D., & Chong, K. (2010). National Policy-Makers for Tourism in China. Annals of Tourism
Research, 37(2), 295-314.
Airey, D., & Chong, K. (2011). Tourism in China: policy and development since 1949. London:
Routledge.
Airey, D., & Ruhanen, L. (2014). Tourism Policy-Making in Australia: a national and state perspective.
Tourism Planning and Development, 11(2), 149-162.
Airey, D., & Shackley, M. (1998). Bukhara (Uzbekistan): a former oasis town on the Silk Road. In M.
Shackley (Ed.), Visitor Management: case studies from World Heritage Sites (pp. 10-25).
Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Assipova, Z., & Minnaert, L. (2014). Tourists of the World, Unite! the interpretation and facilitation of
tourism towards the end of the Soviet Union (1962-1990). Journal of Policy Research in
Tourism, Published online 16 April 2014.
Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2010). Improving tourism destination governance: a complexity
science approach. Tourism Review, 65(4), 51-60.
Beaumont, N., & Dredge, D. (2010). Local Tourism Governance: a comparison of three network
approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 7-28.
Becken, S., & Clapcott, R. (2011). National Tourism Policy for Cliomate Change. Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(1), 1-17.
8
Best, J. (2009). What Policy-Makers Want from Research; What Researchers Want to Tell Them.
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(2), 175-178.
Bianchi, R. (2006). Tourism and the Globalization of Fear: analysing the politics of risk and (in)
security in global travel. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(1), 64-74.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical Research on the Governance of Tourism and Sustainability.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism: special issue, 19(4-5), 411-421.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (Eds.). (2012). Tourism Governance: critical perspectives in governance and
sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bramwell, B., & Meyer, D. (2007). Power and Tourism Policy Relations in Transition. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(3), 766-788.
Burkart, A. J., & Medlik, S. (1974). Tourism Past Present and Future. London: Heinemann.
Butler, R., & Suntikul, W. (2010). Tourism and Political Change. Oxford: Goodfellow.
Caporaso, J. A., & Levine, D. P. (2003). Theories of Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chambers, D., & Airey, D. (2001). Tourism Policy and Jamaica. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2-4), 94120.
Coles, T., Zschiegner, A.-K., & Dinan, C. (2013). Climate Change Mitigation Policy and the Tourism
Sector: perspectives from the South-West of England. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events, 5(1), 1-27.
Costa, C., Panyik, E., & Buhalis, D. (Eds.). (2014). European Tourism Planning and Organisation
Systems. Bristol: Channel View.
Crick, M. (1989). Representations of International Tourism in the Social Sciences: sun, sex, sights,
saving and servility. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 307-344.
Donaldson, J. (2007). Tourism Development and Poverty REduction in Guizhou and Yunnan. China
Quarterly, 190, 333-351.
Dredge, D. (2001). Local Government Tourism Planning and Policy-Making in New South Wales:
institutional development and historical legacies. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2-4), 355-380.
Dredge, D. (2006). Policy Networks and the Local Organisation of Tourism. Tourism Management,
27, 269-280.
Dredge, D. (2011). Tourism Reform, Policy and Development in Queensland 1989-2011. Queensland
Review, 18(2), 62-84.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003a). Destination Place Identity and Regional Tourism Policy. Tourism
Geographies, 5(4), 383-307.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003b). Federal-State Relations and Tourism Public Policy, New South
Wales, Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 415-443.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism Planning and Policy. Milton Qld: Wiley.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2012). Australian National Tourism Policy: influences of reflexive and
political modernisation. Tourism Planning and Development, 9(3), 1-21.
Dredge, D., & Thomas, P. (2009). Mongrel Management, Public Interest and Protected Area
Management in the Victorian Alps, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 249-267.
Dye, R. T. (2008). Understanding Public Policy, 12th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Easton, D. (1957). An Approach to the Analysis of Poitical Systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383-400.
Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Edgell, D. L. (1999). Tourism Ploicy: the next millennium. Urbana IL: Sagamore.
Edgell, D. L., DelMastro Allen, M., Smith, G., & Swanson, J. R. (2008). Tourism Policy and Planning:
yesterday, today and tomorrow. Oxford: Elsevier.
Elliot, J. (1983). Politics, Power and Tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(3), 377-393.
Elliot, J. (1987). Government Management of Tourism: a Thai case study. Tourism Management,
8(3), 223-232.
Elliott, J. (1997). Tourism: politics and public sector management. London: Routledge.
9
Feighery, W. (2011). Discourse and the Governanceof Diversity in England's Official Tourism Texts.
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(2), 121-146.
Frew, E., & White, L. (Eds.). (2011). Tourism and National Identity: an international perspective.
Oxford: Routledge.
Getz, D. (2009). Policy for Sustainable and Responsible Festivals and Events: institutionalization of a
new paradigm. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 61-78.
Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and Politics: policy, power and place. Chichester: Wiley.
Hall, C. M. (1999). Rethinking Collaboration and Partnership: a public policy perspective Journal of
Sustainable Tourism (Vol. 7, pp. 274-289).
Hall, C. M. (2009). Innovation and tourism policy in Australia and New Zealand: never the twain shall
meet? . Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 2-18.
Hall, C. M. (2010). Politics and Tourism: interdependency and implications in understanding change.
In R. W. Butler & W. Suntikul (Eds.), Tourism and Political Change (pp. 7-18). Oxford:
Goodfellow.
Hall, C. M. (2011a). Biosecurity, Tourism and Mobility: institutional arrangements for managing
tourism-related biological invasions. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and
Events, 3(3), 256-280.
Hall, C. M. (2011b). Policy Learning and Policy Failure in Sustainable Tourism Governance: from firstand second-order to third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 649-671.
Hall, C. M. (2011c). A Typology of Governance and its Implications for Tourism Policy Analysis.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 437-457.
Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (1995). Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge.
Hall, D. (2001). Tourism and Development in Communist and Post-Communist Society. In D. Harrison
(Ed.), Tourism and the Less Developed World: issues and case studies Oxford: CABI.
Hall, P. (1993). Policy Paradigm, Social Learning and the State: the case of economic policy-making in
Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-296.
Hall, R. H., Clark, J. P., Giordano, P. C., Johnson, P. V., & Roekel, M. (1977). Patterns of
Internorganizational Relationships. Administrative Review, 22(3), 457-472.
Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heclo, H. (1974). Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: from relief to income maintenance.
New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
Heeley, J. (1981). Planning for Tourism in Britain: an historical perspective. Town Planning Review,
52(1), 61-79.
Heeley, J. (1989). Role of National Tourist Organizations in the United Kingdom. In S. F. Witt & L.
Moutinho (Eds.), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice-Hall.
Heeley, J. (2000). Public-Private Sector Partnerships in Tourism. In A. Lockwood & S. Medlik (Eds.),
Tourism and Hospitality in the 21st Century (pp. 273-283). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Henderson, J. (2003). The Politics of Touism in Myanmar. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(2), 97-118.
Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, D., Musyck, B., Orphanides, S., & Webster, C. (2010). The Opening of the Ledra Crossing in
Nicosia: social and economic consequences. In R. W. Butler & W. Suntikul (Eds.), Tourism and
Political Change (pp. 199-207). Oxford: Goodfellow.
Janoschka, M. (2011). Habitus and Radical Reflexivity: a conceptual approach to study political
articulations of lifestyle - and tourism related-mobilities. Journal of Policy Research in
Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(3), 224-236.
Jeffries, D. (2001). Governments and Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Jenkins, J. (2001). Editorial: Tourism Policy Making: Theory and Practice. Current Issues in Tourism,
4(2-4), 69-77.
Jenkins, W. I. (1978). Policy Analysis: a political and organisational perspective. London: Martin
Robertson.
10
Kerr, W. R. (2003). Tourism Public Policy, and the Strategic Management of Failure. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Kosters, M. (1984). The Deficiencies of Tourism Science Without Political Science: comment in
Richter Annals of Tourism Research, 11(4), 610-612.
Lennon, J., Smith, H., Cockerell, N., & Trew, J. (Eds.). (2006). Benchmarking National Tourism
Organisations and Agencies: understanding best practice. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lepp, A., & Harris, J. (1999). Tourism and National Identity in Uganda. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 10 (6), 525-536.
Lo Piccolo, F., Leone, D., & Pizzuto, P. (2012). The (Controversial) Role of the UNESCO WHL
Management Plans in Promoting Sustainable Tourism Development. Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(3), 249-276.
Marzano, G., & Scott, N. (2009). Power in Destination Branding. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2),
247-267.
Matthews, H. G. (1975). International Tourism and Political Science Research. Annals of Tourism
Research, 2(4), 195-203.
Moscardo, G. (2012). Exploring Social Representation of Tourism Planning: issues for governance. In
B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism Governance: critical perspectives on governance and
sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mosedale, J. (Ed.). (2011). Political Economy of Tourism: a critical perspective. London: Routledge.
O'Sullivan, D., Pickernell, D., & Senyard, J. (2009). Public Sector Evaluation of Festivals and Events.
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 19-36.
Palmer, C. (1999). Tourism and the symbols of identity. Tourism Management, 20(3), 313–321.
Pearce, D. (1992). Tourist Organizations. Harlow: Longman.
Pearce, D. (1996a). Regional Tourist Organization in Spain: emergence, policies and consequences.
Tourism Economics, 2(2), 119-136.
Pearce, D. (1996b). Tourist Organisations in Catalonia: regional and local structures and issues.
Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(3/4), 307-320.
Pearce, D. (1996c). Tourist Organizations in Sweden. Tourism Management, 17(6), 413-424.
Pforr, C. (2001). Tourism Policy in Australia’s Northern Territory: a policy process analysis of its
tourism development masterplan. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2-4), 275-307.
Pforr, C. (2006). Tourism Policy in the Making: an Australian network study. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(1), 87-108.
Pforr, C. (2007). Realignment of Regional Tourism: the case of Western Australia. International
Journal of Tourism Policy, 1(1), 33-44.
Pitchford, P. (Ed.). (2008). Identity Tourism Imaging and Imagining the Nation. Oxford: Elsevier.
Prideaux, B., Prideaux, J., & Seongseop, K. (2010). Does Tourism Have a Role in Promoting Peace on
the Korean Peninsula? In R. W. Butler & W. Suntikul (Eds.), Tourism and Political Change (pp.
189-198). Oxford: Goodfellow.
Richins, H., & Pearce, P. (2000). Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making: coastal local
government areas in Eastern Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(3), 207-231.
Richter, L. K. (1983). Tourism Politics and Political Science. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(3), 313335.
Richter, L. K. (1989). The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Roskin, G., Cord, L., Medeiros, A., & Jones, S. (2006). Political Science: an introduction, (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ruhanen, L., Scott, N., Ritchie, B., & Tkaczynski, A. (2010). Governance: a review and synthesis of the
literature. Tourism Review, 65(4), 4-16.
Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, L., & Lockington, D. (2007). The Learning Tourism Destination: the potential
of a learning organisation approach for improving the sustainability of tourism destinations.
Tourism Management, 28, 1485-1496.
11
Scott, N. (2011). Tourism Policy: a strategic review. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Contemporary Tourism
Reviews. Oxford: Goodfellow.
Shackley, M. (1998). Visitor Management: case studies from world heritage sites. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Spracklen, K. (2012). Editorial: special issue on the unintended policy consequences of the Olymics
and Paralympics. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(2), 121-122.
Stevenson, N., Airey, D., & Miller, G. (2008). Tourism Policy Making: the policymakers’ perspectives.
Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732-750.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as Theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal,
50(155), 17-28.
Stoker, G. (Ed.). (1999). Urban political science and the challenge of urban governance. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Suntikul, W., Butler, R. W., & Airey, D. (2010). Implications of Political Change on National Park
Operations: Doi Moi and tourism to Vietnam’s national parks. Journal of Ecotourism, 9(3),
201-218.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: a new
approach to culture, structure and process. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (1999). Budgets of National Tourism Administrations.
Madrid: UNWTO.
Wahab, S. (1974). Elements of State Policy on Tourism. Turin: Italgrafica.
Wanhill, S. (1987). UK-Politics and Tourism. Tourism Management, 8(1), 54-58.
Wray, M. (2009). Policy Communities, Networks and Issue Cycles in Tourism Destination Systems.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), 673-690.
Wray, M. (2012). Adapting and Implementing a Transactive Approach to Sustainable Tourism
Planning: translating theory into practice. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism
Governance: critical perspectives on governance and sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge.
Young, G. (1973). Tourism Blessing or Blight. London: Penguin.
Zapata , M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2012). Public-Private Collaboration in the Tourism Sector: balancing
legitimacy and effectiveness in local tourism partnerships. The Spanish Case. Journal of
Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(1), 61-83.
12