Definitions and examples of the theory of Development: A review of dominant theories within the context of tourism development. Theories of development and their definitions have changed over over time. Until recently they predominantly followed followed Euro-American models of ‘development’ and were focused focused on economy. The theories assumed that ‘developed’ nation’s value standards were superior to those of ‘the developing nations’. From From the 1960’s, the tourism industry was, and still is, seen as an effective developmental growth-pole, and tourism has been used by many countries to improve their economic development (Telfer and Sharpley, 2008). However, the processes that produce this development in tourism are affected by economic, socio-cultural and political forces. This This essay uses dominant theories and frameworks of development, Modernisation, Dependency, Neo-liberalism and Alternative Development. It will suggest that tourism has evolved evolved within a trajectory of these dominant development theories and it maps the conceptual changes from development predominantly concerned with economic growth and inequality to those concerned about social, human and environmental issues. The development frameworks provide a basis for understanding how tourism has developed and works as a development tool. What does development mean? The term itself is contested from many different viewpoints, viewpoints, and it will have different connotations when used by different cultures and nations. Todaro and Smith (2011) stress that “development can be seen as a multidimensional process that involves major changes in economic growth and national institutions, as well as opportunities for all and individual aspirations, aspirations, and the eradication of poverty at regional regional and national levels.” The United Nations Development Program (2013), sees development as improving well-being through the generations by providing more choice, greater freedom and opportunity oppo rtunity for participating meaningfully. meaningfully. One of the most popular development paradigms, paradigms, Modernisation theory (MT), dating dating back to the 18th century’s ‘Age ‘Age of Enlightenment’, gained popularity among scholars and economists in the late 19th to mid 20th centuries. At the end of o f World War War II and the reconstruction of Europe, MT was seen as an extension of growth theory grounded in Keynesian economics (Brohman, 1996). This interventionist approach considers development as reformist states cooperating with foreign investment investment over development plans (Brohman, 1996). The process process of socio-economic development, steeped in Euro-American Euro-American BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
1
(Western) ideology, deemed any country with “non-western” or traditional social, political and economic structures as “undeveloped” or “underdeveloped”. As a main proponent, Rostow (1960) developed a model primarily based on the Euro-American experience suggesting that a country's economy and society pass through a series of stages, and a ‘modern society’ has political and economic features such as democracy, capitalism, consumerism, high tax and investment rates, and social features such as high literacy and urbanisation, and psychological features such as rationalism. In order to develop and achieve economic growth, the “underdeveloped” countries were required to go through industrialisation, creating change in their social and cultural structures and adopt new technologies, while working under the assumption that non-West countries only develop if they embrace relations with the West (Rostow, 1960). MT was thus used as justification that economics itself could be used as an index for social reform in which economic growth would “trickle down” to the masses in the form of jobs and other economic opportunities improving quality of life. Citizens of powerful and wealthy modernised states have higher standards of living and new technologies, fast and efficient production make modernisation the preferred societal condition. In the context of tourism, modernisation development strategies generated foreign capital as well as increasing employment and facilitating the transfer of technology (Telfer and Sharpley, 2008). These economic benefits were the focus of tourism development and tourism acted as a growth-pole down which resources trickled thus increasing the tourism multiplier (Telfer and Sharpley, 2008). Just as modern society focuses on mass consumerism, large-scale mass tourism was about mass consumption, with the development of large resorts around the world. Cancun, Mexico and Benidorm, Spain are examples of this approach (Thompson (2014). Modernisation encourages socio-cultural changes, as economic growth demands these changes as a foundational stage for further economic development. Similar to imperialism and colonialism, tourism offered, to a certain extent, improvements in health care and the supply of potable water, better infrastructure and sanitation, and better housing and education (Harrison, D., 1995). Within tourism complexes and enclaves such benefits are obvious but the extent to which these benefits extend from tourism to the host population's daily life is doubtful giving rise to spacial inequality. For example, resort workers at Richard
BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
2
Branson’s luxury Necker Island live amongst the poor community on a neighbouring island (BBC, 2015). The theory suggests economic development and modernisation of living standards should go hand in hand, and lifestyles and living standards are measured against Euro-American models. However, such deterministic development controls and limits human interaction, and not vice versa. Human agency rather than tradition controls the speed and severity of modernisation and societies undergoing this process arrive at forms of governance dictated by foreign, “pro-Western”, or abstract principles, leading to a decrease in the importance of desirable traditional and cultural beliefs (Mathieson and Wall, 1982). While economic modernisation is measured against Euro-American economic models, cultural modernisation is judged differently. Modernisation of culture and lifestyles are criticised as 'cultural imperialism', 'demonstration effects' and 'assimilation'. Tourists often want to experience the past and nostalgia while travelling internationally, they do not approve of loss of traditions and charms through modernisation and tourism development needs to protect cultures and value systems of host communities, and be a catalyst for strengthening cultural identities since these traditional communities become invaluable commodities. Condemning “poor or traditional” institutions without seeing their worth, fails to acknowledge indigenous patterns of development and does not understand that the problems of development can differ greatly from those of Europe and North America. The tourism industry, does not modernise everything since indigenous lifestyles and cultures are valuable commodities which are sold as tourist attractions. Ironically, tourist development prohibits those cultural changes that are a precondition for economic development (Burns & Holden, 1995). Modernisation theorists posit that underdevelopment and poverty are caused by these ‘traditions’ of a nation and do not consider the role of developed nations and multinational enterprises (MNEs) in the creation and widening of the gap between rich and poor (Harrison, 1995). Post-colonial Neo-Marxist critics opposed Modernisation, saying that instead of encouraging development, relationships with the capitalistic West actually has the opposite effect, leading to poor economic growth with social and cultural impoverishment blamed on the inability to adopt capitalist models of production (Harrison, 2004). Concurrent with Modernisation, Dependency theory (DT) was popular during the late BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
3
1960s and 1970s. Composed of a variety of related theories, it focuses on inequalities between capitalist ‘core’ countries, and ‘peripheral’ developing countries of the South. The periphery economies are dependent upon the expanding economies of the core where wealth is accumulated (Willis,K., 2011). Economic policies that create the diffusion of development from the West to the peripheries under the cloak of modernisation are seen as imposing structural change and reinforcing elites as agents of control. Dependancy theorists criticise this diffusionist paradigm as not relating to existing conditions in contemporary under-developed regions and several researchers have noted that forms of dependent development emerging (Briton 1982, 1982; Briton, 1989; Milne, 1997). In the periphery, insufficient capital, low investment and productivity, create an on going cycle of poverty (Potter et al., 1999) with peripheral tourism exploited and controlled by ‘the industrial core regions’. Consequently, tourism development, for example in many island destinations, is similar to the economic dependency of neo-colonialism where ‘rich Western societies dominate the tourism industry of under-developed destinations by exploiting the resources of ‘tourism enclaves’. Such as, in the Caribbean and Thailand, in Kuoni and Thompson resorts (TUI, 2014; Kuoni, 2014). DT suggests that because of historical unequal relationships between rich and poor countries, developing nations are kept in a state of underdevelopment. Development projects foster economic dependency of developing countries in three main ways, through (1) technology produced in developed countries: (2) reliance on foreign investment and creation of huge debts and (3) leakage of foreign aid revenues, where interest payments on foreign loans means money is routed back to developed countries (Milne, 1997). High rates of leakages associated with international tourism reinforce this dependency and vulnerability of developing nations. The events and control mechanisms in core countries influence tourism development in peripheral countries. These controls manage both the movement of tourists from core to peripheral, and have power over operations of hotels or even whole resorts (Britton, 1989). Tour operators in core countries have enormous financial resources which means they impact greatly on occupancy rates and spatial distribution and movements of tourists in the receiving destinations. Additionally, many of the international class hotels are operated by Western MNE’s. Din (1990) points out that this is not always the case and cites Penang, Malaysia where locals own several of the luxury international standard accommodation chains. These dependency relationships have been addressed in government run schemes BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
4
whereby some newly independent states pursued stateless tourism development programs with domestic hotel chains Din (1990). Tourism in developing countries is usually concentrated in capital cities and other metropolis’ where tourism and non-tourism business headquarters are found (Britton, 1982) These city headquarters have direct contact with tourists in the principal tourist markets and thus they can control the tourist flow chain trough technology and marketing (Britton, 1989). They arrange the accommodation, transportation and excursions for package tours, in this way dominant tourism sectors and squeeze out smaller enterprises by controlling tourist spending and movements. They cannot, however, control all tourist consumption (for example purchases of entertainment, services and other items.). Headquarters, branch offices and small-scale tourism enterprises form Brittan’s (1982) three-tiered model of ‘Third World’ tourism. He argues that foreign corporations control the tourism industry. “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 enclave structure and its orientation along traditional structures” (Oppermann, 1993, p. 540). While such critiques gave modernisation theory a battering in the 1970s, the 1980s saw a rapid growth in support for a revamped form known as Neo-liberalism (NL). NL is a free market political and economic theory which advocates free trade though competitive global markets. Its doctrine advocates that economy must not be restricted by the state, that barriers to the free flow of trade and capital must be removed. De-regularisation, privatisation and market based development are its characteristic features. Scant attention is paid to principles of self-sufficiency and self-determination (Hall, 2007). It was popular in the mid 70’s and 80’s as it meant that governments (particularly Western ones) were able to earn foreign capital. Neoliberal tourism MNE’s, such as hotel chains, played a major role in attracting foreign capital, they improve national and local economies and employment and improve infrastructure in tourism areas (Hall, 2007). However, the lessening of state involvement resulted in less spending on social programs such as health, education, welfare and environment, and limited the power of trade unions. Not only did this put a brake on development, it also allowed MNE’s to exploit labour and the environment for their own self interest (Hall, 2007). BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
5
This imposition of NL on developing countries by international funding organisations, the IMF, World Bank and WTO (Harvey 2005), has been criticised for the changes it brings about. For example, as a result of Structural Adjustment Lending Programs (SALPS) governments had to embrace neoliberal doctrines resulting in the cutting back on government spending as mentioned before. Although SALPs have now been replaced by Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers these too bring changes to developing countries (Harvey 2005). In Peru, state spending on the tourism industry was reduced drastically and the Tourism and Commerce Ministry’s employees were cut from 2700 to 300, state owned hotels were privatised and the government’s tourism school set fees (Desforges, 2000). Globalisation, a consequence of neoliberalist economics, sees the appearance of Western chains like Pizza Hut, and McDonalds in centres of tourism. These centres also receive funding for massive development of infrastructure (Bauman, Z. (1998), funding which is not received for development in other areas creating spatial inequality. With the erosion of power of the state the world economy is increasingly controlled by MNE’s. The West’s neoliberal policies have resulted in Neo-liberalisation in tourism development and has increased the power of private sector MNE’s such as multinational tour operators, hotel chains and airlines in developing countries (Milne and Ateljevic 2001; Desforges, 2000). Multinational hotel chains acquire other hotel chains, airlines form global alliances (Sinclair and Stabler, 1997) and cruise ships fly flags of convenience and these private sector multinational tourism companies can exploit the less strict labo ur and environmental policies in developing countries. Investment incentives are offered by developing countries since there is fierce competition between them to attract tourism developers. These can include tax benefits, repatriation of profits and import allowances (Sinclair and Stabler, 1997). This means that wealth generation is easily diverted away from benefitting host populations and the country as a whole. Power is given away to the rich developed countries and their tourism MNE’s. Indeed, tourism MNE’s are not required to achieve any significant improvements in a local community’s well-being or human development. On the contrary the mass tourism generated by MNE’s can do much harm to many communities, their culture, their heritage and their environments. Moreover, individuals and communities become dependant on the income generated from such tourism with potentially disastrous effects in global downturns BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
6
or changes in destination popularity
which can result in cutting back by multinationals.
There is no attention given to developing self determination or self sufficiency. In addition to this cultural decay, spacial inequality is also a consequence of mass tourism. For example, in Akumal, in the Mexican Caribbean, European and American businesses aided by the government have created spacial inequality by segregating Mestizo and Maya workers from spaces designated for tourist use (David Manuel-Navarrete 2012). During the 1970-80s, it was recognised that top-down approaches to development were not reducing poverty in large areas of world. Instead of money and welfare 'trickling down' to the poorest, rich Western groups were benefitting from economic development. Development in terms of improved living standards and well-being needed rethinking. Aid agencies began searching for more people–orientated or grass roots approaches (Brohman, 1996). Alternative development (AD) approaches which did not focus exclusively on economic growth emerged. Bottom up strategies focused on people’s basic needs such as food, housing, education and health. Known as the Basic Needs Approach (BNA) it tended only to lessen the symptoms of poverty rather than tackle its causes. Indigenous approaches to development were recognised as well as women’s roles in developmental processes and the UN named 1975-1985 as the Decade for Women. Development took on a more local Grass Roots approach with decentralised community-based initiatives which emphasised self reliance and local participation and decision making. Non Government Organisations (NGO) began working with the marginalised and with grassroots organisations helping to mitigate costs of structural adjustments (Dernoi, 1981). In the tourism industry, work is done in partnership with NGOs such as UK based Tourism Concern, for example specific projects, service delivery investigations, policy advocacy in developing countries (Telfer,D.J. and Sharpley. R., 2008). NGOs act as tempering intermediaries between foreign mass tourism development at one extreme and small scale locally controlled sustainable tourism at the other. Local empowerment is a key feature of the AD paradigm. For example, in the Cambodian agricultural development case study people had greater say about hoe they wanted to develop. By the end of the 1990s, environmentalists were focusing on sustainability of development, a concept that came from the late 19th century Conservation Movement (Hall, 1998). Environmentally conscious tourists abhor social and ecological damage. The ‘green BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
7
movement’ argues for soft and human tourism and the ‘green consumer’ began to raise environmental issues in tourism (Hall, 1998). Tourism companies started to offer ecological holidays, but the term sustainability has often been hijacked. Ioannides (2001) argues that the International Federation of Tour Operator’s (IFTO) embrace of sustainability is a marketing ploy and is more to do with profit. Global poverty reduction efforts gave rise more recently to pro-poor tourism. In 2005 the UN WTO (2005) declared tourism’s support in achieving UN Millennium Development Goals. They aim to persuade the local private sector to help community tourism programs. During post-modernism, small tour companies take advantage of changing trends and offer creative alternative tourism products. ‘Inner lifestyle’ leisure pursuits offer new experiences and personal growth for tourists and such tourists are also environmentally conscious (Ioannides, 2001). The demand for environmentally sound holidays has given rise to ecotourism, a new sector in tourism development. Critiques of alternative development range from recognising that empowerment through tourism is difficult to accomplish to the difficulties in defining and achieving sustainable development (Sinclair, M. T., & Stabler, M. 1997). Lack of empowerment in tourism entrepreneurship has meant indigenous populations are marginalised in Langkawi, Malaysia for example (Din 1997). Alternative tourism’s bottom up development incorporates a holistic concept of development through its indigenous inclusiveness and local participation. For example, indigenous Caribs have revived their old traditions, culture and crafts and, recognising the need to protect the environment, they participate in ecotourism activities, using raw materials from the forest to produce their handicrafts (Slinger, V. 2000). A revival of a social-development approach, reflects The UN's adoption of sustainable development and greater focusing on human development; economic development and social development must occur simultaneously (Mapp, 2008). While some critics think sustainable development places too much emphasis on the environment and economy (George and Varghese (2007), the social development approach is in line with a human rights-based development approach, which emphasises empowerment, improvement of social conditions, capacity building and prevention of problems rather than remedial aid and relief (Mapp, 2008). What needs to be developed varies greatly from one nation to another, from one region to another, so development can follow the UN Millennium BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
8
Development Goals and by being people-centred it can alleviate 'distorted development' and globalisation effects on the poverty gap between the rich and the poor (Pillay, 2011). Popular and pervasive Modernisation and Neoliberal development theories have tended to assume that the Euro-American model of development is the holy grail, and they have measured quality of life as a reflection of raised economic standards. Dependency and Alternative development theories question this approach. Dependency theory highlights the damaging effects on poor countries and highlights how development carried out according to Western ideology diktats, benefits the core at the expense of the peripheral countries of the South and its consequent negative effects on poor communities. Alternative development frameworks move development from a top-down to bottom-up approach, from blanket, homogenous strategies that are imposed across all countries and regions to more tailored approaches that take account of the huge variety and differences in needs and situations in indigenous communities and involves them in their own development. Alternative approaches such as Grass Roots development decentralise and make use of local intermediaries. Tourism has an important role in achieving economic development goals but it also has a role in fulfilling social, environmental and human development goals as elucidated in the UN MDG. Despite criticisms of ulterior motives, much of the tourist industry has embraced sustainability and is committed to reducing its carbon footprint and protecting socio-cultural characteristics of host communities. Western economic policy and the deregulation of the banking system created the conditions for the economic crash in 2008 and for the continuing global downturn. The lessening of ‘state’ and increasing power of MNE’s is ongoing and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Despite their strongly marketed claims of sustainable tourism, sensitivity to human rights, gender exploitation and the marginalised and the recent growth of volunteer tourism sector, tourism MNE’s do not appear to contribute significantly to improvements in well-being or human development apart from the benefits of economic development. On the contrary, even with mass tourism in decline MNE’s are creating more luxurious resorts all over the globe, even to previously inaccessible places, which brings with it well documented negative consequences of harming communities and their environment.
BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
9
However, all is not lost, activist groups such as Indignados (Guardian, 2011), which originated in Spain and is now global and online Avaaz are protesting against global inequalities and injustice (Avaaz, 2015). Awareness about the risks of climate change and tourism’s carbon footprint and impact on the environment has grown. It is not ironic that in a free-trade world of rampant Western consumerism that instead of focusing on economic development, development theories are championing grass roots strategies and focus on social, environmental and human development, and that instead of imposing change from on high, self reliance, self determination and sustainability are advocated. While there are claims that tourism has a tendency to worsen and aggravate poverty-intensifying injustices and inequalities in a free market environment (Growth versus Equity, 2007). Modern tourists are more demanding but with mobile devices and social media they are better informed than they have ever been. They are aware of global inequality and their own role within it. There remains much to do, both generally and specifically in the tourism industry to help development, however to change this awareness into changes of beliefs and values, attitudes and behaviour. Whilst recognising that one cannot avoid considering economy, today’s world needs to develop a socially stable system in which human values and a moral compass are cultivated. It needs development that recognises that all humans and all societies and traditions have value, from which ever nation they belong and any society developed in this way must surely lead to sustainable and ethical tourism. It must not be forgotten that “Tourism provides the space where rich and poor meet” (Sharply, 2013).
Words 3660
BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
10
Bibliography:
Avaaz (2015). Information Page. Accessed [Online] from:http://www.avaaz.org/en/ Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press. BBC (2015). Necker Island: 'Richard Branson mooned us’ Accessed [Online] via telegraph.co.uk; from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/11329826/ Necker-Island-Richard-Branson-mooned-me.html Britton G (1982). The political economy in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research 9. 331-338 Britton, S. (1989). Tourism, Dependency and Development: A Mode of Analysis. In T. V. Singh, H. L. Theuns and F. M. Go (Eds.), Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. (pp93-116). Frankfurt: Peter Long. Britton, S. G. (1983). Tourism and Underdevelopment in Fiji. In Monograph No. 31, pp. 198-211. Canberra: The Australian National University. Brohman (1996). Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development. Blackwell, London Brohman J (1996). New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development. Annals of Tourism Research 23. 49-70 Burns & Holden (1995). Tourism: A New Perspective. Prentice Hall, London. Butler, R. (1990). Alternative Tourism; Pious Hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28, pp40-45. Chon, K. and Jamieson, W. (2006) Community Destination Management in Developing Countries, New York: Haworth. David Manuel-Navarrete (2012). Entanglements of Power and Spatial Inequalities in Tourism in the Mexican Caribbean. Accessed [Online] from: (http://www.iai.spkberlin.de/fileadmin/dokumentenbibliothek/desigualdades/workingpapers/ WP_17_Manuel-Navarrete_online.pdf) Desforges, L. (2000). State Tourism Institutions and Neo-liberal development: A Case Study of Peru. Tourism Geographies, 2(2), pp177-192. Dernoi, L. A. (1981). Alternative Tourism: Towards a New Style in North-South Relations. International Journal of Travel Research, 2(December), pp253-264. Din, K. H. (1990). Bumiputra Entrepreneurship in the Penang-Langkawi Tourist Industry. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii. Retrieved [Online] From: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shida_Irwana_Omar/publication/ 266084218_The_tourism_life_cycle_an_overview_of_Langkawi_Island_Malaysia/ links/548fe9d20cf214269f2641b6.pdf. BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
11
Din, K. H. (1997). Tourism Development: Still in Search of a more Equitable Mode of Local Involvement. In C. Cooper and S. Wanhill (Eds.), Tourism Development, Environment and Community Issues. (pp153-162). West Sussex: John Wiley. Guardian (2011). Movement activism. Accessed [Online] from: http:// www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/15/spain-15-m-movement-activism George, B. P. & Varghese, V. (2007). Human Rights in Tourism: Conceptualization and Stakeholder Perspectives EJBO - Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 12 (2). Retrieved [Online] from: http://ejbo.jyu.fi Hall, C. M. (1998). Historical Antecedents of Sustainable Tourism Development: An Introduction. In C. M. Hall and A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A geographical perspective. (pp1-12). Harlow: Longman. Hall (2007). Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits?: Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction (Current Themes in Tourism). Accessed [Online] from: http:// b o o k s . g o o g l e . c o . u k / b o o k s / a b o u t / P r o _ p o o r _ To u r i s m . h t m l ? id=fkaXlCiqD2kC&redir_esc=y Harrison, D. (1995). International Tourism and the Less Developed Countries: A Background. In D. Harrison (Ed.), Tourism and the Less Developed Countries. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Harrison, D. (2004). Tourism and the less developed world, Clevedon: CABI Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Holden, A. (2012). Tourism, Poverty and Development in the Developing World, London: Routledge Ioannides, D. (2001). Sustainable Development and Shifting Attitudes of Tourism Stakeholders: Toward a Dynamic Framework. In S. F. McCool and R. N. Moisey. Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and Environment. (pp55-76). Oxon: CABI Publishing. Kuoni, (2014). Naka Island in Phuket. Accessed [Online] from: http://www.kuoni.co.uk/ thailand/phuket/hotels/the-naka-island-a-luxury-collection-resort-and-spa Mapp, S. (2008). Human rights and social justice in a global perspective: An introduction to international social work. New York, NY: Oxford. Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. London: Longman. Milne, S. and Ateljevic, I. (2001). Tourism, Economic Development and the GlobalLocal Nexus. Tourism Geographies, 3(4), pp369-393. Mitchell,J. and Ashley C. (2009). Tourism and Poverty: Pathways to Prosperity (Tourism Environment and Development), London: Routledge
BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
12
Oppermann, M. (1993). Tourism Space in Developing Countries. Research, 20(3).
Annals of Tourism
Pillay (2011). United Nations Human Right. Declaration on the Right to Development 25. Accessed [Online] from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/Pages/ Introduction.aspx Potter, R.B., T. Binns, J.A. Elliott and D. Smith (2004) Geographies of Development, 2nd edition, London: Pearson Education. UNWTO (2011). Policy and Practice for Global Tourism, Madrid: UNWTO. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharply, (2013) Richard Sharply in Telfer,D.J. and Sharpley,R. (2008). Tourism and Development in the Developing World, London: Routledge. Accessed [Online] from: h t t p s : / / b o o k s . g o o g l e . c o . u k / b o o k s ? id=qdpFBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT310&lpg=PT310&dq=Tourism+provides+the+space + w h e r e + r i c h + a n d + p o o r + m e e t %E2%80%99&source=bl&ots=LZQgvOuagd&sig=FJbFQcVcUwBm6dhPfakJKaoIE Qc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hX2zVJvHHYP0UuC7gNgC&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=on epage&q=Tourism%20provides%20the%20space%20where%20rich%20and %20poor%20meet%E2%80%99&f=false Slinger, V. (2000). Research Notes and Report on: Ecotourism in the Last Indigenous Caribbean Community. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), pp520-523. Sinclair, M. T., & Stabler, M. (1997). The economics of tourism. London: Routledge. Telfer,D.J. and Sharpley,R. (2008). Tourism and Development in the Developing World, London: Routledge Thompson (2014). Cancun-Mexico. Accessed [Online] from: http://www.thomson.co.uk/ destinations/caribbean/mexico/mexico-caribbean-coast/cancun/holidayscancun.html; Benidorm. Accessed [Online] from: http://www.thomson.co.uk/ destinations/europe/spain/costa-blanca/benidorm/holidays-benidorm.html TUI (2014). Sensatori collection of resorts. Accessed [Online] from:http:// www.thomson.co.uk/holidays/sensatori The United Nations Development Program (2013) Report. Accessed [Online} from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/2013-report Willis, K. (2011). Theories and Practices of Development, Routledge
BEM3037 - Student ID: 620022101
13
