Current issues

fn considering the way ~our~srn can be organized, the author examines the systems of two countries, France and the UK, with brief references to the USA, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Australia, and those of two re- gions, the European Community and the Caribbean. The key fo success

lies, cleariy, in the interaction of the public sector and the private sector and, w/%/e there appears to be no standard, transferable formula, much may be gained through study of the established practice in comparable and evidently successful countries or regions.

Charles Owen is principal of the Tourism by Design consultancy and may be con- tacted at 25 Montagu Street, London Wl H l-l-B, UK.

‘Jean S. Holder, ‘The need for publio- private sector cooperation in tourism’, address given at St Lucia, 26 October 1991, reprinted in Tourism Management, June 1992.

Building a relationship between government and tourism

Charles Owen

As a preface to a discussion about the relationship between government and tourism it would be hard to better this statement by Jean S. Holder, secret- ary general of the Caribbean Tourism Organisation (CTO): ‘I can think of no industry other than tourism where the interests of the public and private sectors so closely converge. Firstly the country is, in the broadest sense, the product.‘l

The value of tourism to any one country’s economy and the viability of any one country’s tourism product are as varied as geography itself but, as Mr Holder acknowledges, there are basic common factors. In essence, these may be summarized: as a gov- ernment has no money of its own, the more it can collect in taxes from pro- fitable businesses in tourism the more it can then afford to spend on creating the social, environmental and econo- mic climate within which these businesses can flourish. It may be added that the more the products of these businesses enhance the self- respect and standing of their country, through effective quality control, the greater in the long term that country’s success as a tourist destination.

The pattern and machinery of policy making and of operational rela-

tionships between governments and their tourism industries, and between countries within regional groupings such as Western Europe and the Caribbean, are as varied not only as geography but as long-held political and bureaucratic traditions and other vested interests. In the Caribbean, an amalgam of relatively small nations, tourism, its development having de- pended. largely on capital from over- seas, is generally a dominant industry: in some states, virtually a matter of life and death. Furthermore, in to- day’s increasingly competitive condi- tions, with growing reliance on expen- sive computerized systems, few small countries can afford to be self- sufficient in the appropriate technolo- gy: hence the potentially vital role of a body such as CTO, in collaboration with directly concerned transnational bodies such as airlines, travel agents and hoteliers, in the provision to its member governments and tourist organizations of tailor-made services and not merely of at-random informa- tion and advice.

As for the principles governing pub- lic sector-private sector cooperation in a national context, Mr Holder aptly uses a railway analogy: ‘The private sector should see itself as providing

358 TOURISM MANAGEMENT December 1992

‘while nationalism prevails, no uniform formula for government - tourism relationships is to be expected’

‘L.J. Lickorish, ‘Developing a single Euro- pean tourism policy’, Tourism Manage- ment, September 1991.

the locomotive, and the government as laying the rails, on which the train

proceeds’. Some of CTO’s members are said to offer excellent examples of public sector-private sector coopera- tion, usually in the form of joint semi- autonomous public sector-private sec- tor tourist boards which elect their own chairmen and have power to act in, say, marketing, training, research and statistics, matters of government policy being left to the responsible minister. Even so, Mr Holder is no doubt right to complain that some governments ‘have been neglecting the care of the rails, while showing an unnatural fascination for occupying the driver’s seat’. And, clearly, not only in the Caribbean.

The European scene

In Europe, a recent phenomenon, en- couraged by the European Year of Tourism in 1990, has been the growth in influence of international bodies concerned with tourism; a precursor, maybe, of the evolution of a coherent, Europe-wide policy for tourism. Prominent among the older players of the tourism game are the World Tour- ism Organisation (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), based in Madrid and Paris respective- ly, while in their particular spheres the European Travel Commission (ETC) and the European Tourism Action Group (ETAG) have for some time been a steadily growing force. The relative newcomer but potentially of primary importance, cajoled into ac- tion by the European Parliament, is the Brussels-based European Com- munity (EC) Commission, belatedly aware that, in the words of L. J. Lickorish, writing as vice-chairman of ETC and secretary of ETAG, tourism is now ‘the largest single trade in the EC’,’ providing 5% of the Commun- ity’s GDP, 8 million directly related jobs and a working demonstration of the benefits of a free flow of tourists across national frontiers.

In bracing itself to give tourism its due, the Commission has soon be- come aware of the way tourism embraces or impinges upon a wide range of kindred industries and in-

Current issues

ferests: among others construction, vehicle and aircraft manufacture, transportation, hotel keeping, train- ing, the environment, retailing, the arts, entertainment, sport and recrea- tion. It has also perceived the inescap- able interaction in member states be- tween the public sector at national and local levels and the profit-seeking companies and entrepreneurs who together provide the driving force of tourism. Even in a negative, reguia- tory role, the Commission’s manage- ment function may seem complicated enough but, given the opportunity for timely constructive actions including, say, the selective promotion to other continents of Europe as a tourist des- tination, the planning and operational tasks involved will tax severely the resilience of an already cumbersome bureaucracy.

In microcosm, similar challenges arise in every EC member state and, while nationalism prevails, no uniform or consistent formula for government- tourism relationships is to be ex- pected. In Britain, where tourism now turns over some f2.5 billion, contri- butes 3% of total national output and provides employment directly and in- directly for 1.5 m people, there is a galaxy of part-government financed statutory tourist boards. While the job of the British Tourist Authority (BTA) is to attract overseas visitors to the country as a whole, in other aspects of tourism promotion and administration the work is divided be- tween four national boards (for Eng- land, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) under government-appointed chairmen and, within England, 12 re- gional boards. As a channel down- ward for national government funds and influence this is, to say the least, a muddied profusion. with the available money too thinly spread. As a channel upward for grass-root voices the effect is rather spoiled by the tendency for the regional boards to be dominated by plodders rather than innovators, that is, by local government repre- sentatives and the local managers of distantly based conglomerates, such as hotel and transport groups. In addi- tion the often over-long serving board officials are not, unfortunately, of even calibre.

TOURISM MANAGEMENT December 1992 359

3William Davis in a letter to the present author dated 5 March 1991. 4William Burnett in letters to the present author dated 1 and 28 February 1491. SProfessor Victor Middleton in a letter to the present author dated 13 March 1991. 61mplications of the 7989 Tourism Review. A memorandum to the Department of Em- ployment, October 1989. ‘From a discussion paper, The Organisa- tion of Tourism in Britain, by Professor S. Medlik dated November 1982. The quota- tion is from the USA’s National Tourism Act of 1981.

Britain’s new ministry However, a gradually increasing awareness of tourism as a force to be reckoned with has been reflected re- cently in the bracketing of tourism with such linked subjects as heritage, sport and the arts, under a minister of cabinet rank. Though it has yet to be shown that this new ministry will wield enough clout not only to breathe new life into a slimmed-down and more efficacious tourist board structure but to ensure that the needs and impact of tourism are duly weighed at policy- making level in such other depart- ments as transport, trade and indus-

try, employment and the environ- ment, this could be a move in the right direction. It will be even more so if, while maximizing economic benefit, the ministry can be vigilant and effec- tive in curbing the intrusion of tourism into everyday life, in working con- stantly to raise the quality of the tour- ism product and, in particular, in en- suring that central London does not go the way of Paris in becoming virtually overwhelmed by ever-increasing crowds of motor-coach-borne sight- seers.

Meanwhile, discussion continues in Britain about the best forms of government-tourism relationship. William Davis, chairman of BTA, has said that he favours ‘an “arm’s length” relationship with our sponsoring de- partment’ with reliance for regular consultation primarily on a tourism coordination committee at ministerial level. But, as Mr Davis points out, the Scottish and- Welsh offices are not too keen to hand the tourism function over to a Whitehall department and, anyway, ‘tourism is so large, complex and multifaceted that it would be very difficult for one ministry to look after all the aspects’.3

William Burnett, former director of Brighton’s tourism and resort services department, with long experience of tourism administration at regional level, takes up the point about com- plexity. While one opinion would ‘place tourism . within a Depart- ment of Trade and Industry’ and another might see it in ‘a fairly large amorphous body’ such as a Ministry of Transport, Mr Burnett was long in- clined towards what has now emerged,

a ‘Ministry of Tourism, Leisure & Culture’ as being ‘fairly small and, hopefully, meaningful’.4

In a recent letter,5 writing as chair- man of the Tourism Society (TS), ‘the only professional organisation in Bri- tain which brings together members from all sectors of tourism’, Victor Middleton supported the views ex- pressed in the society’s memorandum to the Department of Employment,h the then sponsoring department for tourism. After pointing out how the BTA, having been authorized in 1969 to cater for domestic as well as inward tourism, chose not to discharge its at-home functions but to concentrate instead on its role as an overseas marketing agency, the memorandum goes on to declare that, in the de facto

absence of a nation-wide policy- making and coordinating mechanism for tourism, TS now recommends re- constituting the BTA board as origi- nally conceived to include ‘indepen- dent board members with the status to reflect the interests of the industry as a whole’. BTA’s functions might then be specified ‘as those of a “holding company” with an overall responsibil- ity, within policy guide lines laid down by the government, for the develop- ment and co-ordination of national tourism policies, strategies and re- sources’, the overseas marketing agen- cy work being continued, as now, in collaboration with the other boards.

The comments about diversity of government-tourism relationships may be further underlined with brief references to current practice in a selection of other countries. For ex- ample, the USA locates government responsibility for tourism in the Travel and Tourism Administration branch of the Department of Commerce and there is a national forum, the Travel and Tourism Affairs Council, ‘to coor- dinate policies, programs and issues relating to tourism, recreation or national heritage resources and in- volving Federal departments and agencies’. In Spain, the Secretariat of State for Tourism is to be found within the Ministry of Transport, Tourism and Communications while in Portug- al there is a separate, self-contained Ministry of Tourism.’ In the Nether- lands tourism, one of eight priority

360 TOURISM MANAGEMENT December 1992

‘France can be said to offer the most impressive formula’

BTourism Management, December 1986. ?lon Ros Kelly MP, Australian Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories in a letter to the present author dated 10 April 1991. ‘qhis report on France is based on an interview and various publications pro- vided to the present author on 9 March 1992 by Patrick Goyet, Director, Maison de la France, London, with help from Rupert Owen in translating the documents.

areas of government policy, comes within the purview of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the chosen instru- ment for implementation being the Board of Tourism, known as VW, co-financed by government together with the tourism industry.s And, on the other side of the world, Australia has a successful formula in the shape of a Ministry of Arts, Sport, the En- vironment, Tourism and the Territor- ies, headed by a minister of cabinet rank.’ And so on.

Maison de la France

Among the larger developed countries France can, perhaps, be said to offer the most impressive formula, reflect- ing that country’s gift for applying logic and foresight to its concepts of public administration.”

The chief instrument for the promo- tion of French tourism is a deter- mined, commercially minded com- bination of public sector and private sector funds and interests operating under the name Maison de la France (MF). The title of its own brochure, A

Structure for Partners in Tourism, ex-

emplifies the cooperative spirit that permeates this organization, its first stated object being, challengingly, to maintain and enhance France’s posi- tion as ‘Europe’s number one tourist destination’.

The funding shows clearly enough that the government and its partners in this enterprise mean business. In 1992 the financial provision, shared 53.4% and 46.6% by the public and private sectors respectively, amounts to 382 million francs, with expenditure divided mainly between promotion and publicity (69.2%) and information (22.4%), of which over half is ear- marked for European markets (in- cluding a lion’s share of nearly 50 million. francs for the UK) and one- fifth for North America.

The policy of MF is determined, as part of the national plan for tourism, by the minister for tourism advised by a consultative caucus including all the other government departments affected by tourism, ranging from transport through regional develop- ment to social affairs and employ- ment. To execute the policy and man-

TOURISM MANAGEMENT December 1992

Current issues

age the affairs of MF, there is a direc- tor general, currently Jean-Marc Janaillac, who answers through an administrative council to the minister, the strands of endeavour brought together by this means comprising the state, the regions, the tourism profes- sionals and linked sectors of the eco- nomy.

This partnership, driven by shared objectives and the need to be commer- cially accountable, involves more than 750 subscribing entities classified in four groups, of which the first three are represented on the council: (1) professional bodies, unions, business federations, regional associations; (2) managements engaged in the main facets of tourism, such as hotels, res- taurants, transportation, tourist recep- tion and information; (3) the provid- ers of all the other services to tourism; (4) organizations wishing to receive information about MF’s plans and activities.

While most of the MF ploys are constant, there is usually an annual theme by which, with due emphasis, to regalvanize the participating ele- ments, the current theme being The Life and Style of France (L’Art de Vivre). In any event, with some 40 offices in 30 countries (some of the principal ones, like London, headed by high-flying career diplomats), the maison is fully stretched on the one hand with market research and analy- sis and on the other with output in the form of continuous publicity and in- formation.

Arising from this work there is an ever-evolving strategy. Based on its own research, MF initiates and re- views its intended programme which, in turn, influences the way the tourism product in its myriad forms is de- veloped, refined, operated and sold. And there is a rising target to keep all concerned on their toes, currently 150 billion francs in tourist receipts by 1993.

Within this strategy there are cer- tain criteria. The programme must demonstrate an increase in tourist numbers, spread satisfactorily over time and space; an increase in the average length of stay; and a higher yield per tourist per day. In this con- text there are various priorities. For

361

Current issues

362

nearby markets, France aims to be the preferred destination both for main holidays based on a viable price/ quality mix and for short-stay visitors in general; while for far-off markets, the object is to increase the quantity of visitors and their length of stay and, having established Paris as the main entry port for visitors into Europe as a whole, to encourage those who choose to remain in France to disperse them- selves around the regions. Woven into this pattern of objectives are three further requirements: to provide ser- vices to MF members, such as active help with special promotions; to cater

,for the needs of business as well as leisure visitors; and to stimulate the flow of domestic as well as overseas tourists.

Having considered, mainly, the lateral aspects of the French tourism

set-up, one must not overlook or undervalue the vertical lines of com- munication and persuasion. An im- portant characteristic of public and commercial life in France - and not only in the sphere of tourism - is the strength of the upward thrust from the base of the hierarchical pyramid, from the entrepreneurs at the grass roots through the departmental and region- al levels to the panjandrums at the top. In a French resort, large or small, the local mayor, chamber of com- merce and tourist office are not to be

denied. The lessons to be learned from this

survey may be summed up in a few

sentences. If the public sector and the private sector in any country, or in any group of nations sharing close political or economic interests, cannot combine effectively to promote tourism, the potential of this burgeoning industry will not be realized or may be realized only at the cost of, say, the product’s quality (and long-term profitability) or the host community’s environment and way of life. As there appears to be no st.andard, transferable model each country or region must develop its own formula, bearing in mind the need for professional competence and commercial thrust to be given enough head to overcome political ignorance and bureaucratic inertia.

While a government must put its money where its mouth is, its con- tribution should if possible be match- ed more or less pound for pound by private sector finance, or in due course be recycled or, at least in part, repaid; and the government must en- sure the money is to be spent coherently, under firm leadership,

through accountable machinery, in accordance with an agreed policy, to enhance and market the tourism pro- duct. In seeking the best formula, the established practice in comparable and evidently successful countries or regions deserves study. Among the larger developed countries the Maison de la France, and for regional group- ings the Caribbean Tourism Organ-

ization, seem to offer impressive

examples.

TOURISM MANAGEMENT December 1992