Understanding ASEAN Tourism Collaboration

ABSTRACT

Intergovernmental collaboration in tourism among ASEAN nations has received little attention in the literature despite the signifi cant contribution that tourism makes in the region. This paper helps improve our understanding of the phenomenon by providing empirical evidence that explains the preconditions that gave rise to ASEAN tourism and the formulation of its policy framework. It is suggested that, to truly realise the vision of economic integration and sustainable tourism development, continuous efforts are required to establish, promote and protect the common interests of member countries. Policy-makers should also strive for a good balance between pragmatism and mechanism when implementing policies. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 19 February 2009; Revised 6 October 2009; Accepted 6 October 2009

Keywords: intergovernmental collaboration; ASEAN; tourism policy.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the continuous cooperative endeavour among ASEAN (Associa-tion of Southeast Asian Nations)

member nations since 1998 and the signifi cant

contribution that tourism makes in the region, there are very few studies that examine ASEAN tourism collaboration. The majority of existing studies that are related to ASEAN economic cooperation deal with general framework agreements, namely ASEAN Free Trade Agree-ment (AFTA) and ASEAN Framework Agree-ment on Services (AFAS). Collaboration in specifi c economic sectors is overlooked by researchers.

Each supranational organisation forms and operates in a specifi c context. Often, existing theories cannot fully explain the various interactions within these organisations. Using ASEAN tourism as a case study, we identifi ed the unique features of this collaboration. These fi ndings do not only help expand the boundar-ies of existing theories and thus contribute to the literature, but also provide input into improving ASEAN tourism policies, which in turn enhances the contribution of tourism to the development of the region.

This study has three objectives:

(1) to identify the factors and conditions under which members of ASEAN have entered into a collaborative relationship in tourism development;

(2) to identify the factors involved in the process of formulating the existing ASEAN tourism policy framework; and

(3) to discuss some implications for ASEAN countries to improve their collaboration in tourism.

While the authors acknowledge the presence of bilateral agreements and partnerships such as BIMP-EAGA (Brunei Darussalam–Indone-sia–Malaysia–Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area), this paper focuses on explicit ASEAN initiatives in tourism collaboration.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 12, 291–302 (2010)Published online 3 November 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.757

Understanding ASEAN Tourism Collaboration — the Preconditions and Policy Framework FormulationEmma P. Y. Wong1,*, Nina Mistilis2 and Larry Dwyer2

1Centre for Tourism and Services Research, Victoria University, Australia2School of Marketing, University of New South Wales, Australia

*Correspondence to: Dr. Emma Wong, Lecturer, School of HTM, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Vic. 8001, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

292 E. P. Y. Wong, N. Mistilis and L. Dwyer

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 291–302 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

RESEARCH CONTEXT

ASEAN was established as a means of main-taining peace and stability in Southeast Asia by providing a forum for the discussion and reso-lution of regional issues that had the potential to destabilise the region. Five countries offi -cially formed the Association on 8 August 1967: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sin-gapore and Thailand. Together with Brunei, which joined on 8 January 1984, the six coun-tries are also known as ASEAN-6.

With the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War, there was no longer a pressing need for ASEAN coun-tries to fear their communist neighbours such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. These coun-tries had started to abandon central planning and implement market-oriented economic reforms since the early 1980s, changes that implicated trade and investment opportunities and indicated that ASEAN regional grouping needed to be enlarged to maintain relevance.

The momentum to expand ASEAN was further accelerated by the need to strengthen the region’s voice in international trading bodies, such as the Asia–Pacifi c Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), the World Trade Organization, and in negotiations with the European Union (Tan, 2003). Between 1995 and 1997, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam joined ASEAN. They are sometimes referred to as newer members with less-developed economies.

The long-term goal of ASEAN is to establish a free trade area in Southeast Asia (Yeh, 2002). While ASEAN’s economic emphasis has most often focused on trade in manufactured goods, minerals and fuels, tourism has grown to become an important consideration, in large part due to the rapid growth of the industry in the region (Timothy, 2003). Thus, there is a need to include tourism in the ASEAN trade agenda and effort.

Tourism is forecast to continue growing more rapidly than any other global region and currently is greatly signifi cant to ASEAN des-tinations. Inbound tourism includes intra-ASEAN travel (well over 50% for Laos, Malaysia and Myanmar) and extra-ASEAN (at least 70% for Cambodia, the Philippines,

Vietnam and Thailand (ASEAN, 2009). While such differences in the proportion of market sources may affect the countries’ perception of the importance of intra- or extra-ASEAN travel, no country could ignore the signifi cant growth of the regional market, from 33 million in 2002 to 65.5 million in 2008 (UNWTO, 2003; ASEAN 2009). In fact, according to UNWTO, the South-east Asian region is expected to experience an average annual growth rate of 6.3% between 1995 and 2020. By 2020, the regional arrival fi gure is projected to reach 136 million per annum (UNWTO, 2000), illustrating the growing importance of tourism for and the interdependence among ASEAN nations.

METHOD

The research adopts a case approach. Case study is deemed appropriate in examining contemporary events when the relevant behav-iours cannot be manipulated. The case approach deals with evidence collected from direction observation of events and interviews of people involved (Yin, 2003). Considering the fact that the current research concerns a contemporary social phenomenon that cannot be manipu-lated by researchers, case study is an appropri-ate research strategy for this research.

Various sources of evidence were used in this study, including offi cial documents from ASEAN, non-offi cial publications (e.g. aca-demic journals, books, newspapers and trade magazines) and interviews with key stake-holders involved. The use of multiple sources allowed data triangulation and thus enhanced the credibility and dependability of fi ndings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

In-depth interviews were conducted in January to March 2005 and January to Febru-ary 2006 by means of interviews. A total of 22 face-to-face and telephone interviews were administered and two email responses were received. Twenty-one individuals took part in the study, three of whom were interviewed twice. Among the 21 participants, 13 were gov-ernment offi cials, representing nine out of the 10 ASEAN member countries; the other eight represented international organisations (e.g. ASEAN Secretariat; Asian Development Bank), industry associations (e.g. ASEAN Tourism

ASEAN Tourism Policies 293


Association; Pacifi c Asia Travel Association) and the academia or consultancies (e.g. Insti-tute of Southeast Asia Studies; Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre).

All data were inputted into the software NVivo 2.0 for analysis. NVivo is a data man-agement and analytical tool that not only facili-tates coding of data, but, through its searching and modelling tools, also enable researchers to confi rm propositions and to explore new rela-tionships embedded in the data. The basic underlying logic is that ideas expressed in the data are broken down into simple ‘units’ of concepts and the software can illustrate the relationships among selected concepts in tabular or graphical formats.

FINDINGS

Preconditions for ASEAN tourism collaboration

As a fi rst step to better understand ASEAN tourism collaboration, we examined how the collaboration was formed.

Interorganisational relations (IOR) is a general term that includes relationships such as association, alliance and collaboration. There is no one best theory that explains IOR, and scholars over the years have adopted an inte-grative approach to examine what leads to IOR formation. Studies by Oliver (1990) and Gray and Wood (1991) have made important contributions towards this end.

Gray and Wood (1991) identifi ed six major theoretical perspectives that appear to have signifi cant possibilities for explaining IOR in general, and specifi cally ASEAN tourism collaboration:

(1) Resource dependence theory argues that organisations will respond to demands made by external actors or organisations upon whose resources they are heavily dependent, and that they will try to mini-mise that dependence when possible (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Aram, 1989; Logsdon, 1991; Bramwell and Lane, 2000).

(2) Corporate social performance theory and institutional economics theory explain collaboration by the organisations’ inten-tion to achieve effectiveness and social

legitimacy (Gordon, 1980; Freeman, 1984; Pasquero, 1991; Stafford et al., 2000).

(3) Strategic management theory and social ecology theory emphasise the conditions of scarcity and collective problems in collabo-ration (Levine and White, 1961; Skidmore, 1979; Astley, 1984; Selsky, 1991; Westley and Vredenburg, 1991).

(4) Microeconomic theories explain collabora-tion by the effi ciency that organisations seek to achieve during the process (Ross, 1973; Williamson, 1979; Husted, 1994).

(5) Institutional theory and negotiated order theory highlight the structural changes and negotiations involved between organisa-tions seeking to achieve legitimacy (Day and Day, 1977; Eisenhardt, 1988; Nathan and Mitroff, 1991; Sharfman et al., 1991).

(6) Political theories emphasise the role of power and interests in forming collabora-tion (Keohane and Nye, 1977; Heymann, 1987; Golich, 1991).

These six theoretical perspectives are similar to those identifi ed by Oliver (1990), who sug-gests that there are six generalisable determi-nants of relationship formation — necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, effi ciency, stability and legitimacy. The determinants are not mutually exclusive and may coexist. Necessity refers to a relationship formed to meet neces-sary legal or regulatory requirements; asym-metry for relationships prompted by the potential to exercise power or control over another organisation or its resources; reciproc-ity when organisations want to pursue common or mutually benefi cial goals or interests; effi -ciency when organisations want to improve its internal output/input ratio; stability when environmental uncertainty prompts organisa-tions to establish relationship to achieve stabil-ity, predictability and dependability in their relations with others; and, fi nally, legitimacy for relationships that are established to dem-onstrate or improve an organisation’s reputa-tion or congruence with prevailing norms in its institutional environment.

In what follows, we integrate the fi ndings of Oliver (1990) and Gray and Wood (1991), and focus on three of these preconditions — neces-sity, reciprocity and stability. As explained below, they seem to have particular relevance



to ASEAN tourism. Table 1 gives a brief expla-nation of the three preconditions and how they are rooted from or related to the theoretical perspectives.

The formation of collaboration in tourism among ASEAN countries must be studied in the context of the nations’ commitment ‘to moving towards closer cohesion and economic integration’ (ASEAN, 1997). In other words, one should look into the wider economic cooperation framework in which tourism collaboration exists.

ASEAN was fi rst established in 1967 to maintain peace and stability in the region. Member countries were not drawn to co-operate economically until the 1990s when they moved to protect the region against threats of protectionism from European and North American Free Trade Agreement blocs. Later in the decade, the devastation caused by the Asian Financial Crisis served as a wake up call to national leaders about the importance of cohesion to the region’s economic stability and prosperity. From then on, a number of land-mark strategic plans and agreements were launched with the long-term goal of establish-ing a free trade area or a common market in Southeast Asia (Tan, 2003), starting with ASEAN Vision 2020 in 1997, followed by Hanoi

Plan of Action (HPA) in 1998, the Initiative for ASEAN Integration in 2002 and Bali Concord II in 2003. These agreements are evidence of the nations’ intention to achieve stability and reciprocity through regional economic coopera-tion. We, therefore, argue that stability — relationships that are established to achieve predictability and dependability under cir-cumstances of environmental uncertain-ty — and reciprocity — relationships that are formed for the purpose of pursuing common or mutually benefi cial goals (Oliver, 1990) — are the two main preconditions for the forma-tion of ASEAN economic collaboration.

Tourism was identifi ed as one of the specifi c areas of cooperation within the ASEAN general economic cooperation framework because, clearly, it is a trade activity common to all member countries. In the beginning, when a permanent committee of tourism was formed in 1969, tourism collaboration was there to support the wider economic cooperation project. Until the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s, cooperative efforts such as the ASEAN Tourism Forum, which started in 1981, the establishment of the Tourism Information Centre in 1988 (closed down in 1996) and the Visit ASEAN Campaign, which started in 1991, were rather insignifi cant and unstructured.

Table 1. Preconditions of interorganisational relations (IOR) formation

Precondition Explanation Theoretical perspective(s)

Necessity IOR is established to meet necessary legal or regulatory requirements.

(Confl ict with resource dependence and exchange theories which emphasise voluntary interactions and contingent cooperation.)

Reciprocity IOR occurs for the purpose of pursuing common or mutually benefi cial goals or interests (i.e. common stakes). Cooperation, collaboration and coordination are emphasised.

Exchange and microeconomic theories, alternative to resource interdependence perspective.

Stability Environmental uncertainty generated by resource scarcity and by a lack of perfect knowledge about environmental fl uctuations prompts organisations to establish relationships to achieve stability, predictability and dependability in their relations with others.

Strategic management and resource dependence theories — the propensity of organisations to engage in IOR is a function of both the need for reducing uncertainty and the feasibility of doing so effectively through interorganisational linkages (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978: 155).

Adapted for the present study, based on Oliver (1990).



Simply put, ASEAN tourism was not driven by an intention to develop or promote regional tourism but by the necessity to form to meet an institutional requirement. Therefore, the immediate precondition for ASEAN tourism is considered necessity (Oliver, 1990). This argu-ment is much supported by the primary data where participants viewed that tourism collaboration was formed for political and diplomatic reasons.

Tourism was probably seen as something else that could be used to give substance to the broader political and economic objectives of ASEAN. (Academic)

You know we have this vision of ASEAN free trade zone, so that whole idea of the common economy coming together is all part of that and tourism is a only component of that vision. (Singapore government offi cial)

It [ASEAN tourism collaboration] is a politi-cal agenda. It’s regionalism . . . as you see that the world is now more on regionalism. And tourism is one part of the agenda . . . (Thai government offi cial)

Figure 1 illustrates that from the absence of any cooperative relationship among Southeast Asian countries to their commitment to eco-nomically integrating the region, there were two key preconditions: stability and reciproc-ity, which can be considered as the indirect pre-conditions for tourism collaboration. Within the wider economic framework, the collabora-tive relationship in tourism was formed to support the political economic agenda of ASEAN. Hence, the direct precondition for tourism collaboration is necessity. The authors argue that there is a need to distinguish between indirect and direct preconditions in the case of ASEAN tourism because the col-laboration in tourism was formed in the context of a broader collaborative relationship. In other

words, there is a set of indirect preconditions that led to the formation of a contextual collab-orative relationship (i.e. economic collabora-tion), and a set of direct preconditions that contributed to the formation of a sectoral collaborative relationship (i.e. tourism collaboration).

To relate the fi ndings to the theories, our study shows that when studying the formation of intergovernmental collaboration, there may be a need to distinguish between indirect and direct preconditions. It also highlights that col-laboration such as ASEAN tourism is a complex phenomenon and that sectoral collaborative relationships warrant in-depth study.

ASEAN TOURISM POLICY FRAMEWORK FORMULATION

To further our understanding in ASEAN tourism, we examined the process of formulat-ing the ASEAN tourism policy framework. The framework here refers to the ASEAN Tourism Agreement signed by the member countries in 2002. The Agreement, which set out seven objectives, remains as the blueprint for today’s cooperation.

Figure 2 was constructed to illustrate the various stages in the formulation of the policy framework and the factors involved — from a point where no signifi cant collaboration existed to having established an action plan for policy implementation. They are discussed in detail below.

ASEAN Tourism Agreement 2002

As previously discussed, ASEAN tourism was fi rst established to meet an institutional require-ment and as a means to support the general economic cooperation framework. Its policies were set in the direction of liberalising intra-ASEAN trade in services, principles of which were laid out in the 1995 AFAS. Cooperation in tourism among the member countries was

Reciprocity

Independent, unrelated SE

Asian countries

Stability Commitment to ASEAN Economic

Integration

Necessity ASEAN Tourism

Collaboration

Figure 1. Indirect and direct preconditions of ASEAN tourism collaboration.



rather insignifi cant and unstructured until 1998, when the region was striving to recover from the Asian Financial Crisis. The economic importance of tourism was eventually recog-nised. In that year, a Ministerial Understand-ing of ASEAN Cooperation in Tourism was signed, followed by the adoption of the HPA. The HPA marked the start of formalised and institutionalised ASEAN cooperation in tourism. Several task forces were established then, including marketing, manpower, tourism investment and cruise tourism.

However, the ASEAN Tourism Agreement, the current policy framework, is not the imme-diate product of AFAS or HPA. The content of the agreement was in fact conceptualised in November 2001 after 9/11 in an ASEAN Summit (ASEAN, 2002a), when global tourism was shattered by terrorism. The impact of ter-rorism hit the Southeast Asian countries even harder when the confi dence of travellers was further weakened by the October 2002 Bali bombing incidence. As a result of the attack, governments around the world issued travel advisories against travelling to Indonesia. Such advisories had a spill-over effect on the rest of the region. The November 2002 ASEAN Tourism Agreement can thus be considered a timely measure to address the common threat facing the region; it was an agreement aimed at strengthening the unity among members, enhancing competitiveness and increasing tourist fl ows.

Hence, in terms of the process of formulating the ASEAN tourism policy framework, the beginning of the process is an environmental trigger — the threat of terrorism and conse-quently the lack of confi dence of people travel-ling to the region, which led to a national level initiation of collaboration. This is a pragmatic, or to some, a reactive approach, where actions are taken only when necessary, in response to threats in the environment. Some scholars regard the pragmatism as part of the ‘ASEAN Way’, i.e. the unique set of norms practiced within ASEAN across sectors (Acharya, 2000).

These fi ndings are congruent with the litera-ture, which suggests that exogenous forces in the environment external to a regime (Young, 1982), commonality of interests (Young, 1982), political culture and experiences and learning (Haas and Haas, 1995; Dougherty and Pfaltz-graff, 1996) are factors that may infl uence the dynamics within a regime. For ASEAN tourism, the exogenous forces of terrorism elevated the degree of commonality of interests among members (i.e. restoring the tourism industry). The drop in arrival numbers to the region made member states realise they were ‘on the same boat’. Such circumstances enhanced the solidarity among them at that point in time. One Indonesian government offi cial said:

Bali bombing brought some of us [tourism ministers] together . . . we had to help each other.

Lack of procedural rules and monitoring mechanisms

Stability

National level initiation

Environmental trigger

Insignificant tourism collaboration pre-

2001 Reciprocity

The seven objectives in the

Agreement ASEAN Tourism Agreement 2002:

more cohesive relationships and

transparent communication.

Bali Concord II 2003; Roadmap for Integration (the

action plan) & AFAIPS 2004: more transparent

communication.

Implementation of the action plan by various

ASEAN bodies

Decentralized institution

Rejuvenation of cooperative spirit

Figure 2. ASEAN tourism policy framework formulation.



In terms of political culture, the pragmatic approach adopted by ASEAN helps explain the need for an environmental trigger to drive collaboration. Such style of policy-making and its implications are yet to be fully addressed in the literature.

Experiences and learning also took place because with the signing of the Tourism Agree-ment, the interrelationships among the member nations (on a national level) had become more cohesive and characterised by more transpar-ent communication compared with the pre-2001 period.

. . . the ASEAN Tourism Agreement formed the basis of our collaboration. Before [the Agreement], we [our efforts] were not very coordinated. (Cambodian government offi cial)

The seven objectives

Specifi cally, the ASEAN Tourism Agreement set out seven objectives (ASEAN, 2002b):

(1) to co-operate in facilitating travel into and within ASEAN;

(2) to enhance cooperation in the tourism industry among ASEAN member states in order to improve its effi ciency and competitiveness;

(3) to substantially reduce restrictions to trade in tourism and travel services among ASEAN member states;

(4) to establish an integrated network of tourism and travel services in order to maximise the complementary nature of the region’s tourist attractions;

(5) to enhance the development and promo-tion of ASEAN as a single tourism destina-tion with world-class standards, facilities and attractions;

(6) to enhance mutual assistance in human resource development and strengthen cooperation to develop, upgrade and expand tourism and travel facilities and services in ASEAN; and

(7) to create favourable conditions for the public and private sectors to engage more deeply in tourism development, intra-ASEAN travel and investment in tourism services and facilities.

Upon further examination of the seven objec-tives in the Agreement, we argue that they can be put into three categories of purposes: (i) to liberalise the fl ow of money and people from outside and within the region; (ii) to increase the competitiveness of the tourism industry, so as to compete against other regions in the world; and (iii) to strengthen the unity and identity of ASEAN as a region, maintaining its relevance in the international arena, and also ultimately helping counter the competition from other regions. These three purposes are in fact congruent with the two preconditions of ASEAN economic cooperation — stability and reciprocity — where the member countries have a common goal of attaining higher regional competitiveness, becoming a ‘stronger segment of the global supply chain’ (ASEAN, 2003).

Table 2 shows the categorisation of the seven objectives. Facilitation of travel (objective i), reducing trade restrictions (objective iii) and encouraging tourism investment (objective vii) are objectives set to liberalise the fl ow of money and people from outside and within the ASEAN region. Improving industry effi ciency and competitiveness (objective ii) together with enhancing facilities and services (objec-tive vi) aim to increase competitiveness of the regional tourism industry. Finally, establishing an integrated network of services (objective iv) and enhancing promotion (objective v) can be categorised as objectives to strengthen the unity and identity of ASEAN as a region.

Bali Concord II and ASEAN Agreement for the Integration of Priority Sectors (AFAIPS)

The realisation of these objectives requires an action plan. The so-called Roadmap for Inte-gration of the Tourism Sector was introduced in 2004 following the launch of the Bali Concord II in October 2003.

The Bali Concord II can be considered one of the landmark documents of ASEAN as it reaf-fi rmed the members’ commitment to coopera-tion and declared their aspiration of establishing an ASEAN community. The Concord also created a signifi cant positive impact on tourism collabo-ration. For example, tourism was identifi ed as one of the 11 priorities areas by the High Level Task Force on ASEAN Economic Cooperation.



Subsequently, AFAIPS was signed in November 2004. A ‘green lane’ system was introduced under the ASEAN Pioneer Project Scheme to expedite business project (including tourism projects) approvals in regulatory procedures (Vietnam News, 2004).

As a result of the Bali Concord II and AFAIPS, ASEAN Economic Ministers (AEM) drew up an action plan for tourism in 2004 outlining relatively specifi c measures, respective imple-menting body/bodies and a timeline for imple-menting the measures. These two landmark documents can therefore be considered a sign of rejuvenation of the cooperative spirit as they serve to accelerate the implementation of the objectives set out in the ASEAN Tourism Agreement. The provision of guidelines and directions in these policy documents to strengthen cooperative efforts also contributed to more transparent communication among members.

Implementation of the action plan

Finally, we examined the implementation mechanism of the Tourism Agreement.

We began by studying the institutional arrangement.

Figure 3 shows only the bodies directly related to tourism collaboration under the purview of AEM, namely the AFTA Council, Cooperation in Investment, ASEAN Tourism Cooperation and Cooperation in Transport. Committees and offi cials meetings are estab-lished under each. Bodies such as Directors-General of Immigration Departments and Heads of Consular Affairs Division of the Min-istries of Foreign Affairs and Senior Labour Offi cials Meeting that are not the responsibility of AEM are not shown. The diagram illustrates that the institutional arrangement is rather decentralised. It is not hard to see that, for tourism collaboration to succeed, coordination

Table 2. Categorisation of the ASEAN Tourism Agreement objectives

Purpose Objective in the agreement(Numbering follows that in the original agreement)

To liberalise the fl ow of money and people from outside and within the region

(i) To co-operate in facilitating travel into and within ASEAN

(iii) To substantially reduce restrictions to trade in tourism and travel services among ASEAN member states

(vii) To create favourable conditions for the public and private sectors to engage more deeply in tourism development, intra-ASEAN travel and investment in tourism services and facilities

To increase the competitiveness of the tourism industry, so as to compete against other regions in the world

(ii) To enhance cooperation in the tourism industry among ASEAN member states in order to improve its effi ciency and competitiveness

(vi) To enhance mutual assistance in human resource development and strengthen cooperation to develop, upgrade and expand tourism and travel facilities and services in ASEAN

To strengthen the unity and identity of ASEAN as a region, maintaining its relevance in the international arena, and also ultimately helping counter the competition from other regions

(iv) To establish an integrated network of tourism and travel services in order to maximise the complementary nature of the region’s tourist attractions

(v) To enhance the development and promotion of ASEAN as a single tourism destination with world-class standards, facilities and attractions



and close monitoring on the part of AEM and the ASEAN Secretariat are crucial.

It was also found that when implementing policies, a ‘bottom-up’ approach is adopted where the operationalisation of the action plan is done by the task forces (there are currently six for tourism: cruise, marketing, communica-tion, investment, manpower and tourism integration; chairmanship on volunteer or upon-request basis).

Work is really done in the task force level, and it’s elevated only to the NTO level for a second level of polishing. And then in the ministerial level it’s practically a ceremonial option because the value there is once the ministers adopt then . . . it achieves legitimacy of some sort. That’s why the important level here is really in the working level of the task forces. And what we [NTO heads] need to do really is the shepherding of the work of the task forces . . . (Philippine government offi cial)

Interviewees also expressed that apart from the guidance provided by the Roadmap for

Integration and the reporting line described above, there is no formal mechanism or proce-dures to follow for policy implementation and monitoring.

I don’t think we follow a very strict regimen of actually implementing initiatives but certainly task forces and committees help people to organise their resources, help set certain time lines so that you set the pace. . . . (Singapore government offi cial)

Drawing on the literature, Nesadurai (2001) proposes that an institution should be com-posed of four components: (i) nature of consti-tutional documents — degree of formality, nature of commitments and form of the agree-ment; (ii) decision-making procedures — e.g. voting style; (iii) modality of cooperation — substantive policy targets and procedural rules; and (iv) nature of coordination — deci-sion-making, monitoring and enforcement. One more dimension to be added to the list that is equally important for analysing institu-tionalisation is resources, i.e. leadership, exper-tise and fi nancial resources, etc. This is because

ASEAN Economic Ministers (AEM) ASEAN Secretariat (as coordinator)

AFTA Council Cooperation in

Investment ASEAN Tourism

Cooperation Cooperation in

Transport

Coordinating Committee on Services (CCS)

& ASEAN Consultative

Committee on Standard and

Quality (ACCSC)

(

Coordinating Committee on

Investment CCI)

Senior Transport Officials Meeting

(STOM) – Air transport working

group

Meeting of ASEAN Tourism

Ministers

ASEAN National Tourism

Organizations Meeting

Various task forces

Figure 3. ASEAN bodies involved in tourism collaboration.



within an institution, states seek to resolve issues and around them, actor expectations converge (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 1996).

It was found that in the case of ASEAN tourism, there is a lack of industry-specifi c pro-cedural rules as well as monitoring and enforce-ment mechanisms. Hence, the modality of cooperation and the nature of coordination have not been clearly defi ned (Nesadurai, 2001). On the other hand, resources (e.g. rules for members’ monetary contribution), the nature of constitutional documents (e.g. various framework agreements) and decision-making procedures (e.g. confl icts resolution and voting) are mandated by general, non-industry spe-cifi c ASEAN agreements.

Figure 2 illustrates the process of tourism collaboration policy formulation and high-lights the factors involved. It indicates that before 2001, tourism collaboration in the region was insignifi cant. In 2001/02, terrorism and the weakened travellers’ confi dence that resulted posed as a common threat to the industry across Southeast Asia and served as a trigger to formulation of the ASEAN Tourism Agreement. Such agreement was initiated by national leaders (as opposed to tourism minis-ters who have little political power). The inter-relationships among member countries can be considered more cohesive and characterised by more transparent communication. There are seven objectives proposed in the 2002 Agreement which are congruent with the two preconditions of ASEAN economic coopera-tion: stability and reciprocity. A proper action plan for the Agreement was not available until 2004, following a rejuvenation of the coopera-tive spirit marked by Bali Concord II and AFAIPS. These documents, which provide guidelines and directions to strengthen coop-erative efforts, are sign of more transparent communication among members. Finally, the actual implementation of the policies is infl uenced by the decentralised institutional arrangement as well as the lack of procedural rules and monitoring mechanism.

Relating the fi ndings to the theories, the empirical data have helped provide a more profound understanding of ASEAN tourism policy formulation than the general institu-tionalisation literature does. To start with, one must acknowledge the pragmatic, necessity-

driven approach to ASEAN policy-making. At this stage, little has been written to address such style of policy-making and its theoretical implication. Second, among the fi ve dimen-sions of institutionalisation, it is noted that the modality of cooperation and the nature of coordination in ASEAN tourism are not yet clearly defi ned. Finally, in terms of infl uences on ASEAN tourism collaboration, it is evident that changes in the larger economic and politi-cal environment (i.e. terrorism and its effects) have elevated the common interests among members and triggered signifi cant collabora-tive efforts, resulting in more cohesive rela-tionships and transparent communication among members.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ASEAN TOURISM COLLABORATION

Based on the fi ndings on preconditions and policy framework formulation, two important implications for ASEAN tourism policy-makers can be drawn. First, they should continue to harness the drive for reciprocity and stability, which provided the rationale for the seven objectives in the 2002 Agreement. A collabora-tive relationship is hard to survive on necessity as a precondition alone. To truly realise the vision of economic integration and sustainable tourism development in the region, continu-ous efforts are required to establish, promote and protect the common interests of member countries. Having experienced several crises in the past decades, they should understand that tourism is an industry heavily infl uenced by the external environment. Collaboration should not be seen as a short-term solution at diffi cult times but a long-term relationship for develop-ing a sustainable and competitive industry.

Second, policy-makers need to strive for a good balance between pragmatism and mech-anism. As discussed in the fi ndings, there is a lack of tourism-specifi c procedural rules and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. While the authors acknowledge the pragmatic political culture in ASEAN, successful policy implementation does rely on rules and mecha-nisms. Policy-makers may consider formulat-ing implementation strategies that incorporate contingency plans. In that way, effi ciency and



effectiveness of policy implementation can be improved while preserving the pragmatic culture at the same time.

CONCLUSION

Given the paucity of studies in ASEAN tourism, this paper serves as a starting point to improve our understanding of the phenomenon. It pro-vides empirical evidence that explains the pre-conditions that gave rise to ASEAN tourism and the formulation of its policy framework. ASEAN countries compete as well as collabo-rate. Their collaboration in tourism operates in a specifi c and complex context. Existing theo-ries cannot always provide a complete expla-nation. For example, our fi ndings show the need to distinguish between indirect and direct preconditions for collaboration and that prag-matism in policy formulation is yet to be fully addressed in the literature. The boundaries of existing theories thus need to be expanded.

The paper also provides suggestions to policy-makers for improving current collabo-ration, which in turn enhances the contribution of tourism to regional social and economic development. Further research should focus on evaluating the progress of the collaboration, developing more concrete strategies for improving policy implementation and theoris-ing regional collaboration in specifi c economic sectors. Future research could also attempt a comparative study with similar supranational organisations, such as the European Union, identifying similarities and differences in terms of indirect and direct preconditions, approach to policy-making and factors involved in the process of formulating the tourism policy framework. After all, the distinct infl uences on collaboration in tourism, in contrast to other industry sectors, remain unclear in the literature.

As ASEAN members evolve in their politi-cal, social and economic development along-side variations in the global economic environment and dramatic events, so too will the nature of their tourism collaboration. The formation and early progression of such col-laboration does not easily fi t any textbook pro-totype, and this paper has provided the framework through which future development can be observed, analysed and monitored. This

constitutes a signifi cant step in our under-standing of what clearly is a dynamic phenomenon.

REFERENCES

Acharya A. 2000. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia, Routledge: New York.

Aram J. 1989. The paradox of interdependent rela-tions in the fi eld of social issues in management. Academy of Management Review 14: 266–282.

ASEAN 1997. ASEAN Vision 2020. ASEAN Secre-tariat: Jakarta.

ASEAN. 2002a. The Fifth Meeting of ASEAN Tourism Ministers (5th M-ATM) Joint Press Statement. 24 January 2002. ASEAN Press Release: Yogyakarta.

ASEAN 2002b. ASEAN Tourism Agreement. ASEAN Secretariat: Jakarta.

ASEAN 2003. ASEAN Bali Concord II. ASEAN Secretariat: Jakarta.

ASEAN 2006. ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2006: The ASEAN Secretariat: Jakarta.

ASEAN 2009. Tourist arrivals in ASEAN. In ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2009. The ASEAN Secretariat: Jakarta; http://www.aseansec.org/Stat/Table28.pdf

Astley G. 1984. Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy of Management Review 9: 526–535.

Bramwell B, Lane B. 2000. Collaboration and partnerships in tourism planning. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships — Politics, Practice and Sustainability, Bramwell B, Lane B (eds). Channel View Publications: Clevedon; 1–19.

Day R, Day JV. 1977. A review of the current state of negotiated order theory: an appreciation and a critique. Sociological Quarterly 18: 126–142.

Dougherty JE, Pfaltzgraff RL Jr. 1996. Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. Addison-Wesley Education Publishers Inc: New York.

Eisenhardt K. 1988. Agency- and institutional-theory explanations: the case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Journal 31: 488–511.

Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stake-holder Approach. Pitman: Marshfi eld, MA

Golich VL. 1991. A multilateral negotiations chal-lenge: international management of the commu-nications commons. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 27(2): 228–250.

Gordon W. 1980. Institutional Economics: The Chang-ing System. University of Texas Press: Austin.

Gray B, Wood DJ. 1991. Collaborative alliances: moving from practice to theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(1): 3–22.



Haas PM, Haas EB. 1995. Learning to learn: some thoughts on improving international governance of the global problematique. In Issues in Global Governance — Papers Written for the Commission on Global Governance. Kluwer Law International: London; 295–332.

Heymann PB. 1987. The Politics of Public Manage-ment. Yale University Press: New Haven.

Husted BW. 1994. Transaction costs, norms, and social networks. Business and Society 33(1): 30–57.

Keohane RO, Nye J. 1977. Power and Interdepen-dence: World Politics in Transition. Little Brown: Boston.

Levine S, White PE. 1961. Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 5: 583–601.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications Inc: Beverly Hills.

Logsdon JM. 1991. Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving collabo-rations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(1): 23–37.

Nathan ML, Mitroff II. 1991. The use of negotiated order theory as a tool for the analysis and devel-opment of an interorganizational fi eld. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2): 163–180.

Nesadurai HES. 2001. Cooperation and institutional transformation in ASEAN: insights from the AFTA Project. In Non-traditional Security Issues in Southeast Asia, Tan ATH, Boutin, KJD (eds). Insti-tute of Defence and Security Studies: Singapore; 197–226.

Oliver C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review 15(2): 241–265.

Pasquero J. 1991. Supraorganizational collabora-tion: the Canadian environmental experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(1): 38–64.

Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. 1978. The External Control of Organizations — A Resource Dependence Perspec-tive. Harper & Row: New York.

Ross SA. 1973. The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem. American Economic Review 63: 134–139.

Selsky JW. 1991. Lessons in community develop-ment: an activist approach to stimulating inter-

organizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(1): 91–115.

Sharfman MP, Gray B, Yan A. 1991. The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry: an institutional perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2): 181–208.

Skidmore W. 1979. Theoretical Thinking in Sociology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Stafford ER, Polonsky MJ, Hartman CL. 2000. Environmental NGO-business collaboration and strategic bridging: a case analysis of the Greenpeace-Foron alliance. Business Strategy and the Environment 9(2): 122–135.

Tan G. 2003. ASEAN Economic Development and Cooperation. 3rd edn. Times Academic Press: Singapore.

Timothy DJ. 2003. Supranationalist alliances and tourism: insights from ASEAN and SAARC. Current Issues in Tourism 6(3): 250–266.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). 2000. Tourism 2020 Vision — Volume 3 East Asia and the Pacifi c. World Tourism Organiza-tion: Madrid.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). 2003. UNWTO World Tourism Barom-eter (January 2003). World Tourism Organization: Madrid.

Vietnam News. 2004. PM hails efforts for ASEAN integration. Vietnam News 30 November: http://english.vietnamnet.vn/politics/2004/11/349931/

Westley F, Vredenburg H. 1991. Strategic bridging: the collaboration between environmentalists and business in the marketing of green products. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(1): 65–90.

Williamson OE. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22: 233–261.

Yeh RS. 2002. Association of South-East Asian Nations. In International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, Vol. 1, Warner M (ed). Thomson Learning: London; 296–299.

Yin RK. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd edn. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.

Young OR. 1982. Regime dynamics: the rise and fall of international regimes. In International Regimes, Krasner SD (ed). Cornell University Press: Ithaca; 93–113.

Understanding ASEAN Tourism Collaboration

Documents

Transcript of Understanding ASEAN Tourism Collaboration