Politics and Tourism: Power, Colonialism, and Global Travel

Introduction: Tourism as a Political Force

In 1989, Linda Richter emphasized the largely unrecognized role tourism plays on the world's political stage. Some of the examples she cited to support her argument were the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the banning of Aeroflot flights over U.S. territory following the downing of a commercial Korean airliner over Soviet airspace (Richter 1). There are exceptions to the rule, however, including women's and church groups who view tourism as a viable pressure point in host countries that continue to deny their citizens basic human rights. One example given was the protests encountered by the Prime Minister of Japan on a tour of Asian cities, which were fueled by outrage over the sex trade engaged in largely by Japanese businessmen traveling abroad for this purpose. Richter suggested that most citizens of Western countries consider tourism a largely benign activity, possibly even economically and socially beneficial. Lounging on a warm beach and sipping cocktails is harmless, isn't it?

In fact, the tourism industry on a worldwide scale represents trillions of dollars of commerce, and anything of that magnitude will always capture the attention of governments and capitalist investors everywhere (Richter 3). By 1989, for example, tourism was the leading source of international income for dozens of countries, including the United States. To better understand how governments and investors around the world view tourism, along with the benefits and detriments of an international tourism industry, several case studies are examined below.

Tourism in the Third World and Colonial Legacies

Stephen Britton argues that it is essential to recognize that international tourism is primarily, if not exclusively, a creation of capitalism—specifically the type of capitalism practiced in metropolitan centers within former colonial powers (331–335). From Britton's perspective, third world countries represent nation-states that were transformed by colonial powers in ways that restructured their original economic systems to serve the needs of the colonizers. This in turn implies that any semblance of democratic rule was supplanted by colonial governance and the political, economic, and social interests of a small, compliant local elite. From this emerged social structures focused on class status, oppressive labor policies, and a local economy serving the needs of foreign investors. Establishing a tourism industry under these circumstances would therefore require entering the local economy through the colonial system or ruling elite, at the expense of the wider population—and often demanded brutal repression of any dissent that could threaten the health of the tourism industry or the governing system more broadly.

Britton noted that during the 1960s the international tourism industry developed packaged tour deals, which reduced travel and recreation costs for tourists, expanded the tourism market to include more cautious travelers, and funneled profits into the pockets of foreign investors (336). Naturally, the economies of destination countries benefit far less than the economies of source countries. As international tourism companies grew in size, their influence over host governments—especially in third world markets—grew proportionally. Even in destination countries that had long since won independence from colonial rule, the international tourism industry continued a colonial-like relationship by exploiting local resources to increase profits within the source country. The result is a net flow of capital away from third world countries and into source economies. On Fiji, for instance, 53%, 68%, and 95% of hotel food, hotel construction materials, and gift shop supplies, respectively, are imported (Britton 339). The contribution to the destination economy can be as low as 20% of the overall tourism trade when both air travel and hotel accommodations are supplied by foreign interests.

Case Studies: Fiji, Cook Islands, and Tonga

Britton provides a comparative case study by examining the tourist economies of Fiji, the Cook Islands, and Tonga—all located adjacent to one another in the South Pacific (347–354). Fiji represents a post-colonial British territory, with a sizable expatriate community. The Cook Islands were less thoroughly colonized, while Tonga was largely bypassed by the colonial powers throughout history. Accordingly, 65%, 52%, and 8% of tourism receipts in Fiji, the Cook Islands, and Tonga, respectively, are retained by foreign companies. However, the total income generated by the tourist industry in Fiji dwarfs that of the others, reaching $108 million in the late 1970s compared to $5.4 million for the Cook Islands and $4 million for Tonga. In a perverse way, colonial intrusion into Fiji's local economy eventually contributed to the creation of a robust tourism industry that now benefits the local economy to a far greater degree in absolute terms. Being bypassed by the colonial powers has therefore relegated Tonga to the margins of the international tourism economy.

Works Cited

Britton, Stephen G. "The Political Economy of Tourism in the Third World." Annals of Tourism Research, 9 (1982): 331–58. Print.

Nyaupane, Gyan P., and Dallen J. Timothy. "Power, Regionalism and Tourism Policy in Bhutan." Annals of Tourism Research, 37.4 (2010): 969–88. Print.

Padilla, Art, and Jerome L. McElroy. "Cuba and Caribbean Tourism after Castro." Annals of Tourism Research, 34.3 (2007): 649–72. Print.

Richter, Linda. The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1989. Print.

Scott, Julie. "Tourism, Civil Society and Peace in Cyprus." Annals of Tourism Research, 39.4 (2012): 2114–32. Print.