Naming the Game of Plutocracy in Tourism and in its Research: A Critique

Abstract

Producing allegedly beneficial but destined to be mainstream and growth-oriented products to sustain wealthy and prosperous consumers’ hedonism and business profits will not be “just” unless ecological, social and ideological problems surrounding the global tourism and its research paradigm are recognised and addressed. In the midst of the recent pandemic, turned the world upside down, this brief critique aims to bring a number of oxymoronic issues surrounding the business of global tourism in general and its linearized research paradigm in particular into the front to spark further debates. Following the linear mentality dominant in the business of global tourism, one expects that “destinations abundant with touristic resources should be the most developed, prosperous and the happiest” and “destinations in the focus of researchers for many years should have resolved their problems and already prospered.” Generally speaking, neither the new forms of tourism nor the layered lens of research have provided a panacea for suffering tourism destinations. One wonders why we don't put business growth, profit and academic promotion aside for a while and place the “human life” in the center of research and development.

Keywords

• global tourism,degrowth,linear research,plutocracy,precariat,supply,tourismtification

Naming the Game of Plutocracy in Tourism and in its Research: A Critique

Abstract

Producing allegedly beneficial but destined to be mainstream and growth-oriented products to sustain wealthy and prosperous consumers’ hedonism and business profits will not be “just” unless ecological, social and ideological problems surrounding the global tourism and its research paradigm are recognised and addressed. In the midst of the recent pandemic, turned the world upside down, this brief critique aims to bring a number of oxymoronic issues surrounding the business of global tourism in general and its linearized research paradigm in particular into the front to spark further debates. Following the linear mentality dominant in the business of global tourism, one expects that “destinations abundant with touristic resources should be the most developed, prosperous and the happiest” and “destinations in the focus of researchers for many years should have resolved their problems and already prospered.” Generally speaking, neither the new forms of tourism nor the layered lens of research have provided a panacea for suffering tourism destinations. One wonders why we don't put business growth, profit and academic promotion aside for a while and place the “human life” in the center of research and development.

Keywords

• global tourism,degrowth,linear research,plutocracy,precariat,supply,tourismtification

References

1. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. A., & Verdier, T. (2004). Alfred Marshall lecture: Kleptocracy and divide-and-rule: A model of personal rule. Journal of the European Economic As- sociation, 2(2-3), 162-192.
2. Adamou A & Clerides S (2010) Prospects and limits of tourism-led growth: the international evidence. Review of Economic Analysis, 3, 287–303.
3. Androtis, K. (2018). Degrowth in tourism: Conceptual, theoretical and philosophical issues. CABI Publishing.
4. Beam, G. (2017). The problem with survey research. Routledge.
5. Butler, W. R. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7-25. DOI: 10.1080/14616689908721291
6. Capó, J., Font, A. R., & Nadal, J. R. (2007). Dutch disease in tourism economies: evidence from the Balearics and the Canary Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 615-627.
7. Cater, E. (1995). Environmental contradictions in sustainable tourism. The Geographical Journal 161(1), 21–28.
8. Copeland, B. (1991). Tourism, welfare and de-industrialization in a small open economy. Economica, 58, 515-529.

9. Deng, T. & Ma, M. (2014). Resource curse in tourism economies? An investigation of China's world cultural and natural heritage sites. Asian Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. 19 (7), 809-822.
10. Fouberg, E. H., Murphy, A. B., & deBlij, H. J. (2015). Human geography: People, place and culture (11th Edit.), Wiley.
11. G.U. (2018). Dispersion of travel, https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/equality-of-travel/), Retrieval date: 28.05.2020
12. Ghatak, S. (1995). Introduction to development economics, (3rd Edit.). Routledge.
13. De Langhe, B., Puntoni, S., & Larrick, R. (2017). Linear thinking in a nonlinear world. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2017/05/linear-thinking-in-a-nonlinear-world, Retrieved: 28.05.2020.
14. Holzner, M. (2011). Tourism and economic development: The beach disease? Tourism Management, 32, 922 – 933.
15. Jamal, T. & Robinson, M. (2009). The Sage handbook of tourism studies. The Sage.
16. Johnson, M. (2015) (Ed). Precariat: Labor, work and politics. Routledge.
17. Jover, J. & Díaz-Parra, I. (2019). Gentrification, transnational gentrification and touristification in Seville, Spain. Urban Studies. DOI: 10.1177/0042098019857585
18. Katircioglu, S. T. (2009). Revisiting the tourism-led- growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and Johansen approach for cointegration. Tourism Management, 30(1), 17–20.
19. Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2004). Conventional tourism and ecotourism in Phuket, Thailand: Conflicting paradigms or symbiotic partners. Journal of Ecotourism, 3(2), 87-108
20. Mínguez, C., Piñeira, M. J., & Fernández-Tabales, A. (2019). Social vulnerability and touristification of historic centers. Sustainability, 11(16), 4478.
21. Palmer, C. (1984). Tourism and colonialism: The experience of the Bahamas. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 792-811.
22. Sachs, J. D. & Warner, A. M. (1995). Natural resource abundance and economic growth. National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w5398.
23. Sequera, J. & Nofre, J. (2018). Debates shaken not stirred: New debates on touristification and the limits of gentrification. City, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1548819
24. Sheng, L., & Tsui, Y. M. (2009). A general equilibrium approach to tourism and welfare: The case of Macao. Habitat International, 33(4), 419–424.
25. SOID (2020). Philosophical issues in tourism and its research in the midst of stagnation and degrowth: Problems and prospects. http://www.soidergi.com.tr/index.php/special-issue-3/, Retrieved day: 28.05.2020.
26. Standing, G. (2019). Tourism and the precariat. Turismo: Estudos & Práticas (RTEP/UERN), Mossoró/RN, 8(2), 6-10.
27. Unsever, İ., Yılmaz, H. & Arıkan, İ. (2018). Tourism paradox vs. sustainability and cittaslow concept, http://cittaslowturkiye.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Tourism-Paradox-vs-Sustainability.pdf, Retrieved: 28.05.2020.
28. UNWTO (2020). News- International tourist numbers could fall 60-80% in 2020, https://www.unwto.org/news/covid-19-international-tourist-numbers-could-fall-60-80-in-2020, Retrieved: 28.05.2020.
29. Yüksel, A. (2020). Human in positivist-empirical research: Fallacy of past, present and future. Part 1-2. Journal of Travel and Hospitality Research, 17(1). http://static.dergipark.org.tr/article-download/ddbe/42bf/7de3/5e957bf4217cc.pdf?
30. Yüksel, A. (in press). The Truths about Conventional Tourism and its Scientism: A Humanistic Critique. In Lucia M. D. & Pettiano, D. (Eds). Shaping Humanistic Perspective for the Tourism Industry, Routledge.