Developments in understanding
tourism policy
David Airey
David Airey is Emeritus
Professor at University of
Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Received 30 August 2014
Revised 5 November 2014
Accepted 8 November 2014
PAGE 246 TOURISM REVIEW
246-258, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the current stage of the development of the study
of tourism policy and some of the key issues that have come in for attention.
Design/methodology/approach The work is based on a review of the literature relating to tourism
policy over a 40-year period. Based on one of the models of tourism policy-making, it uses a five-part
structure to organise the literature and for each part, it explores the issues dealt with by researchers
over the period.
Findings After a slow start, most aspects of tourism policy are now well-covered in the literature,
and notably, there has been a marked quickening in the pace of study over the past decade.
Influences on policy are well-documented, as are the roles of the different stakeholders in the policy
process. This contrasts with the understanding of the work of the policymakers, which is less well-
developed, as is the nature and influence of the different forms of policy output. Neoliberalism and
governance have been prominent among recent policy themes pursued by researchers.
Research limitations/implications The paper draws on a wide range of work over 40 years, but it
cannot be comprehensive.
Originality/value The papers originality lies in it providing a brief overview of the current state of
research into tourism policy.
Keywords Governance, Stakeholders, Neoliberalism, Ideology, Public policy, Policy-makers
Paper type Literature review
ne of the frequent complaints made over the past 40 years or so, during which time
the formal study of tourism has been developing, is that little attention has been paid to
O
politics and policy-making in tourism. Matthews (1975, p. 195) put it strongly, suggesting
that the literature of tourism is grossly lacking of political research, while Hall (1994, p.
17) nearly 20 years later wrote, Research into the political dimensions of tourism [. . .] is in
a relatively poor state. More recently, Kerr (2003, p. 17) suggested that the majority of
tourism policy research is underdeveloped in terms of frameworks, approaches and
theories to illustrate tourism policy accurately. In many ways, this is surprising, given the
forceful and controversial comments from Richter (1989, p. 11) that where tourism
succeeds or fails is largely a function of political and administrative actions
and is not a function of economic or business expertise.
Perhaps driven by this, however, in the decade or so since Kerrs comments, there has
been what Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 149) have referred to as a marked quickening in
the pace of study about the policy and political dimensions of tourism. For example, there
are now two academic journals with a focus on tourism policy, namely, The International
Journal of Tourism Policy and Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, launched
in 2007 and 2009, respectively. There have also been regular special issues dealing with
tourism policy and related topics, with that edited by Jenkins (2001) being an early
contribution and more recently that by Bramwell and Lane (2011). At the same time, books,
with recent examples provided by Lennon et al. (2006), Dredge and Jenkins (2007),
VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015, pp.
DOI 10.1108/TR-08-2014-0052
Edgell et al. (2008), Butler and Suntikul (2010) and Costa et al. (2014), as well as many
others, have considerably extended the coverage of this aspect of tourism, such that it is
now possible to begin to identify themes in the literature as well as omissions.
It is these themes that provide the starting point for this article which has the aim to
examine the current stage of development of the study of tourism policy and some of the
key issues that have come in for attention. In this the focus is mainly on public policies
designed specifically to influence tourism itself rather than on policies designed for other
sectors and activities which in turn influence tourism, although it is recognised that it is not
always possible to separate the two. Even with this limitation, a review of this kind deals
with a broad and complex topic, and given that it covers a fairly long period, it is inevitably
selective. It draws upon a wide range of work carried out and published over nearly 40
years, but in doing so, it also omits a great deal. One element of this selectivity is that in
drawing on work published in English, it inevitably misses much of the experience of the
non-Anglo-Saxon world. There is no pretence here to be comprehensive. Rather the aim is
to try to see some patterns and themes which might help to understand where the study of
tourism policy has reached. Following an introduction to some of the models and
frameworks for examining policy, which provides a structure for the article, the work
examines the current state of tourism policy research under five main headings, four of
which relate specifically to one of the models. The fifth, concerned with politics and
ideology, could arguably be included in the first heading, but here it is separated out as
providing a broader setting for all aspects of policy-making in tourism.

Models and frameworks

Dye (2008, p. 3) provides perhaps the most simple description of policy as being whatever
governments choose to do or not to do; a description that has come in for considerable
criticism as being too simple (Dredge and Jenkins, 2007). It nevertheless, in its simplicity,
captures the essence of public policy as being the outcomes of decisions or choices made,
or sometimes as importantly not made, by public policy-makers. Behind the decisions and
choices lie a complex set of influences, and following the decisions and choices are a
range of outputs and outcomes. This policy environment has prompted a range of models
that have been developed that in turn have been important in providing the setting for our
understanding of the tourism policy process. Such models have also come in for criticism
again captured by Dredge and Jenkins (2007) about their simplistic nature (p. 200) and
that the policy cycle alone cannot convey the richness of policy debates over time, across
space and between different actors and agencies (p. 201). Similarly, Hall (2010, p. 13)
points to their significant weaknesses and drawing on Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, lists
six serious limitations of such models. However, notwithstanding such criticisms, the
models have played an important part in delineating the space covered by policy-making
as well as identifying the processes involved. It is for the purpose of delineating the space
and identifying the processes that a model provides a framework here to explore the
development of the study of tourism policy.
Much of the early work about policy-making focused on policy models often as kinds of
input output models. Among the earliest of these are the works of Easton (1957, p. 384,
1965) further elaborated substantially by Jenkins (1978, p. 35). These draw attention to the
process of policy-making as including a series of stages in which inputs arrive in a
decision-making system from which policy outputs and outcomes emerge. In different
ways, this type of model has been picked up by a range of scholars in relation to tourism.
Early work came from Hall (1994, p. 50), who set the policy process in a wider policy
arena. Subsequently a range of different models have been proposed and used to help
frame and understand policy-making in tourism. See, for example, Airey and Chong (2011,
p. 41), Dredge and Jenkins (2007, p. 16), Hall and Jenkins (1995, p. 11) and Pforr (2001,
p. 280). The importance of these for present purposes lies both in the extent to which they
draw attention to the many influences and actors involved in the policy-making process in

VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015 TOURISM

REVIEW PAGE 247
 tourism as well as in the extent to which they set a kind of outline of the agenda of
knowledge about tourism policy.
A simplified model adapted from that developed by Airey and Chong (2011, p. 41) and
used by Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 152) for their work on tourism in Australia is provided
in Figure 1. This makes a distinction between, on the one hand, policy inputs from outside
the tourism policy system, such as a change in exchange rates or from issues prompted by
tourism itself such as consumer protection, environmental damage or seasonality issues,
and, on the other hand, from inside the policy system, such as the relative strength of the
different stakeholders involved. Further, it distinguishes these inputs from the policy
process in which the policy-makers themselves learn about and interpret the inputs. This in
turn is distinguished from the policy outputs, often in the form of government policy
statements and the actual outcomes of policy decisions in the form, for example, of
increased visitor numbers or spending.
This article uses this simplified model to provide a framework to explore some of the main
themes in the research on policy in tourism. However, in doing so, it is recognised that, in
line with the strictures of Dredge and Jenkins (2007) and Hall (2010) noted above, the
divisions provided by the framework are in many ways matched only by the overlaps
between them.

The policy inputs a normative setting

As far as the policy inputs from outside the tourism policy system are concerned, one of
the streams of work evident in the literature on tourism policy is that which sets out to
explore the reasons why governments get involved in tourism and the implications of this.
In other words, this begins to explore the policy inputs. One of the early authors in the
tourism field (Wahab, 1974, p. 17) put it simply as state intervention in the tourist industry
has been found necessary. The reasons include the inevitability of such involvement, as
suggested by Crick (1989, p. 320), that international tourism is political, since the state
must be involved in foreign relations, the expenditure of large quantities of capital, and
large scale planning. And they extend to the need for governments to use tourism to meet
public policy objectives, typically economic objectives linked to foreign currency earnings
and employment as explored at an early stage by Airey (1983).
Airey and Chong (2011) relate the reasons for government involvement in tourism to the
problems, concerns and opportunities created in a number of different settings:
the international environment;
the domestic political environment;
the domestic socioeconomic environment;

Figure 1 Tourism policy model

POLICY INPUTS POLICY PROCESS POLICY OUTPUTS

&
OUTCOMES
Policy factors outside the Policy factors inside the
tourism policy system tourism policy system
Outputs
e.g. Policy statements
e.g. Interna onal and Coordina on with other
domes c environment bodies
e.g. View of tourism
Ideology Outcomes
Tourism policy community e.g. increase tourist
Na onal policy Policy learning arrivals

Policies from other sectors

Source: Adapted from Airey and Chong (2011)

PAGE 248 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015

 the tourism environment;
national policy;
ideology; and
policies from other sectors.
Within these they cite tourism studies over a long period that relate to policies prompted by the
international environment and the domestic socio-economic environment, including foreign
exchange earning and employment. Airey and Chong (2011) also point to work on policy related
to the problems, concerns and opportunities created by tourism itself, such as increases in air
traffic and environmental degradation as well as consumer protection issues needing a
government policy response. In this context for example, policy for tourism in connection with its
relationship with sustainability and climate change have come in for much recent attention
(Becken and Clapcott, 2011; Coles et al., 2013). For the other reasons for government
involvement in tourism set out by Airey and Chong (2011), the citations are more limited,
although the recent edited text by Butler and Suntikul (2010) provides a range of studies which
deal with the ways in which issues from outside tourism have prompted government policy on
tourism. In brief, the inputs to the policy system are becoming better understood.
At a very early stage in the consideration of tourism policy, Richter (1983) commented that
as one of the fastest-growing economic sectors in terms of foreign exchange earnings and
employment, tourism should be a hot political issue. With this background, the economy
has provided the key focus for the subsequent study of the policy inputs. From this
background, a strong line of work on tourism policy draws on themes from political
economy, expressing the relationship between economic and political affairs (Caporaso
and Levine, 2003; Roskin et al., 2006). In essence, this has focused very much on the
ways in which thinking in relation to the economy influences policies towards tourism.
Economy, following Airey and Chong (2011, p. 40), is understood here in its broad sense
of social economy or the way of life found in production. Some of the earliest texts dealing
with tourism, for example, focus on the ways in which economic issues, such as balance of
payments problems, the need for regional development or the creation of jobs, drive public
policy in relation to tourism (Airey, 1983; Burkart and Medlik, 1974; Young, 1973). Over
time, this fairly narrow path has broadened to embrace a much wider field of influences
(Hall and Jenkins, 1995) and Mosedales (2011) edited text has most recently extended as
well as continued the exploration of tourism from a political economy perspective.
Present work related to this theme has taken its cue from what Harvey (2007, p. 2)
describes as an emphatic turn towards neoliberalism in political and economic practices
and thinking since the 1970s. Understanding and examining the effects of neoliberalism
on tourism policies and policy-makers in terms, for example, of maximising entrepreneurial
freedoms, reducing or eliminating barriers, emphasising the needs of the consumer or
what one commentator called boosterism, fast-tracking and preferential treatment of
development applications. (Dredge, 2011, p. 63) has been prominent in a number of
studies. In their study of Australia, Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 159) reach the conclusion
that policy is dominated by approaches that satisfy the demands of an economic
neoliberal ideology. In this sense, the influence of political economy on tourism policy and,
most recently, of the neoliberal context of much policy making, at least in the Western
world, is now well-explored in the literature.

Policy inputs from government to governance

One of the accompaniments of neoliberalist ideology is deregulation, with government
activities being passed to non-governmental agencies including full privatisation. This has
brought to the fore the concept of governance described by Stoker (1998, p. 17, 1999) as
the development of governing styles in which the boundaries between and within public
and private sectors have become blurred. In tourism, Dredge and Jenkins (2007) refer to
this as the changing conceptions of policy, to embrace more than just the relationship

VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015 TOURISM

REVIEW PAGE 249
 between government and society. Under titles of governance and policy networks
(Dredge and Jenkins, 2012, p. 5), there have been a range of studies exploring the ways in
which various stakeholders, within the tourism policy system, from residents to industry
bodies have an influence, or lack of influence, on the policy agenda for tourism. These
have included an edited text based on an earlier special journal issue specifically related to
governance (Bramwell and Lane, 2012) as well as a review of the literature on governance
in tourism (Ruhanen et al., 2010). One of the strong themes that comes through these
studies, apart from the sheer complexity of the stakeholders involved, and the power of the
industry bodies in influencing policy in their favour, is the need to give a voice to all
stakeholders. These include those who may be harmed while business is benefitting from
tourism (Dredge and Jenkins, 2012; Moscardo, 2012) or what Wray (2009, 2012) refers to
as the need for the establishment of a participatory and inclusive framework for
stakeholders and policy communities. Apart from edited collections and literature reviews,
a further indication of the developing maturity of this line of research is presented in the
first attempt to develop a typology of governance in tourism (Hall, 2011c).
Alongside work on governance, the institutional context for policy within the tourism policy
system has provided another theme related to the explorations of policy in tourism. Indeed this
has a rather longer history than the work on governance. Heeleys (1981, 1989) and Aireys
(1984) work provided an early start to this, focusing respectively on the structures created for
tourism in the UK, especially national and local tourism organisations, and on the arrangement
for policy-making in the USA. This was then taken further by Pearce (1992) in his generic review
of tourism organisations and in a number of his subsequent articles (Pearce, 1996a, 1996b,
1996c). The United Nations World Tourism Organization (1999) has added to this with its
updating of information about national tourist offices. Subsequently, accounts have appeared
that have gathered together the structures for tourism in a number of countries (Costa et al.,
2014; Lennon et al., 2006) providing both information and comparisons. And consideration has
been given to the role of international organisations and their influence on tourism policy (Hall,
2011a; Lo Piccolo et al., 2012; Shackley, 1998).
Common themes in this line of work at the national and local levels have related to the efficacy
of national tourism offices, the position of tourism within the government structures typically
alongside business and economics and the spread of tourism across governmental structures
and the problems that this creates for the coordination of policies for tourism. They have also
included the consequences of tourism being split between different levels of government and
the incompatibilities and inconsistencies in the policies as well as the restructuring of public
administration with respect to tourism (Dredge, 2001; Dredge and Jenkins, 2003a, 2003b, 2007;
Hall, 2009, 2010; Pforr, 2007). Also linked to the work relating to the neoliberal setting of much
policy-making for tourism, studies have addressed the strong and increasing involvement of
industry and related bodies in the institutional arrangements for policy-making (Airey and
Ruhanen, 2014): what one author refers to as the capture of the policy space by industry
bodies (Dredge, 2011, p. 15), clearly a neoliberal theme. Heeley (2000) develops this into a
consideration of publicprivate partnerships in providing tourist organisation services an issue
picked up by others (Zapata and Hall, 2012). This obviously links back to the theme of
governance, with studies related to examining the networks of stakeholders in the policy arena
and the often unequal distributions of power within the networks (Baggio et al., 2010; Beaumont
and Dredge, 2010; Dredge, 2006; Marzano and Scott, 2009; Richins and Pearce, 2000). Most
recently, the literature on institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012) is also providing a basis to
explore the differing perspectives of the various stakeholders involved in the development of
tourism policy.

The policy process limits of learning and power

One of the key points of focus for research into policy-making generally is on the policy-
makers themselves. As Airey and Chong (2010, p. 296) put it [policy-makers] stand at the
core since policy is formulated and implemented by the actors. Drawing on the work

PAGE 250 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015

of Heclo (1974) and Hall (1993), Airey and Ruhanen (2014, p. 151) make the point that
policy oriented learning [. . .] [. . .] [by the policy-makers] represents the crucial ingredient
in which the policy-makers assimilate new information and apply it to subsequent actions.
As far as tourism is concerned, the role and position of the policy-makers themselves is a
relatively recent arrival on the research agenda. In their study, Airey and Ruhanen (2014)
identify a further eight works dealing with the policy-makers in tourism, the earliest in 2006
(Airey and Chong, 2010; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007; Dredge, 2006; Dredge and Thomas,
2009; Hall, 2011b; Pforr, 2006; Schianetz et al., 2007; Stevenson et al., 2008). Within
these, they point to the work by Hall (2011b) and by Schianetz et al. (2007) dealing with
the relatively limited ways and extent to which the policy-makers in tourism learn about
their environments, a point developed also by Best (2009) on the gap between policy-
makers and researchers. Hall (2011b), in particular, points to the relative weakness of
policy-learning and our understanding of it in tourism. This is also taken up by Airey and
Ruhanen (2014, p. 158), in their study of Australia. Here they suggest that the information
base for the tourism policy-makers is very much limited to information and lobbying from
industry about markets and consumers rather than about some of the broader issues and
concerns raised by tourism. There is here a reliance on what Hall refers to as instrumental
or technical learning rather than conceptual or political learning. They relate this again to
the neoliberal paradigm in which the development of markets is of key importance.
Apart from policy-learning by the policy-makers, Airey and Chong (2011) draw attention to
their other role of coordinating with others, especially the powerful forces, in the policy
arena. Hall et al. (1977, p. 459) define such coordination as the extent to which
organizations attempt to ensure that their activities take into account those of other
organizations, which Hogwood and Gunn (1984, p. 206) suggest involves the exercise of
power. Here, Airey and Chong, as well as others (Elliott, 1987, 1997; Hall and Jenkins,
1995; Jeffries, 2001), identify the extent to which tourism as a policy issue is both relatively
fragmented and weak. As a result, other branches of the government, especially finance
and trade ministries, as well as powerful industry players, often exercise the decisive roles
in the policy-making. This again clearly links back to the neoliberal context of the current
environment for policy. Further, Airey and Chong, in their work on China, provide
illustrations of the ways in which the ideological context of that country dominated the
actions of the tourism policy-makers at a time when tourism was beginning to emerge as a
separate policy issue.

Policy outputs and outcomes

In his early work, Jenkins (1978) makes a clear distinction between what he refers to as
the decisions made by the policy-makers and the actual outcomes that result from the
implementation of the decisions as well as the results of the non-decisions. Scott (2011, p.
21) emphasises this distinction with the words:
Policy outputs i.e. policy statements or plans need to be distinguished from policy outcomes,
the actual effects of policies, as policy outcomes may be unintended even if policy itself is a
rational choice of action.

The outputs are listed by Airey and Chong (2011) as written policy statements, legislative
acts or, more typically, as ministerial or other speeches, statements or press releases or
conveyed by the actions themselves. For the outcomes, they make a distinction between
those intended, such as growth in tourism employment, and those unintended, such as
environmental degradation.
The outcomes of policy have long been the subject of academic and other scrutiny, with
many of the large number of impact studies produced over the past 40 or so years setting
their findings against government objectives in, for example, employment, tourist arrivals
and spending, or, more recently, climate change as well as other social and environmental
policies. However, as Hall (1994, p. 80) noted some 20 years ago, this is not the same as
systematic evaluation of tourism public policy which as he says is a sadly neglected

VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015 TOURISM

REVIEW PAGE 251
 aspect of tourism planning, management and development. Since then as Dredge and Jenkins
(2007, p. 185) note, with calls for greater government transparency and accountability the
importance of [. . .] [. . .] evaluation of policy is becoming more obvious and, at the same time,
the qualitative and quantitative techniques are being developed. For example, from its first issue
in 2009, the Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events has included work on
the evaluation of policy (Getz, 2009; OSullivan et al., 2009), including critique of policy
(Feighery, 2011). It has also, from its start, provided reviews of policy covering different aspects
of tourism, and interestingly, it has devoted one volume to a consideration of the unintended
consequences of policy measures (Spracklen, 2012). This relative wealth of literature contrasts
sharply with studies of the policy outputs. Except for studies including lists of policy instruments
used by the public authorities, such as those given by Airey and Chong (2011) or rather more
comprehensively by Dredge and Jenkins (2007), there is a real absence of work on the nature,
content or efficacy of the tourism policy outputs or instruments or how these might relate to the
policies themselves.

The political dimension

Drawing on the work of Caporaso and Levine (2003, p. 20), Airey and Chong (2011, p. 5)
write, at its most simple, politics refers to the activities and institutions responsible for
public decisions for society as a whole. Hall (1994, p. 66) puts it rather more succinctly
and bluntly, Politics and public policy are inextricably linked and politics is about power,
while Richter (1989, p. 2) comments simply that tourism is a highly political phenomenon.
With these thoughts in mind, any understanding of tourism and tourism policy needs to be
set in a political context; in other words, how does the politics affect tourism and who has
the power in this process?
Examples of the influence of politics on tourism are not hard to find. Early examples are
Richters (1989) identification of the use of tourism promotion by the Marcos regime to
maintain its legitimacy in the Philippines and Halls (1994) recognition of the prohibition of
direct travel to Cuba by Americans for political reasons. Similarly, Airey and Chong (2011)
point to the promotion of Red Tourism in the Peoples Republic of China as a way of
emphasising the recent political history of the country. Tourism also figures widely in
studies relating the national identity used by politicians to create and refocus national
identity (Airey and Shackley, 1998; Frew and White, 2011; Lepp and Harris, 1999; Palmer,
1999; Pitchford, 2008). Also from early work by, for example, Richter (1983), Hall (1994),
Elliott (1997) and Edgell (1999) through to more recent contributions from Dredge and
Jenkins (2007), there are many other studies of the relationships and effects of politics on
tourism. There are also now many studies that explore particular aspects of tourism and
tourism locations through a political lens (Bianchi, 2006; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007;
Donaldson, 2007; Elliott, 1983; Hall, 1999; Hall, 1990, 2001; Henderson, 2003). Airey and
Chong (2011, p. 119) point to the use of tourism as a part of international diplomacy in
connection with the so-called Table-Tennis Diplomacy that used sports tourism to smooth
diplomatic links between China and the USA in the early 1970s. And other authors have
explored similar roles for tourism in potentially easing political tensions in Korea (Prideaux
et al., 2010) and Cyprus (Altinay and Bowen, 2006; Jacobson et al., 2010).
There are also a number of studies that focus on the broader ideological political issues that lie
behind many of the political actions. This extends to the ideologies as represented by political
parties and political groupings and their influence on public policy for tourism. With specific
reference to tourism, Hall and Jenkins (1995, p. 69) explain ideology as a set of values which
defines the parameters within which problems are defined and discussed and solutions
conceived and carried out. Emphasising its importance, Elliott (1997, p. 17) suggests How
tourism is managed will depend upon the political culture of the country and the ideology of the
government. Reference has already been made above to works that explore the influence of
neoliberalism on tourism, and indeed this sets an important context for many recent studies.
Similarly previous work has examined the development of tourism

PAGE 252 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015

under the ideology of the former communist countries (Assipova and Minnaert, 2014; Hall,
1990, 2001) as well as in the countries in transition (Suntikul et al., 2010). An early
example of work in this area is provided by Wanhill (1987), who considered the political
context of tourism at a local level in the UK, and later, Chambers and Airey (2001)
examined how tourism fared under left- and right-oriented governments in Jamaica in the
1970s and 1980s. More recently, Janoschka (2011) considers some of the political issues
behind the development of tourism on the Spanish Costa Blanca. In rather more detail,
Airey and Chong (2011) trace the ideologies that lie behind the development of tourism in
China between 1949 to 2010. This starts at a time when, for political ideological reasons,
tourism was considered not to exist. It then moves through a period when, because it was
not part of the national plan, tourism could almost bypass the reigning ideology and
accordingly it provided a suitable arena in which to experiment with market and Western-
oriented policies. And finally it arrives at a period where tourism is recognised politically as
an important sector, substantially for economic reasons and because it now fits with the
political ideology of the ruling party. In this setting, changing politics has provided the main
driver for change in tourism.

Conclusion
As with most other aspects of tourism, knowledge about its policy and political dimensions
have expanded enormously during its lifetime as a distinct area of study. Given the growth
in tourism as an activity and in its impacts on economies, societies and environments more
generally, it is hardly surprising that it has attracted increased attention by the policy-
makers, and with this background, it has come in for increased attention by academics and
scholars. It might have had a slow start, as witnessed by some of the early commentators
referred to in the introduction to this article, but it certainly seems to have made up for it
since.
There is now a wide body of research devoted to understanding the policy dimensions of
tourism. This article has grouped the work into five broad headings. The first, and perhaps
the earliest, relate to identifying and examining the influences on policy coming from
outside the tourism system, which, in the words of Airey and Chong (2011, p. 41), provide
the problems, concerns and opportunities to which the policy-makers need to respond.
From a response to balance of payments crises or problems created by tourism, to the
influence of a neoliberalist world, tourism researchers have sought to explore and explain
tourism policy. There is now a well-developed literature on this aspect of policy. Turning to
influences from within the tourism system, the second heading here, understandings of the
relative power of those within the system have also caught the attention of researchers
with a rapid expansion in the understanding of the roles of different stakeholders, the
restructuring of administrative arrangements and the institutional logics that lie behind
policy. As the idea of governance has emerged, tourism scholars have well-explored this
important context for policy-making. As far as the policy-makers themselves are
concerned, the third heading, these have attracted rather less attention so far. Their
learning and sources of information have been explored, and in some cases found
wanting. However, there is much more scope to arrive at a fuller understanding of the role,
positions and views and relative power of the policy-makers if we want fully to understand
the policy processes in tourism. The fourth heading, while suggesting a growth in the
analysis and evaluation of policy outcomes, also points to a gap in the literature dealing
with tourism policy, that related to the policy outputs. As suggested, other than lists of
types of outputs, such as ministerial speeches, or policy documents for example, there has
been little systematic or detailed examination of this aspect of policy. For the final heading,
relating to the politics and ideology that lie at the heart of many of the initiatives and
actions taken by the public authorities in relation to tourism, there are now a range of
studies that explore the influence of the essentially political issues on tourism. There is a
growing literature that explores the ways in which ideologies, especially changing
ideologies, find expression in tourism.

VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015 TOURISM

REVIEW PAGE 253
 Some 30 years ago, Kosters (1984, p. 612) wrote that [. . .] if a multi-disciplinary tourism
science develops without the necessary ingredient of political analysis, it will remain
incomplete. This brief review suggests that the fears underlying Kosters comment have
not been realised. There is now a good body of literature dealing with the policy aspects of
tourism. These cover a range of different aspects of the ways in which tourism and public
policy interact and their presentation comes in journal articles and devoted textbooks. In
brief, the literature has now developed. There are still gaps and many further areas to
explore, but the frame of reference for future researchers is now in place.

References
Airey, D. (1983), European government approaches to tourism, Tourism Management, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 234-244.
Airey, D. (1984), Tourism administration in the USA, Tourism Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 234-244.

Airey, D. and Chong, K. (2010), National policy-makers for tourism in China, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 295-314.

Airey, D. and Chong, K. (2011), Tourism in China: Policy and Development Since 1949, Routledge,
London.

Airey, D. and Ruhanen, L. (2014), Tourism policy-making in Australia: a national and state
perspective, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 149-162.

Airey, D. and Shackley, M. (1998), Bukhara (Uzbekistan): a former oasis town on the Silk Road, in
Shackley, M. (Ed.), Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 10-25.

Altinay, L. and Bowen, D. (2006), Politics and tourism interface: the case of Cyprus, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 939-956.

Assipova, Z. and Minnaert, L. (2014), Tourists of the World, Unite! The interpretation and facilitation of
tourism towards the end of the Soviet Union (1962-1990), Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 215-230.

Baggio, R., Scott, N. and Cooper, C. (2010), Improving tourism destination governance: a complexity
science approach, Tourism Review, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 51-60.

Beaumont, N. and Dredge, D. (2010), Local tourism governance: a comparison of three network
approaches, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 7-28.

Becken, S. and Clapcott, R. (2011), National tourism policy for climate change, Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Best, J. (2009), What policy-makers want from research; what researchers want to tell them, Journal
of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 175-178.

Bianchi, R. (2006), Tourism and the globalization of fear: analysing the politics of risk and (in) security
in global travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-74.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2011), Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 411-421.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (Eds). (2012), Tourism Governance: Critical Perspectives in Governance
and Sustainability, Routledge, Abingdon.

Bramwell, B. and Meyer, D. (2007), Power and tourism policy relations in transition, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 766-788.

Burkart, A.J. and Medlik, S. (1974), Tourism Past Present and Future, Heinemann, London.

Butler, R. and Suntikul, W. (2010), Tourism and Political Change, Goodfellow, Oxford.

Caporaso, J.A. and Levine, D.P. (2003), Theories of Political Economy, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Chambers, D. and Airey, D. (2001), Tourism policy and Jamaica, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 4
Nos 2/4, pp. 94-120.

PAGE 254 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015

Coles, T., Zschiegner, A.-K. and Dinan, C. (2013), Climate change mitigation policy and the tourism
sector: perspectives from the South-West of England, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure
and Events, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-27.

Costa, C., Panyik, E. and Buhalis, D. (Eds) (2014), European Tourism Planning and Organisation
Systems, Channel View, Bristol.

Crick, M. (1989), Representations of international tourism in the social sciences: sun, sex, sights,
saving and servility, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 18, pp. 307-344.

Donaldson, J. (2007), Tourism development and poverty reduction in Guizhou and Yunnan, China
Quarterly, Vol. 190, pp. 333-351.

Dredge, D. (2001), Local government tourism planning and policy-making in New South Wales:
institutional development and historical legacies, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 4 Nos 2/4, pp. 355-
380.

Dredge, D. (2006), Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism, Tourism Management, Vol.
27 No. 2, pp. 269-280.

Dredge, D. (2011), Tourism reform, policy and development in Queensland 1989-2011, Queensland
Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 62-84.

Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2003a), Destination place identity and regional tourism policy, Tourism
Geographies, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 383-307.

Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2003b), Federal-state relations and tourism public policy, New South
Wales, Australia, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 415-443.

Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2007), Tourism Planning and Policy, Wiley, Milton.

Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2012), Australian national tourism policy: influences of reflexive and
political modernisation, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 1-21.

Dredge, D. and Thomas, P. (2009), Mongrel management, public interest and protected area
management in the Victorian Alps, Australia, pp. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 2,
249-267.

Dye, R.T. (2008), Understanding Public Policy, 12th ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Easton, D. (1957), An approach to the analysis of political systems, World Politics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp.
383-400.

Easton, D. (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

Edgell, D.L. (1999), Tourism Policy: The Next Millennium, Sagamore, Urbana IL.

Edgell, D.L., DelMastro Allen, M., Smith, G. and Swanson, J.R. (2008), Tourism Policy and Planning:
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Elsevier, Oxford.

Elliott, J. (1983), Politics, power and tourism in Thailand, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 377-393.

Elliott, J. (1987), Government management of tourism: a Thai case study, Tourism Management, Vol.
8 No. 3, pp. 223-232.

Elliott, J. (1997), Tourism: Politics and Public Sector Management, Routledge, London.

Feighery, W. (2011), Discourse and the governance of diversity in Englands official tourism texts,
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 121-146.

Frew, E. and White, L. (Eds) (2011), Tourism and National Identity: An International Perspective,
Routledge, Oxford.

Getz, D. (2009), Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events: institutionalization of a
new paradigm, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-78.

Hall, C.M. (1994), Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place, Wiley, Chichester.

Hall, C.M. (1999), Rethinking collaboration and partnership: a public policy perspective, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 274-289.

Hall, C.M. (2009), Innovation and tourism policy in Australia and New Zealand: never the twain shall
meet?, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2-18.

VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015 TOURISM

REVIEW PAGE 255
 Hall, C.M. (2010), Politics and tourism: interdependency and implications in understanding change,
in Butler, R.W. and Suntikul, W. (Eds), Tourism and Political Change, Goodfellow, Oxford, pp. 7-18.

Hall, C.M. (2011a), Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: institutional arrangements for managing tourism-
related biological invasions, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 256-280.

Hall, C.M. (2011b), Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from first-and
second-order to third-order change?, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 649-671.

Hall, C.M. (2011c), A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 437-457.

Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (1995), Tourism and Public Policy, Routledge, London.

Hall, D.R. (1990), Stalinism and tourism: a study of Albania and North Korea, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 36-54.

Hall, D.R. (2001), Tourism and development in communist and post-communist society, in Harrison,
D. (Ed.), Tourism and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case Studies, CABI, Oxford.

Hall, P. (1993), Policy paradigm, social learning and the state: the case of economic policy-making in
Britain, Comparative Politics, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 275-296.

Hall, R.H., Clark, J.P., Giordano, P.C., Johnson, P.V. and Roekel, M. (1977), Patterns of
internorganizational relationships, Administrative Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 457-472.

Harvey, D. (2007), A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Heclo, H. (1974), Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance,
Yale University Press, New Haven CT.

Heeley, J. (1981), Planning for tourism in Britain: an historical perspective, Town Planning Review,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 61-79.
Heeley, J. (1989), Role of national tourist organizations in the United Kingdom, in Witt, S.F. and Moutinho,
L. (Eds), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

Heeley, J. (2000), Public-private sector partnerships in tourism, in Lockwood, A. and Medlik, S.

(Eds), Tourism and Hospitality in the 21st Century, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 273-283.

Henderson, J. (2003), The politics of tourism in Myanmar, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 97-118.
Hogwood, B. and Gunn, L. (1984), Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Jacobson, D., Musyck, B., Orphanides, S. and Webster, C. (2010), The opening of the Ledra
Crossing in Nicosia: social and economic consequences, in Butler, R.W. and Suntikul, W. (Eds),
Tourism and Political Change, Goodfellow, Oxford, pp. 199-207.

Janoschka, M. (2011), Habitus and radical reflexivity: a conceptual approach to study political
articulations of lifestyle and tourism related-mobilities, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 224-236.

Jeffries, D. (2001), Governments and Tourism, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Jenkins, J. (2001), Editorial: tourism policy making: theory and practice, Current Issues in Tourism,
Vol. 4 Nos 2/4, pp. 69-77.

Jenkins, W.I. (1978), Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective, Martin Robertson,
London.
Kerr, W.R. (2003), Tourism Public Policy, and the Strategic Management of Failure, Pergamon, Oxford.

Kosters, M. (1984), The deficiencies of tourism science without political science: comment in Richter,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 610-612.

Lennon, J., Smith, H., Cockerell, N. and Trew, J. (Eds) (2006), Benchmarking National Tourism
Organisations and Agencies: Understanding Best Practice, Elsevier, Oxford.

Lepp, A. and Harris, J. (1999), Tourism and national identity in Uganda, International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 525-536.

PAGE 256 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015

Lo Piccolo, F., Leone, D. and Pizzuto, P. (2012), The (Controversial) role of the UNESCO WHL
management plans in promoting sustainable tourism development, Journal of Policy Research in
Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 249-276.

Marzano, G. and Scott, N. (2009), Power in destination branding, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.
36 No. 2, pp. 247-267.

Matthews, H.G. (1975), International tourism and political science research, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 195-203.

Moscardo, G. (2012), Exploring social representation of tourism planning: issues for governance, in
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (Eds), Tourism Governance: Critical Perspectives on Governance and
Sustainability, Routledge, Abingdon.

Mosedale, J. (Ed.). (2011), Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, Routledge, London.

OSullivan, D., Pickernell, D. and Senyard, J. (2009), Public sector evaluation of festivals and events,
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-36.

Palmer, C. (1999), Tourism and the symbols of identity, Tourism Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp.
313-321.

Pearce, D. (1992), Tourist Organizations, Longman, Harlow.

Pearce, D. (1996a), Regional tourist organization in Spain: emergence, policies and consequences,
Tourism Economics, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 119-136.

Pearce, D. (1996b), Tourist Organisations in Catalonia: regional and local structures and issues,
Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Nos 3/4, pp. 307-320.

Pearce, D. (1996c), Tourist organizations in Sweden, Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 413-
424.

Pforr, C. (2001), Tourism policy in Australias Northern Territory: a policy process analysis of its
tourism development masterplan, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 4 Nos 2/4, pp. 275-307.

Pforr, C. (2006), Tourism policy in the making: an Australian network study, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 87-108.

Pforr, C. (2007), Realignment of regional tourism: the case of Western Australia, International
Journal of Tourism Policy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-44.

Pitchford, P. (Ed.). (2008), Identity Tourism Imaging and Imagining the Nation, Elsevier, Oxford.

Prideaux, B., Prideaux, J. and Seongseop, K. (2010), Does tourism have a role in promoting peace
on the Korean Peninsula?, in Butler, R.W. and Suntikul, W. (Eds), Tourism and Political Change,
Goodfellow, Oxford, pp. 189-198.

Richins, H. and Pearce, P. (2000), Influences on tourism development decision making: coastal local
government areas in Eastern Australia, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 207-231.

Richter, L.K. (1983), Tourism politics and political science, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 10 No.
3, pp. 313-335.

Richter, L.K. (1989), The Politics of Tourism in Asia, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

Roskin, G., Cord, L., Medeiros, A. and Jones, S. (2006), Political Science: An Introduction, 9th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ruhanen, L., Scott, N., Ritchie, B. and Tkaczynski, A. (2010), Governance: a review and synthesis of
the literature, Tourism Review, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 4-16.

Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, L. and Lockington, D. (2007), The learning tourism destination: the
potential of a learning organisation approach for improving the sustainability of tourism destinations,
Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1485-1496.

Scott, N. (2011), Tourism policy: a strategic review, in Cooper, C. (Ed.), Contemporary Tourism
Reviews, Goodfellow, Oxford.

Shackley, M. (1998), Visitor Management: Case Studies From World Heritage Sites, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford.
Spracklen, K. (2012), Editorial: special issue on the unintended policy consequences of the Olympics and
Paralympics, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 121-122.

VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015 TOURISM

REVIEW PAGE 257
 Stevenson, N., Airey, D. and Miller, G. (2008), Tourism policy making: the policymakers
perspectives, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 732-750.
Stoker, G. (1998), Governance as theory: five propositions, International Social Science Journal, Vol.
50 No. 15, pp. 17-28.
Stoker, G. (Ed.) (1999), Urban Political Science and the Challenge of Urban Governance, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Suntikul, W., Butler, R.W. and Airey, D. (2010), Implications of political change on national park
operations: Doi Moi and tourism to Vietnams national parks, Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp.
201-218.
Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New
Approach to Culture, Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, Cambridge.
United Nations World Tourism Organization (1999), Budgets of National Tourism Administrations,
UNWTO, Madrid.
Wahab, S. (1974), Elements of State Policy on Tourism, Italgrafica, Turin.

Wanhill, S. (1987), UK politics and tourism, Tourism Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 54-58.

Wray, M. (2009), Policy communities, networks and issue cycles in tourism destination systems,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 673-690.
Wray, M. (2012), Adapting and implementing a transactive approach to sustainable tourism planning:
translating theory into practice, in Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (Eds), Tourism Governance: Critical
Perspectives on Governance and Sustainability, Routledge, Abingdon.
Young, G. (1973), Tourism Blessing or Blight, Penguin, London.

Zapata, M.J. and Hall, C.M. (2012), Public-private collaboration in the tourism sector: balancing
legitimacy and effectiveness in local tourism partnerships: the Spanish case, Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 61-83.

About the author

David Airey is Emeritus Professor at the University of Surrey. He has been involved in
tourism studies for more than 40 years, mostly at the University of Surrey. He retired in
2014. His work has included studies of tourism education, tourism policy as well as
economic implications of tourism, and he has published widely on these topics over his
career. In 2006, he received the Ulysses Award from the UNWTO for his work on tourism
education. At Surrey, he served as Head of School and Pro-Vice Chancellor. David Airey
can be contacted at: D.Airey1@btinternet.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 258 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 70 NO. 4 2015

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.