Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
establishing a common policy and towards a
framework approach where the EU would be
limited to a coordinating, complementary role.
Furthermore, the communication discussed in
detail the aspirations of the European Commis-
sion for the future, but failed to set up a specific
course of action. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the
feelings towards the communication and what it
aimed to achieve were mixed (see European
Parliament, 2002; HOTREC, 2002; Jeffries,
2002), another demonstration perhaps of the
diversity of opinion that exists on what the EU
should be doing about tourism.
The EU's involvement in tourism can thus
be characterized as being fragmented, lacking in
focus and direction, '
ad hoc
and piecemeal' with
no 'strategic direction, legal basis and under-
pinning' (Church
et al
., 2000, p. 324). However,
the question of a role for the EU remains and its
definition would be of benefit not only to tourism
and the EU, but also to other regional trading
blocs which aspire to become more integrated
and may experience the same dilemmas.
Studies on this topic area have tended to
focus on specific aspects of EU involvement
(Richards, 1996; Wanhill, 1997) rather than
addressing this issue in a holistic manner. In
addition, those studies which have attempted
a more holistic approach (Akehurst, 1992;
Akehurst
et al
., 1993; Downes, 1997) have been
of a prescriptive nature focusing on what the EU
should be doing rather than what is actually
being done and why. The literature has largely
ignored the views of the stakeholders such as
the European Commission, the European Parlia-
ment and tourism interest groups who are closely
involved with decision-making at the supra-
national level and who are playing their own part
in influencing and affecting the conditions created
for tourism. A detailed study of the EU environ-
ment undertaken by the author (Anastasiadou,
2004b, and unpublished PhD thesis, 'Tourism
at the supranational level: The case of the Euro-
pean Union', University of Strathclyde.) sought
to establish the views of the stakeholders on the
issue of EU involvement. Interviewees included
MEPs, Commission officials and representatives
of interest groups who were asked to comment
on the reasons why a specific policy had been
evasive and the type of tourism competence they
would like to see materialize.
EU Approach to Tourism: the
Stakeholders' Perspective
Interviewees claimed that there is a division and
a certain degree of polarization between mem-
ber states in their perceptions of tourism and
thus verified the notions expressed in the tour-
ism literature (Downes, 1997). Certain member
states (UK, Sweden, Germany and Austria in
particular) appear more unwilling to see a greater
involvement at this level and interviewees
identified different causes of this apprehension.
These can be divided into
financial, perceptual
and
pragmatic
reasons (Table 2.1).
The UK was presented as one of the more
resistant states to the idea of an EU tourism
competence. Interviewees argued that the UK's
apprehension was part of its internal policy for
no more expansion of the EU competencies
and its fear that greater involvement at this level
by the EU institutions would result in more regu-
lation (
perceptual
). Sweden also did not wish
to see the establishment of a new competence
as
that
would
have
budgetary
implications
Table 2.1.
The EU: obstacles to a formal competence.
Financial
Perceptual
Pragmatic
Budgetary implications
Regulation
Apprehension towards new
competencies
Tourism sector may fare worse
Absence of state involvement
Issue definition
Authority mismatch
Subsidiarity
Source:
Anastasiadou, 2004, 'Tourism and the supranational level: The case of the European Union'
(unpublished PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde).
