Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
more productionist perspective. Much of this research stresses the key role of inter-fi rm link-
ages, fi rm innovation, and labour's impacts on destinations.
Tourism clusters and industrial districts: inter-fi rm linkages
Economic geographers have long studied why specifi c geographic clusters of interrelated
fi rms - so-called Marshallian industrial districts - are more successful than others (Marshall,
1920). However, until recently economic activities connected to tourism and resorts were not
included in this powerful analytical framework. Hjalager (2000, 2010) was among the fi rst to
investigate whether tourism destination areas display similarities to 'classic Marshallian
districts', asking if such 'territorial environments [are] critical for the occurrence and dissemi-
nation of innovations' (p. 5). According to Hjalager, many features of an industrial district,
including interdependence of fi rms, fl exibility, cooperative competition, strategic alliance
networks, and supportive public policies, apply to tourism destinations.
These issues have emerged in several analyses of tourism industry clusters in Australia
( Jackson and Murphy, 2002, 2006; Michael
et al.
, 2007), China ( Jackson, 2006), Cuba (Miller
et al.
, 2008), Italy (Bernini, 2009), Turkey (Erkus-Ozturk, 2009) and the UK (Novelli
et al.
,
2006). Referring to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in tourism in the UK, Novelli
et al.
(2006) regard tourism clusters as the 'co-location of complementary fi rms'. These fi rms
'may not necessarily be involved in the same sector, but may benefi t from pre-existing
network membership and alliance dynamics' (p. 1143). Additionally, Michael
et al.
(2007)
have identifi ed the key role of tourism-based 'micro-clusters' in peripheral regions of
Australia. They contend that micro-clusters fl ourish in smaller rural communities because of
their small scale, level of specialisation and peripheral isolation. The localised scale of tourism
functions in peripheral regions helps local communities retain some control of the develop-
ment process and, thereby, maintain some of the region's local character.
Innovation, knowledge spillovers and learning regions
While a few large businesses dominate the tourism industry, small, independently owned fi rms
proliferate in most destinations. Understanding how tourism businesses (both large and small)
conduct business and interact with tourists 'is vital to establishing models and explanations of
how they contribute to the local and national economy' (Page
et al.
, 1999: 454). That said,
small tourism businesses have not traditionally been considered highly innovative since they
are often operated by 'lifestyle entrepreneurs', tending to offer low wage rates and few profes-
sional development training opportunities. Typically, these operations are plagued by high
staff turnover rates, seasonality and a lack of business capital and skills (Shaw and Williams,
1998; Hjalager, 2002). Ioannides and Petersen (2003) show that in destinations where there is
limited competition, many small to medium operators are 'gap' fi llers who respond to the
needs of the market by imitating the products already on offer. Only when competition
increases, making it diffi cult for these operators to survive, do some operators innovate. Shaw
and Williams (2004, 2009) argue that several key innovations, including the development of
ecotourism, the impact of the internet in tandem with e-tourism marketing and the business
model of low-cost airlines are a result of Schumpeterian-style 'disruptive competition'.
Hjalager (2002) contends that, given the proclivity for small business development,
innovation in tourism does not stem from large-scale, conventional R&D subsidies or
university-industry collaboration. Rather, tourism innovation is an expected outgrowth
from the transfer of knowledge through various fi lters (trading, technology, infrastructure
