Towards a New Political Economy of Global Tourism Revisited - Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues - page 302

enterprises, it is rarely mentioned that where attempts by the state to har-
ness productive capital for tourism have failed, it has usually occurred in
countries where productive forces were at a low level of development. In addi-
tion, the shortcomings of state-led development in certain parts of the world
must not only be seen against the backdrop of widespread domestic corrup-
tion and political clientelism, but also the failure of capitalist forms of devel-
opment to institutionalise themselves in places like sub-Saharan Africa, as
opposed to any inherent shortcomings of state intervention, as the relatively
successful experiences of state-led development in East Asia demonstrate
(see Cox & Negri, 2010; Rowden, 2010; Wade, 1990), and arguably Mexico
(Clancy, 1999).
Notwithstanding the disproportionate dominance of national political
and economic elites in tourism destinations in LDCs, there have traditionally
been higher levels of indigenous entrepreneurship and ownership of tourism
in many Asian tourism destinations, particularly in peripheral regions
beyond the principal circuits of corporate capital exchange and accumulation
(e.g. Michaud, 1991, 1997; Dahles, 1997). Even on the island of Bali itself,
there has historically been a clear spatial differentiation in the ownership of
tourism accommodation facilities. While indigenous entrepreneurial involve-
ment in the former fishing village of Kuta and the inland village of Ubud,
particularly in the handicrafts and lodgings sector, has traditionally been
high, in nearby Sanur, the coastal strip of hotels has been dominated by
external metropolitan capital (Wood, 1979: 285).
Despite the moves towards an increasingly deregulated global capitalist
economy, the structures of ownership and control in tourism cannot simply
be read off as linear expansion of capital, or indeed, an expression of neo-
colonialism. Local and regional conditions of development vary considerably
in their relation to globalising capital, which has clear implications for an
understanding of the manner in which tourism becomes embedded within
and transforms particular social structures. Indeed, Ioannides and Debbage
(1998) argue that tourism is characterised by a polyglot of production forms
and strategic alliances in which increased levels of industrial concentration
(within transnational corporations) have arisen in tandem with the prolifera-
tion of a loosely federated structure of specialist tour operator subsidiaries,
contractors and independent small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) pro-
viding a variety of services at different levels. For example, where both infor-
mal working practices and production configured predominantly around the
family household prevails, as in many southern European regions where
tourism has a strong presence, capital/labour relations may be quite diverse
(e.g. van der Werff, 1980). Moreover, in many of the sub-sectors which make
up the tourism industry, including accommodation, retail and local transport
services, horizontal distinctions between owners and workers are more often
than not intersected by the affiliations of ethnicity, gender, religion and kin-
ship (see Galaní-Moutafí, 1993; Michaud, 1991; Zarkia, 1996).