Towards a New Political Economy of Global Tourism Revisited - Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues - page 331

(12) According to Davis (2004: 25), informal economic activity accounts for up to 60%
of urban employment in Africa. In Ethiopia, where 61% of employment is in the
informal sector, 42% of those working in the informal sector are found in the hotel
and restaurant business (Demissie, 2008: 521).
(13) Domestic and regional tourism flows do exist in certain parts of Africa (Sindiga,
1999: 119-123, 159-161) and Asia (e.g. Goa, Wilson, 1996), for example; however indi-
genous demand for travel is often restricted to Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR)
and work-related migration.
(14) Historically lower levels of transnational capital intervention in countries such as
Tunisia and Tanzania (Harrison, 2000b), stem from explicit policies by their respec-
tive governments to restrict the involvement of expatriate private capital and
encourage state-run tourism during the 1960s and 1970s (see Shivji, 1975; Poirier,
1995; Honey, 1999: Chapter 7)
(15) Overall, the number of transnational corporations operating in the global economy
increased from approximately 10,000 in 1980 to nearly 40,000 in the early 1990s
(Madeley, 1996: 8; Arrighi, 1998: 69).
(16) The power of transnational cruise companies to resist the regulatory powers of the
state was forcefully illustrated in 1993 when Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines threat-
ened to drop St Lucia from their itinerary in response to proposals to implement a
standard passenger head-tax for all ports (Pattullo, 1996: 159-160).
(17) On 1 May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, the so-called AC10 states, became members
of the EU. Of these, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia currently use
the Euro.
(18) Although structural funds represented nearly a third of total community spending
at the time when the southern European economies were seeking 'convergence' with
the EU average, they comprised less than 0.5% of community GDP (Hudson &
Williams, 1999: 13).