How Europe Hits Home - Term Paper Example

Evaluation of the Contribution of Stakeholder and Collaboration Theory to the Study of Tourism Policy and Planning This paper aims to present a theoretical framework for the evaluation of the contribution of stakeholder and collaboration theory to the study of tourism policy and planning. The paper has the objective of discovering how the stakeholder power influences the tourism policy and planning which has generally been identified as a collaborative process. This paper draws upon the sociological theory and within it focuses on the collaboration theory. The process of framing tourism policy and planning provides a context for a study of the related concepts of tourism destinations, destination branding and stakeholder theory. The theoretical framework can be found useful in evaluating the efficiency of the collaborative stakeholder based processes such as framing the tourism policy and planning. Introduction Tourism policy and planning is one of the central topics in the academic tourism research as well in the functional directions of national, regional and local tourism organizations. It is considered as an important part of tourism destination strategy and planning. (Heath & Wall, 1992; Prideaux & Cooper, 2002) From the perspective of tourism planning, tourism can be identified as a complex system. This system is considered central to the analysis of power relationships among the various stakeholder groups which are involved in the process of decision making. The tourism system can be described as one which is structured around "a core [that] generally consists of an assemblage of structures, goods, services, and resources directly contributing to the sector, the comprehensive tourism system includes significant social, economic, geological, and ecological components, along with processes and functions that complement its totality and are essential to its sustainability'. (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004) Tourism has been considered as a context for research rather than a discipline in its own tenets (Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert & Wanhill, 2005; Jafari & Ritchie, 1981) On this basis sociology offers a theoretical perspective to the study on tourism. This theoretical perspective is discussed in this paper in the context of the application of stakeholder and collaboration theory on tourism policy and planning. Complexity of the Tourism System The linking of so many diverse kinds of products and services has made the tourism industry and the system as a complicated one (Edgell 1990). The tourism system is so fragmented (Shaw & Williams, 2002) in that there exist a number of different players involved in a problem domain who have different interests and attribute different values (Trist, 1983). It is but critical to have a methodology that studies the stakeholder power structure precisely. Further the tourism decision making process is usually characterized in terms of the collaborative power that the stakeholders possess (de Araujo & Bramwell, 2000; Keogh, 1990; Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002; Murphy, 988) However Reed (1997) point out that the authors on the community tourism do not mention any issue of power being involved in the process. Collaborative processes, like destination branding, are therefore at risk of power imbalances that can inhibit both their initiation and success (Jamal & Getz, 1995). Tourism as a Product Tourism when considered as a product can be construed as an experience of a place with its location and people visited at a particular time (Wheeler 1995) Tourism as a product has been conceptualized in a number of ways. Medlik and Middleton (1973) considered the tourism product as a bundle of activities, services, and benefits that constitute the entire tourism experience. Tourism was looked at from two view points by Middleton (1989). In one angle he looked at tourism as a discrete product resulting from the offer of a single business. In another way tourism was looked as a total product describing the relative experience of the tourist. Smith (1994) had identified the following elements as being consisted in the product of tourism. They are: 1. Physical plant 2. Service 3. Hospitality 4. Freedom of choice and 5. Involvement Smith (1994) further reiterated that tourism is not just a combination of these five elements but is a result of synergic interaction of all these elements. Thus these characters make tourism as a product substantially different from the other traditional products that are being marketed. Tourism as a product differs in the fundamental characters which makes it unique. Role of Stakeholders in Tourism Planning The involvement of multiple stakeholders in tourism policy and planning is a common phenomenon in tourism. The essential feature of successful tourism planning is the involvement in the process of multiple stakeholders (de Araujo & Bramwell, 2000; Gunn & Var, 2002). Laws (1995) points out that tourism planning without taking into account the detailed needs and preferences of the stakeholders in the area will prove to be futile and pointless. In addition Laws, Scott & Parfitt, (2002) point out that involvement of all the stakeholders in the planning process and the interaction among them is bound to prove as synergetic. The delivery of value in the destination branding being a 'highly complex and politicized activity' (Morgan et al., 2003) in the process of tourism planning is greatly enhanced by the unity and collaboration among the stakeholders. This is achieved since the stakeholders in their collaborative moves bring up the values through shared meanings. Collaboration among Stakeholders Tourism policy and planning basically involves the major activity of destination branding. Firstly in the process of planning the creation and management of a destination brand is considered to require collaborative effort among different stakeholders ((Morgan, Pritchard & Piggott, 2002) The destination brand is regarded as the 'common good' (Hardin 1968) outcome of a continuous collaborative process among the stakeholders. However in this context the different roles, agenda and benefits of different stakeholders within a single destination need to be recognized. (Aas, Ladkin & Fletcher, 2005) This aspect should be balanced with the collaboration among the stakeholders in destination branding. This implies that it would be the desire of each stakeholder of a tourism destination would be to maximize his benefits (Buhalis, 2000) Although the unity and collaboration among the stakeholders result in a decision on destination brand (Prideaux & Cooper, 2002) or such decision is the result of synergies among the stakeholders (Laws, Scott & Parfitt, 2002) an evaluation of the power of the stakeholders involved in the process of tourism policy and planning would reveal the influence of stakeholder power in the collaborative process. Collaboration and Power in Tourism System There have been several studies conduced identifying the co-existence of power and collaboration in the literature of sociology (Gray, 1989; Wood & Gray, 1991) The relationship has also been studied in the general planning literature (Healey, 1997; Healey, 2003; Margerum, 2002) as well as from the point of view of the study of tourism (Jamal, Stein & Harper, 2002; Reed, 1997) According to Wood & Gray (1991) collaboration is likely to result when a group of stakeholders belonging to a problem domain and who act autonomously engage themselves in a process of decision making relevant to the specific problem domain. The process of decision making is usually an interactive one which uses shared rules and norms and structures. It must be appreciated that collaboration is not universal but is usually adaptive to the problem domain (Jamal et al 2002) A collaborative process is used by the stakeholders to influence the course of shared issues (Selsky & Barton 2000) It should also be appreciated that a process that is labeled as collaborative may not necessarily include all the stakeholders involved (Gray, 1989; Wood & Gray, 1991) Therefore the collaboration theory and stakeholder theory agree on the point that being a shareholder is a potential quality. Just because people possess this quality they do not take part in the collaborative process (Evan & Freeman, 1993; Grimble & Wellard, 1997; Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997) The other point to note here is that it is possible to identify a process as a collaborative one even if the process involves only most powerful or influential stakeholders (Wood & Gray, 1991). It is therefore essential that the stakeholders need to be categorized in terms of their power in the process of tourism policy and planning. Reed (1997) defines power as the 'ability to impose one's will or advance one's own interest'. Contribution of Stakeholder Theory The Stakeholder theory identifies 'power' as an important attribute of a stakeholder with the additional characteristics of legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). The power of stakeholder has been considered as the ability of the stakeholder to threaten an organization (Savage, Nix, Whitehead & Blair, 1991). The stakeholders' capacity and ability to make threats to an organization is determined by the relative power of the stakeholder and its relevance to the specific issue with which the stakeholder confronts the organization (Savage et al 1991). Sheehan & Ritchie (2005) observe that the capacity, opportunity and willingness to threaten can be related to the power of the player and the relevance of such power to influence a particular issue that is being dealt with by the stakeholders. However, it should be noted that the capacity of a stakeholder to make threats is counterbalanced by the relative ability of the stakeholder to arrive at a collaborative environment. This collaborative environment is again influenced by '(1) the specific context and history of the organization's relations with that stakeholder and (2) other key stakeholders influencing the organization' (Savage et al., 1991) Therefore the contribution of the stakeholders in tourism policy and planning has to be evaluated in terms of their power. Such evaluation should take into account the ability of the stakeholder to threat the organization or to collaborate in the process of planning. Measurement of Stakeholder Power Phillips (2003) considers the characterization of the stakeholders in terms of their relative power as a problematic issue. There are the following methods available for evaluating the stakeholder power and the resultant contribution by the stakeholders to the process of tourism policy and planning. 1. Positional method 2. Reputational method and 3. Decision making method (Aiken & Mott, 1970) Positional Method The positional method is based on the assumption that those stakeholders who are holding authoritative positions will make key decisions and those who do not occupy such positions do not take any decision (Bonjean & Olson, 1964). Schulze & Blumberg, (1957) observe that the stakeholder power under positional method is determined by assessing the respective status of the stakeholders in the 'institutionalized economic, political and/or civic structures of the community'. The positional method of studying the stakeholder power still found to be a useful tool in the studies relating to various management disciplines (Chakravarthy & Gargiulo, 1998; Reinmoeller, 2004; Wahlgren & Stewart, 2003) Reputational Method Under this method, the stakeholder power is determined by gathering information from the informants about the name and rank of the people who the informants believe hold power (Bonjean & Olson, 1964) Reputational power is the power that 'an actor is said to have according to the other actors in the network' (Sciarini, Fischer & Nicolet, 2004) However this method suffers from the criticism that it measures only the peoples' perception of power and not the real power (D'Antonio & Erickson, 1962; Sharp, 2000) Decision Making Method Unlike the other two methods this method relies on the ability of the stakeholder to make decisions. Thus this method takes in to account the reality of the situation and makes a realistic assessment of the power of the stakeholder. However it has been observed by Westerheijden (1987) that the different approaches lack reality as they have been made to work based on different assumptions. Since these assumptions do not provide for the measurement of the stakeholder power using any one particular method of measurement it is suggested that the stakeholder power can be assessed by a combination of positional, reputational and decision making methods. Conclusion The paper thus has discussed the relevance of collaborative power of the stakeholder in the process of tourism policy and planning. This paper has also identified the co-existence of collaboration and power in the context of tourism. Power in the process of destination branding - one of the important process of tourism policy and planning - has been found to be the ability of the various stakeholders in bringing their competing values and interests within the process of planning in order to influence the decision making with respect to all the aspects of tourism policy and planning. In fact this can be considered the major contribution of the stakeholder theory to the process of tourism planning. This paper also made a brief description of the different methods using which the stakeholder power can be measured. References Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005) 'Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management' Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28-48 Aiken, M., & Mott, P. E. (1970) 'The structure of community power' New York: Random House. Bonjean, C. M., & Olson, D. M. (1964) 'Community leadership: Directions of research' Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(3), 278-300 Buhalis, D. (2000). 'Marketing the competitive destination of the future' Tourism Management, 21(1), 97-116 Chakravarthy, B., & Gargiulo, M. (1998) 'Maintaining leadership legitimacy in the transition to new organizational forms' Journal of Management Studies, 35(4), 437-456 Cooper, C. P., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (2005). 'Tourism: Principles and practice' (3rd ed.). Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall. D'Antonio, W. V., & Erickson, E. C. (1962) 'The reputational technique as a measure of community power: An evaluation based on comparative and longitudinal studies' American Sociological Review, 27(3), 362-376. De Araujo, L. M., & Bramwell, B. (2000) 'Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism planning: The case of Brazil's Costa Dourada project'. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), 'Tourism, collaboration, and partnerships: Politics, practice, and sustainability' (pp. 272-294). Buffalo, NY: Channel View Publications. Edgell, D. L. (1990) 'International tourism policy' New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1993) 'A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: A Kantian analysis' In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), 'Ethical theory and business' (pp. 75-84). Englewood Cliffs, N.J:Prentice Hall Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004) 'Reconceptualizing tourism' Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 274-295 Gray, B. (1989). 'Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems'. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997) 'Stakeholder methodologies in natural resources management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities'. Agricultural Systems, 55, 173-193. Gunn, C. A., & Var, T. (2002) 'Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases' (4th ed.). New York: Routledge Hardin, G. (1968). 'The tragedy of the commons Science', 162(3859), 1243-1248 Healey, P. (1997). 'Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies'. London: Macmillan. Healey, P. (2003). 'Collaborative planning in perspective' Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123 Heath, E., & Wall, G. (1992) 'Marketing tourism destinations: A strategic planning approach'. New York: Wiley. Jafari, J., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (1981) 'Toward a framework for tourism education: Problems and Prospects' Annals of Tourism Research, 8(1), 13-34. Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995) 'Collaboration theory and community tourism planning' Annals of TourismResearch, 22(1), 186-204 Jamal, T. B., Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2002) 'Beyond labels: Pragmatic planning in multi-stakeholder tourism-environmental conflicts'. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(2), 164-177 Keogh, B. (1990). 'Public participation in community tourism planning' Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 449-465 Ladkin, A., & Bertramini, A. M. (2002) 'Collaborative tourism planning: A case study of Cusco, Peru' Current Issues in Tourism, 5(2), 71-93 Laws, E. (1995) 'Tourist destination management: Issues, analysis, and policies'. London: Routledge Laws, E., Scott, N., & Parfitt, N. (2002) 'Synergies in destination image management: A case study and conceptualisation'. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(1), 39-55. Margerum, R. D. (2002). 'Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice'. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 237-253 Medlik, S., & Middleton, V. T. C. (1973) 'The tourism product and its marketing implications'. International Tourism Quarterly, 3, 28-35 Middleton, V. T. C. (1989). 'Tourist product' In L. Moutinho & S. F. Witt (Eds.), 'Tourism marketing and management handbook' (pp. 573-576) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997) 'Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts'. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886 Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2002) 'New Zealand, 100% pure The creation of a powerful niche destination brand'. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/5), 335-354. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003) 'Destination branding and the role of stakeholders: The case of New Zealand'. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 285-299. Murphy, P. E. (1988). 'Community driven tourism planning' Tourism Management, 9(2), 96-104 Phillips, R. (2003). 'Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics' San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Prideaux, B., & Cooper, C. (2002) Marketing and destination growth: A symbiotic relationship or simple coincidence Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 35-48. Reed, M. G. (1997). 'Power relations and community-based tourism planning' Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 566-591 Reinmoeller, P. (2004). 'The knowledge-based view of the firm and upper echelon theory: Exploring the agency of TMT'. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 91-104 Savage, G. T., Nix, T. H., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991) 'Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders' .Academy of Management Executive, 5, 61-75. Schulze, R. O., & Blumberg, L. U. (1957) 'The determination of local power elites' American Journal of Sociology, 63, 290-296 Sciarini, P., Fischer, A., & Nicolet, S. (2004). 'How Europe hits home: Evidence from the Swiss case'. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3) Selsky, J. W., & Barton, J. (2000) 'The third track of the open-systems-thinking school: An application of domain theory to New Zealand ports'. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13(3), 257-277. Sharp, J. P. (2000) 'Entanglements of power: Geographies of domination/resistance'. New York: Routledge Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (2002) 'Critical issues in tourism: A geographical perspective' (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Sheehan, L. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B (2005) 'Destination stakeholders exploring identity and salience' Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 711-734 Smith, S. L. J. (1994) 'The tourism product' Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582-595 Trist, E. L. (1983). 'Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains' Human Relations, 36(3), 247-268 Wahlgren, A., & Stewart, R. (2003) 'Owner-managers: Freedoms and constraints'. Strategic Change, 12, 21-29. Wheeler, M. (1995) 'Tourism marketing ethics: An introduction' International Marketing Review, 12(4), 38-49 Westerheijden, D. F. (1987) 'The substance of shadow A critique of power measurement methods' Acta Politica, 1, 39-59. Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). 'Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration' The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162 Read More