Tourism is a wide ranging
phenomenon and whilst certain operators such as
hotels, companies involved in
transportation and all other facets of tourism have
specific objectives relating to
their areas of interest, no one group has the overall
interest of the total industry at
heart. Brown and Essex (1989) state that policies
are relevant to both the public
and private tourism sectors. Policies in the public
sector are more concerned with
the benefits of tourism for the community and
have to play a more
strategic/coordinating/leadership role in the development of
tourism. In the private sector,
policies are designed to give corporate direction for
a profit motive, and as such are
opportunistic.
Tourism policies have evolved from three distinct phases of
development. The first phase, evident prior to the 1960s, took a laissez faire
attitude towards tourism focusing on specific markets and sites with little regard to
the wider implication of proposals or projects.This phase was referred to as 'hard'
tourism. During the second phase, from the 1960s onwards, the social implications
of tourism were recognised, hence the name 'soft
tourism'. Phase three is a blend
of 'hard' and 'soft' tourism and in this phase the
public sector actively encourages
the private sector to invest in tourism.
Overall resources are generally limited, and competing priorities between groups of users may interfere with a rational allocation process.
Therefore, the primary function
of governments has to be to create the right
economic environment in which the
private sector can fully participate and to
remove unnecessary controls,
restrictions and burdens.
Tourism policy issues reflect not only economic
considerations but also socio-cultural and environmental concerns as well, as
shown in. These economic,socio-cultural and environmental concerns impact on
the government structure, legal considerations as well as external relations.
