A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy … · 2013. 12. 6. · Journal of...

Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 19, Nos. 4–5, May–June 2011, 437–457

A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policyanalysis

C. Michael Halla,b,c∗

aDepartment of Management, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; bDepartmentof Geography, University of Oulu, Finland; cSchool of Business and Economics, LinneausUniversity, Kalmar, Sweden

(Received 18 July 2010; final version received 3 March 2011)

Governance is a key concept in politics and public policy that is increasingly utilisedin tourism. Using the notion of “policy as theory”, a typology of governance suitablefor tourism is systematically developed. Categorical variables are developed from therelationship between state intervention and self-regulation and the relationships betweenpolicy actors and steering modes. The resultant matrix identifies four governance types:hierarchies, markets, networks and communities. A 12-point framework of governanceidentifies core elements, including classifying characteristics, policy themes, policystandpoints, democratic models, primary focus, views of non-central actors, distinctionsbetween policymaking and implementation, success criteria, implementation gaps, thereasons and solutions for those gaps and the primary policy instruments used. Anexample of the application is provided using an analysis of state party’s implementationof the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity. It is concluded that clear categoricalvariables contribute to improved formulation and evaluation of explanatory claims, helpclarify key concepts and assist in the comparative analysis of governance and tourismpolicy between jurisdictions and over time.

Keywords: tourism governance; typology; communitarianism; policy instruments; stateintervention; implementation

Introduction

The role of government in tourism and the influence of state policy on tourism developmenthas long been of interest to scholars (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Hall, 1994; Hall & Jenkins,1995; Jenkins, 1980; Jenkins & Henry, 1982). However, since the 1990s, there has beena gradual shift in approach in the tourism policy literature from the notion of governmentto that of governance (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Greenwood, 1993; Hall, 1999; Yuksel,Bramwell, & Yuksel, 2005). This shift has extremely significant implications for sustainabletourism, given that it influences such factors as the relationships between policy actors, thecapacity of the state to act, the selection of policy instruments and indicators and, potentially,even the definition of policy problems (Bramwell, 2005; Dinica, 2009; Erkus-Ozturk &Eraydin, 2010; Hall, 2008a; Hall, 2004; Pforr, 2002, 2006; Tyler & Dinan, 2001; Wesley& Pforr, 2010).

Conceptual frameworks, such as images, models and theories, are fundamental tothe development of understanding public and private institutions and the relationships

∗Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 onlineC© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09669582.2011.570346http://www.informaworld.com

438 C.M. Hall

between them. In his very influential work, Morgan (1986, p. 12) emphasised “how manyof our conventional ideas about organization and management build on a small number oftaken-for-granted images, especially mechanical and biological ones”. Judge, Stoker, andWolman (1995, p. 3) also noted that conceptual frameworks “provide a language and frameof reference through which reality can be examined and lead theorists to ask questions thatmight not otherwise occur. The result, if successful, is new and fresh insights that otherframeworks or perspectives might not have yielded”.

By exploring different conceptual frameworks and images, it is possible to identify theways in which theory influences how the world is analysed, understood and acted upon withrespect to policymaking, and how, conversely, policymaking also affects the developmentof theory. In public policy terms, this notion is best illustrated by Pressman and Wildavsky’s(1973, p. xv) insight that “policies imply theories” (see also Blume, 1977). Majone (1980,1981) understood policies as theories in terms of their development in a quasi-autonomousspace of objective intellectual constructs, of thoughts-in-themselves, equivalent to Popper’s(1978) third “world” of reality. For Majone,

A policy, like a theory, is a cluster of conclusions in search of a premise; not the least importanttask of analysis is discovering the premises that make a set of conclusions internally consistent,and convincing to the widest possible audience. (1981, p. 25)

Blume (1977, p. 253), while accepting that policies may be considered as implicitly em-bodying “implicit theories”, highlighted the immediate problem of “theories about what?”Blume goes on to suggest that implicit theories usually cover both theories of the role ofthe state and the proper actions of government on the one hand, and theories of socialinteraction and change in social systems on the other. Such observations are extremelysignificant for gaining a better understanding of tourism policymaking, as it suggests thatthe ways in which policies are designed to act have implicit theoretical foundations andhence assumptions about, for instance, the appropriate role of the state, the relationshipbetween the state and individual policy actors (businesses, associations and individuals),their responsibilities and how they are supposed to act politically.

The notion of governance as a theory has also been extremely significant in studies ofgovernance (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Kooiman, 2003; Pierre, 2000a; Pierre & Peters, 2005),with Stoker (1998) emphasising that the contribution of the concept of governance wasneither with respect to the level of causal analysis nor as a new normative theory. Instead,“the value of the governance perspective rests in its capacity to provide a framework forunderstanding changing processes of governing” (Stoker, 1998, p. 18). The various ways inwhich the term “governance” is used in tourism studies can therefore not be fully understoodunless we also know its theoretical underpinnings and context.

This paper aims to identify how the instruments of state intervention in tourism, i.e.the tools used by government to achieve its policy goals (Hood, 2008), are framed bydifferent constructs of governance. It will do this through the development of a typologyof conceptual frameworks of governance. Typologies, an organised system of types, are animportant means for analysing the formation and measurement of concepts that are widelyused through the social sciences, including in tourism studies and political science (Bailey,1994; Box-Steffensmeier, Brady, & Collier, 2008; George & Bennett, 2005). In policyterms, typologies are used for both descriptive and explanatory purposes and can focus onvariables related to causes, institutions and/or outcomes (Collier, Laporte, & Seawright,2008). Typologies play an important role as instruments in developing more general insightsinto the ways in which key concepts and ideas can be framed so as to facilitate comparativestudies and map empirical and theoretical change, and, although usually associated with

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 439

qualitative research, can also contribute to the quantitative analysis of categorical variables(Collier et al., 2008). Although a number of typologies have been applied to tourism policysettings (Anastasiadou, 2008; Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Coccossis & Constantoglou,2006, 2008; Hall, 2009; Pforr, 2005), they are usually applied at the organisational orinstrumental level. The present paper seeks to connect a typology of the various ways inwhich tourism governance is conceptualised to different instruments of policy intervention.

The paper is divided into three main sections. The first discusses the definition ofthe concept of governance. The second section outlines the key issues involved in thedevelopment of a typology of governance with respect to tourism, and it identifies thefour main conceptualisations of governance and their application. The paper concludes bynoting the importance of typologies as an analytical tool, particularly in areas of policy andtheoretical complexity such as governance.

Defining governance

Governance is the act of governing. Governance is an increasingly significant issue in thetourism public policy and planning literature (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Bramwell &Rawding, 1994; Cornelissen, 2005; Dredge, 2001, 2006a; Dredge & Jenkins, 2007; Dredge& Pforr, 2008; Goymen, 2000; Hall, 2005, 2007a, 2008a, 2008b; Wesley & Pforr, 2010;Yuksel et al., 2005). It has assumed importance as researchers have sought to understandhow the state can best act to mediate contemporary tourism-related social, economic,political and environmental policy problems at a time when the role of the state has itselfchanged, given the dominance of neo-liberal policy discourse in many developed countries(Jessop, 1998, 2002; Larner, 2000). Attention to governance issues in tourism mirrorsthe broader growth of interest in, and development of, the concept in the policy sciences(Jordan, Wurzel, & Zito, 2005; Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004; Kooiman, 2003; Pierre,2000a, 2000b; Pierre & Peters, 2005; Rhodes, 1997).

The growth of new supranational policy structures and multi-level scales of governance(Bache & Flinders, 2004; Hooghe & Marks, 2001, 2003) has also led to research with amore defined geo-political focus, especially with respect to the European Union (Gualini,2004; Hooghe, 1996; Jordan, 2001; Kern & Bulkeley, 2009; Marks, Hooghe, & Blank,1996; Sutcliffe, 1999). In addition, there is a growing literature on the influence of supra-national organisations in tourism governance, such as the United Nations World TourismOrganization (UNWTO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank/International Monetary Fund (IMF; Hall,2005, 2007b; Hawkins & Mann, 2007), as well as non-governmental organisations (Hall,2008a; Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Zapata, Hall, Lindo, & Vanderschaeghen,2011).

There is no single accepted definition of governance. This is reflected in Kooiman’s(2003, p. 4) concept of governance as “the totality of theoretical conceptions on govern-ing”. Definitions tend to suggest a recognition of a change in political practices involv-ing, amongst other things, increasing globalisation, the rise of networks that cross thepublic–private divide, the marketisation of the state and increasing institutional fragmenta-tion (Kjaer, 2004; Pierre, 2000a; Pierre & Peters, 2005). Nevertheless, two broad meaningsof governance can be recognised (Figure 1). Firstly, it is used to describe contemporary stateadaptation to its economic and political environment with respect to how it operates. This isoften referred to as “new governance”. Yee (2004, p. 487) provided a very basic definitionof this approach by describing new modes of governance as “new governing activities thatdo not occur solely through governments”. In the European context, Heritier (2002) focuses

440 C.M. Hall

The totality of theoretical conceptions on governing

Contemporary state adaptation to its economic and political environment --

“new governance”

The conceptual and theoretical representation of

the role of the state in the coordination of socio-

economic systems

State capacity to “steer” the socio-economic system and therefore the relationships between the state and other policies

Coordination and self-government, especially with respect to network relationships and public--private partnerships actors

Figure 1. The meanings of governance.

on new modes of governance that include private actors in policy formulation and/or whilebeing based on public actors are only marginally based on regulative powers or not based onregulation at all. Some of the characteristics of the key elements of these so-called “new”modes of governance are indicated in Table 1 (Heritier, 2002; Scott & Trubek, 2002; Yee,2004). Although as Treib, Bahr, and Falkner (2007, p. 16) note, it is not “appropriate touse the labels of ‘old’ and ‘new’ modes of governance for classificatory purposes. Whatis new in one area could be rather old in another field of study, which makes these labelsinadequate as analytical categories”.

The second broad meaning of governance is that it is used to denote a conceptual andtheoretical representation of the role of the state in the coordination of socio-economicsystems. However, it should be noted that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive asthe use of the term “governance” as a form of shorthand for new forms of governance inwestern societies is itself predicated on particular conceptions of what the role of the stateshould be in contemporary society and of the desirability and nature of state intervention.This second meaning can, in turn, be divided into two further categories (Peters, 2000).The first focuses on state capacity to “steer” the socio-economic system and thereforethe relationships between the state and other policy actors (Pierre & Peters, 2000). Thesecond focuses on coordination and self-government, especially with respect to networkrelationships and public–private partnerships (Rhodes, 1997).


Table 1. The characteristics of new modes of governance.

Elements Characteristics

Participation andpower-sharing

Policymaking is not considered as the sole domain of regulators,but private and public stakeholders from different levels aremeant to participate in the policy process as part ofpublic–private partnership.

Multi-level integration Coordination between different levels of government needs tooccur both horizontally and vertically and should involve privateactors.

Diversity and decentralisation Rather than a standard legislative or regulatory approach, a diverserange of coordinated approaches is instead encouraged.

Deliberation Greater deliberation is encouraged between public and privatestakeholders so as to improve democratic legitimation ofpolicymaking processes.

Flexibility and revisability Soft law measures are often applied that rely on flexible guidelinesand open-ended standards that are implemented voluntarily andmay be revised as policy circumstances change.

Experimentation andknowledge creation

Greater encouragement of local experimentation in governancemeasures as well as knowledge creation and sharing inconnection with multi-lateral surveillance, benchmarking andthe exchange of results and best practices.

Understanding how the institutional arrangements of governance are conceptualised isimportant as it determines the ways in which the state acts in the tourism policy arena andtherefore selects instruments and indicators that are used to achieve policy goals. The focusof most discussions on policy instruments in tourism is on their utilisation or their effectsrather than on the understandings of governance that led such instruments to be selected(Ayuso, 2007; Hall, 2008a; Pechlaner & Tschurtschenthaler, 2003). Literature on the rela-tionships between different concepts or images of tourism policy processes and reasons forthe selection of particular instruments is relatively limited. Beaumont and Dredge (2010)investigated the advantages and disadvantages of three different governance approaches atthe local level: a council-led network governance structure, a participant-led communitynetwork governance structure and a local tourism organisation-led industry network gov-ernance structure. However, these comparisons, while useful at an operational level, didnot then relate back to the conceptualisations of governance that underlie intervention andpolicy choice. With respect to the policy–action relationship, Hall (2009) identified threearchetypes of implementation and their implications for tourism planning and policy: “top-down rational”, “bottom-up” and “interactional network” models that are also related todifferent forms of intervention, but then did not go on to examine the broader contributionof such concepts for understanding tourism policy as a whole.

A typology of governance

Typologies have long been recognised as an important tool in helping to categorise policies“in such a way that the relationship between substance and process can be more clearlyunderstood” (Steinberger, 1980, p. 185). The typological tradition in policy studies isconsidered as dating back to Lowi’s (1964) extremely influential paper with respect to howdifferent kinds of policies have different kinds of politics associated with them. Accordingto Lowi (1972, p. 299), classification “reveals the hidden meanings and significance of thephenomena, suggesting what the important hypotheses ought to be concerned with”. To

442 C.M. Hall

Lowi, such classification also leads to the identification of discrete areas of politics, eacharea characterised by its own political structure, policy process, elites and group relations,and power structures and policymaking processes that differ according to the type of issuethey deal with (Hall, 2008a).

In order to develop an appropriate typology that classifies different frameworks ofgovernance, it is helpful to include relatively well-delimited dimensions. Multi-dimensionaltypologies can be understood in terms of several elements (Collier et al., 2008, pp. 153,156–157). Firstly, an overarching concept. This is the concept that is measured by thetypology. Secondly, column and row variables that are cross-tabulated to form a matrix.Thirdly, the matrix. The cross-tabulation creates the familiar 2 × 2 matrix. Alternatively,more than two categories may be present on each variable, and/or more than two variablescan be incorporated. This cross-tabulation creates new categorical variables that may benominal, partially ordered or ordinal. It is also possible to create uni-dimensional typologieswhich are categorical variables organised around a single dimension. Many of the ideasabout multi-dimensional typologies also apply to uni-dimensional typologies. Fourthly, theidentification of types. The types located in each cell provide conceptual meaning thatcorresponds to their position in relation to the row and column variables. If typologies areto meet the norms for standard categorical scales, then scales should be mutually exclusiveand collectively exhaustive.

A number of frameworks have been proposed for concept formation in political science.The work of Sartori (1970, 1984) has been especially influential in political science withrespect to the identification of “data containers” employed in the research and the develop-ment of ladders of “abstraction”. Sartori (1970) identified three main tasks. Firstly, payingcareful attention to concepts given that they are the basic “data containers” of research.Secondly, understanding the semantic field in which conceptual reasoning is situated, i.e.the field of concepts and meanings that frame research. For the concept of governance,this field was briefly outlined in the previous section. Thirdly, recognising that conceptshave a hierarchical structure, what Sartori (1970) referred to as a “ladder of abstraction”.In contrast, Collier and Mahon (1993) used the term “ladder of generality”, while Collieret al. (2008) used the term “kind hierarchy”.

Core concepts of governance

The development of an appropriate typology of governance is therefore not based ona “haphazard shopping list” (Treib et al., 2007, p. 5) that is compiled on all possibledimensions noted in the policy and planning literature that characterise decision-makingprocesses, outputs and outcomes. Instead, the criterion for the frameworks of governanceshould be systematically based on defining what dimensions are included and which are leftout. The most common focus of most contributions to the governance debate in public policyterms is “the role of the state in society” (Pierre, 2000b, p. 4). Therefore, the core conceptin governance in public policy terms is the relationship between state intervention (alsoreferred to as public authority) and societal autonomy (self-regulation). This means that inorder to avoiding political “concept stretching” (Collier & Mahon, 1993; Sartori, 1970),some dimensions of governance that have been suggested in the policy literature, such asGrosse’s (2005) emphasis on transparency within the European Union’s New GovernanceProject, operate at an instrumental scale and do not fundamentally add to an improvedtheoretical understanding of different frameworks or modes of governance (Treib et al.,2007).


Actors

Steering modes

Hierarchical

Non-hierarchical

srotca etavirP srotca cilbuP

Nation state and supranational

institutions Marketisation and

privatisation of state instruments

Public-- private partnerships

Private-- private partnerships communities

STEKRAM SEIHCRAREIH

COMMUNITIES NETWORKS

Figure 2. Frameworks of governance typology.

Knill and Lenschow’s (2003) typology of modes of regulation in the European Union,which built upon their earlier work on the implementation of environmental policies inthe European Union (Knill & Lenschow, 2000a, 2000b), has proven influential in thedevelopment of typologies of governance (Treib et al., 2007). Their typology utilises thedimensions of the level of obligation and the level of discretion with respect to the discretionEuropean Union member states have to implement European Union rules. However, theirframework focuses more on the regulatory instruments that are utilised by implementingactors “ranging from classical legal instruments to softer forms of steering the economy andsociety” (Knill & Lenschow, 2003, p. 1), rather than providing general types of governance.

In order to clarify the semantic field of governance for typology development, it istherefore necessary to identify the variables that serve to best clarify the core concept ofgovernance. This can be done by reference to the relative use of hierarchical forms ofregulation, i.e. legislation, and the relative power balance in the relationship between thestate and other policy actors as categorical variables (Figure 2). Frances, Levacic, Mitchell,and Thompson (1991) recognised three different models of coordination, also referred toas meso-theoretical or intermediate theoretical categories, in western liberal democraticcountries: hierarchies, markets and networks. These categories were found to be useful notonly in national political life but also in analysing the external relationships between states.Therefore, according to Frances et al. (1991, p. 1), “the three forms of social organizationhave a general applicability that transcends any particular geographical space or temporalorder. They exemplify genuine ‘models’ of coordination that can be characterized abstractlyand then deployed in an analytical framework”. To these categories, Pierre and Peters (2000)added a fourth common governance type which they termed “community”.

Each of the conceptualisations of governance structures is related to the use of particularsets of policy instruments (Table 2). Given the artificiality of any policy–action divide(Barrett & Fudge, 1981), these instruments and modes of governance can also be connectedto different conceptual approaches to implementation (Hall, 2009). Critical to the value of

444 C.M. Hall

Tabl

e2.

Fram

ewor

ksof

gove

rnan

cean

dth

eir

char

acte

rist

ics.

Hie

rarc

hies

Com

mun

itie

sN

etw

orks

Mar

kets

Cla

ssifi

cato

ryty

pech

arac

teri

stic

sId

eali

sed

mod

elof

dem

ocra

tic

gove

rnm

enta

ndpu

blic

adm

inis

trat

ion

Not

ion

that

com

mun

itie

ssh

ould

reso

lve

thei

rco

mm

onpr

oble

ms

wit

hm

inim

umof

stat

ein

volv

emen

t

Faci

lita

teco

ordi

nati

onof

publ

ican

dpr

ivat

ein

tere

sts

and

reso

urce

allo

cati

onan

dth

eref

ore

enha

nce

effi

cien

cyof

poli

cyim

plem

enta

tion

Bel

ief

inth

em

arke

tas

the

mos

tef

fici

enta

ndju

stre

sour

ceal

loca

tive

mec

hani

sm

Dis

ting

uish

esbe

twee

npu

blic

and

priv

ate

poli

cysp

ace

Bui

lds

ona

cons

ensu

alim

age

ofco

mm

unit

yan

dth

epo

sitiv

ein

volv

emen

tof

its

mem

bers

inco

llec

tive

conc

erns

Ran

gefr

omco

here

ntpo

licy

com

mun

itie

s/po

licy

tria

ngle

sth

roug

hto

sing

leis

sue

coal

itio

ns

Bel

ief

inth

eem

pow

erm

ento

fci

tize

nsvi

ath

eir

role

asco

nsum

ers

Focu

son

publ

icor

com

mon

good

Gov

erna

nce

wit

hout

gove

rnm

ent

Reg

ulat

ean

dco

ordi

nate

poli

cyar

eas

acco

rdin

gto

the

pref

eren

ces

ofne

twor

kac

tors

than

publ

icpo

licy

cons

ider

atio

ns

Em

ploy

men

tof

mon

etar

ycr

iter

iato

mea

sure

effi

cien

cy

Com

man

dan

dco

ntro

l(i.e

.“t

op-d

own”

deci

sion

-mak

ing)

Fost

erin

gof

civi

csp

irit

Mut

uald

epen

denc

ebe

twee

nne

twor

kan

dst

ate

Poli

cyar

ena

for

econ

omic

acto

rsw

here

they

coop

erat

eto

reso

lve

com

mon

prob

lem

sH

iera

rchi

calr

elat

ions

betw

een

diff

eren

tlev

els

ofth

est

ate

Gov

erna

nce/

poli

cyth

emes

Hie

rarc

hy,c

ontr

ol,c

ompl

ianc

eC

ompl

exit

y,lo

cal

auto

nom

y,de

volv

edpo

wer

,dec

entr

alis

edpr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng

Net

wor

ks,m

ulti

-lev

elgo

vern

ance

,st

eeri

ng,b

arga

inin

g,ex

chan

gean

dne

goti

atio

n

Mar

kets

,bar

gain

ing,

exch

ange

and

nego

tiat

ion

Poli

cyst

andp

oint

Top:

poli

cym

aker

s;le

gisl

ator

s;ce

ntra

lgov

ernm

ent

Bot

tom

:im

plem

ente

rs,

“str

eet-

leve

lbu

reau

crat

s”an

dlo

cal

offi

cial

s

Whe

rene

goti

atio

nan

dba

rgai

ning

take

plac

eW

here

barg

aini

ngta

kepl

ace

betw

een

cons

umer

san

dpr

oduc

ers

Und

erly

ing

mod

elof

dem

ocra

cyE

liti

stPa

rtic

ipat

ory

Hyb

rid/

stak

ehol

der,

sign

ifica

ntro

legi

ven

toin

tere

stgr

oups

Con

sum

er-d

eter

min

ed;c

itiz

enem

pow

erm

ent

Pri

mar

yfo

cus

Eff

ectiv

enes

s:to

wha

text

enta

repo

licy

goal

sac

tual

lym

et?

Wha

tinfl

uenc

esac

tion

inan

issu

ear

ea?

Bar

gain

edin

terp

lay

betw

een

goal

sse

tcen

tral

lyan

dac

tor

(oft

enlo

cal)

inno

vati

ons

and

cons

trai

nts

Effi

cien

cy:m

arke

tsw

illp

rovi

deth

em

oste

ffici

ento

utco

me

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 445V

iew

sof

non-

cent

ral

(ini

tiat

ing)

acto

rsPa

ssiv

eag

ents

orpo

tent

ial

impe

dim

ents

Pote

ntia

llypo

licy

inno

vato

rsor

prob

lem

shoo

ters

Tri

esto

acco

untf

orth

ebe

havi

our

ofal

ltho

sew

hoin

tera

ctin

the

deve

lopm

ent

and

impl

emen

tati

onof

poli

cy

Mar

ketp

arti

cipa

nts

are

best

suit

edto

“sol

ve”

poli

cypr

oble

ms

Dis

tinc

tion

betw

een

poli

cyfo

rmul

atio

nan

dim

plem

enta

tion

Act

ually

and

conc

eptu

ally

dist

inct

;pol

icy

ism

ade

byth

eto

pan

dim

plem

ente

dby

the

bott

om

Blu

rred

dist

inct

ion:

poli

cyis

ofte

nm

ade

and

then

re-m

ade

byin

divi

dual

and

inst

itut

iona

lpol

icy

acto

rs

Poli

cy–a

ctio

nco

ntin

uum

:po

licy

mak

ing

and

impl

emen

tati

onse

enas

ase

ries

ofin

tent

ions

arou

ndw

hich

barg

aini

ngta

kes

plac

e

Poli

cy–a

ctio

nco

ntin

uum

Cri

teri

onof

succ

ess

Whe

nou

tput

s/ou

tcom

esar

eco

nsis

tent

wit

ha

prio

riob

ject

ives

Ach

ieve

men

tof

acto

r(o

ften

loca

l)go

als.

Dif

ficu

ltto

asse

ssob

ject

ivel

y,su

cces

sde

pend

son

acto

r’spe

rspe

ctiv

es

Mar

kete

ffici

ency

Impl

emen

tati

onga

ps/d

efici

tsO

ccur

whe

nou

tput

s/ou

tcom

esfa

llsh

orto

fa

prio

riob

ject

ives

“Defi

cits

”ar

ea

sign

ofpo

licy

chan

ge,n

otfa

ilur

e.T

hey

are

inev

itab

le

All

poli

cies

are

mod

ified

asa

resu

ltof

nego

tiat

ion

(the

reis

nobe

nchm

ark)

Occ

urw

hen

mar

kets

are

nota

ble

tofu

ncti

on

Rea

son

for

impl

emen

tati

onga

ps/d

efici

ts

Goo

did

eas

poor

lyex

ecut

edB

adid

eas

fait

hful

lyex

ecut

ed“D

efici

ts”

are

inev

itab

leas

abst

ract

poli

cyid

eas

are

mad

em

ore

conc

rete

Mar

ketf

ailu

re;i

napp

ropr

iate

indi

cato

rse

lect

ion

Sol

utio

nto

impl

emen

tati

onga

ps/d

efici

ts

Sim

plif

yth

eim

plem

enta

tion

stru

ctur

e;ap

ply

indu

cem

ents

and

sanc

tion

s

“Defi

cits

”ar

ein

evit

able

“Defi

cits

”ar

ein

evit

able

Incr

ease

the

capa

city

ofth

em

arke

t

Pri

mar

ypo

licy

inst

rum

ents

Law

Sel

f-re

gula

tion

Sel

f-re

gula

tion

Cor

pora

tisa

tion

and/

orpr

ivat

isat

ion

ofst

ate

bodi

esR

egul

atio

nP

ubli

cm

eeti

ngs/

tow

nha

llm

eeti

ngs

Acc

redi

tati

onsc

hem

esU

seof

pric

ing,

subs

idie

san

dta

xin

cent

ives

toen

cour

age

desi

red

beha

viou

rsC

lear

allo

cati

onan

dtr

ansf

ers

ofpo

wer

betw

een

diff

eren

tle

vels

ofth

est

ate

Pub

lic

part

icip

atio

nC

odes

ofpr

acti

ceU

seof

regu

lato

ryan

dle

gal

inst

rum

ents

toen

cour

age

mar

ket

effi

cien

cies

Dev

elop

men

tof

acl

ear

seto

fin

stit

utio

nala

rran

gem

ents

Non

-int

erve

ntio

nIn

dust

ryas

soci

atio

nsV

olun

tary

inst

rum

ents

Lic

ensi

ng,p

erm

its,

cons

ents

and

stan

dard

sV

olun

tary

inst

rum

ents

Non

-gov

ernm

ento

rgan

isat

ions

Non

-int

erve

ntio

n

Rem

oval

ofpr

oper

tyri

ghts

Info

rmat

ion

and

educ

atio

nV

olun

teer

asso

ciat

ions

446 C.M. Hall

the different modes of governance are the relationships that exist between public andprivate policy actors and the steering modes that range from hierarchical top-down steeringto non-hierarchical approaches. The main elements of the four models or frameworks ofgovernance are outlined in Table 2, which identifies their key characteristics, the policyinstruments associated with each concept of governance and various dimensions withrespect to policymaking and implementation.

Hierarchical governance

In much of the tourism policy literature, the ongoing legislative and regulatory role of thestate remains unassessed. Although much contemporary governance literature in tourismstresses public–private relationships (Bramwell, 2005; Dredge & Jenkins, 2007), hierarchi-cal governance remains significant because of the continued role of the state in internationalrelations, the development of institutions that enforce international and supranational lawand the ongoing importance of legislation and regulation as part of the exercise of statecontrol (Russell, Lafferty, & Loudon, 2008). “Governance conducted by and through ver-tically integrated state structures is an idealized model of democratic government and thepublic bureaucracy” (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 15), and provides the “traditional” modelof state governance. However, this approach has been weakened by changes in the stateenvironment, globalisation and the growth of the political powers of the local state.

There is very little direct discussion of hierarchical governance in tourism literature(Hall, 2011a; Viken, 2006), rather it tends to be subsumed under a more general discussionabout the roles of government in tourism and the nature of state intervention (Hall, 2008a).Nevertheless, there is a substantial body of literature that discusses hierarchical governancein relation to environmental management, in which its implications for the sustainability oftourism activities are noted (e.g. Jentoft, 2007; Kluvankova-Oravska, Chobotova, Banaszak,Slavikova, & Trifunovova, 2009; Korda, Hills, & Gray, 2008; Meadowcroft, 2007).

Markets

The use of markets as a governance mechanism has been very much in political voguesince the mid-1980s (Pierre & Peters, 2000), including with respect to the corporatisationand privatisation of tourism functions that had previously been the domain of the state(Dredge & Jenkins, 2003, 2007; Hall, 1994, 1997, 2008a; Hall & Jenkins, 1995; Jenkins,2000; Shone & Memon, 2008). The contemporary focus on the role of the market is verymuch associated with the influence of neoliberal political philosophy on considerations ofthe appropriate level of state intervention in socio-economic systems (Harvey, 2005). Fromthis perspective,

The market has come to be seen as everything Big Government is not; it is believed to be themost efficient and just allocative mechanism available since it does not allow for politics toallocate resources where they are not employed in the most efficient way. (Pierre & Peters,2000, pp. 18–19)

The decision by the state to allow the market to act as a form of governance does notmean that government ceases to influence the market. Rather, instead of using imposedregulatory mechanisms, government may seek to use other forms of intervention, such asfinancial incentives, education and even the potential for future intervention, to encouragethe tourism industry to move in particular directions, often via self-regulation. Examplesof this approach include public subsidies and the provision of tax incentives for certain


kinds of tourism activity (Bradshaw & Blakely, 1999; Hall & Williams, 2008; Jenkins,1982; Wanhill, 1986). Nevertheless, the failure to achieve desirable outcomes as a resultof self-regulation, market failure and the limits of the market as a form of governancehas increasingly been recognised, especially with respect to the equity of policy outcomes(Schilcher, 2007) and the achievement of more sustainable forms of tourism (Gossling &Hall, 2008; Gossling, Hall, Peeters, & Scott, 2010; Hall, 2010c, 2011b).

Networks

The concept of networks, and public–private partnerships in particular, has received con-siderable attention in tourism policy and planning because of the ways in which they mayfacilitate coordination of public and private interests and resources (Beaumont & Dredge,2010; Bramwell, 2005; Dredge, 2006a; Hall, 2008a; Pavlovich, 2001; Scott, Baggio, &Cooper, 2008). Policy networks vary widely with respect to their degree of cohesion, rang-ing from “sub-governments”, “iron triangles”1 and coherent policy communities throughto issue specific coalitions (Gais, Peterson, & Walker, 1984; Jordan, 1981; Rhodes, 1997;Thatcher, 1998; van Waarden, 1992). Nevertheless, despite such variability in their organ-isation, network governance is often considered as a “middle way” or “third way” betweenhierarchical and market approaches to tourism governance (Scott, Cooper, & Baggio,2008), while Hall (2009) presented networks in a similar fashion in relation to top-downand bottom-up approaches to implementation.

Networks have been proposed as a means to potentially integrate different policy per-spectives, although integration capacity might depend on the inclusiveness of the planningprocess and the conditions influencing actors’ perceived pay-offs from participation (Hovil& Stokke, 2007). However, the extent to which networks may act to serve self-interestrather than a larger collective interest poses major challenges for their utility as a policyinstrument (Dredge, 2006b; Hall, 1999). Erkus-Ozturk and Eraydin (2010) in a study ofthe contribution that networks may make to sustainable tourism in a Turkish destinationsuggested that, while there was an increase in local collaboration, environmental motiva-tions fall far behind economic considerations in networking practices. “New governance”structures have strengthened the position of some policy networks (Pierre & Peters, 2005),although policy communities can also become solidified to the extent that policy alterna-tives are relatively closed with a policy arena forming sub-governments (Hall, 1999). Sucha situation poses a dilemma for the contemporary state in that, while “it needs networksto bring societal actors into joint projects, it tends to see its policies obstructed by thosenetworks” (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 20).

Communities

The fourth conceptualisation of governance is that of governance as communities.This approach is very much influenced by communitarianism and demands for moredirect citizen involvement in governance. Communitarianism proposes that large-scalegovernment should be replaced by smaller spatial units of governing that are closer to the“community” (Etzioni, 1993, 1995, 1998). Arguably, the most influential dimensions ofcommunitarianism have been with respect to the focus on the significance of social capitalin community and economic development (Putnam, 2001; Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti,1993) and the development of alternative forms of consumption focused on the localregion and voluntary simplicity (Doherty & Etzioni, 2003). However, in addition to thecommunitarian focus on the development of more appropriate scales of governance, the

448 C.M. Hall

communities’ framework also builds on traditions of deliberative and direct democracy.The former focused on improving mechanisms for greater direct public involvement inpolicymaking through enhancing debate and dialogue, while the latter via measures such ascitizen-initiated referenda. All three dimensions of governance as communities highlightthe importance of public participation in public policymaking (Pierre & Peters, 2000).

Community governance in tourism planning has been a significant theme in the tourismliterature since the early 1980s (Murphy, 1983), before often becoming subsumed undergeneral approaches towards sustainable tourism planning (Bramwell, 2005; Hall, 2008a). Insome cases, interest in community-level governance developed because of the loss of localgovernment authorities or powers as a result of political restructuring (O’Toole & Burdess,2005), while the growing importance of the local state in tourism development and placecompetition within contemporary globalisation has also motivated interests in governanceof the local state (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Thomas & Thomas, 1998). Although theframework has been criticised as being overly idealistic and exaggerating the benefits ofperceived consensus (Hall, 2008a), community participation and even control over planningand decision-making remain an important issue in tourism planning and policymaking(Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Dredge & Jenkins, 2007) and have become fundamentalto much thinking about local governance with respect to voluntary tourism (Raymond& Hall, 2008), and the management of conservation and pro-poor tourism initiatives inless-developed countries (Nantongo, Byaruhanga, & Mugisha, 2007; Zapata et al., 2011).

Applications

Typologies are an important element of conducting analysis of public policy; the formaldevelopment of which has been hitherto little discussed in the tourism literature. “Workingwith typologies is crucial not only to the creation and refinement of concepts, but it alsocontributes to constructing categorical variables” (Box-Steffensmeier et al., 2008, p. 8). Thispaper has presented a typology of different frames of governance and their relationship toa range of policy elements. The significance of the typology is that it assists in the analysisof governance and policy both within and between different institutions, jurisdictions,policy domains and scales, and it reflects calls by authors, such as Young (2006), forgreater comparative research of different policy choices and the selection of governancesystems and institutional arrangements. This may be particularly important for a number ofinternational environmental conventions that affect tourism and provide signatories with asubstantial degree of flexibility in the development of policy and governance mechanismsin their implementation (Hall, 2011a). The case of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) is discussed in the following section.

Applying a typology of governance to the CBD

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opened for signature on 5 June 1992 at theUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED; the Rio “EarthSummit”; Hall, 2010a). The convention entered into force on 29 December 1993 (UnitedNations, 1993). The objectives of the convention as stated in Article 1:

are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and thefair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources,including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevanttechnologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and byappropriate funding.


Tabl

e3.

App

roac

hes

togo

vern

ance

.

Perc

enta

geof

resp

ondi

ngco

untr

ies

adop

ting

appr

oach

infu

llor

part

Gov

erna

nce

appr

oach

Exa

mpl

esIn

part

Infu

llTo

tal

Hie

rarc

hyL

egis

lativ

ech

ange

and

deve

lopm

ent

12.4

14.9

27.3

Impr

oved

risk

asse

ssm

entv

iaen

viro

nmen

tali

mpa

ctas

sess

men

t24

5.6

29.6

Inte

grat

edth

eG

uide

line

son

Bio

dive

rsit

yan

dTo

uris

mD

evel

opm

enti

nth

ede

velo

pmen

tor

revi

ewof

nati

onal

stra

tegi

esan

dpl

ans

for

tour

ism

deve

lopm

ent,

nati

onal

biod

iver

sity

stra

tegi

esan

dac

tion

spl

ans,

and

othe

rre

late

dse

ctor

alst

rate

gies

37.7

845

.7

Net

wor

kM

echa

nism

sto

coor

dina

tena

tion

alpr

ogra

mm

es38

.2(u

nder

deve

lopm

ent)

11.4

49.6

Sec

tora

lcoo

pera

tion

inor

der

toim

prov

epr

even

tion

,ear

lyde

tect

ion,

erad

icat

ion

and/

orco

ntro

lof

inva

sive

alie

nsp

ecie

s52

.8(u

nder

cons

ider

atio

n)29

.682

.4

Col

labo

rati

onw

ith

trad

ing

part

ners

and

neig

hbou

ring

coun

trie

sto

addr

ess

thre

ats

ofin

vasi

veal

ien

spec

ies

46.3

21.1

67.4

Com

mun

ity

Indi

geno

usan

dlo

calc

omm

unit

ies

prov

ided

wit

hca

paci

ty-b

uild

ing

and

fina

ncia

lres

ourc

esto

supp

ortt

heir

part

icip

atio

nin

tour

ism

poli

cym

akin

g,de

velo

pmen

tpla

nnin

g,pr

oduc

tdev

elop

men

tand

man

agem

ent

46.3

349

.3

Mar

ket

Dev

elop

men

tof

fina

ncia

lmea

sure

sto

prom

ote

activ

itie

sto

redu

ceth

eth

reat

sof

inva

sive

spec

ies

36.9

1.6

38.5

Edu

cati

onan

dtr

aini

ngpr

ogra

mm

esin

plac

efo

rto

uris

mop

erat

ors

onth

eim

pact

sof

tour

ism

onbi

odiv

ersi

ty25

.943

.969

.8

Sou

rce:

Der

ived

from

the

thir

dna

tion

alre

port

toth

eS

ecre

tari

atof

the

CB

D.

450 C.M. Hall

The reporting system of the CBD provides a means to analyse the extent to which stateparties (the national and territorial governments that have ratified, acceded, approved oraccepted the convention) have undertaken measures to implement it. As part of a regularreporting process, parties have to respond to a series of detailed questions from the CBDSecretariat with respect to the implementation of the CBD and the decisions and recom-mendations of the Conference of the Parties to the convention. At the end of 2009, the thirdnational report provided by state parties was analysed with respect to their implementationof measures in Article 8(h) of the CBD which calls upon each Contracting Party to, “asfar as possible and as appropriate” . . . “Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicatethose alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species” in which tourism is asignificant element (CBD, 2002; Hall, 2010b, 2011a), along with other tourism-specificmeasures related to the CBD (Hall, 2010a, 2010b).

The analysis of implementation measures of state parties to the CBD indicates that net-work approaches are given the greatest emphasis along with market- and community-basedapproaches (Table 3). Hierarchical regulatory mechanisms are not given as much weightwith legislative change and development only being used by 27.3% of reporting state par-ties. This is particularly so given that national strategies and plans for tourism development,national biodiversity strategies and actions plans and other related sectoral strategies areusually voluntary rather than regulatory instruments (Hall, 2008a). The approach, and per-haps the relative success of the CBD, can be contrasted with other measures that affectinternational tourism such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) whichentered into force with the establishment of the WTO in January 1995. Unlike the CBD, theGATT has a much stronger regulatory component, with the WTO providing a frameworkfor dispute resolution as well as enforcing participants’ adherence to WTO agreementsthat are ratified by the parliaments of member governments (Hall, 2011a). The hierarchicalgovernance structure of the GATT therefore gives it a much stronger foundation for actionand penalties for non-adherence under international law than the CBD.

Conclusion

This paper has investigated the conceptualisation of the construct of governance, a conceptwhich is often referred to but which demonstrates a variety of different approaches inits understanding and application in tourism planning and policy studies. The study ofgovernance concept formation has been undertaken through the systematic developmentof a typology. Within the context of political science and public policy studies, typologiesare used for both descriptive and explanatory purposes with respect to the framing of keyconcepts and to contribute to the analysis of categorical variables (Box-Steffensmeier et al.,2008; Collier et al., 2008). In order to develop a typology of governance, an overarchingconcept was identified from the relevant literature with respect to the role of the state insociety (Pierre, 2000b). Therefore, the overarching concept in governance in public policyterms is the relationship between state intervention/public authority and societal autonomyor self-regulation. The categorical variables that were selected to illustrate the concept ofgovernance were the relative balance of the power relationships that exist between public andprivate policy actors and the steering modes that range from hierarchical top-down steeringto non-hierarchical approaches. The resultant matrix identified the four frameworks or typesof governance in the governance literature: hierarchies, markets, networks and communities.The core elements of these types were illustrated as well as the range of policy instrumentsthat are normally associated with them. Employment of the typology does not mean thatmodes of governance are unchanging, rather it can assist in identifying how change occurs


over time by providing a “snapshot” of the dynamic structures of governance and publicpolicymaking.

Typologies contribute to conceptualising and describing empirical developments. Theytherefore serve as an appropriate analytical framework to structure analysis and comparisonand can potentially be used for the development of quantitative as well as qualitativeanalysis. An example of the relative mix of governance measures in the implementationof the CBD that was dominated by non-hierarchical approaches was provided. However,like all maps, a typology of governance applies a simplifying lens to a complex reality. AsStoker (1998, p. 26) commented, “The issue is not that it has simplified matters but whetherthat simplification has illuminated our understanding and enabled us to find an appropriatepath or direction”.

The four types of governance that are identified are also not being described as “idealtypes”. As Collier et al. suggest, it is possible that scholars

may be indirectly expressing the unease that readily arises when one seeks to fit cases into anyscheme of classification. This unease may derive from the recognition that the cases groupedtogether in any one category usually cannot be understood as perfectly “equal”. Rather, theclaim is that they do indeed fit in a particular category, and not in another. (2008, p. 162)

In such a situation, the resolution is to perhaps recognise that abstraction and boundarydefinitions are an inevitable necessity of the process of classification. This is also not todeny the significance of boundary definition. As Rhodes (2005, p. 5) notes, some of “themost fascinating puzzles may be found at the boundaries of governing modes, both old andnew, where they overlap, merge into one another and develop hybrid forms”. Indeed, furthercomparative empirical research may likely assist the improved categorisation of governancetypes.

This analysis highlights the importance of accuracy and consistency in addressingkey concepts in tourism as well as ensuring that they are used in a manner that allows forcomparison in non-tourism fields. Given the considerable amount of research on governancein public policy, there is a clear need to ensure that concepts are being applied in a similarfashion in tourism studies. The value of the clear construction of categorical variables isthat it allows for an assessment of change over time at various scales of assessment. Thisincludes the overall semantic domain of governance as well as the utilisation of specificpolicy instruments. In the case of tourism planning and policy, it is apparent that there hasbeen a strong focus on various elements of network governance since the late 1990s, butother dimensions of policy networks, such as policy communities and sub-governments,have not received the same level of attention. Although there are some notable exceptions(Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Dredge, 2006b; Hall, 1999, 2008a; Pforr, 2005), the generalfocus on instruments such as collaboration and partnership in tourism networks, at theexpense of critically understanding how governance is conceptualised or imagined andtherefore why a governance approach is used when alternatives are ignored, means that thecapacity to contribute to broader debates on governance has been substantially limited. Inaddition, key issues in the promotion of the virtues of certain governance frames, such asmarket governance and the application of democratic values to public–private partnerships(Pierre, 2009) and issues of equity, have also not been addressed.

Governance will clearly be a significant concept in tourism destination planning andpolicy in the foreseeable future. This paper advances our understanding of governance byemphasising the importance of having clear categorical variables in order to contribute tothe formulation and evaluation of explanatory claims, clarify conceptual claims and assistcomparative analysis and policy learning. It has also related concerns of tourism governance

452 C.M. Hall

to the broader governance literature in public policy and political science. Importantly, ithas stressed that the instruments of governance need to be understood as occurring withinparticular frames or images of governance rather than in isolation. To do so, it emphasisesthe critical importance of the understanding that not only do policies imply theories butgovernance implies theory as well. Therefore, for an improved understanding of tourismpolicy processes and outcomes, the empirical should not be divorced from the theoretical.

AcknowledgementThe assistance of Sandra Wilson in undertaking the analysis of national reports is gratefully acknowl-edged as are the valuable comments of the three anonymous referees.

Note1. This is a term used by political scientists to describe a partnership of interest groups that come

together for mutual support, usually consisting of elected politicians, state regulatory agenciesand industry groups.

Note on contributorAt the time of writing, C. Michael Hall was a Professor in the Department of Management, Universityof Canterbury, New Zealand; Docent in the Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Finland;and Visiting Professor in the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Kalmar,Sweden. He has wide-ranging interests in tourism, regional development, environmental history andchange, and gastronomy.

ReferencesAnastasiadou, C. (2008). Tourism interest groups in the EU policy arena: Characteristics, relationships

and challenges. Current Issues in Tourism, 11, 24–62.Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.Ayuso, S. (2007). Comparing voluntary policy instruments for sustainable tourism: The experience

of the Spanish hotel sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 144–159.Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bailey, K.D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.Barrett, S., & Fudge, C. (1981). Policy and action. London: Methuen.Beaumont, N., & Dredge, D. (2010). Local tourism governance: A comparison of three network

approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 7–28.Blume, S.S. (1977). Policy as theory. A framework for understanding the contribution of social

science to welfare policy. Acta Sociologica, 20, 247–262.Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady, H.E., & Collier, D. (2008). Political science methodology. In J.M.

Box-Steffensmeier, H.E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political method-ology (pp. 3–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bradshaw, T.K., & Blakely, E.J. (1999). What are “third-wave” state economic development efforts?From incentives to industrial policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 13, 229–244.

Bramwell, B. (2005). Interventions and policy instruments for sustainable tourism. In W. Theobold(Ed.), Global tourism (3rd ed., pp. 406–426). Oxford: Elsevier.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (Eds.). (2000). Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practiceand sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Bramwell, B., & Rawding, L. (1994). Tourism marketing organizations in industrial cities: Organi-zations, objectives and urban governance. Tourism Management, 15, 425–434.

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of TourismResearch, 26, 392–415.


Coccossis, H., & Constantoglou, M.E. (2006). The use of typologies in tourism planning: Problemsand conflicts. Paper presented at the 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association(ERSA), Enlargement, Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, August 30 to September 2006,Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Greece. Retrievedfrom http://www-sre.wu-wien.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa06/papers/712.pdf

Coccossis, H., & Constantoglou, M.E. (2008). The use of typologies in tourism planning: Problemsand conflicts. In H. Coccossis & Y. Psycharis (Eds.), Regional analysis and policy: The Greekexperience (pp. 273–295). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

Collier, D., Laporte, J., & Seawright, D. (2008). Typologies: Forming concepts and creating categoricalvariables. In J.M. Box-Steffensmeier, H.E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook ofpolitical methodology (pp. 152–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Collier, D., & Mahon, J.E., Jr. (1993). Conceptual “stretching” revisited: Adapting categories incomparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 87, 845–855.

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2002). COP 6 Decision VI/23, Alien species that threatenecosystems, habitats or species. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7197

Cornelissen, S. (2005). The global tourism system: Governance, development and lessons from SouthAfrica. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Dinica, V. (2009). Governance for sustainable tourism: A comparison of international and Dutchvisions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 583–603.

Doherty, D., & Etzioni, A. (2003). Voluntary simplicity: Responding to consumer culture. Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dredge, D. (2001). Local government tourism planning and policy-making in New South Wales:Institutional development and historical legacies. Current Issues in Tourism, 4, 355–380.

Dredge, D. (2006a). Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism Management, 27,269–280.

Dredge, D. (2006b). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of SustainableTourism, 14(6), 562–581.

Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J.M. (2003). Federal-state relations and tourism public policy, New SouthWales, Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 6, 415–443.

Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J.M. (2007). Tourism planning and policy. Milton: John Wiley.Dredge, D., & Pforr, C. (2008). Policy networks and tourism governance. In N. Scott, R. Baggio, &

C. Cooper (Eds.), Network analysis and tourism: From theory to practice (pp. 58–78). Clevedon:Channel View Publications.

Erkus-Ozturk, H., & Eraydin, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable tourism develop-ment: Collaborative networks and organisation building in the Antalya tourism region. TourismManagement, 31, 113–124.

Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: Rights, responsibilities and the communitarian agenda.New York: Crown.

Etzioni, A. (Ed.). (1995). New communitarian thinking: Persons, virtues, institutions and communi-ties. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Etzioni, A. (Ed.). (1998). The essential communitarian reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Frances, J., Levacic, R., Mitchell, J., & Thompson, G. (1991). Introduction. In G. Thompson, J.

Frances, R. Levacic, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Markets, hierarchies and networks: The coordinationof social life (pp. 1–19). London: Sage.

Gais, T.L., Peterson, M.A., & Walker, J.L. (1984). Interest groups, iron triangles and representativeinstitutions in American national government. British Journal of Political Science, 14, 161–185.

George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences.Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gossling, S., & Hall, C.M. (2008). Swedish tourism and climate change mitigation: An emergingconflict? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(2), 141–158.

Gossling, S., Hall, C.M., Peeters, P., & Scott, D. (2010). The future of tourism: A climate changemitigation perspective. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 119–130.

Goymen, K. (2000). Tourism and governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 1025–1048.Greenwood, J. (1993). Business interest groups in tourism governance. Tourism Management, 14,

335–348.Grosse, T.G. (2005). Inception report: Democratization, capture of the state and new forms of

governance in CEE countries (NEWGOV New Modes of Governance Project, Deliverable 17/D2).Warsaw: Institute of Public Affairs.

454 C.M. Hall

Gualini, E. (Ed.). (2004). Multilevel governance and institutional change: The Europeanization ofregional policy in Italy. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Hall, C.M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. Chichester: John Wiley.Hall, C.M. (1997). Geography, marketing and the selling of places. Journal of Travel and Tourism

Marketing, 6(3–4), 61–84.Hall, C.M. (1999). Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 7, 274–289.Hall, C.M. (2005). Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility. Harlow: Prentice-Hall.Hall, C.M. (2007a). Tourism, governance and the (mis-)location of power. In A. Church & T. Coles

(Eds.), Tourism, power and space (pp. 247–269). London: Routledge.Hall, C.M. (2007b). Pro-poor tourism: Do “tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the

South”? Current Issues in Tourism, 10, 111–118.Hall, C.M. (2008a). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships (2nd ed.). London:

Prentice-Hall.Hall, C.M. (2008b). Regulating the international trade in tourism services. In T. Coles & C.M. Hall

(Eds.), International business and tourism: Global issues, contemporary interactions (pp. 33–54).London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2009). Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourismpolicy. Tourism Recreation Research, 34, 235–245.

Hall, C.M. (2010a). Tourism and the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(4), 267–284.

Hall, C.M. (2010b). Tourism and biodiversity: More significant than climate change? Journal ofHeritage Tourism, 5(4), 253–266.

Hall, C.M. (2010c). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism.Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131–145.

Hall, C.M. (2011a). Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: Institutional arrangements for managingbiological invasions. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(3). doi:10.1080/19407963.2011.576868.

Hall, C.M. (2011b). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: Fromfirst- and second-order to third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 649–671.

Hall, C.M., & Jenkins, J.M. (1995). Tourism and public policy. London: Routledge.Hall, C.M., & Williams, A.M. (2008). Tourism and innovation. London: Routledge.Hall, D.R. (Ed.). (2004). Tourism and transition: Governance, transformation and development.

Wallingford: CABI.Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hawkins, D.E., & Mann, S. (2007). The World Bank’s role in tourism development. Annals of Tourism

Research, 34, 348–363.Heritier, A. (2002). New modes of governance in Europe: Policy-making without legislating?

In A. Heritier (Ed.), Common goods. Reinventing European and international governance(pp. 186–206). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hood, C. (2008). The tools of government in the information age. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R.E.Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 469–481). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hooghe, L. (Ed.). (1996). Cohesion policy and European integration: Building multi-level governance.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Oxford: Rowman& Littlefield.

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level gover-nance. American Political Science Review, 97, 233–243.

Hovil, S., & Stokke, K.B. (2007). Network governance and policy integration – The case of regionalcoastal zone planning in Norway. European Planning Studies, 15, 927–944.

Jenkins, C.J. (1980). Tourism policies in developing countries: A critique. International Journal ofTourism Management, 1, 22–29.

Jenkins, C.J. (1982). The use of investment incentives for tourism projects in developing countries.Tourism Management, 3(2), 91–97.

Jenkins, C.J., & Henry, B.M. (1982). Government involvement in tourism in developing countries.Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 499–521.


Jenkins, J.M. (2000). The dynamics of regional tourism organisations in New South Wales, Australia:History, structures and operations. Current Issues in Tourism, 3, 175–203.

Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal gover-nance. Marine Policy, 31, 360–370.

Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development.International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45.

Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state–theoretical perspective.Antipode, 34, 452–472.

Jordan, A.G. (1981). Iron triangles, woolly corporatism and elastic nets: Images of the policy process.Journal of Public Policy, 1, 95–123.

Jordan, A. (2001). The European Union: An evolving system of multi-level governance . . . orgovernment? Policy & Politics, 29, 193–208.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., & Zito, A. (2005). The rise of “new” policy instruments in comparativeperspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53, 477–496.

Judge, D., Stoker, G., & Wolman, H. (1995). Urban politics and theory: An introduction. In D. Judge,G. Stoker, & H. Wolman (Eds.), Theories of urban politics (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.

Kern, K., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Cities, Europeanization and multi-level governance: Governingclimate change through transnational municipal networks. JCMS: Journal of Common MarketStudies, 47(2), 309–332.

Kersbergen, K.V., & Waarden, F.V. (2004). “Governance” as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, account-ability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 143–171.

Kjaer, A. (2004). Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Kluvankova-Oravska, T., Chobotova, V., Banaszak, I., Slavikova, L., & Trifunovova, S. (2009). From

government to governance for biodiversity: The perspective of central and Eastern Europeantransition countries. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 186–196.

Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (Eds.). (2000a). Implementing EU environmental policy. New directionsand old problems. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (2000b). Introduction: New approaches to reach effective implementa-tion – Political rhetoric or sound concepts? In C. Knill & A. Lenschow (Eds.), ImplementingEU environmental policy. New directions and old problems (pp. 3–8). Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (2003). Modes of regulation in the governance of the European Union:Towards a comprehensive evaluation. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 7(1). Retrievedfrom http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2003-001a.htm

Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Korda, R.C., Hills, J.M., & Gray, T.S. (2008). Fishery decline in Utila: Disentangling the web of

governance. Marine Policy, 32, 968–979.Larner, W. (2000). Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology and governmentality. Studies in Political Econ-

omy, 63, 5–25.Lowi, T. (1964). American business. Public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics,

16, 677–715.Lowi, T.A. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32,

298–310.Majone, G. (1980). The uses of policy analysis. In B.H. Raven (Ed.), Policy studies review annual

(Vol. 4, pp. 161–180). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Majone, G. (1981). Policies as theories. In I.L. Horowitz (Ed.), Policy studies review annual (Vol. 5,

pp. 15–26). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Blank, K. (1996). European integration from the 1980s: State-centric v.

multi-level governance. JCMC: Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 341–378.Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex

world. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9, 299–314.Medeiros de Araujo, L., & Bramwell, B. (1999). Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism

planning: The case of Brazil’s Costa Dourada project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7, 356–378.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Murphy, P.E. (1983). Tourism as a community industry – An ecological model of tourism develop-

ment. Tourism Management, 4, 180–193.

456 C.M. Hall

Nantongo, P., Byaruhanga, A., & Mugisha, A. (2007). Community-based conservation of criticalsites: Uganda’s experience. Ostrich, 78, 159–162.

O’Toole, K., & Burdess, N. (2005). Governance at community level: Small towns in rural Victoria.Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 239–254.

Pavlovich, K. (2001). The twin landscapes of Waitomo: Tourism network and sustainability throughthe Landcare Group. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9, 491–504.

Pechlaner, H., & Tschurtschenthaler, P. (2003). Tourism policy, tourism organisations and changemanagement in alpine regions and destinations: A European perspective. Current Issues inTourism, 6, 508–539.

Peters, B.G. (2000). Governance and comparative politics. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance:Authenticity, steering and democracy (pp. 36–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pforr, C. (2002). The makers and the shakers of tourism policy in the Northern Territory of Australia:A policy network analysis of actors and their relational constellations. Journal of Hospitality andTourism Management, 9, 134–151.

Pforr, C. (2005). Three lenses of analysis for the study of tourism public policy: A case from NorthernAustralia. Current Issues in Tourism, 9, 323–343.

Pforr, C. (2006). Tourism policy in the making: An Australian network study. Annals of TourismResearch, 33, 87–108.

Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2000a). Debating governance: Authenticity, steering and democracy. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Pierre, J. (2000b). Introduction: Understanding governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance:Authenticity, steering and democracy (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierre, J. (2009). Reinventing governance, reinventing democracy? Policy & Politics, 37, 591–609.

Pierre, J., & Peters, B.G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Pierre, J., & Peters, B.G. (2005). Governing complex societies: Trajectories and scenarios.

Basingstoke: Palgrave.Popper, K. (1978). Three worlds, the Tanner lecture on human values. Lecture delivered at the Uni-

versity of Michigan (April 7). Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/popper80.pdf

Pressman, J.L., & Wildavsky, A.B. (1973). Implementation. San Francisco, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Putnam, R.D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York,NY: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions inmodern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Raymond, E., & Hall, C.M. (2008). The development of cross-cultural (mis)understanding throughvolunteer tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16, 530–543.

Rhodes, M. (2005). The scientific objectives of the NEWGOV Project. A Revised Framework.Paper presented at the NEWGOV Consortium Conference, 30–31 May 2005, European Uni-versity Institute, Florence. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.eu-newgov.org/public/Consortium Conference 2005.asp

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity andaccountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Russell, S.V., Lafferty, G., & Loudon, R. (2008). Examining tourism operators’ responses to envi-ronmental regulation: The role of regulatory perceptions and relationships. Current Issues inTourism, 11, 126–143.

Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review,64(4), 1033–1053.

Sartori, G. (Ed.). (1984). Social science concepts: A systematic analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Schilcher, D. (2007). Growth versus equity: The continuum of pro-poor tourism and neoliberal

governance. Current Issues in Tourism, 10, 166–193.Scott, J., & Trubek, D.M. (2002). Mind the gap: Law and new approaches to governance in the

European Union. European Law Journal, 8, 1–18.Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2008). Network analysis and tourism. Clevedon: Channel

View Publications.Scott, N., Cooper, C., & Baggio, R. (2008). Destination networks: Four Australian cases. Annals of

Tourism Research, 35, 169–188.


Shone, M.C., & Memon, P.A. (2008). Tourism, public policy and regional development: A turn fromneo-liberalism to the new regionalism. Local Economy, 23, 290–304.

Steinberger, P.J. (1980). Typologies of public policy: Meaning construction and the policy process.Social Science Quarterly, 61, 185–197.

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.Sutcliffe, J.B. (1999). The 1999 reform of the structural fund regulations: Multi-level governance or

renationalization? Journal of European Public Policy, 7, 290–309.Thatcher, M. (1998). The development of policy network analyses: From modest origins to overarching

frameworks. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 389–416.Thomas, H., & Thomas, R. (1998). The implications for tourism of shifts in British local governance.

Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(4), 295–306.Treib, O., Bahr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification.

Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 1–20.Tyler, D., & Dinan, C. (2001). The role of interested groups in England’s emerging tourism policy

network. Current Issues in Tourism, 4, 210–252.United Nations. (1993). Convention on Biological Diversity (with annexes). Concluded at Rio de

Janiero on 5 June 1992, No. 30619. United Nations Treaty Series, 1760(I-30619), 143–382.Van Waarden, F. (1992). Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political

Research, 21(1–2), 29–52.Viken, A. (2006). Svalbard, Norway. In G. Baldacchino (Ed.), Extreme tourism. Lessons from the

world’s cold water islands (pp. 129–144). Oxford: Elsevier.Wanhill, S.R.C. (1986). Which investment incentives for tourism? Tourism Management, 7(1), 2–7.Wesley, A., & Pforr, C. (2010). The governance of coastal tourism: Unravelling the layers of com-

plexity at Smiths Beach, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 773–792.Yee, A.S. (2004). Cross-national concepts in supranational governance: State-society relations and

EU-policy making. Governance – An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 17,487–524.

Young, O. (2006). Choosing governance systems: A plea for comparative research. In M. Moran,M. Rein, & R.E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 844–857). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (2005). Centralized and decentralized tourism governance inTurkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 859–886.

Zapata, M.J., Hall, C.M., Lindo, P., & Vanderschaeghen, M. (2011). Can community-based tourismcontribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Current Issues inTourism. doi:10.1080/13683500.2011.559200.

Copyright of Journal of Sustainable Tourism is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy … · 2013. 12. 6. · Journal of...

Documents

Transcript of A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy … · 2013. 12. 6. · Journal of...