- Email: [email protected]
Building a relationship between government and tourism
Current issues Buildinga relationship betweengovernmentand tourism Charles Owen
fn considering the way ~our~srncan be organized, the author examines the systems of two countries, France and the UK, with brief references to the USA, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Australia, and those of two regions, the European Community and the Caribbean. The key fo success lies, cleariy, in the interaction of the public sector and the private sector and, w/%/e there appears to be no standard, transferable formula, much may be gained through study of the established practice in comparable and evidently successful countries or regions. Charles Owen is principal of the Tourism by Design consultancy and may be contacted at 25 Montagu Street, London Wl H l-l-B, UK.
‘Jean
private
S. Holder,
sector
‘The need for publio-
cooperation
in tourism’,
address given at St Lucia, 26 October 1991, reprinted in Tourism Management, June 1992.
358
As a preface to a discussion about the relationship between government and tourism it would be hard to better this statement by Jean S. Holder, secretary general of the Caribbean Tourism Organisation (CTO): ‘I can think of no industry other than tourism where the interests of the public and private sectors so closely converge. Firstly the country is, in the broadest sense, the product.‘l The value of tourism to any one country’s economy and the viability of any one country’s tourism product are as varied as geography itself but, as Mr Holder acknowledges, there are basic common factors. In essence, these may be summarized: as a government has no money of its own, the more it can collect in taxes from profitable businesses in tourism the more it can then afford to spend on creating the social, environmental and econowithin which these mic climate businesses can flourish. It may be added that the more the products of these businesses enhance the selfrespect and standing of their country, through effective quality control, the greater in the long term that country’s success as a tourist destination. The pattern and machinery of policy making and of operational rela-
TOURISM
tionships between governments and their tourism industries, and between countries within regional groupings such as Western Europe and the Caribbean, are as varied not only as geography but as long-held political and bureaucratic traditions and other vested interests. In the Caribbean, an amalgam of relatively small nations, tourism, its development having depended. largely on capital from overseas, is generally a dominant industry: in some states, virtually a matter of life and death. Furthermore, in today’s increasingly competitive conditions, with growing reliance on expensive computerized systems, few small countries can afford to be selfsufficient in the appropriate technology: hence the potentially vital role of a body such as CTO, in collaboration with directly concerned transnational bodies such as airlines, travel agents and hoteliers, in the provision to its member governments and tourist organizations of tailor-made services and not merely of at-random information and advice. As for the principles governing public sector-private sector cooperation in a national context, Mr Holder aptly uses a railway analogy: ‘The private sector should see itself as providing
MANAGEMENT
December
1992
Current
the locomotive, and the government as laying the rails, on which the train proceeds’. Some of CTO’s members are said to offer excellent examples of public sector-private sector cooperation, usually in the form of joint semiautonomous public sector-private sector tourist boards which elect their own chairmen and have power to act in, say, marketing, training, research and statistics, matters of government policy being left to the responsible minister. Even so, Mr Holder is no doubt right to complain that some governments ‘have been neglecting the care of the rails, while showing an unnatural fascination for occupying the driver’s seat’. And, clearly, not only in the Caribbean.
The European scene
‘while nationalism prevails, no uniform formula for government tourism relationships is to be expected’
‘L.J. Lickorish, ‘Developing a single European tourism policy’, Tourism Management, September 1991.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
In Europe, a recent phenomenon, encouraged by the European Year of Tourism in 1990, has been the growth in influence of international bodies concerned with tourism; a precursor, maybe, of the evolution of a coherent, Europe-wide policy for tourism. Prominent among the older players of the tourism game are the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), based in Madrid and Paris respectively, while in their particular spheres the European Travel Commission (ETC) and the European Tourism Action Group (ETAG) have for some time been a steadily growing force. The relative newcomer but potentially of primary importance, cajoled into action by the European Parliament, is the Brussels-based European Community (EC) Commission, belatedly aware that, in the words of L. J. Lickorish, writing as vice-chairman of ETC and secretary of ETAG, tourism is now ‘the largest single trade in the EC’,’ providing 5% of the Community’s GDP, 8 million directly related jobs and a working demonstration of the benefits of a free flow of tourists across national frontiers. In bracing itself to give tourism its due, the Commission has soon become aware of the way tourism embraces or impinges upon a wide range of kindred industries and in-
December
1992
issues
ferests: among others construction, vehicle and aircraft manufacture, transportation, hotel keeping, training, the environment, retailing, the arts, entertainment, sport and recreation. It has also perceived the inescapable interaction in member states between the public sector at national and local levels and the profit-seeking companies and entrepreneurs who together provide the driving force of tourism. Even in a negative, reguiatory role, the Commission’s management function may seem complicated enough but, given the opportunity for timely constructive actions including, say, the selective promotion to other continents of Europe as a tourist destination, the planning and operational tasks involved will tax severely the resilience of an already cumbersome bureaucracy. In microcosm, similar challenges arise in every EC member state and, while nationalism prevails, no uniform or consistent formula for governmenttourism relationships is to be expected. In Britain, where tourism now turns over some f2.5 billion, contributes 3% of total national output and provides employment directly and indirectly for 1.5 m people, there is a galaxy of part-government financed statutory tourist boards. While the job of the British Tourist Authority (BTA) is to attract overseas visitors to the country as a whole, in other aspects of tourism promotion and administration the work is divided between four national boards (for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) under government-appointed chairmen and, within England, 12 regional boards. As a channel downward for national government funds and influence this is, to say the least, a muddied profusion. with the available money too thinly spread. As a channel upward for grass-root voices the effect is rather spoiled by the tendency for the regional boards to be dominated by plodders rather than innovators, that is, by local government representatives and the local managers of distantly based conglomerates, such as hotel and transport groups. In addition the often over-long serving board officials are not, unfortunately, of even calibre.
359
Britain’s new ministry
3William Davis in a letter to the present author dated 5 March 1991. 4William Burnett in letters to the present author dated 1 and 28 February 1491. SProfessor Victor Middleton in a letter to the present author dated 13 March 1991. 61mplications of the 7989 Tourism Review. A memorandum to the Department of Employment, October 1989. ‘From a discussion paper, The Organisation of Tourism in Britain, by Professor S. Medlik dated November 1982. The quotation is from the USA’s National Tourism Act of 1981.
360
However, a gradually increasing awareness of tourism as a force to be reckoned with has been reflected recently in the bracketing of tourism with such linked subjects as heritage, sport and the arts, under a minister of cabinet rank. Though it has yet to be shown that this new ministry will wield enough clout not only to breathe new life into a slimmed-down and more efficacious tourist board structure but to ensure that the needs and impact of tourism are duly weighed at policymaking level in such other departments as transport, trade and indusand the environtry, employment ment, this could be a move in the right direction. It will be even more so if, while maximizing economic benefit, the ministry can be vigilant and effective in curbing the intrusion of tourism into everyday life, in working constantly to raise the quality of the tourism product and, in particular, in ensuring that central London does not go the way of Paris in becoming virtually overwhelmed by ever-increasing crowds of motor-coach-borne sightseers. Meanwhile, discussion continues in Britain about the best forms of government-tourism relationship. William Davis, chairman of BTA, has said that he favours ‘an “arm’s length” relationship with our sponsoring department’ with reliance for regular consultation primarily on a tourism coordination committee at ministerial level. But, as Mr Davis points out, the Scottish and- Welsh offices are not too keen to hand the tourism function over to a Whitehall department and, anyway, ‘tourism is so large, complex and multifaceted that it would be very difficult for one ministry to look after all the aspects’.3 William Burnett, former director of Brighton’s tourism and resort services department, with long experience of tourism administration at regional level, takes up the point about complexity. While one opinion would ‘place tourism . within a Department of Trade and Industry’ and another might see it in ‘a fairly large amorphous body’ such as a Ministry of Transport, Mr Burnett was long inclined towards what has now emerged,
a ‘Ministry of Tourism, Leisure & Culture’ as being ‘fairly small and, hopefully, meaningful’.4 In a recent letter,5 writing as chairman of the Tourism Society (TS), ‘the only professional organisation in Britain which brings together members from all sectors of tourism’, Victor Middleton supported the views expressed in the society’s memorandum to the Department of Employment,h the then sponsoring department for tourism. After pointing out how the BTA, having been authorized in 1969 to cater for domestic as well as inward tourism, chose not to discharge its at-home functions but to concentrate instead on its role as an overseas marketing agency, the memorandum goes on to declare that, in the de facto absence of a nation-wide policymaking and coordinating mechanism for tourism, TS now recommends reconstituting the BTA board as originally conceived to include ‘independent board members with the status to reflect the interests of the industry as a whole’. BTA’s functions might then be specified ‘as those of a “holding company” with an overall responsibility, within policy guide lines laid down by the government, for the development and co-ordination of national tourism policies, strategies and resources’, the overseas marketing agency work being continued, as now, in collaboration with the other boards. The comments about diversity of government-tourism relationships may be further underlined with brief references to current practice in a selection of other countries. For example, the USA locates government responsibility for tourism in the Travel and Tourism Administration branch of the Department of Commerce and there is a national forum, the Travel and Tourism Affairs Council, ‘to coordinate policies, programs and issues relating to tourism, recreation or national heritage resources and involving Federal departments and agencies’. In Spain, the Secretariat of State for Tourism is to be found within the Ministry of Transport, Tourism and Communications while in Portugal there is a separate, self-contained Ministry of Tourism.’ In the Netherlands tourism, one of eight priority
TOURISM MANAGEMENT
December
1992
Current
areas of government policy, comes within the purview of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the chosen instrument for implementation being the Board of Tourism, known as VW, co-financed by government together with the tourism industry.s And, on the other side of the world, Australia has a successful formula in the shape of a Ministry of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories, headed by a minister of cabinet rank.’ And so on.
Maison de la France
‘France can be said to offer the most impressive formula’
Among the larger developed countries France can, perhaps, be said to offer the most impressive formula, reflecting that country’s gift for applying logic and foresight to its concepts of public administration.” The chief instrument for the promotion of French tourism is a determined, commercially minded combination of public sector and private sector funds and interests operating under the name Maison de la France (MF). The title of its own brochure, A Structure
BTourism Management, December 1986. ?lon Ros Kelly MP, Australian Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories in a letter to the present author dated 10 April 1991. ‘qhis report on France is based on an interview and various publications provided to the present author on 9 March 1992 by Patrick Goyet, Director, Maison de la France, London, with help from Rupert Owen in translating the documents.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
for
Partners
in Tourism,
ex-
emplifies the cooperative spirit that permeates this organization, its first stated object being, challengingly, to maintain and enhance France’s position as ‘Europe’s number one tourist destination’. The funding shows clearly enough that the government and its partners in this enterprise mean business. In 1992 the financial provision, shared 53.4% and 46.6% by the public and private sectors respectively, amounts to 382 million francs, with expenditure divided mainly between promotion and publicity (69.2%) and information (22.4%), of which over half is earmarked for European markets (including a lion’s share of nearly 50 million. francs for the UK) and onefifth for North America. The policy of MF is determined, as part of the national plan for tourism, by the minister for tourism advised by a consultative caucus including all the other government departments affected by tourism, ranging from transport through regional development to social affairs and employment. To execute the policy and man-
December
1992
issues
age the affairs of MF, there is a director general, currently Jean-Marc Janaillac, who answers through an administrative council to the minister, the strands of endeavour brought together by this means comprising the state, the regions, the tourism professionals and linked sectors of the economy. This partnership, driven by shared objectives and the need to be commercially accountable, involves more than 750 subscribing entities classified in four groups, of which the first three are represented on the council: (1) professional bodies, unions, business federations, regional associations; (2) managements engaged in the main facets of tourism, such as hotels, restaurants, transportation, tourist reception and information; (3) the providers of all the other services to tourism; (4) organizations wishing to receive information about MF’s plans and activities. While most of the MF ploys are constant, there is usually an annual theme by which, with due emphasis, to regalvanize the participating elements, the current theme being The Life and Style of France (L’Art de Vivre). In any event, with some 40 offices in 30 countries (some of the principal ones, like London, headed by high-flying career diplomats), the maison is fully stretched on the one hand with market research and analysis and on the other with output in the form of continuous publicity and information. Arising from this work there is an ever-evolving strategy. Based on its own research, MF initiates and reviews its intended programme which, in turn, influences the way the tourism product in its myriad forms is developed, refined, operated and sold. And there is a rising target to keep all concerned on their toes, currently 150 billion francs in tourist receipts by 1993. Within this strategy there are certain criteria. The programme must demonstrate an increase in tourist numbers, spread satisfactorily over time and space; an increase in the average length of stay; and a higher yield per tourist per day. In this context there are various priorities. For
361
Current issues
nearby markets, France aims to be the preferred destination both for main holidays based on a viable price/ quality mix and for short-stay visitors in general; while for far-off markets, the object is to increase the quantity of visitors and their length of stay and, having established Paris as the main entry port for visitors into Europe as a whole, to encourage those who choose to remain in France to disperse themselves around the regions. Woven into this pattern of objectives are three further requirements: to provide services to MF members, such as active help with special promotions; to cater ,for the needs of business as well as leisure visitors; and to stimulate the flow of domestic as well as overseas tourists. Having considered, mainly, the lateral aspects of the French tourism one must not overlook or set-up, undervalue the vertical lines of communication and persuasion. An important characteristic of public and commercial life in France - and not only in the sphere of tourism - is the strength of the upward thrust from the base of the hierarchical pyramid, from the entrepreneurs at the grass roots through the departmental and regional levels to the panjandrums at the top. In a French resort, large or small, the local mayor, chamber of commerce and tourist office are not to be denied. The lessons to be learned from this survey may be summed up in a few
362
TOURISM
sentences. If the public sector and the private sector in any country, or in any group of nations sharing close political or economic interests, cannot combine effectively to promote tourism, the potential of this burgeoning industry will not be realized or may be realized only at the cost of, say, the product’s quality (and long-term profitability) or the host community’s environment and way of life. As there appears to be no st.andard, transferable model each country or region must develop its own formula, bearing in mind the need for professional competence and commercial thrust to be given enough head to overcome political ignorance and bureaucratic inertia. While a government must put its money where its mouth is, its contribution should if possible be matched more or less pound for pound by private sector finance, or in due course be recycled or, at least in part, repaid; and the government must ensure the money is to be spent under firm leadership, coherently, through accountable machinery, in accordance with an agreed policy, to enhance and market the tourism product. In seeking the best formula, the established practice in comparable and evidently successful countries or regions deserves study. Among the larger developed countries the Maison de la France, and for regional groupings the Caribbean Tourism Organseem to offer impressive ization, examples.
MANAGEMENT
December
1992
fn considering the way ~our~srncan be organized, the author examines the systems of two countries, France and the UK, with brief references to the USA, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Australia, and those of two regions, the European Community and the Caribbean. The key fo success lies, cleariy, in the interaction of the public sector and the private sector and, w/%/e there appears to be no standard, transferable formula, much may be gained through study of the established practice in comparable and evidently successful countries or regions. Charles Owen is principal of the Tourism by Design consultancy and may be contacted at 25 Montagu Street, London Wl H l-l-B, UK.
‘Jean
private
S. Holder,
sector
‘The need for publio-
cooperation
in tourism’,
address given at St Lucia, 26 October 1991, reprinted in Tourism Management, June 1992.
358
As a preface to a discussion about the relationship between government and tourism it would be hard to better this statement by Jean S. Holder, secretary general of the Caribbean Tourism Organisation (CTO): ‘I can think of no industry other than tourism where the interests of the public and private sectors so closely converge. Firstly the country is, in the broadest sense, the product.‘l The value of tourism to any one country’s economy and the viability of any one country’s tourism product are as varied as geography itself but, as Mr Holder acknowledges, there are basic common factors. In essence, these may be summarized: as a government has no money of its own, the more it can collect in taxes from profitable businesses in tourism the more it can then afford to spend on creating the social, environmental and econowithin which these mic climate businesses can flourish. It may be added that the more the products of these businesses enhance the selfrespect and standing of their country, through effective quality control, the greater in the long term that country’s success as a tourist destination. The pattern and machinery of policy making and of operational rela-
TOURISM
tionships between governments and their tourism industries, and between countries within regional groupings such as Western Europe and the Caribbean, are as varied not only as geography but as long-held political and bureaucratic traditions and other vested interests. In the Caribbean, an amalgam of relatively small nations, tourism, its development having depended. largely on capital from overseas, is generally a dominant industry: in some states, virtually a matter of life and death. Furthermore, in today’s increasingly competitive conditions, with growing reliance on expensive computerized systems, few small countries can afford to be selfsufficient in the appropriate technology: hence the potentially vital role of a body such as CTO, in collaboration with directly concerned transnational bodies such as airlines, travel agents and hoteliers, in the provision to its member governments and tourist organizations of tailor-made services and not merely of at-random information and advice. As for the principles governing public sector-private sector cooperation in a national context, Mr Holder aptly uses a railway analogy: ‘The private sector should see itself as providing
MANAGEMENT
December
1992
Current
the locomotive, and the government as laying the rails, on which the train proceeds’. Some of CTO’s members are said to offer excellent examples of public sector-private sector cooperation, usually in the form of joint semiautonomous public sector-private sector tourist boards which elect their own chairmen and have power to act in, say, marketing, training, research and statistics, matters of government policy being left to the responsible minister. Even so, Mr Holder is no doubt right to complain that some governments ‘have been neglecting the care of the rails, while showing an unnatural fascination for occupying the driver’s seat’. And, clearly, not only in the Caribbean.
The European scene
‘while nationalism prevails, no uniform formula for government tourism relationships is to be expected’
‘L.J. Lickorish, ‘Developing a single European tourism policy’, Tourism Management, September 1991.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
In Europe, a recent phenomenon, encouraged by the European Year of Tourism in 1990, has been the growth in influence of international bodies concerned with tourism; a precursor, maybe, of the evolution of a coherent, Europe-wide policy for tourism. Prominent among the older players of the tourism game are the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), based in Madrid and Paris respectively, while in their particular spheres the European Travel Commission (ETC) and the European Tourism Action Group (ETAG) have for some time been a steadily growing force. The relative newcomer but potentially of primary importance, cajoled into action by the European Parliament, is the Brussels-based European Community (EC) Commission, belatedly aware that, in the words of L. J. Lickorish, writing as vice-chairman of ETC and secretary of ETAG, tourism is now ‘the largest single trade in the EC’,’ providing 5% of the Community’s GDP, 8 million directly related jobs and a working demonstration of the benefits of a free flow of tourists across national frontiers. In bracing itself to give tourism its due, the Commission has soon become aware of the way tourism embraces or impinges upon a wide range of kindred industries and in-
December
1992
issues
ferests: among others construction, vehicle and aircraft manufacture, transportation, hotel keeping, training, the environment, retailing, the arts, entertainment, sport and recreation. It has also perceived the inescapable interaction in member states between the public sector at national and local levels and the profit-seeking companies and entrepreneurs who together provide the driving force of tourism. Even in a negative, reguiatory role, the Commission’s management function may seem complicated enough but, given the opportunity for timely constructive actions including, say, the selective promotion to other continents of Europe as a tourist destination, the planning and operational tasks involved will tax severely the resilience of an already cumbersome bureaucracy. In microcosm, similar challenges arise in every EC member state and, while nationalism prevails, no uniform or consistent formula for governmenttourism relationships is to be expected. In Britain, where tourism now turns over some f2.5 billion, contributes 3% of total national output and provides employment directly and indirectly for 1.5 m people, there is a galaxy of part-government financed statutory tourist boards. While the job of the British Tourist Authority (BTA) is to attract overseas visitors to the country as a whole, in other aspects of tourism promotion and administration the work is divided between four national boards (for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) under government-appointed chairmen and, within England, 12 regional boards. As a channel downward for national government funds and influence this is, to say the least, a muddied profusion. with the available money too thinly spread. As a channel upward for grass-root voices the effect is rather spoiled by the tendency for the regional boards to be dominated by plodders rather than innovators, that is, by local government representatives and the local managers of distantly based conglomerates, such as hotel and transport groups. In addition the often over-long serving board officials are not, unfortunately, of even calibre.
359
Britain’s new ministry
3William Davis in a letter to the present author dated 5 March 1991. 4William Burnett in letters to the present author dated 1 and 28 February 1491. SProfessor Victor Middleton in a letter to the present author dated 13 March 1991. 61mplications of the 7989 Tourism Review. A memorandum to the Department of Employment, October 1989. ‘From a discussion paper, The Organisation of Tourism in Britain, by Professor S. Medlik dated November 1982. The quotation is from the USA’s National Tourism Act of 1981.
360
However, a gradually increasing awareness of tourism as a force to be reckoned with has been reflected recently in the bracketing of tourism with such linked subjects as heritage, sport and the arts, under a minister of cabinet rank. Though it has yet to be shown that this new ministry will wield enough clout not only to breathe new life into a slimmed-down and more efficacious tourist board structure but to ensure that the needs and impact of tourism are duly weighed at policymaking level in such other departments as transport, trade and indusand the environtry, employment ment, this could be a move in the right direction. It will be even more so if, while maximizing economic benefit, the ministry can be vigilant and effective in curbing the intrusion of tourism into everyday life, in working constantly to raise the quality of the tourism product and, in particular, in ensuring that central London does not go the way of Paris in becoming virtually overwhelmed by ever-increasing crowds of motor-coach-borne sightseers. Meanwhile, discussion continues in Britain about the best forms of government-tourism relationship. William Davis, chairman of BTA, has said that he favours ‘an “arm’s length” relationship with our sponsoring department’ with reliance for regular consultation primarily on a tourism coordination committee at ministerial level. But, as Mr Davis points out, the Scottish and- Welsh offices are not too keen to hand the tourism function over to a Whitehall department and, anyway, ‘tourism is so large, complex and multifaceted that it would be very difficult for one ministry to look after all the aspects’.3 William Burnett, former director of Brighton’s tourism and resort services department, with long experience of tourism administration at regional level, takes up the point about complexity. While one opinion would ‘place tourism . within a Department of Trade and Industry’ and another might see it in ‘a fairly large amorphous body’ such as a Ministry of Transport, Mr Burnett was long inclined towards what has now emerged,
a ‘Ministry of Tourism, Leisure & Culture’ as being ‘fairly small and, hopefully, meaningful’.4 In a recent letter,5 writing as chairman of the Tourism Society (TS), ‘the only professional organisation in Britain which brings together members from all sectors of tourism’, Victor Middleton supported the views expressed in the society’s memorandum to the Department of Employment,h the then sponsoring department for tourism. After pointing out how the BTA, having been authorized in 1969 to cater for domestic as well as inward tourism, chose not to discharge its at-home functions but to concentrate instead on its role as an overseas marketing agency, the memorandum goes on to declare that, in the de facto absence of a nation-wide policymaking and coordinating mechanism for tourism, TS now recommends reconstituting the BTA board as originally conceived to include ‘independent board members with the status to reflect the interests of the industry as a whole’. BTA’s functions might then be specified ‘as those of a “holding company” with an overall responsibility, within policy guide lines laid down by the government, for the development and co-ordination of national tourism policies, strategies and resources’, the overseas marketing agency work being continued, as now, in collaboration with the other boards. The comments about diversity of government-tourism relationships may be further underlined with brief references to current practice in a selection of other countries. For example, the USA locates government responsibility for tourism in the Travel and Tourism Administration branch of the Department of Commerce and there is a national forum, the Travel and Tourism Affairs Council, ‘to coordinate policies, programs and issues relating to tourism, recreation or national heritage resources and involving Federal departments and agencies’. In Spain, the Secretariat of State for Tourism is to be found within the Ministry of Transport, Tourism and Communications while in Portugal there is a separate, self-contained Ministry of Tourism.’ In the Netherlands tourism, one of eight priority
TOURISM MANAGEMENT
December
1992
Current
areas of government policy, comes within the purview of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the chosen instrument for implementation being the Board of Tourism, known as VW, co-financed by government together with the tourism industry.s And, on the other side of the world, Australia has a successful formula in the shape of a Ministry of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories, headed by a minister of cabinet rank.’ And so on.
Maison de la France
‘France can be said to offer the most impressive formula’
Among the larger developed countries France can, perhaps, be said to offer the most impressive formula, reflecting that country’s gift for applying logic and foresight to its concepts of public administration.” The chief instrument for the promotion of French tourism is a determined, commercially minded combination of public sector and private sector funds and interests operating under the name Maison de la France (MF). The title of its own brochure, A Structure
BTourism Management, December 1986. ?lon Ros Kelly MP, Australian Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories in a letter to the present author dated 10 April 1991. ‘qhis report on France is based on an interview and various publications provided to the present author on 9 March 1992 by Patrick Goyet, Director, Maison de la France, London, with help from Rupert Owen in translating the documents.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
for
Partners
in Tourism,
ex-
emplifies the cooperative spirit that permeates this organization, its first stated object being, challengingly, to maintain and enhance France’s position as ‘Europe’s number one tourist destination’. The funding shows clearly enough that the government and its partners in this enterprise mean business. In 1992 the financial provision, shared 53.4% and 46.6% by the public and private sectors respectively, amounts to 382 million francs, with expenditure divided mainly between promotion and publicity (69.2%) and information (22.4%), of which over half is earmarked for European markets (including a lion’s share of nearly 50 million. francs for the UK) and onefifth for North America. The policy of MF is determined, as part of the national plan for tourism, by the minister for tourism advised by a consultative caucus including all the other government departments affected by tourism, ranging from transport through regional development to social affairs and employment. To execute the policy and man-
December
1992
issues
age the affairs of MF, there is a director general, currently Jean-Marc Janaillac, who answers through an administrative council to the minister, the strands of endeavour brought together by this means comprising the state, the regions, the tourism professionals and linked sectors of the economy. This partnership, driven by shared objectives and the need to be commercially accountable, involves more than 750 subscribing entities classified in four groups, of which the first three are represented on the council: (1) professional bodies, unions, business federations, regional associations; (2) managements engaged in the main facets of tourism, such as hotels, restaurants, transportation, tourist reception and information; (3) the providers of all the other services to tourism; (4) organizations wishing to receive information about MF’s plans and activities. While most of the MF ploys are constant, there is usually an annual theme by which, with due emphasis, to regalvanize the participating elements, the current theme being The Life and Style of France (L’Art de Vivre). In any event, with some 40 offices in 30 countries (some of the principal ones, like London, headed by high-flying career diplomats), the maison is fully stretched on the one hand with market research and analysis and on the other with output in the form of continuous publicity and information. Arising from this work there is an ever-evolving strategy. Based on its own research, MF initiates and reviews its intended programme which, in turn, influences the way the tourism product in its myriad forms is developed, refined, operated and sold. And there is a rising target to keep all concerned on their toes, currently 150 billion francs in tourist receipts by 1993. Within this strategy there are certain criteria. The programme must demonstrate an increase in tourist numbers, spread satisfactorily over time and space; an increase in the average length of stay; and a higher yield per tourist per day. In this context there are various priorities. For
361
Current issues
nearby markets, France aims to be the preferred destination both for main holidays based on a viable price/ quality mix and for short-stay visitors in general; while for far-off markets, the object is to increase the quantity of visitors and their length of stay and, having established Paris as the main entry port for visitors into Europe as a whole, to encourage those who choose to remain in France to disperse themselves around the regions. Woven into this pattern of objectives are three further requirements: to provide services to MF members, such as active help with special promotions; to cater ,for the needs of business as well as leisure visitors; and to stimulate the flow of domestic as well as overseas tourists. Having considered, mainly, the lateral aspects of the French tourism one must not overlook or set-up, undervalue the vertical lines of communication and persuasion. An important characteristic of public and commercial life in France - and not only in the sphere of tourism - is the strength of the upward thrust from the base of the hierarchical pyramid, from the entrepreneurs at the grass roots through the departmental and regional levels to the panjandrums at the top. In a French resort, large or small, the local mayor, chamber of commerce and tourist office are not to be denied. The lessons to be learned from this survey may be summed up in a few
362
TOURISM
sentences. If the public sector and the private sector in any country, or in any group of nations sharing close political or economic interests, cannot combine effectively to promote tourism, the potential of this burgeoning industry will not be realized or may be realized only at the cost of, say, the product’s quality (and long-term profitability) or the host community’s environment and way of life. As there appears to be no st.andard, transferable model each country or region must develop its own formula, bearing in mind the need for professional competence and commercial thrust to be given enough head to overcome political ignorance and bureaucratic inertia. While a government must put its money where its mouth is, its contribution should if possible be matched more or less pound for pound by private sector finance, or in due course be recycled or, at least in part, repaid; and the government must ensure the money is to be spent under firm leadership, coherently, through accountable machinery, in accordance with an agreed policy, to enhance and market the tourism product. In seeking the best formula, the established practice in comparable and evidently successful countries or regions deserves study. Among the larger developed countries the Maison de la France, and for regional groupings the Caribbean Tourism Organseem to offer impressive ization, examples.
MANAGEMENT
December
1992