Tourism and governance in Turkey

Pergamon www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 1025±1048, 2000 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/00/$20.00

PII: S0160-7383(99)00127-9

TOURISM AND GOVERNANCE IN TURKEY Korel GoÈymen Middle East Technical University, Turkey Abstract: Tourism is speedily changing form, process, and structure. As a result of the globalization of its supply and demand, many countries have felt the need to reconsider related structures and processes, including the speci®c role of the state. This study indicates that tourism in Turkey developed in stages, constantly interacting with political, social, and economic components of the polity. During most of these stages, the state played a dominant role. But since the 80s, the dynamics of governance has triggered a gradual transformation from a basically state-sponsored and managed development to different forms of public± private partnership; a process curtailed, however, by the political culture. Keywords: Turkey, globalization, governance, state involvement, actors (partners), public±private cooperation, political culture. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Âsume Â: Tourisme et Gouvernance en Turquie. Comme le reÂsultat de la mondialisation des Re ofres et des demandes du tourisme nomre de pays ont ÂeprouveÂs le besoin de reconsideÂrer les structures et des proceÂdeÂs relatives au tourisme, y compris le role speÂci®que de l'Etat. Cette Âetude montre que le tourisme en Turquie s'est deÂveloppe par Âetapes en constant interacton avec les composantes Âetatiques, sociales et Âeconomiques du politique. Durant la plupart da ces Âetapes, l'Etat a joue un role preÂpondeÂrant. Cependent, depuis les 80s, la dynamique de gouvernance a provoque une transformation graduelle d'un deÂveloppement essentiellement sponsoriseÂ, ameÂnage par l'Etat vers de diffeÂrent formes de coopeÂration entre le public et le Âs: Turquie, mondialisation, priveÂ; processus limite toutefois par la culture politique. Mots-cle gouvernance, engagement de l'Etat, acteurs (partenaires), coopeÂration entre public±priveÂ, culture politique. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION It is now generally accepted that tourism plays a major role in bringing people and countries together, contributing to mutual understanding, as well as being an important source of revenue and employment. According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO), international tourism registered around 613.5 million arrivals in 1997, and generated a revenue of $433.3 billion. These are expected to increase to 650 million and $550 billion in the year 2000 (WTO 1998), making this one of the most important industries of Korel Go Èymen, Associate Professor of Political Sciences and Director of the Center for Public Policy and Urban Research at the Middle East Technical University (Ankara, Turkey. Email < [email protected] >) served as Undersecretary of the Turkish Ministry of Tourism (1992±94) and was Executive Board Member of the World Tourism Organization, as well as Deputy Chairperson of the OECD Tourism Committee. His research interests include political and administrative devolution, public policymaking, and tourism policy.

1025

1026

TOURISM IN TURKEY

the world economy and the center of international human interaction. The processes that will be shaping the nature of tourism in the immediate future are already set in motion, their effects becoming increasingly apparent. In this context, WTO refers to several developments, including growing consumer knowledge of tourism possibilities, and changing requirements; increasingly varied and extensive product development and market segmentation by the private sector; globalization trends in the structure of tourism; more extensive and effective marketing; shortages of skilled and experienced human resources; advances in technology that extend the freedom of individuals by broadening their choices; and advances in telecommunications which also expand consumer choice and allow direct access to suppliers (1994:5). These developments and factors clearly mean that more countries and destinations will be (are) competing for the same demand and global leisure budget, resulting in cutthroat competition worldwide. This is a totally different situation from the supply-led market of the pre-90s, dominated by tour operators marketing relatively few destinations to customers mostly booking well in advance (Keller and Smeral 1997; Smeral 1996; WTO 1994). This situation presents a major challenge for the newly emerging discipline of tourism as well as for all countries and destinations aspiring to have a larger slice of the world tourism pie. The public authorities in most countries have been obliged to respond to this challenge by changing objectives, priorities, institutions, and tools of implementation. Tourism has become a multifaceted and complex industry. This has also brought about efforts to remedy the fragmented nature of existing theory to turn it into a distinct multidisciplinary area of study (Echtner 1995; Jafari 1992). On the administrative front, national tourism administrations increasingly have had to build coordination among ministries into their strategies, in particular for transport, employment, the environment, culture, and industry. Cooperation with regional and local authorities is also gaining ground and several countries have set up committees bringing together all partners to put forward regional and local policy initiatives (OECD 1996a). Turkey has been facing a similar challenge in tourism and, hence, is in a process of search for a new division of labor between the different levels of the state, private sector, nongovernmental organizations, professional, and voluntary organizations. Out of these deliberations emerge new types of cooperation, new ``actors'' (players or partners) in tourism and related sectors, new arrangements and structures, new forms of participation, communication, and accountability. These characteristics are all embodied in the concept of governance. Therefore, an attempt will be made in this paper to interrelate the pattern of tourism development in Turkey with the dynamics of governance.

È YMEN KOREL GO

1027

Governance It is now well understood in many parts of the world that highly centralized, rule-bound, and in¯exible organizations that emphasize process rather than results impede good performance. Furthermore, demographic changes and socioeconomic developments are adding to the functions and services expected from governments. At the same time, the consumers of these services are demanding a greater say in what governments do and how they do it (OECD 1995). This situation has necessitated new interactive relations between state and society. New experiments emphasizing coregulation, costeering, coproduction, cooperative management, and public±private partnerships on national, regional, and local levels have become necessary (Kooiman 1993). In this context, Kooiman de®nes governance as the ``activities of social, political, and administrative actors that can be seen as purposeful efforts to guide, steer, control, or manage (sectors or facets of) societies'' (1993:2). The World Conference on Metropolitan Governance (Tokyo, April 1993) emphasized the participative aspect of governance by stating that the concept embraces a variety of ideas which encompass intergovernmental relations and imply bottom-up decision-making by having all concerned people at every level of government and nongovernmental organizations participate (OECD 1995:26). But participation is easier advocated than achieved and international experience suggests that the results of experimentation with devolution, participative, and partnership arrangements have produced mixed results in different countries. For instance, Thomas and Thomas (1996) report that in spite of ``revolutionary'' transformation in the British local governance since 1980, the tourism industry has not bene®ted. ``It seems that the organizational inertia and vested interests in the status quo . . . have exploited the relatively marginal nature of tourism development . . . and expected bene®ts of governance in the form of ¯exibility and networking have not materialized'' (1996:303± 305). Selin and Chavez (1995) and Long (1991) underline the fragile nature of tourism partnerships and suggest that special facilitative skills are constantly needed to sustain and nurture them. Some of the potential bene®ts of partnerships and stakeholders' collaboration in tourism are enumerated by Bramwell and Sharman: ``avoiding the cost of resolving adversarial con¯icts; legitimizing decisions eventually taken; improving co-ordination of policies and related actions; and `adding value' by building on the existing store of knowledge, insights and capabilities''. However, they also hasten to point out the limitations of such collaborative efforts. Using the case of the Hope Valley tourism management plan in Britain, they conclude that consultation leading to the preparation of the plan could only be partly facilitated resulting in ``partial consensus''; and that the existing unequal power relations (in

1028

TOURISM IN TURKEY

favor of public authorities) remained unchanged during and after the process (1999:392±393, 411±412). In developing countries where, in most cases, democracy has not been fully institutionalized and a supportive democratic political culture may be only in the formative stage, collaborative schemes may face additional dif®culties. Yu Èksel, Bramwell and Yu Èksel (1999) report that the excessive centralist tradition in Turkey and the relative absence of a pluralist and participative culture have constituted obstacles in a stakeholders' planning approach to preserve and develop a World Heritage Site (Pamukkale). An in¯exible and inef®cient public partner in a public/private collaboration scheme involving the development of a tourism complex in Korea has slowed down the process and caused motivational problems (Kim 1992). Furthermore, according to Brohman, ``unless speci®c measures are taken to encourage meaningful participation in community decision-making by members of popular sectors, including traditionally disadvantaged groups, increased local participation may simply transfer control over (tourism) development from one elite group to another''. Brohman further warns those simply calling for greater community participation, not to ignore the well-known tendency of local elites to ``appropriate'' these social organs for their own bene®t (1996:60). Sautter and Leisen (1999), in their discussion of ``stakeholder theory'' submit that special care should be taken to select activities to obtain optimal bene®ts for all identi®ed groups, without giving priority to one stakeholder's interests over another. All of these views are pertinent for the Turkish case and have varying degrees of validity for areas of governance singled out for discussion in this paper. It must be remembered that a critical evaluation of state involvement and intervention in tourism and the resulting emphasis placed on governance developed only gradually and in stages in Turkey. Stages of State Involvement Extensive surveys which assess the role the state has played and is playing in various countries in the ®eld of tourism have enabled these organizations to make some broad generalizations (OECD 1992, 1996b; WTO 1993, 1994, 1996). Reference is generally made to ``stages'' to demonstrate the changing role of the state and evolving points of emphasis. During these stages the state predominantly acted as a promoter; provided stimulus and incentives; intervened to protect both the consumer and the international competitive position of the country; and ®nally started acting more like a coordinator, sharing more of the functions and responsibilities with the private sector and the nongovernmental organizations. According to a WTO (1996) survey, which included case studies from different geographical regions, incorporating both ``early starters'' (France, Spain, United Kingdom) and ``latecomers'' (Kenya, Tunisia, Malaysia, Singapore, Egypt, India, Colombia, Jamaica), in the early days of a country's tourism development governments play

È YMEN KOREL GO

1029

a pioneering role. This is considered essential since huge investments are required to provide the basic infrastructure and facilities necessary to open up areas of the country to tourism and to attract growth. The private sector (sometimes a viable one may not exist) in the initial stages cannot be expected to take risks until a climate of con®dence can be created and the full potential of the sector can be comprehended by the entrepreneurs. In the initial stages, national tourism administrations are responsible for not only planning and promoting tourism but also running it. In this context, they become hoteliers, travel agents, tour and transport operators (Clancy 1999; Hall 1992; Jenkins and Henry 1982; Tosun and Jenkins 1998; Korzay 1994; OECD 1996b; Owen 1997; WTO 1996). On the other hand, during the later stages, the state acts more like a coordinator, or catalyst for the development of tourism. The state assists and supports rather than leads, and tries to ®ll the gaps left by the private sector, depending on its extent, effectiveness, and viability (Elliott 1996; Jenkins 1994; McKercher and Ritchie 1995; Smeral 1999; WTO 1993, 1994). Two points need to be stressed at this juncture. The ®rst point is that there are no clear-cut boundaries between the stages of tourism development, and various stages may overlap in a particular country and often do. The second point is that the tourism industry is intricately interrelated to other sectors and components of the polity and very much open to in¯uences from the general political, social, and economic systems. STAGES OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY In Turkey, developments in the economy and other systems supportive of a viable tourism industry open to international competition only came gradually and in stages. The interaction between tourism and other sectors yielded generally positive results; but the process was not without its limitations and costs. The industry contributed to local development in a land that suffers from serious social and economic disparities among regions. Through the eventual spread of tourism activity to relatively underdeveloped regions of Turkey (particularly central, eastern, southeastern Anatolia and the Black Sea Coast) a new dynamism was injected with improvements in the local social and physical infrastructure, enjoyed both by the tourist and local resident. But this improvement did not mean eradication of regional imbalances. Nevertheless, besides providing much-needed infrastructure, employment, additional income and making a contribution to local social capital (new skills, enhanced organizational capabilities), tourism activity in these regions, over time, created new ``actors'' (local organizations, voluntary bodies, guides, concerned mayors, local administrations, and municipal unions) willing and capable of cooperating with the central government. As they proved their capacity to assume more responsibilities, in line with the general trend to decentralize and to devolve, they gradually acquired increased functions. This did not

1030

TOURISM IN TURKEY

mean that the reluctance of the central government to share its long-built authority and jealously guarded resources diminished overnight. Nor were all of the new players happy with their recently gained relative autonomy or equipped to handle it. Most professional tourism bodies still advocate the continuation of active state involvement, particularly in ®nancial terms (Turizm Ïi 1992; Tu Yatõrõmcõlarõ Derneg Èrsab 1997). Thus, one can argue that tourism development in general and attempts at devolution in particular produced mixed results. Set against a generally positive picture, there are a number of problems associated with tourism development in Turkey. Most parameters of the framework developed by Brohman (1996) to study these problems in Third World countries seem to be appropriate for the Turkish case as well. He names some speci®c issues such as foreign domination and dependency, socioeconomic and spatial polarization, environmental destruction, cultural alienation, and the loss of social control and identity among host communities. Foreign domination and resulting dependency do not seem to be a major problem in Turkey, at least on the supply side, because the vast majority of tourism investment (both for large- and small-scale establishments) has been undertaken by indigenous capital and entrepreneurs. This is probably due to the fact that the country has never been colonized and, during most of the Republican period, there has been a reluctance both on the part of foreign capital to invest in Turkey and on its own part to accept it (GoÈymen and Tu Èzu Èn 1976). However, similar to situations elsewhere (Brohman 1996:57), and in spite of speci®c efforts to eradicate regional imbalances, a pronounced spatial dichotomy has evolved in Turkish tourism between a ``privileged'' space along the coast and an ``underprivileged'' space in the interior of the country. During the advocacy period in tourism, as Jafari calls it, when emphasis was on bene®ts of tourism, this problem did not catch attention. But during the subsequent cautionary stage when costs became apparent, this became a much-debated issue, and was instrumental in the formation of an adaptancy platform (1992:17), advocating diversi®cation of the Turkish tourism product by type and region (Cayõr 1997; Ïlu 1997; Sonat 1992). Cerit 1999; Gu Èltay 1992; Oral and Bayraktarog A number of studies conducted on the social aspects and conse. È zdemir 1992; quences of tourism activity in Turkey (Iyidiker 1990; O Ïõ 1995; Usal 1990; Var, Kendall and Põnar 1990; Turizm Bakanlõg Ïlu 1985) indicate that segments of the host community Tarakcõog which seem to bene®t from tourism, have a more favorable attitude, compared with the ``losers'', who exhibit different degrees of resentment, or even hostility. Comparable to similar attitudes elsewhere (Hall 1992; Haralambopoulos and Pizam 1996; King, Pizam and Milman 1993; Milman and Pizam 1988; Pizam and Pokela 1985), most of the complaints are centered around incompatibility of values as re¯ected by behavior patterns of tourists, investing multinational enterprise representatives or foreign managers of local facilities (Poirier 1997a); rising prices and cost of living; increased

È YMEN KOREL GO

1031

crime; negative demonstration effect on local youth due to gambling, drug addiction, vandalism, and sexual behavior. In parts of Turkey there is additional resentment due to the conviction that ``bene®ts of tourism accrue only to big capital, `outsiders', and foreigners, and that spaces that were previously freely available [the coast, forests, picnic and recreational areas] are not now accessible'' Ïõ 1995:17). Furthermore, as Brohman suggests (Turizm Bakanlõg ``contact with the indigenous culture tends to be packaged rather than spontaneous, contrived rather than original (also in Turkey) . . . resulting in a sense of alienation (in the host community) rooted in feelings of a loss of social control and cultural identity'' (1996:50). During the advocacy stage, success only meant increasing both the number of tourists and the revenue derived from this activity. But this emphasis on mass tourism began to shift, in the later stages, to responsible tourism (Baratalõ 1992; Sonat 1992); and a knowledge-based platform (Jafari 1992) started promoting a holistic, scienti®c approach to tourism. This entailed a balanced evaluation of both the possible bene®ts and costs of tourism, bearing in mind that, through planned efforts, costs could be minimized, bene®ts could be maximized and shared in a relatively egalitarian manner. However, due care was required to adjust general planning principles to local sociocultural and economic conditions (Timothy 1999). In order to systematically trace the changing parameters, priorities and orientations in Turkish tourism, the underlying factors during the pioneering and liberal periods will now be taken up. During the ®rst period (roughly between 1963 and 1983), the state played a pioneering role preparing the general objective conditions for further development. It was the period of relative liberalization (since 1983 and still continuing) which set in motion the dynamics of governance. The Pioneering State During this period, the main objectives were to contribute to the gross national product through tourism activity; to increase the much-needed foreign currency earnings; to create new jobs; and to provide more holiday opportunities for Turkish citizens. These objectives were to be realized according to some principles. For one thing, the state and private sector would co-exist and both undertake investments and conduct tourism activity in cooperation with one another (SPO 1963:27). The state would, whenever necessary, indulge in pioneering investments in superstructure, which were hoped to have a demonstration effect on private enterprise. Facilitation of physical infrastructure (particularly in transportation and communication) and social infrastructure (in general education, tourism training, health, and hygiene) was expected of the state. Creation of the country image and marketing of the Turkish tourism product were also among the responsibilities of the state.

1032

TOURISM IN TURKEY

Investments in accommodation facilities were expected mostly of the private sector with active support and encouragement by the public (SPO 1963, 1967). To realize these objectives two major instrumentsÐin the form of speci®c organizations and special projectsÐwere utilized. Organizational Instruments. The most important organization related to tourism in this period was the Ministry of Tourism (MOT), which indulged in planning; licensing and standardization of tourism facilities; supervision of existing facilities; determination of room-rates for hotels and prices on ``tourist menus'' of restaurants; and opening of training centers to meet increased demand for quali®ed personnel. Additional responsibilities were promotion of the Turkish tourism product by opening bureaus within the country and abroad and encouragement of the establishment of professional organizations (like unions of travel agents, hoteliers, and guides) which were to gradually play a greater role in tourism management in Turkey (Turizm Ïõ 1999). Bakanlõg Another major organizational tool was the Tourism Bank, established in 1955 with the task of providing credits to would-be-investors; establishing and managing ``model facilities''; and providing technical and project support to private entrepreneurs (Tourism Bank 1988). This institution, until it merged with the State Investment and Workers' Investment Bank in 1988 to form the Turkish Development Bank, provided a total of $450 million in credits (calculated by the author, based on annual of®cial exchange rates) for some 146,700 beds (SPO 1990:146±148). The Union of Travel Agents was yet another organizational tool, established in 1972, to represent the increasing number of travel agents; to set the rules of commissioning and decommissioning them; introducing and maintaining professional ethics; protecting the tourist; and cooperating with the Ministry of Tourism in marÈ RSAB 1997). This union keting of the Turkish tourism product (TU . initially was only organized in Istanbul with a few dozen members, but soon started to establish regional of®ces in areas where tourism activity began to concentrate and its membership had risen to 3,805 by 1999 (GoÈymen 1993:65±66; Turizm BakanlõgÏõ 1999). South Antalya Tourism Development Project. The second important instrument utilized during this period comprised special tourism development projects, as exempli®ed by the South Antalya Tourism Development Project. The project covered a coastal area south of Antalya 80 km long and, on average, 9 km in depth, embodying several villages and the historical cities of Phaselis, Olimpus, and Idyros (Ministry of Tourism 1991). The project, which incorporated the planning±programming±®nancing and operational stages in an integrated manner, aimed at creating a bed-capacity of 65,500 by 1995 (which was slightly surpassed); generation of 20,000 jobs; recreational facilities with a daily capacity to serve 200,000; and greatly

È YMEN KOREL GO

1033

improved infrastructure, health, and educational/training facilities for the local people (Ministry of Tourism 1991:1±3). The Tourism Bank, under the supervision of the ministry, acted as the consultant company and utilizing a $26 million loan obtained from the World Bank (in addition to allocations from the national budget) executed the project. The Tourism Bank, as executor of the project, made 58 allocations of public land to private investors, providing credit and monitoring their activities until ®nal acceptance; coordinated the infrastructure investments of public agencies; indulged in environmental development (puri®cation of water sources, an integrated sewage system as well as treatment plants); and introduced an ``infrastructure works management model'' in cooperation with the Operators' Association (discussed later). The project was successfully implemented and has been a prototype for similar ventures in Turkey, as well as winning international acclaim (WTO 1995). However, in spite of these efforts, at the beginning of the 80s, Turkey was accommodating only about 1.3 million tourists annually, utilizing around 50,000 Ministry of Tourism licensed beds, and netting in a revenue of just over $300 million (Tu Èrkiye Kalkõnma Bankasõ 1995:32). But, at the same time, most of the preparations which would allow a major leap forward were completed. Period of Liberalization Turkey lived through yet another military intervention in 1980 and this administration, eager to set right the perceived ``ailing'' aspects of the society, prepared a number of ``reform laws''. One was the Tourism Encouragement Law (law number 2634) of 1982. It heralded a new liberal era and attempted to overcome some of the obstacles like lack of coordination among various tourism-related organizations; dif®culty in obtaining suitable land for investments; and discouragingly long formalities (Tarhan 1996). The new law envisaged tourism investments to be channeled to ``priority zones'' so that scarce resources could be intensi®ed. Formalities and requirements for the allocation of state-owned land were simpli®ed, reducing the number of involved bodies. Under the new legislation, novel tourism types like yachting, casinos, food and beverage centers, and complexes where several activities were to be integrated, were recognized and codi®ed (Turkish Republic Of®cial Gazette 1982). The new civilian government established after the 1983 general È zal, who had served as chief election by Prime Minister Turgut O economic advisor to the previous government, set out to create a market economy, emphasizing private enterprise and aiming to curtail the economic activities of the state (Tarhan 1996). This meant the substitution of an inward-looking, import-substitution strategy by an outward-oriented, export-promotion model, with tourism as one of the new ``growth sectors'' (Brohman 1996:49). There were a number of re¯ections of this new orientation on the industry. All

1034

TOURISM IN TURKEY

state investment in tourism superstructure (accommodation facilities) was stopped, including the pioneering initiatives, and preparations to privatize existing establishments started. The practice of price-setting for facilities by the government was discontinued, allowing for market mechanisms to function. An elaborate incentive system, using Ministry of Tourism and the Tourism Bank as main instruments, was introduced backed by suf®cient resources, at least until the end of the 80s. Within the framework of this incentive scheme, the state, between 1983 and 1997, issued 18 bulletins listing available state land and allocated to 297 investors plots for 95,178 beds in 139 Tourism Areas and Centers (MOT 1997:3). As stated before, the private investors obtained around $454 million from the state between 1983 and 1990 in credits and invested a further $1.1 billion from their own resources during the same period (Turizm Ïi 1992). The newly established Turkish Yatõrõmcõlarõ Derneg Development Bank provided credits for an additional 75,000 beds È nen 1995:109±110). This inbetween 1989 and 1994 (AyoÈzcan and O stitution was really a development bank that provided medium- and long-term soft loans to a multitude of enterprises in different sectors. Soft loans at competitive interest rates and reasonably long grace periods constituted an ``attractive package'' for would-beinvestors. The bank, however, incurred losses because of poor quality loans (in certain cases, due to political interference) and slack collection procedures, a phenomenon not uncommon elsewhere (Bennett 1994; Bennett and Tong 1992). During the Persian Gulf War (1991±92), the dif®culties of the Bank reached crisis proportions when debts of tourism-investors were deferred a number of times. As a result of these efforts the number of MOT licensed establishments which stood at 569 with around 62,000 beds in 1982 increased to 2,084 and 351,000, respectively, in 1998, with an additional 273,000 municipal licensed beds (MOT 1999). In 1982, about 1.3 million tourists had visited Turkey, leaving a revenue of around $300 million. The same numbers jumped to around 10 million and $8 billion in 1998. Turkey realized a record (among OECD countries) 13% average annual growth between 1985 and 1997. The share of tourism-related investments in total ®xed capital investments which was a mere 0.7% in 1977 rose to 5.8% in 1989. The share of the industry in gross national product increased from 0.8% in 1983 to 3.3% in 1994, and to 4.2% in 1998 (MOT 1999). During the same period, the proportion of tourismÐin relation to export-revenue jumped from 7.2 to 30.8%. In line with the liberal orientation of the government and as a result of measures supporting private enterprise, the public±private balance in tourism changed dramatically. The share of private sector in overall tourism investments which stood at 38% in 1977 climbed up to 72% in 1996 È nen 1995; DerekoÈy 1993; Turizm BakanlõgÏõ 1996a; (AyoÈzcan and O Ïi 1992). Turizm Yatõrõmcõlarõ Derneg

È YMEN KOREL GO

1035

Another important development which provided impetus to the dynamics of governance was the establishment of new professional tourism organizations. In addition to the Association of Turkish Travel Agencies, established in 1972, the Turkish Hotel Association was set up in 1995 (before this development 11 regional bodies functioned since 1984): to introduce standards and professional ethics; to facilitate price stability; to contribute to regional development (through branches); to provide general and on-the-job training; to indulge in area promotion and marketing, and to cooperate with national and international tourism organizations (TUROB 1997). Yet another body was the Turkish Tourism Investors' Association, established in 1988 with the main objective of bringing together companies and individual investors, of sharing information and coordinating their activities, of providing technical assistance, and of acting as a lobby group on behalf of tourism. In 1998, the association had 178 members, representing around 174,000 beds, having already invested around $7.3 billion in current prices (TYD 1998). The Tourism Development and Education Foundation (TUGEV) was founded as a non-pro®t organization in 1985, by the representatives of the industry sectors and academic institutions. It had the avowed aim of conducting research and surveys related to tourism, of contributing to the establishment of new training programs, of upgrading the existing ones, of encouraging tourism training in general and of cooperating with national and international bodies to promote tourism (TUGEV 1997). The emergence of these new capable actors signaled the dawn of a new era when the role of the state would be gradually restricted. But, since their inception, the desired level and intensity of cooperation among these bodies have not been achieved, each pursuing its own relatively narrow goals. A recent step to remedy this situation has been the setting up of an informal national secretariat for consultation. Governance at Work In spite of some structural and functional de®ciencies, these new ``actors'' formed platforms, made goal-oriented arrangements, developed partnership networks, and indulged in lobbying. It was the collective efforts of private entrepreneurs investing in tourism, indigenous managers proving their competence, and the dynamism, resourcefulness exhibited by the new players that helped convince the state to eventually rede®ne its role in the industry. Admittedly, this cooperative partnership approach had its limitations and shortcomings. In most cases, the public partners still dominated the scene. This was not only due to the fact that they wielded incomparable authority and resources but that the nongovernmental partners felt subservient in most cases, exhibiting a timidity deeply embedded in the local political culture. In certain cases, the representativeness of civil society actors was questioned, further weakening their bargaining position. At other times, there was the

1036

TOURISM IN TURKEY

suspicion that, as suggested elsewhere (Brohman 1996; Canan and Hennessy 1989; Madrigal 1995), local community organizations had been penetrated by skillful local developers pursuing their own goals, disguised by seemingly broader considerations. Despite these limitations, a number of areas of cooperation and interaction among these actors emerged, and of these four can be singled out for brief discussion. Promotion. The Ministry of Tourism is still the main actor in country-image building and promotion abroad. It performs this function through 24 branches in 21 countries. They distribute the various publications (over 22 million in 1998), organize information tours and ``markets'', participate in tourism fairs (24 in 1995, 30 in 1996, and 76 in 1998), and run multimedia campaigns in their respective countries. The annual budget for these activities has varied between $17 and $35 million between 1991 and 1998 (MOT 1999). In addition to MOT, regional branches of both the Union of Travel Agents and the Turkish Hotel Association, together with local municipalities and local nongovernmental organizations, have been participating in international tourism fairs for years and also developing new products in their regions. In line with the policy of diversi®cation of tourism activity by region and type, Northern and Central Anatolian actors are busy promoting rural and highland holidays, soft-tourism activities like rafting, trekking, and caving, while local partners along the southern coast are busy developing yachting, cultural tours, thermalism, beach volleyball, and triathlon (Akset 1997; Betuyab 1997; KETAV 1997). In spite of the prevailing partnership spirit, what is lacking, in the promotional ®eld, is one autonomous, executive body where representatives of both the government and tourism are represented. This body jointly funded by the partners would be responsible both for promotional policy and the actual running of campaigns. Such a body where representatives of the industry would have an equal say in the decision-making process could exhibit the dynamism and ¯exibility required under market conditions. There is a tendency among Turkey's foremost competitors (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, and France) to organizationally dissociate their promotional of®ces from their national tourism administrations (Bonham and Mak 1996; Lavery 1995; WTO 1996, 1997b). The Maison de la France has emerged as a prototype of the partnership approach, emulated by other countries. Amidst growing criticism in Turkey that the existing public-dominated promotional system is too rigid, inef®cient and non-expert, the constitution of such a new body may be a step in the right direction. Infrastructure. The importance of the provision of physical infrastructure has already been emphasized. While the main burden of this function is still on the state, as in most other countries, new forms of public±private partnership in its provision and management in tourism zones has emerged in Turkey. The importance of

È YMEN KOREL GO

1037

providing anew or developing existing infrastructure is also crucial for the local population. Another visible bene®t of tourism activity, besides its direct and indirect job-creating effects, is related to this service. This fact came out clearly in a recent MOT (1997) survey, where the respondents exhibited a generally favorable attitude to tourism and singled out job-creation and improved service levels and quality as its major bene®ts. The most ambitious tourism-related infrastructure initiative in Turkey is the $3 billion Mediterranean±Aegean Tourism Infrastructure and Coastal Management. Realized in stages, the project is sponsored by the World Bank. The ®rst stage, which started in 1989, covers 10 high priority areas out of 25 ``clusters''. The total project incorporates close to 4,000 km of coast and about 100 settlements, most of which are major tourism centers. The infrastructure aims to develop water resources and provide them to settlements, build or improve sewage systems and treatment plants, install solid waste systems and recycling schemes; improve seawater quality, and indulge in coastal management in general (MOT 1993). Needless to say the cooperation of several players is required for the successful implementation of such a large-scale project. Municipalities in the region have emerged as the main partners, helping with the planning, provision of suitable land for new facilities, and mobilization of local resources to complement project resources in order to receive priority in implementation. But the project is not proceeding at the planned pace. This is partly due to the fact that the Turkish government is having dif®culty providing ``counterpart funding'' as envisaged and partly due to structural problems of the main local partners (namely municipalities) hindering the project. The users of a particular service, in the conception of the World Bank, are expected to pay for it, covering the full investment and operational costs. However, there is a reluctance on the part of both users and elected local of®cials to accept this approach. This attitude may be understandable when one takes into consideration that such services (though much more limited and of an inferior quality) were previously highly subsidized. Even when this problem is surmounted, most municipalities do not have the organizational capabilities and human resources to operate the new facilities and manage the complicated cost-accounting and cash-¯ow systems. Therefore, it has become imperative to experiment with new cooperative schemes and management forms, with the participation of new partners, capable of ®lling the management gap. One such scheme was experimented with when the MOT and investors of the already discussed South Antalya Tourism Development Project (which is also within the boundaries of the Mediterranean±Aegean infrastructure project) formed a management company called South Antalya Tourism Development and Infrastructure Management Union. This as a union and another one, the company established for execution, brought together the MOT, local representatives of central government, mayors, tourism investors, and managers, soon to be joined by some village muhtars

1038

TOURISM IN TURKEY

(headmen), since infrastructure services were provided for the whole region. The union, initially contemplated only as an infrastructure management union, started investing and providing services to small municipalities and villages as additional resources became available (GATAB 1997). Since 1992, tourism investors allocated state land have been paying one-third of the total cost of infrastructural investments (with the remaining two-thirds being met by the MOT and other national and local state bodies) as a condition of allocation, thus easing the burden of the state. Finally, with a view to encourage the development of new tourism products and to open up new areas for tourism, MOT, on the presentation of a project, has been assisting small municipalities in the provision of infrastructure (opening or improving secondary roads, provision of water, picnic areas development, beach improvement, and landscaping). In 1998, 342 municipalities (out of a total of around 3,200) and 51 (out of 80) provincial special administrations (an administrative unit providing service to rural areas) bene®ted from such support and were able to extend additional services to people living in these areas (MOT 1999). Such assistance has been a useful tool in spreading the bene®ts of tourism to new areas. Training. In 1996, it was estimated that about 265,000 were directly employed in the tourism industry in Turkey, with a further 2.5 million jobs indirectly created. Of the former, about 23% were women, 34% were primary school graduates, 23% middle school graduates, 29% had completed high school, and only 14% were university graduates (MOT and International Labor Organization 1996). As the ®gures indicate, the training requirement in tourism is high and urgent. This urgent need is being met with the collaboration of the state, professional sectoral organizations, and private enterprise. On the state side, the MOT is running 12 tourism training centers offering short-term programs in front of®ce, housekeeping, service, and kitchen. The Ministry of Education, in 1997, had 43 specialized high schools offering 2 or 4 year courses in tourism, as well as 11 private tourism high schools offering similar programs. There were 24 other high schools with ``tourism sections'', allowing for relative specialization during a three-year program (TUGEV 1999). This way, the state is playing a major role in developing human resources in tourism, similar to the situation in other countries (Echtner 1995; Esichaikul 1997; Inskeep 1994). At the level of higher education, 7 public or private universities offered doctoral programs, 13 master's programs; 13 undergraduate programs; 5 universities had set up tourism research centers; and 67 vocational schools ran twoyear programs in tourism for the 1998±99 academic year. For the same academic year, 27 public or private universities offered courses to train professional tour guides (TUGEV 1999). The Tourism Development and Education Foundation, a nonpro®t, professional sectoral organization, since its establishment in 1985, has trained over 5,000 persons participating in various train-

È YMEN KOREL GO

1039

ing programs, including a ``training the trainers'' project run jointly with the International Labor Organization and the United Nations Development Program (TUGEV 1996). The Association of Tourist Guides, which has close to 7,000 active members, cooperates with MOT to annually run three-month long training programs for national and local tourist guides (Antalya Rehber Odasõ 1997). At ®rst glance, tourism training in Turkey seems to have the infrastructure adequate to meet the demand. While that is generally the case, there are a number of entailing problems. Capacity is excessive at certain levels of vocational education mostly because it was not established based on manpower planning at the national or local level. To aggravate the situation further, as a recent survey indicates, there is a general reluctance on the part of employers to recruit from formal educational and training institutions, partly because of ``irrelevant/and, or insuf®cient curricula'' and partly due to ``unrealistic expectations of graduates related to position and pay'' (TUGEV 1997). Along similar problematic lines, there is very little vertical and horizontal coordination, or for that matter communication, among various training institutions, resulting in loss of potential synergy. Unless this situation is remedied, Turkey may fall behind its competitors, since quality of services will be (already is) a main determinant of choice of destination. Environment. Preservation and development of the environment has been increasingly a priority issue for members of the tourism industry in Turkey. The MOT has been careful in requiring environmental impact studies for each investment ever since the inception of the state land allocation scheme. Similarly, the Tourism Bank, and later, the Turkish Development Bank, have insisted on the inclusion of environmental factors in all feasibility studies, as well as undertaking carrying capacity surveys for regions (Tu Èrkiye Kalkõnma Bankasõ 1994). Some of these measures, however, were introduced belatedly. The environmental cost of tourism development, as mentioned earlier, had already become apparent. According to Sonat (1992:382), government response has been more reactive than proactive. Furthermore, although different types of environmental and sustainability problems were emerging at different levels and in disparate regions, administrative response was only at national level with advocation of general rules and principles not necessarily relevant È rgu at each local level. Following their study of U Èp in the Cappadocia region in Turkey, Tosun and Jenkins, concluded ``achieving sustainable tourism development at a local level requires integrating objectives and priorities at national and local levels. Ignoring this principle may spell a danger in terms of the sustainable tourism development process'' (1998:606). In spite of the efforts of various players both at national and local levels, it is still dif®cult to claim that such integration has been achieved in Turkey. A general public awareness of and sensitivity to environmental issues, followed by widespread and committed community involve-

1040

TOURISM IN TURKEY

ment, seem to be an integral part of any strategy for sustainable tourism development (Hall and Lew 1993; Komilis 1994). Such awareness has been, to a certain extent, created in Turkey. But one cannot postulate that such awareness has been transformed into participation which in general, and related to environmental issues, is limited, with social, economic, and political elites, both at national and local level. The basic motivation of these elites may be a combination of altruism and personal/group interests. Therefore, there is always the potential risk that in a country where political patron± client relations are widespread (Akarlõ and Ben-dor 1975; Gu ÈnesÈ zbudun 1981; Roniger 1993) interests of the non-parAyata 1994; O ticipant majority and environmental considerations may be relegated to positions of insigni®cance. However, in recognition of this situation, there have been attempts to involve the local population in speci®c projects to tackle environmental problems. One such project is the Blue Flag Campaign. Representatives of sectoral organizations and concerned citizens established, in 1993, the Foundation for Environmental Education in Turkey, and launched the Blue Flag Campaign, a symbol of clean and safe environment for coastal recreation (The Blue Flag Award 1996). The process leading to a Blue Flag award involved taking regular samples of sea water to ensure cleanliness, dealing with all possible sources of pollution, imposing safety standards on beaches, solid waste management in these areas, and educating the local population to become environmentally conscious and active. In 1999, 64 beaches in Turkey were ¯ying the Blue Flag, with several others getting ready to apply (Hu Èrriyet Daily Ïitim Vak® 1997). In general all Newspaper 1999; Tu Èrkiye Cevre Eg these initiatives and efforts helped demonstrate further the intimate relationship and interaction between tourism and the environment. CONCLUSION Under the impact of neoliberal policies, the main trend in world tourism seems to be the globalization of supply and demand, helped by technological developments in transport and communications, in¯uencing customer pro®le and preferences. This new situation presents a major challenge for all countries and destinations aspiring to have a larger tourism share, forcing them to reconsider supporting structures and processes. This has led, in many countries, to the restructuring of national tourism administrations and emergence of new players, as well as new patterns of cooperation and partnership, true to the spirit of governance. Turkey, where tourism developed in stages, has been no exception to this trend. Parallel to macro-level developments in the political, economic, and social spheres, there has been a gradual transformation from a basically state-sponsored and managed development to different forms of public±private cooperation and partnership. Dynamics of governance in tourism would probably not have set in

È YMEN KOREL GO

1041

if the strategic decision of abandoning import-substitution policies in favor of export-promotion policies had not been taken early in the 80s, designating tourism as one of the new ``growth industries''. Of course, there would probably be no local capital and indigenous entrepreneurs to be lured into tourism if it had not been for the planned economic development taking place since the 30s. If transition to a multi-party system and pluralistic politics had not been achieved in the 40s eventually leading to the formation of a limited but still dynamic civil society, new partnerships might not have emerged. Similarly, tourism development in the 80s and 90s might not have been at record levels if the pioneering state had not previously provided a minimum of physical and social infrastructure. All these points might help to underline the linkages among various components of the polity. If harmony rather than con¯ict prevailed among the various policy-areas, chances of success might be enhanced. Tourism development and the practice of governance produced mixed results in Turkey. On the one hand, Turkey registered a record average annual growth of around 13% between 1985 and 1997, attaining a ®rm position among the top 20 leading countries in the world, both in terms of number of tourists (around 10 million in 1998) and revenue (around $8 billion in 1998). On the other hand, one can mention socioeconomic and spatial polarization reinforcing (instead of eradicating) the already existing regional disparity, environmental destruction (particularly along coastal areas), cultural alienation, and the loss of social control and identity among host communities. Bearing in mind that international competitiveness and maximum economic bene®ts, sustainable tourism development, and preservation and enhancement of historical and cultural heritage are the major goals of tourism activity in Turkey, it is easy to conclude that performance has been less than satisfactory with regards to the last two goals. Admittedly, attempts to diversify the product by type and region, compatible with segmentation of the global market have produced promising results. There has been an emphasis on ``soft'' tourism, nature and adventure tourism, and new tourism centers in the relatively underdeveloped interior regions have been seeded. These measures have also helped to ease the burden on coastal areas fast approaching (or having already exceeded) their carrying capacity. The dynamics of governance leading to a new division of labor in society and emergence of new players (partners, stakeholders) is contributing to sustainable tourism development and preservation and enhancement of historical and cultural heritage. Through public±private cooperation and partnerships not only much needed additional infrastructure is provided, but also a general awareness of and sensitivity to the natural, historical, and cultural environment is attained. This development, however, is being hampered and sometimes diverted from its original course, by a number of structural and sociopolitical factors. The still prevailing centralist tradition and omnipotent bureaucracy is an impediment. The

1042

TOURISM IN TURKEY

reluctance of different levels of bureaucracy to relinquish part of their authority, coupled with the relative weakness of civil society institutions is a major obstacle. The lack of a strong political culture and developed mechanisms of participation result in an elite minority dominating the scene, creating a suitable atmosphere for ``clientelistic'' relations. Such relations between political/bureaucratic patrons and entrepreneur/developer clients may be contrary to overall national and local interests, creating a negative image of tourism activity. This situation can be remedied through integrated national/local planning, further devolution in administration, strengthening of formal institutions and civil society, and provision of more tools of participation and accountability. Finally, a number of critical factors which will have a bearing on Turkey's international competitiveness should be mentioned. With regards to general price and cost-for-value considerations, Turkey still seems to have comparative advantage over some competitors (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece), while seemingly at par with others (Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia). All of Turkey's major competitors have either taken concrete measures to restructure their tourism administrations towards greater ¯exibility and ef®ciency, or are in the process of doing so (European Parliament 1992; Gonzalez and Moral 1996; King 1991; Leontidou 1991; Lewis and Williams 1991; Pearce 1997; Sezer and Harrison 1995). These countries are also attaching great importance to improving the quality of environment and services (Camison, Bigne and Monfort 1992; Languar 1995; Lickorish 1994; Montanari 1995; Poirier 1997b; Selwyn 1993). Therefore, Turkey has to exhibit a more determined effort not to be left behind in this respect. The image of a country as a safe destination is of paramount importance. There were periods when Turkey's competitors have had to deal with political instability and/ or terrorism, tarnishing their image as safe destinations. Turkey has frequently suffered both from periods of political instability and terrorism. Her ability to resolve internal con¯icts will be an additional determinant of her competitiveness. In a nutshell, to maintain and enhance her position on the international tourism league, Turkey will have to complete the transformation towards governance, paying due regard to the critical factors of competitiveness. While doing so, it must be ensured that tourism activity facilitates sustainable development, dovetails harmoniously with the social fabric, and spreads the bene®ts in an egalitarian manner.& REFERENCES Akarlõ, E., and G. Ben-Dor . 1975 Tourism Planning. Istanbul: BogÏazic° i University Press. Akset 1997 Antalya Ku Èltu Èr Sanat ve Turizm Aras° tõrmalarõ Vak® (Antalya Cultural, Arts and Tourism Research Foundation). Antalya: Betuyab. Antalya Rehber Odasõ 1997 Faaliyetlerimiz (Our Activities). Rehber Dergisi (Journal of Tourist Guides) No. 36.

È YMEN KOREL GO

1043

È nen AyoÈzcan, A., and O. O 1995 Tu Èrkiye'de Turizm SektoÈru Èndeki Gelis° meler ve Tu Èrkiye Kalkõnma Bankasõ'nõn Rolu È (Developments in the Turkish Tourism Sector and the Role of the Turkish Development Bank). Ankara: Tu Èrkiye Kalkõnma Bankasõ. Baratalõ, B. 1992 C° evre Sorunlarõ (Environmental Problems). In Second National Tourism Congress Kus° adasõ. Bennett, O. 1994 Financing for Tourism Projects in Developing Countries. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 31±40. Chichester: Wiley. Bennett, O., and D. Tong 1992 Tourism Financing Study. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Betuyab 1997 Belek Turizm Yatõrõmcõlarõ BirligÏi (Belek Tourism Investors' Union). Antalya: Betuyab. Bonham, C., and J. Mak 1996 Private versus Public Financing of State Destination Promotion. Journal of Travel Research 35(2):3±10. Bramwell, B., and A. Sharman 1999 Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26:392±415. Brohman, J. 1996 New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development. Annals of Tourism Research 23:48±70. Camison, C., E. Bigne, and V. M. Monfort 1992 The Spanish Tourism Industry. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 442±452. Chichester: Wiley. Canan, P., and M. Hennessy 1989 The Growth Machine: Tourism and the Selling of Culture. Sociological Perspectives 32:227±243. C° ayõr, C. . 1997 DogÏal Kaynaklarõn Korunmasõ ve Iyiles° tirilmesi Bakõmõndan Turizm (Tourism as a Tool of Protecting and Improving Natural Resources). In Hasan Zafer DogÏan Anõ Kitabõ (Hasan Zafer DogÏan Commemorative Ïlu, eds., pp. 94±103. Kus° adasõ: Volume), M. Korzay and B. Himmetog Kus° adasõ Belediyesi. Cerit, S. 1999 Su Èrdu Èru Èlebilir Kalkõnma YoÈnetimi (Management of Sustainable Development). In Hasan Zafer DogÏan Anõ Kitabõ (Hasan Zafer DogÏan Commemorative Volume), M. Korzay and B. HimmetogÏlu, eds., pp. 31±43. Kus° adasõ: Kus° adasõ Belediyesi. Clancy, M. J. 1999 Tourism and Development: Evidence from Mexico. Annals of Tourism Research 26:1±20. DerekoÈy, A. H. È rnegÏi (Public Support in 1993 Turizm Endu Èstrisinde Kamu DestegÏi ve Tu Èrkiye O the Tourism Industry and the Turkish Case). Ankara: Hazine ve Dõs° Ticaret Mu Ès° tes° arlõgÏõ. Echtner, C. M. 1995 Entrepreneurial Training in Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism Research 22:119±134. Elliott, J. 1996 Tourism: Politics and Public Sector Management. London: Routledge. Esichaikul, R. 1997 The Case for Government Involvement in Human Resource Development: A Study of the Thai Hotel Industry. Tourism Management 19:359±370. European Parliament 1992 Tourism in Europe. Luxembourg: European Parliament. GATAB . Ïi (South 1997 Gu Èney Antalya Turizmi Gelis° tirme ve Altyapõ Is° letme Birlig Antalya Tourism Development and Infrastructure Management Union).

1044

TOURISM IN TURKEY

Antalya: South Antalya Tourism Development and Infrastructure Management Unit. Gonzalez, P., and P. Moral 1996 Analysis of Tourism Trends in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 23:739± 754. GoÈymen, K. 1993 The Role of the State in Turkey's Tourism Development. Paper presented at the World Tourism Organization General Assembly, Bali, Indonesia. Madrid: WTO. GoÈymen, K. and G. Tu Èzu Èn 1976 Foreign Private Capital in Turkey. METU Studies in Development (Spring):115±134. Gu Èltay, N. 1992 Tu Èrk Turizminin C° evre Sorunlarõ (Environmental Problems of Turkish Tourism). In Second National Tourism Congress, Kusadasi, pp. 64±73. Gu Ènes° -Ayata, A. 1994 Roots and Trends of Clientelism in Turkey. In Democracy, Clientelism and Civil Society, L. Roniger and A. Gu Ènes° -Ayata, eds., pp. 49±65. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Hall, C. M. 1992 Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. New York: Wiley. Hall, M., and A. A. Lew 1993 The Geography of Sustainable Tourism Development. In Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, C. M. Hall and A. A. Lew, eds., p. 6. White Plains NY: Longman. Haralambopoulos, N., and A. Pizam 1996 Perceived Impacts of Tourism: The Case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research 23:503±526. Hu Èrriyet Daily Newspaper 1999 Altmis° doÈrt mavi bayras° õmõc var (We have sixty-four blue ¯ags). Hu Èrriyet Daily Newspaper (May 7):6. Inskeep, E. 1994 Training for Tourism in Developing Countries. In Tourism: The State of the Art, D. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 563±570. Chichester: Wiley. . Iyidiker, H. 1990 Tu Èrkiye'de Turizmin Ekonomik Gelis° meye Katkõsõ ve Sosyo-ku Èltu Èrel Etkileri (Economic Bene®ts of Tourism and its Sociocultural Impact). In First National Tourism Congress. Kus° adasõ: Kus° adasõ Belediges° i. Jafari, J. 1992 Anchoring Tourism Projects on a Scienti®c Foundation. In Investments and Financing in the Tourism Industry, pp. 16±36. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Tourism. Jenkins, C. L. 1994 Tourism in Developing Countries: The Privatisation Issue. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 3±9. Chichester: Wiley. Jenkins, C. L., and B. M. Henry 1982 Government Involvement in Tourism in Developing Countries. Annals of Tourism Research 9:499±521. Keller, P., and E. Smeral 1997 Increased International Competition: New Challenges for Tourism Policies in European Countries. Unpublished paper presented to the CEU±ETC Joint Seminar on ``Faced with Worldwide Competition and Structural Changes, What are the Tourism Responsibilities of European Governments'', Salzburg, April. KETAV 1997 Kemer YoÈresi Tanõtõm Vak® (Foundation for Promotion of Kemer Area) Information Brochure. Antalya: Kemer YoÈresi Tanõtõm. Kim, C. Y. 1992 Partnership in the Development of a Tourist Complex: Lessons from Korea's Chungmun Tourist Complex. Case Paper submitted to Rome Conference on ``Partnerships in Tourism'', October 1997. Paris: OECD.

È YMEN KOREL GO

1045

King, B., A. Pizam, and A. Milman 1993 The Social Impacts of Tourism on Nadi, Fiji as Perceived by its Residents. Annals of Tourism Research 20:650±665. King, R. 1991 Italy: Multi-faceted Tourism. In Tourism and Economic Development, A. M. Williams and G. Shaw, eds., pp. 61±83. London: Belhaven. Komilis, P. 1994 Tourism and Sustainable Regional Development. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 65±73. Chichester: Wiley. Kooiman, J. 1993 Socio-Political Governance. In Modern Governance: New Government± Society Interactions, J. Kooiman, ed., pp. 1±9. London: Sage. Korzay, M. 1994 Turkish Tourism Development. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 85±99. Chichester: Wiley. Languar, R. 1995 The Framework of Mediterranean Tourism within Sustainable Development. In Investments and Financing in the Tourism Industry, pp. 48± 59. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Tourism. Lavery, P. 1995 Funding of National Tourist Organizations. Travel and Tourism Intelligence 6:80±96. Leontidou, L. 1991 Greece: Prospects and Contradictions of Tourism in the 1980s. In Tourism and Economic Development, A. M. Williams and G. Show, eds., pp. 85±106. London: Belhaven. Lewis, J., and A. M. Williams 1991 Portugal: Market Segmentation and Regional Specialisation. In Tourism and Economic Development, A. M. Williams and G. Show, eds., pp. 107±128. London: Belhaven. Lickorish, L. J. 1994 Development of Tourism in, to and from Europe. In Investments and Financing in the Tourism Industry, pp. 37±47. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Tourism. Long, P. 1991 Perspectives on Partnership Organizations as an Approach to Local Tourism Development. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 481±488. Chichester: Wiley. McKercher, B., and M. Ritchie 1995 The Third Tier of Public Sector Tourism: A Pro®le of Local Government Tourism Of®cers in Australia. Journal of Travel Research 34(1):66±72. Madrigal, R. 1995 Residents' Perceptions and the Role of Government. Annals of Tourism Research 22:86±102. Milman, A., and A. Pizam 1988 The Social Impacts of Tourism in Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research 15:191±204. Ministry of Tourism (MOT) 1991 South Antalya Development Project. Ankara: Sevinc° Matbaasõ. 1993 Turizm 1993±Atak Projesi (Tourism 1993±Atak Project). Ankara: Ïu Yatõrõmlar Genel Mu Èdu Èrlu Èg È. 1997 Turizm Bakanõ'nõn 1998 Bu Ètce Raporu (The 1998 Budget Report of the Tourism Minister). Ankara: APK Mu Èdu Èrlu ÈgÏu È. 1999 Annual Report 1998. Ankara: APK Mu Èdu Èrlu ÈgÏu È. Ministry of Tourism and International Labor Organization 1996 Manpower Survey of the Tourism Industry. Ankara: Levent Ofset Matbaacõlõk. Montanari, A. 1995 The Mediterranean Region: Europe's Summer Leisure Space. In European Tourism, A. Montanari and R. M. Williams, eds., pp. 41±65. New York: Wiley. Oral, S., and A. BayraktarogÏlu

1046

TOURISM IN TURKEY

È nemi ve Tu 1996 Alternatif Turizmin O Èrkiye'de Alternatif Turizm C° esitleri (Signi®cance of Alternative Tourism and its Varieties in Turkey). In Hasan Zafer dogÏan Anõ Kitabõ (Hasan Zafer DogÏan Commemorative Volume), M. Korzay and B. HimmetogÏlu, eds. Kus° adasõ: Kus° adasõ Belediyes° i. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 1992 Tourism Policy and International Tourism in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD. 1995 Governance in Transition. Paris: OECD. 1996a Tourism Policy and International Tourism in OECD Countries, 1993± 1994. Paris: OECD. 1996b Issue Paper for the Conference on Future Challenges in Tourism Policies. Paris: OECD. Owen, C. 1997 Building a Relationship between Government and Tourism. Tourism Management 18:358±362. È zbudun, E. O 1981 Turkey: The Politics of Clientelism. In Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development, S. N. Eisenstadt and R. Lemarch, eds., pp. 249±270. London: Sage. È zdemir, M. O 1992 Turizmin Tu Èrkiye'nin Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapõsõna Etkileri (Impact of Tourism on the Socio-economic Structure of Turkey). Ankara: Bilgi Yayõnevi. Pearce, O. 1997 Tourism and the Autonomous Communities in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 24:156±177. . Põnar, I. 1990 Turizmin Sosyo-Ku Èltu Èrel Etkileri (Sociocultural Impact of Tourism). In First National Tourism Congress. Kus° adasõ: Kus° adasõ Belediyes° i. Pizam, A., and J. Pokela 1985 The Perceived Impacts of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals of Tourism Research 12:147±156. Poirier, R. A. 1997a Political Risk Analysis and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24:675± 686. 1997b Environmental Policy and Tourism in Tunisia. Journal of Travel Research 35(3):57±60. Roniger, L. 1993 The Comparative Study of Clientelism and the Changing Nature of Civil Society in the Contemporary World. In Democracy, Clientelism and Civil Society, L. Roniger and A. Gu Ènes-Ayata, eds., pp. 1±19. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Sautter, E. T., and B. Leisen 1999 Managing Stakeholders: A Tourism Planning Model. Annals of Tourism Research 26:312±328. Selin, S., and D. Chavez 1995 Developing an Evolutionary Tourism Partnership Model. Annals of Tourism Research 22:844±856. Selwyn, T. 1993 Tourism, Environment and Society in the Mediterranean. In Marketing the Mediterranean as a Region. Madrid: WTO. Sezer, H., and A. Harrison 1995 Tourism in Greece and Turkey. An Economic View for Planners. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. V. Seaton, et al., eds., pp. 74±84. Chichester: Wiley. Smeral, E. 1996 Globalization and Changes in the Competitiveness of Tourism Destination. In Globalization and Tourism, P. Keller, ed., pp. 43±57. St. Gallen: DIEST. 1999 The Impact of Globalization on Small and Medium Enterprises: New Challenges for Tourism Policies in European Countries. Tourism Management 19:371±380.

È YMEN KOREL GO

1047

Sonat, A. 1992 C° evrenin turizm planlamasõ icindeki yeri (The Place of the Environment in Tourism Planning). In Second National Tourism Congress. Kus° adasi: Kus° adasi Belediyes° i. State Planning Organization (SPO) 1963 First Five-Year Plan. Ankara: SPO. 1967 Second Five-Year Plan. Ankara: SPO. 1990 Annual Program. Ankara: SPO. Tarhan, C. 1996 Tourism Policies. Ankara: Bilkent University. The Blue Flag Award 1996 Information Booklet. Copenhagen: The European Coordination. Thomas, H., and R. Thomas 1996 The Implications for Tourism of Shifts in British Local Governance. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4:295±306. Timothy, D. J. 1999 Participatory Planning: A View of Tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 26:371±391. Tosun, C., and L. Jenkins 1998 The Evolution of Tourism Planning in Third-World Countries: A Critique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4:101±114. Tourism Bank 1988 Annual Report. Ankara: Maya Matbaacõlõk. TUGEV . 1996 Tugev's Place in Tourism Education. Istanbul: TUGEV. 1997 Tu Èrkiye . Turizm EgÏitim Kurumlarõ (Tourism Education Institutions in Turkey). Istanbul: TUGEV. . 1999 Annual Report. Istanbul: TUGEV. Ïõ Turizm Bakanlõg 1995 Turizmin Sosyal Cevreye Etkisi (Impact of Tourism on the Social Environment). Ankara: Turizm BakanlõgÏõ. . . 1996 Konaklama Is° tatistikleri (Accommodation Statistics). Ankara: Isletmeler Ïu Genel Mu Èdu Èrlu Èg È. 1998 Gelen±Giden Turist ve Turizm Geliri (Incoming±Outgoing Tourists and Tourism Revenue). 1999 Yõllõk Rapor 1998 (1998 Annual Report). Ankara: Turizm BakanlõgÏõ. Turizm Yatõrõmcõlarõ DernegÏi (TYD) 1992 Turizm Yatõrõmlarõnõn Ekonomiye Katkõlarõ (Bene®ts of Tourism . Investments on the Economy). Istanbul: TYD. Turizm Yatõrõmcõlarõ DernegÏi 1998 . Brief Information about the Turkish Tourism Investors' Association. Istanbul: TYD. Turkish Republic Of®cial Gazette 1982 Turkish Republic Of®cial Gazette (March 16). Tu Èrkiye C° evre EgÏitim Vak® 1997 Bilgi Bros° u Èru È (Information Brochure). Ankara: Hassoy Matbaasõ. Tu Èrkiye Kalkõnma Bankasõ 1994 Yõllõk Rapor (Annual Report). Ankara: Bas° bakanlõk Basõmevi. 1995 Yõllõk Rapor (Annual Report). Ankara: Bas° bakanlõk Basõmevi. È ROB TU 1997 Faaliyet Raporu (Annual Report). Mimeographed. È RSAB TU . 1997 Faaliyet Raporu (Annual Report). Istanbul: Yeni Atlas Ofset. Usal, A. È rnegÏi (Sociocultural 1990 Turizmin Sosyo-Ku Èltu Èrel Etkileri ve Ege BoÈlgesi O Impact of Tourism and the Case of Aegean Region). In First National Tourism Congress. Kus° adasõ: Kus° adasõ Belediyes° i. Var, T., K. W. Kendall, and E. TarakcõogÏlu 1985 Resident Attitudes Towards Tourists in a Turkish Resort Town. Annals of Tourism Research 12:652±658.

1048

TOURISM IN TURKEY

World Tourism Organization 1993 Tourism Development and the Responsibility of the State. Madrid: WTO. 1994 Marketing Plans and Strategies of National Tourism Administrations. Madrid: WTO. 1995 Resort Development Cases. Madrid: WTO. 1996 Towards New Forms of Public±Private Sector Partnership. Madrid: WTO. 1998 Adapting to ChangeÐWhite Paper. Madrid: WTO. Yu Èksel, F., B. Bramwell, and A. Yu Èksel 1999 Stakeholder Interviews and Tourism Planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management 20:351±360. Submitted 6 February 1998. Resubmitted 3 May 1998. Resubmitted 6 August 1999. Accepted 24 September 1999. Final version 8 November 1999. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Robert A. Poirier