Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events

ISSN: 1940-7963 (Print) 1940-7971 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rprt20

Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals

and events: institutionalisation of a new paradigm
– a response

Dianne Dredge & Michelle Whitford

To cite this article: Dianne Dredge & Michelle Whitford (2010) Policy for sustainable and
responsible festivals and events: institutionalisation of a new paradigm – a response, Journal of
Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 2:1, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/19407960903542235

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19407960903542235

Published online: 23 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2462

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rprt20
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events
Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2010, 1–13

Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events:

institutionalisation of a new paradigm – a response
Dianne Dredge* and Michelle Whitford

School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore,

Australia
(Received June 2009; final version received November 2009)
Taylor and Francis Ltd
RPRT_A_454687.sgm

Journal
10.1080/19407960903542235
1940-7963
Original
Taylor
2102010
Dianne.Dredge@scu.edu.au
DianneDredge
000002010
&ofArticle
Francis
Policy
(print)/1940-7971
Research in (online)
Tourism, Leisure and Events

There are increasing calls for the assumptions and values that underpin research in
the social sciences to be made explicit and for more critical attention being given
to the way in which knowledge is generated and validated. Inspired by such
requests, this paper challenges some propositions made by Donald Getz in the
paper he wrote for the inaugural volume of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure
& Events. In this paper Getz presents a vision for events policy and proposes the
development of events policy that embodies a ‘sustainable and responsible
approach’ to public sector involvement in events. In the spirit of critical, engaged
academic debate, this paper challenges the following four propositions that
emerge from Getz’s paper: (1) the state of existing event policy research is
underdeveloped; (2) that it is possible to delimit the scope and substance of policy
concerns within event studies; (3) neoliberalism has influenced governments to
take a predominantly interventionist role in events, principally to secure economic
development and prosperity; (4) it is possible for governments to institutionalise
an event policy paradigm. Importantly, we recognise that Getz has made
significant contributions to the events policy literature, but arguably, it is
important to engage more thoroughly with some of his ideas and claims. Our
contribution in this paper has been to argue that significant aspects, such as
paradigm shifts in events policy, the role of government in events and the role of
event policy research require more nuanced understandings in order to account for,
and accommodate, the intricacies of event planning, management and policy. Our
aim is to establish a broader agenda on events policy research that embraces a
wider range of epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies than Getz proposes
in his sustainable and responsible approach.

Keywords: event policy; event research; neoliberalism; sustainability; paradigm

Resumen

Hay una creciente llamada de atención para hacer explícita la aceptación de

asunciones y valores que cimentan la investigación en las ciencias sociales y más
crítica la atención prestada a la forma en que el conocimiento es generado y
validado. Inspirado en tales demandas, este trabajo desafía algunas de las
proposiciones hechas por Donald Getz en el artículo que publicó en el volumen
inaugural de Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events. En ese artículo, Getz
presenta una visión de la política de eventos y propone un desarrollo de la misma
que encarna una ‘aproximación sostenible y ‘esponsible’ a la implicación del
sector público en los eventos. Con el espíritu crítico asociado al debate académico,

*Corresponding author. Email: dianne.dredge@scu.edu.au

ISSN 1940-7963 print/ISSN 1940-7971 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19407960903542235
http://www.informaworld.com
2 D. Dredge and M. Whitford

este trabajo desafía las siguientes cuatro proposiciones que emergen del trabajo de
Getz (2009): (1) El hecho de que la investigación existente en política de eventos
esté subdesarrollada; (2) Que es posible delimitar el alcance y la esencia de las
preocupaciones de la política dentro de los estudios de eventos; (3) El
neoliberalismo ha influido en los gobiernos para tomar un actitud
predominantemente intervencionista en los eventos; (4) Es posible que los
gobiernos institucionalicen un paradigma de política de eventos. Es importante
destacar que reconocemos que Getz ha hecho contribuciones significativas a la
literatura sobre política de eventos pero argumentamos que es igualmente
importante comprometerse más meticulosamente con algunas de sus ideas y
afirmaciones. Nuestra contribución en este trabajo ha sido argumentar que
aspectos significativos tales como el paradigma en política de eventos, el papel del
gobierno en los eventos y el rol de la investigación en política de eventos requieren
la comprensión de más matices para tenerlos en cuenta, y ajustarlos, en los
intrincados vericuetos de la planificación, gestión y política de eventos. Nuestro
objetivo es establecer una agenda más amplia en la investigación en política de
eventos que abarque un rango más amplio de epistemología, ontología y
metodología que el propuesto por Getz en su aproximación sostenible y
responsable.

Palabra clave: política de eventos; investigación de eventos; neoliberalismo;

sostenibilidad; paradigma

Résumé

On demande de plus en plus que les hypothèses et les valeurs qui sont à la base de
la recherche en sciences sociales soient explicites et qu’une attention critique soit
portée à la façon dont la connaissance est générée et validée. Inspirée de telles
demandes, cette étude défie certaines propositions avancées par Donald Getz dans
son article préparé pour l’inauguration du volume sur la Politique de Recherche en
Tourisme, Loisirs et Evénements. Dans cet article, Getz présente une version de la
politique des événements et propose les voies de développement de la politique
événementielle qui sous-tend une «approche soutenue et responsable» dans la
participation du secteur public aux événements. Dans l’esprit du débat critique et
académique engagé, cette analyse passe au crible les quatre propositions suivantes
qui émergent de l’article de Getz (2009): (1) L’état de la politique actuelle de
recherche en événements n’est pas suffisamment développé; (2) Il est possible de
délimiter la portée et la substance des problèmes liés à la politique au sein des
études événementielles; (3) Le néolibéralisme a influencé les gouvernements dans
leur rôle essentiellement interventionniste dans les événements dont l’objectif est
sauvegarder le développement économique et la prospérité; (4) Pour les
gouvernements, il est possible d’institutionnaliser le paradigme de la politique
événementielle. Plus encore, on reconnaît que Getz a offert des contributions
importantes à la littérature de la politique des événements. Toutefois, il est
important que certaines de ses idées et revendications soient soumises à une
profonde discussion. La contribution de cet article a été d’avancer l’argument
selon lequel les aspects importants, tels que les mutations paradigmatiques dans la
politique des événements, le rôle du gouvernement dans les événements et le rôle
de la politique de recherche en événements exigent des compréhensions plus
nuancées pour déceler et gérer les complexités de la planification événementielle,
de la gestion et de la politique. Notre objectif est d’établir un programme plus
élargi concernant la politique de recherche en événements, qui comprend un grand
nombre d’épistémologies, d’ontologies, et de méthodologies que Getz propose
dans son approche soutenue et responsable.

Mots-clefs: politique événementielle; recherche événementielle; néolibéralisme;

paradigme
 Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events 3

Introduction
In the first issue of the inaugural volume of Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure & Events (JPRiTLE), Donald Getz presents a vision for the development of
events policy that embodies a ‘sustainable and responsible approach’ to public
sector involvement in events (Getz, 2009). In the opening paragraphs of this paper,
Getz identifies the dual goals that underpin the paper: to delimit the scope of public
policy concerns in the field of public events; and to advocate and explain the institu-
tionalisation of a new paradigm for events policy (p. 62). Getz draws his inspiration
from

the available literature and [the] direct experience of the author in many countries [to
suggest] that policy pertaining to festivals and other planned events is generally fraction-
alised, that it is not comprehensive and it fails to integrate events effectively with all the
relevant policy domains (2009, p. 62).

His paper follows on from an earlier paper in Tourism Management (Getz, 2008)
wherein he reviews event tourism as professional practice and as a field of academic
endeavour and a book titled Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned
Events (Getz, 2007) in which he dedicates a chapter to events and public policy.
Indeed, Getz’s vision for events public policy appears to emulate a set of values and
assumptions that he has consistently articulated over 20 years. It is a positivist
perspective and therefore, underpinned by a belief in a rational–technical approach to
policy-making and implementation. The above-mentioned works sit side by side and
arguably, represent Getz’s summative position on future directions for events policy
research and practice. The aim of this paper is to engage with Getz’s ideas drawing
principally not only from the Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure &
4 D. Dredge and M. Whitford

Events (JPRiTLE) paper, but also from previous papers that focus and expand upon
certain aspects of his work.
In this most recent work, Getz argues for a more engaged form of public policy for
events wherein both the value of the event and its impacts should be evaluated using
a triple-bottom-line (TBL) approach. Whilst not wishing to diminish the contributions
Getz has made, we argue that his writings are dominated by a leaning towards essen-
tialism about the essence or nature of events and the role of government in managing
them. That is, Getz’s (2008, p. 423) framework for knowledge creation and theory
development in event tourism proposes an approach for systematically studying and
creating knowledge about event tourism that privileges certain types of knowledge
(i.e. around event experience and meaning of events) and particular sources of that
knowledge. We also detect an inherent belief that governments can act as rational
arbitrators, with the independence and capacity to implement and act on TBL evalua-
tions so consistently that the approach becomes institutionalised and ‘taken for
granted’ (Getz, 2009, p. 75). Whilst these broad observations underpin this commen-
tary, we specifically identify five key propositions made by Getz and on which we
focus our arguments. But before we identify these propositions, it is useful to clarify
our own approach to this commentary.

Approach to this paper

This paper is formulated in the spirit of critical, engaged academic debate, taking up
two important challenges. First, it responds to increasing calls for the assumptions
and values underpinning social science research to be made explicit (e.g. Botterill,
2001; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Hollinshead, 1999) and for more critical attention to the way
in which tourism knowledge is generated and the way that propositions are trans-
formed into ‘truths’ and are validated (Tribe, 1997, 2004). As a related field, events
research could equally benefit from greater scrutiny upon the way knowledge is
generated, and the way in which the framing of knowledge may privilege certain
narratives, traditions and languages (Law, 2004). In order to expose alternative
perspectives, competing explanations or different ways of knowing, it is therefore
necessary to question even our common sense assumptions about the world, which
in this case is the context in which event policy research is produced. Second, this
paper responds to the call for greater engaged and reflective scholarship that builds
upon the work of others (e.g. Bramwell & Lane, 2005). Examples of engaged schol-
arship, where ideas and values are debated, revised, improved or even discarded, are
relatively uncommon in tourism studies. Such debates form a crucial and formative
role in enhancing critical thinking about the foundations of knowledge in the broader
field of tourism studies (e.g. Jamal & Hollinshead, 2001).
From this perspective then, we identify and discuss the following propositions that
emerge from Getz’s call for a sustainable TBL events policy paradigm shift:

● Proposition 1: The state of existing event policy research is underdeveloped

(2009, p. 62).
● Proposition 2: That it is possible ‘to delimit the scope and substance of policy
concerns within event studies’ (2009, p. 64).
● Proposition 3: Neoliberalism has influenced governments to take a predomi-
nantly interventionist role in events, principally to secure economic development
and prosperity (2009, p. 67).
 Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events 5

● Proposition 4: It is possible for governments to institutionalise an event policy

paradigm (2009, p. 74).

Before engaging in these propositions, it is important to briefly discuss three key

influences upon the way this paper is positioned within the theoretical and practical
landscapes of event tourism. First, critical engagement with the epistemologies of tour-
ism research and the ontological craft of researchers reveals a general tendency for
researchers to approach research from their home discipline, and to avoid probing too
deeply into their ontological assumptions about such things as power, culture, knowl-
edge and place (Hollinshead, 2004, p. 65). Given that a large proportion of tourism
and event programmes are housed within business and management schools, it is not
surprising that a significant portion of event research has tended to reproduce business
and economic knowledge about events. A further observation comes from Hall (2004)
who, looking back at his own journey, highlights the value laden nature of his own
research, which has been shaped, by amongst other things, disciplinary directions,
academic performance criteria and personal attributes. Such an applied philosophical
awareness has the potential to move tourism and event research beyond its concentra-
tion on relatively narrow economic- and business-dominated perspectives and to
explore and embrace alternative perspectives. This reflexivity in research can stimulate
researchers to move beyond what Foucault and Gordon (1980) call the ‘regimes of
truth’ that tend to silence alternative understandings.
In his paper, Getz seeks to move beyond the business and management focus
on events literature by proposing a sustainable and responsible event policy frame-
work that effectively tries to balance business and community interests. In doing so,
however, he privileges his own background and disciplinary perspective which argu-
ably, is influenced by the field of planning and in particular, positivist constructions
of planning. These constructions tend to reduce complex social systems into neat
causal relationships and produce normative ‘how to’ solutions. Context specific issues
and the intricacies of local values can be, and too often are, lost in this universalising
process.
In this paper, we seek to present an alternative perspective to these views about
policy and the role of government. But in doing so, it becomes important to declare
our own interests and subjectivities. Our starting point in this paper was the assump-
tion that the world is complex and messy, it defies overarching universal explanations
and simple cause and effect rules. Therefore for us, the prescription of an overarching
event policy framework – and moreover, one that can be institutionalised – is prob-
lematic. Like Getz, we draw from our own eclectic professional backgrounds,
academic journeys and the practical wisdoms that emerge from prolonged engage-
ment with diverse stakeholders and their ways of knowing and doing. We also draw
from extensive experiences inside and outside government and the insights drawn
from the way policy issues are framed and debated, knowledge is developed and trans-
formed into policy, stakeholders are engaged and implementation occurs or does not
occur. These experiences have led us to conceptualise government as existing within
a shared power world, where multiple and often competing institutions of government
operate within a framework of mongrel management (Dredge & Thomas, 2009). Ours
is a post-structural view of the world, where multiple approaches and perspectives are
able to co-exist. Event policy is necessarily influenced by its institutional setting,
history and context and claims underpinned by a propensity towards universalism
should be treated with caution.
6 D. Dredge and M. Whitford

Finally, in the development of his knowledge constitutive theory, Habermas

(1987) once argued that research can never be interest free, but is underpinned by one
of three sets of human interest categories or motivations: (1) a technical interest that
seeks to control and manage; (2) a practical interest that seeks to understand; and (3)
an emancipatory interest that seeks to offer alternative understandings and liberate
knowledge from falsehoods and domination (also see Tribe, 2004). Whilst critical
discussion of Habermas’s knowledge constitutive theory has revealed it to be over-
generalised and Eurocentric (Reynolds, 2002), it nevertheless empowers an alterna-
tive mode of thinking to that of positivism and technical interests. Getz has framed his
paper around technical interests, proposing a TBL policy framework for events (this
is the first of the motivations above). In this paper, our interests are aligned with the
latter motivation, particularly a desire to expose alternative perspectives and to liber-
ate the event policy narrative from what we perceive to be a normative orientation that
has tended to discard more nuanced understandings about the role of government,
politics and power in events policy.

Proposition 1: the state of existing event policy research is underdeveloped

In the opening part of the paper, Getz critiques the existing research arguing that
‘policy research in the events field is underdeveloped, and has not proceeded system-
atically’ (2009, p. 62). He argues that research has tended to focus on management
and marketing concerns, economic impacts assessment and the planning and design
of festivals and events. Whilst the influences upon the authors identified in the previ-
ous section prompt us to question why research needs to be systematic, this is perhaps
a useful point to reveal much about the contrasting perspectives of the authors.
However, it is worth raising the issue of whether the extent of event policy research
to date, should be dismissed as ‘underdeveloped’.
In his earlier work (Getz, 2007) explores a vast landscape of events research and
highlights important studies that have revealed much about power, interest politics
and relationships between governments, event organisers and communities. In the
paper which is the subject of this commentary, Getz reveals a rich landscape of events
research that investigates the power and politics of events (pp. 62–63). Our position is
that for such a claim to be made, it is necessary to consider What is events policy
research? and How does the existing research inform event policy? We contend that
there are values about event policy research that are embedded in Getz’s claim that the
area is underdeveloped, and that these are relatively narrow.
Drawing from the public policy literature, event policy research can take a variety
of forms and be underpinned by a variety of epistemologies, ontologies and method-
ologies. Moreover, there are two broad types of interrelated policy research which are
relevant to event policy research:

(1) research that is concerned with how, why, when, where and for whom the
policy was made (i.e. research of policy);
(2) research that investigates the policy-making procedures, processes, potential
policy options and furthers understandings of the characteristics of policy-
making (i.e. research for policy).

Drawing from the diversity of literature covered in Getz’s earlier review (2007)
and the current paper, it would appear that there is a significant body of research that
 Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events 7

builds understandings about the way in which event policy is made, implemented and
for whom it has been made. That is, there is a diverse body of research of event policy
but that the research for policy is more limited. By corollary, the valuing of existing
research for event policy, that provides nuanced understandings of policy processes
appears somewhat undervalued by Getz because his focus appears to be on research
of policy.
Indeed, Getz acknowledges that studying ‘event policy requires knowledge of the
various actors and institutions involved, and how they interact and make policy’
(2009, p. 66). Yet despite this observation, Getz appears to want to isolate normative
research of event policy (i.e. producing knowledge about how to frame, prepare and
implement event policy) from substantive research for event policy (i.e. policy
advocacy). Getz touches on this distinction in his claim that ‘while events are often
political in nature … this line of research is not the same as research on public policy’
(2009, p. 63). He clarifies his position suggesting that event public policy research
should focus on ‘why governments should be involved, the potential and ideal scope
of policy and how the new paradigm of sustainable and responsible events can be
institutionalized’ (2009, p. 64). (This statement in itself demonstrates a pro-event
position that is taken up in Proposition 2 below.)
Our argument in relation to Proposition 1 is that event policy research should
include socio-political interpretations of event policy problems and issues as well as
research that contribute to normative processes and frameworks. Knowledge about
socio-political relationships stimulates understandings about power, influence and
values in event policy, and cannot be isolated from normative research about what
should or could be done. In essence, the obvious focus on research of policy is much
stronger than the lesser focus on research for policy, so the claim that the field is
underdeveloped is perhaps more a reflection of an imbalance that has emerged during
the development of the two types of event policy research.

Proposition 2: that it is possible ‘to delimit the scope and substance of policy
concerns within event studies’
Getz’s paper is based on the premise that a comprehensive event policy framework is
possible and that the proposed framework may be able to generate sufficient interest
and support for a new paradigm. However, Getz also observes that there ‘is such a
broad range [of events], with so many issues and stakeholders, that it might never truly
be amenable to a single policy or strategy’ (2009, p. 65). Getz goes on to argue that:

a truly comprehensive public policy domain covering planned events has to be very
broad and dynamic. It will encompass all the dimensions of the framework in an integra-
tive manner, starting with the question ‘why do we want and value events?’ Even if this
degree of comprehensiveness and integration is impossible to achieve, for practical and
political reasons, there is nevertheless the potential for using the framework to better
place events within the other pertinent policy domains. (2009, p. 66)

In Tables 1–4 of his text, he outlines possible policy goals, policy initiatives and
performance measures that provide the framework for a sustainable and responsible
approach to event policy. To better understand how these dimensions of event policy
have been derived, it is necessary to examine the scope of policy concerns as
identified in an earlier diagram outlined in Getz (2007) and reproduced in the current
paper upon which we comment.
8 D. Dredge and M. Whitford

A key concern in this diagram is the built in assumption that the planned event
experience is the core phenomenon around which an event policy framework can be
built. A reflective view of policy communities (Homeshaw, 1995; Richardson &
Jordan, 1979) and agency in particular, reveals this to be problematic. Different
organisations and different levels of government are involved in the planning, support,
regulation, management and implementation of events to different degrees. Each
agency frames their involvement according to different agendas, values and interests.
For example, local governments are concerned with servicing local communities,
public health, economic development and public safety. A state tourism agency would
be keen to promote tourism potential whilst an environmental protection agency might
be less than keen to promote the event and provide necessary permits, and may have
no interest at all in the experience and meanings attached to the event. The way that
Getz frames his policy framework suggests that, for his framework to be implement-
able, agencies would have a positive, facilitative position, and that consensus is
possible. However, there is a plethora of research that illustrates consensus may be
only partial and commitment can vary. Agencies, operating with different agendas and
values, can work against each other overtly or covertly. Legislated roles and respon-
sibilities of agencies may work against consensus building.
Our position is, that for an event policy to be truly workable, it needs to start with
an alignment of the values of the agencies with an interest or mandated role in the
event, and not as Getz suggests, with a commitment to the event experience and
meaning. In other words, there is a need to define the policy space in which agencies
can work together. Some policy issues and problems might remain outside the
common policy space, as might some agencies. Returning to the second proposition
then, it makes sense to argue for a networked and adaptive (rather than comprehen-
sive) policy approach that reaches across policy domains and agencies tapping into
their core agendas, roles and responsibilities, rather than trying to align agencies via
consensus around the event experience, which we see as highly improbable.

Proposition 3: neoliberalism has influenced governments to take a

predominantly interventionist role in events, principally to secure economic
development and prosperity
Getz discusses the justifications and approaches that government can adopt in their
drive to develop event policy. He identifies the reasons why governments get involved
in events including:

● public good benefits

● social equity
● market failure
● intangible benefits

Getz quite rightly points out that governments get involved in events for a variety
of reasons. They have different levels of involvement and use different justifications.
Within this context, a point worth addressing is Getz’s statement: ‘Neoliberalism is
the predominant ideology in many developed countries, and governments in this
frame have an interventionist role to play in the events sector, mostly to secure
economic development and prosperity’ (2009, p. 67). This statement oversimplifies
the debate around the neoliberalised state and associated characteristics of
 Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events 9

government intervention. Neoliberalism is an economic management philosophy

inspired Adam Smith’s eighteenth century arguments supporting the capacity of the
market to self-regulate. Simply put, where supply and demand operate with limited
government intervention, competition and self-interest become the mechanisms to
ameliorate negative externalities and the unintended consequences of growth.
Twentieth-century neoliberalism adapted this earlier work to argue for a free market
economy and non-interventionist government. More recently, however, criticisms
have emerged of this universalising discourse about neoliberalism, drawing attention
to the presence of different phases in the role of government over time and across
space. Peck and Tickell (2002), for example, identify ‘roll back’ and ‘roll out’
neoliberalism. The former is characterised the Thatcher and Reagan administrations
and was exemplified in the withdrawal of government involvement and concomitant
strategies such as the selling off of state-owned enterprises. The latter is character-
ised by more targeted intervention via the introduction of new policies and new insti-
tutions (such as statutory corporations and state-owned corporations) targeted at
addressing the issues of those disaffected by roll back neoliberalism. It is outside the
realm of this paper to provide a nuanced discussion of neoliberalism. However, it is
important to correct the misconception that Getz creates in his universalising state-
ment that neoliberalism is characterised by government intervention (2009, p. 67).
Indeed, the level and direction of government involvement varies throughout the
planning and implementation of an event and can also be influenced by the capacity
of stakeholders and the political interest in the event demonstrated at different levels
of government.
Recent research suggests that governments are exercising more complicated
characteristics of involvement (Dredge et al., 2009). They are active at a political level
in the bidding process but, once the event is secured, they generally have less direct
involvement in the staging of the event. Moreover, this involvement is made more
complex by the use of statutory or government-owned corporations, removed from
public scrutiny and accountability, as mechanisms to pursue and secure events. These
corporations have acted entrepreneurially, bidding on events and bypassing many of
the development requirements that private enterprise would normally be subject to.
Furthermore, governments have tended to demonstrate little interest or willingness to
incorporate the activities of such entities with sustainable (or any other form of)
policy. The issue of whether governments demonstrate more or less involvement in
events is, therefore, a moot point and worthy of further investigation in an effort to
develop more nuanced understandings of how neoliberalism affects government
involvement in event planning and management. Getz’s comment only serves to
marginalise the importance of this work.
Returning to the third proposition then, we argue that Getz’s observation about
neoliberalism is overly simplistic and ignores the uneven cycle of involvement that
different levels of governments can have in event planning and management across
scales and over time. Moreover, Getz’s arguments are generalised to reflect provincial
or national level governments, yet the role of local governments in events can be quite
different. For instance, examining where the events directorate is situated in any local
government will reveal that events can be, and are, underpinned by economic, socio-
cultural or environmental motives (Whitford, 2004). Arguably then, there has been
insufficient attention on developing nuanced understandings of neoliberalism, and as
such it is impossible to make a universal claim that governments have more (or less)
involvement. Indeed, given that governments are responding increasingly reflexively
10 D. Dredge and M. Whitford

to the issues, challenges and vulnerabilities that confront them, it is quite possible that
governments have less control, not more.

Proposition 4: it is possible for governments to institutionalise a sustainable and

responsible event policy paradigm
Similarly, care should also be taken not to oversimplify sustainability and its capacity
to enhance event policy. Given the global push for sustainability and in particular,
sustainable tourism development since the early 1980s, it is not surprising that Getz is
advocating the need to institutionalise the principles of sustainability in event policy.
The parent concept of sustainable development has been a key driver of the social and
political agendas of many countries for many decades, whilst the correlated concept
of sustainable tourism development has been on the global agenda for over two
decades (Jayawardena, 2003). Yet the quintessence of sustainability remains ambigu-
ous and continues to inspire much debate (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Butler, 1998;
Clarke, 1997; Hall & Lew, 1998; Jamal & Getz, 1997; Simpson, 2001; Trousdale,
1999). On the one hand, Getz, as an apparent advocate of sustainable development of
events maintains ‘sustainable events are not just those that can endure indefinitely,
they are also events that fulfil important social, cultural, economic and environmental
roles that people value’ (2009, p. 70). On the other hand sceptics of sustainability not
only question the likelihood of sustainable requirements ever being met, but they also
doubt the likelihood of being able to undertake development that does not unduly
strain a region’s environmental, socio-cultural or economic carrying capacities
(Aronsson, 2000).
Not surprisingly then, the gap between sustainability doctrine and its ‘real world’
application continues to grow (Simpson, 2001; Trousdale, 1999). Yet the apparent
solution for the development of sustainable event policy, according to Getz, is based
on the assumption that sustainability can be achieved with a TBL approach to event
policy evaluation. Accordingly, he provides some broad event policy goals, for
example, to foster event tourism and to foster environmental events. These goals are
framed within economic, socio-cultural and environmental categories.
Concomitantly, Getz calls for the development and institutionalisation of a
sustainable and responsible paradigm, demonstrating an ambition to move from what
he sees as an overemphasis on the economic value of events to a balanced, sustainable
approach. We identify two problems with this argument that are derived from the
assumptions that Getz appears to make about the nature of paradigms and paradigm
shifts in tourism and events policy. First, Getz assumes that events policy is already
characterised by a particular paradigm – neoliberal economic management. Second,
Getz assumes that there is an alternative ‘responsible and sustainable events’ para-
digm waiting to be adopted. These assumptions underpin Getz’s arguments but
misrepresent the nature of paradigmatic change in the social sciences generally and in
tourism and events studies in particular.
According to Kuhn (1962, p. 4), the transition from one paradigm to another ‘is a
reconstruction that changes some of the field’s most elementary theoretical generali-
sations as well as many of its paradigm methods and applications’ and demonstrates
‘a decisive difference in the modes of solution’. Kuhn’s work has been both widely
cited by those wanting to justify their arguments for change, and criticised by those
questioning his generalised theory of the evolution of scientific knowledge. The
application of his ideas in the social sciences has been strongly debated. In the social
 Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events 11

sciences, particularly with the rise of post-structural and post-modern movements,

there is greater acceptance of the multiplicity of theories, explanations and perspec-
tives with no particular set of knowledge possessing greater ‘truth’ than other knowl-
edge. Getz makes a call for a responsible and sustainable development paradigm shift
that balances social and environmental concerns against the current neoliberal focus.
In arguing this point, Getz conceptualises the current neoliberal economic ‘paradigm’
as opposing (or at least separate to) a responsible and sustainable approach.
Whilst Kuhn’s ideas have been influential, they have also inspired much debate.
Dreyfus (in Flyvbjerg, 2001) insists that the social sciences do not encounter paradigm
shifts but rather they experience style changes where waves of intellectual fashion,
such as sustainability, dominate. They are not more or less truthful, they just reflect
current values. Furthermore, Dreyfus argues that the social sciences do not endure a
Kuhnian state of crisis like the natural sciences. Rather, they remain in a pre-paradig-
matic state in anticipation of achieving a cumulative, stable and predictive period. As
previously discussed, the sustainable tourism body of discourse is in a constant state
of flux. Proponents of sustainability and sustainable tourism in particular have been
challenging economic neoliberalism since the early 1980s and social scientists
continue to debate what constitutes sustainable tourism. Furthermore, predictive
theory and cumulative progress appear to remain elusive achievements. Flyvbjerg
(2001) says we should be comfortable with this and not seek to claim paradigmatic
status.
Returning to the fourth proposition, arguably then, Getz has been overzealous in
his call for the institutionalisation of a sustainable paradigm in event policy. Sustain-
able development has long been the philosophy underpinning a plethora of research
in the social sciences but it remains open to interpretation and does not represent a
‘higher truth’ or correct way of doing things. Moreover, neoliberal economic values
can and do co-exist within the mantra of sustainability within many governments. In
other words, a responsible and sustainable events policy does not necessarily represent
a paradigm in itself, but rather a rebalancing of the social, environmental and
economic values that characterise the sustainability conundrum. On this basis, sustain-
ability is in a pre-paradigmatic state, so a sustainable and responsible approach to
events policy does not represent a paradigm shift. It is merely an alternative value
statement about what is important. On this basis, Getz has not only made an audacious
claim about a new sustainable and responsible paradigm in event policy, but he has
arguably demonstrated a tendency towards universalised claims about the state of
knowledge in the events field.

Conclusions
In this paper, we have sought to further critical discussions about events policy by
engaging critically with the ideas and arguments presented by Getz for a paradigm
shift. The key contribution of this response then, has been to question the mental soft-
ware that dominates thinking about event policy as normative, ‘how to’ knowledge
and the role of government as central to the development of effective event policy.
In his paper, Getz transforms his propositions into ‘truths’ using an expert voice
and supporting this with a framework for events policy. Indeed, this framework is
more a list of considerations to be addressed if events policy is to be publically
accountable. Nevertheless, Getz has made some important contributions to the events
policy literature, but it is important to engage more thoroughly with some of his ideas
12 D. Dredge and M. Whitford

and claims. Our contribution in this paper has been to argue that significant aspects
such as paradigm shifts in events policy, the role of government in events and the role
of event policy research require a more nuanced understanding in order to account for,
and accommodate, the intricacies pertaining to events and event policy. For instance,
events policy needs to recognise the complexity of stakeholder interests in events, and
acknowledge that there are multiple motivations, needs, expectations and attitudes
with respect to the development and implementation and management of events.
Events policy cannot be developed and institutionalised without critical assessment of
the context, the stakeholders involved and the collective advantages and disadvan-
tages of staging events. In this context, good governance of events is critical and this
must be contextualised within the case at hand. Our preference is to establish a
broader agenda on events policy research that embraces a wide range of epistemolo-
gies, ontologies and methodologies that can elucidate both policies of and policies for
event planning and management.

References
Aronsson, L. (2000). The development of sustainable tourism. London: Continuum.
Botterill, D. (2001). The epistemology of a set of tourism studies. Leisure Studies, 20(3),
199–214.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1–5.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2005). Editorial: Sustainable tourism research and the importance
of societal and social science trends. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 1–3.
Butler, R.W. (1998). Sustainable tourism: Looking back in order to progress. In C.M. Hall &
A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable tourism development: Geographical perspectives (pp. 25–34).
Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 5(3), 224–233.
Dredge, D., Ford, E., Lamont, M., Phi, T., Whitford, M., & Wynn-Moylan, P. (2009).
Event governance: The rhetoric and reality of the World Rally Championship, Northern
Rivers, NSW. Proceedings of the conference of the Council for Australian University
Tourism and Hospitality Education on ‘Challenging the Limits’. Hobart: University of
Tasmania.
Dredge, D., & Thomas, P. (2009). Mongrel management, public interest and protected
area management in the Victorian Alps, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2),
249–267.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can
succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings
1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Getz, D. (2007). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution and research. Tourism Management,
29(3), 403–428.
Getz, D. (2009). Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events: Institutionaliza-
tion of a new paradigm. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 1(1),
61–78.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume 2: Lifeworld and system: A
critique of functionalist reason. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
Hall, C.M. (2004). Reflexivity and tourism research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.),
Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies
(pp. 137–155). London/New York: Routledge.
Hall, C.M., & Lew, A. (1998). Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective. Harlow:
Addison Wesley Longman.
 Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events 13

Hollinshead, K. (1999). Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power.
Tourism Management, 20(1), 7–23.
Hollinshead, K. (2004). A primer in ontological craft. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson
(Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies
(pp. 63–82). London/New York: Routledge.
Homeshaw, J. (1995). Policy community, policy networks and science policy in Australia.
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 54(4), 520–533.
Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1997). Visioning for sustainable tourism development: Community-
based collaborations. In P.E. Murphy (Ed.), Quality management in urban tourism
(pp. 199–220). Chichester: John Wiley.
Jamal, T., & Hollinshead, K. (2001). Tourism and the forbidden zone: The underserved power
of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management, 22(1), 66–82.
Jayawardena, C. (2003). Sustainable tourism development in Canada: Practical challenges.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(7), 408–412.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London/New York: Routledge.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalising space. Antipode, 34, 208–216.
Reynolds, M. (2002). In defence of knowledge constitutive interests: A comment on ‘What is
this thing called CST?’ (Midgely, 1996). Journal of the Operational Research Society,
53(10), 1162–1165.
Richardson, J.J., & Jordan, A.G. (1979). Governing under pressure: The policy process in a
post parliamentary democracy. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Simpson, K. (2001). Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors to
sustainable tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(1), 3–41.
Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638–657.
Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism: Epistemological issues. In J. Phillimore & L.
Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and
methodologies (pp. 46–62). London/New York: Routledge.
Trousdale, W.J. (1999). Governance in context, Boracay Island, Philippines. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(4), 840–867.
Whitford, M. (2004). Regional development through domestic and tourist event policies: Gold
Coast and Brisbane. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Science, 1(1), 1–24.