LESSON 25

CRITIQUING HARSH REALITIES

Harrison (2012)
1. International tourism is founded on inequalities
2. The figures “don’t add up”
3. PPT is essentially “window shopping”
4. Are small net benefits sufficient and sustainable?
5. Businesses are in existence to make profits, not
serve the poor
6. The neoliberal poverty agenda
7. Local realities of corruption, cronyism and elite
capture.
 1) INTERNATIONAL TOURISM IS FOUNDED ON
INEQUALITIES
• According to Harrison (2012) this notion of “inequalities” within
tourism is “misquoted”.

• Seeing as most international tourism is within developed areas

in the global North, where residents and tourists are “more or
less” of “equal status”.

• In less developed countries (LDCs), disparities in wealth are

often more pronounced, however, pre-existed tourism enabled
those with financial and cultural capital to advance more in the
new industry.

• Thus, there should be a more logical connection between

international tourism and wealth discrepancies.
 2) THE FIGURES “DON’T ADD UP”
• Linking tourism in LDCs with dependency on urban centres are
“disingenuous”, according to Harrison (2012).

• Seeing as small and poor LDCs in the global South are unlikely
to compete on equal terms with more developed and industrially
orientated economies in the global North.

• Carefully interpret statistics produced by PPT advocates and

critics of PPT. (hidden agenda)
 3) PPT IS ESSENTIALLY “WINDOW DRESSING”
• This statement by Scheyvens (2012) – Harrison (2012) finds to
be without “much substance”.

• However, “greenwashing” has undoubtedly occurred.

• The involvement of tourism corporations in corporate

responsibility programmes has been “exaggerated” and often
prompted by “self-interest’. (So it was a conscious decision to
make PPT a gateway for “window dressing”)

• To much PPT has focussed on minor reforms for a marketed

tourism sector instead of focussing on how to collectively make
the domain more diversified, inclusive and transformative.
 4) ARE SMALL NET BENEFITS SUFFICIENT AND
SUSTAINABLE?
• The way PPT is defined – wealthier factions in a destination
might actually benefit more than the poor from a PPT project;
this though is fully accepted by PPTs “founders”, according to
Harrison (2012).

• PPT does not take account environmental, social, political and

cultural impacts of growth-orientated strategies of tourism
development on poor people – thus PPT like “normal” tourism is
also economically driven.

• Therefore the central concern of PPT practitioners to

incorporate the poor as far as possible in existing travel markets
become questionable in itself.
5) BUSINESSES ARE IN EXISTENCE TO MAKE PROFITS, NOT
SERVE THE POOR
• Within a tourism context, there are strong pragmatic reasons for
having destination residents “on your side”, however, these
collaborations according to Harrison (2012) receive less explicit
attention in tourism academia, because the “poor” are already
on “equal terms” with business owners.

• More could, however, be done in terms of an establishment’s

contributions to poor initiatives, projects and ventures.

• Should community-located tourism entrepreneurs be required

then to contribute to poverty alleviation if they in themselves
remain impoverished?
 6) THE NEOLIBERAL POVERTY AGENDA
• According to Harrison (2012) this is an unacceptable political
and economic ideology to have.

• There is no evidence PPT advocates were or are committed to

neoliberalism or of widespread hostility to governments taking
an enabling role in tourism development.

• Considering that in literature on tourism development,

promotion and planning in LDCs, the state/public sector remains
a major role player.

• Poverty-alleviation is not simply a matter of meeting very basic

needs, however, it is fully accepted by PPT proponents, that
labour exploitation in some tourism enterprises is not an
indictment of all tourism segments.
7) LOCAL REALITIES – CORRUPTION, CRONYISM AND ELITE
CAPTURE
• According to Harrison (2012) this might be an over-
generalisation of these notions.

• Seeing that they do occur, however, only in select case studies

across the world.

• This needs to be addressed by all role players and stakeholders

involved and not just noted that corruption “did” occur (actually
do something about it!)
CASE STUDIES
PRO-POOR TOURISM IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH
SOUTH AMERICA
CASE STUDIES?
ASIA
CASE STUDIES?
AFRICA
CASE STUDIES?
PPT CASE STUDIES IN SOUTH
AFRICA
CASE STUDIES?
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE “POOR”
IF PRO-POOR TOURISM (PPT)
WORKS?
END OF LESSON