Article 2

Tourism Economics, 2013, 19 (3), 477–508 doi: 10.5367/te.2013.
0211
Tourism’s contribution to economic growth:

a global analysis for the first decade of
the millennium
STANISLAV H. IVANOV
International University College, 3 Bulgaria Street, 9300 Dobrich, Bulgaria.
E-mail: stanislav.ivanov@vumk.eu. (Corresponding author.)
CRAIG WEBSTER
University of Nicosia, 46 Makedonitissas Avenue, PO Box 24005, 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus.
E-mail: webster.c@unic.ac.cy.
The paper reviews the various methods and tourism development

proxy variables used to measure the impact of tourism on economic
growth. The growth decomposition methodology is employed with
data for 174 countries covering 2000 to 2010 to measure the impact
of tourism on a country-by-country basis. Tourism’s contribution to
economic growth is highest in Africa, Asia and Latin America and
the Caribbean. It is slightly negative in Europe, North America and
Oceania. The paper also investigates the factors that influence
tourism’s contribution to growth. The results show that this
contribution is higher in those economies where tourism accounts for
a higher share of gross domestic product (GDP). The implications
and limitations of the growth decomposition methodology are also
discussed.
Keywords: economic growth; economic impact; tourism and GDP;

economic growth decomposition; tourism impact on growth
Research into the measurement of tourism’s contribution to economic growth

has developed rapidly in the last decade. The reasons are quite understandable
– tourism is perceived as a panacea for economic growth in many countries and
governments require an accurate measurement tool in order to develop national
and local strategies for stimulating tourism development. The resulting
literature on the measurement of tourism’s contribution to economic growth
deals with very different methods for measuring the phenomenon and it has
been applied to many different economies.
Research on the topic so far has covered a vast range of countries – small
island economies (for example, Vanegas and Croes, 2003; Hernández-Martín,
2008; Narayan et al, 2010; Singh et al, 2010), Latin American countries
478 TOURISM ECONOMICS
(Brida et al, 2008a), Mediterranean countries such as Turkey (Gunduz and

Hatemi-J, 2005; Gökovali, 2010), Jordan (Kreishan, 2010), Greece (Dritsakis,
2004), Cyprus (Katircioglu, 2009a), Croatia (Payne and Mervar, 2010), Spain
(Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordá, 2002; Capo et al, 2007), Portugal (Soukiazis
and Proença, 2008), Tunisia (Belloumi, 2010), Asian economies such as Taiwan
(Kim et al, 2006), Singapore (Katircioglu, 2010), South Korea (Oh, 2005) and
Malaysia (Tang, 2011), African countries (Fayissa et al, 2008; Ainboade and
Braimoh, 2010), and developed economies (Nissan et al, 2011) to mention just
a few.
Research results up to now are mixed. Most authors (for example, Brida et
al, 2010b; Arslanturk et al, 2011; Nissan et al, 2011; Seetanah, 2011) find that
tourism has a positive impact on economic growth. Others, however, do not
find empirical support for this hypothesis. Cortes-Jimenez et al (2011), for
example, do not find evidence that tourism contributes significantly to long-
term economic growth in Tunisia. A similar lack of connection between tourism
development and long-term growth is reported by Oh (2005) for South Korea
and Payne and Mervar (2010) for Croatia.
Nevertheless, tourism generates gross domestic product (GDP), influences
changes in GDP value and, therefore, has an impact on economic growth, since
any economic monetarized activity has an influence upon economic growth.
According to the expenditure approach, GDP includes final consumption, gross
fixed capital formation, government expenses and net exports (exports minus
imports) (SNA, 2008, §16.47). Tourism contributes to each of these GDP
elements. When international visitors spend money, their expenditures are
included in net exports, tourist companies’ investments are part of the gross
fixed capital formation, the expenditures of tourism employees and domestic
visitors are accounted in households’ final consumption, while government
budgets for travel are part of the government’s final consumption element of
GDP. Any change in tourism GDP elements influences directly a country’s GDP.
Therefore, tourism always has an impact on economic growth, although this
impact might be positive in some years and negative in others, or higher or
lower than the contributions of other industries.
Despite the enormous and rapidly accelerating accumulation of literature on
tourism’s impacts on economic growth, we can identify three major gaps in
much of what has been written on the topic. First, few attempts have been made
to investigate the issue on a global scale (with some notable exceptions, such
as Figini and Vici, 2010; Goel and Budak, 2010). Second, most existing
research focuses on determining whether there is cointegration and a causal
relationship between tourism development and economic growth, but does not
determine the actual per capita economic growth that is generated by tourism
in the studied countries during the analysed period. Finally, the review of
existing literature reveals that the factors influencing tourism’s actual
contribution to per capita economic growth have not been empirically studied.
In this regard, the current paper aims at filling these gaps and further
developing the theory and practice in measuring tourism’s actual contribution
to economic growth.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section provides a
literature review of the various methods used to measure tourism’s contribution
to economic growth and the different proxy variables employed to model
Tourism’s contribution to economic growth 479
Table 1. Methodologies for measuring tourism’s contribution to economic growth.

Methodology Selected papers
Cointegration and Granger Ainboade and Braimoh (2010); Arslanturk et al, (2011);
causality test Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordá (2002); Belloumi (2010); Brida
et al, (2010a, 2010b); Chen and Chiou-Wei (2009); Cortes
Jimenez et al, (2011); Cortes-Jimenez and Pulina (2010);
Dritsakis (2004); Durbarry (2004); Gunduz and Hatemi-J
(2005); He and Zheng (2011); Katircioglu (2009a, 2009b,
2009c, 2010); Kim et al (2006); Kreishan (2010); Lee and
Chien (2008); Lorde et al, (2011); Nowak et al, (2007); Oh
(2005); Ongan and Demiröz (2005); Payne and Mervar
(2010); Seetanah (2011); Schubert et al, (2011); Singh et al,
(2010); Tang (2011)
Panel data analysis Cortes-Jimenez (2008); Eugenio-Martin et al, (2004); Fayissa
et al, (2008); Gökovali and Bahar (2006); Nissan et al, (2011);
Proença and Soukiazis (2005, 2008); Seetanah (2011); Sequeira
and Nunes (2008); Soukiazis and Proença (2008); Titan et al,
(2010)
Panel data cointegration Lee and Chang (2008); Narayan et al,(2010)
Cross-section regression models Brau et al (2003); Figini and Vici (2010); Goel and Budak
(2010); Po and Huang (2008)
Cobb-Douglas production Capo et al, (2007); Fayissa et al, (2008); Holzner (2011)
function
Computable general equilibrium Dwyer et al, (2003a, 2003b); Narayan (2004)
model
Growth decomposition Brida and Aguirre (2010); Brida et al, (2008b,2008c, 2008d,
2009); Ivanov (2005); Ivanov and Webster (2007); Ivanov
and Webster (2010); Such et al, (2009)
tourism development. The third section elaborates the growth decomposition

methodology and the primary data used in the current paper to measure
tourism’s contribution to economic growth. The fourth section presents the
results of tourism’s contribution to economic growth for 174 countries for 2000
to 2010. This section further uncovers the factors that influence the magnitude
of tourism’s contribution to economic growth. The final section provides the
managerial applications of the research and concludes the paper.
Literature review
Methodologies for measuring tourism’s contribution to economic growth

The most popular methodology for investigating tourism’s contribution to
economic growth (see Table 1) is the cointegration and Granger causality test (for
example, Dritsakis, 2004; Durbarry, 2004; Oh, 2005; Lee and Chien, 2008;
Katircioglu, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2010; Ainboade and Braimoh, 2010; Cortes-
Jimenez and Pulina, 2010; Cortes-Jimenez et al, 2011; Seetanah, 2011; Tang,
2011). It models changes in GDP (usually in a logarithmic form) as a function
of a tourism development related proxy variable, discussed in the next

paragraph. The goal of this method is to check the long-run correlation between
changes in GDP and changes in the tourism development proxy variable. This
methodology is often adopted for checking the tourism-led growth hypothesis
(Brida et al, 2010a). The assumption is that tourism development causes
increases in GDP in the long run. The relationship can also be bi-directional
– economic growth stimulates tourist travels that generate GDP, thus further
nurturing growth (Ongan and Demiröz, 2005; Kim et al, 2006; Katircioglu,
2009c). The advantage of cointegration and Granger causality tests is that they
determine the existence of correlation between tourism development and
economic growth and the direction of causal relationship. However, they cannot
determine the magnitude of the economic growth attributable to tourism
development in each year of the analysed period. Furthermore, Po and Huang
(2008, p 5540) identify three possible problems related to cointegration and
Granger causality tests: whether or not the yearly data were sufficient to
represent the long-term relationship between the two; the inability of the yearly
data to eliminate the problems of short-term fluctuations due to business cycles
and structural change; and the failure to delineate countries with special features
in terms of different causal relationships. Despite these potential problems,
cointegration and Granger causality remain the basic methodology to date for
measuring tourism’s contribution to economic growth.
Cross-section analysis (for example, Po and Huang, 2008; Brau et al, 2003;
Figini and Vici, 2010; Goel and Budak, 2010) aims at identifying the
correlation between tourism and economic growth over a cross section of
countries at a specific point in time. In order to avoid cyclical or incidental
influences on variables sometimes average values of the dependant and
independent variables are used in the regression models (see Po and Huang,
2008). The main advantage of this technique over cointegration and Granger
causality test is the possibility of modelling different country characteristics (for
example, membership in an organization or trading bloc, oil-exporting country,
geographical location, least developed country status) and of investigating their
impacts on economic growth. However, since the regression is applied over a
single point in time, one cannot capture the dynamic aspects of the relationship
between tourism and growth.
Dynamic panel data analysis (for example, Eugenio-Martin et al, 2004; Gökovali
and Bahar, 2006; Cortes-Jimenez, 2008; Fayissa et al, 2008; Proença and
Soukiazis, 2008) overcomes the cross-section analysis weakness by utilizing
time-series data over a cross-section of countries. Similar to cross-section
analysis, it allows modelling of countries’ specific characteristics. Furthermore,
the fact that statistical data are presented in a time series form over multiple
countries allows for the identification of long-run causal relationships between
tourism and economic growth over multiple countries, not just a single country,
through the integration of panel data analysis with cointegration and Granger
causality test (for example, Lee and Chang, 2008; Narayan et al, 2010). The
main challenge in dynamic panel data analysis is the consistency of statistical
data across countries and over time – data for each statistic should be available
and in the same form for all studied countries and all years in the studied
period. Despite the development of the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA, 2008),
it has not been adopted by all countries in the world, which might question
cross-country consistency of statistical data in the field of tourism. In contrast,

dynamic data sets should account for changes in statistical definitions thus
providing data consistency over time.
An expanding body of publications focuses on the contribution of different
production factors to economic growth. They employ a Cobb–Douglas production
function at an industry or a national level (Capo et al, 2007), sometimes
combined with a panel data analysis (Fayissa et al, 2008; Holzner, 2011). While
the Cobb–Douglas models have the aura of being elegant and are widely applied
in economic growth studies, they suffer one major disadvantage – resources are
used at the company/household level and firms within the same industry have
very different production functions that cannot be aggregated (Ivanov and
Webster, 2010). In the field of tourism the situation is complicated even more,
considering the fact that the tourism industry is not homogeneous but includes
economic activities with different capital and labour requirements (for instance,
hotels are very capital intensive and a high proportion of their expenses is the
depreciation of the fixed capital while travel agencies and guide services require
negligible fixed capital, that can even be rented). Combining these activities
into one production function requires serious practical justification. Further-
more, the Cobb–Douglas production function assumes constant output elasticities
of capital and labour given the technology level, which does not need to be
true in reality.
Computable General Equilibrium models have now received wide acceptance in
tourism economic impact studies (for example, Zhao et al, 1997; Blake and
Sinclair, 2003; Dwyer et al, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Sugiyarto et al, 2003; Blake,
2004; Narayan, 2004; Polo and Valle, 2006; Blake et al, 2008). They have been
used to model potential external shocks and their impacts on the economy (for
example, increase or decrease in tourism demand, new tourism tax, changes in
legislation). Their main advantages are that they provide a comprehensive
overview of the potential consequences of the shocks on country, industry and
household levels and could be used for forecasting and in government policy
planning. However, this is also their major weakness – the Computable General
Equilibrium models identify potential ex ante but not actual ex post tourism
impacts. Therefore, they cannot be used to measure the actual contribution of
tourism to economic growth, but only to model the eventual consequences to
economic growth of potential shocks in tourism demand, supply or government
policy on tourism.
An increasing body of literature, including this paper, adopts the growth
decomposition methodology that provides performance measures of tourism’s
contribution to economic growth. It was initially developed by Ivanov (2005),
further refined by Ivanov and Webster (2007) and generalized for the whole
economy and all industries by Ivanov and Webster (2010). In field of tourism
it has been applied to the USA, Spain, France, Italy, the UK (Brida et al, 2008b,
2008d), Bulgaria (Ivanov, 2005), Spain, Greece, Cyprus (Ivanov and Webster,
2007), Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico (Brida et al, 2008b, 2008c),
Columbia (Brida et al, 2009; Such et al, 2009; Brida et al, 2011), Costa Rica
(Brida and Aguirre, 2010) and Central America and the Caribbean (Brida and
Fabbro, 2010). The essence of the methodology is the decomposition of
economic growth, expressed as real per capita GDP growth, into growth
attributable to tourism and to other industries. Its major advantage is the low
Table 2. Proxy variables used to model tourism development.

Tourism development proxy variable Selected papers
Monetary variables
Tourism GDP/GVA Brida and Aguirre (2010); Brida et al, (2008c); Ivanov
and Webster (2007)
Hotels and restaurants GDP/GVA Brida et al (2008b, 2008d, 2009); Ivanov and Webster
(2007); Ivanov and Webster (2010); Such et al, (2009)
International tourism receipts Ainboade and Braimoh (2010); Arslanturk et al, (2011);
Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordá (2002); Belloumi
(2010); Brida et al, (2008a); Chen and Chiou-Wei
(2009); Cortes-Jimenez et al, (2011); Dritsakis (2004);
Lee and Chien (2008); Narayan et al, (2010); Nowak
et al, (2007); Oh (2005); Ongan and Demiröz (2005);
Payne and Mervar (2010); Proença and Soukiazis
(2008); Singh et al, (2010); Titan et al, (2010)
Per capita (real) international tourism Lee and Chang (2008); Po and Huang (2008); Seetanah
receipts (2011)
Tourist expenditures of international Brida et al, (2010b)
visitors from particular country
Revenues of hotels and restaurants Brida et al, (2010a)
Internal travel and tourism consumption Brida and Risso (2009)
Non-monetary variables
Number of beds in accommodation Proença and Soukiazis (2005); Soukiazis and Proença
establishments (2008)
Number of international tourist arrivals Brida and Risso (2010); Katircioglu (2009a, 2010);
Tang (2011)
Total tourist arrivals Chen and Chiou-Wei (2009); Kim et al, (2006); Lee
and Chien (2008); Seetanah (2011)
Per capita overnights of domestic and Cortes-Jimenez (2008)
international tourists
Per capita domestic and international Cortes-Jimenez (2008)
arrivals
Per capita international tourist arrivals Lee and Chang (2008); Sequeira and Nunes (2008)
Tourism receipts as % of exports Sequeira and Nunes (2008)
Tourism receipts as % of GDP Sequeira and Nunes (2008)
data requirements – it requires only data on GDP, tourism GDP and mid-year
population size. Furthermore, it shows ex post what the actual contribution of
tourism to economic growth was, but it lacks the forecasting capabilities of the
computable general equilibrium models.
Tourism development proxy variables

Tourism development is usually modelled through different monetary and non-
monetary proxy variables (Table 2). Non-monetary tourism development proxy
variables usually used in cointegration and Granger causality tests include the
number of beds in accommodation establishments (for example, Soukiazis and
Proença, 2008), the number of international tourist arrivals (for example,

Katircioglu, 2010), total tourist arrivals (Chen and Chiou-Wei, 2009), per
capita overnights of domestic and international tourists and per capita domestic
and international arrivals (Cortes-Jimenez, 2008), per capita international
tourist arrivals (for example, Lee and Chang, 2008), or tourism receipts as a
percentage of exports or GDP (Sequeira and Nunes, 2008). The assumption of
using the number of beds as a proxy variable is that the development of
accommodation establishments in a country is directly linked to the
development of the rest of the tourism industry. Before tourists use other
services in the destination they have to arrive to it and be accommodated.
Therefore, more beds in the destination might reflect greater expansion of all
tourism economic activities as well (for example, food and beverage, tour
operations, entertainment, rent-a-car, excursions), but this is not guaranteed. In
fact, an increase in the number of beds signifies greater expansion in the
construction sector in previous years (for which the hotels are the final product)
and increased competition among accommodation establishments, that might
lead to lower prices and negative impact on tourism yield. The number of
international tourist arrivals is used in economic growth analysis based on the
assumption that greater numbers of international tourists will lead to more
international tourism receipts that will, in turn, lead to higher GDP. In reality,
this relationship is not so strong. The country may attract more tourists with
lower prices that might offset the positive gains in visitor numbers, since tourist
expenditures during the holiday are not accounted for in this measurement.
This variable, furthermore, reflects only the international component of a
country’s tourism development and ignores domestic arrivals. Per capita
overnights and arrivals are measures of tourism development intensity
and consider the size of local population. Therefore, they better reflect
tourism’s impact on local population’s welfare than the other non-monetary
measures.
A common problem with the non-monetary variables is that they do not
reflect the impact of price on gross value added (GVA) formation and through
the GVA – to GDP. GVA growth is the result of the increase in quantity of
services bought by the tourists (extensive growth) and the prices charged by
tourist companies for these services (intensive growth). All non-monetary
variables consider only the quantity of services without paying attention to
price. However, the effective use of pricing could increase the revenues of tourist
companies and their respective contribution to tourism GVA and GDP.
Therefore, any methodology that aims at measuring tourism’s contribution to
economic growth should try to avoid non-monetary variables or, if they are used,
they should be additional independent variables to the main independent ones
that have to be monetary.
Monetary proxy variables include per capita tourism GDP (or GVA) (for
example, Brida and Aguirre, 2010), per capita hotels and restaurants GDP (or
GVA) (for example, Ivanov and Webster, 2007), international tourism receipts
(for example, Cortes-Jimenez et al, 2011), per capita real tourism receipts (for
example, Seetanah, 2011), tourist expenditures of international visitors from a
particular country (Brida et al, 2010b), revenues of hotels and restaurants (Brida
et al, 2010a), and internal travel and tourism consumption (Brida and Risso,
2009). The most popular proxy variable is international tourism receipts,
because of data availability and governments’ tendencies to stimulate inbound

tourism. A disadvantage of using international tourism receipts as a tourism
development proxy variable is that they reflect only international tourism and
disregard domestic tourism consumption. In small island economies with
insignificant domestic tourism the international tourism receipts can well serve
as a proxy variable, but for large countries with huge domestic tourism
consumption (USA, China, France, Germany), international tourism receipts
will be a fraction of all receipts of tourist companies and tourism’s contribution
to economic growth will be highly underestimated. Per capita tourism receipts
show the intensity of tourism receipts accounting for the size of local
population, but when calculated on the basis of international tourism receipts
only, they also underestimate tourism’s contribution to growth. They also do
not consider any tourism-related import leakages that would decrease tourism’s
contribution to growth. As economic growth is calculated as the changes in
the per capita GDP, then the tourism development variable should also be
expressed in the same manner – in GDP and in per capita terms. In this regard,
tourism (or hotels and restaurants) GDP (or GVA) is the best tourism
development proxy variable as it is directly linked with GDP and,
therefore, with economic growth. That’s why our analysis focuses on tourism
GDP as a tourism development proxy variable and it is expressed in per capita
terms.
Methodology
Growth decomposition
In this research, we adopt the growth decomposition methodology. The growth
of the real GDP per capita, gr, is expressed as follows:
 
 Yq1(p0) 
––––– 
 N1 
gr = ––––– – 1 .100, (1)
Yq0(p0) 
––––– 
 N0 
 
where Yq1(p0) is the GDP in the current period in constant base year prices, Yq0(p0)
is the GDP in the base year at market prices, N is the average size of the
population, and indexes 0 and 1 denote the base and the current period,
respectively.
The nominator of Equation (1) is disaggregated to separate the tourism GDP
in constant base period prices Yqt1(p0) from the GDP in constant prices of other
industries iΣ≠tYqi1(p0). Similarly, the tourism GDP in base period Yqt0(p0) is separated
from GDP of other sectors in base period iΣ≠tYqi0(p0):
 t 
 Yq1(p0) Σ Yq
i
(p ) Yt
q (p ) Σ Yq
i
(p ) 
––––– + ––––––
i≠t 1 0
– –––– 0 0 i≠t 0 0
– –––––– 
 N1 N1 N0 N0 
gr = ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  .100, (2)
 Yq0(p0) 
 ––––– 
 N0 
 
Regrouping the expressions in the nominator leads to Equation (3) that shows
tourism’s actual contribution to economic growth (Ivanov, 2005; Ivanov and
Webster, 2007):
 t 
 Yq1(p0) Yqt0(p0) 
––––– – ––––– 
 N1 N0 
grt = –––––––––––––  .100 (3)
 Yq0(p0) 
 ––––– 
 N0 
 
As Ivanov and Webster (2007) point out, grt reflects only the direct impact of
tourism on economic growth. The indirect and induced effects are part of
the difference between gr from Equation (1) and grt from Equation (3) and
are considered to be the direct contribution of other industries on economic
growth. In this regard, they should not be taken into consideration in the
process of measuring tourism’s contribution to economic growth. Equation (3)
shows that tourism’s contribution to per capita GDP growth grt is positive
when tourism GDP per capita in constant prices is increasing; that is, when
Yqt1(p0)/N1>Yqt0(p0)/N0. This is possible when tourism GDP in constant prices is
growing faster than the natural growth of population; that is, when Yqt1(p0)/
Yqt 0(p0)>N1/N0.
In order to identify the geographical differences in tourism’s contribution to
economic growth, in the current paper grt is calculated on four territorial levels:
global, regional (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern
America and Oceania), sub-regional (for example, Eastern, Western, Southern
and Northern Europe) and country level. On each supranational level we
calculate aggregated grt by aggregating countries’ GDP, tourism GDP and
population figures on that same level. The aggregated grt considers the
differences in population, economy size and absolute value of tourism GDP and
reflects better tourism’s contribution to economic growth on supranational level,
than the simple countries’ average.
Cross-section analysis
One of the aims of the current paper is to identify the factors that influence
the magnitude of tourism’s contribution on economic growth grt. In order to
Table 3. Cross-section analysis research questions, factors and variables.

Research question Factor Variable
Does tourism contribute to economic Population size Log average midyear population size
growth more in smaller countries?
Does tourism stimulate the economy Economy size Log average GDP in USD in
more in smaller economies? constant 2005 prices
Does tourism GDP volume stimulate Tourism GDP Log average tourism GDP in USD
per capita economic growth? in constant 2005 prices
Does tourism have higher contribution Tourism share in Average tourism share in country
to growth in economies where it has a country GDP GDP (percentage)
greater share of the GDP?
Does tourism contribute more to Economic wealth Log average per capita GDP in USD
economic welfare in poorer countries? of local population in constant 2005 prices
Are there regional variations in Geographical Dummy variables for regions
tourism’s contribution to economic region
growth?
Does tourism stimulate LDCs’ LDCs Dummy variables for LDCs
economic growth more than for other
countries?
achieve this, we apply a cross-section analysis with the help of SPSS 16.0. Table
3 summarizes the research questions, factors and their respective independent
variables used in the analysis. The dependent variable is modelled by long-term
country grt, calculated as the average country grt for the period 2000–2010,
in order to eliminate short-term fluctuations in grt due to random events (like
9/11 or SARS). We investigate the impacts of the following factors on grt:
economy and population size of the country, tourism GDP and its share in
country’s GDP, economic wealth of the country’s population, level of develop-
ment and location in a geographical region. The monetary independent
variables in the analysis are calculated in constant prices in order provide
methodological consistency with grt that is calculated with the help of variables
in constant prices (GDP and tourism GDP). The population and GDP values
are transformed into natural logarithms, because the nominal values otherwise
would skew the data in favour of India and China for population size and the
USA for economy size (GDP).
It should be noted that GDP and tourism GDP appear on both sides of the
regression analysis. They are used as primary data to calculate the value of the
dependant variable grt (see Equation (3)), but they are also used as independent
variables to explain the variations of grt among countries. However, we should
emphasize that grt, GDP and tourism GDP represent different concepts. The real
per capita tourism-related GDP growth grt measures tourism’s contribution to
economic growth; that is, what portion of the real per capita GDP growth is
generated directly by tourism. Conversely, GDP is a measure for the size of
country’s economy, while tourism GDP shows the value of GDP that is
generated by tourism. In practice, countries with different GDP or tourism
GDP can have the same tourism contribution to growth and vice versa –
countries with the same GDP or tourism GDP can have different contribution
of tourism to GDP. In this regard, grt is conceptually and methodologically

different from the GDP and tourism GDP and the latter can be used as
explanatory independent variables for the former.
Data
Most of the data are gathered from public sources. Country-level data on mid-
year population and GDP expressed in US dollars in constant 2005 prices are
retrieved from the website of the United Nations (UN, 2011a, 2011b), while
data on tourism GDP are collected from the website of the World Travel and
Tourism Council (WTTC, 2011). We use the WTTC’s data on Travel and
Tourism direct contribution to GDP in line with the requirement of the growth
decomposition methodology discussed above. This measurement includes the
GDP generated by industries dealing directly with tourists (hotels, travel
agents, airlines and other passenger transportation services), as well as the
activities of restaurants and leisure industries that deal directly with tourists
(WTTC, 2011). This statistic is equivalent to total internal travel and tourism
spending within a country minus purchases made by those industries (including
imports). In terms of the UN’s Tourism Satellite Account methodology, it is
consistent with total tourism GDP calculated in Table 6 of the Tourism Satellite
Account TSA: RMF 2008 (WTTC, 2011). Therefore, tourism GDP calculated
by the WTTC is completely in line with the System of National Accounts SNA:
2008 that is the basis for the calculation of GDP data by the UN. In this
regard, both data sets on GDP and tourism GDP are methodologically
compatible and can be used simultaneously. Both are used in this analysis in
constant 2005 prices and are expressed in US dollars. In total, 174 countries
have all statistics necessary for the calculations (GDP, tourism GDP and mid-
year population) and are included in the analysis. In 2010 they have 99.49%
of world’s population. In this regard, the final data set of 174 countries is
considered representative for the study on tourism’s contribution on economic
growth on a global scale.
Discussion
The global picture

The Appendix presents the contribution of tourism to real per capita economic
growth for each of the 174 countries for the period 2000–2010, while Table
4 and Table 5 summarize the results. The grouping of the countries follows
the original geographical classification of countries from the United Nations.
Data from Table 4 reveal that tourism’s contribution to economic growth was
not constant. In 2000, in 122 countries tourism had a positive contribution
while in 52 it in fact decreased the economic welfare of local population. The
consequences of 9/11 are quite evident in the data. In 2001 the number of
countries with positive tourism contribution was 102, in 2002 it was 86 and
in 2003 it was only 83. In 2003, the situation was additionally aggravated by
the outbreak of SARS. During the same years 2001, 2002 and 2003 tourism’s
contribution to the world economy was negative: –0.0268%, –0.0565% and
–0.0472%, respectively (Table 5). The negative trend was reversed in 2004.
488
Table 4. Summary results of tourism’s contribution to economic growth (2000–2010).
Total number of countries and territories analysed = 174 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
TOURISM ECONOMICS
Number of countries with growth below –1% 13 12 10 7 4 11 7 8 15 25 5
Number of countries with growth between –1% and 0% 39 60 78 84 46 47 58 48 100 76 84
Number of countries with growth between 0% and 1% 93 87 73 65 94 98 82 98 54 64 80
Number of countries with growth above 1% 29 15 13 18 30 18 27 20 5 9 5
Major event 9/11 SARS World financial crisis
Swine flu
Bird flu
Table 5. Inter- and intra-regional comparison of tourism’s percentage contribution to economic growth (2000–2010).
Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
(2000–
2010)
WORLD 0.2421 –0.0268 –0.0565 –0.0472 0.0990 –0.0119 0.0374 0.0650 –0.0799 –0.1290 0.0670 0.0145
AFRICA 0.3700 0.3068 0.2524 0.2481 0.6796 0.4010 –0.2499 0.2741 –0.0577 –0.0674 –0.0256 0.1938
Eastern Africa –0.5315 0.3139 –0.1073 0.1279 0.9260 0.4686 0.6011 0.4727 –0.1643 –0.3833 0.2193 0.1767
Middle Africa –0.0154 0.2539 –0.0240 0.2736 0.0286 0.2639 –0.1613 0.2161 –0.1118 0.3316 –0.2404 0.0741
Northern Africa 0.6142 0.2946 0.1733 0.6720 1.1619 0.5028 0.0817 0.3447 –0.0473 –0.0532 –0.0374 0.3370
Tourism’s contribution to economic growth

Southern Africa 0.2991 0.5121 0.6998 0.1337 0.1575 0.2291 0.3520 0.3090 0.0538 –0.2263 0.0462 0.2333
Western Africa 0.7845 0.1438 0.1516 –0.3072 0.7640 0.6465 –2.1748 0.1783 0.0183 0.3273 0.0369 0.0517
LDCs in Africa 0.1641 0.6050 0.0000 0.1003 0.3403 0.5034 0.1713 0.4604 –0.0258 0.0388 0.0529 0.2192
ASIA 0.1312 0.1027 0.0372 0.0948 0.2380 0.1144 0.1811 0.2060 0.0012 –0.0286 0.1022 0.1073
Eastern Asia 0.0805 0.0743 0.0806 0.0747 0.1725 0.1593 0.2372 0.1715 –0.0096 –0.0169 0.1431 0.1061
South Central Asia 0.4443 –0.2712 –0.2215 0.2860 0.1546 –0.1918 0.2040 0.1630 0.0426 0.0305 0.0966 0.0670
South Eastern Asia –0.1775 0.4710 0.0742 –0.4702 0.8167 0.2084 0.3114 0.5275 –0.0654 –0.4693 0.1157 0.1221
Western Asia 0.4186 0.4090 0.0246 0.4697 0.3532 0.1030 –0.2252 0.2591 0.0875 0.1600 –0.1049 0.1777
EUROPE 0.3837 –0.0478 –0.1840 –0.1311 0.0548 0.0057 0.0698 0.0027 –0.0862 –0.1608 0.0175 –0.0069
Eastern Europe 0.4485 0.0951 –0.1309 –0.0427 0.2423 0.1695 0.1010 0.1401 –0.0047 –0.0094 0.0126 0.0929
Northern Europe 0.1742 –0.1469 –0.1511 –0.1200 –0.0157 –0.0524 0.0138 –0.0527 –0.0434 –0.0462 0.0121 –0.0389
Southern Europe 0.6507 0.0172 –0.2443 –0.1521 0.0751 0.0521 0.1225 –0.0089 –0.1632 –0.4053 0.0381 –0.0016
Western Europe 0.3233 –0.0807 –0.2046 –0.1677 0.0186 –0.0448 0.0474 –0.0106 –0.1043 –0.1495 0.0006 –0.0339
LATIN AMERICA
AND THE
CARIBBEAN 0.1738 0.1066 0.2988 0.1049 0.2416 0.0325 –0.1245 0.2018 –0.0966 –0.1938 0.1335 0.0799
Caribbean –0.0114 –0.0939 0.0025 0.5236 0.1917 –0.0075 0.2604 0.0399 –0.1984 –0.2896 0.0545 0.0429
Central America 0.5866 0.0774 0.0325 –0.0113 0.1516 0.1553 0.0767 0.1696 –0.0663 –0.9031 0.1672 0.0396
South America –0.0471 0.1491 0.4959 0.1208 0.3016 –0.0365 –0.2908 0.2365 –0.1055 0.1991 0.1225 0.1041
NORTHERN
AMERICA 0.2005 –0.0893 –0.0324 –0.0610 0.0233 –0.1340 –0.0240 0.0182 –0.0946 –0.1700 0.1153 –0.0225
489
OCEANIA 0.6271 –0.1791 0.0339 –0.1802 –0.0772 –0.0288 –0.0489 –0.1375 –0.3253 0.2447 0.0641 –0.0007
From 2004 until 2007 tourism had high and positive contribution to economic
growth with the exception of 2005. In 2004 in 30 countries it increased the
real per capita GDP by more than 1% and in further 94 countries it still had
a positive contribution although less than 1%. The world financial crisis in
2008–2009 and the swine and bird flu outbreaks in 2009 negatively influenced
tourism. In 2008 tourism decreased the economic welfare in 115 countries,
while the respective figure for 2009 is 101. Data also reveal that the
consequences of the crisis are now nearly overcome – in 2010 tourism’s
contribution was positive in half of the economies and the world’s aggregated
g|tr was 0.0670%.
Inter-regional difference
With an average aggregated contribution for the 2000–2010 period of 0.1938%,
tourism in Africa had the highest contribution to economic growth (see Table
5). Asia took second place with average aggregated contribution of 0.1073%,
Latin America and the Caribbean was third with 0.0799%. In Europe, Northern
America and in Oceania the average aggregated tourism contribution was
slightly negative at –0.0069%, –0.0225% and –0.0007%, respectively. These
results might be attributable to the explosive growth of tourist arrivals (both
domestic and international) in Africa and Asia during the period. Another
reason might be the possibly better linkages between tourism and other
industries, especially in Asia, that decrease the necessity for imports and, thus,
increase the tourism GDP. Furthermore, as Equation(3) shows the inverse
relationship between tourism’s contribution to economic growth and the
country’s per capita GDP. In this regard, any unit of currency spent on travel
and tourism would produce, ceteris paribus, a higher contribution to economic
growth in the country with the lower per capita GDP. Therefore, a third reason
for Asia and Africa’s top positions might be the lower statistical base for
calculating the per capita GDP compared to Europe and Northern America,
for example. Table 5 also reveals that in seven out of 11 years tourism in
Northern America and Oceania had a negative impact on growth, while only
in one of the years in the analysis its contribution was negative in Asia. It is
interesting to note that despite tourism’s sheer size in Europe, its aggregated
contribution to economic growth was negative in 2002–2004 (the year after
9/11) and in 2008–2009 (during the climax of the financial crisis and health
concerns caused by the swine and bird flu outbreaks). Europe recovered from
these shocks more slowly than Asia, for example, where the aggregated grt after
9/11 dropped but remained positive. Latin America and the Caribbean also had
a higher performance than Europe, with the exception of 2008–2009, which
hit the aggregated grt in Latin America and the Caribbean more than anywhere
else in the world.
Intra-regional difference
Africa
Tourism has the highest contribution to economic growth in Northern Africa,
which saw an average aggregated grt of 0.3370%. This is not surprising since
Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia included in this sub-region are traditional tourist
destinations, relying heavily on tourism for their economic development.

Southern Africa had an average aggregated of 0.2333%, while in Eastern Africa
it was 0.1767%. In Middle and Western Africa, which are not well developed
from a tourist perspective, tourism’s average aggregated contribution was modest
at 0.0741% and 0.0517%, respectively. Five out of eight countries in Middle
Africa are considered least developed countries (LDCs) by the UN (Angola,
Chad, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo and São
Tomé and Príncipe), while nine out of 13 countries in Western Africa are the
LDCs (Benin, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Togo). Although tourism is widely perceived as a tool for poverty
reduction (Scheyvens, 2011), data on tourism’s contribution to economic growth
in Middle and Western Africa do not support the hopes entrusted in tourism
as a poverty alleviation panacea. Furthermore, although LDCs in Africa had
higher average aggregated grt (0.2192%) compared to Africa as a whole (0.1938%),
it was much lower than its contribution in Northern African countries, for
example. In contrast, tourism’s contribution in some of the LDCs in Africa was
highly positive and might have led to poverty reduction – the average grt was
0.5087% in Ethiopia and 0.3130% in Tanzania. Results also depict that
countries in the five African sub-regions show quite diverse patterns in
tourism’s contribution to economic growth. Mauritius, Cape Verde and Egypt
are the three countries where tourism’s contribution was strongest. The case of
Mauritius is interesting, because in six out of 11 years of the analysis grt was
higher than 1% (see Appendix). The drop in long-haul expenses due to the
World financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 caused a sharp decrease in grt, but in
2010 tourism contributed nearly 2% of the economic growth. At the other
extreme are the Comoros and São Tomé and Príncipe with a negative impact
during the whole study period.
Asia
Tourism in Asia is definitely influencing positively economic growth. However,
Table 5 reveals that Eastern Asia had an average aggregated grt of 0.1061%, in
South-Central Asia grt was 0.0670%, in South-Eastern Asia grt was 0.1221% and
Western Asia grt was 0.1777%. It is interesting to note that despite the explosive
growth of tourism in Eastern Asia (China, Hong Kong, Macao, South Korea,
Japan, Mongolia) it had not yet effectively transformed into high contribution
to economic growth. The reason is obvious – although the growth of inter-
national and domestic arrivals numbers are high in the region, the per capita
arrivals and tourism GDP are low compared to other countries (in 2010 the
per capita tourism GDP in China was US$110 while it was around US$2,000
in Australia). A peculiar case is Macao SAR with an average grt of 5.7482%
(highest among all countries in the world) that might be attributable to the
development of gambling tourism. Furthermore, Macao SAR had positive grt
during the whole period, even during the financial crisis grt was greater than
1%. Another noticeable case is the Maldives. At the beginning of the study
period the Maldives experiences high contribution of tourism to economic
growth with grt reaching 9.2239% in 2003 and 7.4623% in 2004. The tsunami
in December 2004 led to a nearly 36% drop in international tourist arrivals
in 2005 (Muqbil, 2006) that translated to 23.4534% negative tourism impact
on economic growth. In 2006 the country recovered, and the positive grt of
26.0589% compensated the losses from the preceding year. However, the
financial crisis caused a new sharp drop in grt in 2008 and 2009 of –4.1877%
and –10.1104%, respectively. In contrast to LDCs in Africa, tourism in LDCs
in Asia had a much stronger impact on growth. In fact, the grt in Cambodia
was above 1% in seven out of 11 years in the analysis with an average value
1.2102%. In Laos the average grt was positive (0.5805%) like in Yemen,
Myanmar (formerly Burma) and Bangladesh. Nepal was the only LDCs in Asia
with negative grt.
Europe
Eastern Europe had the highest average aggregated grt of 0.0929%, while the
other three sub-regions had a negative average aggregated grt (see Table 5).
Results are surprising since Mediterranean countries (most of which fall within
the UN’s definition for Southern Europe) rely heavily on mass tourism. It turns
out that tourism in that sub-region does not contribute significantly to per
capita economic growth. That could be attributable to low-cost mass tourism
development with low contributions to GVA and GDP. The high per capita
GDP might be the explanation for the low contribution of tourism to economic
growth in Northern and Western Europe. Montenegro seems the local leader
with average grt of 1.0869%, followed by other two Balkan countries – Croatia
(average grt = 0.6939%) and Albania (average grt = 0.6476%). Countries in
Western Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Switzerland) have systematically negative grt for most of the
years of the study period – in 2001, 2002 and 2009 for all of them grt < 0.
Analysis shows that grt was much lower in European countries compared to
African and Asian economies, which could be explained by the explosive growth
of tourism in these two regions, especially in Asia.
Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania

With aggregated grt of 0.1041% South America is definitely the sub-region that
benefits mostly from tourism development (see Table 5). In Central America
the average aggregated grt was 0.0396%, while in the Caribbean grt was 0.0429%.
The explanation for the low grt might be the high tourism-related import
leakages in the Caribbean islands. Panama is the country with highest average
grt at 0.4030%, while the Cayman Islands are at the other extreme, with a grt
of –0.9384%. In Northern America and Oceania (see Appendix) tourism’s
contribution to economic growth is predominantly negative, although with a
very minute absolute value. In the USA, for example, grt was negative in 7 of
the 11 years in the analysis. Due to the small number of countries, we did not
calculate aggregated grt for Oceania’s sub-regions, while Northern America does
not include any sub-regions, according to the classification of the UN.
Factors influencing tourism’s contribution to economic growth

In order to answer the research questions from Table 3, correlation and
regression analysis is performed and the results are summarized in Tables 6, 7
and 8.
Table 6 shows the correlations between the average country grt on the one hand
and the regional dummy variables and the dummy variable for LDCs, on the
Table 6. Pearson correlations: dummy variables and tourism’s contribution to growth

(2000–2010).
Dummy variable Average tourism contribution
to economic growth (per capita)
Least developed countries Pearson correlation 0.041

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.595
Africa Pearson correlation 0.044
Asia Pearson correlation 0.196**
Europe Pearson correlation –0.070
Latin America and Caribbean Pearson correlation –0.119
Northern America Pearson correlation –0.056
Oceania Pearson correlation –0.077
Notes: **
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N = 174.
other. Findings show no statistically significant relationship between the

variables during the study period, with the exception for the dummy variable
for Asia (p = 0.010), that shows a very low but statistically significant positive
correlation with grt. Further sub-regional analysis illustrates that this correlation
with Asia is driven by the sub-region of Eastern Asia, which is largely driven
by Macau.
The bivariate correlations between grt and the set of economic and demo-
graphic variables is shown in Table 7. The findings highlight a positive and
statistically significant relationship between tourism’s contribution to real per
capita economic growth during the study period and tourism’s share in country’s
GDP (p = 0.000). This suggests that those countries with a large tourism sector
relative to the size of the economy are generally associated with a high per
capita tourism contribution to economic growth. None of the other presumed
explanatory variables correlate with the dependent variable. What is also
noteworthy is that the variables largely correlated well with each other, meaning
that regressions with the independent variables may suffer from some collinearity.
Table 8 illustrates the results of a multiple linear regression of grt (being the
dependent variable) and all economic, demographic and dummy variables from
Table 3 (being the independent variables). Results reveal that the adjusted R-
squared value is 0.396, meaning that the independent variables in the model
explain about 40% of the variations in the dependent variable. It is evident
that most of the independent variables have no influence upon tourism’s
contribution to economic growth with two noteworthy exceptions. The first
exception is the average tourism share in GDP. It has a positive and statistically
significant (p = 0.000) influence on grt, showing that the greater the tourism
share of GDP, the greater grt. Second, the dummy variable indicating Latin
America and the Caribbean (p = 0.033) is negatively correlated to grt; that is,
494
Table 7. Pearson correlations: economic and demographic variables.
Economic and demographic variables Average Log Log Average Average Average
tourism average average per capita tourism and tourism
contribution total GDP (2000– GDP (1999– travel GDP share in
to economic population 2010) in 2009) in (2000–2010) GDP
growth (per (1999– constant constant in constant (2000–10)
capita) 2009) 2005 prices 2005 prices 2005 prices
(2000–10) (US$) (US$) (US$)
TOURISM ECONOMICS
Average tourism contribution to Pearson correlation 1
economic growth (per capita) Sig. (2-tailed)
(2000–2010)
Log average total population Pearson correlation –0.026 1
(2000–2010) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.732
Log average GDP (1999–2009) in Pearson correlation –0.076 0.737** 1
constant 2005 prices (USD) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.319 0.000
Average per capita GDP (1999–2009) Pearson correlation –0.130 –0.186* 0.401** 1
in constant 2005 prices (USD) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.087 0.014 0.000
Average tourism and travel GDP Pearson correlation –0.055 0.359** 0.513** 0.268** 1
(2000–2010) in constant 2005 prices Sig. (2-tailed) 0.467 0.000 0.000 0.000
(USD)
Average tourism share in GDP Pearson correlation 0.561** –0.452** –0.318** –0.008 –0.083 1
(2000–2010) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.916 0.276
Notes: **
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 174.
Table 8. Multiple regression with all variables.
Model Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
B Std error Beta t Significance
(Constant) –0.529 0.763 –0.694 0.489

Log average total population (2000–2010) 0.056 0.049 0.233 1.134 0.259

Log average GDP (1999–2009) in constant 2005 prices (USD) –0.002 0.049 –0.010 –0.045 0.965
Average per capita GDP (1999–2009) in constant 2005 prices (USD) –3.024E–6 0.000 –0.091 –0.725 0.469
Average tourism and travel GDP (2000–2010) in constant 2005 prices (USD) –0.001 0.001 –0.083 –1.032 0.303
Average tourism share in GDP (2000–2010) 5.398 0.544 0.707 9.930 0.000
Asia dummy variable 0.021 0.098 0.017 0.212 0.832
Europe dummy variable 0.059 0.114 0.048 0.521 0.603
Latin America and the Caribbean dummy variable –0.227 0.106 –0.183 –2.147 0.033
Northern America dummy variable 0.134 0.302 0.034 0.443 0.659
Oceania dummy variable –0.183 0.165 –0.075 –1.111 0.268
Least developed countries dummy variable 0.045 0.122 0.033 0.372 0.711
Excluded variables Beta In t Significance Partial Collinearity
correlation statistics
Tolerance
Africa dummy variable 0.000
R R-square Adjusted Standard
R-square error of the
estimate
Model summary 0.659 0.435 0.396 0.3994144%
495
tourism in the region has a lower impact on growth compared to other regions.
All other variables do not have statistically significant correlations with grt (their
p-values are above 0.25). In light of these results, we cannot definitely answer
all research questions from Table 3. We do not find any significant impact of
the economy size, tourism GDP size, population size or economic wealth of
local population on the value of tourism’s contribution to economic growth.
This means that tourism can stimulate the real per capita economic growth in
both large and small, rich and poor countries, large and small economies, and
countries with high or low tourism GDP.
Conclusion
This paper is the first attempt to measure the actual contribution of tourism
to economic growth on a global scale and to identify the factors that influence
it. It has revealed that tourism had quite different contributions to economic
growth at the regional, sub-regional and country levels. Results show that
tourism had its strongest contribution in Africa, Asia and Latin America and
the Caribbean, while in Europe, Northern America and Oceania it had slight
negative impact on growth. At the country level, Macao SAR had highest
average grt in the world, followed by the Maldives and Cape Verde. Correlations
showed that tourism’s actual contribution to per capita economic growth grt was
higher in countries where tourism accounted for a larger share of the GDP.
Tourism does not seem to have contributed to economic growth in LDCs more
than in other countries.
The results from our research reveal that neither the size of the population
or economy of a country, nor the wealth or the amount of travel and tourism
GDP of a country have any significant influence on tourism’s actual
contribution to economic growth grt. In fact, there can be rich and poor
economies with equally small or high grt. Results furthermore suggest that if
governments want to sustain a high and positive grt, they should increase
tourism’s share of GDP, which means that GDP generated by tourism should
increase faster than the total GDP of the country. A note of caution is necessary
– from a mathematical point of view grt can increase if GDP generated by
tourism is decreasing slower than the total country’s GDP. In this case, tourism
is not increasing the per capita economic growth, but the drop in country’s
GDP would have been larger in absence of tourism.
The study is not without limitations. The main issue relates to the observed
high variations in grt, most notably for the Maldives, Saint Lucia and some other
small island economies. They might be attributable to the fact that statistical
data on tourism GDP is provided by WTTC with an accuracy of up to US$1
million, but in some cases data are rounded with an accuracy of up to US$10
million. For a large economy like China or the US such rounding would have
an insignificant impact, but for small economies with less than a million
inhabitants it could make a difference. Further research could focus on
decomposing grt by tourism GDP components (households’ domestic tourism
consumption, international tourism via tourism export receipts or tourist
companies’ investments) in order to identify the sources of tourism’s contribution
to economic growth. Additionally, future research could expand the regression
analysis by including more factors that could influence the value of tourism’s
contribution to economic growth.
References
Ainboade, O.A., and Braimoh, L.A. (2010), ‘International tourism and economic development in South
Africa: a Granger causality test’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 12, pp 149–163.
Arslanturk, A., Balcinar, M., and Ozdemir, Z.A. (2011), ‘Time-varying linkages between tourism
receipts and economic growth in a small open economy’, Economic Modelling, Vol 28, No 1/2,
pp 664–671.
Balaguer, J., and Cantavella-Jordá, M. (2002), ‘Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: the
Spanish case’, Applied Economics, Vol 34, No 7, pp 877–884.
Belloumi, M. (2010), ‘The relationship between tourism receipts, real effective exchange rate and
economic growth in Tunisia’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 12, No 5, pp 550–560.
Blake, A. (2004), ‘The structure of the Moffat scenario CGE model’, University of Nottingham,
ChristelDeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ttri/pdf/
2004_6.pdf, accessed 10 October 2005).
Blake, A., and Sinclair, M.T. (2003), ‘Tourism crisis management: US response to September 11’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 30, No 4, pp 813–832.
Blake, A., Arbache, J.S., Sinclair, M.T., and Teles, V. (2008), ‘Tourism and poverty relief’, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol 35, No 1, pp 107–126.
Brau, R., Lanza, A., and Pigliaru, F. (2003), ‘How fast are the small tourism countries growing?
Evidence from data for 1980–2003’, Tourism Economics, Vol 13, No 4, pp 603–613.
Brida, J.G., and Aguirre, S.Z. (2010), ‘Economic impacts of cruise tourism: the case of Costa Rica’,
Anatolia, Vol 21, No 2, pp 322–338.
Brida, J.G., and Fabbro, G. (2010), ‘The contribution of tourism to economic growth in Central
America and the Caribbean’, ARA Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 2, No 2, pp 116–124.
Brida, J.G., and Risso, W.A. (2009), ‘Tourism as a factor of long-run economic growth: an empirical
analysis for Chile’, European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 2, No 2, 178–185.
Brida, J.G., and Risso, W.A. (2010), ‘Tourism as a determinant of long-run economic growth’,
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol 2, No 1, pp 14–28.
Brida, J.G., Carrera, E.J.S., and Risso, W.A. (2008a), ‘Tourism’s impact on long-run Mexican
economic growth’, Economics Bulletin, Vol 3, No 21, pp 1–8.
Brida, J.G., Pereyra, J.S., Punzo, L.F., and Such, M.J. (2008b), ‘The economic contribution of
tourism sector: a comparison of the “World Top 5” and some Latin American emerging
destinations’, Social Science Research Network (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1099042, accessed 21
March 2008).
Brida, J.G., Pereyra, J.S., and Such, M.J. (2008c), ‘Evaluating the contribution of tourism to
economic growth’, Anatolia, Vol 19, No 2, pp 351–357.
Brida, J.G., Pereyra, J.S., Such, M.J., and Aquirre, S.Z. (2008d), ‘La contribución del turismo al
crecimientoeconómico’, Cuadernos de Turismo, Vol 22, pp 35–46.
Brida, J.G., Barquet, A., and Risso, W.A. (2010a), ‘Causality between economic growth and tourism
expansion: empirical evidence from Trentino-Alto Adige’, Tourismos, Vol 5, No 2, pp 87–98.
Brida, J.G., Pereyra, J.S., Risso, W.A., Such, M.J., and Aguirre, S.Z. (2009), ‘The tourism-led growth
hypothesis: empirical evidence from Columbia’, Tourismos, Vol 4, No 2, pp 13–27.
Brida, J.G., Lanzilotta, B., Lionetti, S., and Risso, W.A. (2010b), ‘The tourism-led growth hypothesis
for Uruguay’, Tourism Economics, Vol 16, No 3, pp 765–771.
Brida, J.G., Monterubbianesi, P.D., and Zapata-Aguirre, S. (2011), ‘Impactos del turismosobre el
crecimientoeconómico y el desarrollo. El caso de los principalesdestinosturísticos de Colombia’,
PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, Vol 9, No 2, pp 291–303.
Capo, J.P, Riera, A.F., and Rossello, J.N. (2007), ‘Tourism and long-term growth. A Spanish
perspective’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 34, No 3, pp 709–726.
Chen, C.-F., and Chiou-Wei, S.Z. (2009), ‘Tourism expansion, tourism uncertainty and economic
growth: new evidence from Taiwan and Korea’, Tourism Management, Vol 30, pp 812–818.
Cortes-Jimenez, I. (2008), ‘Which type of tourism matters to the regional economic growth? The
cases of Spain and Italy’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 10, 127–139.
Cortes-Jimenez, I., and Pulina, M. (2010), ‘Inbound tourism and long-run economic growth’, Current
Issues in Tourism, Vol 13, No 1, pp 61–74.
Cortes-Jimenez, I., Nowak, J.-J., and Sahli, M. (2011), ‘Mass beach tourism and economic growth:
lessons from Tunisia’, Tourism Economics, Vol 17, No 3, pp 531–547.
Dritsakis, N. (2004), ‘Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: an empirical investigation for
Greece using causality analysis’, Tourism Economics, Vol 10, No 3, pp 305–316.
Durbarry, R. (2004), ‘Tourism and economic growth: the case of Mauritius’, Tourism Economics,
Vol 10, No 4, pp 389–401.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., and Spurr, R. (2003a), ‘Inter-industry effects of tourism growth: some
implications for destination managers’, Tourism Economics, Vol 9, No 2, pp 117–132.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., and Ho, T. (2003b), ‘Contribution of tourism by origin market
to a state economy: a multi-regional general equilibrium analysis’, Tourism Economics, Vol 9, No
4, pp 431–448.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., and Spurr, R. (2004), ‘Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: new and old
approaches’, Tourism Management, Vol 25, No 3, pp 307–317.
Eugenio-Martin, J.L., Morales, N.M. and Scarpa, R. (2004), ‘Tourism and economic growth in Latin
American countries: a panel data approach’, FondazioneEni Enrico Mattei Nota di Lavoro 26.2004,
(http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL2004/NDL2004–026.pdf, accessed 2 July
2011).
Fayissa, B., Nsiah, C., and Tadasse, B. (2008), ‘Impact of tourism on economic growth and
development in Africa’, Tourism Economics, Vol 14, No 4, pp 807–818.
Figini, P., and Vici, L. (2010), ‘Tourism and growth in a cross section of countries’, Tourism Economics,
Vol 16, No 4, pp 789–805.
Goel, R.K., and Budak, J. (2010), ‘Tourism policies and cross-country growth: a disaggregated
analysis’, Tourism Economics, Vol 16, No 3, pp 535–548.
Gökovali, U. (2010), ‘Contribution of tourism to economic growth in Turkey’, Anatolia, Vol 21,
No 1, pp 139–153.
Gökovali, U., and Bahar, O. (2006), ‘Contribution of tourism to economic growth: a panel data
approach’, Anatolia, Vol 17, No 2, pp 155–167.
Gunduz, L., and Hatemi-J, A. (2005), ‘Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis valid for Turkey?’,
Applied Economics Letters, Vol 12, pp 499–504.
He, L.-H., and Zheng, X.-G. (2011), ‘Empirical analysis on the relationship between tourism
development and economic growth in Sichuan’, Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol 3, No 1,
pp 212–217.
Hernández-Martín, R. (2008), ‘Structural change and economic growth in small island tourism
countries’, Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, Vol 5, No 1, pp 1–12.
Holzner, M. (2011), ‘Tourism and economic development: the beach disease?’, Tourism Management,
Vol 32, pp 922–933.
Ivanov, S. (2005), ‘Measurement of the macroeconomic impacts of tourism’, Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Economics – Varna, Bulgaria.
Ivanov, S., and Webster, C. (2007), ‘Measuring the impact of tourism on economic growth’, Tourism
Economics, Vol 13, No 3, pp 379–388.
Ivanov, S., and Webster, C. (2010), ‘Decomposition of economic growth in Bulgaria by industry’,
Journal of Economic Studies, Vol 37, No 2, pp 219–227.
Katircioglu, S.T. (2009a), ‘Tourism, trade and growth: the case of Cyprus’, Applied Economics, Vol 41,
pp 2741–2750.
Katircioglu, S.T. (2009b), ‘Revisiting the tourism-led-growth hypothesis for Turkey using the
bounds test and Johansen approach for cointegration’, Tourism Management, Vol 30, pp 17–20.
Katircioglu, S.T. (2009c), ‘Testing the tourism-led growth hypothesis: the case of Malta’, Acta
Oeconomica, Vol 59, No 3, pp 331–343.
Katircioglu, S.T. (2010), ‘Testing the tourism-led growth hypothesis for Singapore – an empirical
investigation from bounds test to cointegration and Granger causality tests’, Tourism Economics,
Vol 16, No 4, pp 1095–1101.
Kim, H.J., Chen, M.-H., and Jang, S.C. (2006), ‘Tourism expansion and economic development:
the case of Taiwan’, Tourism Management, Vol 27, pp 925–933.
Kreishan, F.M.M. (2010), ‘Tourism and economic growth: the case of Jordan’, European Journal of
Social Sciences, Vol 15, No 2, pp 63–68.
Lee, C.-C., and Chang, C.-P. (2008), ‘Tourism development and economic growth: a closer look at
panels’, Tourism Management, Vol 29, pp 180–192.
Lee, C.-C., and Chien, M.-S. (2008), ‘Structural breaks, tourism development, and economic growth:
evidence from Taiwan’, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol 77, pp 358–368.
Lorde, T., Francis, B., and Drakes, L. (2011), ‘Tourism services exports and economic growth in
Barbados’, The International Trade Journal, Vol 25, No 2, pp 205–232.
Muqbil, I. (2006), ‘Impact of tsunami on 2005 arrivals in Maldives, Sri Lanka’, Travel Impact
Newswire (http://www.travel-impact-newswire.com/2006/02/impact-of-tsunami-on-2005-arrivals-
to-maldives-sri-lanka/, accessed 24 June 2011).
Narayan, P. (2004), ‘Economic impact of tourism on Fiji’s economy: empirical evidence from the
computable general equilibrium model’, Tourism Economics, Vol 10, No 4, pp 419–433.
Narayan, P., Narayan, S., Prasad, A., and Prasad, B.C. (2010), ‘Tourism and economic growth: a
panel data analysis for Pacific Island countries’, Tourism Economics, Vol 16, No 1, 169–183.
Nissan, E., Galindo, M.-A. and Méndez, M.T. (2011), ‘Relationship between tourism and economic
growth’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol 31, No 10, pp 1567–1572.
Nowak, J.-J., Sahli, M., and Cortes-Jimenez, I. (2007), ‘Tourism, capital good imports and economic
growth: theory and evidence for Spain’, Tourism Economics, Vol 13, No 4, pp 515–536.
Oh, C.-O. (2005), ‘The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean
economy’, Tourism Management, Vol 26, No 1, pp 39–44.
Ongan, S., and Demiröz, D.M. (2005), ‘The contribution of tourism to the long-run Turkish
economic growth’, Ekonomicky Casopis, Vol 53, No 9, pp 880–894.
Payne, J.E., and Mervar, A. (2010), ‘The tourism–growth nexus in Croatia’, Tourism Economics, Vol 16,
No 4, pp 1089–1094.
Po, W.-C., and Huang, B-N. (2008), ‘Tourism development and economic growth – a nonlinear
approach’, Physica A, Vol 387, pp 5535–5542.
Polo, C., and Valle, E. (2006), ‘A general equilibrium assessment of the impact of a fall in tourism
under alternative closure rules: the case of the Balearic Islands’, International Regional Science
Review, Vol 31, No 1, pp 3–34.
Proença, S., and Soukiazis, E. (2005), ‘Tourism as an alternative source of regional growth in
Portugal’, Centro de Estudos da UniãoEuropeia, Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de
Coimbra (http://www4.fe.uc.pt/ceue/working_papers/ieliassara34, accessed 2 July 2011).
Proença, S., and Soukiazis, E. (2008), ‘Tourism as an economic growth factor: a case study for
Southern European countries’, Tourism Economics, Vol 14, No 4, pp 791–806.
Scheyvens, R. (2011), Tourism and Poverty, Routledge, Abingdon.
Seetanah, B. (2011), ‘Assessing the dynamic economic impact of tourism for island economies’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 38, No 1, pp 291–308.
Sequeira, T.N., and Nunes, P.M. (2008), ‘Does tourism influence economic growth? A dynamic panel
data approach’, Applied Economics, Vol 40, pp 2431–2441.
Schubert, S.F., Brida, J.G., and Risso, W.A. (2011), ‘The impacts of international tourism demand
on economic growth of small economies dependent on tourism’, Tourism Management, Vol 32,
377–385.
Singh, D.R., Wright, A.S., Hayle, C., and Craigwell, R. (2010), ‘Is the tourism-led growth thesis
valid? The case of the Bahamas, Barbados, and Jamaica’, Tourism Analysis, Vol 15, No 4, pp 435–
445.
Soukiazis, E. and Proença, S. (2008), ‘Tourism as an alternative source of regional growth in Portugal:
a panel data analysis at NUTS II and III levels’, Portuguese Economic Journal, Vol 7, No 1, pp 43–
61.
Such, M.J., Aguirre, S.Z., Risso, W.A., Brida, J.G., and Pereyra, J.S. (2009), ‘Turismo y
crecimentoeconómico: Un analisisempírico de Colombia’, Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo, Vol 18,
No 1, pp 21–35.
Sugiyarto, G., Blake, A., and Sinclair, M.T. (2003), ‘Tourism and globalization: economic impact
of tourism in Indonesia’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 30, No 3, pp 683–701.
SNA (2008), System of National Accounts 2008/SNA:2008/, United Nations Statistics Division,
International Monetary Fund, World Bank, EUROSTAT, Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development.
Tang, C.F. (2011), ‘Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis valid for Malaysia? A view from disaggregated
tourism markets’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 13, No 1, pp 97–101.
Titan, E., Ghita, S., and Todose, D. (2010), ‘Tourism and economic growth in Europe – challenges
and opportunities’, Proceedings of the Tourism and Hospitality Management Conference, 6–8 May 2010,
pp 213–225.
TSA (2008) Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework. World Tourism
Organization, United Nations Statistics Division, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Commission of the European Communities.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011a), World
Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, CD-ROM edition.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (2011b), ‘National
Accounts. GDP and its breakdown at constant 2005 prices in US Dollars’, United Nations,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/
dnllist.asp, accessed 14 June 2011).
Vanegas, M., and Croes, R.R. (2003), ‘Growth, development and tourism in a small economy:
evidence from Aruba’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 5, pp 315–330.
WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council) (2011), ‘Economic data search tool’ (http://www.wttc.org/
eng/Tourism_Research/Economic_Data_Search_Tool/, accessed 14 June 2011).
Zhao, D., Yanagida, J., Chakravorty, V., and Leung, P. (1997), ‘Estimating economic impacts from
tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 24, No 1, pp 76–89.
Appendix
Tourism’s contribution to economic growth by country, 2000–2010 (%).

Region, sub-region and country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
(2000–
2010)

AFRICA
Eastern Africa
Burundi 0.9047 –0.0179 –0.0213 –0.0232 –0.0251 0.7923 –0.0498 –0.0479 –0.0455 1.3881 –0.7641 0.1900
Comoros –0.1397 –2.7218 –0.0675 –0.0651 –0.0638 –0.0641 –0.0616 –0.0607 –0.0601 –0.0590 –0.0575 –0.3110
Ethiopia 1.0323 0.4916 0.1194 0.2645 0.3994 0.7018 0.5995 0.4970 0.5704 0.0742 0.8460 0.5087
Kenya –4.2138 –0.0786 0.0354 0.4359 1.4046 0.6190 0.1760 0.5436 –0.8229 –0.7148 0.1986 –0.2197
Madagascar –0.0723 0.1044 –1.1440 0.0611 2.8425 0.6148 1.1872 0.1894 –0.0168 –0.8277 –0.1661 0.2521
Malawi 1.4404 0.0536 –1.4648 –0.3696 0.5116 1.4249 0.6978 –0.4950 –0.6944 0.0666 0.3285 0.1363
Mauritius 1.0081 1.9120 –0.4221 0.3459 1.8605 0.9836 1.7838 2.2615 –1.3570 –2.2485 1.9368 0.7331
Mozambique 0.1625 0.1937 0.4005 –0.0404 0.1952 0.6654 0.2806 0.4599 –0.0375 0.3070 0.1434 0.2482
Rwanda 0.8972 0.3743 0.3800 –0.0531 0.7524 0.2999 –0.4261 0.2300 2.3791 –0.3264 0.1350 0.4220
Seychelles 1.4261 –0.3587 –0.4672 –0.8313 –0.1707 0.7602 2.6353 3.5418 0.9932 –1.6532 –0.3313 0.5040
Uganda 1.7255 –0.6752 0.0846 0.0313 0.4068 0.6726 –0.1197 –0.0796 0.3808 0.4508 –0.3362 0.2311
United Republic of Tanzania –0.1152 1.8189 0.2216 0.1880 0.4992 0.3280 1.0956 0.4890 –0.6467 –0.5290 0.0938 0.3130
Zambia 1.0758 0.8957 –0.6555 0.2069 –0.3204 0.5859 –0.7360 0.8452 0.0568 0.2062 –0.1703 0.1809
Zimbabwe –1.5480 –1.4738 0.1696 –0.4340 3.0148 –2.0295 3.3988 –0.7247 0.8547 –1.4193 –0.6729 –0.0786
Middle Africa
Angola –0.3925 1.3303 0.3283 –0.0052 0.3263 0.6055 –0.4672 0.7755 0.0533 0.5576 –0.3857 0.2478
Cameroon 0.6693 0.4245 –0.3490 0.5387 –0.2337 0.2215 0.0155 –0.0528 –0.3878 0.4393 –0.2312 0.0958
Central African Republic –0.0282 –0.0252 –0.0226 –0.0210 –0.0223 0.6365 –0.0339 0.5713 –0.0411 –0.5662 –0.0298 0.0379
Chad –0.0405 0.2513 –0.3114 –0.0354 0.3951 0.2871 –0.1840 0.1184 –0.0322 0.1161 –0.3356 0.0208
Congo 0.1565 0.1432 0.2734 –0.1729 –0.2023 0.1215 0.2233 0.1192 –0.3442 0.1192 –0.0876 0.0317
501
502
(2000–
2010)
Democratic Republic of
the Congo 0.1077 –0.1892 –0.0401 0.6314 0.0668 0.3325 –0.1572 –0.2136 –0.1532 0.1116 –0.0820 0.0377
Gabon –0.6975 –1.1007 –0.0343 0.5026 –0.0326 –0.2910 –0.0621 –0.2530 0.0344 0.0410 –0.0200 –0.1739
São Tomé and Príncipe –0.1622 –0.1516 –0.1394 –0.1265 –0.1141 –0.1075 –0.1032 –0.0938 –0.0914 –0.0909 –0.0929 –0.1158
Northern Africa
Algeria 0.4855 0.1300 0.2312 0.2877 0.7068 0.4341 –0.5474 0.0495 –0.0950 0.5036 –0.1656 0.1837
Egypt 0.8172 –0.1305 0.3287 2.0760 2.5799 –0.0709 0.3681 0.8932 0.2475 –0.4785 0.0638 0.6086
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0.4178 –0.2005 0.3662 0.2732 0.3651 0.8052 –1.5948 –0.2563 –0.0830 0.1906 –0.1560 0.0116
Morocco 0.5940 1.8395 0.1922 0.3571 0.7930 1.2169 1.8504 0.5492 –0.4801 –0.4957 0.1421 0.5962
TOURISM ECONOMICS
Sudan 0.3027 0.0446 0.4894 –0.2573 0.3083 0.1863 0.0493 0.1799 –0.0052 0.3198 –0.0820 0.1396
Tunisia 1.1855 0.3747 –1.0895 –0.3040 1.1504 1.2427 0.5841 0.4168 0.1690 –0.1806 0.1103 0.3327
Southern Africa
Botswana 0.0318 0.1890 0.7965 0.9816 –0.1653 0.2115 0.0297 0.0335 –0.2821 0.0947 0.3277 0.2044
Lesotho 1.5745 0.7220 –0.0391 –0.0339 –0.0309 –1.3914 0.6509 0.6038 –0.6454 1.7418 –0.0418 0.2828
Namibia 0.2863 0.0132 0.7002 0.6444 –0.1039 –0.0556 0.7675 1.7746 –0.1510 –0.6104 0.9434 0.3826
South Africa 0.2904 0.5399 0.6935 0.0917 0.1836 0.2474 0.3549 0.2860 0.0783 –0.2415 0.0129 0.2306
Swaziland 1.5424 0.3534 1.2794 –0.5166 –0.2787 0.2493 0.1270 –0.6152 0.1736 0.3578 –0.1193 0.2321
Western Africa
Benin 0.1487 0.3014 –0.2577 –0.0458 –0.0239 –0.1668 0.3800 0.8538 –0.2561 –0.8155 0.1143 0.0211
Burkina Faso –1.9927 0.4038 0.1619 –0.0453 0.1373 –0.0458 0.1332 0.2272 –0.0672 –0.1482 0.0222 –0.1103
Cape Verde 2.4040 2.2035 0.9372 0.7789 0.4437 1.5977 5.5995 3.0679 0.6015 –2.6755 0.5627 1.4110
Côte d’Ivoire 0.1410 0.1683 –0.2236 –0.3037 –0.0869 0.2265 0.2324 –0.0002 –0.0452 0.0399 –0.2171 –0.0062
Gambia –0.1890 –0.1813 1.2658 1.2155 –0.2530 –0.2502 1.1419 2.3343 –2.7501 –1.3751 0.9173 0.1705
Ghana 3.2485 0.4115 –0.2104 –0.3541 0.4963 1.6365 –0.2129 –0.6731 –0.1963 0.5279 0.3098 0.4531
Guinea –0.0105 1.0497 –0.0267 –0.0265 0.2848 0.8887 0.6410 –1.0406 –0.0460 0.2305 0.2104 0.1959
Mali 0.2255 –0.5371 0.1452 0.0186 0.3384 0.8035 0.1758 –0.6390 1.0744 0.1235 0.2557 0.1804
Niger 0.2811 0.2774 –0.0529 –0.0502 0.2271 0.2187 0.1921 0.1724 –0.0764 –0.5153 0.1672 0.0765
Nigeria 1.0030 0.0407 0.2906 –0.4506 1.2263 0.6697 –3.4894 0.1714 0.0973 0.5180 0.0089 0.0078
Senegal 0.2900 0.5075 0.0465 –0.0553 –0.0877 0.8994 –0.0450 1.8097 –0.8762 –0.0720 0.1311 0.2316
Sierra Leone –0.0631 –0.0819 1.6890 1.3460 0.4855 0.4440 –0.7379 –0.1077 –0.0877 –0.0781 0.3979 0.2915
Togo 0.4059 –0.0364 0.4108 –0.0426 –0.0393 0.3819 –0.0467 0.3551 –0.0515 –0.0497 –0.0474 0.1127
ASIA
Eastern Asia
China 0.3281 0.1316 0.3819 0.3597 0.5793 0.4931 0.4197 0.2668 –0.0801 0.1507 0.3362 0.3061
China - Hong Kong SAR 0.4200 –0.0402 0.6096 –0.1358 0.9253 0.5169 0.5425 0.5455 0.3308 –0.0943 –0.0638 0.3233
China - Macao SAR 5.8396 4.4154 4.7372 4.1200 13.3654 0.1691 5.4420 12.6218 9.5411 1.8931 1.0852 5.7482
Japan 0.0067 0.0508 –0.0273 0.0071 –0.0351 0.0464 0.1625 0.0909 –0.0346 –0.1534 0.0442 0.0144
Mongolia 0.9788 0.2725 0.6148 –0.9879 0.7614 –1.3879 1.0862 2.1720 –3.1132 0.3795 0.2302 0.0915

Republic of Korea (South) –0.0123 0.1497 –0.0302 –0.1312 0.1012 –0.0977 0.0454 0.0751 0.1309 0.0817 –0.0673 0.0223
South-Central Asia
Central Asia
Kazakhstan 0.1775 0.8121 0.5392 0.1372 0.3049 0.3096 –0.1200 0.2608 –0.3228 0.3675 –0.0331 0.2212
Kyrgyzstan 0.8927 –0.4527 0.4087 –0.0028 0.3833 –0.0121 1.1704 –0.1440 –0.0405 –0.6303 –0.0278 0.1404
Southern Asia
Bangladesh 0.2450 0.0984 0.1680 0.1958 0.2907 0.3444 0.2314 0.1475 0.0386 0.0443 0.0945 0.1726
India 0.3290 –0.6262 0.4521 0.3327 0.0858 –0.3864 0.2613 0.2099 0.0898 –0.0206 0.1205 0.0771
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1.1399 0.6036 –3.3744 0.0061 0.2082 0.2217 0.0784 –0.0135 0.0199 0.2048 0.0476 –0.0780
Maldives d 0.0284 1.9743 3.3368 9.2239 7.4623 –23.4534 26.0589 4.3588 –4.1877 –10.1104 2.2063 1.5362
Nepal 0.0116 –0.5558 –0.9789 1.3039 0.1755 –1.4320 –0.4880 0.3294 0.9906 0.0653 –0.3233 –0.0820
Pakistan 0.2585 0.0741 –0.1415 0.4174 0.3160 0.3197 0.0795 0.1008 –0.0527 0.0845 –0.0065 0.1318
Sri Lanka 0.4273 –0.3221 1.2326 0.6527 0.4732 –0.5130 –0.0174 –0.0341 –0.2320 –0.1620 0.4885 0.1812
South Eastern Asia
Brunei Darussalam 0.1528 0.7870 –0.3899 0.0720 0.1987 –0.1483 –0.1910 0.0588 –0.1891 0.0627 –0.0734 0.0309
Cambodia 3.1358 2.0803 1.4604 –1.1879 3.9616 2.6923 1.2719 1.4314 –1.0194 –0.9576 0.4436 1.2102
Indonesia –0.2129 0.5158 –0.4401 –0.4827 0.2737 0.4690 –0.3179 0.4042 0.2180 –0.4185 –0.0117 –0.0003
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 2.8297 0.9321 –0.2840 –1.2369 1.1742 0.2172 0.3905 0.7100 1.1688 0.2292 0.2550 0.5805
Malaysia –2.0680 1.3274 0.4147 –0.9682 1.4554 0.5689 0.0692 1.8769 –0.7342 0.4428 –0.1454 0.2036
Myanmar 0.2267 0.5347 0.7063 –1.1540 1.0528 0.3691 0.1115 0.4256 0.0167 0.1048 –0.0187 0.2160
Philippines 0.0961 0.0589 0.2348 –0.3618 1.2154 0.2646 0.0704 0.1055 –0.7396 –1.2326 0.3250 0.0033
Singapore –0.4392 –0.1201 –0.0249 –0.7224 0.9736 0.1660 0.3562 0.1084 –0.0892 –0.4878 0.3578 0.0071
503
504
(2000–
2010)
Thailand 0.9641 0.2010 0.4389 –0.0328 0.7910 –0.6251 1.1198 0.1941 0.4043 –0.9605 0.1455 0.2400
Viet Nam 0.4086 0.6184 0.4622 –0.2202 0.6045 0.1257 1.6816 0.1549 –0.3386 –0.5534 0.2785 0.2929
Western Asia
Armenia 0.3528 0.9816 0.3001 0.7838 1.3484 –0.2329 0.2148 –0.2300 –0.1456 0.3930 –0.3461 0.3109
Azerbaijan –0.1655 0.1392 0.0887 0.9150 0.9505 0.5460 0.2773 0.4051 –0.2206 0.7880 0.0009 0.3386
Bahrain –1.6056 0.5189 1.1611 –0.0165 1.8354 –1.0103 –0.9678 –1.1134 –1.2614 0.4717 –0.7826 –0.2519
Cyprus 1.2919 0.3043 –0.9750 –1.6447 –0.5196 –0.0247 –0.2645 –0.0337 –0.7298 –1.1793 0.3443 –0.3119
Israel –0.0186 –0.8870 –0.0716 –0.0570 0.2151 0.3032 –0.0732 0.1296 0.1654 –0.1869 –0.0740 –0.0504
Jordan 0.3083 –1.4879 3.2919 –0.3930 2.7822 0.3603 2.3735 0.8599 –0.2067 –1.5565 –0.2794 0.5502
TOURISM ECONOMICS
Kuwait –0.3318 –0.0807 –0.1681 0.1065 0.0193 0.2621 –0.1289 0.0331 –0.0278 2.0338 –0.7128 0.0913
Lebanon 0.2001 0.2206 6.5652 5.2606 –1.6585 –0.4071 –0.7026 0.2250 0.1395 1.1087 0.6483 1.0545
Oman 0.6932 1.1295 0.1514 –0.1007 0.1159 0.1137 –1.8622 0.6334 –0.1572 0.3704 –0.4655 0.0565
Qatar –0.2213 0.3256 0.1023 0.0078 0.1008 –0.0393 –0.1540 –0.5831 0.0596 –0.0511 –0.0241 –0.0433
Saudi Arabia 0.0247 0.7120 –0.2048 0.8788 0.6352 –0.9674 –0.7687 0.3091 –0.2400 0.5227 0.1022 0.0913
Syrian Arab Republic –0.0720 –0.0267 –0.5982 –0.3799 2.7143 0.1591 –0.3601 1.0382 –0.5158 0.0619 1.2477 0.2971
Turkey 1.1706 0.7271 –0.1651 0.5553 0.1393 0.0473 –0.0399 0.0433 –0.0448 0.0666 –0.0546 0.2223
United Arab Emirates –0.3721 0.3516 0.1029 –0.2321 0.0427 2.0695 –0.6065 0.1786 0.4591 –1.5894 –1.1295 –0.0659
Yemen 0.3871 –0.0897 –0.1449 0.3119 0.1481 0.2273 0.3177 0.7011 0.7825 0.0056 –0.0897 0.2325
EUROPE
Eastern Europe
Belarus 0.7693 –0.3848 0.7686 0.0242 0.0010 0.6204 0.1977 0.1185 –0.0652 0.1593 0.0211 0.2027
Bulgaria 1.9093 0.8592 0.2758 0.9652 1.1492 –0.0982 0.1030 –2.0286 –0.0974 –0.1184 0.2695 0.2899
Czech Republic 2.2581 0.0047 –0.8977 –0.8021 0.2026 0.0950 0.1644 0.0496 –0.5973 –0.3477 –0.0685 0.0056
Hungary 1.2560 0.0933 –1.0945 –0.2384 –0.2644 0.4762 0.1077 –0.2234 0.1599 0.1345 0.3927 0.0727
Poland 0.1994 –0.5171 –0.0207 –0.0771 0.2501 –0.0229 0.1307 0.3691 –0.1311 –0.0341 0.0934 0.0218
Republic of Moldova 0.0443 0.0486 0.4547 0.0548 0.4015 0.0470 0.3414 –1.1233 –0.5440 0.2689 0.0115 0.0005
Romania 0.1618 0.0126 0.1545 0.2293 0.2848 0.7053 –0.4326 0.1411 0.1216 –0.0793 0.0449 0.1222
Russian Federation 0.0625 0.3222 –0.0526 0.0338 0.2138 0.1247 0.1104 0.1723 0.0890 0.0628 –0.0536 0.0987
Slovakia 0.1499 0.8060 0.3022 –0.2596 –0.2546 0.4122 0.4369 0.4541 0.2334 –0.1579 –0.2440 0.1708
Ukraine 0.4604 0.2195 0.1958 0.2259 1.1599 0.0847 0.1341 0.1574 –0.0223 –0.1864 –0.0414 0.2170
Northern Europe
Denmark 0.0887 –0.2450 –0.3368 –0.1155 0.1060 0.0912 –0.0376 –0.1011 –0.0634 –0.0203 0.0285 –0.0550
Estonia 0.8523 0.1289 0.2984 –0.1037 0.5430 0.3910 0.0776 –0.5382 0.0293 –0.2166 –0.0051 0.1325
Finland 0.3066 –0.1907 –0.1298 –0.1124 –0.0407 0.0106 0.0017 0.1271 –0.1440 –0.2414 –0.1563 –0.0518
Iceland 0.2611 0.1140 –0.2014 –0.4653 –0.1955 –0.1082 0.0151 –0.1241 0.7119 0.1536 –0.4726 –0.0283
Ireland 0.3672 –0.1611 –0.2588 –0.0204 0.0806 –0.0102 0.0290 –0.0082 –0.0381 –0.1071 –0.0557 –0.0166
Latvia 0.6212 0.1438 0.5112 0.3521 0.4507 0.7135 0.6019 0.2125 0.1247 –0.3256 –0.0122 0.3085
Lithuania –0.4791 0.1664 –0.0865 0.2795 0.2506 0.1159 –0.0156 0.0825 –0.2753 0.0690 –0.3227 –0.0196

Norway –0.1091 –0.1690 –0.2076 –0.2077 –0.1889 –0.2798 –0.3300 –0.1144 0.1335 –0.0791 –0.0595 –0.1465
Sweden 0.0743 0.2344 –0.0264 –0.0945 –0.0274 –0.0035 0.1324 0.0268 –0.0966 0.1298 –0.0331 0.0287
United Kingdom 0.2100 –0.1988 –0.1429 –0.1278 –0.0201 –0.0659 0.0399 –0.0732 –0.0533 –0.0520 0.0546 –0.0390
Southern Europe
Albania 1.2770 0.5014 0.6809 –0.3639 0.0827 0.8991 0.7186 1.0550 0.4170 1.1844 0.6710 0.6476
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.5036 0.2398 0.6273 0.1468 –0.1304 0.2278 0.3036 0.1885 –0.0962 –0.2483 –0.1084 0.1504
Croatia 1.2314 1.4632 0.0914 4.0034 –0.4580 0.7576 0.5059 0.4097 0.7924 –1.8554 0.6909 0.6939
Greece 0.3729 0.1833 –0.0933 –0.0062 0.3982 0.5613 0.3023 0.1437 –0.0558 –0.6024 0.0382 0.1129
Italy 0.6407 –0.0913 –0.3090 –0.2705 0.0137 –0.0796 0.0925 –0.0700 –0.2521 –0.2810 0.0255 –0.0528
Malta –1.1176 –0.1995 0.4330 –0.6757 –0.3079 –0.4488 0.1794 0.4700 –0.3363 –1.4796 0.8658 –0.2379
Montenegro 2.1725 0.4791 0.6950 0.5879 1.8641 1.9864 4.3948 4.9424 0.6594 –5.6409 –0.1850 1.0869
Portugal 0.7240 0.0543 –0.1331 –0.2791 0.1313 –0.0353 0.1650 0.3235 –0.0194 –0.2815 0.1689 0.0744
Serbia a 0.9495 –0.2245 –0.0957 0.2461 0.0730 0.2913 0.0992 0.7426 0.0108 0.6161 0.1652 0.2612
Slovenia 0.5895 0.3152 0.0614 –0.1039 0.1627 0.1807 0.0164 0.2574 0.2506 –0.2294 –0.0657 0.1304
Spain 0.6773 0.0846 –0.2603 –0.1607 0.0824 0.0947 0.0730 –0.0872 –0.1547 –0.5488 –0.0096 –0.0190
TFYR Macedonia 0.6652 –0.6486 –0.0042 0.1673 –0.0039 0.1723 0.1958 0.0994 0.0797 –0.0565 –0.0030 0.0603
Western Europe
Austria 0.5568 –0.1411 –0.1067 –0.0467 0.0347 0.0026 –0.0910 0.0518 0.2121 –0.2783 –0.0999 0.0086
Belgium 0.6203 –0.4884 –0.5628 –0.0837 0.1766 –0.1608 –0.0187 0.0528 –0.1331 –0.1924 –0.0299 –0.0746
France 0.3899 –0.0849 –0.1325 –0.2253 –0.0155 –0.0963 0.0674 –0.0156 –0.1612 –0.2466 0.0173 –0.0457
Germany 0.2960 –0.0437 –0.2344 –0.2406 0.0270 0.0056 0.0926 –0.0484 –0.0984 –0.0399 0.0278 –0.0233
505
Luxembourg 0.0027 –0.0489 –0.5433 –0.0252 0.2585 –0.0232 0.1542 0.1984 0.0096 –0.0738 0.1149 0.0022
506
(2000–
2010)
Netherlands –0.0568 –0.0227 –0.2289 0.0952 –0.0270 –0.1241 –0.0842 –0.0456 –0.2337 –0.2918 –0.1622 –0.1074
Switzerland 0.3031 –0.0453 –0.0938 0.0123 –0.0331 0.0208 –0.0712 0.1661 0.0964 –0.0836 0.0347 0.0279
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
Caribbean
Anguilla –0.6747 6.1298 –7.9128 –0.9288 –0.8521 4.8866 4.4573 –0.5589 –3.8614 –0.2945 –0.3691 0.0019
Antigua and Barbuda 0.0790 –1.9981 –0.0313 0.4884 1.9661 –1.9054 0.0453 –0.3103 0.5514 –1.4712 –0.6439 –0.2936
Aruba –0.0160 –1.7542 –0.7059 –0.9599 3.9494 –0.2749 –0.3687 1.9464 0.6441 –1.3071 –0.4887 0.0604
Bahamas 0.8526 –1.3013 0.2862 –0.9254 1.6300 0.6786 –0.7146 0.0078 –1.0266 –1.7807 0.6077 –0.1533
Barbados 1.4957 –0.8049 –0.3292 0.8510 0.2573 2.0386 2.3904 1.4388 –1.3072 –2.2512 0.2375 0.3652
TOURISM ECONOMICS
British Virgin Islands 1.7300 0.8588 –0.4534 3.7254 –3.5296 1.9685 –1.4506 0.2758 0.7316 –3.8247 1.7004 0.1575
Cayman Islands –1.1810 –0.3538 –0.5954 –2.9240 –1.1279 –3.9881 0.8685 –0.3327 –0.3659 –0.4323 0.1108 –0.9384
Cuba –0.1473 0.0432 –0.0125 0.2110 0.2171 0.7996 –0.1321 –0.0574 0.0390 –0.1783 0.0824 0.0786
Dominica 0.0445 0.0302 0.0204 0.0147 0.0161 0.0218 3.0308 0.0438 –2.6526 0.0273 0.0191 0.0560
Dominican Republic 0.0508 –0.0217 0.3995 2.1688 –0.3582 –1.3828 0.9863 0.0586 –0.2884 0.0679 0.3677 0.1862
Grenada –0.0200 –1.8213 1.8515 –0.0260 –1.7153 –1.8307 1.5926 1.6165 –1.6037 –0.0281 –0.0313 –0.1832
Haiti –0.0703 –0.3469 0.2646 –0.1303 –0.5184 –0.4838 0.6175 0.4013 0.5515 0.4149 –1.0790 –0.0344
Jamaica 0.1725 –0.4828 –0.6222 1.5801 0.2812 –0.4665 1.0398 –0.3514 –0.5230 0.2716 –1.0175 –0.0108
Netherlands Antilles –1.0916 0.0456 1.6778 1.6010 0.2030 –0.1611 –0.2387 0.7700 –0.2931 –0.7424 0.7404 0.2283
Puerto Rico –0.0302 0.0711 –0.0901 0.0769 0.2217 0.1909 0.1156 0.0250 –0.1733 –0.3225 0.0064 0.0083
Saint Kitts and Nevis b –2.6051 –0.0945 –0.0914 2.2108 4.4616 –0.1657 1.8577 –2.0823 –2.0157 –1.9028 –0.0977 –0.0477
Saint Lucia b –0.2322 –3.0453 –1.2599 4.5378 2.2755 3.2149 –5.9834 –0.1784 –0.2724 –1.2139 –0.5579 –0.2469
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines b –2.4376 2.3815 –0.0179 –0.0215 –0.0216 –0.0181 2.0266 –1.8760 –0.0091 –1.6802 –0.0040 –0.1525
Central America
Belize b 0.9518 0.8220 –0.2075 1.7504 1.3113 2.5219 1.8446 0.8912 –1.2847 –1.2152 –0.5495 0.6215
Costa Rica 1.2810 –0.5887 –0.6596 1.1029 0.7401 0.9898 0.0271 0.5550 –0.0515 –1.3393 –0.8410 0.1105
El Salvador 0.2254 0.1689 0.3383 0.4755 0.2778 0.5440 0.6109 0.1149 –0.1397 –1.4426 –0.0728 0.1001
Guatemala 0.5472 0.0462 –0.0284 0.1950 0.0228 0.4077 0.7849 0.3501 –0.2659 –0.4734 –0.2142 0.1247
Honduras 0.1781 –0.0728 0.0836 1.8890 0.7154 0.4194 0.5382 0.5938 0.1160 –0.3895 –0.1208 0.3591
Mexico c 0.6225 0.0874 0.0415 –0.0824 0.1400 0.1085 0.0262 0.1423 –0.0718 –0.9328 0.2315 0.0284
Nicaragua 0.6281 0.3632 0.6103 0.2718 0.3490 0.3311 –0.4250 0.2849 –0.0892 1.0101 –0.1686 0.2878
Panama –1.4287 0.6062 0.3753 0.8180 0.0764 0.8320 1.1500 0.8481 0.8568 0.2886 0.0098 0.4030
South America
Argentina –0.0516 –0.1482 0.8822 –0.6151 1.0565 1.2655 0.3784 0.4152 –0.2787 –0.1043 0.1992 0.2726
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) –0.1104 0.1830 0.2604 0.9789 0.3659 0.3849 –0.3638 –0.1905 –0.6499 0.1272 –0.0789 0.0824
Brazil –0.1500 0.2490 0.8284 0.3477 0.0680 –0.4791 –0.6283 0.1841 –0.1230 0.3197 0.2028 0.0745
Chile –0.0411 0.2968 –0.0076 –0.2135 0.4373 0.2412 –0.1127 0.1863 0.0509 0.3063 –0.1291 0.0923
Colombia 0.1242 0.1602 –0.0826 0.1889 0.1582 0.1082 0.2075 –0.0171 –0.1211 0.0272 –0.0379 0.0651
Ecuador 0.6990 –0.5367 –0.1928 –0.2222 0.1901 0.0608 0.0241 0.1718 0.0677 –0.1504 –0.0161 0.0087

Guyana –0.8480 –0.7221 –0.7070 –1.3780 0.6736 0.6517 –0.0133 –0.0106 –0.0085 –0.5999 0.5663 –0.2178
Paraguay 0.0796 0.2670 0.4520 0.1167 –0.1667 0.2661 –0.0634 –0.1047 –0.3711 0.3640 –0.1068 0.0666
Peru 0.1403 –0.0428 0.1542 0.2202 0.4648 0.4834 0.1883 0.3607 0.2218 0.3933 0.1614 0.2496
Suriname b –0.0540 –1.3172 –0.0343 –0.6230 3.3120 1.0761 –0.3602 –1.2873 –0.4859 –0.4534 –0.0229 –0.0227
Uruguay 0.2828 –0.2065 –0.2444 0.4791 0.8122 –0.3401 –0.3275 0.5251 –0.0759 0.8918 –0.3307 0.1333
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 0.1300 0.1521 –0.5341 –0.3188 0.8871 0.4960 –0.0266 0.6242 –0.0234 –0.0728 0.0313 0.1223
NORTHERN AMERICA
Bermuda –1.4985 –1.6249 0.9444 –1.9919 2.2863 –0.2194 0.7342 1.7753 –1.5587 0.3166 0.0169 –0.0745
Canada 0.2633 0.0034 0.0009 –0.1537 0.0708 –0.1620 –0.1108 –0.1616 –0.1514 –0.0893 0.0267 –0.0421
United States of America 0.1954 –0.0971 –0.0357 –0.0517 0.0183 –0.1313 –0.0163 0.0339 –0.0887 –0.1773 0.1235 –0.0207
OCEANIA
Australia/New Zealand
Australia 0.6593 –0.1328 0.0087 –0.2038 –0.0254 0.0115 –0.0519 –0.1381 –0.3608 0.3017 0.0486 0.0106
New Zealand 0.6049 –0.4074 0.3106 0.0580 –0.3536 –0.2699 0.0552 –0.1053 –0.0863 –0.1014 0.2667 –0.0026
Melanesia
Fiji –0.7937 0.9968 1.6910 0.3348 0.7615 1.4058 –0.8984 –0.7005 1.1172 –2.2174 –1.4698 0.0207
Papua New Guinea –0.0462 –0.0466 0.3532 –0.1523 –0.3306 –0.2282 –0.2148 0.1458 –0.1953 0.2822 0.1901 –0.0221
Solomon Islands b –1.9555 2.2171 –2.4768 0.0000 0.0000 2.2176 4.1486 –2.1323 –0.0974 1.5519 –0.1347 0.3035
Vanuatu b 2.5161 –5.0344 –6.3188 3.0474 –0.2203 –2.2362 –2.7140 2.9381 –1.6381 6.4381 –0.4198 –0.3311
Micronesia
Kiribati b 9.2947 –0.1612 –9.3120 0.0000 0.0000 8.3335 –8.4794 8.0852 –0.1273 –0.1218 –8.0358 –0.0476
Polynesia
507
Tonga –0.0202 –0.0209 –0.0214 –0.0216 –0.0216 –0.0217 –0.0224 –0.0225 –0.0222 –0.0201 –0.0177 –0.0211
508
(2000–
2010)
TOURISM ECONOMICS
Average 0.3622 0.1237 0.0177 0.2410 0.5401 0.1661 0.3908 0.4007 –0.1188 –0.2506 –0.0098
Standard deviation 1.2361 1.0277 1.4111 1.2164 1.4588 2.1021 2.4010 1.4285 1.0580 1.2688 0.7596
WORLD 0.2421 –0.0268 –0.0565 –0.0472 0.0990 –0.0119 0.0374 0.0650 –0.0799 –0.1290 0.0670
Major event 9/11 SARS World financial crisis
Swine flu
Bird flu
Notes: The table adopts the original geographical classification of countries from the United Nations. This is why Cyprus, Armenia and Azerbaijan appear in Western
Asia, not in Europe. Similarly, Europe does not include Central Europe as a sub-region. a Includes Kosovo; b high variation due to rounding the estimates for travel and
tourism GDP; c swine flu in 2009. d Drop in 2005 due to December 2004 tsunami. Arrivals in 2005 plummeted by 35.9% compared to 2004.

Article 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tourism Economics, 2013, 19 (3), 477–508 doi: 10.5367/te.2013.

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth:

The paper reviews the various methods and tourism development

Keywords: economic growth; economic impact; tourism and GDP;

Research into the measurement of tourism’s contribution to economic growth

(Brida et al, 2008a), Mediterranean countries such as Turkey (Gunduz and

Table 1. Methodologies for measuring tourism’s contribution to economic growth.

tourism development. The third section elaborates the growth decomposition

Methodologies for measuring tourism’s contribution to economic growth

of a tourism development related proxy variable, discussed in the next

cross-country consistency of statistical data in the field of tourism. In contrast,

Table 2. Proxy variables used to model tourism development.

Tourism development proxy variables

Proença, 2008), the number of international tourist arrivals (for example,

because of data availability and governments’ tendencies to stimulate inbound

Table 3. Cross-section analysis research questions, factors and variables.

of tourism to GDP. In this regard, grt is conceptually and methodologically

The global picture

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth

destinations, relying heavily on tourism for their economic development.

Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania

Factors influencing tourism’s contribution to economic growth

Table 6. Pearson correlations: dummy variables and tourism’s contribution to growth

Least developed countries Pearson correlation 0.041

other. Findings show no statistically significant relationship between the

(Constant) –0.529 0.763 –0.694 0.489

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth by country, 2000–2010 (%).

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth

Tourism’s contribution to economic growth

You might also like