Power asymmetries in tourism distribution networks

Tourism Events and the Nature of Stakeholder Power

“…Notwithstanding, diffuse stakeholders may exercise their power through passive resistance and a withdrawal of support from the events (Clarke & Jepson, 2011). Ford et al (2012) proposed forming more allies and collaborators with less powerful stakeholders as a strategy to increase both the power of diffuse stakeholders and the event organizer's own power. Likewise, the relationship with referral stakeholders could be strengthened by making them the media partners or sponsors of the event to receive free or augmented promotion, heighten the event brand value, prevent risk of negative publicity, and increase the legitimacy of the event at the destination Prebensen, 2010).…”

“…Thus, a stakeholder in control of essential and critical resources needed to achieve the event goals possesses a power advantage relative to other dependent stakeholders (Mitchell et al, 1997). The pattern of dependence and interdependence among stakeholders for critical resources determines the power distribution in the stakeholder network (Ford et al, 2012;Sheehan et al, 2007). For instance, the survival of an event organization depends on its ability to acquire support and resources from different roles and perceptions of risk.…”

“…Resources can be almost anything that is perceived as valuable (Pfeffer, 1992), either tangible (e.g., money, material supplies, manpower, real estate) or intangible (e.g., knowledge, skill, reputation, image, authority), as well as individual attributes such as competence, innovativeness, and trustworthiness (Church & Coles, 2007;Marzano & Scott, 2009;Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). A recent study on power distributions in tourism networks by Ford et al (2012) indicated that reputation, allies, and hierarchy were the source of influence. Beritelli and Laesser (2011) and Clarke and Jepson (2011) identified knowledge and competence as resources in the exercise of power.…”

“…Alternatively, Reid and Arcodia (2002) adopted a similar framework to Clarkson (1995), prioritizing primary versus secondary stakeholders based upon their 2007; Reid, 2011;Xue & Mason, 2011) it is clear that staging tourism events requires input and collaboration from numerous actors and stakeholders from the public and private sectors, respectively. Empirical investigations reveal that in the process of managing collaborative tourism activities, power is ubiquitous in every system of relations (see, e.g., Cooper, Scott, & Baggio 2009;Jamal & Getz, 1995;Sheehan, Ritchie, & Hudson, 2007) featuring differences in both the amount and the type of power that different stakeholders hold (Beritelli & Laesser, 2011;Ford, Wang, & Vestal, 2012;Hazra, Fletcher, & Wilkes, 2014;Marzano & Scott, 2009;Reed, 1997). Previous studies have explicitly addressed the concept of power within tourism planning and networks, as well as destination marketing and management, yet only a few studies (e.g., Clarke & Jepson, 2011;Larson, 2002) have analyzed the power relationships within the context of events and festivals.…”

Analysing governance in tourism value chains to reshape the tourist bubble in developing countries: the case of cultural tourism in Uganda

“…These multi-scalar and multi-sectoral characteristics of the tourism value chain generally result in power imbalances where each stakeholder tries to derive a larger share of value by gaining more power (Ford, Wang, & Vestal, 2012). This means that, when making an overall assessment of the regional development impacts of tourism, stakeholder interactions and power relations do not automatically fuel tourism development in a way that naturally leads to regional and/or local development (Kauppila, Saarinen, & Leinonen, 2009).…”