Strengthening the Ties Between Tourism and Economic Geography: A Theoretical Agenda*

Abstract

This paper stresses the importance of bridging the conceptual gap between tourism research and economic geography. It explains why the tourism production system has been unable to avoid its peripheral position in economic geography. The paper then focuses on the structure and organization of the principal agents comprising the tourism production system and identifies the state's pivotal role as coordinator of these agents. Lastly, it highlights two under-researched issues relating to entrepreneurship and labor pools and makes recommendations for further research.

Tourism, the global city and the labour market in London

“…It is, thus, necessary to consider the contradictory and problematic nature of tourism in a global city and the degree to which London's position as a global city intensifies labour market processes that have their roots in national policies and at other geographical scales. This will enhance previous discussions of tourism labour markets which have been limited in terms of conceptual development (Ioannides 1995;Ioannides & Debagge 1998). The next section of the paper outlines the different data sources used .…”

Economic Impacts of AAG Conferences∗

“…Although research that views the links between geography and tourism in positivistic terms still abounds (e.g., Mathieson and Wall 1982;Murphy 1985;Pearce 1987;Smith 1989;Ryan 1991), the subject has also been examined in geography from structuralist (Britton 1991;Page 1995;Wanhill 1995), humanistic (Squire 1994), and gendered perspectives (Kinnaird and Hall 1994). In particular, the growth and implications of conventions as indicators of social and economic change have started to attract the attention of geographers and other social scientists (Braun 1992;Law 1993;Shaw and Williams 1993;Zelinsky 1994;Ioannides 1995;Page 1995).…”

“…Williams and Shaw (1990) suggest that there has been an evolution in urban economic policy from the construction and subsidy of manufacturing parks in the 1960s, to the business and high-technology parks of the 1980s, to the point where tourism has become a talisman of national, regional, and local economic policies (Williams and Shaw 1988). In all of these policy initiatives, the role of the state has been both a "pump primer" in order to attract additional capital from the private sector (Ryan 1991) and an active promoter of local tourist attractions (Ioannides 1995). In fact, while the state has privatized many public functions in response to persistent budget deficits and recessions, it has continued to promote urban tourism and invest in new tourismrelated public-private joint ventures (Wanhill 1995).…”

“…As Britton (1991) and Ioannides (1995) have noted, these tourism promotion efforts cannot be separated from either the economic processes of restructuring and recession or the political machinations of the local state and the coalitions of power that develop between various actors and groups in the city. These forces have given rise to a host of interconnected outcomes in addition to tourist investments, including the revitalization of downtown areas in the face of competition from large suburban malls, the subsidy of footloose manufacturing, the management of inner-city zones of derelict warehouses and underused ports, and the rush to embrace gentrification as a salvation for inner-city residential zones.…”

“…The purpose of this article is to articulate this economic role by estimating the total direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts of these meetings on the cities in which the annual meetings have been held over the 12year period from 1983 to 1994. Since the "tourism sector" is a notoriously difficult set of economic activities to define (Ioannides 1995), the paper also disaggregates effects by industrial sector (e.g., hotels, food, local transport, retail trade). In addition, it measures impacts by the numbers of jobs and the personal income (wages and salaries) and business income (profits) created; these are important indicators to policy makers as well as to those who live and work in these cities.…”