-
University of Groningen
Framing povertyKusworo, Hendrie Adji
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's
version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check
the document version below.
Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of
record
Publication date:2015
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research
database
Citation for published version (APA):Kusworo, H. A. (2015).
Framing poverty: An institutional entrepreneurship approach to
poverty alleviationthrough tourism. [Groningen]: University of
Groningen.
CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not
permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of
it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s),
unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative
Commons).
Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches
copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove
access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research
database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical
reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to
10 maximum.
Download date: 21-07-2019
https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/framing-poverty(8a6af4a9-d1da-4791-b9ca-59729b603b9e).html
-
i
Framing Poverty
An institutional entrepreneurship approach to poverty
alleviation through tourism
PhD thesis
to obtain the degree of PhD at the University of Groningen on
the authority of the
Rector Magnificus Prof. E. Sterken and in accordance with
the decision by the College of Deans.
This thesis will be defended in public on
Monday 22 June 2015 at 09.00 hours
by
Hendrie Adji Kusworo
born on 11 December 1962 in Banjarnegara, Indonesia
-
ii
Supervisor Prof. G. de Roo Prof. G. J. Ashworth Assessment
committee
Prof. P. Huigen Prof. F. Vellas Prof. Susetiawan
ISBN 978-90-367-7902-9
Cover design by Catrapatti Raditya Anuraga
-
iii
To
Lies, Dhira, Catra and Praka for their patience, pray and
love
-
iv
-
v
Have they not travelled through the land, and have they hearts
wherewith to understand and
ears wherewith to hear? Verily, it is not the eyes that grow
blind, but it is
the hearts which are in the breasts that grow blind
(QS, 22: 46)
-
vi
-
vii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...........
List of Tables .........
List of Figures ........
Preface ..............
vii
x
x
xi
Chapter 1 Poverty alleviation through tourism: Searching for
alternatives ..... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Introduction .........
Tourism and poverty alleviation..........
1.2.1 Learning from the past ..................
1.2.2 Contemporary trends and challenges ................
Problem statement ......
Poverty alleviation through tourism: Developmental and
institutional
entrepreneurship perspectives .....
1.4.1 Developmental perspective .......
1.4.2 Institutional entrepreneurship perspective ........
Objective and questions ......
1.5.1 Objective ...........
1.5.2 Questions ..........
Empirical and theoretical contributions ......
Structuring the study ..........
Limitation of the study ........
1
2
2
4
6
7
7
10
14
14
14
15
16
19
Chapter 2 Methodology .....
21
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
Introduction ....
A general methodological approach .. ........
Empirical research design .......
Case study .......................
2.4.1 Understanding the concepts of tourism, poverty and poverty
alleviation ....
2.4.2 Case study data gathering methods and analysis ......
Literature study ...................
21
21
25
25
25
27
29
Chapter 3 Development and trade: Reconsidering the structural
approach to
poverty alleviation ........
31
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Introduction .....
Understanding structural circumstances: Tourism and development
.....
Development and poverty alleviation: From a global to a national
context .......
The rise of alternative development and practices...........
Social standards and certification and labelling
systems.....
Learning from Fairtrade ......
Tourism standards and certification and labelling systems and
poverty
alleviation.................................................................................................................
Conclusion ......
31
31
32
36
39
40
42
44
-
viii
Chapter 4 Tourism, poverty and motivation: Taking actors into
account in
poverty alleviation ................
47
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Introduction......
Understanding the concepts and defining the actors ......
4.2.1 Tourism and tourists......
4.2.2 Visited community, industry and place ........
4.2.3 Poverty and the poor .....
4.2.4 Tourism, poverty and poverty tourism ......
Tourist motivation and poverty: What is new? .......
4.3.1 Living atrocity tourism .....
4.3.2 Motivation to visit living atrocity tourism
sites.........
Tourism businesspeople expressing Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) ........
Ethical consideration ..............
Conclusion ......
47
48
48
50
51
53
55
57
61
63
64
65
Chapter 5 Discourse and network: Developing the institutional
resources of
actors
.............................................................................................................
67
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Introduction......
Linking discourse, network and institution ........
5.2.1 Discourse ......
5.2.2 Network ....
Kampung urban tourism..............
Analysis ......
Discourse and network construction.......
5.5.1 Moving from normal life to kampung urban tourism:
Balancing benefits
and risks
........................................................................................................
5.5.2 Internal and external networking: Gaining resources
......
Reflection ........
Conclusion ..........
67
68
68
72
75
77
78
78
84
85
91
Chapter 6 Opportunity and outcome: Capturing means and defining
goals for
innovative institution............
93
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Introduction.....
Linking opportunity, outcome and institution ........
6.2.1 Opportunity ......
6.2.2 Outcome .......
Dipowisata: The rise of the institutional entrepreneur and
social enterprise in
urban tourism .............
Analysis ......
Searching for opportunity, defining outcome and framing
institution .....
6.5.1 Recognising, discovering or creating product and market
......
6.5.1.1 Facilitating visit and initiating tourism business:
Recognising market and product .....
6.5.1.2 Starting business: Recognising market and
discovering
product .....
93
94
96
98
101
102
103
103
103
104
-
ix
6.6
6.7
6.5.1.3 Advancing business: Discovering market and product
.......
6.5.2 Individuality and collectivity: Defining the expected
outcome ......
6.5.3 Framing institution ........
Reflection ...........
Conclusion ......
107
109
112
115
123
Chapter 7 Institutional entrepreneurship in the actor and
structure linkages:
The making of innovative institutions ............
125
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Introduction......
The position, role of institutional entrepreneur and the
emergence of kampung
urban tourism social enterprise ....
Linking actor to structure through institutional
entrepreneurship ....
7.3.1 Making sense of Institutional-Individual Opportunity Nexus
(IION) .....
7.3.2 Institutional entrepreneurial activity and
challenge.....
7.4.3 Institutional entrepreneurial capacity .......
The IION and the making of an innovative institution .......
125
126
128
130
133
137
140
Chapter 8 Grounding institutional entrepreneurship in innovative
institutions
for poverty alleviation through tourism
............................
143
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Introduction ....
The IION within innovative institutions for poverty alleviation
through
tourism
................................................................................................................
Bringing institutional entrepreneurship in poverty alleviation
through tourism
mainstream ....
8.3.1 Structural approach: Improving tourism standards and
certification and
labelling schemes ..........
8.3.2 Actor oriented approach: Adding meaning and function to
poverty
tourism
......................................................................................................
Living atrocity tourism paradox .....
143
143
144
146
148
149
References .....
Appendices.....
Summary .......
Samenvatting ........................... .......
151
169
183
191
-
x
List of Tables
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Motivations for dark tourism as push or pull forces
...........................
Applicability of concepts on poverty tourism .
Individual-Opportunity Nexus (ION): Approach and business
entrepreneurial task .....
The coexistence of business and institutional entrepreneurial
task ....
Institutional-Individual Opportunity Nexus (IION): Approach
and
institutional entrepreneurial task .
58
60
119
119
122
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 4.1
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.2
Figure 7.3
Study trajectory: Issues, factors and actors .........
Structure of the study ..
Overall methodological process ......
Study design
Mixed methods for the empirical case study ..
Map of Kota Yogyakarta and kampung wisata for the case study
.
Map of Kabupaten Sleman and desa wisata for the case study
..
Tourism: People, place and experience ...
Dipowisata kampung urban tourism packages: welcomed, wearing
traditional dress, blusukan (walking through) and tasting
traditional
foods.
.......................................................................
Dominant discourses and their strategic fusion in the
Dipowisata kampung urban tourism development
Actors and relationships in the Dipowisata kampung urban
tourism
development
Institutional entrepreneurship in the context of actor and
structure ....
Goal, formation and function as a result of actor and
structure
interrelation .
Institutional entrepreneurial task within IION.
6
17
24
26
27
28
29
49
76
88
90
131
133
134
-
xi
PREFACE
Thanks to Allah Almighty. It is there, almost! Those were the
words I received after a
long wait. It was also some time since I had stopped the daily
routine of writing as the
first draft of my thesis was completed at the beginning of 2012.
The positive news was
like a bright light renewing my chi to reread, rewrite and
complete the thesis.
Although I had the intention to sit down and concentrate on
writing in 2007 the
year after completing my managerial tasks at the Centre for
Tourism Studies Universitas
Gadjah Mada (UGM), my efforts were more systematic then official
by the end of 2008.
Prof. dr. G. J. Ashworth who became my supervisor provided
helpful support to start
writing. It was not easy to narrow the theme of my thesis.
However, I knew that I need to
distil my work on how tourism can be helpful to community life.
My background in the
fields of leisure, tourism, social development and welfare
guided me to explore an
academic pitch beyond the common interest of tourism scholars in
Indonesia. I have been
searching for alternative thoughts and perspectives on how
tourism could be utilised as an
instrument to achieve not only economic purposes but also human
development. The
escalation of discussion on tourism and its relation to poverty
alleviation was challenging
my own views. With feedback obtained from thorough discussions
on the initial research
proposal with my supervisor and Prof. dr. Peter Ho, I decided to
concentrate on the
institutional dimension of tourism and poverty alleviation
linkage within the development
arena. My academic endeavour was focused on institutional
entrepreneurship within the
context of tourism and poverty alleviation.
Aided by affirmative yet objective comments many a time short
but sharp notes
from Prof. dr. G. J. Ashworth and Prof. dr. G. de Roo who also
became my supervisor I
gradually systematised my questions and found the answers. For
this I shall always be
grateful to both professors. Interestingly, I also came up with
new questions along the
way. I expect to keep exploring this thought-provoking field in
search of more answers
and to anticipate new questions. I am of the opinion that if
understood and managed
properly, leisure and tourism can contribute to the development
of humans and humanity.
Combining both teaching in the Department of Social Development
and Welfare,
the Graduate School for Tourism - UGM, and writing a PhD thesis
was indeed very
challenging. Travelling to and from the Netherlands many times
to meet the requirements
of writing a thesis and caring for my family in Indonesia was
not always easy. Indeed, the
last word written in this thesis not only signifies the
conclusion of this academic journey
but also the completion of the story of facing these
challenges.
Although the thesis is my responsibility, it does not only
represent my own
academic effort but also that of many scholars, colleagues,
friends, students and
community members. Their contribution is enormous. Without a
doubt, they all have
been my gurus. Among those are Prof. dr. P. Huigen, Prof. dr. F.
Vellas, Prof. dr.
Susetiawan who gave a valuable notes, drs. I Gde Ardika the
former Minister for
Tourism and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia, colleagues at
the Department of Social
-
xii
Development and Welfare as well as at the Centre for Tourism
Studies and the Graduate
School for Tourism - UGM. Their academic prompts delineated my
academic lane. And
so too, PhD researchers and professors on the third floor of
Mercator Spatial Planning
and Environment Department Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG) who
shared critical
and stimulating views during regular discussions and amiable
meetings. Dr. Christian
Zuidema made inspiring comments on the last parts of the thesis.
Also encouraging were
Ivo Nienhuis, Candice Diaz, Dr. Taede Tillema, Ghazim Maliki and
later on Mita and
Laksmi with whom I shared the office at the university. Their
presence made work fun as
well. Destha Titi Raharjana at the Centre for Tourism Studies
and my students at UGM
interested in the topic all helped me to organise the fieldwork
in Yogyakarta. It is
satisfying to know that some of my students have completed their
final tasks in relation to
the fieldwork of this thesis. Henry Bramantyo contributed the
maps. Tourism
businessmen and -women, government apparatuses, NGO staff,
tourism industry
association committees working in and tourists visiting
Yogyakarta, community members
in Code Utara, Dipowinatan and Nglepen made data and information
available. In
particular, Sigit and Marsito working for Dipowisata shared
their time, stories,
experiences and thoughts. It is through the generous
contributions of these fine people
that my academic exertion flourished.
Many organisations and people made this academic journey
possible. The Faculty
of Spatial Sciences - RuG, of which Prof. dr. Gerard Linden was
the Dean, provided
financial support for the initial visit to Groningen. Prof. dr.
Inge Hutter who became the
Dean later on assisted me with administrative matters. The
scholarship schemes of
Bernoulli Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and DIKTI Ministry of
Education and
Culture of the Republic of Indonesia jointly provided financial
support for 4 years from
2008 to 2012. The Department of Social Development and Welfare,
Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences and Universitas Gadjah Mada stepped in with
regarded to expenses not
covered by the two scholarship schemes. Stiny Tiggelaar, Sarah
Oude Brunink, Alida
Meerburg and Eliza van der Ploeg made my stay both at the
university and in the city of
Groningen easier. Nila and Alexander Den Engelsman, Budhe Nanie
and Om Harry
Krafft made Groningen a home away from home. Gina Rozario and
Theresa Ulmer
corrected my English. Emilin Lap translated the Summary into
Dutch. Many Dutch,
Indonesians and Dutch-Indonesians living in Groningen were very
hospitable and their
gezelligheid helped ease the stressful moments.
My study would not have been possible without support from my
family in
Indonesia. My lovely mother Ibu Maemunah and mother-in-law Ibu
Suprastini gave
spiritual support through their prayers which spurred me on this
academic endeavour
which otherwise would have been impossible to achieve. My
brothers and sisters mas
Prof. dr. ir. Herry Suhardiyanto, MSc., mbak Nunung, dik Heru,
dik Titin, dik Tituq and
their families, each had their way of supporting me. Dik Titik,
dik Dibyo, dik Groho and
their families kept my wife, daughter and sons company and
cheered them up during my
absence.
-
xiii
My utmost gratitude goes to my wife Liestyowati Sri Murwani who
held the fort
and looked after our children when I was in Groningen. Her
patience, understanding,
prayers and love helped me find the right words and numbers for
the thesis. My daughter
D.P. Ayu Dhira Pradati and my sons Catrapatti Raditya Anuraga
and Atyadhitra Tegar
Prakarsa gave me the confidence that they would stay on the
right track and work steadily
towards their goals. Forgive me, it was not easy to live with a
husband and father whose
mind and thoughts were not always present but somewhere else
instead. It was also not
easy to share the daily joys, challenges and problems with a
husband and father who was
away from home. But all of you were always accessible and
available to me. Without the
unconditional support of my wife, daughter and sons, this thesis
would never have been
completed.
It is done! Thank you all for everything. I dedicate this work
to those who have
contributed in one way or another.
Hendrie Adji Kusworo
Groningen, 22 June 2015
-
1
CHAPTER 1
Poverty alleviation through tourism: Searching for
alternatives
1.1 Introduction
It is only recently that researchers have begun intensively
exploring the relationship
between tourism and poverty. The dominant discussions
surrounding tourism, which used
to focus heavily on the economic aspects of tourism, have
shifted towards environmental
issues since the concept of sustainable development was
introduced in 1987 (WCED,
1987). With this shift, discussion of poverty has been
sidelined. Tourism and poverty
have been viewed as two unrelated aspects of society. In
developing countries, however,
many tourism destinations are surrounded by poor communities,
and poverty itself has
even become a tourist attraction.
The demographic attributes of tourists, their values, attitudes
and interests, have shifted,
presenting new challenges in research on tourism, poverty and
poverty alleviation.
Increased awareness of social responsibility on the part of
tourism businesses, and of
social change taking place within communities have heightened
these challenges.
Although less prominent in the debate, many scholars and
practitioners believe that, if
managed properly, tourism could be a tool for poverty
alleviation. To date, research and
empirical studies remain limited. The related challenges
compound the difficulties of
using tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation.
The aim of this study is to obtain insight into these issues
from an institutional
perspective (in particular that of institutional
entrepreneurship), taking into account the
significance of the individual actor by using discourse,
network, opportunity and outcome
approaches. Discourse and network approaches derive from
sociological institutionalism,
while opportunity and outcome approaches have developed within
institutional
economics.
This study provides insight into the poor and other community
members, tourism
businesspeople and tourists, in the context of the tourism site.
This is done through
exploring the links between the various actors, poverty and
tourism. However, this study
also offers insight into structural factors, including global
trends in development thinking,
and standards and certification schemes. Within these
actor-oriented and structural
approaches, tourism, poverty and poverty alleviation can be
related to one another. As
such, this study contributes to the theoretical and practical
enhancement of innovative
institutions by introducing the Institutional-Individual
Opportunity Nexus (IION) concept
into the institutional entrepreneurship landscape. Innovative
institution here refers to an
institution characterized by novelty within its context.
This chapter provides a foundation for the study by explaining
the motivation, theoretical
approach, objectives, expected contributions, general approach
and limitations of the
study.
-
2
1.2 Tourism and poverty alleviation
1.2.1 Learning from the past
Multiple studies have recognised that tourism has played an
important role in increasing
government and private revenue in many countries, and that it
has had a positive impact
on their economic growth (Boo, 1991; Latham, 1994; Murphy, 1985;
Sinclair & Stabler,
1977; Theobald, 1994). Because of this, tourism has been
associated with the state of the
economy, in particular the economies of destination countries.
Thus, many scholars are
optimistic about global tourism, as it is seen as a growth
industry of the future (Buhalis,
2001; Kahn, 1979; Shaw & Williams, 1994; Toffler, 1971;
1981). However, many
studies have also pointed out that tourism can have negative
impacts on the countries
visited. Critical research by academics and practitioners in
some countries has shown that
tourism does not always function optimally as an instrument of
economic growth, due in
part to economic leakages (Sinclair & Stabler, 1997). Some
macro-economic research has
found that the economic benefit to some destination countries is
actually very small
(Ashley et al., 2000; Shaw & Williams, 1994). Here, tourism
mainly refers to the mass,
conventional tourism that grew from the end of World War II
until the emergence of
sustainable development thought and practice in the 1980s.
Acknowledging both camps, de Kadt (1979) raises the question of
whether tourism really
is a passport to development. Tjokrowinoto (2004) notes that,
unless carefully managed
tourism will not have a trickle-down effect benefiting the poor.
On the contrary, it can
instead have a trickle-up effect, channelling wealth from the
poor to the rich. Where this
is the case, tourism development has no meaning for the poor
except to distance them
from wealth. Indeed, the important issue for the poor and other
community members is
not the aggregate economic growth generated by tourism, but
rather the multiplier value
associated with the latters daily life and wealth.
While the impact of tourism on the poor still calls for
attention, a new issue has become
prominent since the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Echoing the
Brundtland Report entitled
Our Common Future (WCED, 1987), sustainable tourism development
has become a
central focus of tourism academics and practitioners (Aronsson,
2000; Cater, 1999;
Elliot-White & Lewis, 2004; France, 1997; Hall & Lew,
1998; Harris et al., 2002;
Holden, 2000; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Saarinen, 2006;
Sofield, 2003; Weaver, 2006).
Worldwide attention has also shifted to the effects of tourism
on the environment (Ashley
et al., 2000; Roe et al., 2003).
Realizing that sustainability does not only concern
environmental issues, some tourism
academics and practitioners have given their attention to the
social and cultural aspects of
sustainability. Visited countries and communities experience the
residual effects of
tourism, which might range from negative social and cultural
impacts to limited
economic gains to environmental problems. Even so, there is
limited discussion of
tourisms relation to poverty as one of the social challenges
faced by societies. Indeed,
the question of how tourism can sustain the environment and how
much the aggregate
economic gain remains in the destination country, while
important, is not the most
-
3
significant from the perspective of poverty alleviation. As
noted by Ashley and Roe, what
is important is how the benefits are distributed (Ashley &
Roe, 1998), and above all, how
the benefits of tourism directly affect the community and family
life of the poor.
The general point of view is that approaches and strategies for
poverty alleviation should
be implemented by tourism stakeholders at different levels
(national to international),
including operators, government, and non-government
organisations (NGOs) (Bennett et
al., 1999). Indeed, various approaches and strategies have been
implemented by many
practitioners and operators (Ashley et al., 2001; CTO, no date;
Fennell, 2006; The
Mountain Institute, 2000). Although their approaches and
strategies are based on
different roots and histories, they all move in the same
direction, which is to make
tourism work for disadvantaged parties. At the level of
destination sites, many tourism
practitioners and operators such as the Association of
Independent Travel Operators
(AITO), Exodus Holidays, Green Globe 21, Green Deal, Certificate
of Sustainable
Tourism, Responsible Tour, Smart Voyage, The Abang Africa Trust,
The Imaginative
Traveller, The Travel Foundation Tobago, Worldhotel Link and
many more have
incorporated approaches and strategies for poverty alleviation
into their practice. Many
national governments across Africa, Asia, the Pacific and Latin
America have
implemented such approaches and strategies into their tourism
policies (see CTO, no
date; Roe et al., 2003). In Indonesia, the Ministry of Culture
and Tourism, in
collaboration with the United Nations World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO) and the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), has developed a
National Framework
for Community-Based Tourism (Ministry of Culture and Tourism,
UNWTO & UNDP,
2004). At the United Nations, UNWTO launched the Sustainable
Tourism Eliminating
Poverty (ST-EP) Foundation in 2005 to help realise the UN
Millennium Development
Goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015. This initiative has
been followed up by the UN
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP), the UN
Environment Programme (UNEP) and many affiliated
institutions.
It is commonly agreed that tourism can be used as a tool for
poverty alleviation.
Numerous tourism studies aiming to directly benefit the poor
have focused on community
involvement, based on the idea that greater involvement entails
opportunities for a higher
income and other benefits (Burrows, 2006; WTO, 2006). Despite
this shift of attention to
community involvement, the opportunities resulting from such
efforts are still too minor
to actually change communities and help the poor improve their
situations (Kusworo,
2003). Examining the reasons for this, Baiquni (2002) notes that
some tourism
development practices in Indonesia have used community
involvement as an instrument
of planned and closed official tourism development projects. As
a result, most of the
benefits were not received by the community and the poor, but
rather by the tourism
business which owned and controlled both capital and access to
the tourism development,
and the government (see also Shah, 2000). Despite a few success
stories, most NGO-
based community empowerment projects are still far from making
the local community
and the poor the real beneficiaries of tourism. It could be
argued that the budget allocated
to such projects is part of a long-term human investment, but
the truth remains that these
projects have not yet been widely beneficial. Although community
empowerment is a
-
4
kind of golden bridge for poverty alleviation through tourism
(WTO, 2006), the current
response is far below the current need.
Another key strategy for the poor to benefit through tourism is
to integrate the poor into
tourism business partnership schemes. In Indonesia, for example,
there are plenty of
policies and guidelines with partnership as a main strategy.
Nevertheless, this strategy
tends to assume that the poor are the weak party and that
tourism businesses must help
the poor. However, the poor and tourism businesses each develop
their own cultures
which are not always easily combined, and this probable one
actor giving, one actor
receiving asymmetrical relationship could be problematic. The
main source of this
potential incompatibility is the fact that the principal purpose
of most tourism business
activity is economic profit. Tourism partnership must,
therefore, benefit each partner
equally, and each party involved, including the tourism
business, must gain sufficient
reward or profit (Kusworo & Damanik, 2004). There are many
unanswered questions
concerning the success of partnership schemes, including whether
the schemes have
fostered long-lasting relationships between the poor and tourism
businesses, and how far
they have resulted in profit or reward for those involved. One
reason for these unknowns
is the lack of understanding of the individual actors involved,
including the poor, tourism
businesspeople and tourists.
It is also important to encourage stakeholders other than just
the government to use
tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation. Since many societies
in developing countries
have become more democratic, there is a need for a new style of
governance
incorporating multiple stakeholders working towards tourism
norms and goals. With this
in view, one of the key steps towards alleviating poverty in the
context of tourism is to
understand the poor themselves and to consider the actors who
are closely linked to the
poor, such as tourists and tourism businesses. Until recently,
there has been limited
information regarding these actors, their backgrounds, and their
relationships to poverty
and poverty alleviation.
1.2.2 Contemporary trends and challenges
Ray and Andersons 2002 survey of 100,000 individuals in the USA
suggests that
consumers are now seeking connections to traditional values
(Font & Wood, 2006). This
is largely due to the fact that such values have been lost in
modern life; psychographic
market researcher Harvey Hartman (in Font & Wood, 2006)
explains that since the mid-
19th century, American society has been dominated by
technological values. Within such
technically oriented societies there is a growing hunger for a
deeper sense of connection
to nature, family, elders and community (Font & Wood, 2006).
Within tourism, many
tourists have been seeking connection with the community living
in tourism destinations;
many tourists have even been attracted by poverty within certain
communities. It is
important to note that tourism to sites of poverty can be both
voyeuristic and insensitive
to local needs and interests. Despite the ethical questions
involved, however, this form of
tourism does give the poor opportunities for direct contact with
tourism, which could also
mean opportunities to move out of poverty.
-
5
While some tourism companies have only recently introduced
poverty as part of their
tourism product in response to the emergence of a new tourism
market, others have long
been involved in working with poor communities. Roe and
colleagues (2002) report that
although many tourism companies have been involved in such
activities, involvement is
piecemeal. They note that there are likely many more tourism
companies which would
like to contribute positively but do not have the skills, time
or knowledge.
Some companies consider involvement with poor communities an
implementation of
corporate social responsibility (CSR). The emerging discussions
on CSR and its
application by tourism companies is a positive sign of links
between tourism, poverty and
poverty alleviation. Some scholars are sceptical, arguing that
CSR is a vague and
complicated concept.
Since poverty alleviation activities are aimed at the poor, it
is important to consider their
involvement. In many ways, the poor know more about poverty and
its relationship to
tourism practices than the elite, tourists or tourism
businesspeople. The poor face poverty
in their daily life, and so it is important to explore their
understanding of tourism, poverty
and poverty alleviation. Tourism research on visited communities
so far has rarely
focused on the poor but rather it has considered the residents
and community of a
destination in general (Andereck et al., 2005; Brunt &
Courtney, 1999; Lankford, 1994;
Liu et al., 1987; Perez & Nadal, 2005; Teye et al., 2002;
Weaver & Lawton, 2001;
Williams & Lawson, 2001).
Linking tourism, poverty and poverty alleviation at the
structural and individual levels
poses challenges. At the structural level, Mayers study on the
impact of the Pro-Poor
Tourism project (2003) showed that, although all the subjects of
the study were
enthusiastic about the value of the approaches and strategies,
only a limited number of
the strategies developed had any significant impact.
Furthermore, state-centred schemes
for setting tourism standards and certification systems have not
yet been intensively
utilised. Although some standards and certification systems
pertaining to environment,
agriculture and management have been implemented, poverty
alleviation has not been
integrated into such schemes. Among the 59 tourism standards and
certification systems
identified by WTO (2002), only a few have included poverty
alleviation issues (Roe et
al., 2003). Font (2003) reports that over 40 per cent of the
criteria of tourism standards
and certification systems refer to management issues. It is
unclear which actors such
management systems involved. Font further notes that the
remaining criteria related to
specific actions or benchmarks for environmental (34 per cent),
economic (8 per cent)
and socio-cultural (12 per cent) factors. The rest of the
criteria (6 per cent) related to the
characteristics of firms which will be accepted within the
system.
Studies on poverty and tourism at the level of individual actors
are relatively scarce. Reis
and Moores research (2005) focuses only on elite perceptions of
poverty and inequality.
Other work on tourist perceptions are mainly related to tourism
products and quality
(Harlak, 1994; Hong-bumm, 1998; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1995;
Waitt, 2000; Waller &
Lea, 1998), environment (Hillery et al., 2001) and risk (Floyd
& Pennington-Gray, 2004).
More relevant to this study is research on poverty tourism,
which is defined as tourism in
-
6
which poverty is a tourist attraction. However, studies on this
topic are limited. The
relatively few empirical studies concerning poverty tourism
include some on certain
townships in South Africa and the favela in Brazil (see Rolfes,
2010). Likewise,
theoretical frameworks for analysing this new form of tourism
are lacking. Many scholars
link poverty tourism to dark tourism, but as Rolfes (2010)
notes, helpful theoretical
approaches to tourist expectations in dark tourism are few and
far between.
1.3 Problem statement
The various actors involved in the context of tourism, poverty
and poverty alleviation
come from very diverse backgrounds. Elements from and external
to these backgrounds
also enter into the common context of tourism and poverty, and
can contribute to tension
and conflict between the actors. Such tension and conflict
result not only from the
dynamics between the actors themselves, but also from the
environment and the
dynamics between the actors and their environment. In order to
develop an institutional
response capable of meeting the needs of such a complex and
diverse group, it is vital to
gain a deep understanding of all the actors involved as well as
the wider context.
Figure 1.1 Study trajectory: Issues, factors and actors
Figure 1.1 depicts the trajectory of this study, showing the
important issues, factors and
actors. It emphasises the importance of developing a more
comprehensive understanding
Distribution
of tourism
benefits
The poor
Psycho-
graphic
shift
Changing institutional
context
Innovative institutions for
poverty alleviation through
tourism
Development
and trade
practices Tourism
business
Tourist
Demo-
cratisa-
tion Tourism
standards and
certification
systems
incorporating
poverty
alleviation
Poverty
and tourism
CSR
-
7
of the interfaces between the different actors in the poverty
and tourism related sphere. In
the development of tourism policies and practices, the
interfaces related to poverty,
tourism, poverty tourism and poverty alleviation through tourism
are particularly
important. This study investigates existing concepts used to
explain the connections
between poverty and tourism (which typically relate to poverty
tourism) as well as
concepts appropriate for understanding the links between the
poor, tourists and tourism
businesspeople. Acknowledging the importance of the structures
external to the actors
themselves, this study also considers the development of general
policies and practices.
By developing concepts appropriate to the actors involved and to
the wider context of
policy and practice, this study aims to develop and strengthen
the institutional framework
surrounding tourism and poverty, and to support strategies aimed
at poverty alleviation
through tourism.
1.4 Poverty alleviation through tourism: Developmental and
institutional
entrepreneurship perspectives
1.4.1 Developmental perspective
While scholars have long been attracted to the study of poverty,
some have recently
begun exploring the relationship between poverty and tourism.
They have mainly
considered poverty and tourism from an economic perspective.
Some, including Britton
(1983) and Pleumarom (1994), see tourism as an industry that
exploits the labour and
resources of the countries visited. In this view, tourism is
seen as entrenching inequality
and deepening poverty. Others argue, however, that tourism is a
potential tool for
overcoming poverty given the right management and economic
conditions (Ashley et al.,
2000; Blake et al., 2007; Shah & Gupta, 2000). This study
takes the latter attitude arguing
that with certain institutional supports, tourism could become a
means to alleviate or
reduce poverty.
Among scholars focusing on tourism and poverty alleviation,
tourism is seen as one
among many developmental tools. In keeping with this line of
thought, various schemes
and projects have been initiated, including pro-poor tourism
(PPT), fair trade in tourism,
and community-based tourism (CBT). Goodwin (1998; 2005) defines
PPT as tourism
that generates benefits for the poor. It is noted that tourism
often has negative impacts,
particularly when the poor lose access to natural resources or
where there are negative
social and cultural impacts. In order for tourism to be
pro-poor, the poor must gain more
from tourism than they lose, economically, socially, culturally
or in some other way. Fair
trade in tourism is rooted in the fair trade movement in the
United Kingdom. It is defined
as tourism aimed at maximising the economic benefits for local
destination stakeholders
(Fennell, 2006). This scheme as noted is carried out by
developing mutually beneficial
and equitable partnerships between national and international
tourism stakeholders in
certain destinations. In this way, fair trade in tourism aims to
strengthen the bargaining
situation of the visited communities with regard to tourism.
Hatton (1999) defines CBT
as tourism activities developed and operated, for the most part,
by local community
members, and with their consent and support. The belief
underlying CBT is that
-
8
community-based tourism is socially sustainable, and that both
risks and revenues are
enjoyed by the community in one way or another.
The schemes described above have been developed with certain
values, strategies and
practices in view. Some schemes, while derived from and even
using the names of these
schemes, have gone beyond the original values and policies.
These new schemes have
been driven by many different factors, actors and contexts, and
sometimes bear no real
relation to the original schemes.
Within the centralistic mode of development and governance
applied in many developing
countries, many tourism schemes aimed at alleviating poverty are
associated with a
structural mode of development. This structural approach to
poverty alleviation calls for
further study, especially the role of the actors targeted by
such developments.
Although previous studies on the actor-oriented approach were
focused on farmers facing
state intervention, such an approach may provide a useful
theoretical reference for this
study (Long, 1984; 1989; Long & Van der Ploeg in Booth,
1994). Tourism development
can also be viewed through this generic model of development, as
coming from the
centre of power and being realised through intervention by the
state or other parties. Hall
(2007) provides a noteworthy outline of how this model works
within the field of
tourism. The actor-oriented framework can be helpful in
understanding the interaction of
actors within a tourism site and their connections to tourism,
poverty and poverty
alleviation. Typically this relates to external actors,
intervention and tourism development
projects.
The concepts of social actors, agency, multiple realities,
strategies, social interfaces,
arenas, social change and intervention are central to the
actor-oriented approach (Long &
Long, 1992). Further, it is noted the term social actor refers
to an individual, group of
individuals and even an organisation having the capacity to
reach a decision and act on it.
In this study actor mainly refers to an individual actor. Long
and Long (1992) explain
social actor as a social entity to which the power of agency can
be attributed, agency
refers to the capacity of actors to deal with limitations or
constraints, to give meaning to
them, and to organise and plan strategies. According to Long and
Long (1992), agency is
manifested when particular actions to make a difference to a
pre-existing state of
affairs. According to the actor-oriented approach actors do not
operate in a vacuum, but
rather within a certain social context where they face different
limitations and constraints
(Long & Long,1992). In the context of this study, the
concepts of actor and agency relate
to how actors such as the poor, tourism businesspeople and
tourists utilise the resources
they have according to their own meaning and aims. More
specifically, this study relates
these concepts to how an actor with institutional
entrepreneurial agency utilises the
institutional resources available to develop an innovative
institution.
Long (1984; 1988) defines multiple realities as the ways in
which different actors
respond to altering circumstances and how they align themselves
with normative and
social interests involving power, authority and legitimation.
These ways may cause
tension and conflict, but they may also contribute to the
establishment of common
-
9
ground. The concept of interface describes a kind of
face-to-face encounter between
individuals or units representing different interests and backed
by different resources and
levels of power (Verbole, 1995). Long (1984; 1988) explains that
intervention is
associated with a kind of outsider/structural strategy used to
foster social change in a
certain social milieu.
In this study, the poor, other community members, tourism
businesspeople and tourists
within a certain tourism site are understood as actors facing
and living in different
situations; they therefore perceive their world and act upon it
in different ways. They may
also face different consequences from engaging in the tourism
arena and its interactions.
A clear example of this is found in the Greenwood study, as
cited by Verbole (1995).
This study on the impact of tourism in the Basque region of
Spain showed that local
people encountered one reality about the cost of tourism, while
the outside investors and
the government, reaping huge profits, experienced a different
reality (Verbole, 1995). In
relation to this study, social interface occurs when the poor,
tourism businesses, tourists
and other entities, all with different meanings and perceptions
of tourism, poverty and
poverty alleviation, intersect. These social interfaces are
characterised by negotiation or
clashes between different modes of rationality and power.
All this suggests that to properly appraise the relationships
between tourism, poverty and
poverty alleviation, it is necessary to gain a better
understanding of the actors involved
and their interfaces: the poor, other members of the community,
tourism businesspeople
and tourists. In this study an institutional approach is as a
particularly suitable approach
for further exploring the interface between related actors.
Accordingly, this study adopts
the basic understanding of institution proposed by DiMaggio and
Powel (1991) and
Giddens (1984), by which an institution is understood as a
framework of norms, rules and
practices. By this definition, institutions are not only
expressed in formal but also in
informal norms and practices, in the rhythms and routines of
daily life, and so this study
is based on the belief that institution are not synonymous with
organisation. Rather,
organisation is one of the many forms of institutions. Although
this study may touch
upon organisational elements, it aims primarily to understand
institutional issues.
This study investigates potential innovative institutions for
using tourism as a tool for
poverty alleviation within the context of development. Thus this
study is not merely
intended to advancing a theoretical position but also in
considering its implications for
people and the community. This study is therefore related to
development studies that
accept and promote cross-disciplinary approaches and are open to
the use of all possible
insights. Development is understood as a multifaceted phenomenon
which involves not
only economic growth, but also social, cultural, political and
environmental factors, the
relationships between them, their logic and their various forms
(Gonzales & Healey,
2005). This includes human behaviour as well.
Gonzales and Healey (2005) argue that development is taking on a
more active meaning
as development activity aims to transform relationships and
alter the trajectories of
society. As such, innovative development, including the
development of innovative
-
10
institutions for poverty alleviation through tourism considered
here, does not take a
predictable trajectory. Not only are there path-dependent
elements, but also random and
unexpected elements influencing the process of development.
These may be determined
by the linked actors within and outside a particular
institutional setting and the context
within which the process occurs.
1.4.2 Institutional entrepreneurship perspective
In the discussion on institutions, an approach called new
institutionalism emerged in the
1980s (Hall & Taylor, 1996; Immergut, 1998; Lowndes, 2001)
as a reaction to the
dominance of the previous under-socialised account of
institutions. This earlier account
described institutions as epiphenomena of social, economic and
political behaviour the
simple aggregation of individual actions. March and Olsen (1984)
argue that the new
institutionalism indicates that there was indeed an old
institutionalism. They see the
new institutionalism as blending elements of an old
institutionalism into the non-
institutionalist styles of recent theories. Lowndes (2001) notes
new institutionalists
reassert key tenets of the earlier institutional tradition while
moving away from the
restricted definitions and implicit theory of their
predecessors. Indeed, the new
institutionalists have refined the concept of institutions to
include a double life,
emphasising that institutions are the product of both actors and
social forces in their own
rights (Grafstein, 1988).
There are three schools of thought under the new
institutionalism banner: historical
institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism and
sociological institutionalism (Hall &
Taylor, 1996). Expanding on the work of Fainstein (2000),
Gualini (2001) and Healey
(1999a; 2004), Gonzales and Healey (2005) note that sociological
institutionalism has
been developed within planning theory as a way of localising
policy actions and practices
geographically within a specific governance context, and
connecting the micro-practices
to the wider structuring forces. They further note that these
works have enriched the
discussion of institutional design and raised questions about
the role of statecentred
interventions in promoting social innovation. In the context of
this study, this also means
questioning the role of non-state-centred interventions.
Recent sociological institutionalists analyse micro-dynamics
through a set of commonly
accepted concepts (Gonzales & Healey, 2005). These concepts
can be used to explain
institutional development and how institutions change and the
role of intentionality in
promoting such change (DiMaggio & Powel, 1991; Hajer, 1995).
Gonzales and Healey
(2005) note that these concepts could help connect the visible
world of actors actualising
within formal or informal social arenas where action is
realised, to the deeper structuring
of their social relations. That is the interrelation between
structure and actor, between
macro and micro levels of analysis. In this study, this applies
to the interrelation between
the structural elements of tourism development, and standards
and certification systems,
and the actors: the poor, community members, tourism
businesspeople and tourists.
Sociological institutionalism is sensitive to governance
dynamics as they are embedded
in changing institutional settings (Gonzales & Healey,
2005). With regard to poverty
-
11
alleviation, this is mainly related to the recent phenomenon
which has seen poverty
alleviation schemes moving from government- to governance-based
institutional settings.
Borrowing and expanding Lowndess (2001) ideas, this can be
understood as moving
from one significant actor to no one significant actor. The last
implicitly means
everyone (as a) significant actor. The term one significant
actor refers to the role of
government. The terms no one significant actor and everyone (as
a) significant actor
emphasise the role of many actors alongside that of the
government. Within this model
specific actors are less important than the governance process,
which provides space for
many actors to be involved in governance. While poverty
alleviation has traditionally
been the focus of government efforts, this study examines
non-state-centred efforts in
poverty alleviation.
The work carried out by Healey and colleagues in Newcastle, UK
(Gonzales & Healey,
2005), though mostly applied to local city governance, provides
a relevant framework for
this study. To express the interplay between specific governance
episodes and the deeper
structural and cultural dynamic within which they interact,
Healey and colleagues
produced a sociological institutionalist analytical model for
the dimensions of
governance. This three-tiered model consists of specific
episodes, governance processes
and governance culture (Gonzales & Healey, 2005).
There are many reasons to employ sociological institutionalism
in this study, though this
approach has been subject to criticism, mainly for its
deterministic nature. Sociological
institutionalism tends to suggest that innovative institutions
can be induced automatically
from a number of external factors. In the developmental arena,
this view undervalues the
importance of individual actors in shaping structural
developmental interventions. In the
context of institutional development in particular, it discounts
the role of individual actors
in shaping the institutional landscape. Tolbert and Zucker
(1996) and Mintzberg et al.
(1998) stress that the marginalization of individual actors
provides very little space for
entrepreneurial discretion.
It is worth noting here that there has been a significant shift
within both the individual
and institutional development contexts. At the level of
individuals, the poor, other
community members, businesspeople and tourists interact with one
another in the social,
cultural and economic arenas. In the economic sphere,
particularly, the emergence of new
tourism industry practices has promoted more intensive
interaction among individuals.
With more intense interaction, tourism businesspeople have
transformed the visited
communitys properties into tourism products, ranging from
attractions, accommodation,
access ways, infrastructure and the like. These transformations
have mainly been shaped
by the needs of tourists. Parallel to this, visited communities
have enhanced their capacity
to provide tourism products. Indeed, there has been a growing
effort to explore new
products, markets and means of institutional engagement, with
the ultimate aim of
satisfying the growing needs and numbers of tourists on one
hand, and benefiting the
visited community on the other.
At the institutional level, a new type of institution or
organisation is flourishing, one
distinct from both public (non-profit) and private (for profit),
namely social
-
12
enterprise (Nicholls in Huybrechts, 2010). Public institutions
are mainly run by the state
to provide goods for free and are aimed at social interests.
Private institutions are run by
private entities which mostly provide goods for a fee and aim at
economic interests.
Social enterprise, in contrast, refers to institutions or
organisations gaining economic
profits while at the same time maintaining social goals.
Fairtrade is an outstanding
example of the social enterprise (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005;
Loureiro & Lotade, 2005).
It operates and is organised like a business, positioning itself
between producer (supply
side) and consumer (demand side) in order to gain economic
profit. At the same time, it
maintains its commitment to social goals, primarily through
helping poor producers of
goods working in developing countries.
Within its focus on innovative institutions, this study examines
entrepreneurial
perspectives. It aims mostly to understand how actors interpret
the structure within which
they are situated, and how they take action to achieve certain
desired outcomes. These
desired outcomes might be social, cultural or economic goals.
The main interest of this
study is in individual actors, and in the way they use
opportunities, which can in turn
provide a link to the structural institutional context. This
follows Pacheco et al. (2010),
who indicate that an emphasis on the role of individual and
opportunity may be
invaluable for understanding the relationship between an actor
having certain agency and
institutional structure, as well as understanding the motivation
for and the processes
observed in institutional design.
The work of Eisenstadt (1980) and DiMaggio (1988) explains
institutional theory by
introducing the concept of the institutional entrepreneur. This
refers to an individual
actor who mobilises resources to transform or create
institutions that favour his or her
interest. Pacheco and colleagues (2010) note that institutional
economists have
introduced a variety of terms, including institutional
entrepreneur of Anderson & Hill
(2004) and property right entrepreneur of Anderson & Hill
(2002), to conceptualise the
self-interested agent who sponsors institutional change to
obtain economic benefits. The
term institutional entrepreneur is used by economists to
describe an individual who puts
effort into establishing and reorganising property rights and
other institutional structures
to exploit economic opportunities, as noted by Anderson and Hill
(2004). This term is
associated with and situated within the institutional status
quo. According to Anderson
and Hill (2002), an institutional entrepreneurs motive is
economic self-interest gained
through changing the rules that determine economic behaviour and
reward. Therefore, institutional entrepreneurship is mainly linked
to economic value pursued by an
entrepreneur who engages in the transformation of institutions.
However, Pacheco and
colleagues (2010) note that sociological institutionalism
provides a much broader
description of institutional entrepreneurs. Institutional
entrepreneurs are not primarily
motivated by economic self-interest. Indeed, the institutional
entrepreneurship as
described in sociological institutionalism could be linked to
institutional innovators
driven by social, cultural or religious interest.
Following these two concepts, the study of institutional
entrepreneurship has evolved
along two parallel streams, one driven by sociological
institutional theory, and the other
by institutional economic theory. Recent work in sociological
institutional theory has
-
13
focused on the self-interested actor who commands and mobilises
resources to alter or
create institutional structures (Pacheco et al., 2010), while
institutional economists have
focused on the role of the self-interested actor in driving
institutional change (Coase,
1974; Demzet, 1967; Greif, 1998; Nort & Thomas, 1970). These
two streams of thought
both use the term institutional entrepreneur, and both
conceptualise the institutional
entrepreneur as an innovator or agent of change, that is, an
actor who promotes new
institutional arrangements (Pacheco et al., 2010).
Pacheco et al. (2010) note two important developments in the
discussion of institutional
entrepreneurship. First, the introduction of rationality and
self-interest into the
sociological study of institutional entrepreneurship brought
sociological institutional
theory conceptually closer to institutional economics. Second,
the introduction of cultural
and social issues into the economic study of institutional
entrepreneurship brought
institutional economics closer to sociological institutional
theory (Pacheco et al., 2010).
Despite these developments, however, both approaches have
remained separate and have
not successfully informed one another. From a developmental
perspective, this isolation
could hinder a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon
that is multi-faceted.
Pacheco et al. (2010) suggest connecting both institutional
approaches by integrating the
common concepts used by one approach into the other. Their
suggestion is based on a
comprehensive review of 21 articles in sociological
institutional theory and 29 articles in
institutional economics from several journals. They argue that
integrating the
perspectives and domains of each theory would provide
considerable opportunities for
expanding our understanding of the concept of institutional
entrepreneurship and its
implications. Following this suggestion, this study examines the
concepts of opportunity
and outcome, which have mainly been the focus of those working
within institutional
economics, while generally following sociological
institutionalist and actor-oriented
approaches.
In light of the concepts discussed above, this study is derived
primarily from two
convictions. First, that actors engaging in institutional change
do not necessarily seek
economic self-interest. This might be found among those working
in social enterprise
institutions or organisations, and even more in voluntary
institutions or organisations.
Some tourists visiting poverty tourism sites may have social or
charitable goals. Tourism
businesspeople selling poverty tourism packages may also have
social goals. Second,
while tourism is social and cultural human engagement, in many
ways it is an economic
activity. In this way, the actors involved could search for
economic profit in order to
sustain their institutional or organisational governance, and so
to achieve certain goals,
including social and altruistic goals. In this sense, replacing
economic self-interest or
economic purpose with purpose in terms of a goal or outcome
might be sufficient for this
study. Entrepreneurship may not only be associated with
money-making but also with
institution-making activities. This includes institution-making
that has no connection with
money-making activities at all.
-
14
1.5 Objective and questions
1.5.1 Objective
The main objective of this study is to understand the emerging
institutional factors,
approaches, strategies and contexts within the institutional
entrepreneurship landscape for
poverty alleviation through tourism. This study further aims to
develop institutional
entrepreneurship theory in the context of innovative
institutions.
1.5.2 Questions
The general objective is to be achieved by answering the
following questions:
1) What are the institutional factors for poverty alleviation?
How do these factors influence poverty alleviation through
tourism?
Grounded within a developmental perspective, this study takes
into account that
poverty alleviation is both globally and locally sensitive. With
this in mind, this study
explores first, the structural circumstances - global
development and trade - linked to
certain ideologies and tourism, second, the psychographic shift
among tourists,
greater awareness of autonomy among local community members and
the emergence
of poverty tourism practices. Since approaches and strategies
relating institutional
tourism and poverty at the structural circumstances level are
not yet developed, this
study explores approaches and strategies from Fairtrade. Here,
Fairtrade is
particularly associated with a standards and certification
system which accommodates
social and economic issues. Viewed from an institutional
perspective, Fairtrade has
also been characterised by institutional dynamics throughout its
existence. Returning
to the topic of this study, there are indications of
institutional dynamics at the actor
level ranging from a psychographic shift among tourists seeking
to encounter the
visited community more deeply, to greater awareness of autonomy
among local
community members, to the emergence of poverty tourism
practices. The recent
psychographic shift can be linked to the search for community
attributes associated to
poverty. Greater awareness of autonomy can be linked to the
democratisation of
poverty alleviation. Poverty tourism practices are associated
with making poverty and
its attributes part of the tourism package offered by tourism
operators and the tourism
industry. These potentially conflicting developments have not
yet been thoroughly
examined in existing institutional approaches for poverty
alleviation through tourism.
2) How do the institutional factors link to one another in
effecting poverty alleviation
through tourism in the tourism site context?
Tourism is an in situ social interface between various actors
with their own concepts,
meanings and preferences. Both the sociological institutionalist
and actor-oriented
approaches could provide a bridge towards the development of
innovative institutions
for poverty alleviation through tourism. Sociological
institutionalism considers the
significance of structure, while the actor-oriented approach
emphasises the
importance of the actor in relation to structure.
-
15
3) To what extent can the institutional approach for poverty
alleviation contribute to the
development of innovative institutions for poverty alleviation
through tourism?
Fairtrade, both as a standards and certification system and a
social movement,
provides an example of an alternative institutional approach for
poverty alleviation
within its institutional context alongside government-centred
schemes. Although the
nature, actors and interfaces of Fairtrade differ from the
tourism industry, it provides
a point of reference as an innovative institution. Poverty
tourism has brought poverty
into the tourism spotlight, providing a new opening to consider
tourism as a tool for
poverty alleviation. Both Fairtrade and poverty tourism provide
important theoretical
and practical groundwork for new approaches to poverty
alleviation through tourism,
whether at a particular tourism site or in the wider
institutional context.
1.6 Empirical and theoretical contributions
The aim of this study is to provide an understanding of poverty
alleviation through
tourism using actor-oriented and institutional approaches.
Further, an institutional
entrepreneurship can shed light on innovative institutions.
Ultimately this will serve to
advance discussions on institutional entrepreneurship, poverty,
tourism, and poverty
alleviation through tourism. With regard to practical
application, this study could play a
part in the formulation of strategies for poverty alleviation
through tourism based on the
institutional entrepreneurship approach.
The contributions of this study include:
1) Perspectives from an Indonesian tourism site on tourism,
poverty and poverty alleviation through tourism.
This study aims to add to the empirical body of work on poverty
and tourism,
which has mainly been carried out in South Africa, India and
Brazil. This study
considers common issues found in these countries, including the
role of the global
trends in development, tourism practices and poverty alleviation
through tourism,
while also considering links to the specific tourism sites
social and cultural
values.
2) Enhancement of both the sociological institutionalism and
institutional entrepreneurship perspectives, in the context of
poverty and tourism-related
institutions, by integrating concepts from institutional
economics.
The sociological institutionalism approach had mainly been
linked to social and
cultural embeddedness. Unlike the existing studies on
institutional structure, this
study focuses on the relationship between actor and structure.
Moreover, this
study examines the nature of institution as well as the dynamics
of actors through
the perspective of institutional entrepreneurship, in order to
explain innovation
within the development of institutions. It is worth noting that
some other studies
have integrated the sociological institutional perspective into
institutional
economics. This study, however, integrates the institutional
economics
perspective into a sociological institutionalism
perspective.
3) Development of the institutional entrepreneurship approach
related to poverty alleviation through tourism.
-
16
Previous work on actors approaches to opportunity within the
institutional
context suggests seeing the moments and structures of
opportunity as something
that actors can make (for example, Hudalah et al., 2010).
However, the question
of how actors make such moments and structures of opportunity
and what
institutional elements might be made from such opportunities
remains unexplored.
Within such studies, to make in terms of creating from nothing
is not
considered. Studies dealing with social-charitable goals and
their institutional
associations have typically considered organisational diversity
(for example,
Huybrechts, 2010). However, these studies have not explicitly
dealt with poverty
alleviation and tourism, accommodating actor-oriented concepts.
This study
therefore contributes to a better understanding of the
institutional
entrepreneurship approach to tourism in projects aimed at
alleviating poverty.
1.7 Structuring the study
This study is divided into three parts. The first part,
comprising Chapter 1: introduction
and Chapter 2: methodology, considers study design, discussing
theoretical and practical
issues, and the perspectives and methodological approaches used.
The second part
consists of multi-level case selection. Chapter 3 covers the
global mode of development
thought, and standards and certification systems, and is
connected to the structural
contexts of the study. Chapter 4 deals with poverty tourism at
the level of actors, in
particular the factors motivating actors (tourists and the poor)
to create the arenas where
they interact. Chapter 5 analyses discourses and networks
through which actors frame
and develop their potential institutional resources. Chapter 6
explains institutional
opportunity, an approach originally derived from the
institutional economics approach to
business opportunity, but which has been developed in the
context of institutions. The
third part consists of Chapters 7 and 8. Chapter 7 discusses the
significance of actors in
the development of innovative institutions, and explains the
actor-structure connections
according to the IION framework. Chapter 8 discusses the
possible use of this theoretical
framework in the context of poverty alleviation through tourism
and its attendant
developmental challenges. The overall structure of this study is
depicted in Figure 1.2,
while the following section contains a detailed summary of each
chapter.
Chapter 1: Poverty alleviation through tourism: Searching for
alternatives
This chapter introduces the background of the study by
explaining the general issues in
tourism and development, in particular poverty alleviation. It
describes the unequal
distribution of tourism benefits, the increased awareness of the
need for more suitable
modes of tourism development and conceptual schemes, and the
emergence of non-state-
centred poverty alleviation schemes and practices, including
Fairtrade and tourism
standards and certification systems. The lack of actor-oriented
studies relating to the poor
and other actors within tourism institutions and practices has
led to the ineffective use of
tourism as a development tool for poverty alleviation. This
chapter examines the rationale
of the study in relation to this issue, describing the research
objectives and questions, and
theoretical contributions and approaches.
-
17
Chapter 2: Methodology
This chapter discusses the methodology used in the process of
this study and explains the
general approach of the study. At the empirical level, the
complexity of the tourism site
considered and its developmental issues suggested the use of a
multi-method approach,
applying both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This
study employs a case study
research design in order to understand the actors involved.
These include the poor and
other community members, tourism businesspeople, and tourists.
Chapter 2 explains the
use of semi-structured questionnaire, in-depth interview and
focus group discussion
(FGD) approaches for data collection. At a theoretical level,
this chapter employs a
literature review to understand the nature of development,
trade, and standards and
certification systems aimed at poverty alleviation, including
those systems linked to
tourism.
Figure 1. 2 Structure of the study
Chapter 3 Development and
trade:
Reconsidering the
structural approach
to poverty
alleviation
Chapter 2 Methodology
Chapter 1 Poverty alleviation
through tourism:
Searching for
alternatives
Chapter 7 Institutional entrepreneurship in the
actor and structure linkages: The
making of innovative institutions
Chapter 4 Tourism, poverty
and motivation:
Taking actors into
account in poverty
alleviation
Chapter 5 Discourse and
network:
Developing the
institutional
resources of actors
Chapter 6 Opportunity and
outcome: Capturing
means and defining
goals for innovative
institutions
Chapter 8
Grounding institutional
entrepreneurship in innovative
institutions for poverty alleviation
through tourism : order of linkage
-
18
Chapter 3: Development and trade: Reconsidering the structural
approach to poverty
alleviation
The development of tourism is tied to global trends that affect
economic development
and trade. This chapter examines such forces, its relation to
poverty, poverty alleviation,
and the emergence of alternative approaches in development and
trade. Innovative
institutions which accommodate many actors, such as producers
and consumers, on an
equal footing are an important key to these alternative trade
practices. As an illustration,
Fairtrades practices in relation to standards and certification
systems, its potential and
challenges as an innovative institution for poverty alleviation,
and its relevance to
tourism are discussed.
Chapter 4: Tourism, poverty and motivation: Taking actors into
account in poverty
alleviation
The chapter describes how the actors in the context of tourism
relate to poverty and
poverty alleviation and it emphasises how tourists and tourism
business people encounter
poverty. In particular, this chapter examines tourist
motivations to visit a place or be
involved in poverty tourism. Poverty tourism has been
conceptualised as living atrocity
tourism.
Chapter 5: Discourse and network: Developing the institutional
resources of actors
This chapter is mainly derived from the sociological
institutionalism approach. This
approach describes discourse and networks as structural sources
of knowledge and
relationship of actors. Developed from the empirical findings,
this chapter explains the
discourses on tourism development, poverty and poverty
alleviation that arise among
different actors within an urban tourism context. This chapter
also discusses the networks
developed by the various actors. Discourse and network,
knowledge and relationship are
put forward as connected elements that provide strategic
institutional tools in the dynamic
relationships between actors. Through them, actors develop
institutional resources and
tools to create innovative institutions.
Chapter 6: Opportunity and outcome: Capturing means and defining
goals for innovative
institutions
Complementing Chapter 5, this chapter describes actor analyses
derived predominantly
from opportunity and outcome approaches. Since this study
focuses on actors, the
opportunities that exist are approached through how actors act
rather than through the
opportunity in itself. In particular, this chapter describes
outcomes of actor engagement in
terms of their goal. The goal in many ways is linked to the
motivation behind the actors
engagement in discourse and networks. Accordingly, this chapter
bases its exploration on
different types of motivation. By identifying the links
developed in business
entrepreneurship studies between individual entrepreneurs and
opportunity, and
employing the empirical findings of this study, this chapter
contextualises these links
within the institutional entrepreneurship landscape.
-
19
Chapter 7: Institutional entrepreneurship in the actor and
structure linkages: The making
of innovative institutions
This chapter explains the possible links between actor and
structure within the
institutional entrepreneurship landscape. It builds on the
research findings of Chapter 5
and 6 describing the links between the actor and discourse,
network, opportunity and
outcome. In particular, this chapter theorises the
actor-structure within institutional
entrepreneurial activity, and the challenges and capacities of
an actor which contribute
towards the formation of innovative institutions. The
contribution of this study to current
discussions is also described, its contributions to the
development of institutional theory
in general and to sociological institutional entrepreneurship
theory in particular.
Chapter 8: Grounding institutional entrepreneurship in
innovative institutions for poverty
alleviation through tourism.
This chapter discusses how the concept of institutional
entrepreneurship developed in
Chapter 7 can be implemented in schemes for poverty alleviation
through tourism. Two
practical schemes are presented, following the structural and
actor-oriented approaches.
These are mainly linked to non-state-centred institutions, as
described in Chapter 1.
Chapter 8 also provides some suggestions of practical agendas
for the developmental
landscape.
1.8 Limitation of the study
There are many actors involved in the issues examined in this
study, including
government, NGOs, tourism industry associations and
international organisations.
However, this study focuses on the individual actors within a
tourism site, including the
poor, other community members, tourism businesspeople and
tourists. In relation to
tourism, poverty and poverty alleviation, individual actors are
the ones who directly
interact with one another. Governments, NGOs, tourism industry
associations and
international organisations are actors who mostly work
indirectly, behind the scenes, as it
were, of on-site tourism.
This study takes the accepted view that self-organising
institutions constituted by
voluntary association have a significant role in contemporary
societal changes. Therefore,
this study focuses on standards and certification schemes which
are associated with self-
organising institutions. Such institutions, importantly, have
their own strengths for
directly incorporating the individual actors at a tourism site
into an arena for interaction.
This study focuses mainly on Fairtrade and tourism standards and
certification schemes.
The limited number of self-organising non-state institutions
studied and the use of
secondary data gathering could limit the study coverage and
depth.
It is also important to note that at the time of the study it
was difficult to find any location
where both tourism standards and certification schemes and
poverty alleviation through
tourism activities interacted with one another in a particular
arena. For this reason, the
-
20
structural and actor-oriented approaches were each carried out
in separate contexts, which
may limit the cohesiveness of the study. However, based on the
study findings, a more
comprehensive understanding should be possible in the future,
when both structural and
actor-oriented poverty alleviation schemes interact within a
single location.
-
21
CHAPTER 2
Methodology
2.1 Introduction
Poverty as a human phenomenon is as old as the history of
humanity. Its form has
changed over time, but the reality has remained. Situations of
poverty are faced by
much of the worlds population. Many development schemes and
policies have been
introduced to bring relief to the suffering of the poor.
Although some schemes have
succeeded, many have failed to achieve their goals. Among the
reasons for this may
be that most schemes and policies have been based on structural
approaches and
external intervention while neglecting actor-oriented approaches
(Long, 1992;
Sibeon, 2004). The structural mode of development has been
implemented by many
government, non-government and private agencies. Where attention
has been given to
actor-oriented perspectives, it has been in response to
structural approaches or to
conditions imposed by external interventions. This study mainly
focuses on the poor
targeted by these schemes and policies.
Some changes to improve the lot of the poor have been the result
of external factors
such as government, non-government and private agencies.
However, such changes
are not entirely due to external intervention. With that in
mind, this study explores the
role of actors within the development landscape, particularly as
they are linked to the
development of innovative institutions for poverty
alleviation.
This chapter discusses the methodological approach of this
study, whose aim is to
understand both the structure and actors within the
institutional landscape in relation
to tourism, poverty, tourism development and poverty
alleviation.
2.2 A general methodological approach
This study employs an empirical case study research design
combining quantitative
and qualitative approaches. This is, more or less a
multi-strategy research (Bryman,
2004) or mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This
pick and mix method
allows researchers the freedom to use tools appropriate to their
research (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Using both
quantitative and
qualitative methods in the same research project enables the
researcher to corroborate
data from many different sources and take into account views
that otherwise might
not have been considered (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Knowledge does not exist in isolation waiting to be discovered
(Habermas in Smyth,
2006). Rather, it is constructed by people as they engage in
daily life (Grundy, 1987).
There is therefore a distinction between knowing about knowledge
(epistemology)
and considering the nature of being (ontology).
-
22
In this study, interactions between the researcher and the
researched contribute
significantly to the knowledge constructed. This means that
interactions between the
researc
