The policies of the Conservative government have aimed to stimulate economic activity, and tourism has been used as one means to this end. Government plays an important role in the visitor industry, acting as strategist, planner, developer, regulator, provider and licenser and, as far as it is able to control interest rates and the money supply, as financier. In terms of direct involvement, government policy works through an institutional framework whose main components are the tourist boards and local authorities, and it is to these that the discussion now turns.
NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY
The visitor industry is seen by the government as having great potential for: ♦ economic growth;
♦ balance of payments equilibrium; ♦ employment; and
♦ regional economic balance.
Medlik 1986
The importance of the industry has been affirmed by a number of government publications in recent years which have stressed the role of small firms and the self-employed within the sector (see for instance HM Cabinet Office 1985; Employment Department 1990). The English Tourist Board recognises the government’s wish to use tourism as a means for development of regional economies, and has stressed the importance of rural tourism in this context (see for instance Paynter 1991) while recognising that governmental policies for the rural economy balance encouragement for enterprise and economic diversification with the conservation of landscape and wildlife (see for instance Department of the Environment 1992b). Small scale enterprises are seen as having a vital role in the national economy, and that of the countryside.
Institutional Framework
The 1969 Development of Tourism Act is the only piece of legislation of the post-war period devoted to tourism. Brief and, in essence, enabling legislation, the Act gave the Secretary of State wide powers to set up public sector tourism promotion and development structures (Bowes 1988). Until this time, there was no stated policy on tourism, and the functions of a national tourism office were performed by the British Travel Association, itself a voluntary sector body - a tourism association working at the national level with a membership drawn largely from major operators, and in receipt of substantial governmental funds - which aimed to promote travel to Britain and the development of facilities (Burkart and Medlik 1974). There had been some development of organisation at the regional level too, again through the medium of what were tourism associations such as the Yorkshire Travel Association and the English Lakes Counties’ Travel Association (Bowes 1988).
The importance of tourism to the balance of payments prompted the establishment of a formal framework for the promotion and development of tourism to and within the UK under the 1969 Act. The British Tourist Authority is charged with the overseas promotion of holidays in Britain, and the prime responsibility of the English, Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards with tourism in their respective countries. The home Boards set up and sponsored regional tourist organisations under the Act, and there are now eleven regional tourist boards (RTBs) in England, three "Regional Councils" in Wales, and a combination of Area Tourist Boards and District Councils in Scotland with responsibility for tourism. The functions of these are to:
1. Carry out promotional and publicity activities 2. Provide advisory and information services 3. Assist with and undertake research
- and to advise central and local government and other public bodies on tourism matters. The regional and area tourist boards are constituted as voluntary associations with membership open to local authorities, commercial interests and their respective country tourist boards. The country tourist boards exercise a co-ordinating role over the regional tourism organisations but the latter operate, nevertheless, with a high degree of autonomy. Although no two are the same as a result, most see themselves principally as marketing operations, and as having important co-ordinating roles in their areas (Slater 1985).
RURAL TOURISM - POLICY
Rural tourism came to prominence as a means of developing the rural economy between 1987 and 1989. Before then, little real effort was made by the tourist boards to develop rural tourism as a distinct product. Coastal resorts, historic towns and cities were given the most attention, and the role of rural areas seemed to be to act as dormitories for these (Collinge 1982). The late 80s surge in governmental activity and interest is noted by Lane (1989a), with many local authorities in countryside areas appointing tourism officers for the first time. Tourism strategies were produced at local, regional and national scales by various governmental agencies. Similar developments took place all over Europe, where rural tourism was at a similarly early stage of development; Edwards (1989) describes Portugal, for instance, as having effectively no rural tourist destinations at the start of the eighties.
The government became interested in rural tourism because it offered a ’market’ means for diversifying rural economies. The tourist boards realised that rural tourism meant that they had a new product to offer, and ’an activity which would please their paymasters in central government’ (Lane 1989a). The English Tourist Board realised that, to develop tourism in the countryside it would have to work closely with the government’s developmental and conservation agencies. Early signs of this partnership between agencies included A Study o f Rural Tourism, a major economic study commissioned by the Board and the Rural Development Commission (then the Development Commission) (PA Cambridge 1987). This study formed much of the foundation of the publication a year later of Visitors in the Countryside: Rural Tourism - A Development Strategy (English Tourist Board 1988a). This document, produced in collaboration between the Board, Rural Development Commission, the Departments of the Environment and Employment, MAFF, the Sports Council, Forestry Commission, Nature Conservancy Commission, and the Countryside Commission, represents both the first national statement on the subject and the first attempt to integrate policy on tourism at the highest levels of government, a development which had been urged by commentators since the 1970s at least (see for instance Heeley 1977).
Visitors in the Countryside was aimed clearly at promoting rural tourism to help achieve economic development goals while conserving the countryside. The strategy document:
♦ made proposals for marketing the rural tourism product;
♦ offered guidelines for appropriate developments while stressing the need to improve existing facilities in the countryside as well as encouraging new attractions there;
♦ noted the need for business advice and training; and
♦ indicated means for implementation, principally through regional tourist boards, other government departments and agencies, including local authorities but also the private and voluntary sectors. The local community is also given a brief, but vague, mention in this respect.
Subsequently, rural tourism as an issue has been largely eclipsed by the efforts of the boards to appear environmentally friendly and as promoting a sustainable industry (English Tourist Board/Employment Department 1991; Scottish Tourism Co-ordinating Group 1991; English Tourist Board 1992c). Principles for sustainable development and "green" business practice for the visitor industry have been produced, but little has been added on either the relative priority of rural tourism or towards any vision for the future of the industry in the countryside since Visitors.
The publication of Tourism in the UK: Realising the potential (HM Cabinet Office 1992) added little further to the rural debate.
Rural Tourism - Initiatives
In the 1980s, a variety of area-based initiatives were employed to develop the visitor industry in tourist destinations including rural areas. Seen in policy terms as part of a shift from achievement of national objectives to regional goals (Saleem 1992; see also Anon. 1993a), these have included:
♦ Tourism Development Action Programmes; ♦ Tourism Action Plans;
♦ Strategic Development Initiatives; and ♦ Local Area Initiatives.
They have taken the form of partnerships between local authorities, the tourist trade and regional and/or national Tourist Boards, aimed at improving both facilities and marketing, reflecting the Board’s view that the effective implementation of the strategy is best pursued through existing
mechanisms in rural areas with the ETB and/or regional tourist boards offering advice and some funding.
The initiatives can be viewed as an application of the destination area concept to the work of tourism development, concentrating effort upon specific areas rather than country-wide product types and promotion. However, there are no publicly available studies of the success or otherwise of these area specific initiatives, and in spite of all the effort to encourage rural tourism since the later 1980s, there remains a feeling that:
"Despite the important aspects of the countryside for tourism in the UK, its marketing is nominal in comparison with other forms of tourism ... although the UK government has gradually recognised the importance of the tourism industry as a whole, it appears that limited support and planning have been apportioned to rural tourism ..."
Gilbert and Tung 1990
RURAL VISITOR INDUSTRY - DEVELOPMENTAL STRUCTURES
The main structures for developing the industry in rural areas are the regional tourist boards and local authorities. The roles of these will briefly be considered.
Regional Tourist Boards
In theory, the ten regional tourist boards outside London have a critical role to play in developing rural tourism. However, their activities are constrained by the fact that they have very little real control over the product and industry - and in England, any influence they did have diminished when the tourism grants scheme (’Section Four’) aimed at individual businesses was terminated in 1988.
The Boards have regularly been subject to criticism directed at the manner in which they work, stemming principally from the difficult situation within which they have to operate. This was summed up by Pat Cook, the English Tourist Board’s first chief executive, saying that the Boards had to satisfy three disparate sets of interests: the government; the commercial sector; and the general public (Gurney 1984). Board members and chairmen are often accused of having little experience of the industry (see for instance Ferguson 1992), and there is concern that regional tourist boards concentrate too much on specific parts of their regions and particularly favoured trade interests to the exclusion of others (Moir 1990) - it has been said that:
"... there is a widespread feeling at the local and national level that the tourist boards are manoeuvred by powerful interests to suit their own ends."
Their ability to adopt a developmental role is limited. It was noted earlier that the regional boards have been described as primarily marketing agencies (Heeley 1977) (and many boards would agree with this analysis - see for instance Bowes 1988), and their efforts in the developmental sphere have long attracted criticism from trade interests (see for instance Vaughan and Wilkes 1986; Shaw eta! 1987).
The various area initiatives have been the main means of implementation of ETB development policies in rural areas (see Shaw et al 1987) but have been criticized. TDAP initiatives in rural areas have concentrated largely upon marketing at the expense of developmental measures (see for instance English Tourist Board 1982; Bramwell 1990). A competitive approach has been adopted to their selection, meaning that some areas have had to settle either for lower-profile Tourism Action Plans and most received nothing. The criteria for the choice of location of TDAPs are potentially conflicting, including:
♦ economic need;
♦ opportunities for development; ♦ national distribution; and
♦ ’the need for English Tourist Board involvement’. English Tourist Board 1987f
The majority of the rural areas of England have had no contact with TDAPs and seem similarly unlikely to become involved with the more recent Local Area Initiatives. The tourist boards are unlikely to devote much effort to marketing and development in most of the countryside.
Local Authorities
Local authorities have a crucial role to play in the promotion, support and development of their local tourism industries (Burkart and Medlik 1974; Heeley 1977). This point was summed up by Morrissey:
"The essential role of the public sector in the field of tourism must be to help organise and support the fragmented industry and to help it to compete for changing levels and patterns of visitor spending."
Morrissey 1986
The collective amount of LA involvement has been increasing over the past decade, and the resources devoted to the task have increased commensurately during a time when there has been
increasing evidence that the regional tourist boards are under-resourced both in terms of staff and budgets (Moir 1990).
Tourism is not a statutory requirement for local authorities in the same way that education is, for example (Anon. 1993c), and local authority members are not always fully committed to the industry (Heeley 1977). Clarke (1986) offers an example of this in Gwent, an area with a long tradition of employment in heavy industries - tourism is often regarded as a ’candyfloss’ industry, providing low quality jobs which are held in poor esteem compared to those in ’real’ industries. As a result, the necessary organisation and support is not forthcoming, with predictable results; a report on managing and developing tourism in Cambridge stated that:
"In the past the Council’s policy towards tourism has not been particularly helpful to the industry and may have discouraged investment..."
Cambridge City Council 1985
While attitudes are undoubtedly changing and many local authorities do take a positive attitude to the development of the visitor industry, some still do not. This and the increasing restrictions upon local authority expenditure and activities of all kinds means that tourism is still downgraded in priority in many locations, and development/promotional efforts are likely to be focussed upon already-successful locations and those with the most immediate potential, leaving many others - including some with the greatest needs - out in the cold.
Conclusion
Overall, it is difficult to see how the visitor industry of lesser-known and perhaps less attractive areas (including rural and other types of location) will be developed given the present institutional framework and the general lack of public sector resources. Local developmental structures may be necessary for such localities to optimise returns from the visitor industry by improving publicity and pushing for product development in the absence of substantive initiatives from others, although it may be important to co-ordinate the activities of local-scale groups and governmental agencies.