Nuevas narrativas de la infancia

Although the extent to which changes in the political environment impact directly on attractions is largely predicated on the nature of the relationship between the two, none are completely immune from the policies and actions of government at various levels. For example, with some types of attractions almost entirely dependent on public money for continued operation, the implications are far reaching. An obvious case in point is museums which are increasingly being forced to accept the commercial imperative in the face of shrinking government funding. The transition from what Lennon and Graham (2001, p. 266) describe as “their orthodox social purpose in artefact conservation and educational interpretation” to a more commercial orientation has obvious implications in terms of management skill alone.

Considering the attractions sector as a whole however, there are a number of factors of a political nature that potentially [and actually] impact on their operation. Bramley

(2002) suggests government involvement in tourism has progressively come to include:

• Facilitation through the provision of regulations directed at simplifying the passage of tourists across international frontiers

• Promotion aimed at maximising foreign currency earnings

• Supply planning born of a recognition of the economic importance and growth potential of tourism

• Policy implementation directed at addressing regional imbalances

• Environmental protection based on a recognition of the growth and spread of tourism and its impact on the quality of life of host communities and on the natural environment

Since it is the policies and actions of government in these key areas that constitute the main political forces confronting the attractions sector they are fundamental to any examination of political issues. Although Bramley (2002) notes an emerging dimension of government involvement which sees them embracing a more entrepreneurial role, the fundamental areas of exercising governance, overseeing planning, providing vital infrastructure and direct stimulus through promotion is the essence of government policy as it relates to tourism.

From a wider perspective, reduced levels of government funding for tourism development and associated infrastructure can have far reaching impacts for both attractions clusters, and individual attractions which in some cases are widely dispersed. For example, many of Australia’s key attractions are a considerable distance from gateways or core locations rendering them vulnerable to shortcomings in transportation access, supporting infrastructure, and overall levels of government support. To some extent this is being offset by an emerging realisation of the importance of tourism to regional development, and the subsequent decentralisation of tourism decision making to regional and local levels.

The situation may be further complicated by the intricate and, in Australia, duplicated, divisions of responsibility in various areas of governance and public funding. Regional and local governments which come within the focus of this study have traditionally played an active role in the development of regional tourism although Hall (1999)

which sought to implement public policy for a perceived public good to a corporatist model which emphasizes efficiency” (p.274). Notwithstanding as Dredge (2001) observes, “Tourism is increasingly being flagged in many local government areas as a lynchpin for local economic development” (p.356) The resultant stimulus by means of marketing, network building and investment incentives would appear to augur well for attractions developers and operators (ibid).

Mc Kercher 1997 (in Dredge 2001, p.p.356-7) does, however, offer a cautionary note, by suggesting that, amongst other things, a lack of commitment may represent a significant impediment to the implementation of tourism planning and development. Whether, as Richins and Pearce (2000) suggest this is vested in the commitment of individual councillors, or is more a question of “values and beliefs that are deeply imbedded in the institutions of local government” (Dredge 2001, p.357), the vagaries of local government policy can represent a significant challenge to the operators of tourism enterprises. Restricted terms of office and the potential for decision making based on political expediency further complicate the situation.

It should also be observed that the ‘politics’ of tourism development extends beyond the policies and actions of government. As key stakeholders in the providence of the destination’s attributes host communities play a key part in shaping government policy particularly when this relates to funding of specific tourism facilities. McKercher (2001) suggests that “Community support for, or opposition to tourism will influence the level of public sector involvement in this area” (p.31). As a result “Public sector involvement in the direct ownership and operation of tourism attractions can be controversial, especially if the level of subsidisation is seen to be excessive for the community benefits provided” (Mc Kercher 2001 p.29). It would seem clear that this has distinct implications for the management of tourism facilities of most kinds in the sense that forging positive relationships with community as a means of garnering support or communicating ‘worth’ may be central to the maintenance of government support either directly or indirectly.

Amongst the more formal aspects of the relationship between government and tourism enterprise are those related to the wide range of regulatory frameworks within which they are obliged to operate. Of singular importance are those related to planning and land use which, by their very nature, tend to be rigid and adversarial. In this respect the statutory powers inherent in local government planning legislation constitute a significant political force. For attractions, particularly in rural settings this has wide

reaching implications particularly in areas where overuse may result. The obligation inherent in development and operation that is compliant with wider regional planning objectives rather than simply tourism centric priorities adds additional complexity to the operation of small tourism enterprise.

Although Bramwell and Sharman (1999) promulgate the values of collaboration between all stakeholders, the often divergent objectives of the public and private sectors can make any consensus problematic. Richins and Pearce (2000) paint an even more complex picture broadening the range of stakeholders to include tourists, residents, investors, and non-government organisations. The complex relationships and divergent priorities between these groups have created enormous challenges in meeting the needs of all concerned. This, Page and Thorn (1997, p.60) observe, “requires the tourism industry and public sector planning agencies to radically rethink both the way they operate and the effects of tourism”.

Gunn (1994) calls for greater integration of [the] policies and practices of the public and private sectors in tourism planning given their dependence on each other. Forging strong relationships with government would thus seem an inescapable priority for the management of attractions. A growing body of literature (Jamal and Getz 1995; Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Dredge 2006) calls for greater collaboration and networking in tourism policy making and planning as a means of giving greater ‘political legitimacy’ to the process. The ‘go-it-alone’ policies of many tourism sectors (Gunn 1994) are no longer sustainable, and need to be integrated into a broader vision of sustainable planning.

The political environment is thus conceptualised as not only the relationship between government and the management of attractions but the wider political tapestry in which attractions operate. Positive engagements with all stakeholders coupled with recognition of the value of collaboration represent vital directions. Since it will later be suggested that an ability to cope with change is central to successful management networking alone has the potential to provide vital information in the formation and evaluation of strategy.