The fall of communism was followed by a period of transition when many long and complex reforms took place. Saarinen (2008:409) writes that ‘transition economies’ refers to “countries that have moved, or are moving, from a primarily state-planned economy to a more market economy”. As a result, in a relatively short period of time, Central and East European countries went through a complex process involving difficult cultural, political,
economic and social changes at all levels - national, regional and local. ‘Privatisation’ was a key process at this stage with most goods and properties being transferred or sold from public to private ownership.
63
The notion of power and its connections and relationships with tourism are highly complex and debated (Storey, 2008). It has been noted that different authors approach tourism power from relatively “different conceptual starting points and using different terminology” (Storey, 2008:217). Traditionally, power is associated with issues of control, authority, influence, force, and manipulation (Lukes, 1974 in Coles and Church, 2007). Stone (1993:3) refers to power as the “capacity to overcome resistance and gain compliance”; or Horn (1997:60 in Palmer, 2007:647), who stresses the power struggle usually involves the public and the private sector, and suggests that “who gets to tell the story is the battle of the day”. On the other hand, Church and Coles (2007) identify three major dimensions: power, performance and practice; power, property and resources; and power, governance and empowerment. For CEE countries and their capitals the fight to get hold of formerly state-owned good began almost immediately after the 1989 revolution. Klepper (2002) writes that in the aftermath of the revolution chaos reigned. This allowed many opportunists to get hold of properties and resources at questionable prices. In other words, ‘corruption’ was a considerable element in the power shifts from public to private. Some countries reduced corruption faster than others.
Romania is known to be criticised as being one of the most corrupt countries in CEE and Europe (BBC, 2009a).
The 2004 and 2007 integration of several post-communist countries in the European Union was seen as proof of great progress and a sign that the power relations between private and public had reached normality. The notion of ‘urban regimes’ is particularly useful when attempting to understand power relations in urban environments. Urban regime theory is part of urban politics and became increasingly popular from mid 1980s with the publication of Stephen Elkin’s research on Dallas (Elkin, 1987) and Clarence Stone's research about Atlanta's urban regimes (Stone, 1989). Although it originated in the US, Davies (2001) points out that regime theory has been applied to most of the western world, including for example New Zealand and much of Europe. Urban regime theory focuses on public/private cooperation in the capitalist society (Stoker, 1995). It underlines the need for governmental and non-
64
governmental entities to cooperate and coordinate in order to deal with economic and social change:
"Urban regimes focus on the internal processes of city government in the broadest sense of the word, which seems to indicate that cities themselves are strong forces and that choices on the urban level themselves can determine the direction of the city." (Van Ostaaijen, 2007:3)
Stoker (1995:54) also argues that urban regime analysis is useful for
understanding how cities cope with change: "Regime theory holds substantial promise for understanding the variety of responses to urban change". Post- communist capitals could benefit most from urban regime analysis as it would allow a better understanding of urban change and power relations. Stone’s (1989) Atlanta urban regime is mainly characterised by stability and
cooperation; however, for CEE capitals stability and cooperation have been ‘under constant fire’. In the course of less than a century Romania and Bucharest have gone through multiple and major ideological regime changes such as shifting from monarchy to communism, or communism to democracy. Power not only relates to regimes. Coles and Scherle (2005) underline that power relations are closely tied with issues of work practice and ethics, and local culture. They may also be linked with issue of national identity (Winter, 2006). In other words, it can be argued that power and urban regimes are closely linked to deeper issues concerning national identity. Investigating unstable urban regimes such as those of CEE post-communist capitals may produce interesting and valuable information. Yet, the topic lacks much academic attention.
Limiting power and urban regimes to industry and government would be a mistake. Tourists also need to be considered. Crouch (2006:45) argues that because the tourist is an active participant in the process of tourism it is a “key player in the exercise of power in tourism”. Treating a governmental
organisation as ‘one’ entity is a superficial view. Within that organisation, each department, and perhaps each person who can influence decisions and
65
measures need to be looked at. Many stakeholders are involved in any tourism activity (Timothy, 2000; Timothy, 2007). For cities, this may include other, non-tourism departments in City Hall or the Ministry for Tourism, other ministry departments; the European Union, as well as non-tourism
organisations both national and international; in other words, an “amalgam of different businesses and sectors” (Page, 2003:280). However, identifying all of them is often difficult and prone to failure.
In conclusion, the exercise of power in tourism may involve tourists,
government, non-government, businesses, and community, to name just a few. Each participant to power has “limited resources and therefore a limited capacity to impose their will on someone else” (Stone, 1993:13). The
importance of power in the representational process is underlined by a number of authors (for example, Stoker, 1995; Horn, 1997; Hall, 1997; Morgan and Pritchard, 1998; Palmer, 2007). Duncan (1993a:39) underlines that
“representation operates in the service of power”, and only “by analysing these relations of power, we can more clearly see how interests play a constructive role in vision and representation”. Hall (1997) emphasises that power
frequently intervenes in representational discourses and is a fundamental part of the ‘representation process’ because it continuously circulates through meaning and knowledge influencing their intensities. Power and representation go hand in hand. The power dynamic between destination and tourists may influence or impact both projected and perceived representations and images.
3.3 Communist heritage and the post-communist built environment