Approaches and Techniques for Tourism/Aviation Policy - Essay Example

?Research Approaches and Techniques designed to produce, prioritise monitor and evaluate tourism/aviation policy have moved beyond the realms of simple descriptive statistics. The issue of approaches and techniques to tourism policy planning lays overemphasis on the procedure of formulating a plan to help in taking decisions over the future of tourism policy planning. Literature abounds in various research approaches and techniques, offering the possibility to zero-in from among the different approaches, on the basis of the environment, the type of the problem and to a degree, the expertise and values of the researcher (Stevenson et al., 2008). Prevailing approaches such as Institutional approaches, the Stakeholder and Network approaches are evolved from the rational paradigm, as a number of researchers, including Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004)); Kerr et al (2001)); Pforr (2005)) and Russell and Faulkner (1999)) assert. As per their assertion, these approaches are reductionist, creating thin details that ignore the dynamics within the environment, as no analytical tools are available for research context. Various academics such as Bramwell (2006)); Dredge (2006)); Dredge and Jenkins (2003)); Elliott, (1997)); Tyler and Dinan (2001a and b)) and Thomas and Thomas (1998)) have recommended the use of wider theory to pay attention on the environment, the interaction between various initiatives, the networks and communications among the people busy in the procedure and the political reflections of policy making. These approaches include discussions about the social context on policy formulation and evaluate connections between relational aspects in stead of the detailed techniques and methods required in the formulation of a plan (Stevenson et al., 2008). Institutional Approaches Institutional approaches are created from the perspective that public policy is made within political and public institutions which design and control its type and dimensions. Institutional research has been recommended by researchers such as Dredge and Jenkins (2003)); Elliott, (1997)) and Tyler and Dinan (2001a and b)) and points towards formal rules and customs, detailing various practices and procedures. It projects the complicated features of policy making, focussing on the environment, which is marred by organisational divisions, with policies being designed at the same time within various fields. Treuren and Lane (2003)) assert the role of the institutional and organisational literature in theory development, which has offered its contribution in examining rationality, decisive thinking (i.e. the concept that organisations create and enforce policies to reduce costs and maximise returns) and normative conceptions like in the process models (e.g. Veal 2002)) where policies are framed and then enforced. Nevertheless, institutional investigation has been scrutinised for underscoring the political and social processes (John 1998)) (Stevenson et al., 2008). Stakeholder and Network Approaches Stakeholder and network approaches reflect problems that some research is over-rational and not workable to the actual world. Stakeholder approaches project the “plurality of organisational interest groups and the political nature of organisational goal setting and policy implementation” (Treuren and Lane, 2003:4)). Network approaches focus on “policy communities” formed of people who communicate within networks. They examine from the point-of-view of the people who are part of the process and identify that “policy emerges as a result of informal patterns of association” evaluating the dynamics of “complex relationships” by testing them “as they shift and change” (John, 1998, p.91)). Network theory assists to “explain the complexity of the policy arena and the multi dimensional nature of it” (Tyler and Dinan, 2001b, p. 243)). Nonetheless, it is criticized by John (1998)) who argues that networks need to be connected to other elements like stakes, concepts and institutions which decide how networks work. Bramwell (2006)); Dredge (2006)) and Bramwell and Meyer (2007)) have devised approaches that view networks in their social relationships. For instance, Bramwell (2006)) follows an ‘actor perspective’ to research the communications between various groups doing the rounds of arguments development in Malta. His study focus is to create value from the outlooks of people developing connections between their outlooks, actions and their social context. Dredge (2006)) contends that there has been reinforced interest in the network approach in the past decade emerging from the increasing complications of the environment and the encouragement of cross sector collaborations to create and deliver policies (Stevenson et al., 2008). Multiple Approaches An increasing number of researchers support the concept of the use of multiple approaches to comprehend policy formulation. Dredge and Jenkins (2003)) draw upon views from exchange and resource dependency theory, social and economic theory and institutional theory to find out connections between various hierarchies of government. Treuren and Lane (2003)) collect theories about organisations, institutional frames, interest groups, concept, economics and sustainability to evolve a structure for evaluation. Tyler and Dinan (2001a, b)) take from network theory, institutional theory, political theory and chaos theory, projecting the complications of tourism, which enter into various fields of the economy and connect with a vast range of relationships. John (1998)) and Pforr (2005)) contend that single approaches are unable to describe change, offer incomplete details on political interference and deficiency of testing capability. They contend that when approaches are connected they start causing complications, dynamism and transformation. Off late, Bramwell and Meyer (2007)) indicate a relational approach to policy formulating which considers power and context and takes a holistic approach combining together theories and approaches that have been punctured or polarised in the past (Stevenson et al., 2008). The above discussion and analysis over various approaches and techniques in formulating, prioritising and evaluating tourism policy highlight that tourism policy making occurs in a fast changing and dynamic scenario. Another highlight of the analysis is that tourism policy is necessarily about communication. Tourism is inseparably linked to other policy fields and the very process of policy making is complicated, which is in-built in the environment (Stevenson et al., 2008). The case reference of Leeds Let’s derive some reflections on the City of Leeds that has a record of tourism policy formulation and service availability since 1977, an on record mechanism, an outlay and well-focused staff and decision makers, ready to take part in future research. Leeds is positioned in the North of England, is the capital of Yorkshire and the Humber Region and is the second biggest Metropolitan District in England. As traditional industries shrank in the 1970’s, the Local Authority (LA), Leeds City Council found ways to diversify the City’s employment base including growth and creation of a brand image of the city as a destination. The region was recognised by Buckley and Witt (1989)) as a city in a “difficult area” to the growth of tourism. In Leeds people bargain the structure and place of tourism policy and their communications are very specific to its current practice and growth. Tangible factors are not significant, as published strategy is not taken for guidance purpose. Only particular off-late arrangements and initiatives are discussed. Approaches followed by people and the inherent connections with the cherished aims are referred to. The missing significance of the Strategy to policy formulators put a question mark on the pertinence of research approaches that centre on developing formal strategy. This fact highlights further research should be conducted to comprehend the networks, communications and interactions around policy and to relate it with theory that includes the experiences and views of the active stakeholders the process (Stevenson et al., 2008). English Local Administration (Las) follow a vast range of approaches to tourism, their aims are chalked out via a range of plans and strategies with distinct foci and the scenario is featured by its complications. LAs are busy in the formulation of tourism strategies and other strategies and plans which include some of the tourism aspects such as cultural strategies and economic growth strategies. They are increasingly collaborating in partnerships to carry out functions, causing “a huge range of non predictable, evolving relationships” (Tyler and Dinan, 2001a:211)) and increased the significance of bargaining and settlement among people in a range of organisations in the public and private sectors. The complication and range of approaches project the problem in following a research approach that depends on a single or simple ideation or that makes assumptions in advance (Stevenson et al., 2008). Tourism policy drafters and their critics have become increasingly conscious about and keen to research the procedures, results and effects of tourism public policies. Ireland has been one such country where tourism has flourished. Therefore, research should be focussed to locate the causal connections between policy and outcomes. Tourism’s impacts should be approximated rightly to help in taking right policy decisions. Therefore, the importance of evaluating government planning and programmes related to tourism public policies, has increased (Hall & Jenkins, 2004).All the same, this is complicated because: “Precise causal explanations of the links between public policy and [policy such as ] tour-ism development [can] not be provided because of the influence of a number of other factors, chief among which are external issues such as the economic climate in the major source markets” (Chambers & Airey, 2001, p. 95). Mega Policy Mega policy is policy making in collaborative way for holding cultural mega events, such as carnival in Salvador, Brazil. According to Jennings and Lodge (2009, p. 5), cultural mega-events “are exceptional in scale and scope, consisting of an extensive and parallel programme of events, often reliant upon construction of new infrastructure and facilities…” which can heighten all of a sudden “the normal levels of public and private sector operations”. The formulation and management of mega-events generally changes the routine procedure of policymaking around the mega event, the reason being that such grand events expect not only public and private cooperation of resources, but changes in the daily life for a large section of the community. As time period of mega-events is pre-determined, the policy procedure remains active without letting any issue prolonged. As a result, public private policy cooperation requires shared governance. Carnival in Salvador, Brazil, provides an extra-ordinary experience of policy formulation using of techniques to monitor and evaluate robustness of policy ensuring participation by municipal and state governments, private firms, and neighbourhood committees. “Turf wars” are common feature of Salvador carnival (Cranes, 2013). Research in information has been very trendy in the development of the tourism sector through leveraging of technology, assisting in providing huge stimulus in designing the tourism industry and providing it a competitive tool. Services of the information technology help in added performance from social and economic fields, as collection, management, retrieval and distribution of information and data can be used in right time. Although statistics have not been historically playing significant role in tourism policy-making because of novel tourism products but information technology can help in maintaining a dependable and vast database for tourism products; tourism management system can help policy makers in providing product information, incoming visitors, related tourism statistics and related market research information. Tourism can be promoted through sophistication of information networks (Zanzibar Commission for Tourism, 2008). Conclusion Studies that centre on the techniques and procedures of formulating a plan offer an incomplete understanding. As in the case example of Leeds, the problem is not how to create a tangible plan or document, but how to highlight tourism on the LA priority list. This indicates that research needs to be focused at producing a vast and complete clarity on the communications between policy makers, focusing on some of the problems they face and the power differences that happen in a disputed policy field. Research is needed to inspire ideas to help tourism policy formulators be more impressive in a changing environment (Stevenson et al., 2008). Read More