Pro-poor Tourism: Is There Value Beyond ‘Whose’ Rhetoric?

Regina Scheyvens’ lead paper contains much of value, but there are problems with her critique of pro-poor tourism (PPT). The preamble, though, is acceptable: tourism obviously makes a major contribution to the economies of many less developed countries (LDCs), but this is the standard defence for most kinds of tourism. Equally evidently, the most strident advocates of tourism’s povertyalleviating qualities often come from (national and international) non-government organizations (NGOs), donors and aid agencies, though sometimes with academic support (Jamieson 2003). Noticeably, though, any necessary association of PPT with community-based tourism (CBT) has been specifically denied by PPT advocates, some of whom suggest that CBT is singularly unsuccessful in alleviating poverty (Goodwin 2006; Mitchell and Muckosy 2008). The ‘promise of PPT,’ then, is something of a misnomer, and many of the ensuing criticisms are most appropriately directed at development organizations and self-interested industry players who might be described as PPT’s fellowtravellers. In other respects, too, to take the ‘harsh realities’ in turn, the critique is flawed. First, is international tourism founded on inequalities? Unfortunately, this writer is misquoted as supporting this assertion; instead, it was argued that wealth disparities in destination societies ‘are often highlighted by international tourism’ (Harrison 2001a: 252), which is very different. In fact, most international tourism is within developed areas, where resident and tourist are more or less of equal status In LDCs, disparities in wealth are often more pronounced, but they invariably pre-existed tourism and (as in the Caribbean) enabled those with financial and cultural capital to advance the new industry (Harrison 2001b: 28-33). To deduce from this that there is somehow a logical connection between international tourism and wealth discrepancies in destination areas, and that international tourism is founded on inequalities, is inappropriate.