ACADEMIC PAPER
INTERNATIONAL STUDY-PROGRAM 2015
A CRITICAL COMPARISON OF NATIONAL TOURISM POLICIES
CHRISTIANE POHLER | 11-2015 Page 1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1
2. SIMILARITIES OF THE DESTINATIONS........................................... 1
3. DIFFERENCES OF THE DESTINATIONS .......................................... 3
4. TOURISM POLICIES – COMPARISON AND LESSONS TO LEARN ...... 5
4. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE – COMPARISON ..................................... 6
5. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK ...................................................... 7
1.
INTRODUCTION
In general, the main goal of tourism development is creating and enlarging competitiveness and sustainability of destination. Hence, the government holds an important position in terms of tourism development as it constitutes the basic framework in which private tourism business can operate and shape destination competitiveness. Therefore, the formulation of competitive tourism policies is the key to success for a destination as it provides guidelines for balanced relations between public and private tourism initiatives. (Wong et al., 2008 & Wong & Kwan, 2001) Wong et al. (2008) reveal, that in the case of the two destinations ‘Singapore’ and ‘Hong Kong’, the necessity of good tourism policies to enhance their competitiveness becomes obvious as new emerging destinations entry the Asian tourism market. The aim of this paper, based on the findings of Wong et al. (2008) and the author´s personal experiences, is to critically evaluate and compare the tourism policies of Hong Kong and Singapore.
2.
SIMILARITIES OF THE DESTINATIONS
First, it is crucial to define the similarities and differences of both destinations in order to have a common starting point (Wong & Kwan, 2001). As a next step, a comprehensive comparison of the tourism policies of both destinations can be undertaken. Wong et al. (2008) consider that the two destinations, Singapore and Hong Kong, have three main similarities according to a tourism destination perspective:
Nature of the destination (their history)
Stage of development (regarding the numbers of tourist arrivals)
General strategic approach to development (economic importance of tourism)
Page 1
The nature of the destination means that Singapore as well as Hong Kong were past British colonies with the majority of Chinese population. Therefore, both destinations are highly influenced of the British settlement and provide the tourists nowadays a certain way of ‘East meets West’ cultural experience. In addition, both cities offer a classic city-tourism product.
Concerning their similar stage of development of the economics several key factors, like tourist arrivals, infrastructure and economic competitiveness, are taken into consideration. For instance in 2007 Singapore stated about 10 million tourist arrivals, whereby Hong Kong reached around 12 millions. According to their similar stage of infrastructure development, both destinations benefit from highly reputable airports, efficient transportation networks, state-of-the-art convention centres and world-class hotels.
The final similarity of both destinations is the general strategic approach to development. Within both destinations tourism contributes more than 5% to the economies’ GDP. Hence, both destinations recognized the economic importance of tourism and adopted a proactive approach to develop the tourism industry. Thus, both destinations established new tourism policies and strategic frameworks for tourism development which point out their strategic vision:
Singapore’s policy paper:
“Tourism 21 – Vision of a Tourism Capital”
Hong Kong´s policy paper:
“Hong Kong Tourism: Expanding the Horizons”
(Henderson et al., 2002 and Wong et al., 2008)
To sum up, tourism policy is seen in both destinations as effective tool to manage economic and social issues with the aim to enhance competitiveness in order to become the most important Asian city for leisure and business travellers.
Page 2
3.
DIFFERENCES OF THE DESTINATIONS
While both destinations have implemented similar policies there are though some differences between the two destinations. This aspect leads the author to the main purpose of this paper, namely the comparison and differentiation of the tourism policies of Singapore and Hong Kong. Moreover the author took into consideration her personal experiences of these two destinations that will be felt out in depth in chapter 5. Wong et al. (2008) point out three main differences:
Different scope of vision
Different endowments of the business environment
Different appreciation of public private relationships
SINGAPORE
HONG KONG DIFFERENT SCOPE OF VISON
Tourism 21 – Vision of a Tourism Capital:
Hong Kong Tourism: Expanding the Horizons:
that means
that means
“Singapore does not only want to become “Establish and promote Hong Kong as an attractive destination, but also a location Asia´s premier international city, a worldfor tourism investments in and a vital link to class destination for leisure and business the Pacific region (Wong et al., 2008, p. visitors (Wong et al., 2008, p. 197).” 197).”
detailed description of the scope: The
not
very
specific
(what
is
an
tourism capital vision embodies three international city?), the aspired scope is aspects:
tourism
destination,
tourism not mentioned
business centre and tourism hub. BUT BOTH CITIES WANT TO BE AN ATTRACTIVE DESTINATION!
Page 3
DIFFERENT ENDOWMENTS OF THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT The
pro-activeness
of
government Obtaining a market-centred approach to
encourages investments to develop new tourism. attractions and experiences.
tourism development is mainly driven
very holistic tourism concept
by the private sector
government intervenes and corrects government is more reactive, intervenes market failures as early as possible, so only when necessary tourism is government-driven
partnerships between private and public sector could be improved
DIFFERENT APPRECIATION OF PUBLIC PRIVATE RELATIONSHIPS Tourism
development
is
public-sector The private sector has to make the first step
driven.
towards economic development.
Rapid intervention of government if market Market-led governance government threatens to fail. dependency on depends on private sector to develop government
tourism
Dialogues between public and private Government´s tendency to react (laissezsector are appreciated. efficient talks
faire policy) – more reactive way. This
Proactive approach
environment stimulates entrepreneurship.
Moreover the eagerness to learn is higher in Singapore than in Kong Kong. Thus Singaporeans are not shy to learn, monitor the development and established a benchmarking-process. In contrast, Hong Kong´s attitude concerning the eagerness to learn is different due to their culture and the fact of not loosing face while comparing themselves with other countries. (Wong et al., 2008) According to this Singapore has as well opened skies policies in order to improve their aviation policies. In opposition to Hong Kong, where aviation policies are stricter and do not really enhance their competitiveness. (Mcneill, 2014)
Page 4
4.
TOURISM POLICIES –
COMPARISON AND LESSONS TO LEARN
Though both destinations dispose of similarities there are radical differences as well. Nevertheless Singapore and Hong Kong should learn from each other to increase their competitiveness. (Wong et al., 2008)
So, what can Singapore learn from Hong Kong?
encouraging entrepreneurship through education (e.g. Hong Kong Polytech University and Hotel Icon)
encouraging entrepreneurship through retiring restrictions more liberality
stimulating the private sector´s interest in tourism development
getting aware and getting prepared of the Chinese market according to their needs
And what can Hong Kong learn from Singapore?
Pro-active support of the tourism industry (e.g. opened skies policies)
Visionary leadership (holistic tourism concept) – efficient talks between public and private sector
Eagerness to learn (open one´s mind – development through knowledge)
To conclude, both destinations should learn from each other but should keep their uniqueness at the same! Besides the importance of establishing competitive long-term tourism policies, both destinations should preserve their unique character because this is a main part of destination competitiveness as well.
Page 5
5.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE – COMPARISON
The elaborated similarities as well as the comparison of the tourism policies lead the author to the last part of this paper, the personal experiences. Due to the author´s personal experiences, Singapore has developed innovative and concentrated tourism attractions, which perfectly fit to the transferred image of the destination itself (e.g. Gardens By The Bay – Cloud Forest, Sentosa Island). Moreover Singapore is a very green and clean city with an effective transportation (appropriate infrastructure) system. Concerning the culture, Singapore seems to be very diverse and multicultural – various different nations are living together. The advantage of this is that English is an official language and therefore tourists will find their way through Singapore rather easy. A final aspect that makes Singapore unique and competitive is its high standard of service quality, which is transmitted by the people´s friendliness and lived hospitality.
As regards Hong Kong it seems to be very busy, crowded and glittering. Due to the fact that Hong Kong is the main destination for Chinese tourists it appears to be influenced a lot by the Chinese culture. So, the destination is well-adapted to Chinese tourists but might get less attractive for the Western market. Compared to Singapore it seems to focus strongly on the Chinese market and therefore a lack of English language (e.g. taxi drivers) is inevitable.
Singapore and Hong Kong provide both breath-taking experiences. First, they seem to be quite similar but they are different on their way...
For me personally, Singapore is very well-structured, very green and provides a wide range of different high-quality tourism products. Hong Kong, in contrast, is more vibrant, glittering and above all dominated by the Chinese culture.
Page 6
6.
CONCLUSION & CHALLENGES
To summarize, the approach of mutual learning possibilities in terms of the tourism policies of Hong Kong and Singapore described in the article matches with my personal experiences.
However, Singapore and Hong Kong have to face some challenges, also due to their geographical position. Both destinations face the scarcity of land and therefore an efficient use of resources is required. Moreover they have to consider the challenge of carrying capacity, as well as the challenge of other emerging destinations close to them (e.g. Vietnam, Cambodia).
Page ď‚˝ 7
II
LIST OF REFERENCES
LITERATURE Henderson, J. C. / Fyall, A. / Leask, A. / Garrod, B. (2002): Heritage attractions and tourism development in Asia: a comparative study of Hong Kong and Singapore, International Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (5), p. 337-344 McNeill, D. (2014): Airports and territorial restructuring: The case of Hong Kong, Urban Studies, 51 (14), p. 2996-3010 Wong, E. / Bauer, T. / Wong, K. (2008): A Critical Comparison of Tourism Policies of Hong Kong and Singapore – An Avenue to Mutual Learning, International Journal of Tourism Research, 10 (3), p. 193-206 Wong, K. und Kwan, C. (2001): An analysis of the competitive strategies of hotels and travel agents in Hong Kong and Singapore, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 (6), p. 293-303
PRESENTATIONS (INSPIRATION) Ngee Ann Polytechnic University, Elaine Cheng (10, 2015) Singapore Tourism Board, GB Srithar (10, 2015) Hong Kong Polytech University, Markus Schuckert (10, 2015)