Name
Instructor
Course
Date
FP Rough Draft 2
Introduction
Thailand is among the most visited region in South East Asia. Preferably, the area offers beautiful mountains to the north and sandy beaches to the south. Ostensibly, the region has diversity in culture, religion, heritage, history, and monarchy culture. Boonratana points out that international travel and tourism account for a significant portion of income for Thailand (281). Ury and Larson concur, citing tourism as a significant economic activity (7). As such, it permeates improved livelihoods and income opportunities for locals in Thailand. Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead share similar ideologies citing that international travel and tourism have an irreversible economic impact on low-income countries, including Thailand (1). However, I disagree with these ideologies. I have visited Thailand twice in my younger years. During that time, my family and I stayed at a local village, which was a popular tourist site. The unfathomable truth is that people in that region were poor based on how they dressed, dined, and lived. Suriya shares a similar perception of poverty and the aspect of tourism in Thailand (18). In the report, Suriya explains that there is a linkage between poverty (multidimensional poverty) and tourism in the region (18). In my opinion, I have researched about Thailand, and there is contrasting poverty among the people from the wealth of the King. For this reason, I choose to analyze tourism in Thailand and focus on the relationship between power and economy. Preferably, the paper will focus on determining whether Thailand’s political undercurrents are likely to influence tourism, and what is the linkage to poverty among its people?
Uneven Distribution of Tourism Income in Thailand
The first key point I will discuss is the uneven distribution of tourism income in Thailand. The main question in this category is why tourism, despite its impact from an economic perspective, has not eradicated poverty from the citizens? Based on the study done by Suriya, on the linkage between tourism and poverty, it showed that tourism could not eradicate poverty in the region (28). The reason is based on the statistics that show the majority of those living in the tourist base region live below the line of poverty (36%) (Suriya 28). But, the question is whether the tourist economic contribution is not as much to cater to the needs of the societies? Suriya points out that each year, Thailand accounts for 793 million Baht in poverty-stricken regions (28). However, the downside is that majority of tourism in the poverty areas is not as economically impactful as they are in the city of Bangkok. There is a need to understand how tourism impacts poverty in the region.
Tourism is a crucial factor in Thailand’s economy. Thailand is a great tourism destination with international recognition. The beautiful beaches, fascinating sceneries, and a well-developed hospitality industry make the country an attractive tourist destination for people from Europe, Asia, and the Americas (Chulaphan and Barahona 401). It is a convenient transit route for people wishing to access Europe due to its strategic location and climate. Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead indicate that tourism is the largest industry in Thailand (8). Tourism is divided into three factions: community-based, substantial capitalism and locally-self organized tourism services (Suriya 20). The Thailand government embarks in annual campaigns to boost tourism in the region with Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead, stating that its administration spends about 3% of its yearly budget in the tourism sector (8). Despite this, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the revenue accounted for in the tourism sector leads to beneficial wealth distribution among the poor communities (Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead 8). In my opinion, the lack of proper distribution is due to the tourism events that occur in the different regions of the country.
According to Suriya, tourism in the remote regions of Thailand only benefit from community-based tourism, which entails the sale of souvenirs, including arts and crafts (19). The statement concurs with what I saw while I was in Thailand. The majority of the tourists in the remote regions only paid for souvenirs but nothing more. Could this be the reason that remote areas have more poor families and individuals compared to cities such as Bangkok? Suriya’s study results indicate that cites of Bangkok, Rayong, and Chiang Mai province have substantial capitalism concerning tourism but not the same in poor regions such as Nakorn Panom (28). Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead elucidate that the perception of the benefits of tourism on promotional policies is not related to the direct income generation and equal distribution of wealth among families in Thailand (9). Boonratana answers the question stating that community-based tourism in Thailand has been unsuccessful in ensuring the improved socio-economic impact of tourism in remote regions (281). It is even though community-based tourism (CBT) has improved over the years since its introduction in early 2000 (Boonratana 280). The activities in CBT include agro-tourism, ethnographic studies, and eco-tourism. The potential in achieving socio-economic wealth for the poor communities has not been resolved, given that majority of the programs have achieved limited success or none at all. In summary, this may describe why there is an uneven distribution of tourism wealth in Thailand between cities and poor regions.
Thailand’s transformation from an agricultural-based economy to a more service-based and industrialized one that has fostered the tourism industry’s position as a key sector in promoting economic growth. The country receives about 34 million tourists from all over the world, providing a major boost to its economy (Rezk 4). Such a large influx of tourists implies that during peak seasons, the country experienced growth in all other social and economic sectors due to the ripple effect emanating from the tourism industry. However, opponents of this view assert that the tourism sector may lead to economic development in a skewed manner. The people in rural areas may not benefit fully, while only the wealthy members of the society, such as the owners of resorts and providers of luxury services, may gain access to the income from the tourism industry (Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead 929). Moreover, tourist destinations are located in places out of reach to a majority of the local populace, with most tourism-related resources being controlled by the national government and multinational hospitality chains.
Community-Based Tourism
The second key issue I will discuss is the hypothesized community-based tourism. From above, research has shown Thailand’s efforts to improve on the livelihoods and income levels of those living in impoverished regions through the integration of community-based tourism. Fareed et al. emphasize that tourism’s appreciation for the creation of economic wealth for countries with natural beauty has been on the rise in the recent past (1). Politics play a crucial role in how well remote poor regions experience the merits of tourism. According to Kontogeorgopoulos et al., Thailand is plagued with issues on minimal financial capital, nationwide policies that favor hefty plus well-connected travel firms, managerial experience, and geographical remoteness towards limited attention on tourism activities in the region (107). Nevertheless, Kontogeorgopoulos et al. state that other limiting factors render CBT unfeasible to enable improved livelihoods for those living in impoverished regions (109). Among them include lack of knowledge of what constitutes a community, the involvement of the community in sharing resources and benefits, and lack of proper management of CBT.
The CBT in Thailand comes in many models and forms. Preferably, the most utilized tourism under CBT is to adopt a family. As mentioned above, my first stay in Thailand involved living with a family in their home for the duration of the visit. Most visitors prefer regions in Thailand that have cool air and limited pollution compared to the cities. As such, Kontogeorgopoulos et al. indicate that the popularity of this type of tourism has gained momentum in the region (111). Despite the improvement in tourism, village leaders in these regions are concerned about the impact of tourism in their community based on aspects of economic, cultural, and environmental implications (Kontogeorgopoulos et al. 112). As a result of the concern, it was decided that the tourism activities should be left to the villagers rendering the CBT inept in managing tourism activities in the region. The decision may explain why Suriya demonstrates the inability of CBT to achieve its mandate in the rural areas that require tourism activities to benefit the locals (9). Primarily, regions are now left to fend for themselves in the types of tour packages to offer. In Mae Kampong, for instance, the tourism activities, including homestay tours, overnight tours, and one-day tours. However, CBT has also improved income for the villagers. According to Kontogeorgopoulos et al., it has initiated improved income generation prospects, including communal empowerment, communal benefits, and preservation of a way of life and ethos (112). In Mae Kampong, for instance, more than 100 communities benefit from the CBT. Inherently, CBT is proving to be more reliable in generating income for the regions that are poor in Thailand.
My question is based on whether tourism in remote areas is preserving the sanctity of the communities based on their livelihood, tradition, and culture. The reason I presume this is the given state at which tourism can impact a region through change. Bangkok, for instance, there is a mix of westernized and Thailand culture, which is evident from the influence of the west and mostly the tourists. With success provided with CBT, it is only right to question whether tourism is bringing the right impact or the wrong impact. Sin and Minca explain that ethical tours are pivotal in Thailand based on the schedule under CBT (97). Ideally, the CBT in remote areas of Thailand has benefited from the private sector partnership, which provides capital, clients, marketing, and tourist accommodations in the remote regions (Sin and Minca 97). However, to ensure the sanctity of the outlying areas, CBT in Thailand promotes alternative tourism or sustainable tourism. According to Sin and Minca, sustainable tourism refers to ethical tourism that required tourists to adhere to values of respect and integrity while visiting the remote regions (97). Emphasis is placed on having responsibility among the tourists, including partaking in ecological tours, participating in the picking of tea, and fishing. There are numerous examples of how tourists engage with sustainable tourism in Thailand. Thus, it may explain why CBT has been successful in Thailand despite reports by Suirya stating otherwise (9).
Relationship between Power and Economy
Tourism is one of the most significant sectors of the Thai economy. The industry offers employment for both skilled and non-skilled personnel in the country. With travel agencies, hotel and hospitality industry, airlines, and transports sector benefiting, the impacts of the sectors draw many direct and indirect economic and social benefits (Khandare and Phophueksanand 657). Tourism offers foreign exchange earnings for the country, which is important in offsetting the balance trade and increasing the country’s GDP. Thailand is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Southeast Asia. Many people visit Thailand because of its beautiful mountainous regions in the north and luxurious beaches in the south. Many also enjoy Thailand because of its affordability. Given the popularity of Thailand as a tourist destination, one would assume that Thailand’s economy benefits greatly from tourism. As such, it is worth exploring the impact that tourism has on the Thai economy. Many believe that tourism is good for the overall economy, but it will be interesting to see the extent to which these benefits are distributed throughout the population. I have been to Thailand twice when I was little. I found that people out there were living in poverty. When I trailed there, my family and I lived in their local village. I noticed their dress, their food, and their living environment is not good. But actually, their king is the richest leader in Asia. I want to find out the relationship between power and economy.
Power has played a crucial role in influencing tourism in the region and, consequently, the economy. Ingram et al. dictate that political instability has been a plague in the area. The confounding basis to this is the growing opposition towards the present monarchy in the region (98). In 2010, for instance, the United Kingdom’s travel advisory urged travelers to avoid the city of Bangkok due to the rise of violence against the ruling regime (Ingram et al. 98). Tourists are easily perceived by the political stability of a nation. If there are rampant violence and strikes in a region, tourists are bound to avoid these areas. According to a study by Ingram et al. on Thailand’s Power and political instability, tourists showed interest in the political stability of the region as a significant influencer in visiting the area (100). Sin and Minca reiterate the influence of the political climate in Thailand. From the open-perspective of the ruling party, Sin and Minca dictate that ethnic, territorial, and spiritual concepts are regarded as pivotal in Thailand (99). Fundamentally, the communities are considered to be political entities by themselves.
Community ideologies in Thailand are not similar to those in the Western region. Deloria and Olson dictate understanding power mean comprehending the people and social relations as well as dominions. These are critical in providing a generalized opinion about a community (125). According to Ingram et al., politics play a crucial role in how communities identify themselves either to the ruling party or the monarchy (100). In Thailand, power rests on the political leaders and their bureaucracy, which limits the potential of programs such as CBT. Alternatively, the impact of power on the economy is based on the negative connotations the country has embraced over the years from political strikes and violence (Ingram et al. 100). Due to this, the need to travel to Thailand has not been prominent among western tourists as it has been in other regions such as China and Korea (Ingram et al. 100).
Janssen (np) underscores the importance of the tourism sector in Thailand, noting that in 2019, it was the only sector that had positive prospects with a flaccid expected growth of 2.7%. The country’s earnings from the sector were about $89.1 billion. Although this was four times less than what the export sector brought in, it is evident that the industry is immensely important to the country’s economic growth. The author asserts that the previous ten years have witnessed a compounded annual industry growth rate of 7 percent, which has surpassed the export sector at 1.2 percent growth in the same period. Moreover, the inflow of tourists into the country increases the current account surplus. This increases the value of the local currency (Baht) and promises more investors to come in as the country becomes an investment hub for foreign investors.
The negative impact of a strong baht against other foreign currencies is that it affects the export industry negatively. The export market is the strongest driver of Thailand’s economy and accounts for 70% of the GDP (Liu, Li, and Parkpian 22). The US-China trade tensions in 2019, as well as the uncertainties surrounding the Brexit adversely, affected the country’s export market, with a further negative ripple effect on the domestic supply chain and competitiveness in the global market. As the Baht becomes stronger due to foreign investment inflow, the Bank of Thailand had to lower the interest rates to discourage further foreign investment. Yet, it lifted any restrictions on the baht outflow from the country to ensure that local investors could invest abroad.
Nevertheless, the region still enjoys a critical influx of tourists per year. The study by Ingram et al. shows that there is positivity when it comes to Thailand and the need to visit the region. Issues of terrorism and political instability, as mentioned, significantly impede the need to improve on tourists visiting the area. As a result, the capability of enhancing economic activities in the region, especially the remote areas are lower compared to those in the high-income regions such as Bangkok. Therefore, power plays, including political power play, have a strong influence on tourist positivity in the region resulting in fluctuations of tourist visits in the remote
The economy, as a link to power, plays a critical role in how tourists’ in-flow benefit the remote regions. According to the study conducted by Suriya, high-income areas in Thailand include Bangkok, whereas; low-income regions include inaccessible regions (27). Suriya did not provide a reason for this, but based on my research, it appears that cities such as Bangkok have more tourists pull compared to the remote regions. It is probably due to the proximity to amenities compared to the rural regions. Another reason could be the mass promotion of Bangkok compared to the rural regions. Generally, the high-income regions have more economic boom due to the tourist pull they generate compared to the scenic views of the remote areas. Frankly, there are limited studies that compared the two regions from an economic and tourism model perspective. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether, from an economic standpoint, remote areas have more pull for tourists than the urban areas. All in all, the relationship between power and economy is strong enough, with more emphasis given to urban areas of Bangkok and limited marketing for rural areas. As such, it may explain why there are expedient differences in income distribution between the urban areas and the remote areas.
Conclusion
Thailand offers a lot of tourist activities and sites for visitors. Despite the scenic characteristics, underneath, there are prevailing issues that I have observed during my visit to Thailand. One pivotal issue was the poverty differences in the remote regions compared to the urban regions. The present paper has provided a succinct discussion regarding uneven distribution of income, how power and economy link as well as community-based tourism and its impact on tourism in the rural regions. The conclusion based on this research is that Thailand has a lot of potential in ensuring equitable distribution of resources between the urbanized regions and the remote areas. Emphasis on community-based tourism and sustainable tourism may be the key to achieving even distribution of resources and eradicating poverty.
Work Cited
Boonratana, Ramesh. “Community-based tourism in Thailand: The need and justification for an operational definition.” Kasetsart Journal: Social Sciences 31.2 (2010): 280-289.
Chulaphan, Wanvilai, and Jorge Fidel Barahona. “Contribution of disaggregated tourism on Thailand’s economic growth.” Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences vol. 39, no. 3,2018, pp. 401-406.
Deloria, Philip J., and Alexander I. Olson. “Methods and Methodology.” American Studies. University of California Press, 2017, pp. 115-127.
Fareed, Zeeshan, et al. “Nexus of tourism, terrorism, and economic growth in Thailand: new evidence from asymmetric ARDL cointegration approach.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 23.12 (2018): 1129-1141.
Ingram, Haydn, et al. “The impact of political instability on tourism: the case of Thailand.” Worldwide Hospitality and tourism themes (2013): 92-103.
Janssen, Peter. “Thailand’s Resilient Tourism Industry a Mixed Blessing for the Economy.” The Business Times, 14 Jan. 2020, www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/thailands-resilient-tourism-industry-a-mixed-blessing-for-the-economy. Accessed 21 April 2020.
Khandare, Vilas, and Narong Phophueksanand. “Economics of Tourism Development: A Comparative Study of India and Thailand.” Kaav International Journal of Economics, Commerce & Business Management, Vol-4. ISSN. 2348 4969 (2017).
Kontogeorgopoulos, Nick, Anuwat Churyen, and Varaphorn Duangsaeng. “Success factors in community-based tourism in Thailand: The role of luck, external support, and local leadership.” Tourism Planning & Development 11.1 (2014): 106-124.
Liu, Yaping, Yinchang Li, and Parnpree Parkpian. “Inbound tourism in Thailand: Market form and scale differentiation in ASEAN source countries.” Tourism Management vol. 64, 2018, pp. 22-36.
Rezk, Demiana, and Kristen Rosario. “Does Tourism Foster Economic Growth in Thailand?” 2019.
Sin, Harng Luh, and Claudio Minca. “Touring responsibility: The trouble with ‘going local’in community-based tourism in Thailand.” Geoforum 51 (2014): 96-106.
Suriya, Komsan. “Modeling the linkage between tourism and multiple dimensions of poverty in Thailand.” The Empirical Econometrics and Quantitative Economics Letters 1.1 (2012): 17-38.
Ury, John, and Jonas Larsen. “Economies” The Tourist Gaze 3.0. Sage Publications. (2011):49-74.
Wattanakuljarus, Anan, and Ian Coxhead. “Is tourism-based development good for the poor?: A general equilibrium analysis for Thailand.” Journal of Policy Modeling 30.6 (2008): 929-955.