State Tourism Funding
It is the role of every state to fund tourism services in the country. To succeed in tourism funding, a state may come up with various funding models that will help to mobilize resources that will help in financing the development of tourism industries in the country. Many things can propel a funding model evolvement. In our case were are going to look at how a funding model might have evolved given a state’s social and political culture.
Social culture can have a significant impact on the evolvement of a funding model. In the article “State Tourism funding,” we can see several funding models proposed, but only three models are accepted. For example, when a former Assemblywoman proposed a $2 per room tax. The state hotel industry opposed the proposal. This is because it was against the social culture as some restaurants as they were disadvantaged
since their accommodation rooms are less expensive. To come up with a funding model, one should be in consideration of the impact of the model on the people involved in that model.
Social culture played a vital role in the formation of the consensus funding model, as witnessed in “The State Funding” article. This partnership was possible because the involved parties had one desirability. They all had explicit knowledge of tourism as it was what they do, hence to organize themselves to achieve a common goal was easy. If they were from different cultural formation, it could be hard to arrive into a consensus model as their views could be very different.
Political culture can play a significant role in the adaptation of a funding model. As we can see in the article “The State Funding,” the politicians are said to turn the state tourism budget into a political football. This is evident that politics might lead to the evolvement of the funding model that is in favour of their political interest. The model can be developed not for the favour of the intended citizens or organizations but because of the self-interest of the politicians. This is the reason many funding models end up not being successful because they are politicized until they cease to exist.
South Carolina funds its tourism industry through the SCPRT. The primary goal SCPRT is to increase personal income to the citizens of South Carolina. SCPRT extends tourism to rural areas to benefit tourism-based communities. SCPRT employees ensure the visitors discover all the cultural and natural resources owned by the state of South Carolina. The SCPRT has strategies of marketing plan promoting cultural, natural and man-made tourism resources that target attracting more visitors in the state. The domestic advertising programs conducted by SCPRT seek to attract more visitors to the state. SCPRT provides programs that involve working closely with the marketing and sales team to create more exposure to the state. Through these efforts, the tourism industry in South Carolina is able to receive more visitors leading to an increase of income to the industry.
The future of state tourism funding in the U.S lies in the efforts put in the understanding of the three models to find a way of integrating them to come up with a hybrid funding model. What I think will happen I future is that consensus and accountability will be merged to come up with one model that will ensure accountability but in partnership form. If the model succeeds, then a method of fixing equity in the newly formed funding model will be found, resulting in the formation of a hybrid funding model. But the success of the establishment of a hybrid model will depend on various aspects such as the social and political culture of the state.
Work Cited
South Carolina Legislature Online, www.scstatehouse.gov/Archives/aar2007/P28.pdf.
Rich Harrill, Betsey Bender Stringam. “State_Tourism_Funding_Equity_Consensus_and_Account.” July 2007,