Another LNAT: Would you agree that travel and tourism exploit poorer countries and benefit only the richer ones?

It is by now news to nobody that worldwide inequality has reach galactic levels, and is only going in one direction: up.

Here is another LNAT essay which I did the other day on a relevant and highly controversial topic. I found this one difficult to argue, especially in the absence of statistics or a particularly sophisticated knowledge of economics. It was interesting to discover when I was planning the essay, however, that I don't actually see the economic benefits, which poor nations might receive from tourism, as playing any part in reducing the level of exploitation. The fact that neither the government, nor of course the individual citizens themselves, has any real role in dictating the developments, is a far more significant factor in assessing the extent to which tourism exploits their countries.

I have no doubt that some will disagree with my argument. But it is only through putting forward the case for the many different points of view on difficult issues that the fairest and best way forward is realised.

Would you agree that travel and tourism exploit poorer countries and benefit only the richer ones?

There are two issues at stake in this question. The first is whether travel and tourism are exploitative of poor nations. If ‘exploitation’ is understood to be ‘the taking advantage of something without its consent/ in absence of any realistic alternative’, then it is clear that the poor countries are indeed exploited. Such an understanding of the term also nullifies any counter-argument about the economic benefits for these nations, as that is a separate outcome which does not change the definition of this global relationship as an ‘exploitative’ one. The second issue is whether rich nations benefit exclusively from the sector. As suggested, there is a transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor, but not one significant enough to override the growing inequality between them caused by uneven growth in other sectors. Even poor people in rich countries, however, do not benefit as much as the wealthy, and so the more relevant benefit inequality in travel and tourism is stipulated by class issues rather than nationality.

Travel and tourism would be deemed exploitative of poor nations if it can be proved to take advantage of them without them possessing control over preventing this. It is the case that both country, in terms of the ruling government, and individual citizens, have no real choice, and so are exploited. Firstly, those living in a Caribbean coastal village, for example, have no influence over the growth in tourism around them, such as whether a new luxury resort opens up one kilometre away. They could abstain from taking any part in encouraging these developments, such as by refusing to benefit themselves by setting up a shop or restaurant nearby, but this decision does not reverse the fact that their community will be disrupted by tourism. This is clear exploitation as their idyllic homes are being invasively taken advantage of by wealthy people from other countries, regardless of whether the consent of the indigenous people is given.

One may argue that the government holds ultimate responsibility for developments in its country, and so executive power to prevent this exploitation. In opting to allow it, this argument goes, the government is endorsing the action of rich countries and so disqualifies an assessment of that action as ‘exploitative’. This is, however, a misled viewpoint, as whilst the government may technically hold power to veto such developments in the tourism industry, doing so would exacerbate further the existing poverty and extreme inequality between its country and those more affluent. To soldier on, disregarding the economic fillip offered by tourism, would amount to cutting its nose off to spite its face. Inequality between the two groups of countries would increase, and those in the poor ones, robbed of a vital opportunity for income, would become more impoverished and dissatisfied. Potentially, civil disturbance could result. It is therefore patently obvious that the very concept and nature of the international tourism and travel sector is immensely unjust and exploitative of those countries on the losing side of this deal. The governments are arm-locked into consenting to the explosion of the industry on its land, and its citizens are subsequently forced either to swallow their pride and make the most of the situation as best they can, or refuse to do so and suffer. The opportunity to benefit should not in any way be deemed a redeeming factor for the exploitation on show.

It goes without saying that this interaction between nations benefits the wealthy ones more so than the poorer ones. Whilst money is being taken out of the prosperous economies and spent in the poor ones, it is actually on a far more insignificant level than first appears. An example to illustrate would be a luxury Caribbean holiday; the biggest costs are the flight and hotel. On more occasions than not, the airlines and hotels of choice will be owned by companies in the wealthy countries, and so the money actually stays put. Tiny transactions in souvenir shops, or restaurants, provide the only chance of benefit for the poor nations’ economies. In addition, growth in the other sectors in the big economies, such as financial services, is of course enormous, far greater than that in any LECDs. As a result, the inequality margin between them continues to increase. On a macro level, travel and tourism in no way offer the economic benefits to poor countries which might reduce the global wealth gap.

It is also unlikely the individual citizens of these poor nations benefit enough to return the favour and visit other parts of the world. Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule, but international tourism predominantly works one way: citizens from wealthy countries go to less wealthy ones. The sector itself, as has been shown, does not provide the economic means to members of poor countries to reverse this one way traffic. Thus, the spiritual pleasures offered by exploring the world are not feasibly available to everyone.

It is wrong, however, to see the benefits being purely divided by nationality. Although people from countries such as Britain and America, will dominate the tourism market, it will only be a certain group of society that does so. In other words, those living under the poverty line in affluent countries, or indeed floating above it, do not take advantage of the myriad destinations on offer in the same way that the souvenir shop owner in Barbados cannot either. The true benefits of travel are reserved for the top percentile in wealthy countries, who are able to travel as they please and own the companies which profit most from the sector. Middle-income families may go on holidays, but the ultra-luxury, and simultaneously most exploited locations, are limited to the financial viability of a far smaller portion of those societies, let alone the entire world population. Travel and tourism might broadly benefit ‘rich’ countries more than ‘poor’ ones, but the real distinction between those who gain most is based on class.

Travel and tourism is a highly exploitative industry both economically and morally speaking. Its purported wealth equalising is a veneer, and it undermines and degrades some of the world’s most vulnerable, who are given no say in the developments being planned for their own communities and homes. Quite heinously, the more poverty pre-exists, the more exploitation ensues. Whilst this question of exploitation is predicated on a national divide, the benefits are predominantly apportioned by social class. Those surviving on the welfare state in the most affluent countries gain no more from travel and tourism than those living in poor nations – the very ones that their wealthy compatriots are enjoying at this very moment.