Growth Versus Equity: The Continuum of Pro-Poor Tourism and Neoliberal Governance

Abstract

This paper proposes a model which integrates tourism in a continuum of poverty alleviation strategies within the antipodes of neo-liberalism and protectionism. It is argued that despite growing evidence in favour of regulative and (re)distributive approaches that in practice come closer to protectionism than neoliberalism, the most influential international organisations, as well as governments worldwide, follow a largely neoliberal laissez-faire approach to poverty alleviation coupled with market-friendly ‘pro-poor’ supplements. This paper argues that tourism per se fits very well into neoliberal interpretations of poverty alleviation, while it tends to aggravate poverty-enhancing inequalities if allowed to operate in a free market environment. Drawing on evidence from current research into poverty alleviation, it is argued that in order to be pro-poor, growth must deliver disproportionate benefits to the poor to reduce inequalities which have been found to limit the potential for poverty alleviation. Hence, it is necessary to shift policy focus from growth to equity, which calls for strong institutions capable of regulating the tourism industry and distributing assets in order to facilitate ‘pro-poor growth’. In this respect, this paper challenges the conventional pro-poor tourism approach with its implicit growth-bias, where strategies are judged as pro-poor if they deliver net benefits to ‘the poor’ even if ‘the rich’ benefit disproportionately. However, through a contextualisation with the reality of politico-economic governance, this paper shows that strategies enhancing equity through shifting benefits towards the poor and, importantly, the poorest, are unlikely to be pursued in practice given policy-makers' neoliberal bias and systemic constraints. Hence, only strategies that are largely in sync with a neoliberal ideology and the ‘World Bank orthodoxy’, such as industry self-regulation or government incentives, have much potential to be implemented on a large-scale basis. More radical approaches such as pro-poor regulation and distribution – the equity side of the continuum – are bound to remain predominantly rhetoric of some United Nations organisations.