Tourism Inter-Organizational Relationships, Coordination and Hierarchy in the Black Sea Riparian Cities
Present-day international tourism would be quite impossible without international cooperation. The contribution of international organizations throughout the latter half of the twentieth century is beyond the scope of this paper. The best reference sources on this vast subject are the series of Annual Reports of the OECD Tourism Committee, the publications of the World Tourism Organization and, in the purely European context, the published output of DG XXIII of the European Commission. Analyzing the Black Sea area and its 11 riparian countries (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine) the main sources are the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, the Forum of the cities and regions of South East Europe, the national statistics of the respective countries as scarce they are.
In the Black Sea area as everywhere else, governments intervene and encourage tourism through a complex structure of governmental and officially recognized organizations, which are convenient to visualize as existing at different levels within a pyramid, the national executive at the apex and the local level at the base. The structure should not be taken literally as corresponding to the distribution of real power and influence as the base may have considerable resources and powers to act independently and to strongly influence ‘upwards’ the development of policy. The whole structure is, certainly, subject to continual pressure from electorates, business interests and lobbies.
The basic aim of the paper is to promote the establishment of partnerships between South-Eastern European local and regional authorities and other cities and regions around the Black Sea, as a means of consolidating local and regional tourism infrastructure and products.
Key wordsThe Black Sea riparian cities tourism
JELClassification10 11 14
Related field(s)Resource and Environmental Policy International Economic Policy Climate Change and Institutional Tourism Partnership
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Davidson, R. 1992. Tourism in Europe. Paris: Pitman Techniplus.Google Scholar
- Dwyer, L. 2003. “Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators”. Tourism, 5(5). Available on-line at: https://doi.org/web.ebscohost.com/
- Kantanen, T. 2005. “Advertising in low and high involvement cultural tourism attractions: Four cases”. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(2). Available on-line at: https://doi.org/web.ebscohost.com/
- Laulajainen, R. 2001. “The Unfamiliar Tourist Destination- A Marketing Challange”. European Journal of Marketing, 15(7). Available on-line at: https://doi.org/web.ebscohost.com/
- Lindberg, F. 2004. “A dialogic endeavor into the mediating forces of cultural tourism”. Scandinavian Journal of Tourism, 4(3). Available on-line at: https://doi.org/web.ebscohost.com/
- Middleton V. 2001. Marketing in travel and Tourism. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
- Stanciulescu, Gabriela. 1999. Management of sustainable tourism in the Black Sea riparian countries, Bucharest. ALL Publishing House.Google Scholar
- Stanciulescu, Gabriela. 2004. “Regional strategies and policies for the sustainable tourism development in the Danube space, Bucharest” Publishing House of the Academy of Economic Studies, 168–170.Google Scholar
- Stănciulescu G. 2004. Strategii şi politici regionale de dezvoltare durabilă a spaţiului dunărean. Provocări pentru turism. Bucharest, Publishing House of the Academy of Economic Studies.Google Scholar
- Therkelsen A. 2003. “Imagining Places: Image Formation of Tourists and Its Consequences for Destination Promotion”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2). Available on-line at: https://doi.org/web.ebscohost.com/