![]()
Introduction
Lynn Minnaert, Robert Maitland and Graham Miller
Social tourism research, at least in the academic literature in English, has gone through a period of rapid development in the past 5 to 10 years. From a subject that was addressed but sporadically, it has received increasing levels of attention from researchers, resulting in a growing number of publications and a higher profile in tourism studies. The fact that this collection of papers, drawing on a special issue of the journal Current Issues in Tourism, has been selected to be enhanced and published as a research volume, is a testament to the more prominent position social tourism now takes in academic tourism research.
The editors of this volume first published about social tourism in 2007, and have witnessed the changing position of the research area first-hand since then. At the start of their research into social tourism, the available research showed a focus on non-participation (for example Haukeland, 1990) and the meaning of tourism for disadvantaged groups (for example Smith & Hughes, 1999) – but it should be emphasised that even these themes were but scarcely researched. Sources specifically on social tourism were even rarer (for example Hazel, 2005). The editors’ first article (Minnaert et al., 2007) aimed to address this gap by examining the ethical foundations of social tourism, and addressing the question of why social tourism was supported by public funding in some societies, whereas in others this was not the case. In countries like France, Belgium, Portugal and Spain for example, the public sector is a major stakeholder in social tourism provision, whereas in countries like the United Kingdom and Ireland public sector support for social tourism policies is all but non-existent. On the basis of this study, the editors subsequently investigated the value of social tourism in social policy, in terms of potential increases to the social and family capital of low-income groups (Minnaert et al., 2009). This study examined the impacts of social tourism on low-income families in the short and medium term, and drew initial conclusions about the costs and benefits of social tourism compared to other forms of intervention. A study by McCabe (2009) also highlighted the potential outcomes of social tourism participation for socially excluded families. Their most recent article (Minnaert et al., 2011), included in this volume, builds on previous research and compares different implementations of social tourism – thus developing the first model of social tourism types. This article also addresses the question of the extent to which a ‘right’ to social tourism exists – ‘right’ is a term the European Union in particular is prone to use as a justification for encouragement of and investment into social tourism provision (for example in EESC, 2006). This discussion, together with a range of other research topics that are represented in this volume, illustrates the extent to which social tourism research has widened and deepened in recent years. Social tourism has developed into a research topic with a developing canon that is being investigated by authors from various countries and disciplines (also exemplified by McCabe et al., 2011).
Social tourism research has recently also been able to engage practitioners and policy makers – the potential of social tourism as a social and economic regeneration policy for the United Kingdom for example is currently being explored through two initiatives. The first is the All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Tourism, established in December 2010 under the chairmanship of Paul Maynard, Conservative MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. The purpose of this group is to investigate and promote the social and economic benefits of social tourism. Membership of APPGs has to be cross-party and the social tourism group includes MPs and Peers from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties. The APPG conducted the first Parliamentary enquiry into social tourism in the UK – evidence provided by the editors and several other authors in this volume was extensively used to shape the report resulting from this enquiry (APPG Social Tourism, 2011).
A second initiative that links social tourism to practitioners and policy makers is NET-STaR, the Network for Social Tourism and Regeneration. This network is run by the editors of this volume, and was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council – this can be seen as another indication of how social tourism has developed into a prominent and acknowledged research field. NET-STaR’s objective is to create a network to explore the potential of social tourism as a regeneration strategy in the UK, drawing on scholarship from tourism, family and social policy, regeneration and spatial planning. The network brings together academics, policymakers and industry figures to examine existing academic work and to debate policy experiences. It was based on a series of six seminars, which aim to identify new research directions and point to innovative policy that is underpinned by theoretically informed research, collaborative in its approach, and cost-effective (www.westminster.ac.uk/net-star).
It is within this context of continued growth and development that the current volume has been created. It brings together perspectives and case studies of social tourism from different parts of the world, with examples of national initiatives, international comparisons and global organisations. It draws on the rich history of social tourism in Europe, and explores more recent manifestations and adaptations in non-European settings, such as Brazil. It consists of seven research papers and two case studies. Although much of the text is drawn from the special issue of Current Issues in Tourism, two new contributions have been added that highlight the continually expanding research activity around the subject.
The chapter by Minnaert, Maitland and Miller investigates different types of social tourism provision and sets out the connections and tensions between them in a social tourism model. The model compares the tourism product offered and the target groups that social initiatives are aimed at, creating a conceptual model that links social tourism types to the economic and social impacts they are likely to produce.
Diekmann and McCabe provide examples of different definitions and implementations of social tourism in the European context. Their chapter includes examples from Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, Romania and Spain. It considers the relationship of the social tourism sector and the commercial tourism sector in these different contexts and examines the impacts on employment. The authors argue that social tourism in Europe can represent an awkward mix of social liberalism on the one hand and concerns for propping up an important sector of the European economy (the mainstream tourism industry) on the other. They conclude however those social and economic developments do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
Examples of other European countries are presented in the chapters of Griffin and Stacey, and Puzcó and Rátz. Griffin and Stacey’s chapter examines the context for social tourism in Ireland, where, in contrast to many countries of mainland Europe, the concept of social tourism is still largely unfamiliar, and social tourism practices are mainly in the hands of voluntary and religious organisations. The authors analyse the policy aims of the Irish government with regards to sustainable tourism, and argue that environmental sustainability has hereby received a disproportionate emphasis, potentially at the expense of social sustainability. Social tourism is presented as a potential vehicle for economic and sustainable tourism development.
Puzcó and Rátz analyse the case of Hungary, where, in contrast with Ireland, social tourism has a long history starting in the communist era. The chapter discusses the developments in social tourism since the 1990s: much of the infrastructure that was originally owned by trade unions and companies was privatised or sold, and a holiday voucher scheme was introduced. The holiday vouchers provide access to tourism to a wide range of social groups, not simply those who could otherwise not afford to travel. The value of social tourism in terms of economic development and renewal is thus a key justification for provision.
Hunter-Jones’s chapter focuses on the social tourism context in the UK, where provision is mainly in the hands of the charitable sector. The author discusses the fundamental role charities play in access to holidays for disadvantaged people, but shows that this function can at present be perceived as rather fragmented and uncoordinated. The chapter suggests closer cooperation between the voluntary and the private sectors, so that the needs of the target groups can be met more consistently. As state support for social tourism in the UK is currently argued to be unlikely, the trend towards a greater emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility in the private sector may provide opportunities for more widespread provision.
The chapter by Ylikännö investigates the links between participation in tourism and perceived social status. It is a clear example of the cross-disciplinary nature of current social tourism research: it reviews holidays from a time-use perspective. The study analyses data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2007 with a focus on leisure time and sports, and examines the extent to which holidays affect people’s judgments about their position and status in society.
Carretero, Ferri and Garcés focus on the potential health benefits of tourism for older people, a growing group in contemporary society. This chapter reports the findings of a pilot study which compares the health and independence of travelling and non-travelling adults of 65 years old and over. The study highlights correlations between holiday taking and functional health and well-being in the sample group.
Two shorter case studies are presented in this volume: one considers the role of the International Social Tourism Organisation, and one discusses social tourism provision in Brazil. The first case study, by Bélanger and Jolin, explores the historical development of social tourism from the point of view of its main membership organisation, ISTO (International Social Tourism Organisation). Established in Brussels in 1963 as BITS (Bureau International du Tourisme Social, or International Bureau of Social Tourism), this organisation aimed to provide an international platform for the discussion of social tourism issues, and still plays this role today. The evolution of social tourism has meant that the organisation has gone through profound changes since its early beginnings: as social tourism moved away from its socio-educational, even socio-political origins and started to incorporate new target groups, BITS has kept abreast of these developments by introducing new objectives and directions. Bélanger and Jolin’s case study explores the history of ISTO and the current and future challenges for the organisation.
The second case study, by Almeida, situates social tourism in the socio-economic and political context of Brazil, where the public sector can indeed be seen as the main stakeholder, even though the activities of voluntary organisations also play an important role. It discusses the challenges in implanting social tourism initiatives in a recently developed country, where a much bigger proportion of the population is excluded from tourism for economic reasons.
This book, the first in English to bring together social tourism research papers from a range of geographical and disciplinary perspectives, represents a succinct introduction to this vibrant and constantly developing field of enquiry.
References
All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Tourism (2011). Giving Britain a break: Enquiry into the social and economic benefits of social tourism. London: APPG Social Tourism.
Haukeland, J. (1990). Non-travellers. The flip side of motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 172–184.
Hazel, N. (2005). Holidays for families in need: A review of the research and policy context. Children and Society, 19(3), 225–236.
European Economic and Social Committee. (2006). Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on social tourism in Europe. Brussels: EESC.
McCabe, S. (2009). Who needs a holiday? Evaluating social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(4), 667–688.
McCabe S., Minnaert, L., & Diekmann, A. (Eds) (2011). Social tourism in Europe. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2007). Social tourism and its ethical foundations. Tourism Culture & Communication, 7, 7–17.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2009). Tourism and social policy. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 316–334.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2011). What is social tourism? Current Issues in Tourism, 5, 403–415.
Smith, V., & Hughes, H. (1999) Disadvantaged families and the meaning of the holiday. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 123–133.
www.westminster.ac.uk/net-star
![]()
What is social tourism?
Lynn Minnaerta, Robert Maitlandb and Graham Millera
aSchool of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK;
bCentre for Tourism Research, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK
This article examines the definitions and implementations of the concept of ‘social tourism’ that are in use in Europe today. Examples show that the concept has been implemented in many different ways to suit national contexts and that the justifications and goals of social tourism can differ greatly. The question arises how one can define the boundaries of this versatile and complex concept. This article proposes a model to clarify the interrelationships between the different interpretations: it highlights where common ground exists, but also where contradictions are apparent. The model consists of four main categories: the participation model, the inclusion model, the adaptation model and the stimulation model. The model draws on the historical development of social tourism and the ethical foundations for provision, and it is supported by a range of examples of European practice. Through this sub-categorisation of the concept, it is argued that a ‘scientification’ of the concept of social tourism can take place, so that the term does not lose its academic and political value. This article concludes by proposing a definition for social tourism that can effectively set the concept apart from other forms of tourism with attached social benefits.
Introduction
The current economic climate has raised questions in many parts of the world about the role of the state in providing social security and public welfare. UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s ideas about a ‘Big Society’ are just one example of how governments may look for alternative ways to provide these services, by engaging local communities, charities and volunteering organisations. The purpose of the ‘Big Society’ is to find solutions to social problems ‘from the bottom up’, borne from the views and actions of the community itself rather than from the local or central government – and to reduce the welfare budget in the process. In the ‘Big Society’, the state moves from the position of a protectionist welfare state (pejoratively referred to as ‘nanny state’) to an enabling and accountable state, defined by transparency, payment by results and support for social enterprise and cooperatives. In his speech in November 2009, David Cameron discussed how he proposed to decentralise power from the government to local communities and social entrepreneurs. He stated that ‘this decentralisation of power from the central to the local will not just increase responsibility, it will lead to innovation, as people have the freedom to try new approaches to solving social problems, and the freedom to copy what works elsewhere’ (Conservatives, 2011). In keeping with this flexible approach, governments are increasingly looking for alternative ways to deliver welfare results and to reduce the cost of providing benefits.
One potential measure to achieve social benefits in this way is social tourism. In several countries of the European Union, social tourism is provided at either very limited cost to the state or in ways which simultaneously stimulate the local economy and increase the income of the state via taxation and a reduction of unemployment benefits. This issue of Current Issues in Tourism reviews examples from a range of different countries and shows how the concept has been implemented in different ways to suit national contexts. Not only the implementations, but also the justifications and goals of social tourism can differ greatly. The development of the working classes, better health for inner city children, wider access to the benefits of tourism, loyalty to unions or companies and economic development of regions have all been, and in some cases are still, seen as valid reasons for provision.
If the examples presented here are so diverse, the question arises how one can define the boundaries of this versatile and complex concept. This special issue brings together perspectives and case studies of social tourism from different parts of the world, with examples of national initiatives, international comparisons and global organisations. It draws on the rich history of social tourism in Europe and explores more recent manifestations and adaptations in non-European settings, such as Brazil. The multi-faceted aspect of socia...
