Tourism and Political Boundaries

Dallen J. Timothy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781134642700
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

The importance of political boundaries in the development, function and flow of tourism cannot be overemphasized. In light of today's political transformations and processes of globalization, this book provides a systematic examination of the relationships between boundaries and tourism, and offers a basis upon which tourism can be better managed and researched in a geo-political context.

1
Borders and tourism

I love border crossings. They somehow make me feel as though I’m in a black-and-white movie with subtitles

(Harris 1997:12)

Introduction

Tourism is quickly becoming the world’s largest industry and more people are traveling now than ever before. Most basic definitions of tourist include some element of traveling away from one’s home environment. When operationalized in this way, tourism almost always involves the crossing of some political boundary. Sub-national boundaries, such as those between provinces and counties, may have significant implications for tourism, especially in terms of planning, promotion, and taxation. International boundaries, however, influence tourism in many more ways. The flow of tourists, their choice of destinations, planning and the physical development of tourism, and the types and extent of marketing campaigns are all affected by the nature of political boundaries.

For centuries travelers have crossed international boundaries for trade, as well as personal enjoyment and education (e.g. the Grand Tour). Despite the significance of borders, and humankind’s long history of foreign travel, very little has ever been written, and thus little is known, about them in the context of tourism. Only recently have scholars started to merge border research with tourism, which likely reflects the relative infancy of tourism as an area of academic study and the paucity of political geographers who incorporate their interests into tourism research.

One of the earliest endeavors to examine the relationships between borders and tourism occurred when the International Geographic Union’s recreation and tourism study group sponsored conference sessions in 1977 on tourism and borders, and proceedings were subsequently published (Gruber et al. 1979). Since that time, only a few writers have begun to consider the political, social, economic, cultural, and psychological effects of borders on tourism. Others have inadvertently stumbled onto the subject and buried it deeply within broader studies of economic development and politics, far from the mainstream of tourism research literature and scattered throughout many discipline- and country-specific media.

This book aims to bring together the scattered concepts and theories that help explain the relationships between borders and tourism into a single volume that will contribute to a better understanding of the subject in the mainstream tourism literature. In particular, this chapter discusses the nature of political boundaries and the development of international tourism. It also lays the groundwork for the rest of the book by examining the relationships between tourism and borders.

Understanding borders

Some scholars have traced the concept of territorial boundaries back to the Roman Empire in reference to the walls constructed in Northern England, Scotland, and along the Rhine and Danube rivers. Critics, however, argue that these were not fixed lines of jurisdiction, because the limits of the Roman State were constantly changing through conquests and because Rome did not recognize the existences of surrounding polities since it saw itself as the ‘universal state’ (Herzog 1990:17). Hence, they were not formal lines of administrative jurisdiction, as the concept of borders is understood today. Rather, they functioned as edges of military activity against warring Germanic and Celtic tribes, as well as landscapes that defined an approximation of the empire’s sphere of influence (Herzog 1990). The same is true of the Great Wall of China in its role as line of military defense against nomadic barbarians and approximate limit of central influence and control (Prescott 1987).

Throughout the Middle Ages, governments and monarchies controlled territories that were fluid and ill-defined. Most areas of control were separated by undifferentiated zones of physical landscapes (i.e. frontiers), such as swamps, forests, mountain ranges, and vast deserts (Kristoff 1959). National territory was often vaguely defined by the extent of land ownership by aristocracy or as the hinterland of primary cities, and rarely were the frontiers considered indubitable lines of authority. Instead, they were regions of nebulous power that often separated warring empires and into which nationalist expansion could occur.

However, during the nineteenth century, rapid expansion from core areas into the frontier led to the development of nation-states, as the concept of sovereignty became more closely linked to territorial control (Gottman 1973; Johnston 1982; Sack 1986). Thus, the idea of fixed boundary lines between sovereign authorities began to develop as states became increasingly viewed as the ultimate source of legitimate authority and law (Herzog 1990). This parallels LeFebvre’s (1991) notion of absolute space—easily recognized territory that is defined by boundaries and legal descriptions. States thus have authority to manage the phenomena, processes, and activities occurring within their bounded space.

For many years political geographers and other social scientists have directed their attention to various aspects of political space and action. Political boundaries have been one area of primary concern among scholars for more than a century (e.g. Ratzel 1892; 1896), with particular emphasis being placed upon descriptions of how borders throughout the world were created and frontier regions as zones of conflict (Minghi 1963a). These strategic themes gained momentum during and between the first and second world wars (Boggs 1940; Holdich 1916; Jones 1945).

Around the middle of the twentieth century scholars began to realize that there was more to the study of borders than just describing the types of artifacts used to demarcate them and chronicling the locations and causes of territorial disputes. It became clear that borders also exerted significant influences on the economic and sociological aspects of the human experience (do Amaral 1994; Minghi 1963b), which created distinctly different spatial and temporal patterns on opposite sides. Thus began an evolution in border studies from a linear focus concerned primarily with the physical structures of the border to an areal focus concerned more with broader economic and socio-cultural implications of the border.

More recently, scholars have begun examining ‘borders of the mind’—the psychological effects of borders and the deeper underlying meanings that societies and governments ascribe to them (Herzog 1990; House 1980; Minghi 1994a; Rumley and Minghi 1991). This is manifested in an increased interest in the study of border regions and borderlands, as researchers now recognize that boundaries have depth, or spheres of influence, and that they have different meanings for different groups of people. In fact, as Knight (1994) reiterates, as with all regions that pertain to human social organization, boundaries and state territory are a social construct. Similarly, according to Knight (1982:517) territory and boundaries are not; they become, ‘for territory itself is passive, and it is human beliefs and actions that give territory meaning.’

Border regions, which Hansen (1981:19) defined as ‘areas whose economic and social life is directly and significantly affected by proximity to an international boundary’, are the focus of this book, although reference will be made to the broader political realms within the state. Although some authors have identified differences between border regions and borderlands (e.g. McKinsey and Konrad 1989), these terms will both be used to refer to the areas adjacent to boundaries on both sides. Likewise, despite the differences in meaning of frontiers and borders, as discussed earlier, the terms are used interchangeably throughout this book.

Scales of borders

Various scales, or levels, of boundaries exist, and each of them has its own purpose. National, or international, boundaries comprise the first level of political control. National boundaries have the most obvious impacts on the natural environment, economic operations, and patterns of socio-cultural interaction. At international frontiers currencies change from francs to marks and bahts to kyats, and in the case of the United States and its neighbors, distances change from miles to kilometers. Some borders even define an abrupt change in language, religion, political attitudes, cultural traditions, and social mores. National holidays on either side of a border are obviously different and business hours may vary.

Sub-national boundaries, such as those between states, provinces, cantons, and departments, can be viewed as second-level boundaries. These too can have significant effects on the human experience. Education levels and law enforcement policies may differ, and quality of infrastructure maintenance can vary. In the United States and Canada, sales taxes, driving ages, drinking ages, and gambling laws often change from state to state and province to province.

Third-order civil divisions include counties, townships, and municipalities. These lower-level frontiers have the fewest impacts on human interactions, but they are nonetheless significant. Such borders may influence and determine property tax rates, law enforcement procedures, and insurance coverage.

In addition to ‘normal’ political borders, other types of special-purpose administrative areas exist, which have their own boundaries, but which do not fit within the hierarchy described above. Indian reservations in the United States are examples of a unique type of territory that has been granted autonomy over several areas of governance, such as taxation, legislative control, law enforcement, education, and economic development (Eadington 1990; Lew and Van Otten 1998; Pommersheim 1989). This high level of self governance, which is mandated at the national level and outside the control of the states in which they are located, has allowed the growth of several forms of tourism (e.g. gaming, cultural, and nature-based) on native reserves in North America.

National, provincial, and state parks are also examples of other special-purpose territories whose borders have been established by various levels of government for the conservation of natural and cultural environments. Sometimes park boundaries are the focus of major disputes between public agencies and local residents (Morehouse 1996), and they determine the spatial patterns and types of development that can occur in some areas of a country.

Types of boundaries

Consensus among early scholars was that the best political boundaries are those that follow natural features, such as rivers and crests of mountain ranges (Hartshorne 1936; Holdich 1916; Jones 1943; 1945) because they are more permanent than human-created lines and population regions tend also to separate along those features. This, they suggested, will decrease problems associated with bisecting like cultural groups with artificial political divides. According to Glassner (1996:89), however, no type of boundary is better than any other, except of course the type that performs the fewest functions—the one ‘falling between good neighbors.’

All boundaries are human creations, even physiographic ones since nature rarely, if ever, draws clear border lines (Leimgruber 1991), and humans inevitably impose cultural and political values on nature.

It is not natural to divide drainage basins, dissect common plains, split mountain ranges, or divide up surface and underground water resources. Yet this is precisely what boundary lines do…boundaries do not only cut across natural resources, they also impede human mobility and transaction, and many do not respect ancient tribal boundaries, linguistic borders, ethnic groupings or the cultural landscape.

(Grundy-Warr and Schofield 1990:11)

Geometric boundaries are those which do not necessarily correspond with natural features, but instead consist of human-created line segments that are measured without physiographic rationale. These are usually based on lines of latitude and longitude or cultural features, such as roads or edges of human settlements.

In 1936 Hartshorne suggested what Glassner (1996:89) labeled a genetic classification of political boundaries based on when they were established in relation to human settlement. According to Hartshorne, an antecedent boundary is one that precedes the development of most features of the cultural landscape. A boundary that is completely antecedent, or found where the line was drawn prior to human settlement, is known as a pioneer boundary (e.g. United States-Canada west of the Great Lakes). Many boundaries are subsequent to human settlement and therefore superimposed on the existing cultural landscape, regardless of what lies in the way (e.g. most African and European boundaries). Relict boundaries are those that no longer function as borders but are still visible in the cultural landscape (e.g. parts of the Berlin Wall and the Great Wall of China).

Process of development

Jones (1945) suggested that ideally, and under ‘normal’ conditions, the establishment of international boundaries should undergo a series of four steps. First, boundaries are defined; that is, they are described in relation to the terrain through which they run. This description uses natural features, such as rivers and hills, as well as cultural features, such as roads, fences, and buildings, to identify the location of the boundary as precisely as possible. The second step, delimitation, refers to the process of plotting on air photos and topographic maps the exact location of the border. Third, the border line is then marked on the ground with the aid of survey equipment, based on the original definition and delimitation documents. This process is known as demarcation. Methods of demarcation range from simple poles and rock piles to complex systems of fences and walls adorned with barbed wire. The way a border is demarcated reveals a great deal about the nature of the relationship between adjacent countries. The final step is maintenance, or administration, which refers to the process of upkeep and maintenance of the boundary markers and the enactment of legislation that deals directly with the boundary itself.

While this is an ideal pattern of development, few boundaries throughout the world were created in this manner. The meaning of ‘normal’ conditions is debatable, since most boundaries have been founded by unilateral aggression or are merely remnant property lines from medieval days when gentry ownership defined national territory. Clearly, even with the best surveying equipment, delimitation and demarcation are not an exact science. Many border skirmishes have resulted from miscalculated boundary markings, and most of the ongoing battles of today are based on territorial and border problems.

Boundary functions

Several authors have described the functions of political boundaries (Leimgruber 1980; Pearcy 1965; Prescott 1987). Five primary functions are most notable. First, borders are legal limits that define the territory of a state; they are the lines up to which a political entity can exercise its sovereign and legal authority. No matter how close people live to the border, they are subject to the laws in place on their side of the boundary (Glassner 1996), even though political unrest might make legal control difficult. Furthermore, governments have the right to collect taxes from residents dwelling within national territory, establish education standards, and implement development programs. Second, boundaries play an important economic role. By filtering the flow of goods across national frontiers or levying high tariffs and duties, nations can protect their economies by limiting domestic competition with foreign producers. Filter mechanisms are also created to keep undesirable elements out, such as drugs, weapons, endangered species, and foodstuffs that are feared to be contaminated by disease, or desired elements in, such as large sums of currency and gold. It is generally the duty of customs agencies to control the flow of goods. The third function is to monitor and control the flow of people. Some countries erect strong physical and legal barriers to keep certain undesirable people out or to limit the number of people that can enter. Illegal immigrants, criminals, and people with certain health problems are commonly targeted. The United States, for example, has erected a steel and cement barrier along its land border with Mexico in an effort to thwart illegal migration from Latin America. Other countries erect similar fortifications to keep people from leaving. The East-West Germany border prior to 1989, for example, was marked with fences, walls, minefields and guard towers, all in the name of keeping Eastern Germans from escaping to the West. Fourth, ideological barriers are created when a country enacts strict regulations to prevent the drift of ideas and information across boundaries. During the Cold War era, for instance, religious literature was not permitted to enter Eastern Europe, and communist governments made every effort to obstruct communications from the West. Finally, some borders function as lines of military defense. In some areas (e.g. Israel-Lebanon and North-South Korea), borders are heavily fortified in an effort to keep armies and terrorists out and to exert extraterritorial claims to land in adjacent countries.

According to Prescott (1987:80), the only real boundary function is to mark the limits of sovereignty; the other elements discussed above are merely residual functions that are placed at national frontiers as needs arise. Minghi (1963a) supports this claim by suggesting that border functions are not static but do change over time, and Boggs (1932) suggested early on that boundary problems which cause friction between neighbors might better be solved by revising the functions assigned to a border than by modifying the border itself—advice that is rarely heeded in a world where every meter of national territory is jealously guarded.

Human interaction across international boundaries

As long as boundaries have existed, human interaction across them has been of concern to national governments. As mentioned above, one function of boundaries is to hinder and monitor the flow of people and other forms of interaction into and out of a country. The degree of permeability depends on the functions of the boundary in question as well as the degree of socio-cultural similarity on each side (Ante 1982; Donnan and Wilson 1999). Despite rapid political changes globally, unfavorable international relations in some areas still keep neighbors in a state of limited interaction (House 1980; 1981; Martinez 1994). Several authors have suggested that it is also important to consider cultural and linguistic similarities and differences when considering human interaction. Many people w...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Tourism and Political Boundaries
• Routledge Advances in Tourism
• Plates
• Figures
• Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1: Borders and Tourism
• 2: Borders and Barriers
• 3: Borderlands Tourism
• 4: Landscapes of Borders and Tourism
• 5: Global Transformations
• 6: Tourism Planning in the Borderlands
• 7: Conclusion: The Future
• References