INTRODUCTION
Iran is regarded as one of history’s oldest civilizations. Today, it ranks eighteenth in terms of area, population, and output (World Bank, 2009). Although it has a special position on the world tourism map, Iran faces major challenges in developing and promoting this industry. Tourism for Third-world countries is so important that four decades ago, Turner (1976) wrote that it is the most complex and promising alternative for development, and de Kadt (1976) noted it as the passport to development. This chapter explores the role of political economy in tourism development and the related factors such as oil, regulation, state ideology, and glocalization.
Iran’s political economy, like many others, has been affected by sociocultural conditions that have become major obstacles to tourism development. Countries like Egypt, Malaysia, Jordan, Tunisia, Indonesia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, despite having similar sociocultural and political challenges, use different approaches and have found some success in tourism development. This chapter explores tourism in Iran as a multidimensional phenomenon with a particular focus on its political economy. It also presents tourism policymaking priorities and the related recommendations based on experts’ viewpoints.
Government and Governance
Since French economist de Montchrestien used the term “political economy” for the first time in 1615 (Gide, 1914), this term has been employed by scholars for a description of situations with different meanings. Gilpin believes that political economy involves the assembly of questions that should be investigated in a theoretical frame by a combination of analytical methods. He adds that these questions are investigated in the context of the interactions between the government and the market (Gilpin, 1995). For example, the term refers to how and why governments and processes influence economic procedures, or how politics affects and forms economics.
Although the relatively complex concept of the political economy has been used frequently by researchers in different fields, the explanation of this term is difficult. Gary (2011) believes there are reasons why governments throughout the world support the expansion of tourism. But there are limited studies in this field when compared to others. These studies were based on the political aspects of tourism and they were frivolous (Mathews & Richter, 1991).
Early studies conducted by Turner (1976), Britton (1982), Richter (1983), Richter & Richter (1985) and Lea (1988) were published in the journals World Development and Annals of Tourism Research. Some studies conducted in the field of political economy consider the role of the government in management and tourism policymaking (Elliott, 1997; Goymen, 2000; Hall & Jenkins, 1995; Hall, Pender, & Sharply, 2005; Inman, 1989; Jeffries, 2001; Jenkins & Henry, 1982; Lea, 1988; Owen, 1997; Turner, 1976). These studies emphasize the fact that policymaking is a political activity, and that it affects and is affected by its environment. Indeed, policies are the product of different political values, ideologies, and decisionmaking processes. Applying power in different ways influences the policymaking process. The owners of power interfere in the determination of policies; so political policy is the result of both a rational process of policymaking and the struggle and interaction among the owners of power.
Effective planning and management are the goals of the government when intervening in the tourism industry, but the government does not merely act in these scopes. In most developing countries, the government controls different social and economic sectors, like tourism, with the aims of achieving political legality and popularity on one hand and strengthening cultural and ideological beliefs on the other. In this respect, governmental ideology can play an important role in shaping tourism, especially in the case of Iran. Thus, it is important to address the concept of ideology in this research.
State Ideology and Tourism
Different meanings of the concept of ideology have been proposed. Based on the nature of this study, the definition of Ladd (1989) is considered. He defines ideology as a collection of related political beliefs and values; political ideology responds to questions such as how the government should be organized, which rules should be executed, what is the arrangement of the national economy should be, and how resources should be distributed among the people.
Ideological beliefs and values affect individuals, political groups, and political behaviors. Simeons (1994) believes that these values impact government priorities and the utilization of resources. Related to ideology and tourism, Wilson suggests that consumers’ (or tourists’) choices, in regards to spending their leisure time, is considered as an index and a sign of individual freedom. According to this definition, nobody can determine the manner and style of leisure time and control it (Wilson, 1988). There are no comprehensive studies on the effect of ideology on tourism. For example, Kim, Timothy, and Hag (2007) show that adoption of the ideology-based approach to tourism in developing countries – with North Korea as a case study – has led to shaping cultural contrariety and oppositeness to other countries. As a consequence, it can cause a negative position and, in some cases, international sanctions. In spite of different conditions, these countries are perceived as unsafe and dangerous for international tourist arrivals, also referred to as dark tourism.
Consequently, the perception of Iran as a possible leisure trip destination has been negatively influenced among consumers in the prime generating markets of Europe and North America. There are few young people (under 30) in these source regions who know of Iran as anything other than a country to avoid – the message repeated daily on their television screens or newspapers from the days when they first became aware of international political and economic relations. Those in this group (as well as the middle aged) know little of the history of Iran, its diversity of terrains, flora and fauna, its vibrant cultures, and its tradition of hospitality. The overwhelming perception among these consumers, who make up the majority of the public, is of Iran as a country where the individual is highly restricted in choice and behavior; the availability of modern, Western facilities is highly limited; and there is little of interest to see or do.
Only those who knew Iran (or Persia) in its pre-Revolution period, or are otherwise aware of its historical heritage, hold a positive perception of the country. These groups are made up of people aged 65 or older, and of intellectuals or students of the Middle East, Islam, history, or other relevant subjects. It is unlikely that this group accounts for more than 5–10% of the European and North American traveling public (Iran National Tourism Development Plan, 2002). Iran certainly has the potential to become a fashionable destination in European markets and beyond, not just for heritage/culture-based tours, but also for diverse adventure and sports activities, like skiing, trekking, and horseback-riding desert safaris.
The effect of ideology on different economic spaces has led to several obstacles between government and the market. As a result, a special form of political economy is established whereby the tourism industry loses most of its development opportunities. Jenkins and Henry showed that in developing countries, governments interfere directly and actively in tourism and its benefits (Jenkins & Henry, 1982). In general, it is rational for economic activities to be arranged in sectors with common interests, and it is rational that the government control economic processes and collection of investments (Helibroner, 1985) and preserve industries like tourism using different economic, political, and social instruments.
IRAN’S POLITICAL ECONOMY AND TOURISM
Although Iran has a unique position on the world tourism map, the share of the country’s tourism, in terms of international arrivals and receipts, is nearly insignificant. Iran’s policies are rarely based on the nature of tourism and current patterns, and these policies are mostly affected by sociocultural factors, especially its political economy. For an understanding of tourism policies, it is necessary to refer to the government, Iranian society, and the nature of their evolution. Thus, only the examination of the formation of economic, political, and administrative systems in Iran can provide the appropriate framework.
Many research findings have shown that political economy is a subjective matter, but it has objective consequences based on specific socioeconomic features of each community. Thus, it is a distinctive and complex concept (Baran, 1957; Bianchi, 2015, 2018; Gide, 1914; Gilpin, 1995, 2001; Katouziyan, 1994; Lee, Hampton, & Jeyacheya, 2015; Lindblom, 1977; Mosedale, 2014; Raes-Dana, 2003). This complexity becomes wider and deeper when we study it in relation to Iranian tourism. The political economy of any society, including Iran, leads to the formation of a specific tourism political economy in that society. According to the findings of the Iran National Tourism Development Plan (2002), which was prepared in consultation with United Nations World Trade Organization (UNWTO), its relationship with the tourism market is almost unique, with only Libya and Cuba experiencing anything similar. Like Libya, Iran possesses an outstanding range of both natural and cultural heritage resources which, up until the late 1970s, supported a major tourism industry; it is within relatively short travel times from the major tourist-generating markets of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; and it has suffered sustained and extreme negative coverage in the Western media over the past four decades. Cuba’s geographic position differs from those of Iran, with North America being its major source of tourists, but the other principles hold true.
Although Iran is one of the world’s most attractive destinations (according to UNWTO, it is among the top 10 in historical cultural attractions, top five in geographical diversity, and top three in handicraft production) but its tourism receipts are negligible (less than 1/800th). At the same time, during recent decades, entry visas for Iran have never been straightforward and are among the top 10 most difficult to obtain. The Iranian government is not only the tourism policy- and decisionmaker, but is also the main owner of tourism distribution channels, including the main five-star hotels and airlines. For example, its oil ministry and the police own some of the 5-star chain hotels. Most of these companies are not economically profitable without state support. Furthermore, Iran, as a destination, has the highest difference between tourists’ perceptions before and after the trip. As many as 95% of inbound tourists had a negative image prior to arriving, but after the visit had a positive perception. Due to government restrictions, Iranians prefer to go to other countries for live Persian music. The outbound trends are unusual as well: about seven million travel to neighboring countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Iraq, mostly for recreational and religious trips. Iran has the world’s largest Islamic tourism market. In addition, tourism and hospitality markets are based on an international calendar (Gregorian) system, but the official Iranian calendar is based on a solar (Hijri) system. Due to the difference in official holidays, Iran’s international relationships are limited, and this results in a reduction of its share of world tourism markets. Finally, tourism, based on its economic redistribution mechanism, helps reduce economic inequalities and regional differences. But in Iran, two cities (Tehran and Mashhad) dominate half of tourism.
All the aforementioned points show that the tourism industry in Iran is truly different and thus requires a tailor-made investigation. The present study is in response to the specificity of the situation, to study the current status of tourism in Iran from the political economy perspective, based on a hermeneutic viewpoint. Contrary to most countries in the world, government policymaking in Iran affects tourism according to its political, cultural, and even ideological aspects, more so than its economic effects. This perspective has led to increasing interference of public organizations and, as a result, the government acts as the sole policymaker, decisionmaker, and supplier of tourism products. The main reasons for this pattern are many, including political, cultural, and economic challenges, a lack of a long-term development strategy, a plurality of decisionmaking centers in regards to tourism, the inefficiency of government management, the weakness of organizational structure, and the lack of independent civil institutions and real supervision solutions. On the other hand, historical despotism increased reliance on the national oil-based economy and the like. As such, the government has entered into an economic competition, instead of policymaking and supervision of the private sector, thus harming business competitiveness. Undoubtedly, the first condition for private-sector participation in trading and economic activities is policymaking and supervision from the government, not competition and role-playing. Thus comes the economic saying, “the government is not a good merchant.” A reconsideration of the situation is in order.
Incomplete Formation of the Civil Government
Katouziyan (1994) and Halliday (1978) suggest the absence of feudalism and the incomplete passing of the bourgeoisie ...
