Conceptualisations of Development

Development theory and tourism have evolved along similar timelines since the 1940s, yet until recently there has been little work connecting the two fields of study (Telfer, 1996). This, according to Maleki (1997), is surprising, considering tourism continues to be a growing focus of economic development policy in many regions and nations. The term ‘development’ is used widely and seemingly freely in modern parlance. Implicit in the modern-day understandings of the term, development has come to be emblematic of concepts such as progress, modernisation and globalisation. Indeed, it has become something of a catch-all term to describe the movement away from the old and toward the new. However, while being a deeply seductive concept in modern society, it also presents a Pandora’s Box insofar as many of the qualities associated with the application of this concept are also aligned closely to notions of change and, ergo, instability. These conflicting qualities are acknowledged by Rist (1997: 1), who argues:

The strength of ‘development’ discourse comes from its power to seduce, in every sense of the term; to charm, to please, to

fascinate, to set dreaming, but also to abuse, to turn away from the truth, to deceive.

Development, according to Cowen and Shenton (1996: 3), “seems to defy definition, although not for want of definitions on offer”. It is an ambiguous term that is used descriptively and normatively to refer to a process through which a society moves from one condition to another, and also to the goal of that process. At the same time, it has been suggested that development is a philosophical concept as it alludes to a desirable future state for a particular society, whilst development plans set out the steps for achievement of that future state (e.g., Elliot, 1999). More broadly, development is also considered to be virtually synonymous with progress, implying positive transformation of ‘good change’ (see, for instance, Thomas, 2000). In this sense, development is neither a single process nor a set of events, nor does it suggest a single, static condition. Therefore, although development is most commonly discussed in the context of the developed world, it is a concept that ‘relates to all parts of the world at every level, from the individual to global transformations’ (Elliot, 1999: 10).

Generally then, the concept of development as an abstraction may be seen as a term “bereft of precise meaning and little more than…a catch-all term used to mean anything from broad, undefined change to specific events” (Welch, 1984: 2). Its ambiguity is compounded by different uses of the term in different contexts and disciplines and, furthermore, the concept of development has evolved over time. Where at one extreme, planners once adhered to the ‘myth of development as progress’, at the other extreme, they denounce it as regression (Goulet, 1992). However the notion of development, when considered in its practical application, is most commonly associated with the

development of something. In the case of this thesis, that ‘something’ is regional

development.

The term ‘regional development’ is somewhat amorphous. Its definition varies according to context, although a common thread relates to some kind of economic and social improvement. Such improvement, according to Sorensen (2000: 5), can take the form of more and better quality infrastructure, improved community services, a greater and more diverse volume of production, lower unemployment, growing numbers of jobs, rising

average wealth, improved quality of life, and so on. These dimensions are, of course, interconnected in some degree, though not invariably so. Perhaps more significantly, however, is the implicit interconnectedness between development and social change (or, at the very least, change in prevailing societal conditions) within many authors’

discussions on the nature of ‘development’.

The analysis of social change with respect to development encompasses a wide range of perspectives resulting in, unsurprisingly, a similarly wide range of social theories and contested notions of change. As with the definition of development, development theory has broadened from simplistic economic growth models towards more holistic theories of historical social change (Hettne, 1995). This evolution of development theory is also noted by Telfer (2002), who suggests that the evolution of ‘developmental thought’ has become increasingly complex over time, and has moved away from being prescriptive to analytical in focus. Impact assessments of development policies are becoming

increasingly important as they relate not only to changes in the environment but also to changes to local communities. Telfer (2002: 50) continues on this point, noting that the linkages to the local community and its role in the development decision-making process are becoming essential as development policies start to operate under the paradigm of sustainability.

Considering that the concept of sustainability strives, in essence, to reconcile existing conflict among goals of economic growth, environmental protection and social justice wherever it is applied, it is not surprising that this concept has also emerged as a recurring theme in tourism research (Butler, 1999; Hall & Lew, 1998; Wall, 1997).

However, many authors have criticised the concept for its ambiguity (Butler, 1993; Pigram & Wahab, 1997) and its inability to be adequately operationalised (Campbell, 1996; McCool & Stankey, 1999; Page & Thorn, 2002). Despite these concerns, the sustainability ideal is now widely regarded, both in New Zealand and elsewhere, as an important part of the philosophy permeating all levels of tourism policy issues and practice (Edgell, 1993). In New Zealand, this growing interest in sustainability as an approach to planning has resulted in a renewed focus on who, or what agency, is responsible for leading the planning process at the local and national levels, and in particular, how tourist

destinations can be ensured to retain control of their future tourism development at the local level (Page & Thorn, 1997; 2002).

Growing attention has been given by governments to issues of regional socio-economic development and/or regeneration in a number of Western countries (e.g., the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). There are a number of reasons why regions have become a growing focus for policy and practice in economic development. First, there is the continuing problem of regions with high unemployment, below average incomes, poor educational attainment and, in the rural areas, declining levels of service provision. Second, it is claimed that the reduced power of the nation state, as a consequence of globalisation and trade liberalisation, has elevated the relative significance of the region as the scale at which public policy can have some influence on economic competitiveness (Keating, 2001: 217). Third, “the region has been rediscovered as an important source of competitive advantage in a globalising political economy” (Giordano, 2001: 26). This point is also noted by Scott (1998: 100), who contends that “regions are once more emerging as foci of production and repositories of specialised know-how and technological capability, even as the globalisation of economic relationships proceeds at an accelerating pace”. This ‘irony’ of globalisation is noted elsewhere in this thesis.